A different history of humanity
David Graeber’s last work offers an interesting look at human history, which seems to have unfolded in a completely different way than is generally believed.
The history of humanity usually follows a linear narrative. From small hordes of hunters and gatherers, human societies have inevitably developed into tribes and then states through sedentarization and the differentiation of skills. This was accompanied by the need for hierarchies, as the more complex society had to be organized. David Graeber and David Wengrow radically challenge this narrative in their book “The Origins of Civilization: A New History of Humankind” and use archaeological finds and anthropological findings to prove that this development was far more complex and that states characterized by rule and hierarchies are not a necessary development.
[This article posted on 6/25/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/eine–andere–geschichte–der–menschheit.]
For a long time, humanity existed in small clans. These groups roamed the untouched earth, hunting and gathering — and were otherwise quite violent. It was only the blessings of agriculture, settlement, and civilization that enabled humans to achieve peace and develop from primitive depths to the heights of science and technology. This is roughly how the history of humanity is presented to us: first there was nothing but primitive darkness. Then came the light of civilization, which reached its provisional peak with the Enlightenment and modernity in a linear process of constant improvement.
Shortly before his death in 2020, the well-known anthropologist David Graeber, together with archaeologist and anthropologist David Wengrow, published a book that radically challenges this simple and—as they repeatedly emphasize—boring view of history. According to their findings, history unfolded completely differently, and the long history of human coexistence was much more colorful and diverse than we currently imagine. This is because today’s beliefs are essentially based on two ideas that may seem very different at first glance, but are very similar in their consequences.
First, there is Thomas Hobbes’ theory that before the emergence of the state, humanity was engaged in a struggle of all against all. It is said to have been a state of perpetual war in which man was a wolf to man. Only when humans wanted to escape this constant misery did they give up part of their freedom and transfer their rights to a Leviathan—a king and his administrative apparatus—in order to experience the blessings of peace.
This contrasts with the idea of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that humans in their original state were “noble savages,” free people who lived only according to their own will. It was only the invention of the state that tamed these savages, civilized them, and took away their freedom.
Both theories ultimately lead to the assumption that the establishment of human civilizations necessarily entails a loss of freedom and an alienation from nature. For Hobbes, this was explicitly a good thing, while Rousseau regretted this state of affairs. Both theories are therefore very one-dimensional and offer a boring picture of human societies. Nevertheless, although both authors emphasize that these are purely intellectual exercises and not an attempt to describe reality, they are deeply rooted in today’s conception of human beings and the development of civilizations.
The Native Americans, for example, prove that civilization can develop in completely different ways. When confronted with the French conquerors, they grappled with their culture and repeatedly criticized the Western model of civilization. According to the Native American tribes, it was the French who should be considered savages. They believed that their civilization brought about inequality, poverty, and violence. According to the Native Americans, one of the fundamental evils of this society was money, which inevitably leads to all these things.
They also mocked the French for submitting to a king, calling them slaves. They rejected the idea of a superior European culture. This was in stark contrast to the culture of the Native American tribes. They did not know money, which is why there was no poverty. In this culture, economic success could not be converted into power. In fact, there were no real hierarchies in these tribes. Even the chief could not force anyone to do anything. There were hardly any laws, and courts were unknown to the Indians. However, they were not necessary, as a strong sense of community prevented them from committing crimes. Although individual tribes did wage war against each other, the Indian civilization was much more peaceful than that of the Europeans.
However, this does not mean that they can be regarded as a model for all pre-state civilizations. This assumption would only confirm the theories of Rousseau and Hobbes, according to which there was a kind of primitive state that was brought to an end by the emergence of modern civilizations. In fact, there is much evidence that even in the Paleolithic Age, cultures repeatedly emerged that knew hierarchies and power, and thus also violence and war. However, over time, many human cultures have developed mechanisms that effectively prevented the emergence of these hierarchies. Humanity has thus repeatedly become incredibly creative in shaping society and preventing the emergence of power. This also shows that ruling elites do not necessarily emerge as soon as people settle down and more complex societies develop. It is not a law of nature, but a development that humans can counteract through conscious action. This allows humans to consciously shape their civilization.
Furthermore, the idea that humanity suddenly became a purely sedentary species with the advent of agriculture, whereupon it was forced to develop hierarchies, is highly questionable. Evidence of this can be found among the Nambikwara, who still existed in Brazil in the 20th century and were mainly studied by the famous anthropologist Leví Strauss. This culture was only a sedentary horticultural culture during the rainy season, and even then it was not governed by hierarchies. During the rest of the year, however, they lived as hunters under the guidance of a leader. However, this leader cannot be compared to a king. In fact, he was not in a position to force others to do anything. The Nambikwara followed him because he distinguished himself through special qualities, such as a particular determination, or by setting a good example.
Of course, indigenous cultures cannot be regarded as remnants of the Stone Age. However, their cultures allow us to take a different look at archaeological finds, as we know very little about the everyday life and political structure of early humans. There are actually indications that Stone Age cultures also developed a certain seasonality. One example of this is the Stone Age inhabitants of the British Isles. They met seasonally to erect large monuments, such as Stonehenge. While many historians and archaeologists assume that more complex structures necessarily require a hierarchy with a ruling caste to direct the construction work, this conclusion is not inevitable. It would be an unusual kingdom that only existed for a few months of the year before dispersing across the British Isles.
But these people teach us something else: that it is possible to change the way we live.
They had initially brought agriculture with them from mainland Europe, but after a few millennia they abandoned it and decided to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, they kept their herds of livestock, mainly pigs, and often drove them hundreds of kilometers to the gathering places around Stonehenge, where they worked on the monuments and held ceremonial celebrations. It was therefore a kind of civilization that probably organized itself independently, without any leaders. Evidence of similar ways of life can be found all over the world, for example at the archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe in present-day Turkey.
The question of how humanity became a sedentary agricultural culture is also not so easy to answer. While historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that grain civilized humans, Graeber and Wengrow reject this theory. They say it’s just a reversal of the common view that humans cultivated grain and then got caught in the trap of settling down. However, this is difficult to understand. The cultivation of grain is highly labor-intensive, and there is no reason why early human cultures should have exchanged their easier way of life as hunters and gatherers for a strenuous and labor-intensive way of life.
According to the authors, an important aspect of cultural development is the differentiation from other cultures. Human civilizations have often consciously distinguished themselves from their neighboring cultures by rejecting at least certain aspects of their behavior and developing their own. One example they cite is the indigenous tribes of California, who differed from their neighbors in the northwest in that they did not keep slaves and, despite the possibility, did not practice agriculture or fish. Instead, they gathered acorns and nuts, which did not require much storage, as the fruits only need to be processed shortly before consumption, whereas fish and grain must be processed immediately after harvesting and catching and then stored. Food supplies, in turn, are often the reason why wars are waged and raids are carried out.
The two civilizations also differed culturally. While the tribes in the north celebrated lavish festivals every year to display and consume their excesses, the Californians’ festivals focused on dancing and singing, without resorting to excessive debauchery. They despised the display of wealth and valued hard work.
A similar conscious distinction can be found in the Fertile Crescent. While the tribes of the high plateau were male-dominated hunter-gatherer cultures, the cultures in the lowlands were sedentary horticultural cultures that were more matriarchal in organization. However, they did not practice agriculture in the modern sense, but merely used the floodplains along the rivers, where the fertile mud after the annual floods made it easy to sow grain without much effort. Over a period of 3,000 years, humans deliberately avoided domesticating grain, which causes it to lose certain properties and the grains to become larger.
Humans did not domesticate grain, but rather did everything in their power over a very long period of time to avoid doing so.
Women also played a decisive role in the development of cultures. They were the ones who pursued science, namely empirical science, which of course did not involve laboratories, but made a major contribution to the further development of civilizations. Women were thus important drivers of culture, which explains why so many female sculptures have been found from earlier millennia.
Contrary to widespread belief, Graeber and Wengrow argue that the fact that humans settled down in the first place has nothing to do with the discovery of agriculture. On the contrary, for a long time, humans tended to avoid the hardships of extensive agriculture. Instead, their diet was determined by various factors such as hunting, fishing, limited gardening, and gathering nuts, fruits, acorns, and herbs. Farming, if it occurred at all, took place only in the floodplains of rivers, where it was relatively unencumbered. This form of nutrition guaranteed people a great deal of freedom, as they did not make themselves dependent on a single source of food and the effort required to secure it. Throughout history, there have even been cultures that initially introduced agriculture but then, after a few centuries or even millennia, turned away from it and switched to other forms of food procurement.
In addition, there are some tragic examples in Europe, more precisely in present-day Germany and Austria, of farming cultures that initially grew considerably and then disappeared again. Farming was therefore not initially a reliable or promising form of food procurement.
Instead, the reason for settling down was more likely an interest in extensive long-distance trade, which could extend across entire continents. This was not motivated by capitalism. The motivation was rather the cultural significance of certain coveted objects such as amber, beautiful shells, or stones. Later indigenous cultures on the North American continent and in Polynesia provide an indication of how this long-distance trade may have taken place. Here, there were some cultures in which people undertook long journeys to obtain a particular object. However, these valuables were not hoarded, but exchanged elsewhere, given away as diplomatic gestures, or passed down from generation to generation as heirlooms, whereby they were held in great honor. Possession of these objects did not reflect any power or great influence.
Over time, these settled cultures merged into larger communities and eventually cities, although this did not happen everywhere and was not inevitable. The prevailing theory is that larger groups of people require hierarchies, functional administrations, and division of labor. Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar theorized that humans can only form equal relationships with about 150 people. For all groups beyond this size, a system of rule must necessarily be established in order to manage these communities effectively. However, this is contradicted by findings of large settlements and cities that have been made all over the world. In cities such as Çatalhöyük in present-day Turkey or Nebelivka in present-day Ukraine, thousands, probably tens of thousands of people lived together for centuries without any signs of hierarchy.
Temples and palaces, if any, were not built here until later millennia. For centuries, people lived here together without such power structures.
Archaeologists and anthropologists make the mistake of labeling such egalitarian communities as “simple societies” that cannot yet be described as civilizations. Only the “more complex” societies, which have a system of rule and administration and a priestly caste, are taken seriously, their development being regarded as the inevitable progression of “simple societies.” But on closer inspection, these “simple societies” are very complex. They had access to resources such as salt and flint, which were often mined many kilometers, sometimes even hundreds of kilometers away. They also had a sophisticated food supply system that drew on various sources. Their dwellings were more than simple tents or huts and required considerable effort to construct, from felling trees to building the structures, thus necessitating a certain amount of resupply. In fact, these cultures had breathtaking logistics, and all without any form of government. Instead, they probably organized themselves through a system of mutual aid, in which individual households functioned as autonomous units that were nevertheless embedded in the larger system of the neighborhood and the city.
It is also possible that power structures dissolve and give way to an egalitarian society, which also brings cultures to a new heyday. Evidence of this can be found in the remains of the Mexican city of Teotihuacán. At first glance, it is a typical Central American city, as known from the Incas or Aztecs. Large temples dominate the cityscape, at the foot of which the remains of human sacrifices have been found. There are clear signs of hierarchies, richer neighborhoods and centers of power, as well as slums. But then there are also strange apartment blocks that housed thousands of people and enabled them to enjoy an extremely high standard of living. When these structures are dated, it turns out that the temples and palaces date back to the city’s beginnings. But at a certain point in the city’s history, the temples lose their significance. What’s more, traces of fire and damage can be found — an indication that the city’s inhabitants destroyed these temples.
Only then were the egalitarian apartment blocks built by converting unfinished castle complexes. Thousands of people found shelter here while the temples and centers of power fell into disrepair. The city’s inhabitants must therefore have decided at some point in history to end the rule of a few and instead establish an egalitarian society that lasted for centuries. There are no signs of social deprivation during this period. Instead, people achieved a standard of living that was unprecedented at the time. The city also expanded once again during this period and, according to some estimates, was home to up to 100,000 people. It is also noteworthy that, apart from the destruction of the temples, no signs of violence were found. The transformation was therefore largely peaceful.
This shows that people can repeatedly rise up against rule and achieve a society free of domination with great economic equality and a high level of prosperity.
Another example of how kings and oligarchs are not a necessary stage in the development of civilizations is the Mesoamerican city of Tlaxcala. We learn about its form of political organization from the records of Spanish conquerors, which have been confirmed by modern archaeologists. Although the city is often described in secondary literature as a union of several kingdoms, there are many indications that it was a democratic city-state with a population of approximately 150,000. The political processes are described in detail by one of the first rectors of the University of Mexico, Francisco Cervantes de Salazar (1514 to 1575). He describes how decisions in a city council are made through long processes of consensus building. No single person decides for the entire city; instead, elected officials deliberate on an issue until they reach a unanimous decision.
These elected officials, in turn, are not comparable to the representatives in our current electoral system. Anyone who wants to attain this position must submit to the people. The “election” involves a long process of renunciation, fasting, isolation, and bloodletting, which begins with public insults and humiliation.
Such a procedure requires personalities that are very different from those found in today’s electoral systems. Even the Tlaxcaltecs knew that a simple electoral system such as we know it would bring charismatic figures with authoritarian ambitions to power.
Moreover, the inhabitants of the city never recognized a king, as they themselves emphasized. They were therefore familiar with the concept of a monarchy or an authoritarian form of government, and they actively prevented it.
Graeber and Wengrow also embark on a search for the origins of the state and discover that these origins are not so easy to find because it is difficult to determine what exactly constitutes a state.
The concept of the state is a 19th-century invention; before that, the term was basically unknown. Therefore, the concept cannot be readily applied to forms of government that date back hundreds or even thousands of years. The two authors identify three characteristics that a state must have: sovereignty, administration, and political competition. However, throughout human history, there have been many forms of government that fulfilled only one or two of these criteria. Can these then be described as states or primitive forms of the state? Especially when societies overthrew their rulers or left the cities where this rule was exercised in order to turn to a different way of life?
All in all, Graeber and Wengrow point out two things: On the one hand, the history of human development is much more complex than it is often portrayed. The transition of humans from hordes, tribes, and tribal principalities to states is not as linear as it is always portrayed. The same is true of the transition from hunters and gatherers to sedentary people. They also question the necessity of domination, which is often claimed to be necessary for increasingly complex societies.
But the most important aspect is probably the realization that humans have repeatedly made conscious decisions to improve their coexistence. They have consciously dismantled hierarchies and domination or thrown them overboard in disruptive events in order to turn to more pleasant forms of coexistence. They devised clever measures to prevent the emergence of power hierarchies and were able to learn from their history and mistakes time and again. This ability is still available to people today. The authors thus show that we ourselves are and can be the architects of our coexistence, our culture, and ultimately our lives. We just have to make use of this ability.
Felix Feistel, born in 1992, studied law with a focus on international and European law. He worked as a journalist during his studies and has been working full-time as a freelance journalist and author since passing his state exam. He writes for manova.news, apolut.net, multipolar-magazin.de and on his own Telegram channel. Training as a trauma therapist based on identity-oriented psychotrauma theory and therapy (IoPT) broadened his understanding of the background to world events.