Two white people employing the modern, western view of history as a single, all-encompassing, chronological collection of facts, ignores the multiplicity of conceptions of history, which either were destroyed and erased by colonization, or that remain but are not taken into account because they don't play nicely with the colonial concept of time and history. This can be done out of well-meaning ignorance of one's own biases, or because it doesn't serve the purposes of the work. It's not malicious on its own.

The problem is not acknowledging this shortcoming, especially when one presents oneself as a sort of authority in the field of anthropology (which I don't deny Graeber and and Wengrow are/were), and when one uses anthropological, ethnographic, and archeological research to support one's claims. Furthermore, the author takes special issue with the instrumentalization of a second hand account of the thoughts of a prominent Native American person as an avatar of their whole community, and of their collective knowledge as a whole. In short, it's ahistorical and Great Man Theory, only used for BIPOC people instead of old white men.

Besides, I think it's a fair criticism that claiming that native american peoples, or any indigenous peoples for that matter, have concepts that can be one-to-one translated to a modern/post-modern framework is fundamentally flawed. For example, the fact that we take for granted that we all agree on what 'freedom' means, and how that concept is constructed (to whom it applies, to individuals or communities, whether it applies only to humans or also to nonhumans and nonliving things), is a common colonizing thought pitfall in which one can easily go into because we just don't give the same value and consideration to anything outside the western, modern framework in which we are embedded.