The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe [and Comments and Reply] Author(s): Antonio Gilman, Robert

McC. Adams, Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, Alberto Cazzella, Henri J. M. Claessen, George L. Cowgill, Carole L. Crumley, Timothy Earle, Alain Gallay, A. F. Harding, R. J. Harrison, Ronald Hicks, Philip L. Kohl, James Lewthwaite, Charles A. Schwartz, Stephen J. Shennan, Andrew Sherratt, Maurizio Tosi, Peter S. Wells Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 1981), pp. 1-23 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742414 . Accessed: 25/03/2011 10:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

Vol. 22, No. 1, February1981

0011-3204/81/2201-0001$02.25 Research for Foundation Anthropological 1981by The Wenner-Gren

The Developmentof Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe'

by Antonio Gilman

has of beentakenforgranted sincethebeginning research intotheir materialremains over a century ago. The burialswhichmake up the bulk of the evidenceleave no doubtthat markedsocial inequalitiesemergedduringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C. Althoughsome earlier studies have attemptedto reconstruct Bronze Age social structure Europe (e.g., Otto 1955), it is in only recently that much detailed attentionhas been paid to either or descriptive theoretical aspectsofhowsocial stratificationcame intobeing(Gilman1976; Kempisty 1978; Randsborg 1973, 1974; Renfrew 1972; Shennan1975; Wuistemann 1977). These studiesstrongly suggestthat the elitesof the European BronzeAge werehereditary. The Early BronzeAge cemetery at Brancin Slovakia,for had numbers richsubadult example, of graves(Shennan1975),thelack ofpossibleachievements the of deceasedsuggesting their that superordinate statuswas ascribed (cf.Binford 1971). The increase theproportion richfemale in of to richmale burialsoverthecourseoftheEarly BronzeAge in Denmark (Randsborg1974) may be interpreted reflecting as the progressive separationof high status fromachievement, sincetheimportance female of activities relative male onesis to unlikely have increased to overthattime.2 Specific studiessuch as theseconfirm what has long been accepted on the basis of moregeneralconsiderations. Thus, the development metalof a lurgy, specializedtechnologv mainlyforthe manufacture of
THE STRATIFICATION OF EUROPEAN BRONZE AGE SOCIETIEs
I In preparingthis paper I benefited greatlv fromthe help and advice of Keith Morton, Robert Newcomb, Charlotte Oyer, Alan Richards, Gregory Truex, and especially Richard Harrison and TimothyEarle. The writing was completed duringtenureof a Tinker Post-DoctoralFellowship. 2 Randsborg suggeststhat the increasing wealth of femaleburials relative to male ones may be due to an increasingimportanceof women'sworkin farming. However,as Neustupny(1967) pointsout, the plow agriculture the Bronze Age would tend to increase the of importance male,not female, of workin agriculture.

and of displayitems,involvesan elaboratesystem production suggeststhe existenceof a permanent exchangeand thereby upper class to consumethe goods so arduouslybroughtinto styles of distribution eliteartifact being.The broadgeographic such as bell beakers and (in a later period) swordslikewise was of pointsto the existence upperclasses whoserecruitment stable forthemto establisha web of widespread, sufficiently Indeed, the very passage mutuallysupportivepartnerships. a burialrituals, changeocto collective "individualizing" from at curring the startof the Bronze Age over muchof Europe, (Renfrew suggests the developmentof social stratification 1976). In theirrecentsurveyof BronzeAge Europe, Coles and Harding (1979:535) conclude: changes of Age of the During course theBronze a number important appearance its the that took place-changes lend period characteristic that it anything had gonebefore.... Perhaps and distinguish from .... of is obvious these theriseoftheprivileged It is hard themost of thanthose aggrandizement in other process terms of to think this of and thestart socialstratification. the ofthefew, riseoftheelite, social organization of The scarcity studiesoflaterprehistoric conto in Europe is, no doubt,in part attributable pessimism cerningthe possibilityof dealing with questions of social data (Hawkes 1954). It is also in usingarchaeological structure of theory howand partdue to thewideacceptanceofa coherent Europe, a arose in later prehistoric why social stratification to whichobviatedany need to pay close attention the theory The clearest of in internal dynamics socialhistory Europeitself. statement thisoutlookis in thelater worksof Childe (1956, of 1958). Childe's view was that Orientalpower and knowledge times much as Europe in later prehistoric had transformed the European power and knowledgehad transformed world under capitalism. Oriental centers would have sought raw in materials, particularmetals,fromEurope and would have providedthe initial capital to stimulatea networkof comto Referring the Copper based on metallurgy. exchange modity Spain,forexample,Childe(1957:284) in a Age ofsoutheastern of typicalpassage arguedthat "the urbanization the Almerian howeverindirect,of a economy is presumably reflection, ... of Orientalcities'demandformetal." The fortunes local elites on in Europe would have dependedessentially Near Eastern else, as events.This widelysharedtheory, much as anything on research theEuropeanBronze for was responsible restricting links studiescapable ofdemonstrating to the Age to typological of the Orient.Understanding development social stratification of of no required detailedconsideration theworkings prehistoric politicaleconomy. arguments (e.g.,Clark withdiffusionist uneasiness Increasing
1

ANTONIO

GILMAN is on leave this year from California State University, Northridge(where he is Associate Professorof Anthropology),as a Visiting Scholar at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, a Tinker Post-Doctoral Fellowship (his on mailing address: 226 Upland Rd. Cambridge, Mass. 02140, U.S.A.). Born in 1944, he was educated at Harvard College (A.B., 1965), CambridgeUniversity(B.A., 1967), and Harvard University(Ph.D., 1974). He has taught at the Universityof Wisconsin-Oshkosh. His research interestis the prehistory of North Africaand the Iberian Peninsula. He has published The Later Prehistory Tangier,Morocco (American School of Preof historic Research Bulletin29). The presentpaper was submitted finalform17 iv 80. in

Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February 1981

of of 1966) and demonstrations theindependence Europeanculsuch turalfeatures supposedto be of Near Easternderivation, as megaliths (Renfrew 1967)and metalworking (Renfrew 1969), have combinedto bringabout the collapse of the traditional theoryof culturechange. This collapse has largelybeen an empirical one, caused by radiocarbon determinations, spectroof there is and othermatters fact.As a result, graphic analyses, of vacuum in European prehistoric something a theoretical of studies.How is the emergence elitesto be explainedwithout The main candidate for a new Near Eastern intervention? "paradigm"is thefunctionalism forward Renfrew put by (1972, 1973a) and otherprehistorians the younger of generation. My formulations purposein thispaper is to showthatfunctionalist will not explain the developmentof social stratification in an to Europe'and to suggest alternative theory accountforthe rise of dominant social stratain prehistoric Europeansocieties this nonof the Copper and Bronze Ages. Mutatis mutandis, to functionalist accountwillbe seento have broadapplicability similarinstancesof social changebeyondEurope.

FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION The rise of complex, hierarchical societies itself an as presents advance. Complexsocietieshave largerpopulaevolutionary tions than their egalitarian predecessorsand deploy more powerful productiveforces. Once established,they tend to expandat the expenseofless populousand hierarchical neighthe of bors,thusillustrating "principle competitive exclusion" to (Carneiro1978).It is hardly surprising see thestatedescribed as exhibiting in "greatermaturity an ecologicalsuccession"of politicaltypes (Gall and Saxe 1977:260). The adaptive effecin tivenessof hierarchy moderating environmental social and is uncertainty so widelyacceptedin therecent anthropological thatscholars whoquestion feelit necessary decry it to literature "evolutionism"as a whole (Yoffee 1979). What is at issue, is for of however, the usefulness functionalism understanding comeintobeing. howclass societies A shared featureof the few archaic states for whichadesourcesexistis a hereditary quate documentary nobility:alii (Hawaii), pilli (Aztec), orejones(Inca), etc. Membershipin these groups is by ascriptionand grants a small minority wealth disproportionate their numbers(i.e., preferential to access to resources). These unquestionable classespose a ruling clear problemfor conventional accountsof the emergence of Harris (1971:393), forexample, complexsocial organization. his at a forward functionalclearly expresses uneasiness putting ist accountof the originsof social stratification: "What were the rewardsof those who were cut offfromthe two-millionof . year-old heritage freeaccess to resources? . . Whywas controlofsoil,water, and even theair yielded intothehandsof up a relatively small groupof people?" To these ratherdifficult questionsmost anthropologists (including Harris) give a disarmingly simple answer: rulingclasses obtain theirposition because they provideservicesessentialto the mass of their subjects. Most of the differences between theories about theorigins of societiesrevolve whichthe aroundthesortsofservices complex elites would have providedin particularsituations.Mesopotamia,Egypt,China,and other centers lendprimafaciesupport to Wittfogel's "The handling relatively of hydraulic hypothesis: large amounts of water. . . requirescoordination a comof munallaborforce and, above a certain magnitude, leadership a that directsthe construction and maintenanceof hydraulic installations thedistribution irrigation and of water"(Wittfogel 1972:70). Earle (1978:37-49) elucidates several functional variantsofthismanagerial approach.The diversity resources of 2

in regionssuch as Mesoamerica supportsthe redistribution of by theory forward Sahlins(1958:5): "As dispensers food put supportof the and othergoods,and in rewardof theirlogistic their politigainedin prestige and extended community, chiefs and Coe (1968) and prerogatives." Flannery cal and ceremonial internaland external Rathje (1971), for example,represent of variants,respectively, this approach. As Earle (1978:5) his pointsout, althoughCarneiro(1970) presents resource-cirmodelit in facthas theory cumscription/warfare as a "conflict" component:the population can only a strongfunctionalist superior(i.e., more secureaccess to needed resources through organization Webster1977). Service (cf. hierarchical) military (1978:32) sums up the consensus of recent scholarship: organization "Redistribution (and especiallytrade), military but and publicworks wereall basic in theclassicalcivilizations, by in all musthave had small beginnings the simpleattempts primitiveleaders to perpetuate their social dominance by suchbenefits their It for followers." is thepossibility organizing of (indeed,the likelihood)of the co-occurrence morethan one "primemover"that leads Flannery(1972) to recasttheseaptheory. languageofinformation proachesintothemoregeneral In thisversion elitesconstitute regulators" the of "higher-order information needed forthe functioning a complexsociety. of comesinto being,then,because in one or Social stratification more ways "the chiefcreates a collectivegood beyond the and groupstaken conception capacityofthe society'sdomestic He a greater thanthesum separately. institutes publiceconomy ofits household parts" (Sahlins 1972:140). Most recent work on the developmentof the European the Bronze Age does not confront questionof causes directly, has (1976:246) pointsout,a new consensus but,as Neustupny the processes of social change begun to emergeconcerning and extenThe mostexplicit involves. whichthatdevelopment use sive instanceofthenewviewis Renfrew's oftheredistribuoutlinedabove to tion variant of the functionalist argument of in explaintheemergence social stratification Greeceand the 1972:chap. 18). The Minoan Aegeanaround2000B.C. (Renfrew and Mycenaean palaces would have been the focal pointsof to theirprincesenactivities contributing the generalwelfare: couragedtrade,craftswereimproved(leadingto "new metal were and tools increasing agricultural efficiency"), foodstuffs who made available to primaryproducers, more effectively to werestimulated increasetheir output"by thewishto receive (1973a:210) sums up: redistributed goods" (p. 490). Renfrew of and controlled "The redistribution goods,whichis organized ful. by the chiefhimself, . . is, of course,exactlythe function taking civilization, filled thepalaces of Minoan-Mycenaean by in and storingthe produce fromthe very different fields, even in a small area, and pastureswhichare found, orchards, are chiefdoms" sugin southGreece."Similar"individualizing gested for Bronze Age Wessex and elsewherein Europe. A of similarview has been extendedto the interpretation trade stone networks the preceding of period: in the Late Neolithic, whoseexchange axes and coppersare the kula-like provaygua volumeofsubsistence vided channelsto "carrya muchgreater products" (Sherratt1976:568). Clarke's (1976) discussionof beakersas primitive valuables is in the same vein. The part played by elites in the processof social change in later prein historicEurope is oftenleft somewhatunspecified these if else,givesa clear studies, but the rangeof citations, nothing indicationof the increasingacceptance by Europeanistpreof historians a functionalist accountof theemergence superof ordinate social strata(cf.Milisauskas1978).The newparadigm lux whichis proposedto replace the ex oriente account of the the as EuropeanBronzeAge elitemay be summarized follows: and for of development extensivenetworks the procurement led necessary everyone to the emerfor allocationof resources genceof a permanent ruling class,whichmanagedthecomplex involved. problems production/distribution
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY

CRITIQUE citedabove involvesthree of The functionalism theauthorities two are commonplaces. steps,thefirst ofwhich anthropological as whole ("a system First,a cultureis regarded an integrated is Second,thissystem seen as whatpermits withsubsystems"). means in thoseinvolved it to survive("cultureas extrasomatic of adaptation"). Third,particularfeaturesof the systemare one explainedas beingadaptive. This last step is a dangerous a whichtendstowards Panglossianacceptanceof theactual as the necessary(cf. Friedman 1974). In particular,when this thirdstep is takento explainwhatthe elitedoes in a stratified arise. severemisunderstandings society, of accountofthedevelopment elitesmaybe The functionalist characits to at criticized oncefor failure explainthehereditary Even ifone grants regulators." teroftheclass of "higher-order that certain economicsituationsdemand leadershipfor the commongood, it does not followthat the rulersmust be refrom ruling a class. It is notapparentthatthebestway cruited of choosing efficient managersis by birth.A classic defectof is to inability accountforpossible explanations their functional (Hempel 1959). alternatives account the suchlogicalknots, functionalist Quiteapart from doesnotmatchwhatwe actuallyknowabout thepartplayedby propositions classesofstratified societies. The central theruling of the functionalist accountare that elitesare in factinvolved an confer in managerialtransactions, that these transactions and thatelites as uponthepopulation a whole, adaptivebenefit These provide thesebenefits. positions becausethey obtaintheir are specifications not met in the concretecases to whichthe explanations applied. are functionalist severaldetailed has stimulated hydraulic theory Wittfogel's irrigation social complexity and between studiesoftherelation by reviewof theliterature Earle 1978). On the (see thecritical whole,these studies cast doubt on the theory'scrucial manor is Whereirrigation extensive important, agerialcomponent. of elitesare often involvedin the distribution water.Thus, not systemsof Glick (1970) shows that the extensiveirrigation mediaevalValencia werebuiltand operatedby the cultivators Adams (1965) indicatesthat early Mesopotamian themselves. production, irrigation systems,while crucial to agricultural and manwithlocal control compatible wereon a scale entirely to agement.In Dynastic Egypt,according Butzer (1976), the stratified societyhad no manupper tiersof this indubitably of withrespectto the distribution the Nile's agerial functions wereoperatedat thelocal level, water:theflood-basin systems by intervention thepharaoh.Even where withonlyceremonial local hydo theirrepresentatives) administer elites (through benetheirintervention not be generally draulicsystems, may In was ficial. Hawaii irrigation indeedsupervised appointees by ofthechiefs, thisdirection notrequired thetechnical but was by of Earle (1978:141) complexity these small,simplenetworks. sums up the situationas follows:"Who were the most direct of beneficiaries managerialactivities? For whomdid the manto agers work?.. . Their main role was specifically mobilize and to direct labor activitiesso as to maximize incomeflow the of the elites." In mostinstanceselitesare not involvedin the Wheretheyare, it is mainly of systems. management irrigation in theirown interest ratherthan on behalfof thesocial whole. The redistribution warfare and variantsof the functionalist accountof social stratification stronger than the hydraulic are in variantin that the empirical evidenceforelite involvement representatives theseactivitiesin personor through directing theseacis unquestionable. What may be doubtedis whether to tivitiesare adaptive-whethertheycontribute the general welfare.Cowgill (1975:506) puts matterssuccinctly:"People the in strong have often promoted, evenbelieved, and positions and that'What's goodforme is goodforthesystem, argument but the what's good for the systemis good for everybody,' Vol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981

Gilman:STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

with this idea hardly need spellingout." Earle's difficulties Hawaii, is in of examination redistribution its classic instance, is Althoughthe islands' ecologicaldiversity supinstructive. posed to make organizedexchangebetweenregions(arranged local an good offices) adaptivearrangement, the through chief's differences the in "werelaid out so as to minimize communities populations"(Earle 1977:223). The available to their resources whichdid take place wereby direct regions between exchanges by channelscontrolled the chiefs.Rebarterand not through because primary contributors is distribution supposedto benefit run network by an theycan becomepart of a largereconomic elite.In Mesopotamia,forexample,one is told that the Sumeneeded,among a rian eliteadministered "Great Organization" such as wood and basic raw materials, to otherthings, import floodplain stone,whichwere scarce on the Tigris/Euphrates and (Lamberg-Karlovsky Sabloff1979:179). The clay sickles a that are so characteristic featureof Mesopotamianartifact to as assemblages earlyas Ubaid timesare mutetestimony how to little was actually distributed the primaryproducers.A variant againstthe warfare can parallelargument be mounted by directed elites,is beneWarfare, theory. ofthefunctionalist termsbecause it suppliesscarce resources, ficialin functional cases are any historical If suchas land, to the victors. concrete veryfewofthespoilsaccrue to themass ofthe guide,however, enterprise. the support military whosecontributions population The conquestsof the Roman Republic provide a well-documentedexample (Anderson1974:67-68; cf. Finley 1973:5556): from enormously the financial profited aristocracy The senatorial annexations progressive that of sacking theMediterranean succeeded land in extortion, and fortunes tribute, boundless making by Rome, of evena modicum to unwilling provide slaves;but it was utterly unheard-of these yielded whose fighting to compensationthesoldiery the taxing havemeant would bounties gains.... To havepaidthem to refused consider. aristocracy and the classes, this ruling possessing and The redistribution warfarevariants of the functionalist variantonly because than the hydraulic account are stronger improvements thanagricultural taxesand bootyare moredirect as avenuesto eliteself-aggrandizement. classesmaysometimes of thatruling It is undeniable, course, public works,enbe of serviceto theirsubjects by directing and so helpingin the event of disasters, commerce, couraging forth. Such activitiesmay be usefulmeans by whichthe elite its extend,and legitimate wealthand power, can consolidate, of for but theyare not responsible its attainment power.Marx (1967 [1887]:322) puts the point clearly enough: "It is not thata man is a capitalist;on because he is a leaderofindustry because he is a capitalhe the contrary, is a leaderof industry ist." If these theoriesabout the originsof elite are doubtfulin of to theyseemeven moreunsuited an explanation the general, in of origins stratification Europe. In the cases forwhichthese are at least theorieswere developed, managerial functions etc. In laterpreplausible:thereare cities,largepublicworks, the historic Europe,virtually onlyevidenceforsocial complexBronze Age settleity is the wealth of the elites themselves. scarceovermuchofEurope, are for ments, example, extremely a circumstance which does not suggestthey were large. In suchas southeastern are where more settlements known, regions Spain, Copperand BronzeAge sitesusuallycovera hectareor may cover is less. An exception Los Millares,whosesettlement fourhectares;in Europe this passes for"urbanism" (Arribas which hierarchies, 1959). In fact,it is notablethat settlement are oftentaken to be the primearchaeologicalindicatorsof (Wrightand Johnson1975, Isbell and regulation higher-order attestedin Europe onlyin those Schreiber 1978),are definitely withMediterranean commerce in involved demonstrable regions

the civilizations: Aegeanin theBronzeAge and CentralEurope in theEarly Iron Age (Frankenstein Rowlands1978,Wells and 1977).3That Mediterranean tradewas so important Minoan/ to Mycenaean and Hallstatt/La Tene florescence gave strength, lux of of course,to the ex oriente theory European prehistoric This empirically falsified development. account cannot be replaced by functionalist approaches,if only because in prehistoricEurope it is not apparentwhat positivefunctions there were to be regulated.Preciselyfor this reason, prehistoric Europe providesan excellentvantage point fromwhich to envision a nonfunctionalist theoryof the originsof social stratification. A NONFUNCTIONALIST ALTERNATIVE in The question of posed by functionalists theirexplanation the of is origins stratification "What servicesdo elitesprovidefor The oppositeattackon theproblem society?" beginsby asking: "In spite of the fact that theiractions do not serve common how do elitesestablishand maintaintheircontrol?" interests, is This problematic implicit a number works theorigins in of on In of social complexity. his discussion the "Urban Revoluof the a tion" Childe (1951) emphasized need to concentrate surplus forthe supportof nonproducers saw clearlythat the and nonproducers capture that surplusin their own interest.A similar of is recognition therealities social stratification clear of conin the workofAdamswhenhe pointsout thatirrigation's to tribution the development elitesis its "encouragement of of differential yields" (Adams 1966:72; cf. Diakonoff1969) or that early trade is more fruitfully viewed as serving"the of interests the agents of exchange"than as fulfilling "broad social needs" (Adams 1974:242; cf.Kohl 1978). Earle's (1978) of in reconsideration the organizationof chiefdoms Hawaii showsclearlyhow the greedof the elite quite adequatelyexplains theirdealingswiththeirsubjects.The desireof the alii to enhancetheirpoliticalpowermade themextractthe maximumpossiblesurplus encouraging theirsubjectpopulations by to producemoreand by conquering morepeople.The elites yet sometimesfound it advisable to assist commoners(for exthemrebuild after natural ample,by helping irrigation systems disasters),but it is clear that thiswas onlyto ensurea future sourceofincome.Systemic could have been securedat benefits In the lessercost to themass ofthepopulation. short, riseofan without reference thecommon to elitecan be understood good. What needsto be explainedis how elitesacquireand maintain theirpowerin spite of the fact that, muchof the time,their actionsare againstthe interests the mass of thepopulation. of The conditions elitesto establishthemselves permitting permanently becomeclearwhenone looksat theinternal dynamics ofsocial systems without ruling a on class. The literature tribal (rank)societies makesitplain thatthere no wantofaspirants is to superordinate status. In Siuai, to choose a characteristic his example, would-be the leaderachievesand maintains ambitions by demonstrating abilitiesas a warrior, his ceremonial leader, food producer,etc.; "numerouscases were recorded wherein ambitious fathers maternal or uncleshave wastedtheir resources and effort push forward to youngmen" lackingthe of combination attributes requisite (Oliver 1967:441). The inwithin hereditary is a cona line abilityto pass on leadership can shifttheir sequence of the ease with which supporters
Milisauskas (1978:156, 229) arguesthat,as of the 3d millennium a two-tiered settlementhierarchyis attested in areas where there is adequate evidence for settlementpatterns (e.g., FunnelBeaker Poland). The differences settlement in size may,however, be attributableto differences the time spans of site occupation,the in richness local resource of bases, or othernonhierarchical factors. Even in so thoroughly surveyedan area as Late Bronze Age northwestern Bohemia (Bouzek, Koutecky,and Neustupny1966), it is difficult to discerna clear ranking settlements. of
B.C., I

allegiancefrom leader who provesunsatisfactory. egalia An tarian social orderis maintained such by the facility as with whicha leader,actual or potential,can be abandonedby his followers, should he displease them. Carneiro(1968:136) has pointedout how thissame weaknessin "internal politicalcontrols"leads to villageschisms.In a sense,then,one may considerlineagesegmentation concomitant and villagefission be to the ultimatemechanism whichthe self-aggrandizement by of is "big-men" checked. seekto understand We howand whythe attempts ambitious of tribesmen securehereditary, to ascribed leadership posts succeededin Copperand BronzeAge Europe. We mustlook,therefore, conditions for whichwouldretardthe processofsegmentation characteristic tribalsocieties. of A common explanation decreasein segmentation popufor is lation increase and consequentpressureon spatially limited resources("resourcecircumscription"). The strength this of argumentis that it explains how dissidentscan affordthe courageof theirconvictions tribalsocieties:it is ecologically in possibleforthemto escape ("land suitableas a habitat fora dissidentgroupis easily found" [Carneiro1968:136]). Whatever the empiricalmeritsof this argument may be in other settings, will not explainthe retardation segmentation it of in prehistoric Europe. Broad stretches uninhabited, habitof but existedin Europe and the Mediterranean able, wilderness well intothemediaevaland earlymodern period.In laterprehistoric times,when populationdensitiesmust have been far lower, therewouldhave been plentyof land into whichpeople could move to avoid unwantedmasters.The shifttowards social on complexity occurs,furthermore, too broad and diversea for front theresource-circumscription argument be viable. to account of the development social Any nonfunctionalist of the mustconfront centralfunctionalist that stratification idea is hierarchy ultimately adaptive for society as a whole. In generalterms,the functionalist positionis that elites retard segmentation (attract a following) providingmanagerial by in in services required a highly productive economy: theMesothe in potamiancase, for example, elitewouldorganize, thearea of the ofexchange, procurement woodand stoneand,in thearea the and of of production, construction maintenance irrigation must The nonfunctionalist turnthisaroundand explain works. termswhy societieswithhighly in nonmanagerial productive tendto have elites.In otherwords,whataspects of economies and exchangesystemsof Copper and Bronze the production for Age Europe openedup the opportunity effective long-term exploitation a ruling by minority? COMMODITY EXCHANGE

on in The basic nonfunctionalist argument theroleofexchange of the origins class societiesgoes back to Engels (1972 [1891]). and entailed For Engelscraft production, especially metallurgy, of control of the development a network commodity exchange, to the ofwhichgave middlemen opportunity establish positions of wealthand power.This idea was, as we have seen,takenup by Childein hisaccountofEuropeanBronzeAge social change. to Near Easternprospectors Childetiedhis theory hypothetical but and merchants, one could easily allow local factorsmore play. of In orderto use tradeas a motive processfortheemergence one social stratification, mustargue that the goods exchanged can ones.The goodswhichthemiddleman denythe are essential to householdwhichrefuses pay his price mustbe requiredfor In livelihood. otherwords,trademustinvolve, the household's sectorof the econthe or directly indirectly, basic subsistence omy.Thus, Adams (1966) showsthat specialization agriculin tural production(and the consequentneed to exchangefoodstuffs)promoted the developmentof social inequalities in in Mesopotamia. Kohl (1978) suggeststhat highlanders the
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY

fromthe lowon Near East became dependent grainimports Childe (1951, 1954) stressed lands and thuson theirsuppliers. exoticraw materials of the importance metaltools (made from land clearanceand harvestby a fewspecialists)in facilitating of accountof the importance exchange ing. A nonfunctionalist of in theorigins EuropeanBronzeAge elitescould,in principle, Orientalintervention. be constructed along theselineswithout in attendantupon using these arguments a The difficulties Foodstuffs are but Europeansetting not theoretical, empirical. volumeofthemto createlocal or are bulky:to movea sufficient on wouldhave beenquite importation regional dependence their Furthersystems. beyondthecapacityofBronzeAge transport more,the available economicevidence does not supportthe of hypothesis extensivetrade in subsistenceitems. If in the BronzeAge "smokedfishfromthe Baltic would have made a to usefulcontribution inlanddiets" (Coles and Harding 1979: 281), one should findappropriatefishbones on inland sites. One does not, and theirabsence need not be attributedto or taphonomic samplingbiases. All the animal and plant rewiththereasonable BronzeAge sitesare consistent mainsfrom view that their inhabitantsate foods produced or foraged locally.It is hard to envisionAunjetitzor Argariccommoners dependenton rationsfromafar and submissiveto the chiefs theirsupply. who controlled involvedin some forQuite apart fromthe simplifications as and prospectors agentsof mulations about theroleofsmiths variantof the comtrade (Rowlands 1971), the metallurgical facesthe difficulty on present that, argument modity-exchange actually evidence,it is hard to see how the metal implements knownfromBronze Age Europe would have helped increase overallproduction substantially. What Arribas(1968:49) says of Iberia-"we know of no agricultural tools of metal in the BronzeAge"-is not quite trueforEurope as a whole,but it is notfaroff mark.Onlyin theLate BronzeAge are substanthe tial numbers utilitarian The veryfact metalartifacts found. of that mostbronzesare foundin burialsand votivehoardssugthana pracrather geststhatmetalhad a social and ideological tical value. A luxury of like metalreflects, course,the differential possession wealth,forwhichthe materialmay serveas a of convenientformof storage. By providingequipment both (cf. other luxuries Harrison and tradefor prestigious suitablefor and Gilman1977),metallurgy the mayhave consolidated sway of an alreadyexistent that elite. It would not seem,however, the role copperand bronzeplayed a significant in maintaining economicand social security households. it of Accordingly, is hard to accept thatit called the eliteintobeing.It is betterto of see metal as an index than as a cause of the development social stratification Europe. in Whilethecommodity-exchange maybe theory eliteorigins of usefulin othersettings, laterprehistoric Europe it founders in on theapparentself-sufficiency Trade was oflocal communities. to We to mostlyconfined luxuries.4 must look, therefore, the ratherthan to themselves production processesof subsistence rootsofeliteorigins. exchange thematerial for
in the economy of the Bronze Age. Since it is both biologically necessaryto its consumersand portable in quantities sufficient to satisfydemand,salt arguablywould be a bettercenterpiece the for commodity-exchange theory eliteorigins of thaneithermetalor food. Its exploitationin later prehistoric Europe is widespread (Nenquin 1961); in the Halle/Saale regionartifacts used in salt boilingdate to the Early Bronze Age (Matthias 1976). This associationof earlysalt productionwith the rich (i.e., clearly stratified [Otto 1955]) SaxoThuringian Aunjetitz is suggestive but requires confirmation in otherregions.Elsewhere,knownbriquetagesites are associated with remainsof later periods,when social stratification alreadv long was established.In any event,the invisibility salt in the archaeological of recordmakes it hard to assess its role in the economiesof areas that imported it.
4 Coles and Harding (1979:61-63) emphasizetheimportance salt of

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

CAPITAL-INTENSIVE

SUBSISTENCE

TECHNOLOGY

have Nonfunctionalists tendedto neglect roleofsubsistence the in for production providing possibilities long-term exploitation Once again it is Childewhohas suggested by a ruling minority. to a fruitful approach. Referring the early developmentof he the irrigation systems, writes:"All through Near East the withtoil.Capital in theform human bestsiteswerereclaimed of labor was beingsunkintotheland. Its expenditure boundmen to the soil; theywould not lightly forego interest the brought works"(Childe 1951:89-90). This idea in by their reproductive from to may be extended irrigation any technology whichsubstantiallyincreases productivity throughpreparatory labor. is Segmentation only easy if thosewho leave can readilyproduce in the mannerand at the levels to whichtheyare accustomed.Departuremustnot involvethe abandonment subof stantialassets. If, forexample,subsistence depends on slashone and-burn abandon an undesirable farming, can effectively forward timeofa shift cultivation the in leaderby bringing soon in if to be undertaken any event. Conversely, the productive of investment work,the systemrequiresa heavy preliminary to will the resources. producers be reluctant relinquish restricted have created. Whereirrigation any other or they themselves formof subsistence crucial to production, is capital-intensive leaderifone sacrifices the one can onlyabandonan undesirable work expended to create facilitieswhich increase or insure the yields. Under conditionsthus impedingsegmentation, of to ambitions aspirants highstatuswillbe harderto check.In as thisway, then,elitescan form moreproductive subsistence technologiesdevelop without the elites' being required to This the organize productive improvements. theory ofcourse, is, usefulforexplaining social changein Copperand particularly Bronze Age Europe, whereelitesseem to have arisenwithout What remainsto be specifiedis what managerialfunctions. systems of productionwere developed in later prehistoric to Europe of sufficient intensity have retardedthe fissionof social groups. primitive The generally accepted view of the agricultural historyof the 2d Europe during 4ththrough millennia sees slash-andB.C. followed variburnfarming the initialagricultural as form, by over ous intensifications the courseof time.There is overalla towards more of which progression powerful systems production is notonlylogical,butalso supported theavailable evidence by is to (Green1979). Information too scattered permit systematic of regionalreconstructions the varied evolutionof subsistence of in techniques laterprehistoric Europe.A number widespread do developments involve, however,the substantial,durable labor inputswhich,following theoryjust outlined,would the Plow agrihelp to unbalancean egalitarian politicaleconomy. and offshore culture,Mediterraneanpolyculture, irrigation, will be discussedhere in an attempt to specifythe fishing between and relationship agricultural social change.
PLOW AGRICULTURE

Use of the ard is widelyattestedby the end of the 3d millenniumB.C. (Late Neolithicand Copper Age contexts).The evidence falls broadlyinto five categories.First, thereare discoveriesof the ards themselves. Examples fromHvorslev in Denmark and the Polada-culturesite of Ledro in northern Italy date to the earlier2d millennium B.C. (Battaglia 1943, Lerche 1968). Second, thereare artisticrepresentations, such as the depictionsof ards in the rock art of southern Sweden to (Glob 1951) and the southern Alps (Anati 1961),attributed theBronzeAge,orthecoppermodelofyokedoxenfrom Poznanu (Poland) of Copper Age date (Jazdzewski1965: pn.9). Third, there are plowingmarks noted underneath barrows.At the

Vol. 22 * No. 1 - February 1981

England thesecriss-cross South Streetlongbarrowin southern are B.C. furrows C'4 dated to the early3d millennium (Fowler and Evans 1967). Whilesome of theseexampleshave been reas rather than interpreted being the result of turf-cutting occurplowing(Barkerand Webley1978:170), the widespread markings of Late Neolithictimes as renceof thesesubsurface throughout northern Europe (Neustupny1969) suggeststhat soils well before the plow was in use on appropriate 2000 B.C. thereare thewidely noted"Celtic" field in systems the Fourth, BritishIsles and northwestern Europe, fieldswhose lynchet boundariesseem to have been produced by plowing.Many examplesin GreatBritaincan now be placed in the 2d millennium B.C. (Barrett,Hill, and Stevenson1976, Drewett 1978, Fowler 1971,Thomas 1978), and in Ireland some of theseenclosuresare dated to the 3d millennium (Caulfield1978). The high phosphoruslevels in the soils of Bronze Age fieldson regime(Denford 1975). Fifth, Dartmoorsuggesta manuring thereis faunalevidenceforthe animalswhichpulled theards. evidence castrated for cattleis reported from the Clear metrical Swiss BronzeAge (Higham 1968), and claimsforsimilarfinds are made for contexts as early as the 3d millennium B.C. (Bok6nyi 1974:116). The horse,an animal typicallyused for is rather thansimply a nutritional as its traction resource, first in domesticated the 3d millennium and is abundantin the B.C. 2d (Bokonyi 1974:243-48). The sum of thesediverselines of evidence indicatesthat throughout Europe plow agriculture was firmly established about 2000 B.C. or earlier. by in The plowpresents clearadvantagesto thefarmer comparison to the hoe. Animaltraction increasesthe area a man can the work(or enableshimto cultivate samearea withlesseffort). At the same time,theplow turnsthe soil moreeffectively (for increasthereby example,by reincorporating plant materials), ing yieldsand shortening fallowcycle.In a Mediterranean the climate the pulverization the soil by the ard helps retain of neededmoisture. appropriate On soilseven thelight plowsused in prehistoric a Europe wouldpermit largeincreasein productivity. This increaseis obtainedat a highinitialfixedcost. Fields must be cleared more thoroughly than for swiddenfarming. The removalof stumps,once completedwithno littleeffort, is a permanent mustalso have animalsto pull asset.The farmer theplow.This traction powermustbe createdby humaneffort . in advance ofproduction. "Withplow agriculture .. no direct relationis exhibitedbetweenlabor currently investedin the is land and output.... To say plow agriculture to say labor storedin the ground, animalsand in equipment"(Gudeman in plots in prehistoric Euro1977:580). The lynchets separating pean field systemsmay be consideredthe fossilremainsof property boundaries newlyarisenundera systemof intensive fundamental agriculture (Lancaster 1979:330) and reflecting patterns(Goody 1976). changesin land tenure and inheritance
MEDITERRANEAN POLYCULTURE

El Argar and Serra Grossa (Bronze Age); grape seeds are fromMonte de la Barsella (Copper Age) and Serra reported Grossa(AparicioPerez 1976:199; Arribas1968:44; Hopf 1971; Hopf and PellicerCatalan 1970). Like theirAegeananalogues, the chalicesof the ArgaricBronze Age may have been meant forwine drinking. Preciselybecause wild vinesand olives are to indigenous the entireMediterranean basin, it is likelythat theirprehistoric cultivation was not restricted the eastern to sectorsof that region.Fig and carob are otherMediterranean tree crops forwhichevidenceof prehistoric cultivation exists (AparicioPerez 1976:197-200;J. M. Renfrew 1973:134-36). thesetreecropshelpsthefarmer severalways. Cultivating in Olives and vinesare complementary the staple cerealsand to The fruit treesmay be intercropped legumes. withannual harvests,and the scheduleof workwhichtheydemanddoes not withthatof the othercultigens. conflict Thus, olivesand vines generatean absolute increasein productivity the regions in wheretheycan be grown. olive oil or wine,pickledolivesor As raisins,the crops lend themselves long-term to storage.Thus Mediterranean polyculture promotesthe materialsecurity of farmer. the subsistence For the purposesof my argument, however,the most imof feature Mediterranean portant is polyculture nottheincrease which it permits,but the transformation in productivity of relations whichit implies.As farming introduced property was to prehistoric Europe,severalnew cultigens-oats and rye,for example-were developed.They improved crop yieldsin temperate climates(whichis whytheycame to be cultivated)but did not change the dynamicsof domesticproduction: anas nuals,oats and ryehave muchthesamelaborrequirements and storagepotentialas the wheat and barley they supplement. Tree crops,in contrast, present radically newtechnical requirements.Vine cuttings not yieldfruit do untilthreeyears after theyhave beenplantedbut produceforgenerations thereafter. for Olives do not yieldfruit ten to fifteen yearsafterplanting, comeintofullproduction sometwenty yearslater,and continue to give fruit centuries. the meantime, treesmustbe for In the pruned,the groundaround themplowed.In otherwords,the farmer mustinvesta lot ofworkbefore (or his heir)receives he a return. Mediterranean constitutes capital-intena polyculture of sification subsistence.
IRRIGATION

Renfrew(1972). has emphasizedthe importance Mediterof raneanpolyculture generating agricultural in the necessurplus Olive sary forthe supportof Bronze Age Aegean civilization. and oil pits,charcoalfrom pruned olivebranches, presses, lamps all clearlyindicatethe cultivation the olive by the 3d milof lennium B.C.; a comparable range of palaeobotanical and artifactual findsshowsthat the vine was domesticated the at same time (J. M. Renfrew 1973:125-34; Zoharyand Spiegelintothe of Roy 1975). The diffusion vineand olive cultivation centraland westernMediterranean generallysupposed to is have occurredas part of the Greek colonizationof the 1st millennium Thereis reasonto believe,however, that these B.C. eminently usefulcultivars mayhave beenexploited theWest in 1,000 years or more earlier (Gilman 1976:315-16). In Spain, forexample, olivepits have been recovered from Garceland El Nerja (Late Neolithic),Ereta del Pedregal(Copper Age), and 6

of Chapman (1978) has stressedthe potentialimportance irriin of gationforagriculture themorearid sectors Mediterranean Europe (cf. Gilman 1976:313-15). Direct evidence for prehistoricirrigation(remains of dams and ditches) is scarce. Balcer (1974) describes Late Helladic dam nearTirynsin the a ditchat a Argolid;Schule (1967) reports CopperAge irrigation Cerrode la Virgenin southeastern Spain. Giventhe likelihood that recent irrigation systemswill have obliteratedancient of ones,moreextensive verification theimportance irrigation of in southern Europe mustrelyon indirect evidence,suchas the locationof siteswithrespectto waterresources. Thus, in Late Bronze Age Messenia sites are oftenlocated near springs and nowin operation irrigation systems (Van Wersch1972). Copper and BronzeAge sitesin the arid sectorsof southeastern Spain are located at the confluence seasonal streamsto maximize of the potentialfor flood-water farming(Chapman 1978). The evidenceremains be developed, to but it seemslikelythatsimple formsof irrigationwere widespread in Mediterranean laterprehistoric times. Europe during is In regionsof Mediterranean climate,irrigation generally of advantageous.The diversion wateronto fieldssupplements rainfalland makes it possible to and stabilizes the irregular growcrops in the summerdry season. In regionsof extreme aridity,such as the Almeria/Murcia regionof southeastern Spain (the "Nijar Desert" [Meigs 1966:89-91]), irrigation is essentialforregular agricultural production. increasing By and
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY

plantingof treescreate a man-madelandscape to whichconfor security tinuedaccess must be insuredif the production is whichthelaborwas expended to be maintained. and ecological conditions, the historical Underappropriate led to material security laterNeolithic farmers create desirefor These assets and works long-term generalutility. of productive Thus, capitalwouldbe of value to othersthan theircreators. of transfers problemof security the intensification subsistence of from materialto the social field.The investments labor the But future wouldhave to be defended. the to insure production value of these same assets would dampen the potentialfor so to social fission, that it wouldbe difficult checkthe aspiraIn had been entrusted. the tionsofthoseto whomthe defense OFFSHORE FISHING face of a protector whoseexactionsseem excessive,the houseAccountsof prehistoric fishing Europe afterthe Mesolithic hold's choicesare limited:it may abandon the asset forwhich in are scarce, Clark's (1977) discussionof the offshore fishing it soughtprotection; may findanotherprotector it (who may activitiesof megalith-builders AtlanticEurope and Evans in or than proveno less self-aggrandizing hispredecessor); it may and Renfrew's at (1966) description tunnyfishing Saliagos of submitto the excessiveexactions.Over the long term,these in the Cyclades being salient examples. There is reason to favor the protectors. the end there In options consistently thatfishing to believe, however, mayhave beenmoreimportant ruling class. Its main symbols wouldhave arisena permanent laterprehistoric thanthescantyliterature ofpowerand prestige-arms Europeaneconomies and flashy luxuries approentirely wouldindicate.Thus,in southern Scandinavia,thehundreds of in priate to the elite's function society-constitutethe most ships depicted on Bronze Age rock carvings and artifacts salientfeature the Early Bronze Age from Aunjetitzto El of Argar. (Brondsted1958:135-40,176), as wellas the cod and haddock remains recoveredfrom one of the region's few excavated of mustdepend on the Verification thisaccountultimately Bronze Age settlement sites (Thrane 1971:160), suggestprereconstruction detailed sequences of economicand social of historic of The evidence can, exploitation a richavailable resource. of changein thevariousregions Europe.Two implications the Temporally, theory remainsto be recoveredand developed,but the richnessof examined. however, at leastpartially be of fisheries the longtraand thatin any givenregion introduction intensified the Atlantic, Baltic,and Mediterranean suggests marineresources fish- subsistencetechniquespreceded the developmentof social ditionofexploiting that offshore suggest that at any giventimethe Spatially,it suggests to ing may have made a substantialcontribution the material stratification. of of was security theresidents coastal Europe. degree of stratification more intensein areas in which thatfishing carried beyond immediate capital-intensification subsistencewas either particularly is To theextent the of out more elaborate technological necessary particularly or shore,it involvesprogressively advantageous. assistance.A hookand line,a castingnet,a leister all fairly are of Available evidencemeetsthe first these two corollaries. is simple,but the larger boats and nets requiredfor effective In Denmark,forexample,plow agriculture widelyattested of fisheries involve a very considerable in CordedWare/Battle Axe contexts thelater3d millennium of exploitation offshore of does investment labor in advance ofproduction. The 15-msewn1964),yet stratification not B.C. (Seebergand Kristensen plank boats of Bronze Age date fromNorth Ferriby(Yorkdevelopuntilthe Early BronzeAge (Randsborg1974). A simito lar sequence of economicand social events occurs in central shire)are estimated have had a working lifetime 50 years of and Churchill (Wright 1965). Once again, if such technologies Europe (Neustupny1969,Otto 1955). Olive and vine cultivaare important a group'ssubsistence, to in thatgroupis dependent tionis well established the Aegean by Early BronzeAge 2, intosocial com"takeoff" the wellbefore Minoan/Mycenaean to access mustbe upon capital investments which continued insured social means. plexity (Renfrew1972). Given the evidence for substantial by Spain overthepast 7,000yearsinsoutheastern climatic stability must have been practisedby the (Chapman 1978), irrigation farmers the4thmillennium social in B.C.; Nijar Desert'searliest DISCUSSION of is stratification first apparentin the El Argarculture the 2d Los Millares I have set forthfour capital-intensifications subsistence millennium (the burialpatternsof the preceding of introduced moreor less widelyin Europe in later prehistoric phase beingcharacterized "ranking"[Chapman1977]).Offby subsistence has times. Other possibilities-Barfield's(1971:71) mention of shorefishing been suggested an important as of in activityby Clark (1977) for the megalith-builders later agricultural terracing Bronze Age northern Italy, for exNeolithicAtlantic Europe, well beforeBronze Age develophere ample-remain to be explored.The changes mentioned share important of features. are simpletechnologies insti- ments. Capital-intensification subsistenceclearly precedes All to theemergence elitesin laterprehistoric of Europe. tute; the taskswhichtheyentailcan be carriedout within the The scarcity detailedstudies BronzeAgesocialstructure of of scope of cooperationbetweenhouseholds which may be preof makesit moredifficult assess the spatial implications my sumedto existnormally to withinthe domestic mode of produc(1974) has For tion (Sahlins 1972). In addition,all contribute the produc- theory. Early BronzeAge Denmark,Randsborg to tion securityof households. existbetweenthe numberof The plow, olive trees,irrigation shownthat positivecorrelations reflected by systemsnot only increase,but also (and more significantly) graves in a region,the degree of stratification and the traditionalgrain in stabilizeproduction. Thus, the adoption of these techniques wealth differentials cemeteries, that withthesuggestion thatregion. This is consistent may be understood without appeal to factors such as populayieldsfor tion pressureor resourcedepletion.Finally,the benefits not densities, population generates onlyhigher plowagriculture conferred the new methodsare all achieved by preparatory but also greater by to An social inequalities. exception thistrend and labor inputswhich,once expended, assist production over the wherepopulationdensity occursin northwestern Jutland, longterm. Developedfarming fishing and entailtheinvestment wealthconcentration muchgreater thanwouldbe predicted are of much work in long-lasting assets which cannot easily be Jutthatnorthwestern by grainyields.It is notable,however, relinquished.The buildingof dams, clearing of fields,and (Rasmusfishing grounds land is adjacent to therichLimfjord Vol. 22 *No. 1 February 1981

the of insuring yields, irrigation promotes material security the farmer Mediterranean in subsistence Europe. of In southeastern Spain, wherethe possibility prehistoric it has irrigation beenlookedintomostclosely, is apparentthat would have been small in scale. The floodhydraulic systems in water farming systemscurrently operationin the region of and (Vila Valenti 1961) are essentially Neolithiccharacter, for morecomplexneed be suggested theirprehistoric nothing cannothave demandedtechno-bureaupredecessors. Irrigation for cratic management.Its significance social stratification must,rather,be along the lines suggestedby Childe: once a systemhas been graduallyexpanded,its dams, ditches,and terraces a investment. represent considerable

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

offshore wouldbe highly sen 1974),where fishing and productive safe. Randsborg'sdetailedregional comparatively assessments and economicpotentialare as yet rare in of social structure studies.For the mostpart one mustrely Europeanprehistoric on moregeneraldistributional in arguments seekingconfirmation of the theory.Thus the significance Mediterranean of in as polyculture Aegean cultureprocessis reflected, Renfrew (1972:283) indicates, by the tendencyof major Minoan/ Mycenaean sites to be located in areas of large-scale present viticulture. similarargument A can be put forward arid for southeastern Spain, whose Copper/Bronze Age sequence (the is in Los Millaresand El Argarcultures) therichest theIberian wealthis defined thegreater This relative number peninsula. by of fine and exotic goods (ivory, metal, etc.) found in elite oftenfortified settlements. burialsassociatedwithpermanent, to centralAndalusia,a Immediately the west in well-watered whosecultural region sequenceis nowwellunderstood (Arribas 1976), metal and otherluxurygoods are scarce and wealth burialsrelatively between differentials small; indeed,collective wellintothe2d millennium longafter burialrituals persist B.C., burial rites in the arid theirreplacement individualizing by in to regions the east. Apparently, better-watered regions dry was of farming easier,capital-intensificationsubsistence the (in was less necessary, formof irrigation) and, as a consequence, tendencies towards social stratification were less marked. instances theregional Further of association socialcomplexity of subsistenceremain,of course, to be with capital-intensive developed. an I have soughtto put forward accountoftheemergence of elitesin Bronze Age Europe whichwill improveon the funccurrent tionalism The amongEuropeanist prehistorians. theory to presentedhere is more faithful the sequence and regional of distribution economicand social eventsin later prehistoric Europe. Thus, even in Greece and the Aegean, where the Minoan and Mycenaeanpalaces give managerial theories some evidence for stratification plausibility, precedesthe developmentofcenters higher-order for regulation severalcenturies. by In addition,a nonfunctionalist approach explainsbetterthe which characterizesthe accoutrements Bronze militarism of Age elitesthroughout Europe. As the "protectors" established and consolidatedtheirpower over the capital-intensive food underthem,means to display theirsuperiority producers became necessary.The development specializedtechnologies, of such as metallurgy, the tradein luxuries and shouldbe viewed ratherthan as causes of the emergence stratias indications of As fication. Lancaster (1979) pointsout,in societieswithcapital-intensive subsistence prestige integrated and agriculture are intoa unitary of politicaleconomy power.Finally,the outlook takenherecorresponds thanthefunctionalist to the better view actual role of elitesin historically and ethnographically documentedclass societies.A focuson exploitation, ratherthan on as management, the central"function" the ruling of class constitutes moreuniformitarian ofsocialprocess stratified a view in For thisreason,thetheory forward societies. put heremayhelp of explainthe beginnings social stratification otherinstances in besidesthat oflaterprehistoric Europe.

amassingof at the expenseof an at least equally significant through benefit their ownimmediate wealthand laborpowerfor means. However,he seems to and otherexploitative conflict opposed findit clear,whileI do not, that thereare coherent, posischolarly and of clusterings functionalist nonfunctionalist tions.It is evenless apparentto me thatwe wouldscorea conthe advance by whollydenying former ceptual or interpretive schoolcan contribthatonlythe nonfunctionalist and insisting processes.As of ute to an understanding social evolutionary over new versus old controversies fruitless the increasingly economicanversus formalist and substantivist archaeology a our also thropology suggest, aim shouldbe to redress balance ideobetweenpolarized, than to prolongan oscillation rather purepositions. logically lighton Near Easterndata shed some comparative Ancient in otheraspects of his argument whicha slightreformulation is important theplace he assigns Particularly be might helpful. a In metallurgy. denying cenand to craftsmanship, especially he of tralrolefortradein theemergence social stratification, is of the at pains to identify specializedproduction copperand bronzeas having been mainlvfordisplay,burial and votive thanpractirather hoarditemshaving"a socialand ideological the to cal value." One mayask,however, whatextent apparent attestedmetal agricullatenessand rarityof archaeologically of demonstration thispoint. Excavatural tools are sufficient on almostexclusively graves tionsthathave been concentrated sampleon which unrepresentative are and settlements a grossly the to base such a generalization, moreso since thereis every itemswerevaluable enoughto be reasonto believethatbroken to and recast. Gilman makes reference repeatedlyreworked in thatwereindeedubiquitous Mesopotamiaduring clay sickles that but mostofthe4thmillennium, it is equallysignificant by confrom disappeared theendofthatspan theyhad practically use temporary (Adams 1981), surelyhavingbeen replacedby metal equivalentseven thoughthe latterare still almost uncontext. knownin archaeological intenhe the Whilewelcoming emphasis givesto agricultural T as to sification a stimulus social stratification,am similarly from any exchange of uneasyoverhis displacement commodity this part in engendering process. Grantedthat long-distance was movementof foodstuffs "quite beyond the capacity of systems"(save in cases like Egypt and Bronze Age transport arteries largepermitted Mesopotamia,wherecentralriverine culbifurcate we commerce), cannotmerely scale water-borne and deny and luxuries products into turalinventories utiliarian thatit was tradeon thegrounds of theimportance interregional flow restricted of thelatter.A more to confined the necessarily also with Gilman's functional view, but one not inconsistent instead mightmake a case evolution, model of conflict-based forthe social utilityeven of preciousmetalsthat wereunamdurable,and with Naturallyscarce,fungible, biguousluxuries. and integrity, theycould for a widespread reputation fineness as of against be hoardedand rapidlydeployed a form buffering of The movement gold and silveracross riskand uncertainty. steadilyand withfewintermuchof the Old Worldcontinued all periodsforwhich at ruptions, least during laterpremodern our knowledgeis more adequate. For the Bronze Age, too, tradeperhapsshouldbe seen as of someform luxury therefore, of for what later became "a disguisedtransfer a prototype essentialgoods" (Schneider1977:27) and "a major economic Comments an (Richardsn.d.). process-not merely epiphenomenon" A finaldifficulty may be involvedin Gilman's attemptto byROBERT McC. ADAMS of the document coreprocessofthe growth social stratification Oriental Institute, University Chicago, of Chicago, 60637, III. fromarchaeologicaldata alone. Rich female and subadult U.S.A. 29 vi 80 "the progressive separationof high gravesmay indeed reflect European setting, Gilman'sanalysis,whileprimarily concerned withprehistoric status fromachievement"in a prehistoric Europe, is of much widerinterest and relevance.I generally but Mesopotamiancuneiform texts fromthe mid-3dmillensharehis viewthatexplanations theriseofsocial eliteshave for attestto alternative niumnoware knownthat unambiguously too frequently stressed theirintegrative, managerialfunctions possibilities. one case, the purchaserof a fieldfromthe In 8
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

to administrator undertook provide eldestson ofa dead temple not carefully specified funerary offerings onlyforthe luxurious, but forthe grave of the mother upon her grave of the father evidence eventualdeath (Steinkeller 1980). Such documentary it to raisesdoubtsthatextend areas likeEuropewhere does not separableare statusand achievement anyexist.How genuinely but forsocial aggregates? what By where,not forindividuals can archaeological analyticalsubtleties we manageto interpret of personalholdassociations gravegoods so as to disentangle transfers materialgoods,and perhapsalso of ings,reciprocal to variousforms alliance? of intended solidify gifts exchanges or indications that the is by The problem compounded numerous was not at roleof women, any rate in earlySumeriansociety, one thepassive,subordinate that is perhapstoo quicklytaken In increasing for forgranted the Bronze Age generally. short, in in variability thewealthdisposed gravescouldwellhave had Mesopotamia. for a number meanings earlyEuropejust as for of the element speculation of We shouldacknowledge considerable on along such variability the basis of movement in explaining towardinthe singleaxis frommodeststatus differentiation social stratification. rigidand pronounced creasingly BIETTISESTIERI MARIA byANNA Italy. 12 vi 80 via Monterone 00186 Rome, 4, economyseem to be based The author'sviews on prehistoric and functioning moderneconomic of mainlyon the categories use thatwe can legitimately it systems; is at least questionable to with reference concepts as trade or capital investment Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe. a Furthermore, basic culturalchange (that is, a structural cannot transformation as the rise of social stratification) such of factor-herethepresence a be seenas determined a single by subsistencetechnology"-isolatedfromits "capital-intensive Europe, it of context.In a generalconsideration prehistoric shouldbe seenas theresultofbasicallyseparatelocal developlargely situations of ments associated withtheexistence regional in and, moregeneraldifferent environmental, social,economic, of The emergence social stratification ly, culturalconditions. should therefore analyzed as a process internalto the be froma whole complex regionalculturalcontextand resulting of specifically local factors. The author'scriticism the functionalist approach to the of applies only to historical of development social stratification situations advanced social division(Sumnerand Rome are of proposed),that is, to trueclass societies. amongthe instances In such instances organizing activityof the rulingelitesis the class or classes and may or for obviously functional the ruling for may not also be functional the lowerones. However,this societies,in which apparentlydoes not apply to unstratified activityof groupsor indispecializedmanagerialor military as for vidualsmaywellbe functional thecommunity a wholeas of well as representing starting point forthe formation a the elite (that is, forthe riseof class division). hereditary all technologies," As regards"capital-intensive subsistence as relatedto agriculture the main ecotechniques subsistence nomic basis of a societyimply a substantialenvironmental change-preciselywhat the authorwouldcall a capital investEurope under in agriculture continental ment.Slash-and-burn good inof technicalconditions Neolithictype is a perfectly agridiffused are and stance.Plow agriculture irrigation widely as cultural techniqueswith no special implications "capital do fielddivisions investments" respectto others.Moreover, in of not necessarily implyprivateownership the land, as is indiof cated by instancesof the subdivision communalland into individual familygardens or fields in modern "primitive" is polyculture a complexsubsistence societies.Mediterranean from presenceof olive the techniquethat cannotbe identified pits or grape seeds alone, since it indeed impliespermanent Vol. 22 No. 1 *February1981

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

is Italy,thistechnique not of privateownership land. In central before 7thcentury the known archaeologically B.C., apparently of not as a consequence, as a cause,oftheemergence permanent fishing may be a "capital-intenOffshore social stratification. one) but does (thoughnot a durablyeffective sive technology" as grounds not seemto be so clearlyattestedon archaeological in technique the subsistence a to be considered widelydiffused BronzeAge. The limitedsize of the European Neolithicand BronzeAge in and the consistentdiscontinuitv settlement communities "capital of seem to excludethe hypothesis durablysuccessful of as and its effects the basis forthe emergence investment" rulingclasses duringthese periods. As a general permanent Europe,it seemspossibleto suggest for hypothesis prehistoric of for that one or more of the preconditions the emergence timesand in different at eliteswerepresent different permanent the areas of Europe at least from CopperAge on, but cultural preconditions of thenecessary combination permanent (mainly, and large continuity, labour division,settlement generalised did not appear beforethe Late Bronze and communities) Early Iron Ages.

CAZZELLA byALBERTO di Universitd Roma,via Palestro63 Istituto Paletnologia, di 00185 Roma,Italy. 25 vii 80 the in Gilmanhas set himself task of expressing explicitterms the theoretical assumptionsthat formthe basis of various AlthoughI agree with many of his hypotheses. interpretive thereare some thingsthat I findpuzzling.The statements, he "functionalism" discusses brings togetherscholars with ideas: Wittfogel, Service, Sahlins, Flannery, vastly different is et Renfrew, al. Perhapsthe one thingtheyhave in common economic, theprecedence theygiveto thesocialoverthepurely substantito whichaccording almostall of themderivesfrom visteconomics whichcase, Adamsshouldalso be included). (in that assume,forexample,in The significance social institutions' view cannot be applied to ideas based on a neoevolutionist a If conceptheory. it is rightto criticize harmonious systems natureof the tionof societyand to emphasizethe exploitative emerging elite, then.it is necessaryto point out that even which, function, Childe assignedsuch an elite an important to contributed the of independent any moral considerations, developments. creationof a basis formorecomplexhistorical run labeled "nonfunctionalist" the risk Explanationssimply Some individstatements: of endingup as social psychological uals tend to dominateothersand can onlybe stoppedby the for tendto splitunless, reasons up splitting ofthegroup;groups themselves to of of investment capital,theyare forced confine eleGilman states that technological territories. to specified are responments(theplow,vineand olivecultivation) directly withthe territory occupied; these sible fora closerconnection not be elements should,however, considered as causes, but as or order.Whether not of indications an alteredsocioeconomic one can reallyspeak of a "rulingclass" in the Bronze Age of shouldbe based on concrete divergenEurope,class differences thanthoseofindividuals. rather interests ces ofgroupeconomic Although recent prehistoricresearch has recognized an of development the various European cultures independent duringthe Bronze Age, it would be wrongto excludeentirely of complexsocieties the economicand social influences highly the from Aegeanand the Near East. This wouldonly deriving serve to confusethe phenomenaoutlinedby Childe with a The evolutionof social stratification generic"diffusionism." duringthe Bronze Age of Europe is perhapstoo complicated of to be explainedby a singlemechanism actionand reaction. 9

L. byCAROLE CRUMLEY Department Anthropology, of University NorthCarolina, of ChapelHill, N.C. 27514, U.S.A. 2 viii 80 Evidence forsocial stratification the European BronzeAge in to is confined burial furniture a few isolated habitation and sites.Thereis scantdemographic information, there no and are data on settlement size, composition, function(s). or Nothing is knownof the natureof social or economicrelationsor of land tenure.Lacking such information, is particularly it risky to speculatewhichsegments the community of might manipulate capital and in whatform capital might changehands. Gilmanrightly stresses importance newlabor-intensive the of practicesthat undoubtedly concentrated capital in physical space,buthe makesa leap offaith theassumption in thatthose who controlled fixedresources werethe same individualswho wereburiedamidstmobilier personnel. The pointis that with littleevidenceand no convincing ethnographic parallels,it is entirely possiblethattwosegments a BronzeAge community of might have made ratherdifferent capital investments-one in heritable land, the otherin easily disposed-of goods.In such a scenario,the dialecticof powerbetweenthe two mighthave led in some cases to dominanceby personswho controlled capital in bothforms. thattheindividuals Gilman'sargument buriedwithprecious the goods were consistently rulingclass (i.e., at the top of a hierarchical social and economic structure) fallsintothe classic flawedfunctionalist he category decries:it is functionalist in that these people are mobile defenders immobileagriculof in turalists, hierarchical that they represent group which a of controls production agriculturalists the through tribute, and in "evolutionary" that complexity again associated with is byGEORGE L. COWGILL hierarchical organization. Waltham, Brandeis University, of Department Anthropology, If one is to stresstheindependence Europe from of Oriental Mass. 02254, U.S.A. 14 VII 80 thenone mustalso stressthe incredible influences, varietyof I am strongly sympathy withGilman'sgeneral pointofview, in and theirdistinctive and Europeancultures historic, economic, explanationsof the which is highlycritical of functionalist A circumstances. ruling elitemay well have comeinto cultural and explanations beingin someareas whenconquerors of established dominance origins socialstratification also ofsimplistic by or of stratification an adaptive responseto environmental as In forceofarmsoverlocal agriculturalists. otherareas (as one I pressures. believeGilmanhas madea significant sees in Africa, example) a groupof individualsmay have demographic for in about social stratification general, establishedinheritable to contribution thought In power in a few generations. still of as wellas to our understanding BronzeAge Europe. others,the peculiarlyEuropean versionof patronage,linked and of I have only a fewsuggestions small improvements for with the inheritance particularparcels of land (mountain to Thereis a slight tendency speakas ifbeneficial passes, riverfords, clarifications. etc.) suitedforregionaldefense, may have weremutuallyexclusive, solidified socialand economic of and selfish exploitation the management position a lineage.In some and otherswho controlled althoughI doubt if Gilman reallyintendsthis. In any case, areas, it is possiblethat merchants and many elites have human affairs are more complicated, a variety of information gained dominance throughtheir mixes of coercion, associationwithmorepowerful surelyoperated by complexand shifting contiguous groups. of I of enthusiasm, and at least someintimidation, bamboozlement, In short, wouldarguethatno singletheory theorigins or timessomereal benefits thosebeneaththem. functionalist nonfunctionalist thisa for social stratification, (is if in conto Another sourceof confusion functionalist arguments veiledreference theNew Structuralism? so, Gilmanshould of to With reference can beingbenefited. cernsthe entityor entities showthe forceof his convictions), coverthe multitude in it may mean a individualpersons,the shiftto stratification culturalcircumstances Bronze Age Europe. Moreover, is in notionsof social stratification hierarchical deterioration the qualityof lifeforall but a few.Yet, with in best to consider as may reference societies, shift stratification be the only to a to Europe (forwhichonlylimiteddata exist) and elsewhere a with case ofheterarchical way to surviveif the societyfindsitselfin competition particular (Crumley1979) social structure. otherstratified aggressive and wouldallow variousfactions-landed societies. This generalassumption In connection withthislastpoint, wonder bronze weapons I if agriculturalists, religiousfigures, merchants,skilled tradeswere merelyanothermeans by which elites displayed their persons, and a host of others-to jockey (as theymust have) and economic increasein a or superiority if they don't reflect considerable forsocial,political, positionin a system open to seriouswarfareas various elites competedwith one another both cultural (e.g., mercantile, military)and natural (e.g., forsignificant variation. materialstakes. climatic, topographic) Gilman makes good use of Earle's analysis of Hawaii and notes the relevance of ethnographic and historicstudies of byTIMOTHY EARLE othermorerecentstratified agree,and I societies.I strongly Department Anthropology, of University California,Los of believethatanalysis, reanalysis, numerous instances or other of Angeles, Calif.90024, U.S.A. 24 vii 80 Gilman'sgeneralthesis,if the work would supportand refine and strong functionalist preconceptions is undertaken without Gilman'snonfunctionalist approachto explaining social stratithat all elites can be without the opposite preconception fication mostattractive, is and I fundamentally agreewithhis unless proven assumed to be purelyand simplyexploitative argument. The functionalist positionhas had difficulty estabotherwise. lishing how an institution withgeneralsurvivalvalue could be byHENRIJ. M. CLAESSEN and Social Studies,University Leiden, of of Institute Cultural 27 Stationsplein Leiden,The Netherlands. vi 80 10, argueswhyBronzeAgeEuropeanfarmers Gilmanconvincingly to preferred stay in theirvillages ratherthan to migrateto of (political)leaders.In thiswayescape theburden exploiting articleis a valuable and in thisway only-his well-documented of of to contribution our knowledge the development social and political leadership.It does not explain, stratification and developed. howand whystratification leadership however, already and leadership We may safelyassume that inequality started to invest in their existedlong beforethose farmers The new situationmay have led only equipment. agricultural and the or form leadership of to a morecomplex moreintensive elite. of formation a clearlydistinguished He rejectstheviewthattheleadersor elitewerebenefactors of theirpeoples,and he is probablyrightin this.However,in he away the doingthisso rigorously runsthe riskof throwing There is substantialevidencethat baby with the bathwater. of leadershave servedthe interests theirpeoples sociopolitical It welland fairly. can even be arguedthat the rootsof leader1967). shipare foundexactlyin thisquality(e.g., Levi-Strauss for That leaderswerecompensated theiractivitiesseemsreafeature is sonableand evident;reciprocity an almostuniversal in humanculture(cf. Sahlins 1965,Mauss 1970). That in the complexity, of courseof time,with the growth sociopolitical cannot be denied reciprocalrelationsbecame asymmetrical to (cf. Claessen 1978,Friedman1979),but thisis not sufficient only. makea politicaleliteexploiters 10
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

selected for. In a small egalitarian society, the perceived to advantage of an institution the individualsof a group is would have been to sufficient explain why the institution society the adopted or elaborated.However,in a stratified As is situation morecomplicated. Gilmanmakesclear,because for differ the various classes withinthe societyit is interests to functions maintaina given best to see how an institution irrigation, as thanthesociety a whole.For example, classrather and trade may be selectedforbecause they support warfare, overwealth. elitesand theircontrol Thus we returnto the questionof how to explain social to Can stratification. it be that elitesare required solve probGilmanarguesconvincingwithgroupsurvival? lemsconcerned or ly against this. Can therebe technological environmental access differential that eitherprovideinherent characteristics by enablecontrol resources as Gilmansuggests, or, to economic This is the elites because of the high costs of segmentation? still however, consider of paper.We must, reasoning thepresent populations to dependent howelitesprovideservices their fully the and how this may affect evolutionof social stratification. some security Elites provideaccess to land and technology, from attack.Ethnographers and protection againsthardtimes, of mention paternalism elitesand theimportance the frequently to 1971).Although ofthisrelationship thepeasants(cf.Johnson the this, Gilman recognizes he emphasizes wayelitesmanipulate and of their control thecommoners, to therelationship increase role the he dismisses elite'sfunctional in theinitialdevelopment ofstratification. of Despite the attractiveness this position,I feel that the of characteristics the elite forthe broadersociety functional of and for maybe critical thedevelopment stability a stratified can developmay a whether stratified system society.In brief, of providedby the depend on the importance the functions new dependent the elite.Duringexpansion, elite mustcontrol as producers potentialrevenuesources.Criticalto its ability A theseadded producers. to expand is the cost of controlling option is to controlthem throughforce.In most high-cost In a optionis to providecriticalservices. situations lower-cost will order to predictwhere stratification evolve, it may be the cost of that minimize necessaryto locate the conditions provided Wherethefunctions producers. addingnewdependent are highly commoners by the elite are of key importance, low. In is on dependent the eliteand cost of control relatively is otherwords,wheremanagement advantageousto the comand control costsare minimized a stratified moner population, systemshould be able to develop rapidly. Such situations and environmental social disasters includethosewithfrequent technologies. subsistence and thoserequiring complex desystem,therefore, The potentialsuccess of a stratified Gilman, This in no waycontradicts pendson thecostofcontrol. The in but simply places his argument a broaderperspective. to that he discusseslowerthe cost of inhibitors segmentation to socialcontrol. elitesmaybe expected altereconomSimilarly, ic relationsin any way that will lowercosts,forexample,by and thepotencontext access to land. The ecological restricting in tial functional of importance elitesshouldbe considered this same perspective, it may well be these factorsthat are for successof stratification. crucialfortheinitialevolutionary byALAIN GALLAY 12, de d'Anitliropologie, Departement Universite Gene've rue 8 1227 Switzerland. VI 80 Gustave-Revlilliod, Garouge-Geneve, approachto an interesting Gilman'spaper presents extremely of the origins social stratification Europe at the end of the in and the beginning the BronzeAge. The method is Neolithic of is one a hypothetico-deductive (Gardin1974),which unfamiliar but to European prehistorians is the only type of approach genhistoricalexplanations that can go beyondthe dreadful method.My obempirico-inductive erated by an exclusively Vol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

of on focus, theone hand,on the characteristics the servations on modeland, on the other, its fieldofapplication. of 1. Characteristics themodel.The model appears to have of the concerns problem innovation twoweak points.The first evidence which on The techniques. archaeological in production exceptwithregardto the modelis based is stillverylimited, of and plowagriculture theutilization theard.The development and Iberian irrigation, offshore polyculture, of Mediterranean fishing the Atlanticand perhaps the Baltic requiresmore in the is innovation not,evenfrom author's Furthermore, support. but onlyacknowledged. pointofview,explained, of character the The secondweak pointconcerns hereditary the evidencesupporting hypothesis elites.The archaeological and children) (richgravesofwomen thateliteswerehereditary is of and the interpretation this phenomenon is substantial, of the However, causes oftheemergence hereditary interesting. of are authority not veryclear. My experience the ethnology societiesallows me to suggesta of West Africansegmented solution to this problem. In a segmentedsociety, lineage is To is mobility considerable. the principleof segmentation lineage The of opposedthephenomenon aggregation. founding but of of a villageis joined by otherfamilies variedorigins, it political power over the village retains,throughseniority, as limited longas the chief(Gallay n.d.). This powerremains withinthe lineageby age rank. Real and dom is transmitted becomespossibleas soon as lineagehierarchization permanent (Meillassoux according to birthright power is transmitted is which in thelast analysisdetermined 1977).This mechanism, of could explain the development a permanent by seniority, lineagehierarchy. In to 2. Fieldsofapplication. referring severalexoticsocieties, Gilman implies that his model can be generalizedbeyond he thisposition, runstheriskofadmitting Europe.In adopting As (1979:120) has pointed a simplistic evolutionism. Scheurer is conditioned the advantageof by out, thisviewpoint strictly line and rulesout whichprivileges singleevolutive a hindsight, all solutionswhich have had no historicaldescendants.In thiswas fora longtimethe positionof the Darwinists biology in and is currently the processof being abandoned (notably It buissonnante"). is necessary withthe conceptof "evolution of the same decentering the observerin the now to effect historicaldisciplines.Only then will it be recognizedthat and subjectto the eventsare multiform not entirely historical evolutionism. determinism impliedby a dogmatic societiesgive us, in thisfield, traditional The West African a In evolution. thisregion segmented an exampleofa different stratified coexistswitha highly societyof hoe agriculturalists castes,and evenslavery(Maquet chiefdoms, comprising society has its origin societyapparently 1967:224-27). This stratified of in the development trade in the Middle Ages, notablythe trade in gold and salt (Mauny 1970). The structureand here different from are of historical genesis thesociety therefore the Europeansituation proposedby Gilman. byA. F. HARDING 46 of University Durham, Saddler of Department Archaeology, St., DurhamDHI 3NU, England.25 vi 80 to contribution Bronze Age Gilman'sarticleis an interesting in research.It is well knownthat differentiation both grave of form and the provision gravegoodsin Europe startedon a or rightly big scale in theEarly BronzeAge; thisis interpreted, I as wrongly, the startof markedsocial stratification.am sure Cilman is rightto be scepticalof the purelyfunctionalist approach to this problem.Many of the lines of explanation and oftenseem are advanced by the functionalists simplistic stance,concentrating to me to adopt an almostdeterministic in on onlyone element the complexmass of interwoven vani11

It is no criticism say that its chiefweaknesslies in the to ables. At the same time,I am not convincedthat the "nonof are alternatives not open to the same criticism. lack of empiricalevidence for the capital-intensification functionalist" in and patchyinstances terms agriculture morethan a fewscattered aim is to "explainin nonmanagerial Gilman'sprofessed ofunequalvalue. It is partlyto remedy thisthatI am excavateconomiestend to have productive whysocietieswithhighly at inga Bell Beakersettlement Moncin, Borja (northern elites" and to suggesthow elitesestablishand maintaintheir Spain), for looking especially tracesofoliveand vine cultivation. With control"in spite of the fact that theiractions do not serve A. J. Legge, I hope to be able to identify points in the the exchangeas an rejecting commodity After interests." common profouraspectsof subsistence culturesequenceof the Ebro Valley at whichsubsistence he explanation, goes on to consider "capital-intensification duction changed gear, so that we can test Gilman's ideas. thathe sees as representing technology and specialized of subsistence."Althoughthe precise social and economic There may also be traces of early irrigation animalhusbandry. providedby the are mechanisms different, typeof explanation As an organizing modelforthe BronzeAge I findGilman's seemsto me much the same as the functionalist thesefactors ideas mostattractive and quite as usefulor convincing the as to to oneshe has rejected.Gilmanis right drawattention these ones. Otherpertinent workis that by Jodlowski theyare reallybeingused in a different functionalist but whether factors, in (1976) on salt production southern Poland around3200 B.C. objection A way seemsto me doubtful. particular explanatory and my fresh synthesis the wholeof the Bell Beaker pheof I would level at the modeldevelopedhereis that it does not (Harrison1980). in the consider veryvariednatureofwealthdistribution differ- nomenon of segments the BronzeAge. What is ent spatial and temporal rightfor,say, Branc in Early Bronze Age Slovakia cannot, byRONALD HICKS surely,apply equally to Early Bronze Age Spain or Late Department Anthropology, State University, of Ball BronzeAge Slovakia,let alone Late BronzeAge Spain, where Muncie, Ind. 47306, U.S.A. 4 viii 80 intoplay. wereundoubtedly factors coming different which One of the aspectsof the studyofsocial stratification Gilman'sthesisis a thought-provoking In particular, one. his one. What in has been neglected the past is the psychological paper is worthwhile havinglooked at the problemof the for mental factorslead men firstto desire and then to assume of development the BronzeAge eliteswiththe question"How in of positions dominance givenpopulationgroups?Concomi- do people behave?" in mindratherthan just by manipulating factorsenable themto do it? All tantly,what socioeconomic "maybes." However,it raises,in my mindat least, a number at so our explanations farhave been directed the secondpart offurther thatgo unanswered. questions none at the first. NaturallyI cannothere go of the problem, For example, why,or how,did the elitesbeginto developin evenwereI capable ofit; I assume,however, first intothisproblem, as place? Gilmanspeaksofthem "protectors." protection If and Europe was, both economically that life in prehistoric was necessary, why? If, as he says, plentyof land was still one can At socially,competitive. a crude level of description and compeavailable,warfare provoked populationgrowth by statusbecause theywishto be increased mendesiring imagine for tition land does notseemlikely.Were theysimply gangsof of the labor,because theyare from drudgery subsistence freed what amountedto a protection thugswho instituted racket, by naturallydominating character,because they genuinely threatening do harmto any who didn'tpay them? to This also themthatstatus (in believesocietystandsto gain by granting Gilmanclaimsthathis argument an alternais seemsunlikely. and of terms protection againstattack,production distribution tive to functionalism, it clearlywouldhave been dysfuncbut of goods,etc.), or forothersimilarreasons.Is it a naturaland tional for the producersto abandon such resourcesas fields invariable aspect of humannaturethat some menwill wishto and orchards, irrigated or clearedforplowing, land. vineyards to willbe willing be and others of achievepositions dominance the Andif,as he implies, eliteswerein somesense"protectors," it)? If it is, thenthe dominated at least unable to prevent (or a not thisagain involves function, one. It though a managerial questionwe should be asking is why the Neolithicdoes not not to appears to me thathis thesisis therefore an alternative Could it be thattheapparent equallyshowsocialstratification. an but version. functionalism, rather alternative at of indicators statusin theBronzeAge are notreal indicators societiesthe elite has nothing do to That in someirrigating To and individual preference? return with water distribution all, but marksof fashion (he gives the example of medieval to the Neolithic:what materialthingschangedbetweenNeoValencia) doesn't mean this is always the case, and that a lithicand BronzeAge? Veryfew.At least some of the things historical of distribution a resourcethrough elite only affects were present managersor ceremonial Gilman lists, for example,plough agriculture, functions does not mean that those long beforethe Bronze Age, much earlier than the model have a moredirectrole. What about elitesdid not originally which Renfrewand othershave predicts.Even metallurgy, and merchant elites?This needs to the evidencefortheocratic of to taken as one of the key stimulants unequal distribution be explainedsomehow.What part was played by population on wealth,was of coursepresent quite a large scale way back growth? of in the Neolithic, and I see no real reasonthatmanipulation land wouldnotbe abandoned, It is easy to see whydeveloped shouldnothave beenpresent but Gilmanalso mentions waterfor or irrigation polyculture that offshore withits heavy fishing too,even ifwe cannotyetproveit. To conclude:are we really in capital investment largerboats and netswouldhave allowed of sure that the supposedindicators statusin materialculture the development an elite. How? Why couldn't the fishers of to are whattheypurport be? simplyhave sailed down the coast to anotherport if they didn'tlike thelocal elite?It isn't clear to me how thisexample have beenan important fits intohisargument. Could thefishers byR. J.HARRISON to trade routesand unwilling abandon link in long-distance of University Bristol, thatrole? of Department Classicsand Archaeology, Bristol BS8 IRJ, England.27 vi 80 of In considering origins an elite,one mustalways look the production to small moderncommunities examples.As Gilmanpoints of upon theprocesses agricultural By concentrating for Gilmanhas for theyoffer exploitation, and the opportunities out, thereare always aspirantsto leadershiproles; but they muchimproved the viewsChildeheld 30 yearsago. I think have to be providedwithopportunities assume such roles. on to for explanation the rise thispaper provides mostinteresting a There must be tasks-military, managerial,or whateverof "High Barbarian" societies in Bronze Age Europe and thatare necessary and thatothers thesociety less willing in are and palaeoecochallengessome of the functionalist strongly or able to assume. Simpleinertiaon the part of much of the that nomicinterpretations are now so fashionable. populace seemsto me to go a long way towardexplaining the 12
C UR R ENT A NT HR O POL OG Y

persistence elites.An individual, of and by extension family a or line, gains power throughexercisingneeded leadership. the of to Through reluctance others shoulder leadership responthosewhohold somedegreeofpower,the sibilities to offend or elite is able to maintainitselfand even gain morepower.To it the nextgeneration seemsonlynaturalthat the elite should to be there;if it continues shoulder irksome it responsibilities, seemsonlyreasonablethatit shouldbe allowedsometolerance in addition to materialrewards.And so on. By calling our attentionto the reluctanceof people to abandon resources whosedevelopment required heavy investment labor, has a of Gilman has providedus with one more such reason for the maintenance elites. of

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

byPHILIP L. KOHL Department Anthropology, of WellesleyCollege, Wellesley, Mass. 02181, U.S.A. 29 vii 80 This is an extremely valuable and important study on the in beginningsof social stratification Bronze Age Europe. Gilman'sdiscussion functionalist of accountswhichemphasize theessential and beneficial services provided elitesis cogent, by and far less jargon-laden than other,deservedly convincing, well-known critiques (e.g., Friedman1974). Whilethearchaeoa between logicalevidence intensisupporting causalconnection fication subsistence of and social stratification technologies is tenuousor slightly ambiguous,the logic of his analysis that such intensification createda changein property relations and transferred problemof security "the fromthe materialto the social field"is compelling. for Although purposesof discussion the remainder my commentswill be critical,I strongly of believethat thisis an exceptionally examination of important the emergence social stratification; of credibleprehistory has been reconstructed whichis consistent withour understanding of contemporary society and the exploitativerole of elites within Functionalist it. accountssimply not-to paraphrase do Gilman-constitutea uniformitarian view of social processin stratified societies;theydo not,in otherwords, pass the basic litmustest of reconstructing as history we know it fromour dailylives. My criticisms both empiricaland theoretical. are Gilman takesas his unitofanalysistheculturally politically and heterogeneousBronzeAge Europe. What possible justification can there for be jumping from Scandinaviato theIberianpeninsula, fromCentralEurope to the Aegean,otherthan the historical accident that Europe, a minor peninsula of the Eurasian landmass, constitutes field of study, a specialty for Old a Worldprehistorians? of EuropeorEuropeancivilization, course, has meaning the historian for thatrelatesto its sharedreligion and sharedhistorical experience thatcannotbe reducedto and itsphysicalcharacteristics; mustdemonstrate, assume, one not similarcommonfeatures prehistoric for Europe. The point is important because the divisionbetweenthe Near East and Europe, the Orientand the Occident,is accepted as straightforward and nonproblematic. According Gilman,ex oriente to lux modelshave been empirically falsified; my opinion, is in it notproven, but highly dubious,that theBalkans,an area that we knowwas in contactwiththe Orientformillennia priorto the advent of metallurgy, somehowindependently developed an extremely complextechnology roughlyat the same time that identicalmetallurgical techniquesappeared in Anatolia, northof the Caucasus, on the Iranian plateau, in southern Turkmenia, (Wertime etc. 1973).Capital-intensificationsubof sistencetechnologies and consequent social stratification were moremarkedin therelatively arid regions southern of Europe, particularly the easternMediterranean, forclimaticreanot sons,but becausetheseareas wereinvolved a larger in historical reality(like thelaterEurope). This reality neednot be concepVol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981

tualizedin classicdiffusionary termswiththe innovative Near East bestowing civilization heresocial stratification) (or upon barbarian Europe. Rather than dogmatically insisting upon isolatedregional developments, need to accept and modify we Wallerstein's (1974:15) seminalconceptofa "worldeconomy" withinteracting core and peripheral areas to understand the linksbetweenthe BronzeAge Mediterranean worldand continentalEurope and the Near East. Societiesfrom CentralAsia to the Mediterranean werein contactwithone anotherforthe same exploitative, acquisitive reasons that led to the emergence of local elites. Cultures existed at different levels of development not simplybecause they had followeddifferent evolutionary trajectories, because morepowerful but societies could control and manipulate level ofdevelopment their the of "Third World" neighbors. short,we mustbe consistent In in our uniformitarianism. How we delimit field inquiry not onlyan empirical, our of is but also a theoretical question.Lurkingbehindor implicitin Gilman'sanalysisis a mechanicalevolutionism that deserves carefulscrutiny. Does the adoption of capital-intensive subsistencetechnologies inevitably result(sufficient condition)in social stratification simplymake possible(necessarycondior of tion)theemergence elites? The distinction crucial(Godelier is a 1972:274-75) and ultimately distinguishes dialecticalfrom a view of history.Similarly, nondialectical Gilman's programmaticassertion that fortrade to have been important the for of it development social stratification had to have been essential begs the questionof what is meant by "essential." Can essentialitemsbe sociallyor culturally or defined, must they be absolute and natural (i.e., subsistence-related)? Did the farmers southwestern engagein the exchange of Asia Neolithic of obsidian,sometimes a substantialand significant on scale (e.g., Jarmo,Tell Shemshara),because it was functionally superiorto flintor other locally available chipped stone or because it possesseda culturally imposedvalue that cannotbe understood rational,utilitarianterms?Such a in completely questionis not meant to deny objectivereality(clearly,only stoneswith specific could have been used physicalproperties in Neolithictimes as harvesting tools), but to insist that a selectionoccurs on this reality.Acceptanceof this fact does not imply a returnto culturalparticularism the sterile, or circularperspective that culturesvary because, in fact, they are different Harris's [1968:403] excellentobjection to (cf. to Benedict'spatterns);the same attention detail and critical awarenessof people acting in theirculturally perceivedbest interests that Gilman presentsso tellingly his attack on in functionalism can be invoked to explain the creation and of essential needs. Luxury manipulation less than objectively metalartifacts may be both an indexand a cause of incipient social stratification. did Chiefs,undoubtedly, not need many of the trinketsthey used to separate themselvesfromthe masses,but once theyhad come to expectthemtheywillingly theirpowerin orderto continuereceiving them. consolidated in The substantial tradein textiles produced largely workshops or factories major urban centersthat connecteddifferent in Asia southwestern in the 3d and 2d millenregions throughout but nia reliednot on recipients' physicalneed forclothing, on artificially manipulatedvalues that created a demand for fashionable, high-quality goods. It is clear, of course, that Westernworldoperatesunder exchangein the contemporary a similar principle. of the Undoubtedly, intensification subsistence technologies had profound social consequences.Gilman's focus upon this and is intensification its effects appropriateand directsour attentionto basic considerations. His analysis provides the structure, not the narrative,for the emergence elites in of BronzeAge Europeansocieties. 13

byJAMES LEWTHWAITE universal-is not demonstrated the limited and varied by Department Archaeology, of Cambridge University, Cambridge geographical evidencepresented. typesof stratificaDifferent CB2 3DZ, U.K. 22 vii 80 tionmay have existedin specific areas in responseto varying social,economic, politicalneeds.His reference fishing and to in Basically, Gilmandeservescongratulations his deflation for of certainadvocatesof a benevolent squirearchy benton agricul- Atlantic Europe, Scandinavia, and the Mediterraneanis a Certainly, technology this reflects social changes, turalimprovement,littlemodest a trade,and theadvancement goodexample. of the of the deserving poor; it is all the moredisappointing find but was the importance fishing same in each case? Also, to imply the same developmental him thereafter contentto confront naive and simplistic does the existenceof fishing the stageofsocial stratification, considering timegaps between the withits own mirror image.His centralproposition that the is the different areas? 2d millennium revolved largely around an industriousbut Although do not discountthe factthat theremay be eviI downtrodden peasantryunable to refuse protection moneyto dence forsocial differentiation the archaeological in record,I dressedracketeers fear of having their a mob of flashily for think thatcautionmustbe exercised theinterpretation the in of ploughoxen kneecapped, pirogues pirated,and olive treesset data. Also,someinformation whichmight useful Gilman's be to This e mafiadux historical in cementovershoes. melodrama is has been ignored.For example,the workof Frost view scarcelythe "uniformitarian ofsocial processin stratified argument (1973), Betts (1973), and Schwartz(1976) on marinearchaeolsocieties"its authorconsiders it. ogy in the Aegean,establishing seafaring duringthe Neolithic Gilman's problemsstem fromhis aim of explainingthe and BronzeAges,couldhave beenused to support argument an this is too originsof what he terms "social stratification": foroffshore and fishing trade.Further, EasternEurope there in a To as staticand restricted concept. treatsocial contrasts rigid is evidence sitespecialization of during late Neolithic the based divisionsand concentrate solelyon the exploitative aspect of of "elites" is to narrow scope ofexplanation a self-fulfilling on the frequency castratedcattle (Schwartz1978). the to Gilman'sdiscounting metallurgy a possible cause for of as What is missingis the idea of the controlof the circularity. precludesany associationof it with subsistence the of of reproduction structures: ethology patronage, hegemo- stratification strategieswhich likely preceded "capital-intensified subsisStratification an anachronistic is nism,and clientage. concept: technology appears to have of itis thepeculiarity kinand client that relationships inequality tence." However, metallurgical been important particular to areas and settlements whichwere does not precipitatealienation.The basis of the systemis associatedwithsubsistence agriculture (Jovanovic1979,Ren"fromeach according his ability,to each accordingto his to frew 1969). Gilman's idea is that "if such technologies are needs." important a group'ssubsistence, and to that groupis dependent Both Renfrew Gilmanlocatetheir in social evolution the to upon capital investments whichcontinued access must be social superorganic. contrast, By Chagnon(1975) has brought could be a differentiation to earthby askinghowsocial preeminence, insuredby social means." Therefore, back metallurgy of In differential successin life,enhances through solidarity, thereby cause as wellas an indication stratification. addition,the is the chancesofspecific promoting competitive local populations level of technology likelyto have variedamongand within sites,as it did in western Hungaryduringthe Middle Bronze Froma in thereal long-term to themselves. struggle reproduce Age (Choyke,personalcommunication, 1980). Mediterranean perspective, clans,not classes,are the heartof I in Despite thesecriticisms, consider Gilman'spaperhelpful thematter, evenin thepresence ards,polyculture, of irrigation, about stratification its place during and stimulating thought and seagoing boats. The clan,as a unitofanalysis, mustbe the the BronzeAge. Witha morethorough from one investigation The starting point formodelsof social differentiation. wideof area, a likelyhypothesis how social stratification of spread existence modularbiological, and cultural geographic linguistic, be unitsis the outcomeof competing for requirements short-term developedmight possible. subsistence and long-term This is resolvedby reproduction. external and Both interappropriation internal hierarchisation. and warfare intragroup group the competition favour emergence bySTEPHEN J. SHENNAN SouthDepartment Archaeology, of University Southampton, of of the patron ("big-man," "Godfather") and maintain his S09 5NH, England.31 vii 80 ampton position.The competing clans assert their relativeranks in an visibleform conspicuous as and disarchaeologically Gilmanhas putforward extremely construction, important interesting and in of tribution, consumption. view of the development social stratification Bronze Age Finally, Gilman,by denyingthe "elite" a managerialor Europe, one whichin its broad scope and abilityto pick out redistributive Renfrew's role,reverses achievement linking important of themesmakes a pleasant change fromthe usual social and economicevolution, He whichforceshim to resortto treatments the periodin termsof its bronzetypology. of tiredold "populationpressure."An alternative and model would makesa good case forhis "nonfunctionalist" viewpoint for see "intensification" the progressive as in and raof he to segregation the importance the factors suggests helping explain tionalisationof subsistenceprocurement order to invest the of in within context a thechangesunderdiscussion. However, labourin higher-priority activities suchas monument construc- verypositiveviewofthepaper,I wouldliketo makea number of tion,theproduction displayitems, and raiding, of which all both of the situationreconstructed of specificcriticisms, by in affected, the long term,groupsize and success in an autofor Gilmanand ofhis explanation it. The a catalyticdevelopment. threshold stateformation of occurs Thereis certainly greatdeal ofevidenceforsocial differenwhenthegamepasses from situation a whereevery participant tiationin the archaeologicalrecordof the European Bronze worksharderto stay in the same place to one in whichthe to Age, but whetherit is satisfactory inferfromthis the winner takesall. stratified class societiesis another presenceof economically In brief, each successivelevel of social differentiation, would regardsome if not all of ecomatter:many archaeologists and is nomicintensification, modulargrowth This distinction an an represents equithemas rankedratherthan stratified. librium achievedafter phase ofintergroup a of competition. important and muchhangson it in thecontext Gilman's one, if It argument. wouldhave been helpful it had been discussed evidenceforthe stratiin moredetailand ifthe archaeological byCHARLES A. SCHWARTZ This point ficationview had been more fullydocumented. Institute Archaeology, of 31-34Gordon Square,LondonWC1, raises itselfin a numberof guises.Throughout Gilman talks England.21 VII 80 yet tbisseemsto be overstating case: the the about,.elites, often The assumptionwhich underliesGilman's thesis-that the Early Bronze Age cemetery Branc, forexample (Shennan at 1975),indicates morethana limited no degreeofrankdifferendevelopment social stratification of during BronzeAge was the 14
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLOGY

the whileto refer bell beakersas to tiationwithin community, an elitestylegivescompletely wrong the This may impression. have been the case in Iberia, althoughGilmanlater seemsto refer the late Copper Age culturesof Iberia as "ranked" to ratherthan "stratified," it is certainly the case in the but not Central European part of the bell-beaker distribution area, wherethe Bell Beaker gravessuggest morethan a minimal no degreeofranking (Shennan1977). of The insistence thepresence elitesseemsin curiousconon of trast to the denial of the existence settlement hierarchies. thattheseimplymanagerial Gilmanseemsto suggest functions fortheelite,but surely thisis not the case. At the basis ofany elite's power must be some formof regionallycentralised a control, centralpersonassociated with a centralplace. As Gilman himself notes, the size of knownEarly Bronze Age settlements minute,and inferences is about populationsizes from burial evidence also suggest that communities were extremely small. If Gilmanis inferring landscape in which a there simply endless is an of replication individual communities, each witha leadingfamily, refer thosefamilies an elite to as to seemsagain to overstate case. In fact,thereprobablywas the just such a landscape in the Early Bronze Age Slovakia, exemplified the Branc cemetery, lateron in the Bronze by but Age of this area and of othersthereseems to be quite good evidence for the existence of settlementhierarchies(e.g., Tocik 1964), whichwouldactuallyfitin betterwithGilman's argument. To move fromGilman'sdescription the situationto his of of explanation it and his arguments thatfortradeto be important it must involvesubsistence-related goods: I thinkhe is essentiallycorrectin his argumentthat bulk exchange of subsistence products cannothave beenimportant prehistoric in Europe, althoughthe possibilities offered movinganimals by on the hoofshould not be forgotten. However,in dismissing the importance nonsubsistence of tradehe seemsto make the same mistake manyofthefunctionalists criticises. as he Friedman and Rowlands (1978), amongothers, have demonstrated clearlythe possibilities gainingpowerthrough control for the ofvaluablesessential thetransactions for involved theprocess in ofsocialreproduction. Simplyto refer suchgoodsas luxuries to is to neglecttheirpotentialsocial importance. thiscontext In it is worthremarking Gilman's explanationfor the greater wealthofnorthwestern Jutland revealedby Randsborg's (1974) studyas the potentialof adjacent fishing grounds;he neglects to observethat it is also one of the mostprolific ambersource areas. Finally,one or two doubtsarise fromhis discussion the of roleofagricultural intensification the development stratiin of fication. First,so faras I understand argument, seems the he to be assigning autonomy independent an as variablesto the plough,olive trees,and irrigation systems, and this seems to me ratherdubious.Secondly, seemsto me a problemarises it in his discussion the chronological of priority intensification of over stratification. There may well be a link here, but in Denmark,forexample,the best part of a millennium elapses betweenthe firstappearance of evidence for ploughing and evidenceforthe emergence social differentiationthelocal of in Early Bronze Age. One would not wish to argue that there must always be a contemporary correlating and "cause" for everyeffect, the gap, whichis presentin otherareas as but well, suggeststhat if intensification was necessaryfor the development stratification Bronze Age Europe it was of in certainly sufficient. not byANDREW SHERRATT Ashmolean Museum,OxfordUniversity, Oxford OXi 2PH, England.28 VII 80 Despite thefactthatmoreis known theprehistory Europe of of than of that of any otherregion, discussions the emergence of Vol. 22 *No. 1 February 1981

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

of social stratification largelyconcentrated areas such have on as Mesopotamiaand Mesoamerica.The long agricultural sequence before urbanisation Europe poses problems in because of therelatively appearanceofthe conventional late criteria of state organisation and the evanescentoccurrence features of such as ceremonialmonuments and defendedcentres.Yet clearlythereare fundamental contrasts between temperate the cultivators the "Neolithic"and the "Bronze Age" whichgo of beyond the 19th-century technological criteria.It is all the more important, therefore, avoid imposinginappropriate to divisionson this long sequence. The stark contrastbetween "'stratified" "nonstratified" and societiesdoes not do justice to thenatureoftheproblem, however relevant mayperhaps it be to the appearance of powerful centralised states in southwestern Asia. The occurrence occasionalwealthobjects in of subadult graves and the general increase in status-linked manufactured productshardlyadd up to the kind of stark social contrastsimpliedby the termstratification. is the It restricted natureofelitedifferentiation, rather thanits extent, that demandsexplanationin this context.Instead of a conof frontation rivalparadigms, closerattention the contrasts to betweendifferent areas-notably betweenMediterranean and temperate Europe-is the key to understanding dynamics the of thisprocess. Despite Gilman'sfailureto make use of the variety the in evidenceat his disposal,he perceptively identifies some of the commonfactors leading towardssocial change whichcharacterisethe laterphases of Europeanagrarianprehistory. While it is unlikely thattheearliest Europeanagriculture of consisted slash-and-burn farming (and "flood-water farming" likelyto is have been an originalfeatureof Mediterranean cultivation ratherthan a Bronze Age innovation [Sherratt 1980a]), there is nevertheless significant a horizonof change in the mid-3d millennium, associatedwiththeintroduction ox (not horse!) of This fundamentally tractionforploughing. altered both the agrarianand the social basis of European communities, I as have triedto show (Sherratt 1980b).The increasein the scale of animal utilisation, associatedwiththe keepingof sheep for wool and milk,is likelyto have been especiallyrelevantto social differentiation the Mediterranean the 2d millenin in the nium,through differential accumulation stock. of The questionof tree crops is more problematic, and it is of possible to argue that the extensivecultivation vine and of olive is as mucha consequence economic as centralisation a cause. The date oftheintroduction treecropsin thewestern of also Mediterranean deserves (including theuse ofthechestnut) more systematicdiscussionthan it is given in this article. on basic to an understanding Fishing, theother hand,is clearly of Bronze Age economies both the Mediterranean in and the of tradeis reflected both Baltic, and the importance maritime and in artefact distributions in coastallocations settlement. for On the widerquestionof the role of elites,it seemsunlikely viewof theiressentially that theoversimple parasiticexistence is any morevalid than the converse view whichsees themas of As benevolent providers exotic necessities. an antidote to of the Panglossianecologicalinterpretations the 1960s,howbut not antithesis one ever,Gilman's paper offers onlya useful whichaccordsmorecloselywiththe worldafterthe oil crisis. byMAURIZIO Tosi Seminario Studi Asiatici, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 80134Napoli, Italy. 12 viii 80 The essenceof Gilman'scontribution the effort developa is to factsand forms social of relation between economic systematic complexity. Since archaeological data storeextensive information on economic activity, grounding set of propositions a for 15

the systematicexplanationof social evolutionin economic for themgreater activities mayensure validity theory building. linesmyself, believethat, I alongsimilar Having been working appreciated, beyondthelimitations imposedby to be properly and certaincontradictions mostlyto due its relativebrevity the randomselectionof examples,the paper should be posion tioned withinthe ongoingcontroversy the evolutionof societies. complex is data, which theory based on ethnographic Functionalist allow a broad spectrumof observationsand an interplay factsand theaccompanying material backideological between aspects become dominant ground;naturally,superstructural Archaeois and individual diversity. and the stress on cultural is but presumed inferiority logicaldata are verydifferent, their based on theassumption thattheyshouldbe demonessentially from another universe. of generated strative a theoretical corpus dimensions dominate We mightaccept that superstructural infrastructural but thereis no reasonto take forgranted ones, we that a wholeclass of data, the onlyreal information have and the primary stagesof social evoluon extinct populations tion,is deficient. to of Like Spriggs's (1977) attempt reopenthediscussion the of and data, Gilman's correlability archaeological ethnographic thatis spreading among articleis evidenceofan uneasyfeeling dimension human of who archaeologists believein thehistorical is evolution.Centralto thisdiscussion the notionof economic growthas expressedby the accumulationof wealth directly inequality)and to relatedto the divisionoflabour (horizontal and the hierarchical/vertical inequalityin access to resources The neglectof this conceptin recentyears has investments. contributed the successof the superstructural to undoubtedly in perspective researchon the evolutionof complexsociety. "Economic growth"became obsolete at the same time as "surplus,"in the late 1950s,withthe successof substantivism and ofthefunctionalist-structuralist offensive againstMarxism. a of data was largely by-product The devaluation archaeological of this conceptualsettlement, since the commonfeatureof these various schools was that the evolutionof man, being and therefore is essentially superstructural, largelynonlinear of ahistorical. The politicaldimension this selectionbecomes lookat thestateofprehistoric a moreapparentthrough critical research today. Nowhere in the world is prehistoric archaeologyinstituto it independent. Withfewexceptions, is subordinate tionally is either social or thehistorical the The subordination sciences. in data in of of explained terms theshortcomings archaeological or comparisonwith those of either anthropology history. Childe(1946) attempted overcome barrier suggesting to by this in that it was possibleto sketchhumanevolution such a way as to makeit testable was largely His archaeologically. attempt weredeveloped unsuccessful histime.Meanwhile, in techniques thatgave prehistoric the archaeology meansto becomea source of coherent excaon information early societies:stratigraphic vations, total recovery,settlementstudies, ecofact-artefact quantitative analysis,and, of course,the multicorrelations, the methodology that integrated naturalsciences disciplinary into the studyof man's recent oppopast. Childe'sideological theseinnovamastered nents, amongthemClarkand Wheeler, tive methods the and readilydemonstrated factualunreliabilmotiwhichwerelabelled "politically ity of his propositions, vated" (Clark 1976). As a result, studyofcomplex societies the has remained firmly the hands of culturalanthropologists. in In continental studieshave been dominated Europeprehistoric continuum thatfora century by the Montelius/Mtuller-Karpe has been the backboneof what we may call descriptive forof based on the total recording malism.In this rigidsystem, building, the artefactual evidence, thereis no roomfortheory the of whichremains preserve historians. The "New Archaeology"aggregatedin a single coherent that had been developedby discourse the variousmethods all 16

dimenthe (particularly environmental theprevious generation sion in regionalstudies) and imposed hypothetico-deductive confined This modesofinvestigation. approachhas beenlargely to the areas in whichit developed,west of the Appalachians. workit has produced,not a the Notwithstanding important of singlerepresentative the historicalcore of the movement has occupieda major positionin one of the greatuniversities of the East Coast. In England the reactionwas outspoken, symposiumorganized by coalescing in the 1971 Sheffield proposing a theywerenot directly Renfrew (1973b).Although or approach,the "New Archaeoloneo-Childean materialistic to gists" gave too muchattention aspects of materialculture in the understanding complexsocietiesnot to stimulatea of has Since 1971Renfrew beenactivein developstrong reaction. as of ing thisperspective social evolution dominatedby noneconomic factors.The "New Archaeology"has had little exceptin Scandinavia,wherewe findgroups impactelsewhere Reviewand clusteredaround the NorwegianArchaeological have been C.-A. Mobergin G6teborg. Basicallyitspropositions groundsby the eitherignoredor confuted epistemological on criticism Gardin(1980). of neopositivist In myopinionGilman'spaper shouldbe assessedin thelight since by of the theoretical paralysisconfronted prehistorians underthe onslaught the "New Archaeology" began retreating on on of functionalism, the one hand,and taxo-formalism, the strucof other.I see it as a kindof cornerstone the theoretical archaeology. turethat willhousea post-Childean materialistic This orientation beginning appear in a very scattered is to They still have group of scholarsevenly spread worldwide. verylittlein commonapart froma certainuneasinessabout the to subordinating richbodiesof data theycontrol a theory from evidencetheycannotcontrol. Gilmancalls this generated alternative" and see its manifestation in the "nonfunctionalist of emphasizingthe reconstruction modes of subsistencein orderto isolate the capital-intensive processescrucial to the of of growth wealthin a givenarea and period.The priority this perspectiveis foundedon the fact that the means of and the organizations labour necessaryto the of production of pre-date development complexsocietiesalmosteverywhere of thus that the the emergence social segmentation, suggesting but selectsamongexisting demanddoes not createthe supply, we options.In moregeneralterms, mightoutlinethis type of natural approachas the searchforcausativepatternslinking and social structures conditions throughdetailed analysis of economicactivity.Economy is the social and technological of contextof the transformation nature by human activity. "Nature" here representsthe whole of Earth's resources exploited a givenpeople in a givenperiod.These resources by and correlatedin various directionsto must be identified of for providetheframework the reconstruction the particular This is largelywhat Gilmanhas done here.We need economy. a each involving detailedreconstruction moreregional projects, in of modes of subsistence theirevolutionfromthe adaptive stage of the Late Stone Age to the nonadaptive surplusprecedesocial stratification producing phasesthatimmediately because it is the dimension in earlystates.I stressthe regional in economic structuring so onlypossibleway of understanding as a diverse territory Europe.In peninsular Italy, forexample, that may have been or it was not irrigation plow agriculture but of of determinant theexpansion meansofproduction, what I have called the "conquestof the hills."Territorial expansion could be carriedout on slopes,for was possibleonlyiffarming less plains represent than 10% of the land area. This process was almost completeby the end of the Bronze Age and was in increasing terracing accomplished two stages:first probably of of the hillsand thenthe introduction cropsadapted to the trees and vines,have become primarily fruit slopes.These crops, and the main feature Europeanfarming, Gilmanis rightin of I pointingto their importance. would emphasize that to a of of factors capital-intensification greatextentthe individual
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY

subsistence activitymight groupedtogether interrelated be as aspectsof the same process. data in this materialistic Appropriate of archaeological use of perspective requires articulation the economic the realityin concepts suitableto thiskindofevidenceand at thesame time the linking it to relevantsocial institutions, of looselydefined in termssuch as "rank society,"in orderto identify activities and productsclassified termsof theircapacity to extract, in and transform, storeresources wellas to generate and as growth surplus(Tosi n.d.).

Gilman:

STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

Reply
byANTONIO GILMAN Mass., U.S.A. 15 ix 80 Cambridge, an in have had difficulty formulating adeSocial evolutionists fromclassless to stratified quate account of the transition constrains endeavor societies. theone hand,thelogicoftheir On changes,espethem to give causal primacyto technological On cially as these affectsubsistence. the otherhand, in the complex societies which emerge from the transitionsocial of in factors clearlyhave causal primacy the dynamics culture are not change:wheresocial positions determined onlyby age, but also by birth,a class analysis is sex, and achievement, of Most evolutionists essentialto the understanding history. and to technological social causation have attempted reconcile societiesarose that the elitesof early stratified by suggesting of as a resultof the managerial, organizational requirements I methodsof production. have tried to show more powerful and to suggest an that this formulation unsatisfactory is and social causatechnological alternative way of reconciling of systems tion:theautonomous development capital-intensive of production householdgroupsopens up the opportunity by statusesby fora minority attain permanent to superordinate to means.It is gratifying see thatalmostall of the exploitative are commentators generousenough to findmy approach of someinterest. It is impossible, course,to do justiceto the varietyof the of comments any reasonablespace. I will attemptto respond in to the several empiricaland theoretical questionswhichare (such as shared by a numberof reviewers. Some criticisms Lewthwaite'sbelief that I consider "tired old 'population pressure'" to be a primemoverof social change) seem to be of based on misunderstandings possiblymisreadings) what (or I have written. WhereI do notdiscusspointsraisedin particuhowto resolve lar comments, readermustjudge forhimself the content may whatever disagreements exist.The argumentative my of entailsonlyreflects appreciawhichtheformat thisreply on my tionof the help of my colleaguesin clarifying thinking issuesof mutualconcern. paucityof data is an For Problems evidence. prehistorians of the I inescapablefactoflife.For theproblems am dealingwith, generalinadequacy of archaeologicalevidenceas such is exacerbated by the small numberof studies which focus on economic and social questions. I am particularlygrateful, to therefore, those colleagues (Harrison,Schwartz,Shennan, my Sherratt, Tosi, and Wells) whohave confronted thesiswith below. concrete evidence.I willturnto someof theirconcerns and Sherratt point As Adams,Crumley, Harding,Shennan, overthecrucial(and inevitably out,I moveperhapstoo quickly area of burialsociology. Indeed,it is fairto say that I thorny) accept a consensuswhichsuits me ratherthan subject it to that the detailedcriticism. agreewithShennanand Sherratt I often seen wealth differentials withinBronze Age cemeteries are notlargeand withAdamsthatthekeyquestionofwhether can the contrasts reflect achievedor ascribedstatusdifferences neverbe conclusively settledusingpurelyarchaeologicalevibetweenNeodence.Nevertheless, thereare striking contrasts and theprimafacieinterprelithicand BronzeAge burialrites, of tationof thesedivergences reflecting presence heredias the in by tary status differences the lattertends to be confirmed the ethnomore detailed analysis. A diligentsearch through no graphicliterature doubt wouldfind(and it would be even easierto imagine)"archaeological nightmares" (Ucko 1969) in which comparable contrastswould merely reflecta slight at increasein ranking(or have no social significance all). On view acceptable,and the whole,however, findthe consensus I here (the so, forthat matter, those who have commented do 17

byPETER S. WELLS HarvardUniDepartment Anthropology, of PeabodyMuseum, Mass. 02138, U.S.A. 8 vii 80 versity, Cambridge, and Gilman'spaper is an interesting thoughtful approach to of The theproblem origins social stratification. discipline of of to Europeanprehistory suffered has from lack of attempts the in explainimportant changes evident thearchaeological record, I and this essay is a welcomestep in that direction. wish to make one generalsuggestion, then comment two specific on points. if severalterms It wouldbe helpful the authorwoulddefine in whose meaningsare understood a generalway but whose can be important. These include "funcconnotations specific and "rulingclass." tionalist,") "elite,)" of remarks concernthe applicability the model My specific to centralEurope. Of the fouraspects of "capital-intensificacouldpossibly tion"ofsubsistence, onlyplowagriculture apply studiessuggest thatthemajor to central Europe.Severalrecent of investment timeand energy the preparation land for of in farming occurredmuch earlierthan Gilmanindicates,beginningwiththe startof the Neolithic.It appears now that the first farmers centralEurope did not practiceslash-and-burn of in whichis unnecessary the richsoils of the area agriculture, (Modderman1971; Jarman1976: esp. 137-40). The evidence a fromthis of suggests permanence occupationof settlements earliestphase, withattendantclearingof fieldsforlong-term does use. agricultural Yet clear evidenceof social stratification not appear untilmuchlater. In arguingagainst the role of the development bronze of in of metallurgy the formation elites, Gilman suggeststhat of veryfewagricultural implements bronzeare knownbefore Late BronzeAge times.In centralEurope thisis not the case. The sickle,the mostobviousagricultural tool of metal at the in time,is well represented settlements (e.g., Fischer1971:13 and pl. 3,5.6) and in hoards. The reasonsthat no more are are known from settlements twofold. First,veryfewEarly and Middle BronzeAge settlements have been excavatedin central have been Europe. Second,usable sickleswouldnot ordinarily left behind in abandoned settlements. Broken sickles would have been lost in the fieldsor thrownback into the metalcaster'spot. A substantialnumberof hoardsof Early and early Middle Bronze Age date contain sickles. Some containnew, unused as objects (e.g., Krahe 1963) and can be interpreted caches of new toolsdepositedby traveling merchants metalsmiths or for unrealizedrecovery. future, Otherscontainprimarily broken objects and scraps of bronze(e.g., Dehn 1952,Kimmig1955) and probably collections metaldestined remeltof for represent There is no need to interpret eitherkindof ing and recasting. hoard as "votive," and both represent aspects of the rapidly growingindustryand trade in bronze implements the at of beginning theBronzeAge (see Reinecke1930,Pittioni1976). The evidenceof bronzetoolssuggests me that thismetal to was playinga role in agricultural production fromthe Early Bronze Age on in centralEurope and that the management and controlof trade in bronze may have been a significant factor the emergence elitesduring in of thisperiod. Vol. 22 *No. 1 February 1981

Coles and the for readershouldconsider, example, passagefrom quotedabove). To say thatmorework Harding's[1979]survey needsto be done is not to say that the mostlikelyconclusions or based on the evidencenow available are incorrect should be ignored. Even more tenuousis the evidenceon land tenure,which sees as a crucial question.The surviving Crumleycorrectly "Celtic" field systemssuggest,however,some stabilityin shouldknow,it is not the mere landholding. BiettiSestieri (As but whichleads to thisinterpretation, of existence boundaries the way in which the boundariesare formed:the lynchets separatingthe fieldsare createdby plowing'saccelerationof delimited lynchets of by soil creep;theexistence a fieldsystem wereplowedin thesame that therefore, thesame fields implies, an for configuration a long time;thisin turnsuggests orderly of of regulation access to the land, in otherwords,some form implya commitment patterns Stable landholding ownership.) of whichwould permitthe development a to fixedresources cannotspecify WhileI obviously complex. protection/extortion the providedthe surplusthat generated wealthin whichfields whichgraves,it hardlyseems a "leap of faith,"as Crumley describesit, to supposethat,takenas a whole,the wealthof a production. BronzeAge elitesrepresents shareofsubsistence In Classical times, when society was certainlymuch more than duringthe BronzeAge, the and "heterarchical" complex sourceof wealth was, as Finley (1973) stresses, fundamental but not theland. It seemsa matter offaith ofreasonto suppose societiesof European barbariansthe land that in the simpler it and thosewhoworked wouldalso have providedthe surplus few. capturedby theprivileged data, to denounce It is easy to be criticalof archaeological to in methodologiforma as conclusions speculative, indulge pro are Most prehistorians selectivein theirconcal pessimism. When the evidenceleads themto concluhowever. servatism, sions theylike, the soberestscholarsspeculate.Thus, Bietti it who here considers "at least questionablethat we Sestieri, use can legitimately conceptssuch as trade. . . withreference averred, to Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe," has elsewhere on the basis of typological parallelsalone, thatin the later 2d in Italian millennium B.C. Mycenaean smithswere working metal workshops(Bietti Sestieri 1973:408). Crumley,who considers "risky"to supposethat the occupantsof Fiirstenit producersin obtained their wealth fromagricultural grdber later to speculateon is threeparagraphs theirvicinity, willing at of the existence merchant elitesand on toll-collecting fords to can and passes in BronzeAge times.No archaeologist afford of wait until thereis enoughevidence to make the writing "safe." What we can do is argueour cases forwhat prehistory of the past was like fromthe centraltendencies the available process. graspofhistorical evidenceand witha realistic Several commentators (Bietti Sestieri,Cazzella, Crumley, thatdevelopments and Harding,Kohl, Schwartz, Tosi) suggest in Europe duringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C. may be too diverseforany singletheoryto account forthem.I am not but to attempting explainall aspects of BronzeAge diversity, I within scope of my interests disagreewiththiscriticism the is forthree place, themodelI put forward a reasons.In thefirst in empiricaldiversity structural one and thus accommodates capitalbetween a details.I suggest relationship cultural specific which can be and exploitation of intensification subsistence modes both of intensification applied to a varietyof specific and of surpluscapture.The modelis, so to speak, processual from and thus can account forseveral European transitions to To ranking stratification. put the same pointanotherway, if,as Adams and Cowgillseem to feel,my approachdeserves thenit may contexts, consideration entirely non-European in Europe.In the areas within to also be relevant severaldifferent I diversity. structural second place, the modelaccommodates thatsocialstratificaseemsto think, as do notassume, Schwartz I within Europe. On thecontrary, acknowltionwas universal 18

rate edge the differential ofsocialchangeand attempt explain to this by the differential of capital-intensification.anyrate If thing,Sherratt's criticism my "failureto make use of the of in variety the evidence"is morejust than the view that I cast too widea net. In the third place, thereare, in fact,strikingly similar in developments manyareas ofEuropeduring Early the BronzeAge. As Shennan(1980) stresses, generalcharacter the ofeliteburialsand manyof the specific artifact typesincluded in them(e.g., rivetted daggers)are much the same in southeastern Spain, Brittany,Wessex, Saxo-Thuringia, Bohemia, and so on. This elite complexappears in thesedifferent areas at about the same time (the beginning the 2d millennium) of and contrasts withthe muchless differentiated burial ritesof the preceding period. Given thesebroad similarities, seems it reasonableto me to supposethat one can attempta common explanation. Harding,Shennan, and Wells are concerned about the time lag betweenthe introduction subsistence of intensification and of the development hereditary inequalities. a basic sense,of In course,some capital stocksare inherent the simplestfood in production systems: one form another, in or farmers have will storesto ensure future production, themoverbad harvests tide and lean seasons, and so on. These stores,being of general and settlement value, must be defended, fortifications, nonexistent the Palaeolithic,becomefrequent the Neolithic. in in It is the general understanding social evolutionists of that rankingarises in responseto the need to create and defend thesestores(Service 1962,Fried 1967). The questionis, thereat assets becomesignificant fore, what pointthe community's enough to permit the shiftfromranking to stratification. the unintensive Clearly, relatively agricultural practices which, pace Wells and Sherratt(1980a), characterizedthe earlier Neolithic in Europe would not have entailed such critical of accumulations capital. Clearly,too, the first introduction of moreintensive practices wouldnot immediately have provided the to big-men leverage We necessary becomechiefs. needmany moredetailedregionalassessments, such as that providedby Bradley (1978) forthe BritishIsles, of the complexenvironmentaland technological factorsinvolved.In the absence of suchstudies, can onlyagreewiththeinevitably I impressionistic assessment Sherratt of that thereis a "significant horizonof change in the mid-3dmillennium B.C." The adoption of the would not immediately have plow and otherintensifications but led to stratification, it is apparent that the older social The of burial orderwas not unaffected. replacement collective in megaliths singlegrave ritesin northern by Europe, on the of one hand, and the intensification collectiverituals (in the face of the undermining theirmaterialbase) in Wessex (the of of monuments the "groupconstruction large ceremonial by of orientedchiefdoms" Renfrew[1974]), on the Boyne (the spectacularNew Grangepassage-grave group),and in southon easternSpain (the Los Millares phenomenon), the other to as hand, may be interpreted varying responses the stresses ofagriculture whichthe capital-intensification producedin the social order(Gilman 1976,Shennan1980). I thinkit Neolithic reasonableto suppose that it would take half a is perfectly or millennium, even longer,for these stressesto be resolved a within new social order. and Commodity exchange bronze. Adams,Kohl, and Shennan the importanceof primitive believe that I underestimate of to valuablesin contributing the development stratification. I agree with Adams that the "naturally scarce, fungible, of durable"properties bronzewouldmake it an ideal medium for storingand mobilizingcapital. Bronze and other such would thus help the elites that possessedthemto preciosities theirpower. One can also consolidate, extend,and transmit see howpreferential access to a valuableprizedin thecoreofa stratified system couldgive riseto compradore elitesalong the system'speriphery. This was Childe's view of Bronze Age developments Europeas a whole, course.Shennanfollows in of
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY

Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE a similarline on a morelocal scale whenhe argueshere that ambermayhave beenimportant thebeginning theDanish to of BronzeAge: sincethefirst horizon clear stratification the of in Europe. A remaining unlikelyto have existedin prehistoric North occurs centuries afterclasses had emergedin Central of the for possibility thosewhowoulddefend importance trade couldhave playedperiphery thelatter's to Europe,theformer in of in the development social inequalities Europe is to argue core.All theseapproaches the assume,however, priorexistence thatbronze production. agricultural in was important increasing the will Whenwe are ofthecapitalwhich preciosities represent. This is the positionof Schwartzand Wells. Schwartzobserves of dealingwiththe pristine development hereditary elites,the are that centersof early metallurgy associated withareas of key question is how they captured surplus,not into what and This provesthatminers production. subsistence important form it. was knownfor convenient theyconverted Metallurgy in smiths musteat, not that metal tools wereimportant agriover a millennium Europe before the intensification in of Wells indicatesthatat the startof the Middle Bronze culture. createda social context the storageof for subsistence systems impleAge (ReineckeA2/B1) in CentralEurope agricultural the wealthand stimulated florescence the technology. is of It debrisand foundry mentsof bronzeare foundin settlement to couldhave playedmorethan difficult acceptthatpreciosities each piece and hoards.Excludingcastingfragments counting an ancillaryrole in an autonomoussocial evolutiontowards as a wholeartifact, composition the metal assemblages of the stratification. argueotherwise To wouldamountto sayingthat site, is he citesis givenin table 1. Arbon-Bleiche a settlement a fundamental changein humansocial systems "began witha are considerations sufficient taphonomic and,as Wellsindicates, caprice" (Schneider 1977:23). of smallnumber sicklesand large to accountforthe relatively My opinion that the development the Bronze Age in of numberof awls, needles,etc. ("Other Artifacts").The other Europe was essentially autochthonous an processis based not two assemblages are foundryhoards consistingmainly of on dogma (as Kohl seems to think),but on evidence.If the theseshouldbe fairly and castingfragments brokenartifacts; Aegean in the mid-3dmillennium El Argar,Aunjetitz,or or of representative the metal in use. It is clear that one must Wessex in the early 2d millennium had been peripherally interpret used for (presumably implements axes as agricultural in involved a Greater one Near Eastern"worldsystem," would of proportion the metal in land clearance) forany significant expectthisto be reflected of materially thepresence certifi- theseassemblages be considered by to relevant foodproduction. to able imports from putativecoreareas. In spiteof the fact the Because they are foundin graves with swordsand daggers, that such findswere predictedby the theorydominantin as axes are usually interpreted weapons. In the absence of prehistoric European studiesforalmosthalf a century, there determinanalysesoftheuse markson axes and ofexperiments are none in Western and CentralEurope earlierthan the 1st of ing the effectiveness replicasin wood chopping(see Coles millennium extremely in the Aegean earlierthan the and few evidence Experimental 1979:101-4),theissueis hardto resolve. 2d (Renfrew 1972:211-17). Cazzella may wishnot "to exclude that bronzesicklesare not much better does show,however, the entirely economic and social influences" the Orientand of efficiency (Coles 1979:117of thanflint onesinterms harvesting theAegean,and Kohl may insiston principle thatan analogue but the 18). As usual in archaeology, issueis not clear-cut, the to Wallerstein's (1974) theory thedevelopment capitalism evidence Wells presentsdoes not persuade me that metal of of is applicableto prehistoric Europe,but I fail to see how these as theywere technoenvironmentally wereas important artifacts can connections be both economically and sociallyimportant sociallyand ideologically. and materially to invisible. extensive Connections enough effect lies of thatthedevelopment exchange systems I do notthink social change over wide areas of Europe must be significant elite in Bronze of at the root of the emergence a hereditary The to expected involveat least someartifactual consequences. Age Europe,but thisdoes not mean that such a processcould core/periphery model may help us understandthe Aegean in not account for such developments other historical or Late BronzeAge or the CentralEuropeanEarly Iron Age,but, whereecologicalcondiIn ecologicalsettings. otherinstances, when social stratification arose, Europe was, in Wallerfirst or in tionsfavorspecialization subsistence requireimportation stein'sterms, marginal. or secureproduction where neededto maintain of commodities or Whether notcoreand peripheral areas can be distinguished a core/periphery an tradingsystemcan be documented, exwithin BronzeAge Europedeserves examina- change-based detailedempirical theorymay well be viable. All the same, the tion. I am not persuaded,however, Shennan'ssuggestion "decentering theobserver" by should whichGallayrecommends of about the causal importance amberforthe development of of in willdiffer separateareas. not implythat essential processes in stratification Denmark.Randsborg(1974) showsa general must explain in Any account of the originsof stratification correlation betweenagricultural productivity (based on the units of productive termsof the survivalstrategies household plow) and degreeof inequality.If Shennan were right,one the mass of the populationto accept the what constrained wouldexpectthe entirewest coast of Jutlandto be an excepstatus. of component superordinate ascriptive tion, since it is uniformly source of amber and relatively a Harding,and and Functionalism theroleof elites.Crumley, unproductive agriculturally. thearea aroundtheLimfjord, Hicks seemto feelthatmyapproachis, after a functionalist Only all, a rich and sheltered fishing ground,fails to fit Randsborg's one.To theextent to thatI do notbelievesociety be a thingof The facts,such as they are, fit my speculation shredsand patches,I of course mustbe a functionalist. I correlation. As betterthan Shennan's.The idea that in some areas of Europe to attempted explainat the startof the "Critique" sectionof secondary elitesarose as a resultof theircompradore statusin exchangeswith more powerfulelites elsewherewithin the TABLE 1 continent merits careful consideration, it is hard to reconbut cile with the generallyrudimentary characterof European COMPOSITION OF METAL ASSEMBLAGES FROM Bronze Age stratification THREE CENTRAL EUROPEAN SITES (which Shennanhimself underlines in his comment here). OTHER OTHER A commodity-exchange theory the origins social stratiof of ARTIORNAWEAPfication applicableto the EuropeanBronzeAge mustpointto AXES ONS MFENTS FACTS SICKLES SITE AND SOURCE internal externalcommerce goods whichmeet the basic or in needs of households. the extentthat households To could do Arbon-Bleiche 42 35 16 4 2 ...... without goods,theycould do without exactions the the the of 1971) (Fischer 1 230 8 9 17 Bohl (Dehn1952) ..... suppliers.Evolutionarylogic suggeststhat we look to the Ackenbach subsistence sector suchcommodities, it is apparent(and for yet 22 .. 12 ... 9 . 10 (Kimmig1955) no responsedisagrees)that significant trade'in foodstuffs is

Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February 1981

19

are a my paper,however, beliefthatsocial systems integrated aspect of a society need not involvethe view that a particular by access to resources preferential hereditary (in thisinstance, to is minority) necessary thatsociety's(and itsparticia ruling of the is This, however, precisely argument pants') existence. the leadership the functionalists-with-respect-to-stratification; to ofan elite,theysay,is necessary achievetheDarwiniangood of higherand more secure production.My positionis that and moresecure to by certainefforts households achievehigher productionprovide leaders holdingtheir positionsby their the achievements leveragewithwhichto make theirpositions By permanent. adding the threatof violenceagainst the now of mass of the populationto the promises assistance immobile statushereditary the theygave before, leaderscouldmaketheir My and reduce the amount of assistance to theirfollowers. in approachmaybe functionalist thebroadsenseofrecognizing but of the interdependence the social and the technological, it between with respectto the relationship is nonfunctionalist and stratification production. I agreewithCazzella, Claessen,Cowgill,Earle, Lewthwaite, and Sherrattthat (to repeat myself)"it is undeniablethat be rulingclasses may sometimes of serviceto theirsubjects." power,an elite mustuse both In orderto maintainhereditary the carrotand the stick.As the collapses of the Pahlevi and show,even in our own day, whenthe techSomoza dynasties thanin thepast, morepowerful is of nology force incomparably rulerto maintainhis for it is impossible even the mostruthless power unless he reconcilesan adequate proportionof his It subjects to his regimeby means of positiveincentives. is no to important be a "good massa." At thesame time, stratified regimeis contentto confidethe positionof the elite to the consentof the governed:forceis the ultimateguaranteeof power.As Earle pointsout, the extentto whichelitesextend theirpowerand the ease withwhichtheymanage theirsubby jects are largely determined the judicious provisionof In analysis, to services at least someofthepopulation. thefinal its an however, elite maintainsits powerthrough predictable to abilityto apply violenceeffectively all its subjects. in I emphasizethe roleofnegativeincentives the emergence of what is characteristic elitesbecause precisely of hereditary successful of use is to the transition stratification the normally forceas one of the means by which leaders maintaintheir the are of power.Wheresystems production unintensive, threat the of violenceis mostlyineffective: populationcan abandon its would-be master. Where systemsof productionrequire the capital investments, populationcannot escape important of the unwantedattentions its leaders. During the millennia subsisof whichprecededthe development capital-intensive tence, all the servicesprovidedby egalitarianredistributors positions.Once the leadership failed to gain themhereditary successful applicationof forcebecame possible,stratification a within fewcenturies. emerged my concerning Mafiatheory comments Lewthwaite's amusing hit of historical processundeniably close to the mark. Yet I to wouldrecommend himthathe read Blok's (1974) illuminatof ingstudyof the Mafia in Sicilyin orderto disabusehimself are thatleadersand followers all in it together hisfanciful belief symmetrical are relationships essentially and thatpatron-client characterizato ("to each according hisneed" is hisastonishing and betweenchieftains their tionof the allocationof resources failsto realizeis thatthebenign What Lewthwaite supporters). surfaceof clientage(in which,in his words,"inequalitydoes not breed alienation") depends upon the fact that, as Wolf (1966) points out, both patronand clientoperate withinthe When the state is of structure state institutions. overarching tie, of presentto guaranteethe asymmetry the patron-client to the patroncan afford maintainan appearanceof unalloyed run and operations When the patron'sambitions munificence. he however, cannot avail counterto the state's prescriptions, and must his of himself state powerto certify predominance 20

the asymmetry himself enforce betweenhimself and his supporters. This, as Blok explains,is the situationof the Mafia. Leadersfacethesameproblem whenstateinstitutions weak are or nonexistent. Justas whenhis activities opposed by the are state,theleadermusthimself supplythe violencenecessary to discipline dissident As followers. Moore (1966:214) pointsout, is "gangsterism likelyto cropup wherever forces law and the of orderare weak. European feudalism was mainlygangsterism that had become society itselfand acquired respectability notionsof chivalry." the BronzeAge,of course,no In through state structures existedto maintainthepowerof the emergent elite over theirfollowers. eliteswouldhave had to supply The their own enforcement, and the furniture their burials of suggeststhey gloriedin that necessity. Anderson(1974) As has shown,furthermore, there is a direct historicallink in Europe betweenfeudalismand the barbarian social system whicharose in the BronzeAge. seem to findmy theoretical Many responses positionto be "polarized" (Adams) and "oversimple" (Sherratt). This is As probably inevitable. Moore (1966:522) has said, any simplestraightforward about politicalinstitutions truth or events boundto havepolemical is consequence. In any society ... thedominant are groups theoneswiththemostto hideaboutthe truthful way societyworks.Veryoften, therefore, analysesare boundto have a critical to rather than ring, seemlike exposures
. objectivestatements. ..

and mythologies whichjustify We are so miredin the theories that surroundus that a clear the systemsof stratification in of of exposition the origins stratification the remote past in cannotavoid seeming social processes terms universal of somehow too radical.

Cited References
sityof Chicago Press. Chicago: Aldine. . 1966. The evolution urbansociety. of on perspectives ancienttrade.CURRENT . 1974.Anthropological 15:239-58. ANTHROPOLOGY and . 1981. Heartland of cities: Surveysof ancient settlement floodplainoftheEuphrates.Chicago: Univerland use on thecentral [RMA] sity of Chicago Press. ANATI, EMMANUEL. 1961. Camonica Valley.New York: Knopf. ANDERSON, PERRY. 1974. Passages from antiquityto feudalism. London: New Left Books. y APARICIO PEREZ, JOSE.1976,Estudio econ6mico social de la Edad Valencia: Diputaci6n Provincial. del Broncevalenciano. peninsularduranteel Bronce ARRIBAS, ANTONIO. 1959. El urbanismo Zephyrus10:81-128. primitivo. . 1968. "Las bases econ6micas del Neolitico al Bronce," in Estudios de economiaantigua de la peninsula iberica. Edited by M. Tarradell,pp. 33-60. Barcelona: Vicens-Vives. . 1976. Las bases actuales para el estudio del Eneolitico y la Edad del Bronce en el sudeste de la peninsula iberica. Cuadernos de Prehistoria Granadina 1: 139-55. BALCER, JACK MARTIN. 1974. The Mycenaean dam at Tiryns. 78:141-49. American JournalofArchaeology Rome. London: Italy before BARFIELD, LAWRENCE. 1971. Nortlhern Thames and Hudson. BARKER, GRAEME, and DERRICK WEBLEY. 1978. Causewayed camps and early Neolithic economies in central southern England. Society44:141-49. of Proceedings thePrehistoric BARRETT, JOHN, PETER HILL, and J. B. STEVENSON. 1976. "Second millenniumB.C. banks in the Black Moss of Ashnacree: Some in and economy land use," in Settlement problemsof prehistoric thethirdand secondmillenniaB.C. Edited by C. Burgess and R. Miket,pp. 283-87. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports. BATTAGLIA, R. 1943. La palafitta del Lago di Ledro nel Trentino. Memoriedel Museo di Storia Naturale della Venezia Tridentina 7:3-63. BETTS, J. H. 1973. "Ships on Minoan seals," in Marine archaeology. Edited by D. J. Blackman, pp. 326-36. London: Butterworth. [CAS] BIETTI SESTIERI, A. M. 1973. The metal industryof continental Italy, 13th to 11th centuryB.C., and its connectionswith the Society39:383-424. of Aegean. Proceedings thePrehistoric
-

Baghdad.Chicago: UniverADAMS, ROBERT McC. 1965. Land behind

CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY

Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE potential.Memoirs theSociety American of for Archaeology 25:6-29. BLOK, ANTON. 1974. The Mafia of a Sicilian village 1860-1960. and social organization a complex of chiefdom: . 1978. Economic Oxford:Basil Blackwell. The Halelea district, Kaua'i, Hawaii. Museum of Anthropology, BOK6NYI, S. 1974. History domestic of mammals central in and eastern of University Michigan,Anthropological Papers 63. Europe. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6. ENGELS, FREDERICK. 1972 (1891). The originsof the family,private BOUZEK, JAN,DRAHOMIR KOUTECKY, and EVZEN NEUSTUPNY. 1966. and property, thestate.New York: InternationalPublishers. The Knoviz settlement north-west of Bohemia. Fontes Archeologici EVANS, J. D., and COLIN RENFREW. 1966. Excavationsat Saliagos Pragenses 10. nearAntiparos. London: Thames and Hudson. settlement Britain. BRADLEY, RICHARD J. 1978. The prehistoric of FINLEY, M. I. 1973. The ancienteconomy. Berkeley: Universityof London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. CaliforniaPress. BR0NDSTED, JOHANNES.1958. DanmarksOldtid.Vol. 2. Copenhagen: FISCHER, FRANZ. 1971. Die frahbronzezeitliche Ansiedlungin der Gyldendal. Bleiche bei ArbonTG. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft Urftir BUTZER, KARL W. 1976. Early hydraulic civilizationin Egypt. und Friihgeschichte. [PSW] of Chicago: University Chicago Press. FLANNERY, KENT V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations. CARNEIRO, ROBERT L. 1968. "Slash-and-burncultivation among the Annual ReviewofEcologyand Systematics 3:399-426. Kuikuru and its implicationsfor cultural developmentin the FLANNERY, KENT V., and MICHAEL D. COE. 1968. "Social and Amazon Basin," in Man in adaptation: The cultural present. economicsystemsin Formative Mesoamerica," in New perspecEdited by Y. Cohen,pp. 132-45. Chicago: Aldine. tivesin archaeology. Edited by S. R. Binfordand L. R. Binford, . 1970. A theory the origin the state. Science 169:733-38. of of pp. 267-83. Chicago: Aldine. . 1978. "Political expansionas an expression the principle of FOWLER, P. J. 1971. "Early prehistoricagriculturein western of competitiveexclusion," in Originsof the state.Edited by R. Europe: Some archaeologicalevidence,"in Economyand settlement Cohen and E. R. Service,pp. 205-33. Philadelphia: Institutefor in Neolithicand Early BronzeAge Europe. Edited by D. D. A. the Study of Human Issues. Press. Simpson,pp. 153-82. Leicester:LeicesterUniversity CAULFIELD, SEAMAS. 1978. "Neolithic fields:The Irish evidence," in P. FOWLER, J., and J. G. EVANS. 1967. Plough-marks, lynchets, and Early land allotment theBritishIsles. Edited by H. C. Bowen in early fields. Antiquity 41:289-301. and P. J. Fowler, pp. 137-43. Oxford: British Archaeological FRANKENSTEIN, SUSAN,and M. J. ROWLANDS. 1978. The internal Reports. and regionalcontextof Early Iron Age societyin southstructure CHAGNON, NAPOLEON A. 1975. Genealogy,solidarity,and related15: western Bulletin the Germany. of Institute Archaeology 73-112. of 19: ness. Yearbook PhysicalA nthropology 95-110. of (JL) FRIED, MORTON H. 1967. The evolution political of society. New York: CHAPMAN,R. W. 1977. "Burial practices: An area of mutual interRandom House. est," in Archaeology and anthropology: Areas of mutual interest. FRIEDMAN, 1974. Marxism,structuralism, vulgarmaterialism. J. and Edited by M. Spriggs,pp. 19-33. Oxford:BritishArchaeological Man 9:444-69. Reports. 1979. System, structure, contradiction theevolution and in of --. in -. 1978. The evidenceforprehistoric watercontrol Southeast "Asiatic" social formations. Copenhagen: National Museum of 1: Spain. Journalof Arid Environments 261-74. Denmark. [HJMC] SouthCHILDE, V. GORDON. 1946. Archaeologyand anthropology. FRIEDMAN, and M. J. ROWLANDS. J., 1978. "Notes towardsan epiwestern 2:243-51. JournalofAnthropology [MT] geneticmodel of the evolutionof civilisation,"in The evolution of . 1951. Man makeshimself. New York: MentorBooks. social systems. Edited by J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, pp. 1954. Whathappened history. in Harmondsworth: Penguin. 201-79. London: Duckworth. [SJS] . 1956. The Bronze Age. Past and Present12:2-15. of FROST,H. 1973. "Anchors,the potsherds marinearchaeology:On 1957. The dawn ofEuropean civilization. London: Routledge of the recording pierced stones foundin the Mediterranean,"in and Kegan Paul. Marine archaeology. Edited by D. J. Blackman, pp. 397-406. . 1958. The prehistory European society. of Harmondsworth: London: Butterworth. [CAS] Penguin. GALL,PATRICIA and ARTHUR A. SAXE. 1977. "The ecological L., CLAESSEN, HENRI J. M. 1978. "The early state: A structuralapevolutionof culture:The state as predatorin successiontheory," proach," in The earlystate.Edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and in Exchangesystems prehistory. in Edited by T. K. Earle and J. E. Peter Skalnik,pp. 533-96. The Hague: Mouton. [HJMC] Ericson,pp. 255-68. New York: Academic Press. CLARK, GRAHAME. 1966. The invasion hypothesis Britisharchaein GALLAY, ALAIN, with the collaboration of CLAUDINE SAUVAINology.Antiquity 40:172-89. DUGERDIL. n.d. Le SarnyereDogon, Mali, Afrique occidentale: -. 1977. "The economiccontextof dolmensand passage graves Archeologie d'un isolat. Paris. [AG] -in Sweden," in AncientEurope and theMediterranean. Edited by GARDIN, JEAN-CLAUDE. 1974. A propos des modeles en archeologie V. Markotic,pp. 35-50. Warminster: Arisand Phillips. (Review of:Modelsin archaeology, editedby D. L. Clarke [London: CLARK, J. G. D. 1976.Prehistory since Childe.BulletinoftheInstitute Methuen,1972]). RevueArcheologique 2:341-48. [AG] ofArchaeology 13:1-21. [MT] GILMAN, ANTONIO. 1976. Bronze Age dynamicsin southeast Spain. CLARKE, D. L. 1976. "The Beaker network:Social and economic DialecticalAnthropology 1:307-19. models," in Glockenbecher SymposionOberried1974. Edited by GLICK, THOMAS F. 1970. Irrigation and society mediaevalValencia. in J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 459-76. Bussum: Press. Cambridge:Harvard University Fibula-van Dishoeck. GLOB, P. V. 1951. Ard og plovi Nordens Oldtid.Arhus: UniversitetsCOLES, JOHN. 1979. Experimental archaeology. London: Academic forlaget. Press. New in and irrationality economics. GODELIER, M. 1972. Rationality COLES, J. M., and A. F. HARDING. 1979. The BronzeAge in Europe. York: MonthlyReview Press. [PLK] London: Methuen. A GOODY, JACK. 1976. Production and reproduction: comparative COWGILL, GEORGE L. 1975. On causes and consequencesof ancient and modernpopulationchanges.American domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University studyof thedomestic 77:505Anthropologist 25. Press. GREEN, STANTON. 1979. "Expanding agricultural systems:ElaboraCRUMLEY, CAROLE L. 1979. "Three locational models: An epistemotion of a least-costmodel," in Modelingsubsistence changein prelogical assessment anthropology archaeology,"in Advances for and historic economies. Edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson. in archaeological method and theory, vol. 2. Edited by Michael B. New York: Academic Press. In press. Schiffer, 141-73. New York: Academic Press. pp. [CLC] DEHN, WOLFGANG. 1952. Ein Brucherzfund Htigelgraberbronze- GUDEMAN, STEPHEN. 1977. Morgan in Africa. Reviewsin Anthroder 4:575-80. pology zeit von Buihl,Ldkr. N6rdlingen(Bayern). Germania30:174-87. New York: HARRIS, M. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory. [PSW] Crowell. [PLK] DENFORD, G. T. 1975. Economyand locationofBronzeAge "arable" . 1971. Culture, man, and nature.New York: Crowell. settlements Dartmoor. Bulletin of theInstitute Archaeology in of 12:175-96. London: Thames and HARRISON, RICHARD J. 1980. TheBeaker folk. DIAKONOFF, I. M. 1969. "The rise of the despotic state in ancient Hudson. [RJH] Mesopotamia," in Ancient Mesopotamia. Edited by I. M. DiakonHARRISON, RICHARD J., and ANTONIO GILMAN. 1977. "Trade in the off, pp. 173-203. Moscow: Nauka. second and thirdmillennia B.C. betweenthe Maghreb and Iberia," DREWETT, P. L. 1978. "Field systemsand land allotment Sussex, in in Ancient Edited by V. Markotic, Europe and theMediterranean. 3rd millennium B.C. to 4th century A.D.," in Early land allotment Aris and Phillips. pp. 90-104. Warminster: in theBritishIsles. Edited by H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler,pp. HAWKES, C. F. C. 1954. Archaeologytheoryand method: Some 67-80. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. 56:155fromthe Old World.American suggestions Anthropologist EARLE,TIMOTHY 1977. "A reappraisalof redistribution: K. Complex 68. Hawaiian chiefdoms,"in Exchangesyslemsin prehistory. Edited HEMPEL, CARL G. 1959. "The logic of functional analysis," in Symby T. K. Earle and J.E. Ericson,pp. 213-32. New York: Academic theory. Edited by L. Gross, pp. 271-307. posium on sociological Press. New York: Harper and Row.

BINFORD, LEWIS R. 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study and

Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February 1981

21

der in the Alpine foreland. Vierteljahresschrift naturforschenden in Gesellschaft Zurich 113:41-92. aus Pflanzenreste Ostspanien. HOPF, MARIA. 1971. Vorgeschichtliche 12:102-14. MadriderMitteilulngen HOPF, MARIA, and MANUEL PELLICER CATALAN. 1970. Neolithische in Getreidefunde der Hohle von Nerja. Madrider Mitteilungen 11:18-34. ISBELL, WILLIAM H., and KATHARINA J. SCHREIBER. 1978. Was 43:372-89. Antiquity Huari a state? American in JARMAN, N. 1976. "Early crop agriculture Europe," in Origine H. (Proceedings of IX Congres, de l'elevageet de la domestication et Union Internationaledes Sciences Prehistoriques Protohistor[PSW] iques, vol. 20). Edited by E. Higgs,pp. 116-44. Nice. JAZDZEWSKI,KONRAD. 1965. Poland. London: Thames and Hudson. Europy w JODLOWSKI, A. 1976. Technikaprodukcjisoli na terenie of gredniowieczu technique salt pro(The i pradziejach we wczesnym timesand the earlyMiddle Ages). ductionin Europe in prehistoric Studia i Materialydo Dziejow zup Solnychw Polsce 5. [RJHI of JOHNSON,ALLEN. 1971. The sharecroppers the Sertdo.Stanford: Press. Stanford University [TE] in B. JOVANOVIC, 1979. Coppermining SoutheastEurope. Proceedings Society45:103-10. ofthePrehistoric [CAS] KEMPISTY, ANDRZEJ. 1978. The Corded Ware culturein the lightof 26:5-41. evidence.PrzegladArcheologiczny new stratigraphic HiigelgraberKIMMIG, WOLFGANG. 1955. Ein Hortfundder frtihen des Jahrbuch Romischbronzezeit von AckenbachKr. Uberlingen. Zentralmuseums 2:55-75. [PSW] Germanischen Asia KOHL, PHILIP L. 1978. The balance of trade in southwestern millenniumB.C. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY19: in the mid-third 463-92. KRAHE, GUNTHER. 1963. Hortfund der friihen Bronzezeit von [PSW] Germania41:74-76. Haitzen, Ldkr. Memmingen. LAMBERG-KARLOvSKY,C. C., and JEREMY A. SABLOFF. 1979.Ancient Menlo Park: civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica. Benjamin/Cummings. on of agriculture LANCASTER,CHET S. 1979. The influence extensive of the study of sociopoliticalorganizationand the interpretation 6:329-48. American Ethnologist history. LERCHE, GRITH. 1968. The radiocarbon-dated Danish ploughing Tools and Tillage 1:56-58. implements. aspects LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE. 1967. "The social and psychological of chieftainship a primitivetribe," in Comparative in political Edited by Ronald Cohen and JohnMiddleton,pp. 45-62. systems. Garden City: Natural HistoryPress. [HJMC] noires:Histoire, techniques, MAQUET, JACQUES. 1967. Les civilisations Paris: Marabout Universite. [AG] arts,societes. MARX, KARL. 1967 (1887). Capital. Vol. 1. New York: International Publishers. Ein bedeutender MATTHIAS, WALDEMAR. 1976. Die Salzproduktion: an der Bevolkerung Faktor in derWirtschaft friuhbronzezeitlichen der mittleren Vorgeschichte fur Saale. Jahresschrift Mitteldeutsche 60:373-94. de MAUNY, RAYMOND. 1970. Tableau geographique l'Ouestafricainau et la Moyen Age d'apres les sourcesecrites, tradition l'archeologie. [AG] InstitutFondamentalde l'AfriqueNoire Memoire61. London: Cohen and West. [HJMC] MAUSS, MARCEL. 1970. The gift. of MEIGS, PEVERIL. 1966. Geography coastal deserts.Arid Zone Research 28. du MEILLASSOUX, CLAUDE. 1977. "Essai d'interpretation phenomene d'auto-subsistance," economiquedans les societes traditionnelles in Terrainsettheories, 21-62. Paris: Anthropos. [AG] pp. New York: MILISAUSKAS, SARUNAS. 1978. European prehistory. Academic Press. und Wanderbauerntum. MODDERMAN,P. J. R. 1971. Bandkeramiker Archdologisches 1: [PSW] Korrespondenzblatt7-9. and dicof MOORE, BARRINGTON,JR. 1966. Social origins democracy tatorship:Lord and peasant in the makingof the modernworld. Boston: Beacon Press. Disprehistory. NENQUIN, JACQUES. 1961. Salt: A studyin economic sertationes Archeologicae Gandenses6. NEUSTUPNY, EVZEN. 1967. K pocatkum patriarchatu ve stfedni Akademie Ved, Rada SpolecenEvrope. RozpravyCeskoslovensk6 skychVed 77 (2). . 1969. Economy of the Corded Ware cultures.Archeologicke 21:43-68. Rozlhedy Oberried Symposion --. 1976. "Paradigm lost," in Glockenbecher 1974. Edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 24147. Bussum: Fibula-van Dishoeck. DOUGLAS L. 1967. A Solomon Island society. Boston: OLIVER, Beacon Press. Verhaltnisse den bei OTTO, KARL-HEINZ. 1955. Die sozial-okonomische

economicexploitation HIGHAM, C. F. C. 1968. Patternsofprehistoric

as RANDSBORG,KLAVS. 1973. "Wealth and social structure reflected

in eldeutschl . Ethnographischand der Kultur Mitt Stamme Leubinger

Archaologische Forschungen 3(1).

der PITTIONI, RICHARD. 1976. "Bergbau-Kupfererx," in Reallexikon germanischen Altertumskunde. edition. Edited by J. Hoops, 2d [PSW] pp. 251-56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 22

in Bronze Age burials: A quantitativeapproach," in The explanaEdited by C. Renfrew, change:Modelsin prehistory. tionofculture pp. 565-70. London: Duckworth. in . 1974. Social stratification Early Bronze Age Denmark: A Zeitstudy in the regulationof cultural systems.Praehistorische 49:38-61. schrift RASMUSSEN, HOLGER. 1968. Limfjordsfiskeriet 1825: Sedvane og fOr NationalmuseetFolkelivsStudier2. dirigering. central of RATHJE, WILLIAM L. 1971. The originand development lowland 36:275-85. American Antiquity Classic Maya civilization. der der Kupferbergwerke REINECKE, PAUL. 1930. "Die Bedeutung Ostalpen fur die Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas," in Schumacher[PSW] pp. Festschrift, 107-15. Mainz: L. Wilckens. RENFREW, COLIN. 1967. Colonialismand Megalithismus.Antiquity 41: 276-88. of . 1969.The autonomy the South-eastEuropean CopperAge. Society35:12-47. of Proceedings thePrehistoric of . 1972. The emergence civilisation:The Cyclades and the B.C. London: Methuen. millennium Aegeanin thethird and revolution . 1973a. Beforecivilisation:The radiocarbon Europe. London: JonathanCape. prehistoric of change.London: . Editor. 1973b. The explanation cultural [MT] Duckworth. economy:The evolutionof social .1974. Beyond a subsistence Europe. AmericanSchools of Oriental organizationin prehistoric Suppl. 20:69-85. Research and . 1976. Megaliths, territories, populations.Dissertationes 16:198-220. Gandenses Archeologicae London: Methuen. RENFREW, JANE M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. RICHARDS, JOHN F. n.d. "Precious metals and patternsof commerce in the late medievalworldeconomy,1200-1500 A.D.," in Precious and earlymodern world, 1200-1800 A.D. in metals thelate medieval Edited by J. F. Richards and M. Mazzaoui. Durham: Duke Uni[RMA] Press. In press. versity of ROWLANDS, M. J. 1971. The archaeological interpretation pre3:210-24. WorldArchaeology historic metal-working. in SAHLINS, MARSHALL D. 1958. Social stratification Polynesia. of Press. Seattle: University Washington -. 1965. "On the sociology of primitiveexchange," in The Edited by M. Banton, for relevance models social anthropology. of pp. 139-236. (ASA Monographs1.) London: Tavistock. [HJMC] Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. . 1972. StoneAge economics. de du SCHEURER, PAUL. 1979. Revolution la scienceetpermanence reel. de [AG] Paris: Presses Universitaires France (Croisees). SCHNEIDER, JANE. 1977. Was there a precapitalistworld system? [RMA] Peasant Studies6:20-29. SCHtLE, WILHELM. 1967. Feldbewasserung in Alt-Europa. Madrider 8: Mitteilungen 79-99. SCHWARTZ,C. A. 1976. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle. Paper presentedat the IX International Congress of Prehistoricand [CAS] Protohistoric Sciences,Nice, France, September13-18. 1978. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle. Paper presented --. Szezecin,Poland, ZoologicalConference, at theThirdInternational [CAS] April23-28. SEEBERG, PETER, and H. H. KRISTENSEN. 1964. Mange striberpa Kuml, 7-14. pp. krydsog tvaers. New York: social organization. SERVICE, ELMAN R. 1962. Primitive Random House. of of --. 1978. "Classical and moderntheories theorigins governEdited by R. Cohenand E. R. Service, of state. ment,"in Origins the pp. 21-34. Philadelphia:Instituteforthe Study of Human Issues. SHENNAN, STEPHEN J. 1977. "The appearance of the Bell Beaker assemblagein Central Europe," in Beakersin Britainand Europe: Four studies.Edited by R. Mercer, pp. 51-70. British ArchaeoSeries26. [SJS] logical ReportsSupplementary . 1980. Cluster interactionand the European Early Bronze on at the ArhusConference Relations between Age. Paper given the Near East, the Mediterranean,and Europe fromthe 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C.,August. at SHENNAN, SUSAN. 1975. The social organization Branc. Antiquity 49:279-88. and trade: An SHERRATT,ANDREW G. 1976. "Resources,technology, and in in essay in early European metallurgy," Problems economic I. Edited by G. de G. Sieveking, N. Longworth, social archaeology. and K. E. Wilson,pp. 557-81. London: Duckworth. . 1980a. Water, soil, and seasonality. WorldArchaeology 11:313-30. [AS] . 1980b."Plough and pastorialism:Aspects of the secondaryin products revolution," in Patterns thepast: David ClarkeMemorial Volume. Edited by N. Hammond, I. Modder, and G. Isaac. Press. [AS] Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity and anthropology: SPRIGGS, MATTHEW. Editor. 1977. Archaeology BritishArchaeologicalReports. Areasofmutual interest. Oxford: [MT] STEINKELLER, PIOTR. 1980. Early Dynastic burial offerings in the light of the textual evidence. Paper presented at the annual
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

meetingof the AmericanOriental Society,San Francisco, Calif., [RMA] April. of CHARLES.1978. "Types and distributions pre-Norman THOMAS, in in fields Cornwalland Scilly,"in Early land allotment theBritish Isles. Edited by H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler,pp. 7-15. Oxford: Reports. BritishArchaeological ved Jyderup Skov HENRIK. 1971. En broncealdersboplads THRANE, Fra Nationalmuseets pp. Arbejdsmark, 141-69. i Odsherred. Brativo osada z dobybronzovej Veselom. TOCIK, A. 1964. Opevnend [SJS] slava: SlovenskaAkademiaVied. Aspects TOSI, MAURIZIO. n.d. "Domesticationand pyrotechnology: of of the technologyfor the transformation nature," in Early on to Contributions a symposium origins and agriculture metallurgy: in East and WestAsia. Edited by P. Mortensenand P. Sorensen. [MT] Arhus.In press. UCKO,PETER J. 1969. Ethnographyand archaeologicalinterpreta1:262-80. remains.WorldArchaeology tionof funerary VAN WERSCH,HERMANJ. 1972. "The agriculturaleconomy," in Edited by W. A. MacDonald The MinnesotaMessenia expedition. of and G. R. Rapp, Jr.,pp. 177-87. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press. par J. VILAVALENTi, 1961.L'irrigation nappes pluvialesdans le sud2(2):19-32. est espagnol.Mediterranee Capitalistagriculworld-system: I. WALLERSTEIN, 1974. The modern in tureand theoriginsof theEuropean world-economy thesixteenth [PLK] New York: Academic Press. century. Edited by R. E. W. of in civilization," Theorigins Maya civilization. of Adams,pp. 335-72. Albuquerque:University New Mexico Press. with the MediWELLS,PETER S. 1977. "Late Hallstatt interactions
WEBSTER, DAVID L. 1977. "Warfare and the evolution of Maya

Gilman:

STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

terranean:One suggestion,"in AncientEurope and the MediterArisand ranean.Edited by V. Markotic,pp. 189-96. Warminster: Phillips. A WERTIME, W. 1973. The beginnings metallurgy: new look. T. of [PLK] Science 182:875-87. WITTFOGEL, KARLA. 1972. "The hydraulicapproach to pre-Spanish Mesoamerica," in The prehistory the Tehuacdn Valley, vol. 4. of of Edited by F. Johnson, 59-80. Austin:University Texas Press. pp. and patron-client relaWOLF, ERIC R. 1966. "Kinship, friendship, of tionships complexsocieties,"in The social anthropology comin plex societies.Edited by Michael Banton, pp. 1-22. London: Tavistock. North WRIGHT, E. V., and D. M. CHURCHILL. 1965. The boats from Ferriby,Yorkshire, England, with a reviewof the originsof the Society sewnboats of the BronzeAge. Proceedings thePrehistoric of 31: 1-24. WRIGHT, HENRY T., and GREGORY A. JOHNSON. 1975. Population, in Iran. Ameriexchange,and early state formation southwestern can Anthropologist 77:267-89. WtUSTEMANN, HARRY. 1977. Versuch einer soziologischGliederung der alterbronzezeitlichen Grabausstaltungen(Periode I bis III) 30: in Norden der DDR. Studien zur Ur- und Frzihgeschichte 131-53. YOFFEE, NORMAN. 1979.The declineand riseofMesopotamiancivilization: An ethnoarchaeological perspective on the evolution of 44:5-35. social complexity. American Antiquity ZOHARY, DANIEL, and PINHAS SPIEGEL-RoY. 1975. Beginningsof fruit-growing the Old World.Science 187:319-27. in

A new journal from the publishers of Abstracts in Anthropology The only general journal dedicated solely to North America, withtotal coverage of archaeological Volume 2 Institutional Subscription: activityin the USA, Canada, and northern Mexico, $45.00 surveysall aspects of prehistoricand historical Personal Subscription: $28.00 (Paid by personal check and mailed archaeology withinan evolutionaryperspective. It to a privateaddress willincorporate the resultsof Cultural Resource by Subscription volume onlyAdd $3.00 state and regional Management and workwithin otg usd h ..adCnd societies along withthe more traditional academic museum research activities.

NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGIST

Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in

America:
Afro-American and Asian American Culture History Edited b Robert1 Schuyler The first the Baywood Monographs on in Y Archaeology Series brings together contributionsby Y * 6"' 9" 160 pp.; SoftCover $6.00 Prepaid several different scholars who have widened their research horizonsto include cultural groups so (Please add 75? postage) frequently omitted in American documentary history: (New YorkResidentsadd sales tax) Black Americans and Chinese Americans.

BAYWOODPUBLISHING INC. COMPANY,

120 Marine Street/P.O. Box D Farmingdale, NY 11735
Prices subject to change without notice. Payment must be made In U S Dollars drawn on a U S Bank. Visa Master Charge Credit Cards accepted.J

Vol. 22 *No. I * February 1981

23