[yourmatenate]

Is it your extensive research into anthropology that leads you to call this a "garbage essay"? Or could it be your resistance to some experts (admittedly not all, but many do agree with Graeber) looking at the evidence and finding that it raises interesting possibilities about hierarchal societies? In "The Dawn Of Everything" Graeber and Wengrow do address alternative views, and why they believe theirs has merit and is better supported by the evidence. So maybe this shorter essay just doesn't fulfil that need for you, and you'd be better off reading the whole book.

Scholars will focus on what they find of interest, and are not exempt from having personal ideologies, but I'd argue that the fact that Graeber acknowledges this (at least in more detailed treatments of the subject) makes him more interesting (and dare I say it reliable) than those who pretend or claim to be completely impartial.

On the other hand many of the objections to Graber and Wengrow (and notable others) conclusions have seemed have come from those who have strong personal biases in favour of hierarchy, negative views of human nature, fundamentalist religious beliefs, or positive views of capitalism. So this gives me good reason to be suspicious of their motives or perspective (especially when they don't acknowledge them, or consider their presumption beyond challenge).

[aestetix]

> Is it your extensive research into anthropology that leads you to call this a "garbage essay"?

No, it is the shift from theory to assumed fact which makes me call it garbage.

If the essay said: "What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were likely organized"

Instead of: "What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized"

I would not have the same objection. The addition of the word "likely" makes a world of difference.