This article introduces a volume about inequality in ancient societies. It presents a theoretical frame in which wealth inequality’s origins, development, and prevalence can be understood and quantitatively compared. While its conclusions don’t seem especially insightful, it does the legwork of setting up the theory that further chapters in the volume can work from. It argues that inequality arises through network effects and “relative scarcities” that are intensified as groups “grow and differentiate”. This inequality is transmitted through generational inheritance and persists by exclusionary social structures that bound wealth. The model isn’t deterministic; the authors argue that inequality varies with the kinds of production, available technology, political complexity, and significantly, the sort of social institutions in place. They suggest that regimes which directly depend on their subjects for income are generally less unequal than autocratic regimes. They acknowledge climatic and geographic influences in their model, too.
The article does the crucial job of pushing back against deterministic conceptions of societies advancing linearly along a fixed path, with no space for variability. This is important when studying transformation and collapse since it locates developments in their own context instead of unjustly comparing them to a modern conception of progress. Still, I question the validity of relying on housing as the primary source of data for their calculation: it seems to me the link between home size and wealth isn’t as tight as they make it out to be, and they prematurely dismiss concerns about family size and other aspects of home size. Regardless, I admire the authors’ dedication to this original blend of archaeology and economics, and to rigorously extract sophisticated insight from seemingly inert archaeological data.
Societies are very different… why, then, is inequality so universal? This book explores inequality in archaeological society.
levels of wealth inequality were generally higher in the ancient and historical agrarian state societies ofthe Old World than in their New World counterparts. (4)
Inequality results from
“the interpersonal interactions of individual shaped by the constraints of resources, technology, and institutions, including stable social systems promoting inheritance ofwealth from one generation to the next”
There is academic disagreement on how widespread inequality is. An archaeological perspective is useful, then. Task: measure wealth inequality, without conflating sociopolitical power with wealth.
The Gini coefficient can be used to analyze and compare archaeological data.
We prefer the… definition of social inequality provided by Robert Holton, as differences that “create and reproduce systemic inequalities in the life chances of populations over time” (8)
Individual dfiferences do not explain hierarchies. What does?
Development of relative scarcities in productive land or high-ranked wild game likely abetted wealth inequality. Scarcities are dealt with in part by increasing effort, and such intensification seems likely to lead to weakening norms for resource sharing.
Spokespeople have a status they may pass on generationally. As groups grow and differentiate internally, this intensifies. Also, people turn to relying on reputation to assess the status of others. This means that network effects produce inequality as a community grows. And “a variety of pressures and processes in the Holocene have channeled groups toward ever-larger sizes” (11).
Different communities value things differently: material wealth vs embodied wealth, for instance.
So inequality arises from
“Surplus wealth beyond subsitence is distributed by power” (13), argues Lenski. This view implies reproduction of inequality by exclusionary bounding of wealth, as theorized by Charles Tilly, inspired by Marx.
Resources and modes of production: inequality varies with type of subsistence, until it reaches the “inequality possibility frontier” (Milanovic et al 2011).
Population size: the general pattern holds, with some surprising exceptions with more complex explanations.
Political complexity: while distinct from inequality, they are tightly related.
Technology: greater production and thus surplus enables “more-extensive inequities in distribution” (16).
Institutional variability: more democratic institutions generally correlate with lower levels of wealth and inequality. A sophisticated explanation must understand the social mechanisms that bind the previous factors together.
Blinton and Fargher (2008) notice that bureaucies that depend on taxation, public goods encourage subjects to stay. In contrast, autocracies that depend on conquest and controlling trade have no reason to provide goods. This implies that collective regimes should enjoy lower inequality; which has been generally validated.
Control of trade routes and resources is easier in Eurasia and Africa, so the potential for inequality was higher. This isn’t deterministic.
Slow changes in technology and natality during the Pleistocene resulted in some stratification. The end of the Pleistocene brought climatic stability and steeper gradients between good and bad resource areas. This rewarded territorial behavior and thus population density, as well as developing private property and decreasing demand sharing. Altogether these changes placed emphasis on success through wealth transfer to children.
The value of housing is a good indicator of wealth, since it tends to be the most expensive item owned. For this reason, basing Ginis on house size is a good idea. The relationship isn’t necessarily universal: it can also be related to family size. The authors still use it.
There are non-wealth kinds of inequality, like prestige, seen in burial assemblages, or quality of life, which is a promising research avenue.
The Gini coefficient is a way of measuring the state of a society relative to a Lorenz curve. Inequality varies a lot, so it makes little sense to claim typical levels of inequality. Also, theoretical models don’t always apply: Teotihuacan was generally equal. The case studies depend on available data, and is not exhaustive, although it includes meaningful comparisons.