My review assignment for anthropology 410.

1. Jeff Grimm
Anthropology 410
Individual Review
Anarchism in Archaeology
A review of Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to Centralization in the
Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast.
Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies, is a unique first attempt at finding
anarchist theory a seat in the halls of anthropology. Bill Angelbeck and Colin Grier attempt to throw off
the traditional stranglehold that state-centered theory has held over academic theoretical circles by
introducing an anarchist analytical framework to the field of archaeology.
Angelbeck and Grier conducted a diachronic archaeological study of cranial deformation vs.
class distribution in Coast Salish communities prior to contact with Europeans. The authors explain that
Cranial deformation is a sign of elite statues among the Coast Salish. Previous archaeological and
ethnographic data on the Coast Salish show a mostly egalitarian society with elites in the majority. Data
was collected on 264 burials in total, re-calibrating and correcting radiocarbon dates on several burials
excavated by other researchers. The two authors found that a rise in cranial deformation distribution
correlates with elite individual population numbers surpassing commoners. They attempt to
demonstrate anarchist analytical technique by explaining why the Coast Salish end up, prior to contact,
a fairly economically balanced society.
What is asserted by the two archaeologists is that the Coast Salish were expressing core
anarchist political characteristics. They outline criteria taken directly from works by Bakunin and
Kropotkin to construct this list which they then applied to the Coast Salish. Their ultimate conclusion is
that the Coast Salish valued individuality over the communal which led to a naturally decentralized
society. Whenever any one individual or group of people attempted to consolidate a monopoly on
resources or power, that monopoly was immediately challenged. This challenge of authority manifested
1

2. itself in cranial deformation, which became more widespread as commoners manipulated the house
alliance system to gain entry into the elite ranks.
Angelbeck and Greir's inclusion of anarchism as their theoretical paradigm seems shy and
conservative when compared to their stated goal of demonstrating anarchism as a viable analysis tool.
While I applaud the authors for taking the risk of challenging the status quo of state-centered theory, I
couldn't help but feel that they played it safe by selecting the Coast Salish as their subjects. I had hoped
that the authors of this article would demonstrate how anarchism as a school of theory could be used
more universally within anthropology. Marxist theory, which has found it's way into many archaeology
101 textbooks, is generally accepted as being able to be applied unilaterally throughout all subjects in
anthropology. I recognize that the authors are likely “dipping their toe in the water” to test the
receptiveness of unsweetened anarchist theory. Unfortunately, having to compete against well
established schools such as Marxism, I felt that there is much to be lost if enough academic ground is
not captured.
The very little anarchist theory that is employed within anthropological is often hidden behind
terminology that redirects from anarchist affiliations. I believe this is because anarchism by nature is
the enemy of state-centered theoretical approaches and has often been excluded because of this
relationship. State centered theory has held a monopoly within anthropology (and academia in general)
and beginning to allow anarchist theory into anthropological could begin to break this monopoly. By
recoding the language that anarchist concepts are bundled in, the subject material is allowed a better
procreate within state centered theoretical environments. This paper is the first article I have ever seen
that actively recognizes anarchist theory as an anthropological theoretical school and call it as such.
The research aspect of the paper is fairly straightforward and easy to understand and I have no
criticism. The paper was so easy to understand, it's accessibility was one of the paper's biggest selling
points for me. Angelbeck and Greir provide lots of charts and graphs to visually illustrate their
2

3. research. Someone could potentially never read the paper and only through the graphics, deduce
exactly what these archaeologists were doing. The paper itself was neatly organized into to-the-point
black sections that don't overwhelm the reader. The language also is very straightforward doesn't seek
to ostracize the academically uninitiated. The paper's accessibility is very much inline with anarchist
principles of free information and allow the paper's message to freely disseminate.
All together I liked most of this paper, I must reiterate that I feel that Angelbeck and Greir's
subject material could have been a bit more ambitious. The very fact that this paper exists is testament
to changing attitudes within anthropology and academics toward state society as the end-all of societal
living. I hope that these two archaeologists continue to do research in this field as they obviously seem
to be the only ones. Every small step society takes down the anarchist path, is a skirmish won in the
war with the state.
3

4. Works Cited
Angelbeck, Bill, and Colin Grier. "Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to
Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast." Current
Anthropology 53.5 (2012): 547-87. Jstor. Jstor. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667621>.
4