62 The New York Review
it is constrained by evidence, and under-
pinned by scientific principles of discovery,
interpretation, and refutation. Occasion-
ally, it has the power to challenge myths
and overthrow dogma. The strength of the
past lies precisely there, in its unpredictabil-
ity, its capacity to surprise and upset con-
ventional wisdom. Today the information
available to us, even for remote periods
of the human past, reveals a kaleidoscope
of social possibilities undreamed of in the
philosophies of Hobbes and Rousseau, and
also, it seems, in the philosophy of Appiah.
David Wengrow
Professor of Comparative Archaeology
University College London
United KingdomKwame Anthony Appiah replies:
The Dawn of Everything is a mammoth un-
dertaking and, inevitably, it characterizes
archaeological research its authors know
only through the scholarly literature they
have consulted—through the authorities
they enlist. They’re entitled to sift through
the evidence and present their own conclu-
sions; I agree with Wengrow on this. The
difficulty arises when what they present as
a summary of the archaeology is at variance
with the scholarship they cite. “Experts
have largely come to agree that there’s no
evidence for...anything like what we would
recognize as a ‘state’ in the urban civiliza-
tion of the Indus Valley,” they say. Then
we turn to the source material and find
that experts are quite divided on the topic.
My point was not that The Dawn of Every-
thing mischaracterizes Kenoyer’s judgments
about Mohenjo-daro’s political structure
but that it doesn’t characterize them at all. I
was observing, that is, a pattern about which
views get a hearing. Wengrow says that “the
most recent scholarship” supports Possehl,
but the paper he has in mind—a fascinating
theoretical overview by Adam S. Green,
which indeed stresses the evidence for egal-
itarianism—gingerly dissents both from Ke-
noyer’s “managerial elite” model and from
Possehl’s “stateless paradigm.” Green’s
paper, exquisitely provisional, makes clear
that the nature of Indus politics is a topic of
contention, not consensus.
The Dawn of Everything likewise sug-
gests that archaeological research has
converged on the view that Teotihuacan,
starting around 300 AD, embraced egali-
tarianism and collective governance and re-
jected overlords, even “strong leaders.” It’s
what “all the evidence suggests.” We hear
that “other scholars, eliminating virtually
every other possibility, arrived at similar
conclusions”; we hear that its self-conscious
egalitarianism is affirmed by a “general
consensus among those who know the site
best.” But only a strategy of bifurcation
would force us to say that the place was ei-
ther purely autocratic or purely collective.
What I observed was not that few archae-
ologists would countenance Pasztory’s view
but that we get no sense that many have
reached different conclusions.
Those archaeologists include the author-
ities The Dawn of Everything cites in sup-
port of Pasztory, such as René Millon, who
cataloged evidence of hierarchy and milita-
rism in Teotihuacan, and thought its gov-
ernance might have become oligarchical;
and George Cowgill, who explicitly demurs
from Pasztory’s “utopian” account and pro-
poses Renaissance Venice, a republic under
a doge, as a model. The epigrapher David
Stuart says that, in the late fourth and early
fifth century, someone represented by an
owlish glyph was the king of Teotihuacan,
while other archaeologists conjecture that
there might have been an elite assembly
or aristocracy rather than a monarch; this
glyph might have designated an office
rather than an officeholder. Recent discov-
eries have rekindled such debates. Again,
Graeber and Wengrow are free to reach
their own conclusion as to whether Teoti-
huacan was “a utopian experiment in urban
life,” but it cannot be said to represent a
professional consensus.
As for the “at least seven centuries of
collective self- rule” that Uruk enjoyed,
per Graeber and Wengrow, is the proof
really to be found in the wards and coun-
cils of the monarchical era? Or does the
very coexistence of monarchs and councils
suggest that we may be building castles, or
communes, in the air? I don’t say that Uruk
did or didn’t enjoy those seven centuries of
“collective self- rule,” but unless the term is
being used in a very permissive way, I strug-
gle to see how this possibility qualifies as a
settled fact.
With respect to Çatalhöyük, my discus-
sion didn’t take up The Dawn of Every-
thing’s broad political characterization of
the place. It took up what inferences we
should draw from the existence of female
figurines, and the putative absence of equiv-
alent male ones. Did such representations
demonstrate “a new awareness of wom-
en’s status”? Graeber and Wengrow never
use the term “gynocentric” with respect to
Çatalhöyük; they use, in this context, the
term “matriarchal” and devote a few helpful
paragraphs to defining this term in a special
way that sidesteps the “-archy,” the con-
nection with rulership. (I avoided the term
“matriarchal” because, without their careful
definition, it risks implying a form of rul-
ership The Dawn of Everything disputes.)
Graeber and Wengrow, following Hodder,
find it obvious that the female figurines,
with their pendulous breasts and avoirdu-
pois, could have nothing to do with eros or
fertility but are “quite possibly matriarchs
of some sort, their forms revealing an inter-
est in female elders.” Here, questions arise.
One is whether we’d weigh the evidence dif-
ferently had The Dawn of Everything men-
tioned that most Çatalhöyük figurines that
archaeologists have cataloged are of quad-
rupeds (or their horns).Why does this matter? Because when it
comes to a certain class of cases—prehis-
toric cities that they think lacked a ruling
or managerial elite—Graeber and Wen-
grow appear to cherish their thesis a little
too much and, like overprotective parents,
tend to keep it away from the chilly drafts
of adverse evidence. Which brings us to
those Trypillia mega- sites. In a 2017 article,
John Chapman methodically challenges
the view of them as “permanent, long- term
settlements comprising many thousands of
people,” a view he divides into a maximal-
ist and a standard model. Drawing on evi-
dence from his work in Nebelivka and cal-
culations based on available evidence about
the other sites, he concludes thatthe only logical response is to replace
the standard model (not to mention the
maximalist model) with a version of the
minimalist model that envisions a less
permanent, more seasonal settlement
mode, or a smaller permanent settle-
ment involving coeval dwelling of far
fewer people.Perhaps there was a small year- round pop-
ulation; perhaps these were sites where
“hundreds of pilgrims or festival- goers”
showed up in a seasonal way; perhaps both
occurred.
In this account, what we’d find on the
mega- sites, even one as expansive as Tal-
janky, aren’t cities—that is, these settle-
ments are remote from the dictionary
definition of a city, from what we readers
understand by the word, and, as best as I
can judge, from what Graeber and Wen-
grow mean by it. They say most archae-
ologists will call “any densely inhabited
settlement” of 150 or 200 hectares a city;
yet one thing Chapman is confident about
is that the “mega- sites were low- density
settlements.”
Now, archaeologists sometimes use the
word “city” differently; the idea is that if a
settlement, including one that looks like a
hamlet, is the biggest thing around, it might
function as a city. A hundred people living
in face- to- face autarky, a seasonal festival
site like Burning Man: even these could, inthe right circumstances, count as cities. The
paper Wengrow cites, though it pointedly
declines to define “city,” sets aside absolute
scale as a prerequisite. For Graeber and
Wengrow, however, a central question is
whether lots of people can live in a dense
settlement without rules and rulers. That’s
why they say cities often emerged as “civic
experiments on a grand scale.” In their con-
cept of a city, absolute scale can’t be set
aside.
Nor should we set aside the vigorous me-
dieval arguments about the nature and ori-
gins of social inequality, as when The Dawn
of Everything states that in the Middle Ages
“‘social equality’—and therefore, its oppo-
site, inequality—simply did not exist as a
concept.” Many thought, as Pope Gregory
did, that people, in their primordial, Edenic
state, were equal in their liberty. Then
some act of human sinfulness left us with
masters and serfs. For Gregory, Christ’s re-
demptive sacrifice was meant to bring back
our original freedom. Such arguments had
real- world reverberations. “When Adam
delved and Eve span/Who was then the
gentleman?” was an English saying that the
priest John Ball declaimed amid the 1381
Peasants’ Revolt, calling for a primordial
classless society to be restored by force.
Wengrow’s cautions about “personal”
politics are well taken; Lévi- Strauss’s
emerging conservatism is no key to his
thought. By contrast, the political tenets
Lewis Henry Morgan espoused within the
book that entrenched social evolution-
ism were integral to his intellectual vision.
Thorstein Veblen’s theory of predatory
and productive activities seamlessly con-
nected his prehistory to his politics. And
so it goes; we would do the great James C.
Scott, whose studies have been invaluable
to people from a range of ideological posi-
tions, a disservice to suppose that his politi-
cal vision and his political science belonged
in separate bins.
Yet this procession of caveats, I fear,
risks obscuring The Dawn of Everything’s
real triumphs. It is the work of two remark-
able scholars, and almost every page is en-
ergized by their intelligence, imagination,
and surly sense of mischief. When it comes
to confident claims about dense large- scale
settlements free of rulers or rules (or, for
that matter, the Haudenosaunee attitude
toward commands), readers might well
adopt Gertrude Stein’s mot “Interesting if
true.” But as I hope I made plain, there’s
much more to the book than that. Grae-
ber and Wengrow’s argument against his-
torical determinism—against the alluring
notion that what happened had to have
happened—is itself immensely valuable.
Readers who imagine foragers on the Sah-
linesque model of the San will encounter
foraging societies with aristocrats and slav-
ery, while the book’s account of the Pov-
erty Point earthworks is a riveting study of
collective action. We get an intriguing pro-
posal about the nature of the state. And this
is just to begin a long list of fascinations.
That “kaleidoscope of social possibilities”
emerges vibrantly from these pages.
If readers should be a little cautious—
possibilities may not be probabilities—they
should be much more than a little grateful,
as I am. “This book is mainly about free-
dom,” Graeber and Wengrow tell us, but
it’s also for freedom. I’m glad of that; oddly
enough, freedom needs advocates these
days, and few have been as eloquent.For NYR Boxes only,
send replies to:NYR Box Number
The New York Review of Books
435 Hudson Street, Suite 300
New York, NY 10014-399455¢The Classifieds
To place an ad or for other inquiries:
email: [email protected]
tel: (212) 293-1630.
You may also place an ad through our
website at http://www.nybooks.com/classifieds/Classified Department
The New York Review of Books
435 Hudson St., Suite 300
New York, NY 10014-3994All contents subject to Publisher’s approval.
Publisher reserves the right to reject or
cancel, at its sole discretion, any advertising
at any time in The New York Review of Books
or on our website. The advertiser and/
or advertising agency, if any, agree to
indemnify the Publisher against any liability
or expense resulting from claims or suits
based on the contents or subject matter of the
advertisement, including, without limitation,
claims or suits for libel, violation of rights of
privacy, plagiarism, copyright or trademark
infringement, or unauthorized use of the
name, likeness, statement, or work of any
person.The Classifieds
Individual fueled by intellectual curiosity, cultural
hedonist, Grecian Urn enthusiast, allergic to online
dating, and no stranger to conversation, candlelight, or
tight elections—
If the above describes you or the person you hope to
meet, then place a personal ad in The New York Review
of Books’s February 24, 2022, Valentine’s Day issue.
Submit your ad by January 13, 2022. We will run the most
inventive personal free of charge, and runners-up will be
offered 50% off regular rates.
E-mail submissions to: [email protected],
15-word minimum, 35-word maximum.
Brevity, after all, is the soul of wit!PERSONALS
82 YEARS OLD, MANHATTAN WIDOW, able, would like
to meet a male resident to share thoughts. NYR Box 68445.
SF, 65, LOVELY CREATIVE INTERESTING sensual world
traveler would like to curl up with a Renaissance man who
feels like a warm bear, occasionally rising to produce gor-
geous food with great joy. [email protected].
EXTRA-BRIGHT, GOOD-LOOKING, youthful, humorous,
passionate reader and good conversationalist, left-politics,
mid-70s, seeking similar sort of guy 50–80! Contact me @
[email protected].
SECURE NYC 60s SWM LOVER OF ART, music, travel,
seeking unconventional woman forty to sixty for adventure
and relationship. [email protected].
YOUTHFUL NJ WIDOW, 64, VAXXED, seeks single
JHQWOHPDQWRVKDUHDQGHQMR\%URDGZD\ÀOPV3\UH[FDV-
VHUROHVIDOOIROLDJHDQGGHOLJKWIXOGRJV/HW·VKDYHFRIIHH
NYR Box 68460.
FRENCH PROFESSIONAL NYC vigorous early 60s stably
married seeks equally stably married woman for mutually
safe amitié amoureuse. Sense of humor a necessary ingre-
dient. [email protected].
GAY. LOVING MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER. Curious
Mind. Compassionate soul. Love beautiful, fast cars. Now
drive more carefully. Seeks kindred spirit for companion-
ship and adventure. NYC Area. NYR Box 68465.
I WANT LOVE IN MY LIFE AGAIN. DO YOU? I have a full
life but a special man who makes my heart smile would be
LFLQJRQWKHFDNH,·PDÀWZRPDQGHVLULQJDÀWPDQ
years +) who enjoys NY cultural events, travel, and the
beach. [email protected].
MIDCOAST MAINE. RECENT WIDOWER, successful re-
WLUHGH[HFXWLYHÀWDFWLYHLQYHVWRUSKLODQWKURSLVWZLWKFRP-
fortable waterfront lifestyle seeks mature woman to share
same. [email protected].
MWM SEEKING CONVERSATIONSZLWK0)RU6) DQ\
age) about life, music, travels, experiences, humor, etc. Email
me and see if we connect. [email protected].
I AM A 90-YEAR-OLD MAN looking for a partner for my
next life. If you believe in reincarnation, write me a letter to
[email protected].Letters to the Editor: [email protected]. All other
correspondence: The New York Review of Books, 435
Hudson Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10014-3994;
[email protected]. Please include a mailing address
with all correspondence. We accept no responsibility
for unsolicited manuscripts.
Subscription Services: nybooks.com/customer-service
or The New York Review of Books, P.O. Box 9310, Big
Sandy, TX, 75755-9310, or e-mail [email protected].
In the US, call toll-free 800-354-0050. Outside the US,
call 903-636-1101. Subscription rates: US, one year
$99.95; in Canada, $110; elsewhere, $115.
Advertising: To inquire please call 212-757-8070, or
fax 212-333-5374.
Copyright © 2022, NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nothing in this publication may be reproduced with-
out the permission of the publisher. The cover date of
the next issue will be February 10, 2022.