From where I sit, there’s been a notable uptick in scholarship that appeals to anarchism and anarchist praxis in archaeology over the last decade. Some of this should be attributed to David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021) which for whatever its limitation has inspired scholars to consider how anarchist practices and concepts may help us understand how societies function in the past.
I suspect that the publication of Charles Orser’s newish book Mutualist Archaeology will continue to breath life into this trend by offering an expansive survey of key texts outside the field of archaeology and some examples for how anarchist ideas can inform archaeological interpretation.
Over the weekend, I read Polina Kapsali’s “Exploring alternative trajectories of social change in European prehistory. Anarchist theory and the Aegean Bronze Age” in the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 83 (2026). (H/t to Dimitri Nakassis for sending this along!)
The article looks at the development of the Aegean Bronze Age in the late EBII to Early EBIII period transition. As Kapsali shows, historically, scholars have understood this period as one of collapse and then reestablishment of social order in Greece. In general, this narrative follows the trajectory informed by social evolutionism which sees societies as a whole organizing around a small number of elites in centralized places (to generalize a complex set of arguments). Kapsali argues, from what I can understand in this dense and careful article, that places like the House of Tiles at Lerna in the Argolid (dating to the late EBII period) often represent evidence for this kind of transition. Kapsali reiterates the “authoritarian” character of large structures like the House of Tiles with their clear evidence for spatial distinction in the buildings and structured access to various rooms. She pays particular attention to ceramics and seals as evidence for dining practices and food collection and storage.
Where Kapsali introduces something new (at least to me) is that she argues that the decline of these large buildings is not the reflection of the displacement of one group by another or some kind of social collapse, but the reconfiguration of social and spatial organizations around loosely nucleated settlements. If the House of Tiles and other monumental structures represent increasingly centralized nodes of authority, more dispersed settlements, characteristic of the Early EBIII period reflect the dispersion of authority. These decentralized EBIII settlements which overlap in meaningful ways with the more centralized monumental Late EBII buildings represent more egalitarian practices through the flexibility of the buildings to adapt to various functions, more evidence for small scale dining practices, and less controlled access to spaces.
Kapsali argues that the types of settlement characterized by the decentralized networks of the Early EBIII period reflect a “trajectory” that was independent of the nearly contemporary trajectory that culminated in the centralized buildings at Lerna. It appears, then, that decentralized network was not the result of the collapse of a centralized system, but an independent and possibly competing form of social organization that won out.
In other words, decentralized habitation patterns and more egalitarian social practices was not the collapse of centralized authority, but an equally viable, competing form that survived the EBII to EBIII transition when the more fragile and authoritarian form did not.
If this little review of the article demonstrates anything, it’s that I don’t really understand the EBII to EBIII transition very well. To be fair, it’s pretty far from my area of study (and while reading the article I frequently vocalized EB as Early Byzantine). That said, the basic idea of two trajectories — one tracing monumental centralization and the other tracing a more dispersed settlement structure — does offer a useful way to think about the tumultuous centuries at the end of antiquity. Rather than seeing the collapse of the centralized state in places like Greece (or perhaps better, it’s retreat to a handful of urban centers) as a mark of decline, the emergence of decentralized and often ephemeral settlements and the adoption of locally manufactured handmade pottery suggests adaptation to new economic and political conditions. This “trajectory” to borrow Kapsali’s terminology has its origins well before the retreat of centralized — imperial — authority to coastal enclaves.
A few years ago, we playfully argued that handmade pottery from the Early Byzantine period might be the culmination of the ancient ceramic tradition. Stripped of unnecessary decoration and detail, the vessels preserve their simple functional design. They could be manufactured anywhere and by anyone with a modicum of expertise and experience needing neither the wheel nor the industrial kiln. These simple (or better still efficient and functional) vessels could be manufactured by groups on the move seasonally or in collectives without the need for complex and costly overhead (kilns, wheels, levigation facilities, or necessarily designated clay beds). In situations where economic, political, and environmental changes elevate stress levels, the production of handmade pottery is a calculated response to daily needs for cooking and serving food.
Obviously, this is not entirely satisfying. In contrast to the EBII to EBIII transition (from what I can gather), the transformation of the Late Roman world is set against 1000 years of ancient social organization, material culture, and political life. The notion that handmade wares and dispersed, less centralized political and social organization is simply an adaptation to stresses risks downplaying the extent and character of the change Late Roman Greece. That said, narratives that foreground adaptation in the place of collapse and entropy offer ways to recover meaningful history from so-called “Dark Ages” and even redeem the capacity for societies to adapt to challenges in new ways.