It is cherry picked but I think that doesn't affect the value of the book.
Essentially the point of the book is: "it used to be uncontested that all human societies in the past functioned in a particular way and moved through certain phases of evolution but we show that in at least some cases, that was not the case". Since he's only trying to attack the absolute statement that all societies fit a certain pattern, finding even one counter-example (i.e. cherry picking) to a general rule still serves his purpose since he's digging for existence proofs and not establishing a new absolute of his own.
His political purpose (and he's completely open about this) is to show that human societies have already existed that followed all kinds of patterns and that therefore certain things that we consider inevitable and almost like laws of physics about human societies are choices and could be made in a different way.
It is cherry picked but I think that doesn't affect the value of the book.
Essentially the point of the book is: "it used to be uncontested that all human societies in the past functioned in a particular way and moved through certain phases of evolution but we show that in at least some cases, that was not the case". Since he's only trying to attack the absolute statement that all societies fit a certain pattern, finding even one counter-example (i.e. cherry picking) to a general rule still serves his purpose since he's digging for existence proofs and not establishing a new absolute of his own.
His political purpose (and he's completely open about this) is to show that human societies have already existed that followed all kinds of patterns and that therefore certain things that we consider inevitable and almost like laws of physics about human societies are choices and could be made in a different way.