Useful effort to deal with Graeber et al. and their Dawn of Everything. We have discussed the book several times here and we can try again to deal with the new perspective, such as it is. I have not read the book: I got a Kindle version, read a little and then turned it in for a refund. I may have to relent and buy it again. But I know from hard experience that professors trapped in the universities will never create a sound foundation because they are confused about evolution, vitiating the work.
I have these professors pegged. To discuss what Graeber discusses requires considering evolution and Darwinism. But since the professoriat cannot dissent from Darwin, they are stuck trying to innovate at the fringes. To critique Hobbes and Rousseau is…be my guest, but here attacking their short paragraphs about human origins is not much. Hobbes and Rousseau are so baked into the early rise of modern political science that to take them on with potshots about their dated anthropology is not much of a much. It is potshot paradigm change at work, the tactics of those who cannot construct a sound foundation for anthropology.
Graeber talks about new evidence, etc, but the stunning realization from all that new research such as in archaeology shows clearly but incompletely how the evolutionary dynamic works, or so we suspect. The challenge to the stolid theories of stages is on target but the evidence shows that stages are real but only in a more general sense.
I refer to the eonic effect and its model. The ‘stages’ are more like a clock that operates via transitions…cf. that model in Decoding World History
But the current club mentalities in academia, biology, and even the Left are confused that to do research on historical anthropology is going to end up in confusion.
The eonic model ironically is so vast in scope that it often escapes bad paradigms of the type Graeber critiques because it is out of time and moves on. A good example is the issue of inequality in the Neolithic is a good example. The challenge may be entirely apt, but in the end noone can be quite sure. etc…
I recommend strongly considering the data of the eonic effect. The eonic model is helpful because it is not stuck in academic peer review which is a professors guarantee of being confused on evolution, thence history. If you want new research, here it is, the change in perspective due to archaeology and world history since the dawn of era of Champollion. You MUST debrief Darwinism and Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and then consider the implications for historical anthropology.
It is hard to know how to learn from such books in this context. I am all for new insights into the issues of early man, but who can really resolve that to any facts and in the context of the Darwin mass hallucination?