I have been looking for more resources on Kandiaronk ever since I read it as well and what I've been left to grapple with are the critical reviews of Graber and Wengrow's second chapter, so that is what I'll share here. Said critiques rely heavily on assuming that Lahontan, the author of The Dialogues, the work that entails the conversations between Lahontan and Kandiaronk in which Kandiaronk lays out his criticism of European society, was the creator of the critiques of European society that Graeber and Wengrow ascribe to Kandiaronk. David Bell, an American historian who wrote this critique of the chapter, claims that Lahontan used Kandiaronk as a literary device to carry his own critiques of European society, as many written philosophical works in Europe at the time were written as fictional stories and used a literary tradition Anthony Pagden calls the “savage critic.” Although there are cases of this type of writing being used, it is wildly ahistorical for Bell to assume Lahontan was engaging in this kind of writing. Why would Lahontan, a French soldier with no notoriety as an intellectual in Europe prior to the release of his The Dialogues, intentionally frame his own criticisms of Europe as that of a Native American? Even Bell acknowledges that in Lahontan's work, the fictional character Adairo, who frequently repels Lahontan's articulations of the superiority of Christianity and Europe, was most likely Kandiorank. There is no evidence that supports the idea that Lahontan created a dialogue between him and someone who by even critiques accounts was loosely based on Kandiorank as his own besides thinking since other authors did, we can assume Lahontan did as well. The evidence for Adairo representing Kandiaronk is building, but not concrete either - take the work 'Native American Speakers of the Eastern Woodlands', by Barbara Alice Mann, which Bell even uses himself and attempts to dispute using the following logic- Mann argued that the “flat dismissal” of the Dialogues as an authentic transcript of a Native American voice reflected racism and a “western sneer.” She argues that in fact a “beguiled Lahontan” took elaborate notes as he conversed with Kandiaronk, and then later put them together into the Dialogues. But what is Mann’s principal evidence? In her book, she triumphantly quotes Lahontan himself: “When I was in the village of this [Native] American, I took on the agreeable task of carefully noting all his arguments. No sooner had I returned from my trip to the Canadian lakes than I showed my manuscript to Count Frontenac, who was so pleased to read it that he made the effort to help me put these Dialogues into their present state.” The case seems irrefutable, except for one important point: These words come from the preface to the Dialogues themselves.

So, Bell's critique of Mann's framing of The Dialogues relies upon the same guesswork he criticizes Graber and Wengrow of committing. The evidence suggests The Dialogues are a verbatim account of the debates between Kandiaronk and Lahontan. To act as if a colonial soldier looking to spread Christianity would come up with these critiques himself, after meeting with Kandiaronk, who we know was an incredible orator and brilliant statesman, (for more on him look here) is a line of thought consistent with the Western chauvinism Graeber and Wengrow looked to dispel and it's emergence can be attributed to a reflex reaction from historians who have based their work off a certain story of European enlightenment. What The Dawn of Everything shows us is that the origin of enlightenment ideals are more murky than previously thought, and that we should continue to question the seemingly concrete ways we tell the story of our civilization and how it is set up.