This is actually a thought-provoking book and a must read. History as taught today is very much misunderstood/skewed/euro-centric and many times plain wrong. The wikipedia page itself gives the highlights and worth reading.
A very good example comes from India itself i.e. "The Paradox of Indian History" which is the dichotomy between Archeological Evidence (Indus Valley, Ashoka's inscriptions etc.) vs. Literary Evidence (Puranas, Itihasas etc.) Add to this the linguistic diversities, group/ethnic diversities and successive waves of invasions and displacements and it is enough to drive a Historian mad/happy depending upon how you look at it. The literary/linguistic evidence paints a picture of very advanced societies while the archeological evidence paints a distinctly different but again advanced societies.
Hence studies like the OP's submission are very much needed and welcome.
Something should be noted: equality didn't save them. They grew more equal, maybe. But that couldn't save them from barbaric hordes/drought/a combination of these or more.
They became extinct.
To an "educated", emotional mind guarded in a safe place, economic prosperity, the tenets of equality might show promise, but, they might ultimately be sans utility when seen from the lens of survival, thriving, etc.
The dichotomy between "Civilization" and "Barbarism" is longstanding. The writer Robert Howard said;
“Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.”
Here by "Civilzation" i mean explicitly; philosophical ideas/frameworks, societal beliefs/structures/traditions etc. far beyond what is needed for mere survival. For example, Buddhism took the idea of Ahimsa from Hinduism (where its limitations were known) and turned it into the utopian idea of complete non-violence which was then made state policy in kingdoms of North India and current-day Pakistam/Afghanistan. The result was that they fell easily to the islamic barbarians who played by a different set of rules.
What we need is Civilization but with the necessary Barbaric tendencies assuring survival (i.e. procreation and societal self-defense) still maintained.
Note here that this idea has been corrupted by western countries during their colonial rule time period. So you have to be careful to disambiguate legitimate ideas from overt/covert racism.
A very good example comes from India itself i.e. "The Paradox of Indian History" which is the dichotomy between Archeological Evidence (Indus Valley, Ashoka's inscriptions etc.) vs. Literary Evidence (Puranas, Itihasas etc.) Add to this the linguistic diversities, group/ethnic diversities and successive waves of invasions and displacements and it is enough to drive a Historian mad/happy depending upon how you look at it. The literary/linguistic evidence paints a picture of very advanced societies while the archeological evidence paints a distinctly different but again advanced societies.
Hence studies like the OP's submission are very much needed and welcome.