You’ve probably heard the standard story of how we got here. It’s the one where humans started as small, "primitive" bands of hunter-gatherers who were basically equal because they were too poor to be anything else. Then, about 10,000 years ago, someone planted a seed, we settled down, and—boom—inequality, kings, and taxes became inevitable. It’s a clean, linear narrative. It’s also mostly wrong.
When David Graeber and David Wengrow dropped The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, they didn’t just add a few footnotes to the history books. They took a sledgehammer to the whole foundation. Honestly, it’s rare for a 700-page book on archaeology and anthropology to become a cultural phenomenon, but this one did because it challenges the very idea that our current way of living is the only way possible.
The Trap of the "Agricultural Revolution"
For decades, we’ve been told that agriculture was a "trap." This idea, popularized by thinkers like Jared Diamond and Yuval Noah Harari, suggests that once humans started farming, there was no going back. We needed bureaucracy to manage the grain, and we needed leaders to manage the bureaucracy.
Graeber and Wengrow argue this is basically a myth.
The archaeological record shows that people were "playing" with farming for thousands of years without ever fully committing to it. They’d plant some wheat, go off and hunt deer for six months, and then maybe come back to harvest. They weren't trapped. They were choosing. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity highlights sites like Göbekli Tepe in modern-day Turkey, where massive stone pillars were erected by people who hadn't even started farming yet. This flips the script. It suggests that complex social organization—the kind needed to move multi-ton stones—didn’t require a king or a steady supply of wheat. It required a shared idea.
Why does this matter? Because if farming didn't force us into hierarchies, then our current systems aren't "natural" or "inevitable." They are choices.
Seasonal Politics: When We Were Only Sometimes Equal
One of the coolest things the authors talk about is "seasonal variation." It’s a concept that barely gets a mention in standard history classes.
Basically, many ancient societies changed their entire political system based on the time of year. The Inuit, for example, lived in small, highly egalitarian groups during the summer. But in the winter? They gathered in large "longhouses" with strict hierarchies and even patriarchal structures. Then, when the ice melted, they went back to being equal.
The Nambikwara of Brazil did the opposite.
👉 See also: Sport watch water resist explained: why 50 meters doesn't mean you can dive
They had powerful chiefs during the nomadic hunting season, but those chiefs lost almost all their power when the group settled down to farm during the rainy season. This is wild. It means humans used to be way more politically fluid than we are now. We weren't "stuck" in one mode of being. We were consciously experimenting with power.
We’ve somehow lost that flexibility. Today, we’re stuck in a "year-round" hierarchy that we can't seem to imagine our way out of.
The Indigenous Critique: Where Our Ideas Really Came From
This is where the book gets controversial, especially among traditional historians.
Graeber and Wengrow suggest that the European Enlightenment—the period that gave us "liberty, equality, and fraternity"—didn't just happen because some smart French guys sat in coffee shops. Instead, they argue that European thinkers were deeply influenced by their encounters with Native American intellectuals.
Specifically, they point to a Wendat statesman named Kandiaronk.
Kandiaronk was reportedly a brilliant orator who went to France and was horrified by what he saw: people begging in the streets while others lived in palaces, and a legal system based on punishment rather than consensus. His critiques of European society were published in the 18th century and became a massive hit.
The authors argue that the "American Dream" of individual liberty might actually be a diluted version of an Indigenous reality that Europeans first ridiculed and then stole. It’s a provocative claim. It suggests our modern democracy isn't a gift from the West to the world, but a messy, global synthesis.
Cities Without Kings: The Mystery of Teotihuacan
If you go to a city today, you expect a mayor, a police force, and some kind of central government. We assume large populations need top-down control to keep from devolving into chaos.
✨ Don't miss: Pink White Nail Studio Secrets and Why Your Manicure Isn't Lasting
The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity points to the Mexican city of Teotihuacan as a massive counter-example. Around AD 200, the city seems to have gone through a radical transformation. They stopped building giant pyramids (which are usually signs of a "look at me" ruling class) and started building high-quality apartment blocks for the entire population.
Archaeologists haven't found evidence of a royal palace or a ruling dynasty during this period. Instead, they found thousands of people living in decent, standardized housing with access to murals and clean water. It looks a lot like a massive social housing project.
It lasted for centuries.
This isn't just an academic fun fact. It proves that urban life doesn't automatically mean "the 1% and everyone else." It’s possible to have a city of 100,000 people that functions through cooperation rather than coercion.
The Three Basic Freedoms
The book wraps its massive collection of data around three fundamental human freedoms that the authors believe we have largely lost:
- The freedom to abandon one's community and move away.
- The freedom to disobey arbitrary orders.
- The freedom to create new social realities or shift back and forth between different ones.
Think about those for a second. In the modern world, how many of us can actually do these? If you don't like the laws of your country, moving is incredibly difficult and expensive. Disobeying orders usually results in jail or losing your livelihood. And "creating new social realities"? Most people think we've reached the "end of history."
Graeber and Wengrow aren't saying we should go back to living in mud huts. They’re saying we should remember that we are a "playful" species. We used to be much better at reimagining how we live together.
Why the Critics Are Split
Not everyone loves this book.
🔗 Read more: Hairstyles for women over 50 with round faces: What your stylist isn't telling you
Critics like historian David Bell have argued that the authors sometimes cherry-pick their archaeological data to fit an anarchist political agenda. Others say the link between Kandiaronk and the Enlightenment is more of a literary trope than a direct historical pipe.
But even the skeptics usually admit that the book succeeds in one major way: it kills the idea that humans are naturally selfish, violent, or destined for inequality. It shows that the "state of nature" was never one thing. It was everything.
Actionable Insights for the Modern Reader
Reading a book this big shouldn't just be an intellectual exercise. It should change how you look at the world on a Monday morning. Here is how to actually apply the "New History" to your life:
Question "Inevitability" in Your Workspace
If you're told a hierarchy is necessary because "that's just how organizations work," remember Teotihuacan or the Nambikwara. Large-scale cooperation doesn't always require a boss. Look for opportunities to implement "flat" structures in small projects to see if productivity actually drops—often, it doesn't.
Audit Your Freedom to Disobey
Think about the rules you follow daily. Which ones are based on genuine safety and mutual respect, and which ones are just "the way it's always been done"? The first step to reclaiming the three freedoms is identifying where they've been surrendered.
Look for Seasonal Flexibility
You don't have to live in a longhouse, but you can recognize that different "seasons" of life or business might require different social structures. A crisis might need a temporary "chief," but a creative phase might need the "summer" egalitarianism of the Inuit.
Diversify Your Sources of Wisdom
Recognize that many of our "modern" ideas about liberty and human rights didn't come from a vacuum. Re-centering Indigenous perspectives, like those of Kandiaronk, isn't just about "being woke"—it's about factual accuracy. It gives you a broader toolkit for solving modern problems.
Stop viewing history as a ladder where we started at the bottom and are now at the top. Instead, see it as a vast, open field where we've wandered into a very cramped corner. The exit is right there; we just have to remember how to walk toward it.