What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
Arising independently in various parts of the world, early civilizations--the first class-based societies in human history--are of importance to social scientists interested in the development of complexity, while their cultural productions fascinate both humanists and the general public. This book offers the first detailed comparative study of the seven most fully documented early civilizations: ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Shang China, the Aztecs and their neighbors, the Classic Maya, the Inca, and the Yoruba. Unlike previous studies, equal attention is paid to similarities and differences in their sociopolitical organization, their economic systems, and their religious beliefs, knowledge, art, and values. Many of this study's findings are surprising and provocative. They challenge not only current understandings of early civilizations but also the theoretical foundations of modern archaeology and anthropology. Rival cultural and ecological approaches are demonstrated to be complimentary to one another, while a comprehensive understanding of human behavior is shown to require that more attention be paid to psychology and the neurosciences. Bruce G. Trigger is James McGill Professor in the Department of Anthropology at McGill University. He received his PhD from Yale University and has carried out archaeological research in Egypt and the Sudan. His current interests include the comparative study of early civilizations, the history of archaeology, and archaeological and anthropological theory. He has received various scholarly awards, including the Prix Leon-Gerin from the Quebec government, for his sustained contributions to the social sciences. He is an honarary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and an honarary member of the Prehistoric Society (U.K.). His numerous books include Sociological Evolution (Blackwell, 1998), Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context (Amer. Univ in Cairo, 1993), A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, 1989), and The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 (McGill-Queens Univ., 1976).
774 pages, Paperback
First published May 5, 2003
21 people are currently reading
332 people want to read
About the author
Bruce G. Trigger
30 books26 followersBruce Graham Trigger, OC OQ FRSC was a Canadian archaeologist, anthropologist, and ethnohistorian.
He received a doctorate in archaeology from Yale University in 1964. His research interests at that time included the history of archaeological research and the comparative study of early cultures. He spent the following year teaching at Northwestern University and then took a position with the Department of Anthropology at McGill University in Montreal, and remained there for the rest of his career.
He received a doctorate in archaeology from Yale University in 1964. His research interests at that time included the history of archaeological research and the comparative study of early cultures. He spent the following year teaching at Northwestern University and then took a position with the Department of Anthropology at McGill University in Montreal, and remained there for the rest of his career.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 13, 2024
The Canadian archaeologist and anthropologist Bruce Trigger (1937-2006) published this extensive book (600 pages, without footnotes!) not long before his premature death. It was the culmination of more than 40 years of research (ultimately at McGill University in Montreal) in both theoretical as very concrete domains of anthropology and archaeology. My score (actually 4.5 stars) is exceptionally generous, I know, but I am aware that this book is not for everyone: it is not only very specialized, but also extremely tough at times. After all, Trigger compares 7 early civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Northern China, Mexico, the Maya, the Inca and the Yoruba), and he does so in great (thematic) detail. His approach is systematic and thorough, but therefore often very dry and sometimes simply tedious.
But he compensates for this with an extremely relevant focus, namely the search for what seems universal in human development and what is specific to concrete historical and geographical settings: “(…) this book seeks to establish empirically what features seven early civilizations, located on four continents, had in common and in what ways they differed from one another. I am assuming that, in the demonstrated absence of historical connections, shared features were either produced by patterns of thought and behavior common to all human groups or shaped by similar environmental or functional constraints and therefore constitute examples of parallel development or coevolution. Cross-cultural variation reflects the influence of cultural patterns that are free of such constraints. I hope that these case studies will reveal to what extent different sorts of explanations of human behavior are useful for explaining particular data.”
His empirical and comparative approach seems to me to be the only way out of the endless debate in which anthropology is caught up, in the fierce battle between universalists and cultural relativists. It is also valuable that he convincingly demonstrates that the neo-evolutionary model (the necessary, uni-linear development from 'simple' forms of society such as tribes and chiefdoms to proto-states and states) is a very biased and, above all, reductionist view of human development. I am well aware of how much criticism you can have on Trigger's comparative approach and the empirical data he collected, but I am really impressed by the thoroughness with which he has studied the matter, by his systematic and transparent approach, and his perseverance to come to relevant conclusions. This is how science should always work. More on this in my history account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
But he compensates for this with an extremely relevant focus, namely the search for what seems universal in human development and what is specific to concrete historical and geographical settings: “(…) this book seeks to establish empirically what features seven early civilizations, located on four continents, had in common and in what ways they differed from one another. I am assuming that, in the demonstrated absence of historical connections, shared features were either produced by patterns of thought and behavior common to all human groups or shaped by similar environmental or functional constraints and therefore constitute examples of parallel development or coevolution. Cross-cultural variation reflects the influence of cultural patterns that are free of such constraints. I hope that these case studies will reveal to what extent different sorts of explanations of human behavior are useful for explaining particular data.”
His empirical and comparative approach seems to me to be the only way out of the endless debate in which anthropology is caught up, in the fierce battle between universalists and cultural relativists. It is also valuable that he convincingly demonstrates that the neo-evolutionary model (the necessary, uni-linear development from 'simple' forms of society such as tribes and chiefdoms to proto-states and states) is a very biased and, above all, reductionist view of human development. I am well aware of how much criticism you can have on Trigger's comparative approach and the empirical data he collected, but I am really impressed by the thoroughness with which he has studied the matter, by his systematic and transparent approach, and his perseverance to come to relevant conclusions. This is how science should always work. More on this in my history account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Read
October 21, 2024Over the past 2 years I have read quite a few works on early civilizations (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Eastern Mediterranean, India, China…). Most of these are limited to a single civilization area and at best they indicate how this was connected to other, nearby civilizations. But systematically looking beyond the defined area is unfortunately rare, which is why many of those studies in ancient history suffer from myopia. And then it’s yet another thing to really taking a comparative look and looking at different areas of civilization at the same time, both as a whole or in certain thematic aspects. Of course, that's not obvious: it requires specialist knowledge on several of those civilizations, while academic work strongly encourages the limitation to a single area (and often even to a single detail of a single area). And it also entails some tricky theoretical risks, because how can you responsibly compare entities that differ in both space and time? You know, the apples and oranges issue.
Canadian anthropologist and archaeologist Bruce Trigger (1937-2006) was not deterred by this. The result is this extensive and impressive book. Trigger selected 7 early civilizations and justifies his choice in his introductory chapters. Four of them are more or less obvious: the Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt (2700–1780 B.C.), southern Mesopotamia from Early Dynastic III to Old Babylonian times (2500–1600 B.C.), northern China in the late Shang and early Western Zhou periods (1200–950 B.C.), and the Classic Maya (A.D. 250–800). The three others - the Valley of Mexico in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries A.D., the Inca kingdom during the early sixteenth century A.D., and the Yoruba and Benin peoples of West Africa from the mid-eighteenth century to the beginning of the colonial era in the late nineteenth century – seem less obvious, not only because they are much more recent, but especially because the source material for those civilizations is considerably more 'contaminated' by the Western, colonial view. Of course, Trigger is aware of this, but in his selection the anthropologist in him has prevailed over the archaeologist-historian. Personally, I think that the choice of the Yoruba in particular can be criticized, especially as the further treatment in the 'empirical part' of this book shows that this culture deviates somewhat from the pattern in other areas of civilization. But apparently (and understandably) it was important to Trigger that he could include almost all continents in his study, to strengthen his case.
Ultimately it's all about that 'case': Trigger is not simply trying to compare the data of all those areas and civilizations empirically, which he does in great detail over almost 400 of his 600 pages (not including footnotes), but he does indeed start from a theoretical angle. In his own words: “I sought to determine empirically what aspects of human behavior and beliefs were shaped by factors that were common to all human beings and what aspects were shaped by idiosyncratic features of cultural systems by examining seven early civilizations distributed around the world, all but two of which had displayed predominantly independent trajectories of development. In this way, I hoped to provide an ontological basis for a more informed understanding of human behavior.” Here too, the anthropologist in Trigger takes precedence over the archaeologist/historian. He wants to study whether or not human communities, in different geographical settings, undergo the same evolution, and (in parallel) to study to what extent universal human characteristics and/or geographical and historical elements play a role in this. So the issue at stake is the antagonistic dualism between universalism and relativism, and between contingency and linearity.
It would lead too far to discuss the concrete results of Trigger's meticulous research, because – as could be expected - these are very nuanced. Suffice it to say that he distances himself from cultural relativism, and is more inclined to emphasize the universal characteristics in human behavior: in other words, the 7 areas of civilization have more in common than they differ, but not to the extent that a “universal human pattern” (after the Dutch historian Jan Romein) is discernable, whereby all human societies inevitably develop in the same way. As a consequence, Trigger also distances himself from the neo-evolutionary model in anthropology and archaeological studies (making an ascending typology band-tribe-chiefdom-state as a normative evolution of human societies).
If you are not satisfied with this all too brief treatment of Trigger's conclusions, read his concluding chapters 28 and 29, or also the more thematic conclusions in chapters 13 (socio-political), 18 (economic-material) and 27 (cultural). Of course I can also recommend the introductory theoretical chapters and the empirical 'bulk' of this book, but all this inevitably is very detailed and sometimes very tough and dry. Still, I was very impressed. Finally, this is a book that does not provide definitive answers, because it is based on the state of historical knowledge at the end of the 20th century (the editing of the book was completed in 2001), while knowledge, methods and insights continue to evolve. But if this book illustrates anything, it is that expert knowledge, methodological transparency, systematic exploration and scientific relevance can indeed make a difference.
Rating 4.5 stars
Canadian anthropologist and archaeologist Bruce Trigger (1937-2006) was not deterred by this. The result is this extensive and impressive book. Trigger selected 7 early civilizations and justifies his choice in his introductory chapters. Four of them are more or less obvious: the Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt (2700–1780 B.C.), southern Mesopotamia from Early Dynastic III to Old Babylonian times (2500–1600 B.C.), northern China in the late Shang and early Western Zhou periods (1200–950 B.C.), and the Classic Maya (A.D. 250–800). The three others - the Valley of Mexico in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries A.D., the Inca kingdom during the early sixteenth century A.D., and the Yoruba and Benin peoples of West Africa from the mid-eighteenth century to the beginning of the colonial era in the late nineteenth century – seem less obvious, not only because they are much more recent, but especially because the source material for those civilizations is considerably more 'contaminated' by the Western, colonial view. Of course, Trigger is aware of this, but in his selection the anthropologist in him has prevailed over the archaeologist-historian. Personally, I think that the choice of the Yoruba in particular can be criticized, especially as the further treatment in the 'empirical part' of this book shows that this culture deviates somewhat from the pattern in other areas of civilization. But apparently (and understandably) it was important to Trigger that he could include almost all continents in his study, to strengthen his case.
Ultimately it's all about that 'case': Trigger is not simply trying to compare the data of all those areas and civilizations empirically, which he does in great detail over almost 400 of his 600 pages (not including footnotes), but he does indeed start from a theoretical angle. In his own words: “I sought to determine empirically what aspects of human behavior and beliefs were shaped by factors that were common to all human beings and what aspects were shaped by idiosyncratic features of cultural systems by examining seven early civilizations distributed around the world, all but two of which had displayed predominantly independent trajectories of development. In this way, I hoped to provide an ontological basis for a more informed understanding of human behavior.” Here too, the anthropologist in Trigger takes precedence over the archaeologist/historian. He wants to study whether or not human communities, in different geographical settings, undergo the same evolution, and (in parallel) to study to what extent universal human characteristics and/or geographical and historical elements play a role in this. So the issue at stake is the antagonistic dualism between universalism and relativism, and between contingency and linearity.
It would lead too far to discuss the concrete results of Trigger's meticulous research, because – as could be expected - these are very nuanced. Suffice it to say that he distances himself from cultural relativism, and is more inclined to emphasize the universal characteristics in human behavior: in other words, the 7 areas of civilization have more in common than they differ, but not to the extent that a “universal human pattern” (after the Dutch historian Jan Romein) is discernable, whereby all human societies inevitably develop in the same way. As a consequence, Trigger also distances himself from the neo-evolutionary model in anthropology and archaeological studies (making an ascending typology band-tribe-chiefdom-state as a normative evolution of human societies).
If you are not satisfied with this all too brief treatment of Trigger's conclusions, read his concluding chapters 28 and 29, or also the more thematic conclusions in chapters 13 (socio-political), 18 (economic-material) and 27 (cultural). Of course I can also recommend the introductory theoretical chapters and the empirical 'bulk' of this book, but all this inevitably is very detailed and sometimes very tough and dry. Still, I was very impressed. Finally, this is a book that does not provide definitive answers, because it is based on the state of historical knowledge at the end of the 20th century (the editing of the book was completed in 2001), while knowledge, methods and insights continue to evolve. But if this book illustrates anything, it is that expert knowledge, methodological transparency, systematic exploration and scientific relevance can indeed make a difference.
Rating 4.5 stars
November 17, 2013
I don't have much to add to what I've already said. The most valuable and original and insightful part of this book is the section on method - on the comparative method (chs. 1-4); see below.
The bulk of the rest of the book (chs. 5-27) consists of a compendium of information, drawn almost entirely at second-hand (that is, from the secondary literature; Trigger can only read Hierogplyphs of the seven cultures he studies) arranged by topic: Sociopolitical (Kingship; States - City and Territorial; Urbanism; Class Systems and Class Mobility, etc.); Economy (Food production - this turns out to be one of the most intersting sections and addresses more general problems than this title would suggest; Land Ownership; Trade, etc.); Cognitive and Symbolig Aspects (Supernatural, Cosmology, Cult, Priests, Elite Art, etc.). Then there is a concluding section on Culture and Reason and a Conclusion proper (chs. 28-29).
Because he covers so many topics and wants to compare the data from 7 different early civilizations in each topic, the compendium section reads almost like a laundery list, and is short on depth and analysis. It was somewhat disappointing. On the other hand, the book has a lengthy and marvelously up-to-date bibliography, and the serious student can follow Trigger to the secondary literature that he relies on with ease and confidence. This is not a trivial point.
What follows is my original report on chs. 1-4:
Though I’ve only read 10% of this book, the 10% that I’ve read is the long and critical section on method. This includes a discussion of the comparative method as such (a very controversial topic), definitions and categories (what is an ‘early civilization’ as opposed, say, to ‘advance preindustrial societies’), a broad survey of the main anthropological approaches and conceptions important today (socioanthropology, cultural evolution, neoevolutionists, the New Anthropology of Clifford Geertz and others), and of the general philosophical divisions between ‘rationalism’ and ‘postmodernism’ in the field of anthropology and cultural history. It is clear, fascination, and utterly persuasive. He has full mastery of his material. Moreover, he is sober (quite a rarity in Academia today) and has no special theoretical axe to grind. It also contains a great deal of up-to-date bibliography (42 pages worth), which allows the reader to follow up and pursue important studies on his own.
Trigger, himself, is thoroughly empirical in his approach, but does not endorse a narrowly “positivist epistemology”, recognizing (as he does; p. 62) that subjective biases inevitably inform both sources and interpretations – these being *precisely* the challenges that empirical investigation must seek to overcome.
No argument here.
This is a comparative study of seven early civilizations (Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt; Early Mesopotamia; Shang China; Maya; Inca; Azetc; and Yoruba – which he distinguishes (1) from pre-state ‘Chiefdoms’ (the difference being that pre-state ‘Chiefdoms’ are largely organized along kinship lines, whereas ‘early civilizations’ involve horizontal ‘class-based’, hierarchical structures [44f.]; he understands the objections to the use of the term ‘class’ in this context, however (see Patricia Crone), and has an interesting discussion of this point, explicitly using the term in a broader, rather than in a narrower and purely Marxist sense); and (2) from ‘advanced preindustrial civilizations’ (think: Classical Greece and Rome; Han China, Mauryan India, Medieval Islam, and Medieval and Early Modern Europe; see 48-51) – which differ from ‘early civilizations’ in that advanced preindustrial civilizations show the appearance of larger, more highly integrated market economies (which results from the introduction of the large-scale use of coinage, especially coinage of small value, which incorporates low-wage earners into a market and wage economy); a professionalization and growing institutional independence of the military; a desacralization of the natural world; and by the replacement of the sacral kingship with some forms of permanent or semi-permanent government [e.g., democracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, limited or absolute monarchies).
The book is then divided into three broad sections, in which he produces a large-scale comparative study of the Sociopolitical Organization (71-275), the Economy (279-406), and the Cognitive and Symbolic Aspects (409-650) of Early Civilizations – the aim being to discover what is uniform and what is variable.
But what is most important here, at this point, is that Trigger fully understands and expounds, in the clearest possible manner, the difficulties and challenges of the comparative method as such – a very controversial issue (ch. 2 = pp. 15-39).
Trigger insists (quite rightly) that any comparison must deal with items that have already been fully contextualized in their home culture (otherwise, comparison is little more than a random and uncontrolled play of ‘analogies’). This means that he first had to study each of the seven early civilizations on its own terms, as an internal whole. This is especially difficult, as he could only read ancient Egyptian. This meant working exhaustively with secondary sources, and finding sound and critical methods for determining both how much of this material to read and how to handle competing theories without simply ‘choosing sides’ in a debate where he cannot control the primary evidence. He is scrupulous in laying out the methodological issues, and in noting, at every turn, the limits to his own procedure. In fact, he sets out impressively objective criteria for dealing even with such notoriously slippery and qualitative issues as those just listed above.
His hope is that both the data set and the number of civilizations under review is large enough that certain broad similarities AND dissimilarities will emerge despite the surface uncertainties.
A scholar with fewer scruples or a larger ego (-- that is, a tendency to want to “be right”, even when he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about --), or one with a less capacious mind could never have pulled this off.
But Trigger seems to have done just that.
All the adjectives on the back of the book (‘blurbs’): “the capstone of Trigger’s remarkable archaeological career”, “quite simply, a definitive work”, “monumental and magisterial” – all appear, at this juncture, at least, to be quite on the mark.
Finally, though the book is academic, and is shaped, in fact, (large pages) like a textbook – it is thoroughly readable, for the educated reader. His intelligence cuts through the muck and pretentions of academia on every page – in nearly every sentence.
The bulk of the rest of the book (chs. 5-27) consists of a compendium of information, drawn almost entirely at second-hand (that is, from the secondary literature; Trigger can only read Hierogplyphs of the seven cultures he studies) arranged by topic: Sociopolitical (Kingship; States - City and Territorial; Urbanism; Class Systems and Class Mobility, etc.); Economy (Food production - this turns out to be one of the most intersting sections and addresses more general problems than this title would suggest; Land Ownership; Trade, etc.); Cognitive and Symbolig Aspects (Supernatural, Cosmology, Cult, Priests, Elite Art, etc.). Then there is a concluding section on Culture and Reason and a Conclusion proper (chs. 28-29).
Because he covers so many topics and wants to compare the data from 7 different early civilizations in each topic, the compendium section reads almost like a laundery list, and is short on depth and analysis. It was somewhat disappointing. On the other hand, the book has a lengthy and marvelously up-to-date bibliography, and the serious student can follow Trigger to the secondary literature that he relies on with ease and confidence. This is not a trivial point.
What follows is my original report on chs. 1-4:
Though I’ve only read 10% of this book, the 10% that I’ve read is the long and critical section on method. This includes a discussion of the comparative method as such (a very controversial topic), definitions and categories (what is an ‘early civilization’ as opposed, say, to ‘advance preindustrial societies’), a broad survey of the main anthropological approaches and conceptions important today (socioanthropology, cultural evolution, neoevolutionists, the New Anthropology of Clifford Geertz and others), and of the general philosophical divisions between ‘rationalism’ and ‘postmodernism’ in the field of anthropology and cultural history. It is clear, fascination, and utterly persuasive. He has full mastery of his material. Moreover, he is sober (quite a rarity in Academia today) and has no special theoretical axe to grind. It also contains a great deal of up-to-date bibliography (42 pages worth), which allows the reader to follow up and pursue important studies on his own.
Trigger, himself, is thoroughly empirical in his approach, but does not endorse a narrowly “positivist epistemology”, recognizing (as he does; p. 62) that subjective biases inevitably inform both sources and interpretations – these being *precisely* the challenges that empirical investigation must seek to overcome.
No argument here.
This is a comparative study of seven early civilizations (Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt; Early Mesopotamia; Shang China; Maya; Inca; Azetc; and Yoruba – which he distinguishes (1) from pre-state ‘Chiefdoms’ (the difference being that pre-state ‘Chiefdoms’ are largely organized along kinship lines, whereas ‘early civilizations’ involve horizontal ‘class-based’, hierarchical structures [44f.]; he understands the objections to the use of the term ‘class’ in this context, however (see Patricia Crone), and has an interesting discussion of this point, explicitly using the term in a broader, rather than in a narrower and purely Marxist sense); and (2) from ‘advanced preindustrial civilizations’ (think: Classical Greece and Rome; Han China, Mauryan India, Medieval Islam, and Medieval and Early Modern Europe; see 48-51) – which differ from ‘early civilizations’ in that advanced preindustrial civilizations show the appearance of larger, more highly integrated market economies (which results from the introduction of the large-scale use of coinage, especially coinage of small value, which incorporates low-wage earners into a market and wage economy); a professionalization and growing institutional independence of the military; a desacralization of the natural world; and by the replacement of the sacral kingship with some forms of permanent or semi-permanent government [e.g., democracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, limited or absolute monarchies).
The book is then divided into three broad sections, in which he produces a large-scale comparative study of the Sociopolitical Organization (71-275), the Economy (279-406), and the Cognitive and Symbolic Aspects (409-650) of Early Civilizations – the aim being to discover what is uniform and what is variable.
But what is most important here, at this point, is that Trigger fully understands and expounds, in the clearest possible manner, the difficulties and challenges of the comparative method as such – a very controversial issue (ch. 2 = pp. 15-39).
Trigger insists (quite rightly) that any comparison must deal with items that have already been fully contextualized in their home culture (otherwise, comparison is little more than a random and uncontrolled play of ‘analogies’). This means that he first had to study each of the seven early civilizations on its own terms, as an internal whole. This is especially difficult, as he could only read ancient Egyptian. This meant working exhaustively with secondary sources, and finding sound and critical methods for determining both how much of this material to read and how to handle competing theories without simply ‘choosing sides’ in a debate where he cannot control the primary evidence. He is scrupulous in laying out the methodological issues, and in noting, at every turn, the limits to his own procedure. In fact, he sets out impressively objective criteria for dealing even with such notoriously slippery and qualitative issues as those just listed above.
His hope is that both the data set and the number of civilizations under review is large enough that certain broad similarities AND dissimilarities will emerge despite the surface uncertainties.
A scholar with fewer scruples or a larger ego (-- that is, a tendency to want to “be right”, even when he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about --), or one with a less capacious mind could never have pulled this off.
But Trigger seems to have done just that.
All the adjectives on the back of the book (‘blurbs’): “the capstone of Trigger’s remarkable archaeological career”, “quite simply, a definitive work”, “monumental and magisterial” – all appear, at this juncture, at least, to be quite on the mark.
Finally, though the book is academic, and is shaped, in fact, (large pages) like a textbook – it is thoroughly readable, for the educated reader. His intelligence cuts through the muck and pretentions of academia on every page – in nearly every sentence.
October 12, 2022
Another almost intimidatingly large archaeology book on a complex subject and another perfect read for me, although I am aware that this style of archaeological dissemination might not be for everyone. Understanding Early Civilizations explores the societal institutions, beliefs, and laws that governed seven of the world's most studied early civilizations from across the globe. It examines the similarities and dissimilarities between each of these early civilizations to discover which societal features should be considered universal, which should be considered to derive from other societal structures, and which are wholly idiosyncratic, taking on a different appearance in each society they emerge in. This is a mammoth project, hence the length of the book, and you're still left with the feeling that there is much more to say when you put the book down. Nevertheless, Bruce Trigger manages to stay on track throughout the book while never sacrificing detail or complexity for brevity. In total, what emerges is a highly engaging, fascinating and readable book, but one that really requires attention, interest and investment on the part of the reader.
April 2, 2018
Epic , detailed and in-depth look at seven different ancient civilizations.
February 20, 2017
I came across this book in the process of doing research for a world-building project I never got around to finishing. However, just reading this book was enough to have justified the world-building project. It's an incredibly detailed survey of seven "early civilizations": the Classical Mayans, the Aztecs, the Incas, early Old Kingdom Egypt, early Bronze Age China, Sumer, and nineteenth-century Yoruba states, along with a detailed discussion of the methodology needed to do useful comparative studies in archaeology. It goes into great detail on virtually every facet of life in these civilizations in an attempt to help understand the nature and origin of such societies in general.
Read
July 7, 2023See : A Complex of Ritual and Ideology
Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East
by
John L. Sorenson
Also https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/documents
Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East
by
John L. Sorenson
Also https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/documents
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews