…drawing also on primatology and evolutionary studies.  Some interesting points, although a bit long-winded and a bit too concerned with the authors' own political bona fides.

My conclusion, after looking at the many discussions we have noted here previously, is that the book's scholarship does not support its conclusions and ambitions, and that the book (and much of its favorable reception) has been tainted by ideological bias.  (An interesting aside:  the popular mythology is that Graeber was denied tenure at Yale because of his political activism, not the quality of his work; but in the succeeding years, many other U.S. departments took a pass, including the New School, and it was not because his politics were out of sync with those prevalent in anthropology there.)

(Thanks to Chris Morris for the pointer to the new critique, linked above.)

UPDATE:  My oversight, reader Enoch Lambert had in fact flagged this critique in the earlier thread.