One of the most inspiring and life-affirming nonfiction books I’ve ever read.

This was fun to read.

It was like I was getting yelled at.

The two Davids provide us with an overview of human existence that shows us to be much more creative and politically conscious than most social science has ever imagined. They provide questions rather than insist on the correctness of certain approaches to finding answers.

This book is thought-provoking, but unclear, disorganized, and unconvincing. As someone who loves big history, I am so disappointed.

A thought provoking book, but not easy to read. But if you are interested in history or how social systems are organized, I would recommend it. Pros: Lots of intriguing examples of prehistory and anthropology that I had never heard of. Especially striking to me: monumental constructions by apparent hunter-gatherer societies, large cities with little to no evidence of societal stratification or central rule, slave-holding indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest, societies that seasonally alternate between harsh, centralized rule from above and egalitarian, peaceful, and cooperative arrangements for the rest of the year. There are also intriguing ideas about how accepted patterns of historical change are probably wrong and that enlightenment values of liberty may actually have their origin in the political thinking of indigenous peoples in North America, originating in response to the overthrow of a violent, authoritarian culture in the Southeast of what is now the US. Cons: Hard to tell at times where established fact ends and speculation starts and if some speculation turns into pure fantasy. There is a lot of inference of the motivations of pre-historic people that strikes me as very creative. Some of the criticism of the work of other authors came across as more of an academic feud than a dispassionate analysis of available evidence. Lots of dumping on the blinders and misconceptions other researchers have, and - at least in one case - an argument against another researcher’s ideas that relies on selective quotes and misrepresentation (and that in one of the few cases where I actually know enough to make an independent judgement). A general style that lays out the big, radical concepts first and then brings in evidence - which makes me concerned that the ideology came first and then evidence was gathered to support it. Nevertheless: Overall, my impression is very positive. This book made me think, and I learned a lot. I am inspired to go to different sources and follow up. I will likely reread this book at some point.