đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș borck-constructing-future-history-prefiguration.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:56:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Constructing the Future History Author: Lewis Borck Date: 2019 Language: en Topics: history, the future, prehistory, archaeology, indigenous, politics of history, prefigurative politics, science Source: Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, Vol. 5, Issue 2 ppl. 213-302 retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/38241668/Constructing_the_Future_History_Prefiguration_as_Historical_Epistemology_and_the_Chronopolitics_of_Archaeology
We are not makers of history. We are made by history.
â Martin Luther King, Jr, Strength to Love (1963)
Heritage management and the preservation of archaeological sites is a
major component of contemporary archaeological activity. Questioning the
impact of decisions that arise through this practice is not new, nor is
describing the context that has shaped the cultural structures in which
these decisions are made. In this article, I use the anarchist and
anti-oppressive activism concept of prefiguration to argue that
archaeological sites are being mobilized not just to legitimize the
state, but to create a future history where alternative power
structuresâegalitarian, non-state, Indigenous, pre-colonialâseem
impossible to achieve; or worse, are forgotten.
The quote that opens this article serves to highlight a dialogic process
within societies. When King wrote âwe are not makers of historyâ, he
wasnât saying that we donât create history; he was arguing that most
people are not often the ones that historians will argue made history.
And by saying âwe are made by historyâ, he was acknowledging that his-
tory is a potent and unavoidable force for the construction of the
present. This reveals an important rift because it presents history as
being constructed by peoples whose names are knownâgenerally the rich
and powerful, the elitesâand not the majority of humanity. It also means
that our constructed history serves to create the present world, the
social institutions, and the worldview in which individuals live their
lives. In that way, then, we can say that how researchers construct
history serves to create the world in which contemporary people live. We
are made by history.
But this is not temporally stationary. Time and the construction of
history work in a dialogic process where time moves the creation of
history forward in an ever-unfolding network of responses. Mikhail
Bakhtin encapsulated the recursive nature of the formation of past
histories and the construction of future histories:
There is neither a first nor a last word and there are no limits to the
dialogic context (it extends into the boundless past and boundless
future). Even past meanings, that is those born in the dialogue of past
centuries, can never be stable (finalized, ended once and for all) â
they will always change (be renewed) in the process of subsequent,
future development of the dialogue. (Bakhtin 2010 [1975], 170)
In archaeology, this consistent dialogic process is particularly
important because archaeology, and more generally the construction of
history, is inherently a memory-making practice (Adams 1993; Van Dyke
and Alcock 2003; Sauer 2003; Sinopoli 2003; Ferguson and
Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006; Levy 2006; Mills and Walker 2008; Beisaw
2010; Hendon 2010; see also Lowenthal 1985; Connerton 1989; Halbwachs
1992).
As archaeology is, at its most basic, a process for constructing history
from the material record, decisions about what to use to create that
history are unavoidable political acts (sensu Castañeda 1996; Sinopoli
2003; McGuire 2008). The type of archaeology being enacted does not
matter. There is no division between an apolitical archaeology and a
political one (Castañeda 1996, 24), only between the implicitness or
explicitness with which the researcher acknowledges this political
nature. When archaeologists, and museum professionals, make decisions
about what to research, what to preserve, or what to highlight, this is
political practice. The unavoidability of archaeological research as
political praxis also means that the decision on what not to research
has political repercussions as well, and serves to construct a future
history that is missing the excluded portions (sensu Sauer 2003). In the
case of preservation-focused activity, these decisions might be
permanent as unprotected sites and objects are lost to development, to
environmental processes like erosion, to acts of destruction during
wartimeâthemselves usually political (Sauer 2003, 162)âand to the
antiquities trade. Forgettingâwhether intentional or through decisions
based on unacknowledged biasâis always a powerful, political act that
can either support the structures of power, or hegemonic ideas, that
create the unacknowledged bias (Arnold 1999; Giroux 2013) or undermine
and contest that power (Arnold 2014, 2446; Bakunin 1973 [1873], 28,
1971a [1842], 57).
The political act of history making is one of the primary ways that
archaeology serves to construct, and enforce, the power of the state
(see Fowler 1987; Politis 1995; Meskell 2013). Archaeology can, of
course, contest its supporting role in the rise of the nation-state
(e.g., Schmidt and Patterson 1995), but, along with history (e.g., Tamm
2016), it has grown in lock-step with the notion of the state (Meskell
and Preucel 2008, 316). Prefiguration is one way to understand how
support of the state arises from ingrained bias.
Carl Boggs defined prefiguration as âthe embodiment within the ongoing
political practice of the movement, of those forms of social relations,
decision making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate
goalâ (Boggs 1977, 100; see also Rucht 1988, 320; Calhoun 1993, 404;
Franks 2003, 18; Maeckelbergh 2009, 81,89). Boggs was expanding on a
concept developed by anarchists (Bakunin 1970 [1882]), radical feminists
(e.g., Freeman 1972â1973), New Left social movement practitioners (e.g.,
van de Sande 2015; see also Polletta 2012), and the Industrial Workers
of the Worldâs goal of âforming the structure of the new society within
the shell of the oldâ (Industrial Workers of the World 1905). Breines
described the prefigurative practices of 1960s âNew Leftâ social
movements as ârecognized in counter institutions, demonstrations and the
attempt to embody personal and antihierarchical values in politics
[...]. The crux of prefigurative politics imposed substantial tasks, the
central one being to create and sustain within the live practice of the
movement, relationships, and political forms that âprefiguredâ and
embodied the desired societyâ (Breines 1989, 6).
Prefiguration has been extensively examined, supported, and critiqued
(Calhoun 1993; Bookchin 1995; CrimethInc 2008; Gordon 2008; Maeckelbergh
2011; Franks 2014; Springer 2016), although its use and discussion
within archaeology has been limited (e.g., Black Trowel Collective 2016;
Borck and Sanger 2017). Prefigurative politics have become well known in
recent years with the rise of the horizontally organized âNewest Social
Movementsâ (Day 2005). David Graeber, one of prefigurative politics
better-known advocates, has written extensively on how âthe
organizational form that an activist group takes should prefigure the
kind of society we wish to createâ (Graeber 2013, 23; see also Quail
1978, x; Graeber 2002; Franks 2003, 17; 2006, 17; Yates 2015).
Prefiguration is one of the primary reasons that anarchism, what one
could call libertarian socialism (Rocker 2004 [1938], 28; Chomsky 2005,
180), separated from Marxism, a form of statist socialism (Franks 2014).
Differing ideas about how to bring about social change turned into one
of the fundamental ideological differences between Marx and early
anarchists like Bakunin and Guillaume. For Marxists, change was started
in the state apparatus before horizontal power could be achieved (Lenin
1970 [1902], 149; Trotsky 1973 [1938], 36). Anarchists, however, argued
that such a process would only create another form of hierarchical power
(e.g., Bakunin 1950; Rocker 1956, 111; Goldman 2012). This is often
discussed as the difference between âthe means create the endâ
(anarchism) and âthe ends justify the meansâ (Marxism).
Beyond being simply a practice-based way to look at how to change
society, prefiguration argues that change necessarily follows in the
shape of actionsâeither explicit or implicit, purposeful or accidental,
conscious or subconsciousâthat create that change (e.g., Proudhon 1876
[1840], 153; Rocker 1956; Bakunin 1971b [1842]; Bey 1991, 2; Kropotkin
1992 [1885]; Ince 2012; Springer 2016, 7). The underlying idea for
prefiguration is that means have consequences (Maeckelbergh 2011, 16),
but also that these consequences are necessarily linked to the form of
the means (Franks 2006, 98â99). Therefore, prefiguration is performative
(Schlembach 2012) and practice based. As Maeckelbergh notes (2011, 3)
âprefiguration is something that people do [âŠ] the alternative âworldâ
is not predetermined: it is developed through practice and it is
different everywhere.â Prefiguration encompasses not only class issues,
but also incorporates âevery aspect of social existenceâ (Boggs 1977,
104). In many ways, this aligns prefigurative action with intersectional
counter-cultural movements, because prefigurative actions are
multi-threaded and not targeted at individual goals (Maeckelbergh 2011,
12â13).
Thus, prefiguration is more than just a performative practice. While the
vast majority of researchers and practitioners who engage with
prefiguration do so as a political practice to create spaces and
societies free of oppression, they are doing so because they
fundamentally think that ends and means are consequentially linked.
It follows, then, that this essential difference in understanding about
the consequences of our actions means that prefiguration is ânot only a
theory of political practice; it is a theory of meaningâ (Cohn 2006,
80). Taken epistemologically, prefiguration is simply that the means are
necessarily reproduced into the ends. The configuration of the means
does not matter. Far from being simply related to creating a just
society, this also implies that hierarchical means will prefigure
hierarchical ends. Understood this way, prefiguration is the means and
ends as process. Thus, archaeologists use the past in the present to
construct a history for the production of the future.
Yes, the long memory is the most radical idea in this country. It is the
loss of that long memory which deprives our people of that connective
flow of thoughts and events that clarifies our vision, not of where
weâre going, but where we want to go.
â Bruce âUtahâ Phillips, liner notes for the album The Long Memory
(1996)
Since archaeological practice is inherently political and our practice
prefigures the ends (at least without direct intervention), what are
current archaeological preservation practices prefiguring? What future
history are we constructing?
A brief examination of UNESCO cultural preservation decisions in North
America and the Caribbean through a prefigurative lens highlights what
Western, and colonial, societies valorize and what type of history we
are creating through heritage preservation decisions. Out of the 61
UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites in North America [1] only six (10%)
can best be described as horizontally organized (Figure 1). [2] This
marginal number does not accurately reflect the sociopolitical history
of North America and the Caribbean, where far more than 10% of human
history consisted of some form of horizontally organized governance
(although see Wengrow and Graeber 2015).
These listings can have dehumanizing aspects as well. While this article
focuses on UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites, there are also many
other World Heritage Natural Sites, like the Grand Canyon, that also
contain archaeological histories and many of these histories represent
alternative ways of organizing. As such, their categorization as Natural
Sites also serves to further delegitimize horizontal forms of power by
situating this practice within a non-human, âuncivilizedâ, and
non-intentional framework (see Bandarin 2007)
[]
Figure 1. Proportion of UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Sites in North
America and the Caribbean that are primarily vertically or horizontally
organized along a socio-political continuum.
Archaeological preservation decisions, as political as any other
archaeological action, prefigure our future shared history. Creating a
hierarchical history limits our ability to imagine, both implicitly and
explicitly, alternative ways to organize collectively outside of
top-down power structures. The forever shifting present, then, is a
transitional period where decisions lead society to one of several
alternate futures. This transitional positioning of the political
present was one of the important aspects of Wallisâs ideas on
chronopolitics (Wallis 1970) and one of the reasons that archaeological
preservation decisions are chronopolitical.
Chronopolitics is a broad term that was implemented in the study of
geopolitics to offset the overreliance on spatiality (Klinke 2013, 675;
contra Foucault 1980 [1977], 149) and introduce temporal concerns. It
focuses on the time perspectives of individuals and groups and how those
perspectives influence their political behavior (Wallis 1970, 102). An
important addition to this is that the present is always impacting the
future, so contemporary decisions have temporally long-reaching
consequences (Wallis 1970; see also Witmore 2013 for a past-oriented
chronopolitical discussion of how archaeological material constitutes
the present). Thus, those who are making the decisions in the present
can control the future (e.g., Gellner 1964).
Klinke (2013, 680) has argued that chronopolitics are intimately linked
with Bakhtinâs concept of chronotopes, or timespaces (Bakhtin 2010
[1975], 84). When understood prefiguratively, archaeological sites
embody Bakhtinâs chronotope concept because their âspace becomes charged
and responsive to the movements of time, plot and historyâ and because
they are where time âthickensâ and becomes âvisibleâ (Bakhtin 2010
[1975], 84; see also Witmore 2013). This is part of the reason that
archaeological practice cannot be fundamentally separated from political
practice. These sites become ââwhere the knots of narrative are tied and
untiedâ (Bakhtin 2010 [1975], 250).
When that narrative constructs a past that overlooks non-state efforts
at communal organizationâor mainly focuses on the hierarchical forms of
communal organization and fails to incorporate small- and large-scale
democratically-organized or horizontally- organized societiesâthen that
past is inherently mobilized in the present to construct a future
history that underrepresents societies like these. Worse, it creates a
future his- tory where organization outside of the hierarchical state
doesnât even seem possible at a large scale. Chronotopes control which
interpretations are possible and which are not (Allan 1994). Thus,
preserved archaeological sites are chronotopes that leverage
chronopolitics to control these interpretations. In many ways, this is a
self-replicating process that, through time, decreases our historical
imagination of alternative political organizations. It is the
archaeological contribution of what Klinke (2013, 674) called the
âprogressive othering at the core of western geopoliticsâ.
The anarchist geographer Piotr Kropotkin (1898) warned about this
erasure when he wrote about how life and education within and under the
state has permanently impacted the way that we view the world.
Alternative ways of organizing, alternative ways of exist- ing and
being, are lost. This is the naturalization of the state (see also
Flexner 2014, 82â85; Faryluk 2015). Questions about how to organize
politically, from a context where the state is naturalized, replicate
existing forms of state organization because these are assumed to be the
only effective options. In this context radical answers become difficult
to hear, much less accept (Toulmin and Goodfield 1965, 43â44).
Thus, the use of archaeological sites to naturalize the hierarchical
state delegitimizes horizontal power structures (for similar discussion
from a memory/forgetting perspective, see Mills 2008, 82â83; Hayes 2011,
206â212). In North America, this serves a nefarious, but again implicit,
purpose, since most horizontal (or alternating horizontal and vertical)
power structures are Indigenous. Archaeological preservation decisions
that naturalize, and are naturalized under, the state necessarily
marginalize and erase the many creative forms of Indigenous management
of power (both vertical and horizontal).
This is visible in how many UNESCO World Heritage Sites in North America
and the Caribbean (68.9%) focus on European, or Western, colonial
powers. Countries like Cuba, a Marxist-Leninist socialist state with the
vanguard political goal of using the state to create a stateless and
classless society, serve as indicators of the effects that the
naturalization of the state has on the construction of history. Cuba,
with seven UNESCO World Heritage Sites, only preserves colonial period
sites with vertical political organization. There, horizontal
organizations and Indigenous societies are not preserved through UNESCO.
Archaeology is a chronopolitical discipline that can, and in many cases
does, limit historical memory through preservation-management decisions.
But this also means that we are in a unique position as practitioners to
prefigure future understandings of political organizations that do not
enforce or grow social inequality. This involves a critical personal
analysis as chronopolitical practitioners and an awareness that our
contemporary decisions are always in process of creating a future
replicated on them (following Birmingham 2013, 170). This also
demonstrates that site preservation management decisions cannot be done
on a site by site basis. Instead, preservation organizations should look
at the corpus of their preservation activity to determine what
archaeological sites, and thus histories, they should focus on to
balance the story that our past is creating and to preserve a diversity
of political forms.
Until this happens, we will continue to construct a future history that
sees no practical alternative to inequality and the hierarchical state.
My thanks to the passionate voices in the Black Trowel Collective,
Wenner Gren, and the on-site and social media participants of the
Archaeology and Anarchic Theory workshop. Particular thanks go to the
Amerind Foundation and its director, Christine Szuter, who allowed us a
large degree of flexibility to construct a workshop that was productive
for all of the participants. Barbara J. Mills, Corinne L. Hofman, Lars
Fogelin, Amy Strecker, James Flexner, and two anonymous reviewers all
read and submitted valuable com- ments on this article. This research
was partially funded by the ERC Synergy Project Nexus1492 (ERC grant
agreement no. 319209).
Adams, N. 1993. âArchitecture as the Target.â Jour- nal of the Society
of Architectural Historians
https://doi.org/10.2307/990864
Allan, S. 1994. ââWhen Discourse Is Torn from Real- ityâ: Bakhtin and
the Principle of Chronotopicity.â Time and Society
3 (2): 193â218. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0961463X94003002004
Arnold, B. 1999. âThe Contested Past.â Anthro- pology Today
. 2014. âErasure of the Past.â In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology
, edited by C. Smith, 2441â 2448. New York: Springer Reference. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_373
Bakhtin, M. M. 2010 [1975]. The Dialogic Imagina- tion: Four Essays.
University of Texas Press.
Bakunin, M. A. 1950. Marxism, Freedom and the State, edited by K. J.
Kenafick. London: Freedom Press. . 1970 [1882]. God and the State.
Translated by B. Tucker, revised. New York: Dover [facsimile of the 1916
edition of New York: Mother Earth Pub- lishing Association].
. 1971a. Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of
World Anarchism. Edited by S. Dolgoff. New York: Vintage Books.
. 1971b [1842]. âThe Reaction in Germany.â In Bakunin on Anarchy,
Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism, edited and
translated by S. Dolgoff, 56â57. New York: Vin- tage Books.
. 1973 [1873]. Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bandarin, F. 2007. World Heritage: Challenges for the Millennium. Paris:
UNESCO.
Beisaw, A. M. 2010. âMemory, Identity, and NAGPRA in the Northeastern
United States.â American Anthropologist
112 (2): 244â256. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01223.x
Bey, H. 1991. The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic
Terrorism: Anarchy and Conspiracy. New York: Autonomedia.
Birmingham, J. 2013. âFrom Potsherds to Smart- phones: Anarchism,
Archaeology, and the Material World.â In Without Borders or Limits: An
Interdis- ciplinary Approach to Anarchist Studies, edited by J. A.
MelĂ©ndez Badillo and N. J. Jun, 165â176. London: Cambridge Scholars
Press.
Black Trowel Collective. 2016. âFoundations of an Anarchist Archaeology:
A Community Manifesto.â Savage Minds
http://savage-minds.org/2016/10/31/foundations-of-an-anarchist-archaeology-a-community-manifesto/.
Boggs, C. 1977. âMarxism, Prefigurative Communism, and the Problem of
Workersâ Control.â Radical America 11 (6): 99â122.
Bookchin, M. 1995. Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An
Unbridgeable Chasm. San Francisco: AK Press.
Borck, L. and M. C. Sanger. 2017. âAn Introduction to Anarchism in
Archaeology.â SAA Archaeological Record 17 (1): 9â16.
Breines, W. 1989. Community and Organization in the New Left, 1962-1968:
The Great Refusal. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Calhoun, C. 1993. ââNew Social Movementsâ of the Early Nineteenth
Century.â Social Science History 17 (3): 385â427.
Castañeda, Q. E. 1996. In the Museum of Maya Cul- ture: Touring Chichén
ItzĂĄ. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chomsky, N. 2005. Chomsky on Anarchsim. Chico, CA: AK Press.
Cohn, J. S. 2006. Anarchism and the Crisis of Rep- resentation:
Hermeneutics, Aesthetics, Politics. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna
University Press.
Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628061
CrimethInc. 2008. Expect Resistance: A Field Manual. Salem, MA:
CrimethInc Ex-Workers Collective.
Day, R. J. F. 2005. Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist Cur- rents in the Newest
Social Movements. London: Pluto Press.
Faryluk, L. 2015. âArqueologĂa Anarquista: Entre Un Estado De La
CuestiĂłn Y Un Manifiesto Individual (En Contra Del Individualismo).â
Revista ErosiĂłn 5 (3): 71â87.
Ferguson, T. J. and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh. 2006. History Is in the
Land: Multivocal Tribal Traditions in Arizonaâs San Pedro Valley.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Flexner, J. L. 2014. âThe Historical Archaeology of States and
Non-States: Anarchist Perspectives from Hawaiâi and Vanuatu.â Journal of
Pacific Archaeology 5 (2): 81â97.
Foucault, M. 1980 [1977]. âThe Eye of Power: A Conversation with
Jean-Pierre Barou and Michelle Perrot.â In Power/Knowledge: Selected
Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977, by M. Foucault, 146â165. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Fowler, D. D. 1987. âUses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the
State.â American Antiquity
https://doi.org/10.2307/281778
Franks, B. 2003. âDirect Action Ethic.â Anarchist Studies 1: 13â41.
. 2006. Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary British
Anarchisms. Edinburgh: AK Press.
. 2014. âAnti-Fascism and Prefigurative Ethics.â Affinities: A Journal
of Radical Theory, Culture, and Action 8 (1): 44â72.
Freeman, J. 1972â1973. âThe Tyranny of Struc- turelessness.â Berkeley
Journal of Sociology 17: 151â64.
Gellner, E. 1964. Thought and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Giroux, H. A. 2013. The Violence of Organized For- getting. City Lights
Books.
Goldman, E. 2012. Anarchism and Other Essays. Courier Corporation.
Gordon, U. 2008. Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian Politics from
Practice to Theory. Pluto Press.
Graeber, D. 2002. âThe New Anarchists.â New Left Review 13: 61â73.
. 2013. The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New
York: Spiegel and Grau.
Hayes, K. 2011. âOcculting the Past. Conceptual- izing Forgetting in the
History and Archaeology of Sylvester Manor.â Archaeological Dialogues
18 (2): 197â221. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Halbwachs, M. 1992. On Collective Memory. New York: Harper & Row.
Hendon, J. A. 2010. âIntroduction: Thinking about Memory.â In Houses in
a Landscape, 1â31. Dur- ham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ince, A. 2012. âIn the Shell of the Old: Anarchist Geographies of
Territorialisation.â Antipode
44 (5): 1645â1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
org/culture/official/preamble.shtml
King, M. L. Jr. 1963. Strength to Love. New York: Harper and Row.
Klinke, I. 2013. âChronopolitics: A Concep- tual Matrix.â Progress in
Human Geog- raphy
37 (5): 673â690. https://doi.
Kropotkin, P. 1898. The State: Its Historic Role. London: â Freedomâ
Office.
. 1992 [1885]. Words of a Rebel. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Lenin, V. I. 1970 [1902]. What Is to Be Done? London: Panther.
Levy, J. E. 2006. âPrehistory, Identity, and Archaeological
Representation in Nordic Museums.â American Anthropologist
108 (1): 135â147. https://doi.
Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Maeckelbergh, M. 2009. The Will of the Many: How the Alterglobalisation
Movement Is Changing the Face of Democracy. London: Pluto Press.
. 2011. âDoing Is Believing: Prefiguration as Strategic Practice in the
Alterglobalization Movement.â Social Movement Studies
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.545223
McGuire, R. H. 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Meskell, L. 2013. âA Thoroughly Modern Park: Mapungubwe, UNESCO and
Indigenous Heritage.â In Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of
Modernity,
edited by A. GonzĂĄlez-Ruibal, 244â257. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203068632.ch19
Meskell, L. and R. Pruecel. 2008. âPolitics.â In Companion to Social
Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell and R. W. Preucel, 315â334. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Mills, B. J. 2008. âRemembering While Forget- ting: Depositional
Practice and Social Memory at Chaco.â In Memory Work: Archaeologies of
Material Practice, edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, 81â108. Santa
Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.
. and W. H. Walker. 2008. âIntroduction: Memory, Materiality, and
Depositional Practice.â In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Prac-
tice, edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, 3â23. Santa Fe, NM: School
for Advanced Research Press.
Politis, G. 1995. âThe Socio-Politics of the Develop- ment of
Archaeology in Hispanic South America.â In Theory in Archaeology: A
World Perspective, edited by P. J. Ucko, 194â231. London and New York:
Routledge.
Polletta, F. 2012. Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American
Social Movements. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.
Preucel, R. W. 1991. âThe Philosophy of Achaeology.â In Processual and
Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited
by R. W. Preucel, 17â29. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological
Inivestigations, Southern Ilinois University.
. 2006. Archaeological Semiotics
. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.
Proudhon, P. J. 1876 [1840]. What Is Property? An Enquiry into the
Principle of Right and of Government. Translated by B. R. Tucker.
Princeton, NJ: Benjamin R. Tucker. https://doi.
Quail, J. 1978. The Slow Burning Fuse. Chicago: Lake View Press.
Rocker, R. 1956. The London Years. London: Rob- ert Anscombe & Co. for
the Rudolf Rocker Book Committee.
. 2004 [1938]. Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. Edinburgh: AK
Press.
Rucht, D. 1988. âThemes, Logics, and Arenas of Social Movements: A
Structural Approach.â Inter- national Social Movement Research 1:
305â28.
Sauer, E. 2003. The Archaeology of Religious Hatred in the Roman and
Early Medieval World. Stroud, UK: Tempus.
Schlembach, R. 2012. âSocial Movements in Post- Political Society:
Prefiguration, Deliberation and Consensus.â In From Social to Political:
New Forms of Mobilization and Democratization, edited by B. Tejerina and
I. Perugorria, 234â246. Bilbao, Spain: University of Basque Country.
Schmidt, P. R. and T. C. Patterson, eds. 1995. Mak- ing Alternative
Histories: The Practice of Archaeol- ogy and History in Non-Western
Settings. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Sinopoli, C. M. 2003. âEchoes of Empire: Vijay- anagara and Historical
Memory, Vijayanagara as Historical Memory.â In Archaeologies of Memory
, edited by R. M. Van Dyke and S. E. Alcock, 17â33. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.
Springer, S. 2016. The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial
Emancipation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tamm, M. 2016. âWriting Histories, Making Nations: A Review Essay.â
Storicamente 32 (12): 1â29.
Toulmin, S. and J. Goodfield. 1965. The Discovery of Time. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Trotsky, L. 1973 [1938]. âTheir Morals and Ours.â In Their Morals and
Ours: Marxist Versus Liberal Views on Morality , by L Trotsky, J. Dewey
and G. Novack, 17â58. New York: Pathfinder Press.
van de Sande, M. 2015. âFighting with Tools: Prefigu- ration and Radical
Politics in the Twenty-First Cen- tury.â Rethinking Marxism
doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2015.1007791
Van Dyke, R. M. and S. E. Alcock. 2003. âArchaeolo- gies of Memory: An
Introduction.â In Archaeolo- gies of Memory, edited by R. M. Van Dyke
and S.
E. Alcock, 1â13. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9780470774304.ch1
Wallis, G. W. 1970. âChronopolitics: The Impact of Time Perspectives on
the Dynamics of Change.â Social Forces
49 (1): 102â108. https://doi.
Wengrow, D. and D. Graeber. 2015. âFarewell to the âChildhood of Manâ:
Ritual, Seasonality, and the Origins of Inequality.â Journal of the
Royal Anthro- pological Institute
21 (3): 597â619. https://doi.
Witmore, C. 2013. âWhich Archaeology?: A Question of Chronopolitics.â In
Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Moder- nity
, edited by A. GonzĂĄlez-Ruibal, 130â144. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203068632.ch10
Yates, L. 2015. âRethinking Prefiguration: Alterna- tives, Micropolitics
and Goals in Social Move- ments.â Social Movement Studies
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2013.870883
[1]
en/list/.
[2] Data is available at
https://github.com/lsborck/2016UNESCO_Cultural/tree/2018UNESCO_Cultural.
Coding these sites as either a vertical or horizontal sociopolitical
organization necessarily reduces these political forms from a continuum
into a binary. However this reduces obfuscation and allows potential
patterns to be clearly visible.