A common critique of anarcho-primitivism and other anti-civ theory is that civilization and agriculture were practiced by indigenous people before colonization. Applying the term agriculture to those cultures is erroneous because agriculture focuses on annuals and overlooks perennial & food-forest based cultivation.
When Europeans arrived in the Pacific Northwest, they declared there to be no plant cultivation in the area, when there in fact was, but not in a way European colonizers recognized. They were looking for neat rows of annual crops and cleared ground waiting to be planted (slash and burn). What they failed to perceive was plant cultivation that was perennial as well as forest-based.
Cultivated plants that were mixed in among the forest trees included a variety of berry bushes and brambles, hazelnut, saskatoon, wapato, silverweed, white oak, camas, nettle, a rhizome-forming clover, and more. But because the colonizers didn't recognize the utility of native plants, they ignored it all and branded the local people primitives for not having agriculture.
Similarly, the hierarchy of indigenous groups in the area was virtually created by colonizers who wanted a single representative in place to sign/agree to treaties. They assigned power to chiefs that wasn't bestowed on them by the tribes in order to use them to get what they wanted.