It presents archaeological evidence of how I thought the ancients might have lived. But, mostly it presents evidence of how bureaucracy - something I have inherent dislike for - might have come into being from the Sumerians and the Egyptians. I feel the angst of the authors against bureaucracy even in the book, and I believe they speak (or feel similar) for most people in the world. Its not a page turner but a true mind blowing book. Its counter-intuitive to everything that is taught. Once again, it comes to aid my theory that the world grew non-linearly. Its only for the convenience of system, that it’s presented as a linear growth. The beauty in the book is that it has not tried to connect the dots and presented the readers with his conclusions. It started with a question and discussion, and throughout it maintained the same approach. It presented data - I do not call them facts because we merely have a consensus agreement about how it may have happened, but did not see it happen - but then it presented ideas about the multiple possibilities of how it may have occurred. This is how things should be, I firmly believe because we should not become captive of someone else’s thoughts, ideas or imaginations. This is how we faltered and eventually built up an anthropological pyramid which we ended up calling bureaucracy. The seasonal changes of decision makers is an interesting concept. Somehow, we have made that into a worse mandate because we took the Roman Empire as a base and built up from there. Typical penalty to be paid for implementing ideas without really understanding the founding principles of it. However, I believe these lost societies are to be partly blamed because they did not prepare the next generation or share their working principles with people outside of the decision making. Something that strikes me most is the how agile they were in moving from one location to another, and also in their governance. Governance propped up when it was needed like in the hunting season, and disappeared when it was spring. Additionally, the jesting part and the clown rituals are fascinating and in my opinion the principles of a working society. The later kings and rulers may have allowed it to preserve these old systems but it’s a dying art these days. Gradually, they also present evidence about the priests e al. took control, thereby introducing bureaucracy, interests, etc. into the societies. It all began with the Sumerians in a manner that is akin to today, but the money system had already existed albeit in a more egalitarian manner prior to that. Another analogy that they produce is about how we try and make sense of things to fit our then knowledge and understanding. The book begins with this premise about The Enlightenment period, and then continues to dish out so many examples where anthropology so far has always worked in this manner. This is something I have been discussing with my friends for such a long time, that truth ain’t linear. There is more randomness and non-linearity in events, and happenings that we give credit for. The linearity mostly arises from bureaucrats and mostly it is to bring convenience to themselves. ‘Stick in a line’ and that’s it. The order that we have reached in society has come from ‘Chaos’ beforehand. However, we have not had any improvement or development in anthropology or political thoughts since Enlightenment, because there has been no chaos. There always is this penchant in extremists to bring anarchy and terrorism, but that I think is mostly because people feel stifled. Chaos or randomness allows people to express themselves because in a positive and healthy fashion. This is a consequence of people not being judged, which is what happens where you are always supposed to be in a line. Chaotic societies are an amalgam of different methods of living, which present citizens with an alternative to their own lifestyle everyday. Gradually, these alternatives allow people to move around freely amongst different societies, and understand them. This is what the Meso-americans did and were happy about it, as Kindarok said it to the French. This thought has not sprung in me the concept of nientido in Italy or shoonya in India - the eternal bliss that comes from the feeling of nothingness. While this nothingness is achieved by modern people through recreational drugs or dopamine rush, the ancients had this inbuilt in their society or encouraged to achieve it themselves. They were more likely ware about the long term effects of it and had them in moderation - atleast that’s what I conclude from the book. This also leads me to conclude that I was right about tobacco in its pure organic form is not as harmful to health as it becomes due to chemicals, et al.. However, as we lack proper details about the health condition of the masses, we cannot be sure about my conclusions. Only, proper impartial research into the subject can let us know about it. I could also take into consideration private conversations with others, but that’s like - my word against his word’ -, so no. Another great insight was how it implicitly disproves the Aryan Invasion Theory, something I have long maintained because of the different script in Indus Valley. Cultural exchange has definitely happened, and it happened a few centuries after the end of Indus Valley Civilisation. This brings me to another topic which I have to verify. Its about a claim about the similarities between Homer’s epic, and Indian epics. That does indeed make sense, and coupled with the sudden emergence of a warrior class in this book, it makes even more sense. One must dig deep into the Sumerians and their conquests later on, to transform this sudden appearance of warrior class into a gradual understanding of their emergence. However, the clues are there in a loose sense with the appearance of priests, interests loans, and secret dreams been filled in temples. By secret dreams, I mean how society came together to fulfil a person’s dream. Probably, this is where it may have started and somebody realised, that dreams must get filled in a secret temple alone. What if somebody dreamt about becoming an emperor or a warrior? How did that go about? The author does mention a story where a woman desired to be an emperor and when she was granted the wish, she did put the real king in prison. It was interesting to learn about how most people who had lived with the Native Indians, and in urban life chose to live with the Native Indians when presented with the choice. Hopefully, I come across more details and data about this. Its fascinating to find this, but not counter intuitive atleast to me. I expect this, and there are traits of this behaviour evident in many westerners today. I find the feminine worshipping at the start a bit intriguing to say the least, and understandable. This comes in close evidence to Karen Armstrong’s ‘The Idea of God’ 2 which concludes how Baal and the males overpowered and destroyed this. In Hinduism, it is Manu who brought an end to this, so, there are parallels all across the world. As new evidence emerges, its going to be interesting to delve deeper and deeper into this fascinating anthropological journey from here on, beginning with Uruk and Jemdet Nasr. I also liked how the authors attempt to belittle Sapiens3. There are many reasons I liked that because it’s not everyday that scholars challenge or ridicule each other. Most are looking for easy collaboration to coat-tail off each other’s work. But more importantly, it is the exhibition of childish behaviour by the authors which make me chuckle. The origins of money is also mentioned in the book which is fascinating to understand. How the presumed simple beings like meso-americans had complex philosophical discussions is fascinating to learn about. Funny coincidence, that these ancient societies had the right to disobey. One could disobey without any punishment or a consequence. This I believe is actual egalitarian, and similar to ‘Right to Bribe’. This rule will allow people to be themselves and have the fear of a consequence to pay a bribe based on income and status in society. Thereby, people would voluntary do what they want to do, and society can attribute them a fair share of blame to pay for when they step out of line. So, in these ways it is an interesting idea. All in all, it was a great book to read. Now, I have to take time out to understand and compress this much data or my learnings from it to demonstrate in bias. If I can highlight that, then it becomes critical to understand how impactful biased thinking can be, and dangerous too.