SAArchaeological record
A naRchY
S O C I E T Y
F O R
aNd
A rch A E o log Y
A M E R I C A N
A R C H A E O L O G Y
The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology
Volume 17, No. 1
January 2017
Editor’s Corner
2
Anna Marie Prentiss
From the President
3
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, RPA
In Brief
5
Tobi A. Brimsek
Volunteer Profile: Susan deFrance
6
The Importance of Archaeology in
Vancouver and Beyond
7
Andrew Martindale
special section: anarchy and archaeology
An Introduction to Anarchism in Archaeology
9
Cycles of Resistance
17
John R. Welch
Anarchist Theory Advances
Anthropology’s Humanistic Mission
20
David Pacifico
Assembling Conceptual Tools to Examine the Moral
and Political Structures of the Past
22
Carole Crumley
Anarchy and Self-Liberation
24
Charles E. Orser Jr.
Against Typology: A Critical Approach to
Archaeological Order
28
Edward R. Henry, Bill Angelbeck, and Uzma Z. Rizvi
Phantasmal Futures, Speculative Titles
31
James Birmingham
An Anarchist Archaeology for the Anthropocene:
A Manifesto
33
Theresa Kintz
Anarchy and Archaeology:
Toward a Decentralization of Knowledge
37
James Arias Fajardo and Sophie Marie Rotermund
Anarchic Theory and the Study of Hunter-Gatherers
39
Matthew C. Sanger
Remembering the Ghosts of
Wolf, Mauss, and Pritchard
42
Lindsay M. Montgomery
In Memoriam: Robert Leland Smith
45
Richard E. Hughes
Lewis Borck and Matthew C. Sanger
On the cover: Ceramic sherds, trowels, folding rule, and
theory. “Anarchaeology” by Lewis Borck can be reused
under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
AN INTRODUCTION TO ANARCHISM
IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Lewis Borck and Matthew C. Sanger
Lewis Borck is a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Archaeology at the Universiteit Leiden and a postdoctoral preservation fellow at Archaeology
Southwest. Matthew C. Sanger is an assistant professor at Binghamton University.
A
rchaeologists are increasingly interested in anarchist
theory, yet there is a notable disconnect between our
discipline and the deep philosophical tradition of
anarchism. This special issue of the SAA Archaeological
Record is an attempt to both rectify popular notions of anarchism as being synonymous with chaos and disorder and to
suggest the means by which anarchist theory can be a useful
lens for research and the practice of archaeology.
Popular notions of anarchists and anarchism can be found
in movies, television shows, and a variety of other media. In
many of these representations, governments collapse and
violence erupts when society attempts to operate without
leaders. While the Greek root of anarchy is an (without) arkhos (leaders), this does not necessarily entail lack of order.
Indeed, the Western philosophical tradition of anarchism
was born out of an interest in how individuals could form
cooperative social groups without coercion. Instead of chaos
being implicit, anarchism assumes a level of order and cooperation among consenting parties.
Interest in voluntary organization has a lengthy history (Marshall 1992) and predates the first use of the term anarchism
in Western thought. However, by 1793 Godwin published
Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness and discussed how an anarchist
society might be organized. This was followed by Kant’s 1798
definition of anarchy as a form of government entailing law
and freedom without force in Anthropology from a Pragmatic
Point of View. But the term was not formalized until Pierre
Joseph Proudhon’s 1840 book, What Is Property? An Enquiry
into the Principle of Right and of Government. Eventually the
word anarchism was popularized by Mikhail Bakunin and
others in the 1800s.
In reaction to the rising authority of the capitalist elites in
Europe, anarchists, specifically Proudhon and Bakunin,
argued that the average individual was quickly becoming
subsumed under the industrialist state and that human freedoms were being lost to authoritarian rule. Anarchism, said
Proudhon and Bakunin, was the rejection of elitism and
authoritarianism and the creation of a new social body where
“freedom is indissolubly linked to equality and justice in a
society based on reciprocal respect for individual rights”
(Dolgoff 1971:5).
If this seems similar to Marxist socialism, it’s because the
two exist on a continuum with anarchism as a libertarian
form of socialism on the end opposite Marxism (Chomsky
2005:123). Both Proudhon and Bakunin were correspondents, if not friends, with Karl Marx until an eventual falling
out between the two philosophical camps. While Marxism
and anarchism were both concerned with the formation of
fair and just societies where individuals were not alienated
from their labors and could live their lives free from the
oppression of an elite class, anarchism understood power as
emerging from a range of factors, only some of which were
the economic and material principles favored by Marxists.
Perhaps more importantly, the two also differed on how best
to transform society. In contrast to Marxism, in which revolution proceeds in stages and relies on state authority to
enact the eventual transformation into communalism, anarchism requires that liberation proceeds in a manner that
reflects the end goal—meaning state-level authority had to
be rejected from the outset. This grew from the anarchist
idea that societies are prefigured, which is to say they emerge
from the practices that create them. Instead of the ends justifying the means, anarchists believe that that the means create the ends. But also that the means in some way are the
ends. The two are simultaneous. The ends are process.
Although long disregarded by most academics (and the history of how Marxism flourished while anarchism did not is
an interesting one), anarchist writers have built up an
impressive body of work over the last 200 years. As an
January 2017 • The SAA Archaeological Record
9
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism is difficult to circumscribe and define. Nonetheless, anarchism is tied together by
an interest in self-governance, equality of entitlement, and
voluntary power relations marked by reciprocity and unfettered association (Call 2002; McLaughlin 2007). One of the
central interests driving anarchist thought is how to organize
in the absence of institutionalized leadership. Whether it’s
order through respect of each individual’s rights and humanity or order as supported through rules worked out in a committee format, anarchism is often about order, albeit very
vocal, disruptive, heterogeneous order.
Global North that has often unintentionally excluded many
of the voices it was interested in supporting and amplifying.
Anarchism in the Global South has been much more inclusive, and anarchist theory there has blossomed by both questioning the primacy of hierarchy as the desired model of a
complex society and engaging in the larger program of decolonizing sociopolitical systems (for example, the Rojava
autonomous zone in northern Syria [Enzinna 2015; Weinberg 2015] and Aymara community organization in Bolivia
[Zibechi 2010]). On a global scale, a more heterovocal and
simultaneous package of anarchist thought has emerged that
includes, intersects, and/or supports feminist, indigenous,
Western, and Global South philosophical traditions.
Clastres’s 1974 publication of Society Against the State was a
watershed moment for anarchism in anthropology; yet it is
only since the publication of works by
Anarchy and Archaeology
James C. Scott and David Graeber that
increasing numbers of anthropologists
While anarchism has positively influThe separation of means and
have begun to apply anarchist theory to
enced many social science disciplines,
ends was . . . false. For her . . .
their research. Initially, anthropologiit has yet to be widely applied within
cal use of anarchist theory was divided
archaeology. To date, the few explicit
there was no end. There was
between those studying groups with
and published uses of anarchist theory
process: process was all. You
acephalous sociopolitical organization
within archaeology include work by
and those who desired to bring anar- could go in a promising direction Fowles (2010), Angelbeck and Grier
chist thought and actions into anthroor you could go wrong, but you (2012), Flexner (2014), Morgan (2015),
pological practice. Bringing this
Wengrow and Graeber (2015), and disdid not set out with the
research and practice into dialogue
sertations by Sanger (2015) and Borck
expectation of ever stopping
with one another has proven useful
(2016), as well as some discussion by
(e.g., articles in High 2012), and anarGonzález-Ruibal (2012, 2014). These
anywhere.
chist theory is advancing new ideas,
examples are followed up by the recent
—Ursula K. Le Guin,
practices, and interpretations within
publication on Savage Minds of a
The Dispossessed
anthropology (Barclay 1982; Clastres
framework for an anarchist archaeol2007 [1974]; Graeber 2004; Macdonald
ogy entitled “Foundations of an Anar2013; Maskovsky 2013; Scott 2009).
chist Archaeology: A Community
Manifesto” that was written by a non-hierarchy of authors
In recent years, anarchist theory has found a new foothold in
(Black Trowel Collective 2016).
many other disciplines as well, especially geography (e.g.,
Springer 2016), political economy (e.g., Stringham 2005), sociAnarchist theory’s absence in our discipline is particularly
ology (e.g., Shantz and Williams 2013), material culture studinteresting since resistance to authority has a long history of
ies (e.g., Birmingham 2013), English (e.g., Cohn 2006), and
study in archaeology. Many recognize that the establishment
indigenous studies (e.g., Coulthard 2014). The utility of anarof decentralized social relations is not a “natural” condition
chist theory, in many ways, is built on the same scaffold as its
but rather requires significant effort (e.g., Trigger 1990). In
practice. Free association of multiple disciplines and theories
small-scale societies, authority is often resisted through levare possible. This confluence of praxis works because, as
eling mechanisms including ostracism, fissioning, public
Lasky (2011:4) notes when discussing the intersection of femdisgrace, and violence (Cashdan 1980; Woodburn 1982).
inism, anarchism, and indigenism, “this interplay of diverse
Within larger societies, archaeologists have suggested a varitraditions, what some are calling ‘anarch@indigenism,’
ety of ways in which power relations can arise in decentral(Alfred et al. 2007), forges intersectional analysis and fosters a
ized forms, including sequential hierarchies (Johnson 1982)
praxis to de-center and un-do multiple axes of oppression.”
and heterarchies (Crumley 1995; see also McGuire and Saitta
1996). The archaeological study of decentralized power strucThis is a much-needed reflexive collaboration. Anarchist thetures and active resistance to authority has become increasory has been a very white and male-centered space in the
ingly common (Conlee 2004; Dueppen 2012; Hutson 2002)
10
The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2017
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
and often benefits from Marxist, postcolonial, feminist, and
indigenous critiques that highlight the importance of class,
gender, and race in formulating power structures.
Considering the history of concern over the control of
power and the growth of inequity appears as ancient as
human society (e.g., Wengrow and Graeber 2015), these
overlaps with anarchism are unsurprising. Anarchist historians have even taken parallel interests such as these to
argue that anarchism is quite ancient. Kropotkin (1910)
contended that the early philosophical underpinnings for
anarchism could be seen in writings by the sixth-century
BC Taoist Laozi and with Zeno (fourth century BC) and the
Hellenistic Stoic tradition. Others have argued that Christ
in the New Testament is a fundamentally anarchist figure
(Woodcock 1962:38 citing Lechartier) and that Al-Asamm
and the Mu’tazilites were Muslim anarchists in the ninth
century AD (Crone 2000). But instead of early strains of
anarchism, Woodcock has argued that anarchist historians
and theorists are identifying “attitudes which lie at the core
of anarchism—faith in the essential decency of man, a
desire for individual freedom, an intolerance of domination” (1962:39).
In some ways it is an act of theoretical and philosophical colonization to label anyone interested in contesting power or
emancipation of the individual as anarchist, and since anarchism thrives in a multivocal environment, it should be antithetical as well. Researchers have recognized this in various
ways. Patricia Crone (2000) burns through a bit of text noting
that the Mu’tazilites were anarchist not because they subscribed to anarchist thought, but because they thought society
could function without the state. Anarchist archaeologists
often recognize the simultaneity of these fellow travelers with
the term anarchic to avoid co-opting modes of thought and
action that are not explicitly anarchist.1 Thus anarchic is like
anarchism but not explicitly of it.
For example, in her article “The Establishment and Defeat of
Hierarchy” (2004), Barbara Mills contends that the creation
and caretaking of inalienable possessions evidence human
processes that serve to generate and reinforce social hierarchy through religious practice. She combines that with an
understanding of radical power dynamics wherein hierarchy
is contested through the destruction of the material signature of that ritual inequality. While not a product of anarchist
thought, her article nicely captures anarchic principles
through the theoretical lens of materialism.
As another example, Robert L. Bettinger’s book, Orderly
Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal California,
drawing on the “ordered anarchy” described by Sir E. E.
Evans-Prichard in The Nuer, is a study of how decentralized
power structures formed and functioned among Native
American groups in precolonial California. Bettinger’s work
can also be considered an anarchic study, since he seeks to
understand how governance without government can be
accomplished, yet does not draw on anarchist theory.
And there is a host of other fellow travelers. These include
the recent Punk Archaeology book published by Caraher and
colleagues (2014); Sassaman’s (2001) work on mobility as an
act of resistance to state building; Creese’s (2016) work on
consensus-based, non-hierarchical polities in the Late Woodland period of eastern North America; and complexity scientists within archaeology (sensu Maldonado and
Mezza-Garcia 2016; Ward 1996 [1973]). While not explicitly
anarchist, these examples all demonstrate that anarchic
ideas are more prominent than many realize.2
Anarchy and Studying the Past
So-called middle-range societies have traditionally been
offered little agentive powers within archaeological research.
They are often seen as acting under the whims of greater
entities (climate, neighboring “complex” groups, etc.).
Archaeological chronologies are littered with Intermediate,
Transitional, and other terms for periods of dissolution and
“de-evolution,” many of which are given little interpretive
precedence in comparison to Classical, Formative, and periods otherwise marked by hierarchical “fluorescence.”
Anarchist theory, with its focus on social alienation and a
questioning of political representation, offers unique
insights into these periods. Indeed, traditional archaeological chronologies are turned on their heads when reframed
using anarchist theory. Periods of cultural disorganization,
collapse, and disintegration are instead seen as points of
potential societal growth and freedom. Anarchist theory
questions the base concept that “simplicity” is the starting
point and that only “complexity” is achieved. Instead, equivalent power relations are recognized as requiring tremendous amounts of effort to establish and maintain. As such,
archaeologists utilizing anarchism conceptualize and interpret “simple” societies in new ways to the extent they are
seen as earned through direct action and actively produced
through entrenched practices, ideologies, and social institutions. And hierarchical, or complex, societies can be viewed
as ones that emerge when social institutions that minimize
or limit self-aggrandizement break down (e.g., Borck 2016).
Instead of being constructed by purposeful actions of elite
individuals, these top-down societies may grow like weeds
January 2017 • The SAA Archaeological Record
11
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
from cracks spreading in the social processes meant to limit
aggrandizement.
The contestation of the dominance of hierarchy is also one of
the reasons why anarchist archaeologies are also often decolonizing archaeologies. They challenge the implicit idea that
states are the pinnacle of society and “rather than seeing
non-state societies as deviant, the exception to the rule, we
might begin to look at examples of anarchic societies as
adaptive and progressive along alternative trajectories with
historical mechanisms in place designed to maintain relative
degrees of equality, rather than simply those who haven’t yet
made it to statehood” (Flexner 2014:83).
Anarchism and Archaeological Practice
Much like other social critiques (e.g., feminism, Marxism,
postcolonial, queer), anarchist theory is applicable not only
to our interpretations of past peoples but also to our discipline as a whole. For decades, archaeologists have been
increasingly concerned with developing projects that are
more inclusive, collaborative, responsive, and reflexive.
Archaeologists have called for changes in field methods,
publication practices, and interpretive stances in order to
produce a discipline with fewer boundaries, decreased centralization of authority, and increased equality of representation (Atalay 2006; Berggren and Hodder 2003; ColwellChanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Conkey 2005; Gero and
Wright 1996; Silliman 2008; Watkins 2005). Anarchist theory
has been applied to similar restructuring projects within
education, sociocultural anthropology, and sociology (e.g.,
Ferrell 2009; Haworth 2012). In each of these projects, collaborative engagement and informational transparency were
increased as researchers restructured their practices around
anarchist ideals to focus on free access to information and
democratization of decision-making.
Anarchist theory can also be used to scrutinize heritage management decisions and to offer insights into how practices
might be revitalized, revolutionized, or entirely reframed. As
a brief example, examining UNESCO cultural preservation
decisions in North America leads to deep questions about
what Western society valorizes and what type of history we
are creating through heritage preservation decisions.
Out of the 47 UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites in
North America,3 only four (9 percent) can best be described as
horizontally organized (Figure 1).4,5 This low number does not
accurately reflect the history of this continent since much
more than 9 percent of human history in North America consisted of horizontally organized governance (although see
12
Wengrow and Graeber 2015 and Sanger this issue for a discussion of the problems with assuming all Neolithic groups are
“simply” egalitarian). It is arguable that these sociopolitical
organization preservation decisions arise out of a form of statist ethnocentrism that makes it conceptually difficult to envision complex modes of organization that are not hierarchical.
Indeed, if we continue at present pace, we risk erasing our
past through political biases embedded in heritage preservation value judgments. Without more representative, or at least
balanced, decisions, our shared history will mostly be one of
hierarchical societies: the present re-created in the past.
Many archaeologists are also very concerned with the intersection of archaeology and pedagogy, especially in regard to
the ways archaeologists teach about the past in the classroom, at field schools, and through mentoring. Scholars of
engaged pedagogy have long commented on the detrimental
effects hierarchical forms of teaching produce in diverse student populations (e.g., Freire 1993; hooks 2003). Anarchist
thinkers also have a long tradition with pedagogical experimentation (e.g., Godwin 1793; Goldman 1906; Stirner 1967)
and suggest ways in which learning can benefit from decentralized authority, individuated experimentation, and situated learning (Haworth 2012; Suissa 2010; Ward 1996).
Anarchism also provides important insights regarding the
way we engage with modern communities. Collaborative
projects informed by anarchism aim to shed traditional hierarchical posturing and instead integrate stakeholders
throughout the research process. Applied to work with
descendant communities, this approach can also serve to
decolonize the research relationship, as well as archaeological research in general.
Anarchism’s central concern with unequal power structures
also provides a useful framework for examining the division
between specialists (professionals) and nonspecialists (amateurs) and challenges the control of information within the
discipline. Anarchist frameworks may help to dismantle the
normative divide between archaeologists (framed as producers and interpreters of the past) and the public (thought of as
passive consumers of archaeological narratives). This also
means that, as knowledge holders, archaeologists need to
answer some difficult questions about what it means to be a
specialist. Edward Said (1993) was grappling with just this
question when he wrote that “an amateur is what today the
intellectual ought to be.”
Critical to both anarchist archaeological theories and practices is a philosophical commitment to decentralizing power
relations and building a more inclusive discipline. This
The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2017
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Social Organization of North American
UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites
Mexican
Social Organizaon of North American UNESCO Cultural Sites
USA
7%
9%
9%
93%
91%
Canadian
91%
12.5%
87.5%
Horizontal
Vertical
Figure 1. Proportions of North American UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites that are organized horizontally and vertically.
includes a destabilization of Western conceptions of science,
time, and heritage that are often employed to legitimize the
practice of archaeology in the broader political sphere. Using
an anarchist lens, non-Western or nonnormative worldviews, ontologies, epistemologies, and valuations are given
equal footing, both in terms of interpreting the past and in
the formation of current practices. Here again, anarchist theory intersects and parallels many queer, indigenous, and
feminist critiques.
quency, and effectiveness) by which we might be able to better describe and compare resistance efforts that he then
applies to Apaches relations with Spanish, Mexican, and US
forces. The dynamism allowed through the applications of
these variables allows Welch to better clarify the means by
which the Apaches combatted colonial forces as well as offering insights into how anarchism is not a single mindset,
practice, or goal—but is rather a concept that we apply to the
world in order to better understand it.
Archaeology is particularly well suited to engage with, and
benefit from, anarchist theory since we often study non-state
societies, points of political dissolution, active rejections of
authority by past peoples, and the accrual of power by elites
and institutions. Likewise, the restructuring of our discipline
to be more inclusive is certainly underway. Anarchist theory
can provide a new philosophical grounding by which archaeologists can reframe their engagements with the past, with
students, descendant peoples, the engaged public, and each
other in ways that will redistribute authority and empower
individuals and communities often relegated to the margins
of our discipline.
Carol Crumley builds on Welch’s work by arguing that anarchist archaeology, or anarchaeology, is a moral and ethical
activity, designed to critique uneven power structures and
offer alternative understandings of the past as well as the
present. Crumley argues that traditional notions of progress
from simplicity to complexity are beginning to crumble and
that in their stead, a better understanding of collective action
and governance is emerging.
The articles in this issue take on some of these contexts.
John Welch begins the discussion by thinking about how
resistance can be implemented and centralized authority
combatted in his complementary narrative to Spicer’s Cycles
of Conquest. Welch offers a series of variables (scale, fre-
The piece by Edward Henry, Bill Angelbeck, and Uzma Z.
Rizvi likewise focuses on the practice of archaeology, arguing
that an anarchist approach offers a greater degree of epistemological freedom in our research, including at its most basic
level—the creation and application of typologies. When
applied as essential and timeless, typologies restrict our
understanding of the past and end up reifying themselves as
objects of study. Instead, Henry et al. argue that typologies
must remain experimental, fluid, and above all else—
January 2017 • The SAA Archaeological Record
13
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
relational, by which they argue archaeologists ought to apply
typologies that foreground connections between phenomena.
Theresa Kintz continues the focus on the practice of archaeology, both in the present and as a vision of the future if anarchist principles are brought into the discipline. Using
evocative language, Kintz looks at the practice of archaeology
through many paths: in the field, at museums, through CRM
reports, with indigenous communities, and among academic
archaeologists. By suggesting we are currently living in an
age of rapid environmental change caused by humans—the
Anthropocene—Kintz argues that the unique point of view
offered by archaeologists is of critical importance as it offers
alternative ways of living in the world.
Matthew Sanger concludes the issue by using anarchist theory to redirect what he sees as an overexuberance in the
study of hunter-gatherer complexity. Sanger suggests that a
preoccupation with studying complexity has resulted in an
underappreciation of balanced power relations in many nonagrarian communities as these egalitarian structures are
thought to be natural and to require little work to maintain.
Instead, Sanger argues that “simple” hunter-gatherers often
create, promote, and preserve anarchic ideals through acts of
counter-power—acts that often predate the emergence of
centralized authority and are indeed the means by which
such authority often fails to take hold.
Finally, the “Many Voices in Anarchist Archaeology” sidebars
are an assembly of archaeologists and material culture scholars engaged in the development of applications for an anarchist archaeology. There is no theme. Authors were given full
sway to write for themselves as anarchist archaeologists.
These pieces are meant to provide an appreciation for the
breadth of anarchism and to highlight how it is becoming
more widely applied within the discipline.
References Cited
Alfred, Taiaiake, Richard Day, and Glen Sean Coulthard
2007 Anarcho-Indigenism. In Indigenous Leadership Forum. University of Victoria, BC.
Angelbeck, Bill, and Colin Grier
2012 Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies:
Resistance to Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the
Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology 53(5):547–587.
Atalay, Sonya
2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):280–310.
Barclay, Harold B.
1982 People without Government. Kahn & Averill with Cienfuegos
Press, London.
14
Berggren, Åsa, and Ian Hodder
2003 Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field
Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:421–434.
Bettinger, Robert L.
2015 Orderly Anarchy: Sociopolitical Evolution in Aboriginal California. University of California Press, Oakland.
Birmingham, James
2013 From Potsherds to Smartphones: Anarchism, Archaeology,
and the Material World. In Without Borders or Limits: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Anarchist Studies, edited by Jorell A.
Meléndez Badillo and Nathan J. Jun, pp. 165–176. Cambridge
Scholars Press, London.
Black Trowel Collective
2016 “Foundations of an Anarchist Archaeology: A Community
Manifesto.” Savage Minds (blog) 31 October. Electronic document, http://savageminds.org/2016/10/31/foundations-of-ananarchist-archaeology-a-community-manifesto/, accessed
December 11, 2016.
Borck, Lewis
2016 Lost Voices Found: An Archaeology of Contentious Politics
in the Greater Southwest, A.D. 1100–1450. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Call, Lewis
2002 Postmodern Anarchism. Lexington Books, Lanham, Maryland.
Caraher, William R., Kostis Kourelis, and Andrew Reinhard (editors)
2014 Punk Archaeology. Digital Press at the University of North
Dakota, Grand Forks.
Cashdan, Elizabeth A.
1980 Egalitarianism among Hunters and Gatherers. American
Anthropologist 82(1):116–120.
Chomsky, Noam
2005 Chomsky on Anarchsim. AK Press, Chico, California.
Clastres, Pierre
2007 [1974] Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology. 6th ed. Zone Books, New York.
Cohn, Jesse S.
2006 Anarchism and the Crisis of Representation: Hermeneutics,
Aesthetics, Politics. Susquehanna University Press, Selinsgrove,
Pennsylvania.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson
2008 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson,
pp. 1–32. AltaMira Press, New York.
Conkey, Margaret W.
2005 Dwelling at the Margins, Action at the Intersection? Feminist and Indigenous Archaeologies. Archaeologies 1(1):9–59.
Conlee, Christina A.
2004 The Expansion, Diversification, and Segmentation of
Power in Late Prehispanic Nasca. Archeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 14(1):211–223.
The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2017
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Coulthard, Glen Sean
2014 Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of
Recognition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Creese, John Laurence
2016 Emotion Work and the Archaeology of Consensus: The
Northern Iroquoian Case. World Archaeology 48(1):14–34.
Crone, Patricia
2000 Ninth-Century Muslim Anarchists. Past & Present (167):3–
28.
Crumley, Carole L.
1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6(1):1–5.
Dolgoff, Sam
1971 Introduction. In Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the
Activist-Founder of World Anarchism, edited by Sam Dolgoff, pp.
3–21. Vintage Books, New York.
Dueppen, Stephen A.
2012 From Kin to Great House: Inequality and Communalism
at Iron Age Kirikongo, Burkina Faso. American Antiquity 77:3–
39.
Enzinna, Wes
2015 A Dream of Secular Utopia in ISIS’ Backyard. New York
Times 24 November. Electronic document,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-ofutopia-in-hell.html, accessed December 12, 2016.
Ferrell, Jeff
2009 Against Method, Against Authority . . . For Anarchy. In
Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of
Anarchy in the Academy, edited by Randall Amster, Abraham
DeLeon, Luis A. Fernandez, Anthony J. Nocella II, and Deric
Shannon, pp. 73–81. Routledge, New York.
Flexner, James L.
2014 The Historical Archaeology of States and Non-States: Anarchist Perspectives from Hawai’i and Vanuatu. Journal of Pacific
Archaeology 5(2):81–97.
Fowles, Severin
2010 A People’s History of the American Southwest. In Ancient
Complexities: New Perspectives in Pre-Columbian North America,
edited by Susan Alt, pp. 183–204. University of Utah Press,
Provo.
Freire, Paulo
1993 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, New York.
Gero, Joan, and Rita P. Wright
1996 Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with
Field Data. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by Rita P. Wright,
pp. 251–280. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Godwin, William
1793 An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on
General Virtue and Happiness. G. G. and J. Robinson, PaternosterRow, London.
González-Ruibal, Alfredo
2012 Against Post-Politics: A Critical Archaeology for the 21st
Century. Forum Kritische Archäologie 1:157–166.
2014 An Archaeology of Resistance: Materiality and Time in an
African Borderland. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Goldman, Emma
1906 The Child and Its Enemies. Mother Earth 1(2):7–13.
Graeber, David
2004 Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Prickly Paradigm
Press, Chicago.
Haworth, Robert H.
2012 Anarchist Pedagogies: Collective Actions, Theories, and Critical
Reflections on Education. PM Press, Oakland, California.
High, Holly
2012 Anthropology and Anarchy: Romance, Horror or Science
Fiction? Critique of Anthropology 32(2):93–108.
hooks, bell
2003 Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. Routledge, New
York.
Hutson, Scott R.
2002 Built Space and Bad Subjects: Domination and Resistance
at Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Social Archaeology
2(1):53–80.
Johnson, Gregory A.
1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and
Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited
by Colin Renfrew, Michael Rowlands, and Barbara A. SegravesWhallon, pp. 389–421. Academic Press, New York.
Kant, Immanuel
1996 [1798] Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Kropotkin, Peter
1910 Anarchism. In Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 1, pp. 914–
919. 11th ed. Encyclopædia Britannica, New York.
Lasky, Jacqueline
2011 Indigenism, Anarchism, Feminism: An Emerging Framework for Exploring Post-Imperial Futures. Affinities: A Journal of
Radical Theory, Culture, and Action. Anarch@Indigenism:
Working Across Difference for Post-Imperial Futures: Intersections Between Anarchism, Indigenism, and Feminism:3–36.
Macdonald, Charles J-H
2013 The Filipino as Libertarian: Contemporary Implications of
Anarchism. Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 61(4):413–436.
Maldonado, Carlos, and Nathalie Mezza-Garcia
2016 Anarchy and Complexity. Emergence: Complexity and
Organization 18(1):52–73.
Marshall, Peter H.
1992 Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. HarperCollins, London.
Maskovsky, Jeff
2013 Protest Anthropology in a Moment of Global Unrest.
American Anthropologist 115(1):126–129.
McGuire, Randall H., and Dean J. Saitta
1996 Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them
Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social
Organization. American Antiquity 61:197–216.
January 2017 • The SAA Archaeological Record
15
ANARCHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
McLaughlin, Paul
2007 Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to
Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington,
Vermont.
Mills, Barbara J.
2004 The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable
Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in
the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist 106(2):238–248.
Morgan, Colleen
2015 Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and
Practice. Online Journal in Public Archaeology 5:123–146.
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph
1876 [1840] What Is Property? An Enquiry into the Principle of
Right and of Government. Trans. Benjamin R. Tucker. Benjamin
R. Tucker, Princeton, Massachusetts.
Said, Edward
1993 The Reith Lectures: Professionals and Amateurs: Is There
Such a Thing as an Independent, Autonomously Functioning
Intellectual? Independent 15 July. Electronic document,
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-reith-lecturesspeaking-truth-to-power-in-his-penultimate-reith-lectureedward-said-considers-1486359.html, accessed December 11,
2016.
Sanger, Matthew C.
2015 Life in the Round: Shell Rings of the Georgia Bight.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Columbia University, New York.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
2001 Hunter-Gatherers and Traditions of Resistance. In The
Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After
Columbus, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 218–236. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Scott, James C.
2009 The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of
Upland Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shantz, Jeff, and Dana M. Williams
2013 Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology. Brill,
Leiden.
Silliman, Stephen W. (editor)
2008 Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in
Indigenous Archaeology. Amerind Studies in Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Springer, Simon
2016 The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial Emancipation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Stirner, Max
1967 [1842] The False Principle of Our Education: Or, Humanism
and Realism. Edited by James J. Martin. Translated by Robert H.
Beebe. Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs.
Stringham, Edward (editor)
2005 Anarchy, State, and Public Choice. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Northampton.
16
Suissa, Judith
2010 Anarchism and Education: A Philosophical Perspective. 2nd
ed. PM Press, Oakland, California.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1990 Maintaining Economic Equality in Opposition to Complexity: An Iroquoian Case Study. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by
Steadman Upham, pp. 119–145. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Ward, Colin
1996 [1973] Anarchy in Action. Freedom Press, London.
Watkins, Joe E.
2005 Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429–449.
Weinberg, Bill
2015 Syria’s Kurdish Revolution: The Anarchist Element and
the Challenge of Solidarity. Fifth Estate 393(Spring). Electronic
document, http://www.fifthestate.org/archive/393-spring2015/syrias-kurdish-revolution/, accessed December 12, 2016.
Wengrow, David, and David Graeber
2015 Farewell to the “Childhood of Man”: Ritual, Seasonality,
and the Origins of Inequality. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 21(3):597–619.
Woodburn, James
1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17(3):431–451.
Woodcock, George
1962 Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements.
Meridian Books, New York.
Zibechi, Raúl
2010 Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces. AK
Press, Oakland, California.
Notes
1. Anarchic is also used as an adjective to define decentralized
or non-state societies, working before or outside of anarchist theory,
where individuals and groups actively resist concentrations of
authority and promote decentralized organizational structures.
2. See also David Graeber’s Are You An Anarchist? The Answer
May Surprise You!: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/davidgraeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you.
3. Data was compiled from the UNESCO World Heritage List
and included all of the cultural and mixed cultural/natural sites
from the three countries that comprise North America:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/.
4. Data is available at
https://github.com/lsborck/2016UNESCO_Cultural.
5. Coding these sites as either a vertical or horizontal sociopolitical organization necessarily reduces these political forms from a
continuum into a binary.
The SAA Archaeological Record • January 2017