Dawn of everything is exquisitely quoted, everything has a source and a sound argument, like if Graeber really expected these people to go after him. Now, abou

Dawn of everything is exquisitely quoted, everything has a source and a sound argument, like if Graeber really expected these people to go after him. Now, about the 'anarchism', I don't feel that at all. He simply is having a non euro-western centric viewpoint, and that's precisely the underlying theme of the book. Most of the time he chooses to highlight a source that has largely been ignored by the academics, for not being European or maintaining the status quo. So he is actually the only one not ignoring contrary evidence. If the other anthropologists want a good refutation, I welcome their books with their own explanations and analysis of these anthropological findings.