Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:38:19.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anarchistic actions. Reply by Trine Borake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Trine Louise Borake
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 80 - 86
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

I wish to thank the commentators for taking time to carefully, constructively and critically comment on my work. They have provided a range of new and valuable insights, perspectives and ideas, for which I am grateful. Their comments illustrate the potential and value of anarchistic perspectives but likewise point to concerns and limitations. In the article, I have far from exhausted the topic, and, as is pointed out in the comments, like Marxism, anarchism offers multiple embedded approaches that could successfully be investigated in the future.

The comments fall in two groups: on theoretical and empirical aspects. I will address them in turn.

The need for an anarchistic perspective

In this article I did not aim to raise the black flag, a relevant concern raised by Rathbone. I do not agitate for an anarchistic perspective in its own right. Neither would I prefer to see all troublemakers throughout history as anarchist. I do not even seek a bottom-up approach or a ‘people’s archaeology’, however relevant, that does not recognize inequality and inegalitarianism and does not allow for hierarchies. That would be mistaken, perhaps scientifically manipulative and definitely naive. We do find hierarchies in social organization, past and present, close and far away. We do see accumulations of wealth and resources and individuals who seek dominion over others. The existence of hierarchies can therefore not be ignored. But we cannot ignore either that we also find decentralization, evasion, resistance and collective actions, network organization and mutual aid. Traditional interpretations with a one-sided focus on hierarchies are insufficient to explain these complex actions and dynamics and often do not recognize human agency. Anarchism, however, offers a range of multifaceted perspectives that frame mechanisms of social organization and dynamics – hierarchical as well as communal. Nevertheless, the need for an anarchistic perspective in archaeology can be questioned since anthropology for long has studied societies of these kinds, as Grier points out, and offers both extensive data and ideas. It is irrelevant, though, to separate archaeology and anthropology since they feed on each other and draw on mutual knowledge and ideas. However, the development of an anarchistic perspective has some advantage. First of all, archaeology will benefit from developing its own theories and perspectives with a strong and complex focus on material culture instead of merely adapting ideas from anthropology. Anarchism is a new perspective in archaeological research design and its application may point in other, new and thought-provoking directions instead of reproducing anthropological theories. Only in this way can we expand our capabilities to understand social organization. Second, an anthropological approach is often based on small-scale societies different to those found in, e.g., European proto-historical times and settings. Anarchistic principles can be applied to all societies, not only small-scale ones. Finally, an anarchistic approach is highly operational, often in contrast to anthropological approaches, which are generally braided from complex perspectives and challenging to apply to material culture. The three core principles (extracted from Angelbeck and Grier’s (Reference Angelbeck and Grier2012) five principles) make anarchism applicable to material-cultural interpretations.

The principles, however, may be constraining, suggesting an undesired universalism, as Grier puts forward. This is a just concern. The principles, however, or the idea of how humans act and dynamics evolve, are not constricting but engage with a number of elements, encounters and tensions. Likewise, there is no blueprint or detailed outline as to how it plays out, as Angelbeck notes. Wealth, access to resources and know-how do not inevitably and solely come from or lead to oppression, exploitation or coercion. The need for network organization, the effectiveness of justified leaders and the use of decentralization are evoked by multiple desires or tensions.

As is illustratively suggested by Rathbone, anarchism offers perhaps more than anything the reflection of the warped glass of a fun-house mirror. But do not all theories and perspectives, applied to a prehistoric or historical context, do just that? Would it not be bold, perhaps even naive, to imagine that we can get a straight, true reflection of the dynamics and mechanisms in any society? I find that an anarchistic perspective offers the most nuanced and comprehensive approach, allowing a wide and hitherto unnoticed range of warped reflections in the fun-house mirror. Clearly it must be combined, tested and supported by empirical data, just like any other theory and perspective.

Strong empirical support

Rathbone notes how the application of anarchistic principles to the archaeological record is an easy task. The difficulties occur when making such strong arguments that the explanations would find wide acceptance at the expense of traditional hierarchic explanations. I acknowledge the concern. Empirical data can most often be fitted to any preferred theory or perspective; an ever-present scientific pitfall. However, eventually theories will be questioned when the incongruence becomes too obvious; for example, hierarchically based theories are now under siege. Strong and comprehensive arguments clearly must be an aim, but is it an aim to seek acceptance at the expense of traditional hierarchical explanations? From that viewpoint, academic discussions seem more like a theoretical competition rather than a scientific dialectic.

Either way, the strong argument of anarchistic principles from empirical data is admittedly not easily established. It can be argued that making the connection between theory and data in general is problematic, and theory-driven studies are thus traditionally too infrequent, at least in a Scandinavian context. Hierarchically based ideas can be argued to have a protagonist in research history and structurally informed data. This is what Angelbeck see as a fourth way of anarchistic endeavours; history was traditionally conducted and written by white males, to put it sharply.

My argumentation built on three examples: thing sites, Danevirke and migration. I chose examples based on both archaeology and history to illustrate that anarchistic perspectives are independent of methodology and of temporal setting. I did not in this work describe the pig-tusk ceremony from Vanuatu, Polynesia, which put chiefs in power but consequently limited their economic advantages (Earl and Spriggs 2015, 522–25). Neither did I touch upon studies from the prehistoric Southwest, where elites were subsumed to the commune limited by kin and civil obligations (McGuire and Saitta 1996, 202; Saitta Reference Saitta and Wills1994). I did not go into the numerous examples of rebellions; in 841–42 Saxon slaves rose against their lords in the Stellinga uprising (Goldberg Reference Goldberg1995); in 1086 the Danish king Canut was killed as a result of a peasant riot; the Engelbrekt rebellion in Sweden launched in 1434 led to long-lasting effects of tax reduction and the peasants finally became included in the Swedish parliament alongside the nobility, the clergy and the burghers (Myrdal Reference Myrdal, Myrdal and Morell2011, 98–99). We find long periods with civil war in early medieval Scandinavia, and looking further we find extensive Chinese peasant rebellions, the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. I did not in this study include examples of different social organizations like Old Saxony, where social organization was based not around a king but in districts led by elected chiefs (their ancient laws aimed to prevent the rise of a monarchy) nor upon regulated common farming in early Middle Ages Scandinavia lasting 500 years, reassuring mutual aid and collective action and limiting the economic advantages of individuals. Examples from archaeology, history and ethnography could preferably be offered, strengthening the argument and reassuring us that it is not constricted by research design, methodology or the nature of the empirical data. Likewise, studies on macro and micro scales could be conducted testing the anarchistic arguments on different levels. Truly, an extensive study of data, examples and cases that support the argument would be welcome, leading to more thorough discussions on intentionality and human agency. I hope this article will inspire such work in a European context in the future.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for wise comments on this paper from Professor MSO Søren Sindbæk, Associate Professor Tim Flohr Sørensen, Professor Lotte Hedeager and Ph.D. Anna Severine Beck. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for relevant and constructive comments. Furthermore, I am grateful for good and productive discussions on the content with colleagues.

Trine Louise Borake is a Curator and Archaeologist employed at the Museum of Western Zealand who is currently affiliated with Aarhus University conducting a Ph.D. project on Scandinavian central places. Her primary interest concerns social organization and dynamics, with a primary focus on the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. She is interested in human agency and interactions and in how social interplay and influence are manifested and negotiated. She has initiated and conducted fieldwork and research on Iron Age and medieval farmsteads in Zealand, Denmark. Recently, she has engaged in studies on detector material – a rapidly accumulating body of material in Scandinavian archaeology with potential to challenge and add nuance to ideas on social organization.

References

Andersen, H.H., 1998: Danevirke og Kovirke. Arkæologiske undersøgelser 1861–1993, Århus (Moesgård Museums Skrifter).Google Scholar
Andersen, H.H., 2004: Til hele rigets værn. Danevirkes arkæologi og historie. Højbjerg.Google Scholar
Andersen, K.H., 2016: Da danerne blev danske. Dansk etnicitet og identitet til ca. år 1000, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Culture and Society, History, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Anderson, B., 2005: Under three flags. Anarchism and the anti-colonial imagination, New York.Google Scholar
Angelbeck, B., 2016: The balance of autonomy and alliance in anarchic societies. The organization of defences in the Coast Salish past, World archaeology 48(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelbeck, B., 2017: Applying modes of production analysis to non-state, or anarchic, societies. Shifting from historical epochs to seasonal microscale, in Rosenswig, R.M. and Cunningham, J.J. (eds), Modes of production and archaeology, Gainesville, FL, 52–74.Google Scholar
Angelbeck, B., in press: Interpreting the dialectic of sociopolitical tensions in the archaeological past. Implications of an anarchist perspective for Iron Age societies, in Sastre, I. and Currás, B.X. (eds), Alternative Iron Ages, London, 29–49.Google Scholar
Angelbeck, B., and Grier, C., 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), 547–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkush, E., 2012: Comment on: Anarchism and the archaeology of anarchic societies. Resistance to centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast, by Angelbeck, B. and Grier, C., Current anthropology 53(5), 569–70.Google Scholar
Bakunin, M., 1871: God and the state, New York.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D., 2010: Robin Hood. The English outlaw unmasked, Stroud.Google Scholar
Barclay, H., 1990: People without government. An anthropology of anarchy, London.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.H., 2008: What caused the Viking Age?, Antiquity 82, 671–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettinger, R.L., 2015: Orderly anarchy. Sociopolitical evolution in aboriginal California, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Black Trowel Collective, 2016: Foundations of an anarchist archaeology. A community manifesto, at https://savageminds.org/2016/10/31/foundations-of-an-anarchist-archaeology-a-community-manifesto, accessed 26 September 2018.Google Scholar
Blanton, R.E., and Fargher, L., 2008: Collective action in the formation of pre-modern states, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borck, L., and Sanger, M.C., 2017: An introduction to anarchism in archaeology, SAA archaeological record. The magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, 17(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1977: Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, S., 1998: Land, bygd, distrikt och centralorter i Sydsverige. Några bebyggelseshistoriska nedslag, in Hårdh, B. and Larsson, L. (eds), Centrala platser, centrala frågor. Samhällsstrukturen under järnåldern: en vänbok till Berta Stjernquist, Stockholm, 297–326.Google Scholar
Brink, S., Grimm, O., Iversen, F., Hobæk, H., Ødegaard, M., Näsman, U., Sanmark, A., Urbanczyk, P., Vésteinsson, O. and Storli, I., 2011: Court sites of Arctic Norway. Remains of thing sites and representations of political consolidation processes in the northern Germanic world during the first millennium A.D., Norwegian archaeological review 44(1), 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1995: Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Comments, Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 6(1) 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byock, J.L., 2001: Viking age Iceland, London.Google Scholar
Callmer, J., and Rosengren, E., 1997: ‘– gick Grendel att söka det höga huset –’. Arkeologiska källor till aristokratiska miljöer i Skandinavien under yngre järnålder: rapport från ett seminarium i Falkenberg 16–17 november 1995, Halmstad (Halland länsmuseer).Google Scholar
Caraher, W., Kourelis, K. and Reinhard, A. (eds), 2014: Punk archaeology, Fargo, ND.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R., 2003: Archaeologies of complexity, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T., 2006: En folkekonges død. Et forslag til tolkningen af jernalderens våbenofferfund, Fortid og Nutid, 195–220.Google Scholar
Clark, J.E., and Blake, M., 1994: The power of prestige. Competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica, in Brumfiel, E. and Fox, J. (eds), Factional competition and political development in the New World, Cambridge, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clastres, P., 1989: Society against the state. Essays in political anthropology, New York.Google Scholar
Clastres, P., 2010: Archaeology of violence, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Crumley, C.L., 1995: Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies, Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 6(1), special issue, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobat, A.S., 2008: Danevirke revisited. An investigation into military and socio-political organisation in south Scandinavia (c A.D. 700 to 1100), Medieval archaeology 52(1), 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolgoff, S., 1972: Bakunin on anarchy, New York.Google Scholar
Earle, T., 1997: How chiefs come to power. The political economy in prehistory, Stanford.Google Scholar
Earle, T., and Spriggs, M., 2015: Political economy in prehistory. A Marxist approach to Pacific sequences, Current anthropology 56(4) (2015), 515–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, R., Crumley, C.L. and Levy, J.E. (eds), 1995: Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies , special issue of Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, 6(1).Google Scholar
Fabech, C., and Ringtved, J. (eds), 1999: Settlement and landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4–7 1998, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Feviele, C., 2016: Understanding the hinterland of the Ladby ship grave, in Turner, V., Owen, O. and Waugh, D.J. (eds), Shetland and the Viking world. Papers from the proceedings of the Seventeenth Viking Congress, Lerwick, 229–35.Google Scholar
Flexner, 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.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., 2001: Making social science matter, Cambridge and New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furholt, M., Grier, C., Spriggs, M. and Earle, T., 2019: Political economy in the archaeology of emergent complexity. A synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches, Journal of archaeological method and theory, DOI 10.1007/s10816-019-09422-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A., 1979: Central problems in social theory. Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis, Berkeley. Google Scholar
Goldberg, E.J., 1995: Popular revolt, dynastic politics, and aristocratic factionalism in the early Middle Ages. The Saxon ‘Stellinga’ reconsidered, Speculum . A journal of mediaeval studies 70(3), 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, R.A., 2016: Inter-cultural communications and iconography in the western Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Br., Garmisch-Partenkirchen.Google Scholar
Graeber, D., 2004: Fragments of an anarchist anthropology, Chicago.Google Scholar
Graeber, D., 2009: Direct action. An ethnography, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Grier, C., 2017: Expanding notions of hunter-gatherer diversity. Identifying core organizational principles and practices in Coast Salish societies of the Northwest Coast of North America, in Warren, G. and Finlayson, B. (eds), The diversity of hunter-gatherer pasts, Oxford, 16–33.Google Scholar
Grier, C., and Angelbeck, B., 2017: Tradeoffs in Coast Salish social action. Balancing autonomy, inequality, and sustainability, in Hegmon, M. (ed.), The give and take of sustainability. Archaeological and anthropological perspectives on tradeoffs, Cambridge, 198–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, C., Angelbeck, B. and McLay, E., 2017: Terraforming and monumentality as long-term social practice in the Salish Sea region of the Northwest Coast of North America, Hunter gatherer research 3(1), 107–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, C., and Schwadron, M., 2017: Terraforming and monumentality in hunter-gatherer-fisher societies, Hunter gatherer research 3(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M., 2000: Archaeology and the modern world. Colonial transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake, London.Google Scholar
Hall, T.D., 1991: Civilizational change. The role of nomads, Comparative civilizations review 24(5), 34–57.Google Scholar
Hansson, M., 2006: Aristocratic landscape. The spatial ideology of the medieval aristocracy, Lund.Google Scholar
Harrison, J., 2013: Building mounds. Longhouses, coastal mounds and cultural connections. Norway and the Northern Isles, c AD 800–1200, Medieval archaeology 57(1), 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B., and Gargett, R., 1990: Big man, big heart? A Mesoamerican view of the emergence of complex society, Ancient Mesoamerica 1, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedeager, L., 2007: Scandinavia and the Huns. An interdisciplinary approach to the migration era, Norwegian archaeological review 40(1), 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høilund Nielsen, K., 2014: Key issues concerning ‘central places’, in Stidsing, E., Fiedel, R. and Høilund Nielsen, K. (eds), Wealth and complexity. Economically specialised sites in Late Iron Age Denmark, Randers, 11–51.Google Scholar
Holst, M.K., and Rasmussen, M., 2012. Combined efforts. The cooperation and coordination of barrow-building in the Bronze Age, in Johannsen, N., Jessen, M.D. and Juel Jensen, H. (eds), Excavating the mind. Cross-sections through culture, cognition and materiality, Århus, 255–79.Google Scholar
Ilkjær, J., 2003: Danske krigsbytteofringer, in Jørgensen, L., Storgaard, B. and Gebauer Thomsen, L. (eds), Sejrens triumf. Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium, Copenhagen, 44–64.Google Scholar
Iversen, T., 2011: Thralls’ manumission, land clearing, and state building in medieval Norway, in Sindbæk, S.M. and Poulsen, B. (eds), Settlement and lordship in Viking and early medieval Scandinavia, Turnhout, 264–76.Google Scholar
Jensen, J., 2003: Danmarks oldtid. Ældre jernalder 400 f. Kr.–500 e. Kr, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, L., 2008: Manor, cult and market at lake Tissø, in Brink, S. and Price, N. (eds), The Viking world, London, 77–82.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, P.J., 1974: Dansk retshistorie, 6th edn, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kintz, L., 2017: An anarchist archaeology for the Anthropocene. SAA archaeological record. The magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, 17(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
Knight, S., 2006: Remembering Robin Hood. Five centuries of outlaw ideology, European journal of English studies, 10(2), 149–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohring, S., 2011: Social complexity as a multi-scalar concept. Pottery technologies, ‘communities of practice’ and the Bell Beaker phenomenon, Norwegian archaeological review 44(2), 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohring, S., and Wynne-Jones, S. (eds), 2007: Socialising complexity. Structure, interaction, and power in archaeological discourse, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kristjánsdóttir, S., 2011: The Vikings as a diaspora. Cultural and religious identities in early medieval Iceland, in Svavar Sigmundsson (ed.), Viking settlements and Viking society. Papers from the proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress, Reykjavík, 422–36.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, P.A., 1952 (1902): Mutual aid. A factor of evolution, Boston.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, P.A., 1987 (1898): The state. Its historic role, London.Google Scholar
Lihammer, A., 2007: Bortom riksbildningen. Människor, landskap och makt i sydöstra Skandinavien, Lund (Lund Studies in Historical Archaeology 7).Google Scholar
Lønstrup, J., 1988: Mosefund af hærudstyr fra jernalderen, in Mortensen, P. and Rasmussen, B.M. (eds), Fra stamme til stat i Danmark. Jernalderens stammesamfund, Bd. 1, Århus (Jernalderens stammesamfund), 93–99.Google Scholar
Ludowici, B., Jöns, H., Kleingärtner, S., Scheschkewitz, J., and Hardt, M., 2010: Foreword, in Ludowici, B., Jöns, H., Kleingärtner, S., Scheschkewitz, J. and Hardt, M. (eds), Trade and communication networks of the first millennium AD in the northern part of Central Europe. Central places, beach markets, landing places and trading centres, Stuttgart (Neue Studien zur Sachsenforschung, 1), 6–7.Google Scholar
McGuire, R.H., 2012: Raise the red flag and the black (comment on Angelbeck and Grier 2012), Current anthropology 53(5), 575–76.Google Scholar
McGuire, R.H., and Saitta, D.J., 1996: Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly. The dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo social organization, American antiquity 61(2), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, S.K., 2005: Beyond chiefdoms. Pathways to complexity in Africa, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Manco, J., 2013: Ancestral journeys. The peopling of Europe from the first venturers to the Vikings, London.Google Scholar
Marshall, P., 2008: Demanding the impossible. A history of anarchism, London.Google Scholar
Mauss, M., 1925: The gift. Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies, Miami.Google Scholar
Morgan, C., 2015: Punk, DIY, and anarchy in archaeological thought and practice, Journal in public archaeology 5, 123–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, B., 2005: Anthropology and anarchism. Their elective affinity, London.Google Scholar
Mortensen, P., and Rasmussen, B.M., 1988: Fra stamme til stat i Danmark. Jernalderens stammesamfund, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Mortensen, P., and Rasmussen, B.M., 1991: Fra stamme til stat i Danmark. Høvdingesamfund og kongemagt, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Myhre, B., 1993: The beginning of the Viking Age. Some current archaeological problems, in Faulkes, A. and Perkins, R. (eds), Viking revaluations, London, 182–204.Google Scholar
Myrdal, J., 2007: Källpluralismen och dess inkluderande metodpaket, Historisk tidskrift 127(3), 2–11.Google Scholar
Myrdal, J., 2011: Farming and feudalism. 1000–1700, in Myrdal, J. and Morell, M. (eds), The agrarian history of Sweden. 4000 B.C. to A.D. 2000, Lund, 72–117.Google Scholar
Näsman, U., 2000. Raids, migration and kingdoms. The Danish case, Acta archaeologica 71(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näsman, U., 2006: Danerne og det danske kongeriges opkomst. Om forskningsprogrammet ‘Fra stamme til stat i Danmark’, Kuml, 2006, 205–41.Google Scholar
Ødegaard, M., 2018: Thing sites, cult, churches, games and markets in Viking and medieval southeast Norway, AD c.800–1600. World archaeology 50(1), 150–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, O.J.T., 2018: Accumulating kingship. The archaeology of elite assembly in medieval Scotland, World archaeology 50(1), 137–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, A.B., 2015: Courtyard sites in western Norway. Central assembly places and judicial institutions in the Late Iron Age, in Eriksen, M.H., Pedersen, U., Rundberget, B., Axelsen, I. and Berg, H.L. (eds), Viking worlds. Things, spaces and movement, Oxford, 43–55.Google Scholar
Paynter, R., 1989: The archaeology of equality and inequality, Annual review of anthropology 18(1), 369–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluciennik, M., 2005: Social evolution, London.Google Scholar
Poulsen, B., and Sindbæk, S.M., 2011: Settlement and lordship in Viking and early medieval Scandinavia, Turnhout.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purkis, J., and Bowen, J., 2004: Changing anarchism. Anarchist theory and practice in a global age, Manchester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, A.R., 2015: Constructing histories. Archaic freshwater shell mounds and social landscapes of the St. Johns River, Florida, Gainesville, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randsborg, K., 1980: The Viking age in Denmark. The formation of a state, London.Google Scholar
Randsborg, K., 1991: The first millennium A.D. in Europe and the Mediterranean. An archaeological essay, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rathbone, S., 2017: Anarchist literature and the development of anarchist counter-archaeologies, World archaeology 49(3), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roesdahl, E., and Wilson, D.M., 1992: Introduction, in Roesdahl, E. (ed.), From Viking to Crusader. The Scandinavians and Europe 800–1200, Copenhagen (22nd Council of Europe exhibition), 24–29.Google Scholar
Roslund, M., 2007. Guests in the house. Cultural transmission between Slavs and Scandinavians 900 to 1300 A.D., Leiden (The Northern World 33).Google Scholar
Russell, B., 2004: Power. A new social analysis, London.Google Scholar
Saitta, D.J., 1994: Class and community in the prehistoric Southwest, in Wills, W.H. (ed.), The ancient southwestern community. Models and methods for the study of prehistoric social organization, Albuquerque, 25–43.Google Scholar
Sanmark, A., 2009: Administrative organisation and state formation. A case study of assembly sites in Södermanland, Sweden, Medieval archaeology 53(1), 205–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanmark, A., 2017: Viking law and order. Places and rituals of assembly in the medieval north, Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanmark, A., and Semple, S., 2008: Places of assembly. New discoveries in Sweden and England, Fornvännen 103(4), 245–59.Google Scholar
Sawyer, P., 2001: The Oxford illustrated history of the Vikings, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schulze, F., 2013: Flirting with anarchism. Class, state, and anthropology, Focaal, 2013(66), 133–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J.C., 1985: Weapons of the weak. Everyday forms of peasant resistance, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Scott, J.C., 2009: The art of not being governed. An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia, New Haven, CT.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott, J.C., 2012: Two cheers for anarchism. Six easy pieces on autonomy, dignity, and meaningful work and play, Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semple, S., and Sanmark, A., 2013: Assembly in North West Europe. Collective concerns for early societies? European journal of archaeology, 16(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindbæk, S.M., 2005: Ruter og rutinisering. Vikingetidens fjernhandel i Nordeuropa, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Sindbæk, S.M., 2007: Networks and nodal points. The emergence of towns in early Viking age Scandinavia, Antiquity 81(311), 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M.E., 2016: Anarchism in archaeology. Trivial or insightful?, Publishing archaeology (author blog), at http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2016/04/anarchism-in-archaeology-trivial-or.html.Google Scholar
Söderberg, B., 2005: Aristokratiskt rum och gränsöverskridande. Järrestad och sydöstra Skåne mellean region och rike 600–1100, Stockholm (Riksantikvarieämbetet).Google Scholar
Spriggs, M., 1984: Another way of telling, in Spriggs, M. (ed.), Marxist perspectives in archaeology, Cambridge, 1–10.Google Scholar
Stidsing, E., Fiedel, R. and Høilund Nielsen, K. (eds), 2014: Wealth and complexity. Economically specialised sites in Late Iron Age Denmark, Randers.Google Scholar
Storli, I., 2010: Court sites of arctic Norway. Remains of thing sites and representations of political consolidation processes in the northern Germanic world during the first millennium A.D., Norwegian archaeological review 43(2), 128–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, G., 1900: Norges kongesagaer, 1914-utgaven, Kristiania.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, O., 2016: An arena for higher powers. Ceremonial buildings and religious strategies for rulership in Late Iron Age Scandinavia, Leiden.Google Scholar
Thomasson, J., and Anglert, M., 2003: Landskapsarkeologi och tidig medeltid. Några exempel från södra Sverige, Lund (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia).Google Scholar
Tollefson, K.D., 1987: The Snoqualmie. A Puget Sound chiefdom, Ethnology 26(2), 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1990: Monumental architecture. A thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour, World archaeology 22(2), 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 2006: A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulsig, E., 2011: Danmark 900–1300. Kongemagt og samfund, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Vésteinsson, O., 2007: A divided society. Peasants and the aristocracy in medieval Iceland, Viking and medieval Scandinavia 3, 117–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, N.J., 2008: Networks of history and memory. Creating a nexus of social identities in Woodland period mounds on the lower St Johns River, Florida, Journal of social archaeology 8, 236–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, C., 1996: Anarchy in action, London.Google Scholar
Welch, J.R., 2017: Cycles of resistance. Introduction to anarchism in archaeology, SAA archaeological record. The magazine of the Society for American Archaeology 17(1), 17–21.Google Scholar
Wengrow, D., 2010: What makes civilization? The ancient Near East and the future of the West, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wengrow, D., and Graeber, D., 2015: Farewell to the ‘childhood of man’. Ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 21(3), 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, C., 2005 : Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widgren, M., 1998: Kulturgeofrafernas bönder och arkeologernas guld – finns det någon väg til en syntes?, in Stjernquist, B., Larsson, L. and Hårdh, B. (eds), Centrala platser – centrala frågor. Samhällsstrukturen under järnålderen: en vänbok till Berta Stjernquist, Stockholm, 281–96.Google Scholar
Witte, F., 2015: Danevirke. Udgravninger ved porten, Fund & fortid, 2015(2–3), 86–88.Google Scholar
Young, G., 1979: Marx on bourgeois law, Research in law and sociology 2, 133–67.Google Scholar
Young, R.J.C., 2009: What is the postcolonial?, ARIEL. A review of international English literature 40(1), 13–25.Google Scholar
Zachrisson, T., 1994: The Odal and its manifestation in the landscape, Current Swedish archaeology 2, 219–238.Google Scholar