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).
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.
Actual ancient historians will look at sites, and based on the evidence found, come up with plausible theories to explain what transpired. These theories are based partly on the evidence, and partly on what we know about other events and sites from around the same timeframe.
Graeber, Harrari, and others take these theories, inject their personal biases, and present them as facts. For example:
> What this new evidence shows is that a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized along robustly egalitarian lines. In some regions, we now know, urban populations governed themselves for centuries without any indication of the temples and palaces that would later emerge; in others, temples and palaces never emerged at all, and there is simply no evidence of a class of administrators or any other sort of ruling stratum.
Notice how he took a lack of evidence of temples and palaces, and proceeded to say that the cities were egalitarian. Based on what? What if those societies had temples structured differently than what you would expect, or if their temples were destroyed by outside invaders? And beyond that, there is an implied claim that you either have temples, or you are egalitarian, with no mix in between.
This level of non-scholarship reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes bit where Calvin claimed that "bats are bugs" and proceeded to write up an entire school essay on the topic.