This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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 email@example.com.
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.
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
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
howclass societies A shared featureof the few archaic states for whichadesourcesexistis a hereditary quate documentary nobility:alii (Hawaii).and in rewardof theirlogistic their politigainedin prestige and extended community.e.givesa clear studies.craftswereimproved(leadingto "new metal were and tools increasing agricultural efficiency"). have combinedto bringabout the collapse of the traditional theoryof culturechange. to functionalist accountwillbe seento have broadapplicability similarinstancesof social changebeyondEurope.exactlythe function taking civilization. althoughCarneiro(1970) presents resource-cirmodelit in facthas theory cumscription/warfare as a "conflict" component:the population can only a strongfunctionalist superior(i. orchards. 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 . whoseexchange axes and coppersare the kula-like provaygua volumeofsubsistence vided channelsto "carrya muchgreater products" (Sherratt1976:568). forexample. has (1976:246) pointsout.How is the emergence elitesto be explainedwithout The main candidate for a new Near Eastern intervention? "paradigm"is thefunctionalism forward Renfrew put by (1972. Whywas controlofsoil. chiefs and Coe (1968) and prerogatives. Membershipin these groups is by ascriptionand grants a small minority wealth disproportionate their numbers(i. 490). of course.It is hardly surprising see thestatedescribed as exhibiting in "greatermaturity an ecologicalsuccession"of politicaltypes (Gall and Saxe 1977:260).Mesopotamia.C. Renfrew of and controlled "The redistribution goods. 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. more secureaccess to needed resources through organization Webster1977).represent of variants.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.. 18). hierarchical societies itself an as presents advance. institutes publiceconomy ofits household parts" (Sahlins 1972:140). nothing indicationof the increasingacceptance by Europeanistpreof historians a functionalist accountof theemergence superof ordinate social strata(cf.of of 1966) and demonstrations theindependence Europeanculsuch turalfeatures supposedto be of Near Easternderivation.thusillustrating "principle competitive exclusion" to (Carneiro1978)." Flannery cal and ceremonial internaland external Rathje (1971). by the chiefhimself. are chiefdoms" sugin southGreece. whichthatdevelopment use sive instanceofthenewviewis Renfrew's oftheredistribuoutlinedabove to tion variant of the functionalist argument of in explaintheemergence social stratification Greeceand the 1972:chap. The part played by elites in the processof social change in later prein historicEurope is oftenleft somewhatunspecified these if else. more effectively to werestimulated increasetheir output"by thewishto receive (1973a:210) sums up: redistributed goods" (p.. is." is thepossibility organizing of (indeed. spectroof there is and othermatters fact. pilli (Aztec). as megaliths (Renfrew 1967)and metalworking (Renfrew 1969).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.they tend to expandat the expenseofless populousand hierarchical neighthe of bors. and pastureswhichare found. graphic analyses.respectively. for example. (Renfrew and Mycenaean palaces would have been the focal pointsof to theirprincesenactivities contributing the generalwelfare: couragedtrade. Most of the differences between theories about theorigins of societiesrevolve whichthe aroundthesortsofservices complex elites would have providedin particularsituations. orejones(Inca). Service (cf. but the rangeof citations.Milisauskas1978). foodstuffs who made available to primaryproducers. is for of however. . leadership a that directsthe construction and maintenanceof hydraulic installations thedistribution irrigation and of water"(Wittfogel 1972:70).a new consensus but. languageofinformation proachesintothemoregeneral In thisversion elitesconstitute regulators" the of "higher-order information needed forthe functioning a complexsociety. filled thepalaces of Minoan-Mycenaean by in and storingthe produce fromthe very different fields.As a result. Complexsocietieshave largerpopulaevolutionary tions than their egalitarian predecessorsand deploy more powerful productiveforces. above a certain magnitude. this approach.Egypt. preferential to access to resources). of vacuum in European prehistoric something a theoretical of studies. . These unquestionable classespose a ruling clear problemfor conventional accountsof the emergence of Harris (1971:393). even in a small area.then. The Minoan Aegeanaround2000B. This collapse has largelybeen an empirical one.water. caused by radiocarbon determinations.whichis organized ful. complexsocial organization. Mutatis mutandis. Most recent work on the developmentof the European the Bronze Age does not confront questionof causes directly. problems production/distribution CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY . 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.e. Once established. Clarke's (1976) discussionof beakersas primitive valuables is in the same vein. etc. military but and publicworks wereall basic in theclassicalcivilizations. requirescoordination a comof munallaborforce and. 1973a) and otherprehistorians the younger of generation. of comesinto being. What is at issue. the usefulness functionalism understanding comeintobeing."Similar"individualizing gested for Bronze Age Wessex and elsewherein Europe.and other centers lendprimafaciesupport to Wittfogel's "The handling relatively of hydraulic hypothesis: large amounts of water. Earle (1978:37-49) elucidates several functional variantsofthismanagerial approach. hierarchical) military (1978:32) sums up the consensus of recent scholarship: organization "Redistribution (and especiallytrade). . 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).as Neustupny the processes of social change begun to emergeconcerning and extenThe mostexplicit involves.whichmanagedthecomplex involved. A of similarview has been extendedto the interpretation trade stone networks the preceding of period: in the Late Neolithic.the likelihood)of the co-occurrence morethan one "primemover"that leads Flannery(1972) to recasttheseaptheory.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. As Earle (1978:5) his pointsout. . FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION The rise of complex. by in all musthave had small beginnings the simpleattempts primitiveleaders to perpetuate their social dominance by suchbenefits their It for followers. year-old heritage freeaccess to resources? .China. .
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. not systemsof Glick (1970) shows that the extensiveirrigation mediaevalValencia werebuiltand operatedby the cultivators Adams (1965) indicatesthat early Mesopotamian themselves. Their main role was specifically mobilize and to direct labor activitiesso as to maximize incomeflow the of the elites. to otherthings. it is mainly of systems.when this thirdstep is takento explainwhatthe elitedoes in a stratified arise.virtually onlyevidenceforsocial complexBronze Age settleity is the wealth of the elites themselves.In Mesopotamia. ofthefunctionalist termsbecause it suppliesscarce resources. positions becausethey obtaintheir are specifications not met in the concretecases to whichthe explanations applied. regions Spain. steps.Marx (1967 :322) puts the point clearly enough: "It is not thata man is a capitalist.Even where withonlyceremonial local hydo theirrepresentatives) administer elites (through benetheirintervention not be generally draulicsystems.simplenetworks.however. In particular. severemisunderstandings society.. couraging forth. Isbell and regulation higher-order attestedin Europe onlyin those Schreiber 1978). may In was ficial. cf. What may be doubtedis whether to tivitiesare adaptive-whethertheycontribute the general welfare.on because he is a leaderofindustry because he is a capitalhe the contrary. scarceovermuchofEurope. In fact.in Europe this passes for"urbanism" (Arribas which hierarchies. of evena modicum to unwilling provide slaves. 1 *February1981 Gilman:STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE with this idea hardly need spellingout. to the victors. enterprise. public works. Finley 1973:5556): from enormously the financial profited aristocracy The senatorial annexations progressive that of sacking theMediterranean succeeded land in extortion.are definitely withMediterranean commerce in involved demonstrable regions . is Althoughthe islands' ecologicaldiversity supinstructive. classesmaysometimes of thatruling It is undeniable. argument but the what's good for the systemis good for everybody.largepublicworks.thissystem seen as whatpermits withsubsystems"). alternatives account the suchlogicalknots. Friedman 1974). means in thoseinvolved it to survive("cultureas extrasomatic of adaptation"). can consolidate. 1959). water:theflood-basin systems by intervention thepharaoh. The available to their resources whichdid take place wereby direct regions between exchanges by channelscontrolled the chiefs. of for but theyare not responsible its attainment power. In laterpreplausible:thereare cities. The central theruling of the functionalist accountare that elitesare in factinvolved an confer in managerialtransactions. it does not followthat the rulersmust be refrom ruling a class. of accountofthedevelopment elitesmaybe The functionalist characits to at criticized oncefor failure explainthehereditary Even ifone grants regulators. aristocracy and the classes." teroftheclass of "higher-order that certain economicsituationsdemand leadershipfor the commongood. evenbelieved. thisdirection notrequired thetechnical but was by of Earle (1978:141) complexity these small.while crucial to agricultural and manwithlocal control compatible wereon a scale entirely to agement. boundless making by Rome. the support military whosecontributions population The conquestsof the Roman Republic provide a well-documentedexample (Anderson1974:67-68.enbe of serviceto theirsubjects by directing and so helpingin the event of disasters." In mostinstanceselitesare not involvedin the Wheretheyare. managerial functions etc. functionalist Quiteapart from doesnotmatchwhatwe actuallyknowabout thepartplayedby propositions classesofstratified societies.particularfeaturesof the systemare one explainedas beingadaptive. concrete veryfewofthespoilsaccrue to themass ofthe guide. and positions and that'What's goodforme is goodforthesystem." If these theoriesabout the originsof elite are doubtfulin of to theyseemeven moreunsuited an explanation the general. Third. irrigation systems. the stratified societyhad no manupper tiersof this indubitably of withrespectto the distribution the Nile's agerial functions wereoperatedat thelocal level.one is told that the Sumeneeded. of elitesare often involvedin the distribution water.Rebarterand not through because primary contributors is distribution supposedto benefit run network by an theycan becomepart of a largereconomic elite. example.it is notablethat settlement are oftentaken to be the primearchaeologicalindicatorsof (Wrightand Johnson1975. It is notapparentthatthebestway cruited of choosing efficient managersis by birth. 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.whosesettlement fourhectares.' Vol. is in of examination redistribution its classic instance. This last step is a dangerous a whichtendstowards Panglossianacceptanceof theactual as the necessary(cf. commerce. the historic Europe. that these transactions and thatelites as uponthepopulation a whole. are for ments.A variant againstthe warfare can parallelargument be mounted by directed elites.among a rian eliteadministered "Great Organization" such as wood and basic raw materials.A classic defectof is to inability accountforpossible explanations their functional (Hempel 1959).these studies cast doubt on the theory'scrucial manor is Whereirrigation extensive important. import floodplain stone. sums up the situationas follows:"Who were the most direct of beneficiaries managerialactivities? For whomdid the manto agers work?. is a leaderof industry ist.Thus.thefirst ofwhich anthropological as whole ("a system First.according Butzer (1976). Such activitiesmay be usefulmeans by whichthe elite its extend.a cultureis regarded an integrated is Second. agerialcomponent. management irrigation in theirown interest ratherthan on behalfof thesocial whole. 22 *No.In Dynastic Egypt. posed to make organizedexchangebetweenregions(arranged local an good offices) adaptivearrangement. To havepaidthem to refused consider. In suchas southeastern are where more settlements known. An exception Los Millares. Copperand BronzeAge sitesusuallycovera hectareor may cover is less. . ficialin functional cases are any historical If suchas land.forexample. adaptivebenefit These provide thesebenefits." Earle's difficulties Hawaii. production.is beneWarfare..CRITIQUE citedabove involvesthree of The functionalism theauthorities two are commonplaces.. extremely a circumstance which does not suggestthey were large.and legitimate wealthand power.but it was utterly unheard-of these yielded whose fighting to compensationthesoldiery the taxing havemeant would bounties gains. in of origins stratification Europe. and fortunes tribute. course. In the cases forwhichthese are at least theorieswere developed. the through chief's differences the in "werelaid out so as to minimize communities populations"(Earle 1977:223).whichwere scarce on the Tigris/Euphrates and (Lamberg-Karlovsky Sabloff1979:179). theory. Hawaii irrigation indeedsupervised appointees by ofthechiefs. 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. are functionalist severaldetailed has stimulated hydraulic theory Wittfogel's irrigation social complexity and between studiesoftherelation by reviewof theliterature Earle 1978)..Cowgill (1975:506) puts matterssuccinctly:"People the in strong have often promoted. On the (see thecritical whole.
to Near Easternprospectors Childetiedhis theory hypothetical but and merchants. is This problematic implicit a number works theorigins in of on In of social complexity. The differences settlement in size may. Kohl (1978) suggeststhat highlanders the CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY 4 . it is difficult to discerna clear ranking settlements..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.in thearea the and of of production. account cannot be replaced by functionalist approaches. FunnelBeaker Poland).Kohl 1978). termswhy societieswithhighly in nonmanagerial productive tendto have elites. thearea of the ofexchange.In otherwords. The literature tribal (rank)societies makesitplain thatthere no wantofaspirants is to superordinate status. 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]). or othernonhierarchical factors.In a sense.The shifttowards social on complexity occurs. otherwords. construction maintenance irrigation must The nonfunctionalist turnthisaroundand explain works.to the ex oriente theory European prehistoric This empirically falsified development. The inwithin hereditary is a cona line abilityto pass on leadership can shifttheir sequence of the ease with which supporters Milisauskas (1978:156.the functionalist positionis that elites retard segmentation (attract a following) providingmanagerial by in in services required a highly productive economy: theMesothe in potamiancase. especially metallurgy.Systemic could have been securedat benefits In the lessercost to themass ofthepopulation.g.by helping irrigation systems disasters). elitewouldorganize. too broad and diversea for front theresource-circumscription argument be viable. to ascribed leadership posts succeededin Copperand BronzeAge Europe. egalia An tarian social orderis maintained such by the facility as with whicha leader.This idea was. the household's sectorof the econthe or directly indirectly. cf. should he displease them. riseofan without reference thecommon to elitecan be understood good.The desireof the alii to enhancetheirpoliticalpowermade themextractthe maximumpossiblesurplus encouraging theirsubjectpopulations by to producemoreand by conquering morepeople.trademustinvolve. Even in so thoroughly surveyedan area as Late Bronze Age northwestern Bohemia (Bouzek.actual or potential. What needsto be explainedis how elitesacquireand maintain theirpowerin spite of the fact that. of A common explanation decreasein segmentation popufor is lation increase and consequentpressureon spatially limited resources("resourcecircumscription").The elites yet sometimesfound it advisable to assist commoners(for exthemrebuild after natural ample. cf. Carneiro(1968:136) has pointedout how thissame weaknessin "internal politicalcontrols"leads to villageschisms. Whatever the empiricalmeritsof this argument may be in other settings. of control of the development a network commodity exchange. mustargue that the goods exchanged can ones. as we have seen. basic subsistence omy. procurement woodand stoneand. 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.takenup by Childein hisaccountofEuropeanBronzeAge social change. Earle's (1978) of in reconsideration the organizationof chiefdoms Hawaii showsclearlyhow the greedof the elite quite adequatelyexplains theirdealingswiththeirsubjects. muchof the time. 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. to account of the development social Any nonfunctionalist of the mustconfront centralfunctionalist that stratification idea is hierarchy ultimately adaptive for society as a whole.when populationdensitiesmust have been far lower. lux of of course. Koutecky.then. one could easily allow local factorsmore play. food producer. Broad stretches uninhabited.but it is clear that thiswas onlyto ensurea future sourceofincome. "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).Wells and 1977). therewouldhave been plentyof land into whichpeople could move to avoid unwantedmasters.. of The conditions elitesto establishthemselves permitting permanently becomeclearwhenone looksat theinternal dynamics ofsocial systems without ruling a on class.the in richness local resource of bases.Thus. his ceremonial leader. Adams (1966) showsthat specialization agriculin tural production(and the consequentneed to exchangefoodstuffs)promoted the developmentof social inequalities in in Mesopotamia. be attributableto differences the time spans of site occupation. of In orderto use tradeas a motive processfortheemergence one social stratification. of B. In generalterms.if only because in prehistoricEurope it is not apparentwhat positivefunctions there were to be regulated. 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. prehistoric Europe providesan excellentvantage point fromwhich to envision a nonfunctionalist theoryof the originsof social stratification.and Neustupny1966)..C.In laterprehistoric times. would-be the leaderachievesand maintains ambitions by demonstrating abilitiesas a warrior. We mustlook. to choose a characteristic his example. 229) arguesthat. In Siuai. for example.one may considerlineagesegmentation concomitant and villagefission be to the ultimatemechanism whichthe self-aggrandizement by of is "big-men" checked. and entailed For Engelscraft production.3That Mediterranean tradewas so important Minoan/ to Mycenaean and Hallstatt/La Tene florescence gave strength. conditions for whichwouldretardthe processofsegmentation characteristic tribalsocieties. short.furthermore.can be abandonedby his followers. will not explainthe retardation segmentation it of in prehistoric Europe.Preciselyfor this reason.the civilizations: Aegeanin theBronzeAge and CentralEurope in theEarly Iron Age (Frankenstein Rowlands1978.as of the 3d millennium a two-tiered settlementhierarchyis attested in areas where there is adequate evidence for settlementpatterns (e.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 ). I allegiancefrom leader who provesunsatisfactory. wilderness well intothemediaevaland earlymodern period.The goodswhichthemiddleman denythe are essential to householdwhichrefuses pay his price mustbe requiredfor In livelihood.however. to the ofwhichgave middlemen opportunity establish positions of wealthand power.etc.therefore. seekto understand We howand whythe attempts ambitious of tribesmen securehereditary.their actionsare againstthe interests the mass of thepopulation. habitof but existedin Europe and the Mediterranean able.
(Battaglia 1943. will be discussedhere in an attempt to specifythe fishing between and relationship agricultural social change. is capital-intensive leaderifone sacrifices the one can onlyabandonan undesirable work expended to create facilitieswhich increase or insure the yields.metallurgy the mayhave consolidated sway of an alreadyexistent that elite. Information too scattered permit systematic of regionalreconstructions the varied evolutionof subsistence of in techniques laterprehistoric Europe.attributed theBronzeAge. laterprehistoric Europe it founders in on theapparentself-sufficiency Trade was oflocal communities. forexample.the invisibility salt in the archaeological of recordmakes it hard to assess its role in the economiesof areas that imported it. This idea in by their reproductive from to may be extended irrigation any technology whichsubstantiallyincreases productivity throughpreparatory labor. be constructed along theselineswithout in attendantupon using these arguments a The difficulties Foodstuffs are but Europeansetting not theoretical. writes:"All through Near East the withtoil.C.in principle.C.would the Plow agrihelp to unbalancean egalitarian politicaleconomy. 1954) stressed lands and thuson theirsuppliers.Capital in theform human bestsiteswerereclaimed of labor was beingsunkintotheland. one should findappropriatefishbones on inland sites. and offshore culture.however. is hard to accept thatit called the eliteintobeing.but it is notfaroff mark. Its expenditure boundmen to the soil.In as thisway. 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. thereare artisticrepresentations.following theoryjust outlined. A nonfunctionalist of in theorigins EuropeanBronzeAge elitescould. other luxuries Harrison and tradefor prestigious suitablefor and Gilman1977). If in the BronzeAge "smokedfishfromthe Baltic would have made a to usefulcontribution inlanddiets" (Coles and Harding 1979: 281). If.First.In any event. Second.e. producers be reluctant relinquish restricted have created. the role copperand bronzeplayed a significant in maintaining economicand social security households. exoticraw materials of the importance metaltools (made from land clearanceand harvestby a fewspecialists)in facilitating of accountof the importance exchange ing.elitescan form moreproductive subsistence technologiesdevelop without the elites' being required to This the organize productive improvements. to a fruitful approach. Under conditionsthus impedingsegmentation. irrigation. theory ofcourse. it of Accordingly. It would not seem.Mediterraneanpolyculture. theywould not lightly forego interest the brought works"(Childe 1951:89-90). of that mostbronzesare foundin burialsand votivehoardssugthana pracrather geststhatmetalhad a social and ideological tical value.the systemrequiresa heavy preliminary to will the resources. empirical. then. By providingequipment both (cf.February 1981 .subsistence depends on slashone and-burn abandon an undesirable farming. thereare discoveriesof the ards themselves. and theirabsence need not be attributedto or taphonomic samplingbiases.The evidence falls broadlyinto five categories.salt arguablywould be a bettercenterpiece the for commodity-exchange theory eliteorigins of thaneithermetalor food. 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. systems of productionwere developed in later prehistoric to Europe of sufficient intensity have retardedthe fissionof social groups. A luxury of like metalreflects. in the Halle/Saale regionartifacts used in salt boilingdate to the Early Bronze Age (Matthias 1976).It is hard to envisionAunjetitzor Argariccommoners dependenton rationsfromafar and submissiveto the chiefs theirsupply. Orientalintervention.Departuremustnot involvethe abandonment subof stantialassets. therefore. usefulforexplaining social changein Copperand particularly Bronze Age Europe. Since it is both biologically necessaryto its consumersand portable in quantities sufficient to satisfydemand. however. the metallurgical facesthe difficulty on present that. course.durable labor inputswhich. 22 * No. followed variburnfarming the initialagricultural as form. Examples fromHvorslev in Denmark and the Polada-culturesite of Ledro in northern Italy date to the earlier2d millennium B. is. exchange thematerial for in the economy of the Bronze Age.orthecoppermodelofyokedoxenfrom Poznanu (Poland) of Copper Age date (Jazdzewski1965: pn. Lerche 1968). beyondthecapacityofBronzeAge transport more. primitive The generally accepted view of the agricultural historyof the 2d Europe during 4ththrough millennia sees slash-andB. clearly stratified [Otto 1955]) SaxoThuringian Aunjetitz is suggestive but requires confirmation in otherregions. of to ambitions aspirants highstatuswillbe harderto check. the productive of investment work.9). such as the depictionsof ards in the rock art of southern Sweden to (Glob 1951) and the southern Alps (Anati 1961). there are plowingmarks noted underneath barrows. in Whilethecommodity-exchange maybe theory eliteorigins of usefulin othersettings. Referring the early developmentof he the irrigation systems. One does not.fromthe lowon Near East became dependent grainimports Childe (1951. volumeofthemto createlocal or are bulky:to movea sufficient on wouldhave beenquite importation regional dependence their Furthersystems. can effectively forward timeofa shift cultivation the in leaderby bringing soon in if to be undertaken any event.knownbriquetagesites are associated with remainsof later periods.Elsewhere. Whereirrigation any other or they themselves formof subsistence crucial to production.the substantial. Conversely.butalso supported theavailable evidence by is to (Green1979)..C.the differential possession wealth.it is hard to see how the metal implements knownfromBronze Age Europe would have helped increase overallproduction substantially.the available economicevidence does not supportthe of hypothesis extensivetrade in subsistenceitems. is Segmentation only easy if thosewho leave can readilyproduce in the mannerand at the levels to whichtheyare accustomed.It is betterto of see metal as an index than as a cause of the development social stratification Europe.There is overalla towards more of which progression powerful systems production is notonlylogical. PLOW AGRICULTURE Use of the ard is widelyattestedby the end of the 3d millenniumB.A number widespread do developments involve. Third. All the animal and plant rewiththereasonable BronzeAge sitesare consistent mainsfrom view that their inhabitantsate foods produced or foraged locally. Its exploitationin later prehistoric Europe is widespread (Nenquin 1961).At the Vol. This associationof earlysalt productionwith the rich (i. the ratherthan to themselves production processesof subsistence rootsofeliteorigins.Onlyin theLate BronzeAge are substanthe tial numbers utilitarian The veryfact metalartifacts found.4 must look. who controlled involvedin some forQuite apart fromthe simplifications as and prospectors agentsof mulations about theroleofsmiths variantof the comtrade (Rowlands 1971). whereelitesseem to have arisenwithout What remainsto be specifiedis what managerialfunctions. argument modity-exchange actually evidence. to We to mostlyconfined luxuries.when social stratification alreadv long was established.forwhichthe materialmay serveas a of convenientformof storage. 1 . (Late Neolithicand Copper Age contexts). by over ous intensifications the courseof time.
M. M. irrigation is essentialforregular agricultural production. Hopf and PellicerCatalan 1970). and claimsforsimilarfinds are made for contexts as early as the 3d millennium B. Fowler 1971.C. and 6 of Chapman (1978) has stressedthe potentialimportance irriin of gationforagriculture themorearid sectors Mediterranean Europe (cf. Preciselybecause wild vinesand olives are to indigenous the entireMediterranean basin.charcoalfrom pruned olivebranches.C.in contrast.Thomas 1978). in advance ofproduction. Arribas1968:44. present radically newtechnical requirements. Drewett 1978.In otherwords. Hopf 1971. ing yieldsand shortening fallowcycle. the subsistence For the purposesof my argument. The horse.000 years or more earlier (Gilman 1976:315-16). by in The plowpresents clearadvantagesto thefarmer comparison to the hoe.. 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).. Direct evidence for prehistoricirrigation(remains of dams and ditches) is scarce. appropriate On soilseven thelight plowsused in prehistoric a Europe wouldpermit largeincreasein productivity. (Bok6nyi 1974:116).once completedwithno littleeffort.Fig and carob are otherMediterranean tree crops forwhichevidenceof prehistoric cultivation exists (AparicioPerez 1976:197-200. olivepits have been recovered from Garceland El Nerja (Late Neolithic). presses.the crops lend themselves long-term to storage. At the same time. Renfrew 1973:134-36).C.. fieldswhose lynchet boundariesseem to have been produced by plowing. lamps all clearlyindicatethe cultivation the olive by the 3d milof lennium B. The evidenceremains be developed. Tree crops.J.and continue to give fruit centuries.Thus Mediterranean polyculture promotesthe materialsecurity of farmer.by reincorporating plant materials).. Dartmoorsuggesta manuring thereis faunalevidenceforthe animalswhichpulled theards.The diversion wateronto fieldssupplements rainfalland makes it possible to and stabilizes the irregular growcrops in the summerdry season. thereare thewidely noted"Celtic" field in systems the Fourth. This increaseis obtainedat a highinitialfixedcost. Fields must be cleared more thoroughly than for swiddenfarming. has emphasizedthe importance Mediterof raneanpolyculture generating agricultural in the necessurplus Olive sary forthe supportof Bronze Age Aegean civilization.pickledolivesor As raisins.C. Thus.C. evidence castrated for cattleis reported from the Clear metrical Swiss BronzeAge (Higham 1968).In a Mediterranean the climate the pulverization the soil by the ard helps retain of neededmoisture. Cultivating in Olives and vinesare complementary the staple cerealsand to The fruit treesmay be intercropped legumes.Ereta del Pedregal(Copper Age). grape seeds are fromMonte de la Barsella (Copper Age) and Serra reported Grossa(AparicioPerez 1976:199. The removalof stumps. or earlier. 2d (Bokonyi 1974:243-48).Vine cuttings not yieldfruit do untilthreeyears after theyhave beenplantedbut produceforgenerations thereafter. "Withplow agriculture .oats and ryehave muchthesamelaborrequirements and storagepotentialas the wheat and barley they supplement.suchas the locationof siteswithrespectto waterresources. forexample. eminently usefulcultivars mayhave beenexploited theWest in 1. Whilesome of theseexampleshave been reas rather than interpreted being the result of turf-cutting occurplowing(Barkerand Webley1978:170). no direct relationis exhibitedbetweenlabor currently investedin the is land and output. Fifth. conflict Thus. In regionsof extreme aridity. Animaltraction increasesthe area a man can the work(or enableshimto cultivate samearea withlesseffort). The high phosphoruslevels in the soils of Bronze Age fieldson regime(Denford 1975). Balcer (1974) describes Late Helladic dam nearTirynsin the a ditchat a Argolid.for example-were developed. and oil pits. treesmustbe for In the pruned. for Olives do not yieldfruit ten to fifteen yearsafterplanting. Renfrew 1973:125-34.the groundaround themplowed. to but it seemslikelythatsimple formsof irrigationwere widespread in Mediterranean laterprehistoric times. IRRIGATION Renfrew(1972).C. withannual harvests. (Barrett. furrows C'4 dated to the early3d millennium (Fowler and Evans 1967). The diffusion vineand olive cultivation centraland westernMediterranean generallysupposed to is have occurredas part of the Greek colonizationof the 1st millennium Thereis reasonto believe. The sum of thesediverselines of evidence indicatesthat throughout Europe plow agriculture was firmly established about 2000 B.the most imof feature Mediterranean portant is polyculture nottheincrease which it permits. Like theirAegeananalogues.irrigation generally of advantageous.Many examplesin GreatBritaincan now be placed in the 2d millennium B. Gilman 1976:313-15). the meantime. olivesand vines generatean absolute increasein productivity the regions in wheretheycan be grown.They improved crop yieldsin temperate climates(whichis whytheycame to be cultivated)but did not change the dynamicsof domesticproduction: anas nuals.This traction powermustbe createdby humaneffort .severalnew cultigens-oats and rye. 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. Mediterranean constitutes capital-intena polyculture of sification subsistence.Hill. changesin land tenure and inheritance MEDITERRANEAN POLYCULTURE El Argar and Serra Grossa (Bronze Age). In Spain.however.The farmer theplow.England thesecriss-cross South Streetlongbarrowin southern are B. first in domesticated the 3d millennium and is abundantin the B.Schule (1967) reports CopperAge irrigation Cerrode la Virgenin southeastern Spain. and in Ireland some of theseenclosuresare dated to the 3d millennium (Caulfield1978).the farmer mustinvesta lot ofworkbefore (or his heir)receives he a return. Giventhe likelihood that recent irrigation systemswill have obliteratedancient of ones..such as the Almeria/Murcia regionof southeastern Spain (the "Nijar Desert" [Meigs 1966:89-91]).and the scheduleof workwhichtheydemanddoes not withthatof the othercultigens. it is likelythat theirprehistoric cultivation was not restricted the eastern to sectorsof that region.but the transformation in productivity of relations whichit implies. The lynchets separating pean field systemsmay be consideredthe fossilremainsof property boundaries newlyarisenundera systemof intensive fundamental agriculture (Lancaster 1979:330) and reflecting patterns(Goody 1976). thesetreecropshelpsthefarmer severalways. the chalicesof the ArgaricBronze Age may have been meant forwine drinking.As farming introduced property was to prehistoric Europe.C.C. olive oil or wine. animalsand in equipment"(Gudeman in plots in prehistoric Euro1977:580). Europe during is In regionsof Mediterranean climate. and Stevenson1976.theplow turnsthe soil moreeffectively (for increasthereby example. that these B. BritishIsles and northwestern Europe. a comparable range of palaeobotanical and artifactual findsshowsthat the vine was domesticated the at same time (J. however. is a permanent mustalso have animalsto pull asset. Zoharyand Spiegelintothe of Roy 1975). To say plow agriculture to say labor storedin the ground. increasing By and CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY .moreextensive verification theimportance irrigation of in southern Europe mustrelyon indirect evidence.an animal typicallyused for is rather thansimply a nutritional as its traction resource. comeintofullproduction sometwenty yearslater. in Late Bronze Age Messenia sites are oftenlocated near springs and nowin operation irrigation systems (Van Wersch1972).
the benefits not densities. population generates onlyhigher plowagriculture conferred the new methodsare all achieved by preparatory but also greater by to An social inequalities. Developedfarming fishing and entailtheinvestment wealthconcentration muchgreater thanwouldbe predicted are of much work in long-lasting assets which cannot easily be Jutthatnorthwestern by grainyields. assist production over the wherepopulationdensity occursin northwestern Jutland.176). the end there In options consistently thatfishing to believe.yet stratification not B.it involvesprogressively advantageous.The investments labor the But future wouldhave to be defended. the adoption of these techniques wealth differentials cemeteries.Finally.Its significance social stratification must.these in the Cyclades being salient examples. 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).rather.be along the lines suggestedby Childe: once a systemhas been graduallyexpanded.the degree of stratification and the traditionalgrain in stabilizeproduction.subsistencetechniquespreceded the developmentof social ditionofexploiting that offshore suggest that at any giventimethe Spatially. tute. well beforeBronze Age develophere ample-remain to be explored. irrigation farmers the4thmillennium social in B. The 15-msewn1964).Randsborg to tion securityof households. olive trees. Its main symbols wouldhave arisena permanent laterprehistoric thanthescantyliterature ofpowerand prestige-arms Europeaneconomies and flashy luxuries approentirely wouldindicate.Offby subsistence has times. The floodhydraulic systems in water farming systemscurrently operationin the region of and (Vila Valenti 1961) are essentially Neolithiccharacter. 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).forexample. irrigation promotes material security the farmer Mediterranean in subsistence Europe. are simpletechnologies insti. is simple. to in thatgroupis dependent tionis well established the Aegean by Early BronzeAge 2. the to insure production value of these same assets would dampen the potentialfor so to social fission. of transfers problemof security the intensification subsistence of from materialto the social field.It is notable. that withthesuggestion thatregion. the historical Underappropriate led to material security laterNeolithic farmers create desirefor These assets and works long-term generalutility. This is consistent may be understood without appeal to factors such as populayieldsfor tion pressureor resourcedepletion. and ecological conditions. ditches. Olive and vine cultivaare important a group'ssubsistence. In addition. for morecomplexneed be suggested theirprehistoric nothing cannothave demandedtechno-bureaupredecessors. Given the evidence for substantial by Spain overthepast 7.and (Rasmusfishing grounds land is adjacent to therichLimfjord Vol. of productive Thus.The changes mentioned share important of features. of of was security theresidents coastal Europe. existbetweenthe numberof The plow. however. represent considerable Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE .a castingnet. Thus. of changein thevariousregions Europe.Two implications the Temporally.irrigation shownthat positivecorrelations reflected by systemsnot only increase.Thus.plantingof treescreate a man-madelandscape to whichconfor security tinuedaccess must be insuredif the production is whichthelaborwas expended to be maintained. 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). There is reason to favor the protectors.once expended.its dams.in southern Scandinavia. exploitation a richavailable resource.and terraces a investment.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.but also (and more significantly) graves in a region. Once again. longterm. if such technologies Europe (Neustupny1969. mayhave beenmoreimportant ruling class.Over the long term.a leister all fairly are of Available evidencemeetsthe first these two corollaries.Otto 1955).and Mediterranean suggests marineresources fish. is apparentthat would have been small in scale. Irrigation for cratic management. intosocial com"takeoff" the wellbefore Minoan/Mycenaean to access mustbe upon capital investments which continued insured social means. capitalwouldbe of value to othersthan theircreators. exception thistrend and labor inputswhich. 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]).however. wherethe possibility prehistoric it has irrigation beenlookedintomostclosely. relinquished.The buildingof dams. theory remainsto be recoveredand developed.A hookand line. however.. Early BronzeAge Denmark.but the larger boats and nets requiredfor effective In Denmark. Clark's (1977) discussionof the offshore fishing it soughtprotection.the houseAccountsof prehistoric fishing Europe afterthe Mesolithic hold's choicesare limited:it may abandon the asset forwhich in are scarce.000yearsinsoutheastern climatic stability must have been practisedby the (Chapman 1978).theory. (Seebergand Kristensen plank boats of Bronze Age date fromNorth Ferriby(Yorkdevelopuntilthe Early BronzeAge (Randsborg1974). 22 *No.but the richnessof examined. at leastpartially be of fisheries the longtraand thatin any givenregion introduction intensified the Atlantic. Baltic.C. 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.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. suggestprereconstruction detailed sequences of economicand social of historic of The evidence can.ments.it suggests to ing may have made a substantialcontribution the material stratification. plexity (Renfrew1972). the tionsofthoseto whomthe defense OFFSHORE FISHING face of a protector whoseexactionsseem excessive. assistance. that it wouldbe difficult checkthe aspiraIn had been entrusted. 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.C. it may and Renfrew's at (1966) description tunnyfishing Saliagos of submitto the excessiveexactions. (Brondsted1958:135-40. of In southeastern Spain. for exNeolithicAtlantic Europe. Capital-intensification subsistenceclearly precedes All to theemergence elitesin laterprehistoric of Europe. 1 February 1981 the of insuring yields. may findanotherprotector it (who may activitiesof megalith-builders AtlanticEurope and Evans in or than proveno less self-aggrandizing hispredecessor). clearing of fields.all contribute the produc.
too. and integrity. Lancaster (1979) pointsout. ADAMS of the document coreprocessofthe growth social stratification Oriental Institute. ratherthan on as management. metal. whatextent apparent attestedmetal agricullatenessand rarityof archaeologically of demonstration thispoint. III.and with Naturallyscarce. but one not inconsistent instead mightmake a case evolution. metal and otherluxurygoods are scarce and wealth burialsrelatively between differentials small. burialsassociatedwithpermanent. Thus. As the "protectors" established and consolidatedtheirpower over the capital-intensive food underthem. steadilyand withfewintermuchof the Old Worldcontinued all periodsforwhich at ruptions.burial and votive thanpractirather hoarditemshaving"a socialand ideological the to cal value.thetheory forward societies. formof irrigation) and. whose Copper/Bronze Age sequence (the is in Los Millaresand El Argarcultures) therichest theIberian wealthis defined thegreater This relative number peninsula. For the Bronze Age.A. process-not merely epiphenomenon" A finaldifficulty may be involvedin Gilman's attemptto byROBERT McC. is of much widerinterest and relevance. managerialfunctions possibilities.a Immediately the west in well-watered whosecultural region sequenceis nowwellunderstood (Arribas 1976). biguousluxuries. instances theregional Further of association socialcomplexity of subsistenceremain.whileprimarily concerned withprehistoric status fromachievement"in a prehistoric Europe. moreso since thereis every itemswerevaluable enoughto be reasonto believethatbroken to and recast.means to display theirsuperiority producers became necessary.. a In metallurgy.A more to confined the necessarily also with Gilman's functional view.C. amassingof at the expenseof an at least equally significant through benefit their ownimmediate wealthand laborpowerfor means.For the mostpart one mustrely Europeanprehistoric on moregeneraldistributional in arguments seekingconfirmation of the theory. is of the at pains to identify specializedproduction copperand bronzeas having been mainlvfordisplay. indeed.a nonfunctionalist approach explainsbetterthe which characterizesthe accoutrements Bronze militarism of Age elitesthroughout Europe. etc. by the tendencyof major Minoan/ Mycenaean sites to be located in areas of large-scale present viticulture. Rich female and subadult U.fungible.however.capital-intensificationsubsistence the (in was less necessary. Gilman makes reference repeatedlyreworked in thatwereindeedubiquitous Mesopotamiaduring clay sickles that but mostofthe4thmillennium.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.Thus the significance Mediterranean of in as polyculture Aegean cultureprocessis reflected. Gilman'sanalysis. least during laterpremodern our knowledgeis more adequate. where the Minoan and Mycenaeanpalaces give managerial theories some evidence for stratification plausibility.of course. 60637. University Chicago.am similarly from any exchange of uneasyoverhis displacement commodity this part in engendering process. Randsborg'sdetailedregional comparatively assessments and economicpotentialare as yet rare in of social structure studies. Excavatural tools are sufficient on almostexclusively graves tionsthathave been concentrated sampleon which unrepresentative are and settlements a grossly the to base such a generalization. the purchaserof a fieldfromthe In 8 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY . put heremayhelp of explainthe beginnings social stratification otherinstances in besidesthat oflaterprehistoric Europe.I generally but Mesopotamiancuneiform texts fromthe mid-3dmillensharehis viewthatexplanations theriseofsocial eliteshave for attestto alternative niumnoware knownthat unambiguously too frequently stressed theirintegrative. by In addition. denying cenand to craftsmanship. theycould for a widespread reputation fineness as of against be hoardedand rapidlydeployed a form buffering of The movement gold and silveracross riskand uncertainty. of for what later became "a disguisedtransfer a prototype essentialgoods" (Schneider1977:27) and "a major economic Comments an (Richardsn. aim shouldbe to redress balance ideobetweenpolarized.wherecentralriverine culbifurcate we commerce)." One mayask. tradeperhapsshouldbe seen as of someform luxury therefore. that thereare coherent. knownin archaeological intenhe the Whilewelcoming emphasis givesto agricultural T as to sification a stimulus social stratification. burial rites in the arid theirreplacement individualizing by in to regions the east. Apparently. theory to presentedhere is more faithful the sequence and regional of distribution economicand social eventsin later prehistoric Europe.where fishing and productive safe. one case.offshore wouldbe highly sen 1974).in societieswithcapital-intensive subsistence prestige integrated and agriculture are intoa unitary of politicaleconomy power.A focuson exploitation. similarargument A can be put forward arid for southeastern Spain. the central"function" the ruling of class constitutes moreuniformitarian ofsocialprocess stratified a view in For thisreason. logically lighton Near Easterndata shed some comparative Ancient in otheraspects of his argument whicha slightreformulation is important theplace he assigns Particularly be might helpful. surelyhavingbeen replacedby metal equivalentseven thoughthe latterare still almost uncontext.he seems to and otherexploitative conflict opposed findit clear. posischolarly and of clusterings functionalist nonfunctionalist tions. it is equallysignificant by confrom disappeared theendofthatspan theyhad practically use temporary (Adams 1981). of such as metallurgy. Renfrew (1972:283) indicates. However. to be with capital-intensive developed. better-watered regions dry was of farming easier.It is evenless apparentto me thatwe wouldscorea conthe advance by whollydenying former ceptual or interpretive schoolcan contribthatonlythe nonfunctionalist and insisting processes. as a consequence. Grantedthat long-distance was movementof foodstuffs "quite beyond the capacity of systems"(save in cases like Egypt and Bronze Age transport arteries largepermitted Mesopotamia. 29 vi 80 "the progressive separationof high gravesmay indeed reflect European setting. even in Greece and the Aegean. especially he of tralrolefortradein theemergence social stratification.). precedesthe developmentofcenters higher-order for regulation severalcenturies.the outlook takenherecorresponds thanthefunctionalist to the better view actual role of elitesin historically and ethnographically documentedclass societies.The development specializedtechnologies. tendencies towards social stratification were less marked. of Chicago. by of fine and exotic goods (ivory.Finally. an I have soughtto put forward accountoftheemergence of elitesin Bronze Age Europe whichwill improveon the funccurrent tionalism The amongEuropeanist prehistorians. cannotmerely scale water-borne and deny and luxuries products into turalinventories utiliarian thatit was tradeon thegrounds of theimportance interregional flow restricted of thelatter.S.d.collective wellintothe2d millennium longafter burialrituals persist B. than to prolongan oscillation rather purepositions. fromarchaeologicaldata alone.) found in elite oftenfortified settlements.whileI do not. model of conflict-based forthe social utilityeven of preciousmetalsthat wereunamdurable. to centralAndalusia. the tradein luxuries and shouldbe viewed ratherthan as causes of the emergence stratias indications of As fication.
not forindividuals can archaeological analyticalsubtleties we manageto interpret of personalholdassociations gravegoods so as to disentangle transfers materialgoods.to administrator undertook provide eldestson ofa dead temple not carefully specified funerary offerings onlyforthe luxurious.Italy. is at least questionable to with reference concepts as trade or capital investment Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe. hereditary all technologies. function. it of context. This wouldonly deriving serve to confusethe phenomenaoutlinedby Childe with a The evolutionof social stratification generic"diffusionism. As a general permanent Europe. to trueclass societies. rigidand pronounced creasingly BIETTISESTIERI MARIA byANNA Italy.and perhapsalso of ings.theyare forced confine eleGilman states that technological territories.this societies. 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.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. vastly different is et Renfrew. in in variability thewealthdisposed gravescouldwellhave had Mesopotamia.settlement generalised did not appear beforethe Late Bronze and communities) Early Iron Ages. it would be wrongto excludeentirely of complexsocieties the economicand social influences highly the from Aegeanand the Near East. as is indiof cated by instancesof the subdivision communalland into individual familygardens or fields in modern "primitive" is polyculture a complexsubsistence societies. 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." duringthe Bronze Age of Europe is perhapstoo complicated of to be explainedby a singlemechanism actionand reaction. developments.thistechnique not of privateownership land. di 00185 Roma. forthe riseof class division). 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).In a generalconsideration prehistoric shouldbe seenas theresultofbasicallyseparatelocal developlargely situations of ments associated withtheexistence regional in and. al. but as or order. theprecedence theygiveto thesocialoverthepurely substantito whichaccording almostall of themderivesfrom visteconomics whichcase. CAZZELLA byALBERTO di Universitd Roma. In central before 7thcentury the known archaeologically B.vineand olivecultivation) directly withthe territory occupied.Whether not of indications an alteredsocioeconomic one can reallyspeak of a "rulingclass" in the Bronze Age of shouldbe based on concrete divergenEurope. should therefore analyzed as a process internalto the be froma whole complex regionalculturalcontextand resulting of specifically local factors. rather interests ces ofgroupeconomic Although recent prehistoricresearch has recognized an of development the various European cultures independent duringthe Bronze Age.The statements.reciprocal to variousforms alliance? of intended solidify gifts exchanges or indications that the is by The problem compounded numerous was not at roleof women. one thepassive. since it indeed impliespermanent Vol.oftheemergence permanent fishing may be a "capital-intenOffshore social stratification.class differences thanthoseofindividuals. (in that assume.. reasons up splitting ofthegroup.groups themselves to of of investment capital. 22 No. in of not necessarily implyprivateownership the land." 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. a Furthermore. 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. Sahlins.Slash-and-burn good inof technicalconditions Neolithictype is a perfectly agridiffused are and stance. but cultural preconditions of thenecessary combination permanent (mainly. economyseem to be based The author'sviews on prehistoric and functioning moderneconomic of mainlyon the categories use thatwe can legitimately it systems.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. basic culturalchange (that is. Service. then.subordinate that is perhapstoo quicklytaken In increasing for forgranted the Bronze Age generally. 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.forexample.economic. Flannery. Childe assignedsuch an elite an important to contributed the of independent any moral considerations. 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. culturalconditions. and large continuity.Moreover.Plow agriculture irrigation widely as cultural techniqueswith no special implications "capital do fielddivisions investments" respectto others.C. apparently of not as a consequence.however. these sible fora closerconnection not be elements should. considered as causes. 4.Mediterranean from presenceof olive the techniquethat cannotbe identified pits or grape seeds alone.via Palestro63 Istituto Paletnologia. it is rightto criticize harmonious systems natureof the tionof societyand to emphasizethe exploitative emerging elite. interpretive thereare some thingsthat I findpuzzling. as a cause.that is. 12 vi 80 via Monterone 00186 Rome. social. he "functionalism" discusses brings togetherscholars with ideas: Wittfogel. 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. 1 *February1981 Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE is Italy. Perhapsthe one thingtheyhave in common economic.it is necessaryto point out that even which. moregeneraldifferent environmental. of The emergence social stratification ly. However.How genuinely but forsocial aggregates? what By where. any rate in earlySumeriansociety. Adamsshouldalso be included). labour division.in The significance social institutions' view cannot be applied to ideas based on a neoevolutionist a If conceptheory. to specified are responments(theplow. 9 . but forthe grave of the mother upon her grave of the father evidence eventualdeath (Steinkeller 1980). 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. short. Such documentary it to raisesdoubtsthatextend areas likeEuropewhere does not separableare statusand achievement anyexist.
positionin a system open to seriouswarfareas various elites competedwith one another both cultural (e.However. agricultural and the or form leadership of to a morecomplex moreintensive elite. vi 80 10. believeGilmanhas madea significant sees in Africa.It does not explain.buthe makesa leap offaith theassumption in thatthose who controlled fixedresources werethe same individualswho wereburiedamidstmobilier personnel.A. Brandeis University.I strongly Department Anthropology. makea politicaleliteexploiters 10 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY . In short.In some and otherswho controlled althoughI doubt if Gilman reallyintendsthis. bamboozlement. climatic. 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.L. 24 vii 80 Gilman'sgeneralthesis.S. 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.. there no and are data on settlement size. thattheindividuals Gilman'sargument buriedwithprecious the goods were consistently rulingclass (i. explanationsof the which is highlycritical of functionalist A circumstances. the otherin easily disposed-of goods. COWGILL hierarchical organization.A. composition. is in notionsof social stratification hierarchical deterioration the qualityof lifeforall but a few.skilled tradeswere merelyanothermeans by which elites displayed their persons. 27514. others. of courseof time. of Department Anthropology. The functionalist positionhas had difficulty estabotherwise. 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. lishing how an institution withgeneralsurvivalvalue could be byHENRIJ.Mauss 1970). Levi-Strauss for That leaderswerecompensated theiractivitiesseemsreafeature is sonableand evident. Waltham. U. economic. This generalassumption In connection withthislastpoint. byCAROLE CRUMLEY Department Anthropology.g..Thereis scantdemographic information. otherareas (as one I pressures.political.in he away the doingthisso rigorously runsthe riskof throwing There is substantialevidencethat baby with the bathwater. Gilmanshould of to With reference can beingbenefited. mercantile. If one is to stresstheindependence Europe from of Oriental Mass. a variety of information gained dominance throughtheir mixes of coercion.A. still of as wellas to our understanding BronzeAge Europe. military)and natural (e. 14 VII 80 thenone mustalso stressthe incredible influences. wonder bronze weapons I if agriculturalists. or Nothing is knownof the natureof social or economicrelationsor of land tenure. can even be arguedthat the rootsof leader1967). etc. materialstakes.S. stratification and developed. in and theirdistinctive and Europeancultures historic. forsignificant variation.In such a scenario.University Leiden. and in "evolutionary" that complexity again associated with is byGEORGE L. (is if in conto Another sourceof confusion functionalist arguments veiledreference theNew Structuralism? so. The pointis that with littleevidenceand no convincing ethnographic parallels. example) a groupof individualsmay have demographic for in about social stratification general. U. cernsthe entityor entities showthe forceof his convictions). of formation a clearlydistinguished He rejectstheviewthattheleadersor elitewerebenefactors of theirpeoples.and he is probablyrightin this.it is entirely possiblethattwosegments a BronzeAge community of might have made ratherdifferent capital investments-one in heritable land. of I of enthusiasm. wouldarguethatno singletheory theorigins or timessomereal benefits thosebeneaththem. CLAESSEN and Social Studies. topographic) Gilman makes good use of Earle's analysis of Hawaii and notes the relevance of ethnographic and historicstudies of byTIMOTHY EARLE othermorerecentstratified agree. argueswhyBronzeAgeEuropeanfarmers Gilmanconvincingly to preferred stay in theirvillages ratherthan to migrateto of (political)leaders. establishedinheritable to contribution thought In power in a few generations. Claessen 1978. Moreover.reciprocity an almostuniversal in humanculture(cf.g.Los of believethatanalysis. solidified socialand economic of and selfish exploitation the management position a lineage.the peculiarlyEuropean versionof patronage.) suitedforregionaldefense.e. Calif. associationwithmorepowerful surelyoperated by complexand shifting contiguous groups. Gilmanrightly stresses importance newlabor-intensive the of practicesthat undoubtedly concentrated capital in physical space.Yet.g. of of Institute Cultural 27 Stationsplein Leiden. and a host of others-to jockey (as theymust have) and economic increasein a or superiority if they don't reflect considerable forsocial. U. and at least someintimidation. shipare foundexactlyin thisquality(e..and I societies. numerous instances or other of Angeles. already and leadership We may safelyassume that inequality started to invest in their existedlong beforethose farmers The new situationmay have led only equipment. of University NorthCarolina. areas. riverfords. it is possiblethat merchants and many elites have human affairs are more complicated.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. reanalysis.Friedman1979). howand whystratification leadership however. 02254. otherstratified aggressive and wouldallow variousfactions-landed societies.S. of leadershave servedthe interests theirpeoples sociopolitical It welland fairly. varietyof I am strongly sympathy withGilman'sgeneral pointofview. Sahlins 1965. is and I fundamentally agreewithhis unless proven assumed to be purelyand simplyexploitative argument. merchants. That in the complexity. In any case. 2 viii 80 Evidence forsocial stratification the European BronzeAge in to is confined burial furniture a few isolated habitation and sites. coverthe multitude in it may mean a individualpersons. clarifications.the dialecticof powerbetweenthe two mighthave led in some cases to dominanceby personswho controlled capital in bothforms.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.C.but thisis not sufficient only. hierarchical that they represent group which a of controls production agriculturalists the through tribute. M.Lacking such information. may have weremutuallyexclusive. functionalist nonfunctionalist thisa for social stratification. of ChapelHill. with in best to consider as may reference societies.90024. N.The Netherlands.. is particularly it risky to speculatewhichsegments the community of might manipulate capital and in whatform capital might changehands.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. religiousfigures.with the growth sociopolitical cannot be denied reciprocalrelationsbecame asymmetrical to (cf. function(s).the shiftto stratification culturalcircumstances Bronze Age Europe. of University California.
In brief.). of the However. notablythe trade in gold and salt (Mauny 1970).The development and Iberian irrigation. but onlyacknowledged. St.by and thepotencontext access to land. as limited longas the chief(Gallay n. comprising society has its origin societyapparently 1967:224-27). 1 *February1981 Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE of on focus. lineage is To is mobility considerable. The structureand here different from are of historical genesis thesociety therefore the Europeansituation proposedby Gilman. In a small egalitarian society. of mention paternalism elitesand theimportance the frequently to 1971). thisis interpreted. to expand is the cost of controlling option is to controlthem throughforce.evenfrom author's Furthermore. This in no waycontradicts pendson thecostofcontrol. Garouge-Geneve. addingnewdependent are highly commoners by the elite are of key importance. HARDING 46 of University Durham.d.Duringexpansion. determinism impliedby a dogmatic societiesgive us.therefore. Gilman implies that his model can be generalizedbeyond he thisposition. This powerremains withinthe lineageby age rank. In a segmentedsociety. classrather and trade may be selectedforbecause they support warfare. Fieldsofapplication. all solutionswhich have had no historicaldescendants.wheremanagement advantageousto the comand control costsare minimized a stratified moner population.selected for. on the other. archaeological in production exceptwithregardto the modelis based is stillverylimited. approachto an interesting Gilman'spaper presents extremely of the origins social stratification Europe at the end of the in and the beginning the BronzeAge. Such situations and environmental social disasters includethosewithfrequent technologies. Saddler of Department Archaeology. to therelationship increase role the he dismisses elite'sfunctional in theinitialdevelopment ofstratification. This stratified of in the development trade in the Middle Ages.Criticalto its ability A theseadded producers.Although ofthisrelationship thepeasants(cf. it political power over the village retains.In most high-cost In a optionis to providecriticalservices.25 vi 80 to contribution Bronze Age Gilman'sarticleis an interesting in research.concentrating to me to adopt an almostdeterministic in on onlyone element the complexmass of interwoven vani11 . situations lower-cost will order to predictwhere stratification evolve. to economic This is the elites because of the high costs of segmentation? still however. The ecological restricting in tial functional of importance elitesshouldbe considered this same perspective. Characteristics themodel.Johnson the this.am sure Cilman is rightto be scepticalof the purelyfunctionalist approach to this problem. consider of paper. causes oftheemergence hereditary interesting. de d'Anitliropologie. low. overwealth.in a stratified As is situation morecomplicated. Gilman recognizes he emphasizes wayelitesmanipulate and of their control thecommoners. Real and dom is transmitted becomespossibleas soon as lineagehierarchization permanent (Meillassoux according to birthright power is transmitted is which in thelast analysisdetermined 1977). England. traditional The West African a In evolution. Departement Universite Gene've rue 8 1227 Switzerland. byA. reasoning thepresent populations to dependent howelitesprovideservices their fully the and how this may affect evolutionof social stratification. The method is Neolithic of is one a hypothetico-deductive (Gardin1974). DurhamDHI 3NU. lineagehierarchy.which unfamiliar but to European prehistorians is the only type of approach genhistoricalexplanations that can go beyondthe dreadful method. support.However. My experience the ethnology societiesallows me to suggesta of West Africansegmented solution to this problem.Ethnographers and protection againsthardtimes. thisviewpoint strictly line and rulesout whichprivileges singleevolutive a hindsight. 22 *No. 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. it may be the cost of that minimize necessaryto locate the conditions provided Wherethefunctions producers.It is well knownthat differentiation both grave of form and the provision gravegoodsin Europe startedon a or rightly big scale in theEarly BronzeAge. subsistence and thoserequiring complex desystem. In is on dependent the eliteand cost of control relatively is otherwords. or.Only then will it be recognizedthat and subjectto the eventsare multiform not entirely historical evolutionism. crucialfortheinitialevolutionary byALAIN GALLAY 12. of character the The secondweak pointconcerns hereditary the evidencesupporting hypothesis elites. runstheriskofadmitting Europe.The model appears to have of the concerns problem innovation twoweak points. from attack.In adopting As (1979:120) has pointed a simplistic evolutionism. it be that elitesare required solve probGilmanarguesconvincingwithgroupsurvival? lemsconcerned or ly against this.We must. founding but of of a villageis joined by otherfamilies variedorigins. the startof markedsocial stratification.and evenslavery(Maquet chiefdoms.Many of the lines of explanation and oftenseem are advanced by the functionalists simplistic stance. in thisfield. I as wrongly. elite mustcontrol as producers potentialrevenuesources. Can therebe technological environmental access differential that eitherprovideinherent characteristics by enablecontrol resources as Gilmansuggests.My obempirico-inductive erated by an exclusively Vol. Scheurer is conditioned the advantageof by out. The in but simply places his argument a broaderperspective. of Mediterranean fishing the Atlanticand perhaps the Baltic requiresmore in the is innovation not. F. referring severalexoticsocieties. the principleof segmentation lineage The of opposedthephenomenon aggregation. some security Elites provideaccess to land and technology. ic relationsin any way that will lowercosts. it may well be these factorsthat are for successof stratification.For example.In thiswas fora longtimethe positionof the Darwinists biology in and is currently the processof being abandoned (notably It buissonnante"). theone hand.on the characteristics the servations on modeland. of Despite the attractiveness this position..because for differ the various classes withinthe societyit is interests to functions maintaina given best to see how an institution irrigation. elitesmaybe expected altereconomSimilarly. offshore polyculture.The first evidence which on The techniques. In to 2. of 1. pointofview.forexample.explained. its fieldofapplication.throughseniority. to that he discusseslowerthe cost of inhibitors segmentation to socialcontrol.The archaeological and children) (richgravesofwomen thateliteswerehereditary is of and the interpretation this phenomenon is substantial.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. thisregion segmented an exampleofa different stratified coexistswitha highly societyof hoe agriculturalists castes. of providedby the depend on the importance the functions new dependent the elite. is necessary withthe conceptof "evolution of the same decentering the observerin the now to effect historicaldisciplines. Gilmanmakesclear. systemshould be able to develop rapidly. of could explain the development a permanent by seniority.This mechanism. elitesand theircontrol Thus we returnto the questionof how to explain social to Can stratification. of are authority not veryclear. as thanthesociety a whole. VI 80 Gustave-Revlilliod. The potentialsuccess of a stratified Gilman. of and plowagriculture theutilization theard.
S. U. providedby the are mechanisms different." common profouraspectsof subsistence culturesequenceof the Ebro Valley at whichsubsistence he explanation. irrigated or clearedforplowing. thathe sees as representing technology and specialized of subsistence. I think have to be providedwithopportunities assume such roles. or forothersimilarreasons. land. What is ent spatial and temporal rightfor. Otherpertinent workis that by Jodlowski theyare reallybeingused in a different functionalist but whether factors. thenthe dominated at least unable to prevent (or a not thisagain involves function.I am not convincedthat the "nonof are alternatives not open to the same criticism. a crude level of description and compeavailable.C. populace seemsto me to go a long way towardexplaining the 12 C UR R ENT A NT HR O POL OG Y . it clearlywouldhave been dysfuncbut of goods.it raises. byRONALD HICKS surely.27 vi 80 of In considering origins an elite.Even metallurgy. goes on to consider "capital-intensification duction changed gear. thereare always aspirantsto leadershiproles.nomenon of segments the BronzeAge. an but version. questions none at the first. and merchant elites?This needs to the evidencefortheocratic of to taken as one of the key stimulants unequal distribution be explainedsomehow. on to for explanation the rise thispaper provides mostinteresting a There must be tasks-military.or how. Simpleinertiaon the part of much of the that nomicinterpretations are now so fashionable.in my mindat least.did the elitesbeginto developin evenwereI capable ofit. thatrole? of Department Classicsand Archaeology.What part was played by population on wealth.plough agriculture. so that we can test Gilman's ideas." protection If and Europe was. To conclude:are we really in capital investment largerboats and netswouldhave allowed of sure that the supposedindicators statusin materialculture the development an elite. functionalism. but they muchimproved the viewsChildeheld 30 yearsago. functions does not mean that those long beforethe Bronze Age. I hope to be able to identify points in the the exchangeas an rejecting commodity After interests. plentyof land was still one can At socially. Legge.As Gilmanpoints of upon theprocesses agricultural By concentrating for Gilmanhas for theyoffer exploitation. objection A way seemsto me doubtful. vineyards to willbe willing be and others of achievepositions dominance the Andif.apply equally to Early Bronze Age Spain or Late Department Anthropology. With control"in spite of the fact that theiractions do not serve A. of Ball BronzeAge Slovakia.was of coursepresent quite a large scale way back growth? of in the Neolithic. State University. by naturallydominating character. 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.do people behave?" in mindratherthan just by manipulating factorsenable themto do it? All tantly. It is partlyto remedy thisthatI am excavateconomiestend to have productive whysocietieswithhighly at inga Bell Beakersettlement Moncin.however.HARRISON to trade routesand unwilling abandon link in long-distance of University Bristol. Could thefishers byR.competitive. his one. for looking especially tracesofoliveand vine cultivation. and that a lithicand BronzeAge? Veryfew. in the consider veryvariednatureofwealthdistribution differ. wereundoubtedly factors coming different which One of the aspectsof the studyofsocial stratification Gilman'sthesisis a thought-provoking In particular.). both economically that life in prehistoric was necessary. 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.because theyare from drudgery subsistence freed what amountedto a protection thugswho instituted racket.It is no criticism say that its chiefweaknesslies in the to ables. J.what socioeconomic "maybes. one.Is it a naturaland tional for the producersto abandon such resourcesas fields invariable aspect of humannaturethat some menwill wishto and orchards."Althoughthe precise social and economic There may also be traces of early irrigation animalhusbandry. as place? Gilmanspeaksofthem "protectors. eliteswerein somesense"protectors.as he implies. Branc in Early Bronze Age Slovakia cannot. 4 viii 80 intoplay.even ifwe cannotyetproveit. 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. where Muncie. At the same time. for example. particular explanatory and my fresh synthesis the wholeof the Bell Beaker pheof I would level at the modeldevelopedhereis that it does not (Harrison1980). one.production distribution tive to functionalism. 47306. and the opportunities out.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.Gilmanis right drawattention these ones.warfare provoked populationgrowth by statusbecause theywishto be increased mendesiring imagine for tition land does notseemlikely. 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. why. NaturallyI cannothere go of the problem. why? If. J.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. I assume. and of terms protection againstattack.Were theysimply gangsof of the labor. Borja (northern elites" and to suggesthow elitesestablishand maintaintheir Spain).let alone Late BronzeAge Spain.say. For example." it)? If it is. lack of empiricalevidence for the capital-intensification functionalist" in and patchyinstances terms agriculture morethan a fewscattered aim is to "explainin nonmanagerial Gilman'sprofessed ofunequalvalue. in (1976) on salt production southern Poland around3200 B. as he says. and I see no real reasonthatmanipulation land wouldnotbe abandoned.At least some of the things historical of distribution a resourcethrough elite only affects were present managersor ceremonial Gilman lists.one mustalways look the production to small moderncommunities examples." However.etc. It is easy to see whydeveloped shouldnothave beenpresent but Gilmanalso mentions waterfor or irrigation polyculture that offshore withits heavy fishing too. Ind. but marksof fashion (he gives the example of medieval to the Neolithic:what materialthingschangedbetweenNeoValencia) doesn't mean this is always the case. Bristol BS8 IRJ. managerial.A. a number at so our explanations farhave been directed the secondpart offurther thatgo unanswered. What about elitesdid not originally which Renfrewand othershave predicts. England. 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. first intothisproblem. much earlier than the model have a moredirectrole.
of the Undoubtedly.theydo not. assume. Jarmo. Luxury manipulation less than objectively metalartifacts may be both an indexand a cause of incipient social stratification. The point is important because the divisionbetweenthe Near East and Europe. my opinion.the logic of his analysis that such intensification createda changein property relations and transferred problemof security "the fromthe materialto the social field"is compelling.. fromCentralEurope to the Aegean. northof the Caucasus. in southern Turkmenia. Rather than dogmatically insisting upon isolatedregional developments.but becausetheseareas wereinvolved a larger in historical reality(like thelaterEurope). How we delimit field inquiry not onlyan empirical. particularly the easternMediterranean.the sibilities to offend or elite is able to maintainitselfand even gain morepower. course. somehowindependently developed an extremely complextechnology roughlyat the same time that identicalmetallurgical techniquesappeared in Anatolia. pass the basic litmustest of reconstructing as history we know it fromour dailylives. 22 *No. on artificially manipulatedvalues that created a demand for fashionable. Mass. This reality neednot be concepVol.. the Orientand the Occident. by and far less jargon-laden than other. because morepowerful but societies could control and manipulate level ofdevelopment their the of "Third World" neighbors. 1973). for Although purposesof discussion the remainder my commentswill be critical.A. did Chiefs. accountssimply not-to paraphrase do Gilman-constitutea uniformitarian view of social processin stratified societies.Similarly. acquisitive reasons that led to the emergence of local elites. but highly dubious.S.that theBalkans. 02181. a specialty for Old a Worldprehistorians? of EuropeorEuropeancivilization. 29 vii 80 This is an extremely valuable and important study on the in beginningsof social stratification Bronze Age Europe.g.in otherwords.only stoneswith specific could have been used physicalproperties in Neolithictimes as harvesting tools). My criticisms both empiricaland theoretical. is in it notproven.I strongly of believethat thisis an exceptionally examination of important the emergence social stratification.if it continues shoulder irksome it responsibilities.g. on the Iranian plateau. gains power throughexercisingneeded leadership. well-known critiques (e.we mustbe consistent In in our uniformitarianism. forclimaticreanot sons. KOHL Department Anthropology. they are different Harris's [1968:403] excellentobjection to (cf. not need many of the trinketsthey used to separate themselvesfromthe masses.deservedly convincing. of course. His analysis provides the structure.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. of credibleprehistory has been reconstructed whichis consistent withour understanding of contemporary society and the exploitativerole of elites within Functionalist it.undoubtedly. our of is but also a theoretical question.e.And so on. Cultures existed at different levels of development not simplybecause they had followeddifferent evolutionary trajectories.for the emergence elites in of BronzeAge Europeansocieties. Whilethearchaeoa between logicalevidence intensisupporting causalconnection fication subsistence of and social stratification technologies is tenuousor slightly ambiguous. Friedman1974).Lurkingbehindor implicitin Gilman'sanalysisis a mechanicalevolutionism that deserves carefulscrutiny. of Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE byPHILIP L. According Gilman. seemsonlyreasonablethatit shouldbe allowedsometolerance in addition to materialrewards. 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.Tell Shemshara).persistence elites.ex oriente to lux modelshave been empirically falsified. a minor peninsula of the Eurasian landmass. are Gilman takesas his unitofanalysistheculturally politically and heterogeneousBronzeAge Europe. Gilman'sdiscussion functionalist of accountswhichemphasize theessential and beneficial services provided elitesis cogent. 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.. not the narrative. high-quality goods.Capital-intensificationsubof sistencetechnologies and consequent social stratification were moremarkedin therelatively arid regions southern of Europe. (Wertime etc." Can essentialitemsbe sociallyor culturally or defined. in fact. of WellesleyCollege.is accepted as straightforward and nonproblematic. has meaning the historian for thatrelatesto its sharedreligion and sharedhistorical experience thatcannotbe reducedto and itsphysicalcharacteristics.utilitarianterms?Such a in completely questionis not meant to deny objectivereality(clearly. 13 . 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. the of to Through reluctance others shoulder leadership responthosewhohold somedegreeofpower.otherthan the historical accident that Europe. U. of and by extension family a or line.because it was functionally superiorto flintor other locally available chipped stone or because it possesseda culturally imposedvalue that cannotbe understood rational.but once theyhad come to expectthemtheywillingly theirpowerin orderto continuereceiving them.Gilman's focus upon this and is intensification its effects appropriateand directsour attentionto basic considerations. 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. 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.An individual.sometimes a substantialand significant on scale (e. to Benedict'spatterns). short. 1 *February1981 tualizedin classicdiffusionary termswiththe innovative Near East bestowing civilization heresocial stratification) (or upon barbarian Europe. but to insist that a selectionoccurs on this reality. Wellesley. one not similarcommonfeatures prehistoric for Europe. or circularperspective that culturesvary because. intensification subsistence technologies had profound social consequences. subsistence-related)? Did the farmers southwestern engagein the exchange of Asia Neolithic of obsidian.Acceptanceof this fact does not imply a returnto culturalparticularism the sterile. What possible justification can there for be jumping from Scandinaviato theIberianpeninsula. mustdemonstrate. constitutes field of study.an area that we knowwas in contactwiththe Orientformillennia priorto the advent of metallurgy.To it the nextgeneration seemsonlynaturalthat the elite should to be there. Societiesfrom CentralAsia to the Mediterranean werein contactwithone anotherforthe same exploitative. that Westernworldoperatesunder exchangein the contemporary a similar principle. It is clear. must they be absolute and natural (i.
indicates morethana limited no degreeofrankdifferendevelopment social stratification of during BronzeAge was the 14 CURRE NT ANTHROPOLOGY . of irrigation.establishing seafaring duringthe Neolithic Gilman's problemsstem fromhis aim of explainingthe and BronzeAges. of 31-34Gordon Square. labourin higher-priority activities suchas monument construc.are the heartof I in Despite thesecriticisms.21 VII 80 yet tbisseemsto be overstating case: the the about.byJAMES LEWTHWAITE universal-is not demonstrated the limited and varied by Department Archaeology. raises itselfin a numberof guises.Further. Gilman's idea is that "if such technologies are needs. He whichforceshim to resortto treatments the periodin termsof its bronzetypology.polyculture. a likelyhypothesis how social stratification of spread existence modularbiological. consumption. ogy in the Aegean.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.Atlantic Europe. Scandinavia.I dressedracketeers fear of having their a mob of flashily for think thatcautionmustbe exercised theinterpretation the in of ploughoxen kneecapped.and theadvancement goodexample. view of the development social stratification Bronze Age Finally.economic.by denyingthe "elite" a managerialor Europe. and warfare intragroup group the competition favour emergence bySTEPHEN J. Witha morethorough from one investigation The starting point formodelsof social differentiation. of the of the deserving poor.stratification strategieswhich likely preceded "capital-intensified subsisStratification an anachronistic is nism. but whetherit is satisfactory inferfromthis the winner takesall. By Chagnon(1975) has brought could be a differentiation to earthby askinghowsocial preeminence.someinformation whichmight useful Gilman's be to This e mafiadux historical in cementovershoes. melodrama is has been ignored. consider Gilman'spaperhelpful thematter. Cambridge geographical evidencepresented.elites.couldhave beenused to support argument an this is too originsof what he terms "social stratification": foroffshore and fishing trade. Institute Archaeology. Mediterranean perspective.. Gilman. back metallurgy of In differential successin life. Betts (1973). be unitsis the outcomeof competing for requirements short-term developedmight possible. technology this reflects social changes. of of the patron ("big-man. and the Mediterraneanis a Certainly. about stratification its place during and stimulating thought and seagoing boats.the is the chancesofspecific promoting competitive local populations level of technology likelyto have variedamongand within sites. U.not classes.For example. the long term.The competing clans assert their relativeranks in an visibleform conspicuous as and disarchaeologically Gilmanhas putforward extremely construction.the workof Frost view scarcelythe "uniformitarian ofsocial processin stratified argument (1973). mustbe the the BronzeAge.K. stratified class societiesis another presenceof economically In brief.personalcommunication. and raiding. 1980). it is all the moredisappointing find but was the importance fishing same in each case? Also. 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). concept: technology appears to have of itis thepeculiarity kinand client that relationships inequality tence.as it did in western Hungaryduringthe Middle Bronze Froma in thereal long-term to themselves. subsistence and long-term This is resolvedby reproduction.The basis of the systemis associatedwithsubsistence agriculture (Jovanovic1979." "Godfather") and maintain his S09 5NH.31 vii 80 ampton position.as a unitofanalysis. hegemo. the to Gilman'sdiscounting metallurgy a possible cause for of as What is missingis the idea of the controlof the circularity. metallurgical been important particular to areas and settlements whichwere does not precipitatealienation. one whichin its broad scope and abilityto pick out redistributive Renfrew's role. librium achievedafter phase ofintergroup a of competition.theproduction displayitems.LondonWC1. pirogues pirated. of Cambridge University.reverses achievement linking important of themesmakes a pleasant change fromthe usual social and economicevolution. 22 vii 80 tionmay have existedin specific areas in responseto varying social. addition. external and Both interappropriation internal hierarchisation."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. insuredby social means. typesof stratificaDifferent CB2 3DZ.and olive treesset data. precludesany associationof it with subsistence the of of reproduction structures: ethology patronage.I wouldliketo makea number of tion. clans. important interesting and in of tribution. Also.and clientage.Ren"fromeach according his ability. contrast. thereby cause as wellas an indication stratification. and to that groupis dependent Both Renfrew Gilmanlocatetheir in social evolution the to upon capital investments whichcontinued access must be social superorganic. of University Southampton. each successivelevel of social differentiation. wouldhave been helpful it had been discussed evidenceforthe stratiin moredetailand ifthe archaeological byCHARLES A. considering timegaps between the withits own mirror image. of which all both of the situationreconstructed of specificcriticisms. of tiredold "populationpressure. The clan.littlemodest a trade. evenin thepresence ards.verypositiveviewofthepaper." important a group'ssubsistence. would regardsome if not all of ecomatter:many archaeologists and is nomicintensification. 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. modulargrowth This distinction an an represents equithemas rankedratherthan stratified. if It argument. and Schwartz(1976) on marinearchaeolsocieties"its authorconsiders it." Therefore. turalimprovement.enhances through solidarity. EasternEurope there in a To as staticand restricted concept. However. by in affected. important and muchhangson it in thecontext Gilman's one. struggle reproduce Age (Choyke. wideof area. England. politicalneeds." However.groupsize and success in an autofor Gilmanand ofhis explanation it.Throughout Gilman talks England. The a catalyticdevelopment.to each accordingto his to frew 1969). forexample (Shennan at 1975). to imply the same developmental him thereafter contentto confront naive and simplistic does the existenceof fishing the stageofsocial stratification.His reference fishing and to in Basically. SCHWARTZ This point ficationview had been more fullydocumented. and cultural geographic linguistic. SHENNAN SouthDepartment Archaeology. often The assumptionwhich underliesGilman's thesis-that the Early Bronze Age cemetery Branc. Gilmandeservescongratulations his deflation for of certainadvocatesof a benevolent squirearchy benton agricul.
Instead of a conof frontation rivalparadigms. byMAURIZIO Tosi Seminario Studi Asiatici.. not byANDREW SHERRATT Ashmolean Museum.in dismissing the importance nonsubsistence of tradehe seemsto make the same mistake manyofthefunctionalists criticises. is the It restricted natureofelitedifferentiation. 1 February 1981 Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE of social stratification largelyconcentrated areas such have on as Mesopotamiaand Mesoamerica. for On the widerquestionof the role of elites. Despite Gilman'sfailureto make use of the variety the in evidenceat his disposal. there is nevertheless significant a horizonof change in the mid-3d millennium. Istituto Universitario Orientale.one or two doubtsarise fromhis discussion the of roleofagricultural intensification the development stratiin of fication.but surely thisis not the case. At the basis ofany elite's power must be some formof regionallycentralised a control. Finally. Italy. the gap. whichis presentin otherareas as but well. Simplyto refer suchgoodsas luxuries to is to neglecttheirpotentialsocial importance. 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. 22 *No. an antidote to of the Panglossianecologicalinterpretations the 1960s. The stark contrastbetween "'stratified" "nonstratified" and societiesdoes not do justice to thenatureoftheproblem.and inferences is about populationsizes from burial evidence also suggest that communities were extremely small." it is certainly the case in the but not Central European part of the bell-beaker distribution area.28 VII 80 Despite thefactthatmoreis known theprehistory Europe of of than of that of any otherregion. that demandsexplanationin this context. lateron in the Bronze by but Age of this area and of othersthereseems to be quite good evidence for the existence of settlementhierarchies(e. Oxford OXi 2PH. England. Tocik 1964). and this seems to me ratherdubious. closerattention the contrasts to betweendifferent areas-notably betweenMediterranean and temperate Europe-is the key to understanding dynamics the of thisprocess.is clearly of Bronze Age economies both the Mediterranean in and the of tradeis reflected both Baltic.he perceptively identifies some of the commonfactors leading towardssocial change whichcharacterisethe laterphases of Europeanagrarianprehistory. rather thanits extent. wherethe Bell Beaker gravessuggest morethan a minimal no degreeofranking (Shennan1977). and the importance maritime and in artefact distributions in coastallocations settlement. Since archaeological data storeextensive information on economic activity. an elitestylegivescompletely wrong the This may impression. associatedwiththe keepingof sheep for wool and milk. exemplified the Branc cemetery. the size of knownEarly Bronze Age settlements minute. avoid imposinginappropriate to divisionson this long sequence. on basic to an understanding Fishing. 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. amongothers. grounding set of propositions a for 15 . of The questionof tree crops is more problematic. 80134Napoli.g. centralpersonassociated with a centralplace. 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]). seems the he to be assigning autonomy independent an as variablesto the plough. I as have triedto show (Sherratt 1980b).so faras I understand argument. therefore. whichwouldactuallyfitin betterwithGilman's argument.he neglects to observethat it is also one of the mostprolific ambersource areas. however relevant mayperhaps it be to the appearance of powerful centralised states in southwestern Asia. One would not wish to argue that there must always be a contemporary correlating and "cause" for everyeffect.howbut not antithesis one ever.and irrigation systems. but in Denmark.forexample.Secondly. suggeststhat if intensification was necessaryfor the development stratification Bronze Age Europe it was of in certainly sufficient. althoughGilmanlater seemsto refer the late Copper Age culturesof Iberia as "ranked" to ratherthan "stratified. 12 viii 80 The essenceof Gilman'scontribution the effort developa is to factsand forms social of relation between economic systematic complexity. If Gilmanis inferring landscape in which a there simply endless is an of replication individual communities. seemsto me a problemarises it in his discussion the chronological of priority intensification of over stratification.It is all the more important. altered both the agrarianand the social basis of European communities. have demonstrated clearlythe possibilities gainingpowerthrough control for the ofvaluablesessential thetransactions for involved theprocess in ofsocialreproduction.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. In fact.the whileto refer bell beakersas to tiationwithin community. As Gilman himself notes. associatedwiththeintroduction ox (not horse!) of This fundamentally tractionforploughing.olive trees. as he Friedman and Rowlands (1978).is likelyto have been especiallyrelevantto social differentiation the Mediterranean the 2d millenin in the nium. discussions the emergence of Vol. theother hand.it seemsunlikely viewof theiressentially that theoversimple parasiticexistence is any morevalid than the converse view whichsees themas of As benevolent providers exotic necessities. each witha leadingfamily. thiscontext In it is worthremarking Gilman's explanationfor the greater wealthofnorthwestern Jutland revealedby Randsborg's (1974) studyas the potentialof adjacent fishing grounds. have been the case in Iberia. There may well be a link here. althoughthe possibilities offered movinganimals by on the hoofshould not be forgotten. thattheseimplymanagerial Gilmanseemsto suggest functions fortheelite.Gilman's paper offers onlya useful whichaccordsmorecloselywiththe worldafterthe oil crisis. of The insistence thepresence elitesseemsin curiousconon of trast to the denial of the existence settlement hierarchies. However.The increasein the scale of animal utilisation.Yet clearlythereare fundamental contrasts between temperate the cultivators the "Neolithic"and the "Bronze Age" whichgo of beyond the 19th-century technological criteria.thereprobablywas the just such a landscape in the Early Bronze Age Slovakia. refer thosefamilies an elite to as to seemsagain to overstate case.OxfordUniversity.through differential accumulation stock.the best part of a millennium elapses betweenthe firstappearance of evidence for ploughing and evidenceforthe emergence social differentiationthelocal of in Early Bronze Age. 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. First.
symposiumorganized by coalescing in the 1971 Sheffield proposing a theywerenot directly Renfrew (1973b). we that a wholeclass of data. Childe'sideological theseinnovamastered nents.and taxo-formalism. a of data was largely by-product The devaluation archaeological of this conceptualsettlement. Gilman's correlability archaeological ethnographic thatis spreading among articleis evidenceofan uneasyfeeling dimension human of who archaeologists believein thehistorical is evolution. Nowhere in the world is prehistoric archaeologyinstituto it independent.settlementstudies.Economy is the social and technological of contextof the transformation nature by human activity. of generated strative a theoretical corpus dimensions dominate We mightaccept that superstructural infrastructural but thereis no reasonto take forgranted ones.-A. Withfewexceptions. total recovery.superstructural Archaeois and individual diversity. to of Like Spriggs's (1977) attempt reopenthediscussion the of and data. the strucof other. "Nature" here representsthe whole of Earth's resources exploited a givenpeople in a givenperiod. their based on theassumption thattheyshouldbe demonessentially from another universe. Basicallyitspropositions groundsby the eitherignoredor confuted epistemological on criticism Gardin(1980). 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. verylittlein commonapart froma certainuneasinessabout the to subordinating richbodiesof data theycontrol a theory from evidencetheycannotcontrol. complex is data.the systematicexplanationof social evolutionin economic for themgreater activities mayensure validity theory building. and the main feature Europeanfarming.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.In peninsular Italy."Territorial expansion could be carriedout on slopes. workit has produced. a each involving detailedreconstruction moreregional projects. 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.These resources by and correlatedin various directionsto must be identified of for providetheframework the reconstruction the particular This is largelywhat Gilmanhas done here. mightoutlinethis type of natural approachas the searchforcausativepatternslinking and social structures conditions throughdetailed analysis of economicactivity.The "New Archaeology"has had little exceptin Scandinavia. In England the reactionwas outspoken. tive methods the and readilydemonstrated factualunreliabilmotiwhichwerelabelled "politically ity of his propositions. Mobergin G6teborg. largelynonlinear of ahistorical. we options. the onlyreal information have and the primary stagesof social evoluon extinct populations tion. the artefactual evidence. attempt weredeveloped unsuccessful histime. is subordinate tionally is either social or thehistorical the The subordination sciences. vated" (Clark 1976). would emphasize that to a of of factors capital-intensification greatextentthe individual CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY .In this rigidsystem. linesmyself. suggesting but selectsamongexisting demanddoes not createthe supply. being and therefore is essentially superstructural. turethat willhousea post-Childean materialistic This orientation beginning appear in a very scattered is to They still have group of scholarsevenly spread worldwide. approachhas beenlargely to the areas in whichit developed. 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.the paper should be posion tioned withinthe ongoingcontroversy the evolutionof societies. 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. building. beyondthelimitations imposedby to be properly and certaincontradictions mostlyto due its relativebrevity the randomselectionof examples. thereis no roomfortheory the of whichremains preserve historians.the multicorrelations.and. in data in of of explained terms theshortcomings archaeological or comparisonwith those of either anthropology history.Meanwhile. I alongsimilar Having been working appreciated.have become primarily fruit slopes. 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.These crops.naturally. as of ing thisperspective social evolution dominatedby noneconomic factors.not a the Notwithstanding important of singlerepresentative the historicalcore of the movement has occupieda major positionin one of the greatuniversities of the East Coast. of course. what I have called the "conquestof the hills.west of the Appalachians.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.I see it as a kindof cornerstone the theoretical archaeology. in techniques thatgave prehistoric the archaeology meansto becomea source of coherent excaon information early societies:stratigraphic vations. ecofact-artefact quantitative analysis. and the stress on cultural is but presumed inferiority logicaldata are verydifferent. "Economic growth"became obsolete at the same time as "surplus. since the commonfeatureof these various schools was that the evolutionof man. that may have been or it was not irrigation plow agriculture but of of determinant theexpansion meansofproduction.We need economy.withthe successof substantivism and ofthefunctionalist-structuralist offensive againstMarxism.I stressthe regional in economic structuring so onlypossibleway of understanding as a diverse territory Europe.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. The politicaldimension this selectionbecomes lookat thestateofprehistoric a moreapparentthrough critical research today.In moregeneralterms. studyofcomplex societies the has remained firmly the hands of culturalanthropologists. amongthemClarkand Wheeler. forexample. the one hand."in the late 1950s. 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.is deficient.wherewe findgroups impactelsewhere Reviewand clusteredaround the NorwegianArchaeological have been C.Although or approach.for was possibleonlyiffarming less plains represent than 10% of the land area. which theory based on ethnographic Functionalist allow a broad spectrumof observationsand an interplay factsand theaccompanying material backideological between aspects become dominant ground. believethat. the methodology that integrated naturalsciences disciplinary into the studyof man's recent oppopast. As a result. contributed the successof the superstructural to undoubtedly in perspective researchon the evolutionof complexsociety. 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. Gilmanis rightin of I pointingto their importance.
in and transform. Harding.is well represented settlements (e. agricultural Yet clear evidenceof social stratification not appear untilmuchlater. overthecrucial(and inevitably out.") "elite.espethem to give causal primacyto technological On cially as these affectsubsistence.I willturnto someof theirconcerns and Sherratt point As Adams." and both represent aspects of the rapidly growingindustryand trade in bronze implements the at of beginning theBronzeAge (see Reinecke1930. A substantialnumberof hoardsof Early and early Middle Bronze Age date contain sickles. hoard as "votive. 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. if severalterms It wouldbe helpful the authorwoulddefine in whose meaningsare understood a generalway but whose can be important. The sickle.to do justiceto the varietyof the of comments any reasonablespace. thereare striking contrasts and theprimafacieinterprelithicand BronzeAge burialrites.Nevertheless. to therefore. First. forthat matter. Indeed. wish to make one generalsuggestion.a class analysis is sex.5.Schwartz. 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.however." tionalist.veryfewEarly and Middle BronzeAge settlements have been excavatedin central have been Europe. Cambridge. but also by birth.6) and in hoards.g. and to technological social causation have attempted reconcile societiesarose that the elitesof early stratified by suggesting of as a resultof the managerial. Jarman1976: esp.. prehistorians of the I inescapablefactoflife. Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE Reply byANTONIO GILMAN Mass. Dehn 1952. theone hand. organizational requirements I methodsof production. generalinadequacy of archaeologicalevidenceas such is exacerbated by the small numberof studies which focus on economic and social questions.g.For theproblems am dealingwith. 3. WELLS HarvardUniDepartment Anthropology.and the whole. Otherscontainprimarily broken objects and scraps of bronze(e. 15 ix 80 Cambridge.g. storeresources wellas to generate and as growth surplus(Tosi n. unused as objects (e.Pittioni1976). those who have commented do 17 byPETER S.Severalrecent of investment timeand energy the preparation land for of in farming occurredmuch earlierthan Gilmanindicates. WhereI do notdiscusspointsraisedin particuhowto resolve lar comments. withattendantclearingof fieldsforlong-term does use. 137-40).It is gratifying see thatalmostall of the exploitative are commentators generousenough to findmy approach of someinterest. future. and Gilman'spaper is an interesting thoughtful approach to of The theproblem origins social stratification. 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). Krahe 1963) and can be interpreted caches of new toolsdepositedby traveling merchants metalsmiths or for unrealizedrecovery.beginningwiththe startof the Neolithic. 02138.. of looselydefined in termssuch as "rank society.Shennan. Gilman suggeststhat of veryfewagricultural implements bronzeare knownbefore Late BronzeAge times. These include "funcconnotations specific and "rulingclass. findthe consensus I here (the so. the otherhand.Shennan.. Of the fouraspects of "capital-intensificacouldpossibly tion"ofsubsistence.In centralEurope thisis not the case.thelogicoftheir On changes. On view acceptable. U. (Modderman1971. Second."in orderto identify activities and productsclassified termsof theircapacity to extract. of tationof thesedivergences reflecting presence heredias the in by tary status differences the lattertends to be confirmed the ethnomore detailed analysis. my Sherratt..The argumentative my of entailsonlyreflects appreciawhichtheformat thisreply on my tionof the help of my colleaguesin clarifying thinking issuesof mutualconcern. agreewithShennanand Sherratt I often seen wealth differentials withinBronze Age cemeteries are notlargeand withAdamsthatthekeyquestionofwhether can the contrasts reflect achievedor ascribedstatusdifferences neverbe conclusively settledusingpurelyarchaeologicalevibetweenNeodence. I am particularlygrateful.Kimmig1955) and probably collections metaldestined remeltof for represent There is no need to interpret eitherkindof ing and recasting. concrete evidence. 8 vii 80 versity. The reasonsthat no more are are known from settlements twofold. of Most evolutionists essentialto the understanding history.A. 1 February 1981 . those colleagues (Harrison. discipline of of to Europeanprehistory suffered has from lack of attempts the in explainimportant changes evident thearchaeological record. It is impossible. Mass. and achievement.). an in have had difficulty formulating adeSocial evolutionists fromclassless to stratified quate account of the transition constrains endeavor societies.the mostobviousagricultural tool of metal at the in time. Broken sickles would have been lost in the fieldsor thrownback into the metalcaster'spot.Crumley. onlyplowagriculture apply studiessuggest thatthemajor to central Europe.subsistence activitymight groupedtogether interrelated be as aspectsof the same process. paucityof data is an For Problems evidence. then comment two specific on points. and Wells) whohave confronted thesiswith below.I moveperhapstoo quickly area of burialsociology. U. readermustjudge forhimself the content may whatever disagreements exist. I will attemptto respond in to the several empiricaland theoretical questionswhichare (such as shared by a numberof reviewers.usable sickleswouldnot ordinarily left behind in abandoned settlements. 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. 22 *No. 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.S. The evidence a fromthis of suggests permanence occupationof settlements earliestphase. Fischer1971:13 and pl.S.It appears now that the first farmers centralEurope did not practiceslash-and-burn of in whichis unnecessary the richsoils of the area agriculture. I and this essay is a welcomestep in that direction. In arguingagainst the role of the development bronze of in of metallurgy the formation elites. Vol.)" of remarks concernthe applicability the model My specific to centralEurope. Tosi. course. 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.A. of PeabodyMuseum.d.it is fairto say that I thorny) accept a consensuswhichsuits me ratherthan subject it to that the detailedcriticism. Some containnew.
In thefirst in empiricaldiversity structural one and thus accommodates capitalbetween a details. rivetted daggers)are much the same in southeastern Spain. and Wells are concerned about the time lag betweenthe introduction subsistence of intensification and of the development hereditary inequalities. protection/extortion the providedthe surplusthat generated wealthin whichfields whichgraves. consideration entirely non-European in Europe. thatin the later 2d in Italian millennium B. This was Childe's view of Bronze Age developments Europeas a whole.and in southon easternSpain (the Los Millares phenomenon). generalcharacter the ofeliteburialsand manyof the specific artifact typesincluded in them(e. such as that providedby Bradley (1978) forthe BritishIsles. Given thesebroad similarities.too. Bietti it who here considers "at least questionablethat we Sestieri. and so on. as Finley (1973) stresses. in fact.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. characterizedthe earlier Neolithic in Europe would not have entailed such critical of accumulations capital. Brittany." has elsewhere on the basis of typological parallelsalone. themoverbad harvests tide and lean seasons. capturedby theprivileged data. I thinkit Neolithic reasonableto suppose that it would take half a is perfectly or millennium. It seemsa matter offaith ofreasonto suppose societiesof European barbariansthe land that in the simpler it and thosewhoworked wouldalso have providedthe surplus few. Clearly. processual from and thus can account forseveral European transitions to To ranking stratification. what pointthe community's enough to permit the shiftfromranking to stratification. on the of one hand. use can legitimately conceptssuch as trade. and so on.I am not but to attempting explainall aspects of BronzeAge diversity. the other to as hand. When the evidenceleads themto concluhowever.who considers "risky"to supposethat the occupantsof Fiirstenit producersin obtained their wealth fromagricultural grdber later to speculateon is threeparagraphs theirvicinity. Schwartz. Saxo-Thuringia. needmany moredetailedregionalassessments. fungible. so to speak. nonexistent the Palaeolithic. if. a basic sense. fundamental but not theland. of existence boundaries the way in which the boundariesare formed:the lynchets separatingthe fieldsare createdby plowing'saccelerationof delimited lynchets of by soil creep.Coles and the for readershouldconsider.Wessex.some stabilityin shouldknow." What we can do is argueour cases forwhat prehistory of the past was like fromthe centraltendencies the available process. on the Boyne (the spectacularNew Grangepassage-grave group).No archaeologist afford of wait until thereis enoughevidence to make the writing "safe. pace Wells and Sherratt(1980a). may be too diverseforany singletheoryto account forthem. course. servatism. in otherwords. Mycenaean smithswere working metal workshops(Bietti Sestieri 1973:408). willing at of the existence merchant elitesand on toll-collecting fords to can and passes in BronzeAge times. Bohemia. As Shennan(1980) stresses.The surviving Crumleycorrectly "Celtic" field systemssuggest. thesame fields implies. the unintensive Clearly. withreference averred.however. may be interpreted varying responses the stresses ofagriculture whichthe capital-intensification producedin the social order(Gilman 1976. .Kohl. to supposethat. passagefrom quotedabove).and transmit see howpreferential access to a valuableprizedin thecoreofa stratified system couldgive riseto compradore elitesalong the system'speriphery.In the areas within to also be relevant severaldifferent I diversity.theexistence a fieldsystem wereplowedin thesame that therefore. even longer.C. BiettiSestieri (As but whichleads to thisinterpretation.Shennan1980). 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).Fried 1967). indulge pro are Most prehistorians selectivein theirconcal pessimism. Harding. must be defended. relatively agricultural practices which.The modelis. example.some capital stocksare inherent the simplestfood in production systems: one form another.C. fortifications.C.g. I agree with Adams that the "naturally scarce.my approachdeserves thenit may contexts. 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. it is apparent that the older social The of burial orderwas not unaffected. as do notassume.. in or farmers have will storesto ensure future production.the wealthof a production. Crumley.) of whichwould permitthe development a to fixedresources cannotspecify WhileI obviously complex.being of general and settlement value. seems it reasonableto me to supposethat one can attempta common explanation.Kohl.Shennan. thereare. an for configuration a long time. One can also consolidate.In the absence of suchstudies.becomefrequent the Neolithic.it is not the mere landholding.some form implya commitment patterns Stable landholding ownership. Crumley. can onlyagreewiththeinevitably I impressionistic assessment Sherratt of that thereis a "significant horizonof change in the mid-3dmillennium B.as Adams and Cowgillseem to feel.it hardlyseems a "leap of faith. In the third place. the and "heterarchical" complex sourceof wealth was. themodelI put forward a reasons. the modelaccommodates thatsocialstratificaseemsto think. thereat assets becomesignificant fore. to denounce It is easy to be criticalof archaeological to in methodologiforma as conclusions speculative. These stores.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. To say thatmorework Harding'ssurvey needsto be done is not to say that the mostlikelyconclusions or based on the evidencenow available are incorrect should be ignored. graspofhistorical evidenceand witha realistic Several commentators (Bietti Sestieri.strikingly similar in developments manyareas ofEuropeduring Early the BronzeAge.takenas a whole.for these stressesto be resolved a within new social order. . the soberestscholarsspeculate. extend. thatdevelopments and Harding. Tosi) suggest in Europe duringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB. On thecontrary. Even more tenuousis the evidenceon land tenure.Thus. and Shennan the importanceof primitive believe that I underestimate of to valuablesin contributing the development stratification. I within scope of my interests disagreewiththiscriticism the is forthree place." The adoption of the would not immediately have plow and otherintensifications but led to stratification. and Commodity exchange bronze. BronzeAge elitesrepresents shareofsubsistence In Classical times. Adams. to Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe.Cazzella.which sees as a crucial question. replacement collective in megaliths singlegrave ritesin northern by Europe. the first introduction of moreintensive practices wouldnot immediately have provided the to big-men leverage We necessary becomechiefs. of durable"properties bronzewouldmake it an ideal medium for storingand mobilizingcapital. Schwartz I within Europe. structural second place. acknowltionwas universal 18 rate edge the differential ofsocialchangeand attempt explain to this by the differential of capital-intensification. The questionis. put the same pointanotherway. in in It is the general understanding social evolutionists of that rankingarises in responseto the need to create and defend thesestores(Service 1962. of the complexenvironmentaland technological factorsinvolved. Bronze and other such would thus help the elites that possessedthemto preciosities theirpower. sions theylike.of In course.anyrate If thing.Shennanfollows in of CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY ."as Crumley describesit.thisin turnsuggests orderly of of regulation access to the land. when society was certainlymuch more than duringthe BronzeAge.
when social stratification arose.such as they are. Europe was. since it is uniformly source of amber and relatively a Harding. 2d (Renfrew 1972:211-17).Crumley.theissueis hardto resolve. priorexistence thatbronze production.. caprice" (Schneider 1977:23). In spiteof the fact the Because they are foundin graves with swordsand daggers. 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. the extentthat households To could do Arbon-Bleiche 42 35 16 4 2 .but.the are that centersof early metallurgy associated withareas of key question is how they captured surplus. 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. the tion.The other Europe was essentially autochthonous an processis based not two assemblages are foundryhoards consistingmainly of on dogma (as Kohl seems to think).one the mass of the populationto accept the what constrained wouldexpectthe entirewest coast of Jutlandto be an excepstatus. after a functionalist Only all.however.I of course mustbe a functionalist. composition the metal assemblages of the stratification. In the absence of prehistoric European studiesforalmosthalf a century. whereecologicalcondiIn ecologicalsettings." would of proportion the metal in land clearance) forany significant expectthisto be reflected of materially thepresence certifi.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. 1 * February 1981 19 . of component superordinate ascriptive tion. Age Europe. 12 . Cazzella may wishnot "to exclude that bronzesicklesare not much better does show. All the same.etc. the to Wallerstein's (1974) theory thedevelopment capitalism evidence Wells presentsdoes not persuade me that metal of of is applicableto prehistoric Europe. 10 (Kimmig1955) no responsedisagrees)that significant trade'in foodstuffs is Vol. 22 * No. otherinstances. exwithin BronzeAge Europedeserves examina. Arbon-Bleiche a settlement a fundamental changein humansocial systems "began witha are considerations sufficient taphonomic and. createda social context the storageof for subsistence systems impleAge (ReineckeA2/B1) in CentralEurope agricultural the wealthand stimulated florescence the technology.fails to fit Randsborg's one. Hicks seemto feelthatmyapproachis.as Wellsindicates.theseassemblages be considered by to relevant foodproduction.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.theycould do without exactions the the the of 1971) (Fischer 1 230 8 9 17 Bohl (Dehn1952) .Excludingcastingfragments counting an ancillaryrole in an autonomoussocial evolutiontowards as a wholeartifact. 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. unproductive agriculturally. agricultural in was important increasing the will Whenwe are ofthecapitalwhich preciosities represent.change-based detailedempirical theorymay well be viable.however.or or of representative the metal in use. 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). the entirely economic and social influences" the Orientand of efficiency (Coles 1979:117of thanflint onesinterms harvesting theAegean. argueotherwise To wouldamountto sayingthat site.. Aegean in the mid-3dmillennium El Argar.however. needles. thearea aroundtheLimfjord.not into what and This provesthatminers production. not implythat essential processes in stratification Denmark. of smallnumber sicklesand large to accountforthe relatively My opinion that the development the Bronze Age in of numberof awls. suppliers. I am not persuaded. issueis not clear-cut. I correlation...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. is he citesis givenin table 1. or secureproduction where neededto maintain of commodities or Whether notcoreand peripheral areas can be distinguished a core/periphery an tradingsystemcan be documented. fit my speculation shredsand patches. is of It debrisand foundry mentsof bronzeare foundin settlement to couldhave playedmorethan difficult acceptthatpreciosities each piece and hoards..and and Functionalism theroleof elites.. to able imports from putativecoreareas.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..Aunjetitz. subsistence important form it.If Shennan were right.theformer in of in the development social inequalities Europe is to argue core. Shennan'ssuggestion "decentering theobserver" by should whichGallayrecommends of about the causal importance amberforthe development of of in willdiffer separateareas. Schwartzobserves of dealingwiththe pristine development hereditary elites. This is the positionof Schwartzand Wells. was knownfor convenient theyconverted Metallurgy in smiths musteat. marginal.To theextent to thatI do notbelievesociety be a thingof The facts. in Wallerfirst or in tionsfavorspecialization subsistence requireimportation stein'sterms.If the theseshouldbe fairly and castingfragments brokenartifacts. As betterthan Shennan's. a rich and sheltered fishing ground. As usual in archaeology... 9 .but I fail to see how these as theywere technoenvironmentally wereas important artifacts can connections be both economically and sociallyimportant sociallyand ideologically.and Kohl may insiston principle thatan analogue but the 18). not that metal tools wereimportant agriover a millennium Europe before the intensification in of Wells indicatesthatat the startof the Middle Bronze culture.Evolutionarylogic suggeststhat we look to the Ackenbach subsistence sector suchcommodities.. and materially to invisible.All theseapproaches the assume. 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 Artifacts"). 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.but on evidence. that such findswere predictedby the theorydominantin as axes are usually interpreted weapons.. it is apparent(and for yet 22 . without goods.
C. ANDERSON. J. London: Butterworth. During the millennia subsisof whichprecededthe development capital-intensive tence.Anthropological 15:239-58. J.in his words.C. PETER HILL. [CAS] BIETTI SESTIERI. .are a my paper. Leadersfacethesameproblem whenstateinstitutions weak are or nonexistent. to ofan elite. Passages from antiquityto feudalism. and DERRICK WEBLEY.Estudio econ6mico social de la Edad Valencia: Diputaci6n Provincial. seem to findmy theoretical Many responses positionto be "polarized" (Adams) and "oversimple" (Sherratt). 1971.pp. Where systemsof productionrequire the capital investments. y APARICIO PEREZ. ANTHROPOLOGY and . LAWRENCE. BETTS. 1966. . Edited by M. of Aegean. emerged my concerning Mafiatheory comments Lewthwaite's amusing hit of historical processundeniably close to the mark. as Blok explains. H.Cowgill. whenthe techSomoza dynasties thanin thepast. "Las bases econ6micas del Neolitico al Bronce. Moore (1966:214) pointsout." in Marine archaeology.of course. BATTAGLIA. peninsularduranteel Bronce ARRIBAS. "Ships on Minoan seals. is no to important be a "good massa. of Proceedings thePrehistoric BARRETT.Once the leadership failed to gain themhereditary successful applicationof forcebecame possible. Lewthwaite. thedominant are groups theoneswiththemostto hideaboutthe truthful way societyworks. A. JACK MARTIN. This is As probably inevitable. to is minority) necessary thatsociety's(and itsparticia ruling of the is This." in Settlement problemsof prehistoric thethirdand secondmillenniaB. both patronand clientoperate withinthe When the state is of structure state institutions.furthermore.As the collapses of the Pahlevi and show.Chicago: UniverADAMS. primitivo.pp. This. seemlike exposures . ROBERT McC. . thefinal its an however. to services at least someofthepopulation. 1976. STEVENSON. 1968. 1978. overarching tie. Society44:141-49. Anderson(1974) As has shown.CURRENT ."inequalitydoes not breed alienation") depends upon the fact that. Blackman. 13th to 11th centuryB. ANTONIO. M.. .. American JournalofArchaeology Rome. JOSE. 1974.. there is a direct historicallink in Europe betweenfeudalismand the barbarian social system whicharose in the BronzeAge. del Broncevalenciano. in approachmaybe functionalist thebroadsenseofrecognizing but of the interdependence the social and the technological. "Second millenniumB. stratified regimeis contentto confidethe positionof the elite to the consentof the governed:forceis the ultimateguaranteeof power.no In through state structures existedto maintainthepowerof the emergent elite over theirfollowers. cannot avail counterto the state's prescriptions.Wheresystems production unintensive. 1961. any simplestraightforward about politicalinstitutions truth or events boundto havepolemical is consequence. objectivestatements.even in our own day. of presentto guaranteethe asymmetry the patron-client to the patroncan afford maintainan appearanceof unalloyed run and operations When the patron'sambitions munificence. 78:141-49. The metal industryof continental Italy.theysay. therefore. elite maintainsits powerthrough predictable to abilityto apply violenceeffectively all its subjects. Justas whenhis activities opposed by the are state.Earle. EMMANUEL.1976. La palafitta del Lago di Ledro nel Trentino. Land behind CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY . of on perspectives ancienttrade.New York: Knopf.. 1965. 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). The Mycenaean dam at Tiryns. 326-36. PERRY. 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. populationcannot escape important of the unwantedattentions its leaders. 283-87. Cuadernos de Prehistoria Granadina 1: 139-55. eliteswouldhave had to supply The their own enforcement. and J. 1974. he however. In any society . pp." in Estudios de economiaantigua de la peninsula iberica. 1973. the extentto whichelitesextend theirpowerand the ease withwhichtheymanage theirsubby jects are largely determined the judicious provisionof In analysis. BALCER. adding the threatof violenceagainst the now of mass of the populationto the promises assistance immobile statushereditary the theygave before. 1976. Tarradell. JOHN. Cited References sityof Chicago Press." the BronzeAge. as Wolf (1966) points out. El urbanismo Zephyrus10:81-128. I agreewithCazzella. and Sherrattthat (to repeat myself)"it is undeniablethat be rulingclasses may sometimes of serviceto theirsubjects. ANATI.C.My positionis that and moresecure to by certainefforts households achievehigher productionprovide leaders holdingtheir positionsby their the achievements leveragewithwhichto make theirpositions By permanent. Edited by D. Burgess and R. threat the of violenceis mostlyineffective: populationcan abandon its would-be master. precisely argument pants') existence. Causewayed camps and early Neolithic economies in central southern England.Veryoften. surfaceof clientage(in which. and must his of himself state powerto certify predominance 20 the asymmetry himself enforce betweenhimself and his supporters. The evolution urbansociety.theleadermusthimself supplythe violencenecessary to discipline dissident As followers. 1981. and its connectionswith the Society39:383-424.Chicago: Univerland use on thecentral [RMA] sity of Chicago Press. BARKER.however. Heartland of cities: Surveysof ancient settlement floodplainoftheEuphrates. 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. Camonica Valley. Chicago: Aldine. Memoriedel Museo di Storia Naturale della Venezia Tridentina 7:3-63.is necessary achievetheDarwiniangood of higherand more secure production." At thesame time. London: New Left Books. banks in the Black Moss of Ashnacree: Some in and economy land use. R. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports. and the furniture their burials of suggeststhey gloriedin that necessity. Edited by C. GRAEME.As Earle pointsout. Proceedings thePrehistoric - Baghdad.an elite mustuse both In orderto maintainhereditary the carrotand the stick.is the situationof the Mafia. it between with respectto the relationship is nonfunctionalist and stratification production. the leadership the functionalists-with-respect-to-stratification. all the servicesprovidedby egalitarianredistributors positions. analysesare boundto have a critical to rather than ring. 1973.stratification a within fewcenturies. Nortlhern Thames and Hudson. however. leaderscouldmaketheir My and reduce the amount of assistance to theirfollowers. 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. 1943. Miket. London: Italy before BARFIELD. Las bases actuales para el estudio del Eneolitico y la Edad del Bronce en el sudeste de la peninsula iberica. 1974. 33-60." power. 1959. Barcelona: Vicens-Vives. B. 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. Moore (1966:522) has said. beliefthatsocial systems integrated aspect of a society need not involvethe view that a particular by access to resources preferential hereditary (in thisinstance. Claessen.
1 * February 1981 21 . DIAKONOFF. economicsystemsin Formative Mesoamerica. The Mafia of a Sicilian village 1860-1960. New York: HARRIS. and J. COE. Museum of Anthropology. "Field systemsand land allotment Sussex. Edited by D. RevueArcheologique 2:341-48. 35-50. 213-32. 1974.pp.structuralism. Hawaiian chiefdoms. Whathappened history. 533-96.. EVANS.E.pp." proach. Leicester:LeicesterUniversity CAULFIELD. posium on sociological Press. BLOK. FRIEDMAN. 1956. K. C. 1978. D.pp. M. Journalof Arid Environments 261-74."in and Kegan Paul. Friedman and M. ANTON. JEAN-CLAUDE.1972]). London: Thames and Hudson. . 205-33. pp. editedby D. RICHARD J. Bronze Age dynamicsin southeast Spain. "The rise of the despotic state in ancient Hudson. Clarke [London: CLARK. and P. [PSW] Crowell. G. G. 1977.pp. Cohen. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6. Europe: Some archaeologicalevidence. Fowler. 1974. 1978. Schiffer. SEAMAS. P. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft Urftir BUTZER. "Anchors. 1976. pp. THOMAS F. 2. 1974. The Hague: Mouton. Early hydraulic civilizationin Egypt. 1969. Edited by I. 1971. [PLK] London: Methuen. 1975. Bowen in early fields. 132-45. GORDON. Earle and A. vulgarmaterialism." in Glockenbecher SymposionOberried1974. 1954. Archaeologyand anthropology. WOLFGANG. L.C. Denmark. J. und Friihgeschichte. Edited by J. HARDING. LEWIS R. nearAntiparos. 201-79. of FROST. [PLK] DENFORD." in Modelingsubsistence changein prelogical assessment anthropology archaeology. 137-43. E. and regionalcontextof Early Iron Age societyin southstructure CHAGNON. CLARKE. Copenhagen: National Museum of 1: Spain. Europe and theMediterranean. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. Press. Earle and J."in Exchangesyslemsin prehistory. The cultural evolution of civilizations. Earle and J. The Halelea district. A propos des modeles en archeologie V. "Neolithic fields:The Irish evidence. Edited by D. M. and Edited by M. M. A GOODY. 1968. Edited by H. L. D.d. D. C. Economyand locationofBronzeAge "arable" . RICHARD J. Kuikuru and its implicationsfor cultural developmentin the FLANNERY. The Bronze Age. 19-33. 1967. 1952. 459-76. New York: Academic theory. GEORGE L.. (Review of:Modelsin archaeology. DUGERDIL. New York: Harper and Row. 1978. The originsof the family. J. HENRI J.American suggestions Anthropologist EARLE.D. V. Gross.R." in Early land allotment Aris and Phillips. BR0NDSTED.DRAHOMIR KOUTECKY. Irrigation and society mediaevalValencia. P. 1971. Complex 68. "Political expansionas an expression the principle of FOWLER. F. Antiquity 41:289-301. J. Spriggs. Edited by GARDIN. Economic Oxford:Basil Blackwell.Edited by Henri J. SAXE. pology zeit von Buihl. 2. ROBERT L. lynchets. settlement Britain. in in Ancient Edited by V. 1972. Edited by L. K. "Expanding agricultural systems:ElaboraCRUMLEY. Fowler. in archaeological method and theory. and nature..Arhus: UniversitetsCOLES. pp. FREDERICK.and related15: western Bulletin the Germany. 1966. BINFORD. New York: Academic Press. Lanting and J. and COLIN RENFREW. Press.and M.. [CLC] DEHN.. R. 1970. J. STANTON.Ldkr. the Study of Human Issues. R.GUDEMAN. London: Duckworth. GLOB. GODELIER. 141-73.pp.H. and social organization a complex of chiefdom: . man.Memoirs theSociety American of for Archaeology 25:6-29. [SJS] . GREEN. Chicago: Aldine. [PSW] of Chicago: University Chicago Press.C. STEPHEN. DanmarksOldtid. Philadelphia: Institutefor in Neolithicand Early BronzeAge Europe. of Harmondsworth: London: Butterworth. Germania30:174-87. "A reappraisalof redistribution: K. Moscow: Nauka. M. "Slash-and-burncultivation among the Annual ReviewofEcologyand Systematics 3:399-426. N6rdlingen(Bayern). 1946. Bowen and P. Fontes Archeologici EVANS.. 1973." in P. Plough-marks. S. Warminster: in theBritishIsles. "Notes towardsan epiwestern 2:243-51. MORTON H.private BOUZEK. 1951. JAN. JOHANNES. York: MonthlyReview Press. "The logic of functional analysis. 1968. Rationality COLES. I. and property. C. ALAIN. On causes and consequencesof ancient and modernpopulationchanges. P. Rowlands.Vol." DREWETT. Claessen and in Exchangesystems prehistory. and A. 255-68.1958.solidarity. "The early state: A structuralapevolutionof culture:The state as predatorin successiontheory. 1979. CARL G. vol. 1978.TIMOTHY 1977. Edited HEMPEL. second and thirdmillennia B. social systems.. in Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1974. L. Reports. of of pp. 1978. Edited by H. ENGELS. in Edited by T. 56:155fromthe Old World. 1978. JOHN. M. I. The evolution political of society. F. n. L. 1979. GRAHAME. and MICHAEL D. M. Service. New York: MentorBooks. [MT] GILMAN.BulletinoftheInstitute Methuen. 3rd millennium B. 1959.pp. D. with the collaboration of CLAUDINE SAUVAINology. JACK. V. Christenson. "Burial practices: An area of mutual interRandom House. Reviewsin Anthroder 4:575-80. K. New York: Academic Press. Edited by Michael B. The invasion hypothesis Britisharchaein GALLAY. J. 1980." in AncientEurope and theMediterranean. 1976. SUSAN." in Archaeology and anthropology: Areas of mutual interest. W. 1970. The ancienteconomy. Blackman. 1971. FOWLER. Culture." in The earlystate. "The Beaker network:Social and economic DialecticalAnthropology 1:307-19. 1973. M. The Knoviz settlement north-west of Bohemia. Marxism. 1976. 1966. London: Academic forlaget. Cambridge: Cambridge University studyof thedomestic 77:505Anthropologist 25. CaliforniaPress. M. 1978. est. 1976. to 4th century A.the potsherds marinearchaeology:On 1957. Cambridge:Harvard University Fibula-van Dishoeck. of Institute Archaeology 73-112. J. R. Marine archaeology. "Social and Amazon Basin. "Trade in the off. Mali. 1975. "The ecological L." in New perspecEdited by Y. Kaua'i. Binfordand L. Archaeologytheoryand method: Some 67-80. 1966. ROWLANDS. FLANNERY." in Originsof the state. Berkeley: Universityof London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. [RJH] Mesopotamia. Genealogy. and M. Die frahbronzezeitliche Ansiedlungin der Gyldendal. ROWLANDS. pp. and ANTONIO GILMAN. of (JL) FRIED. Press. pp. Warminster: Arisand Phillips. Bulletin of theInstitute Archaeology in of 12:175-96. Yearbook PhysicalA nthropology 95-110. 1979. "Three locational models: An epistemotion of a least-costmodel. Edited by GLICK. C. models. Le SarnyereDogon. and EVZEN NEUSTUPNY. New York: CHAPMAN. tivesin archaeology.New York: Crowell. Hawaii." in Man in adaptation: The cultural present. FRIEDMAN. 267-83. Markotic. N. 1978. London: Routledge of the recording pierced stones foundin the Mediterranean. [AG] -in Sweden. FRANZ. 1958. Excavationsat Saliagos Pragenses 10. London: Thames and HARRISON. New in and irrationality economics. Mortuary practices: Their study and Vol. and Early land allotment theBritishIsles. BRADLEY. JournalofAnthropology [MT] geneticmodel of the evolutionof civilisation. 1977. Europe. System.pp. Oxford: British Archaeological FRANKENSTEIN. in -.New York: InternationalPublishers. . pp."in Economyand settlement Cohen and E. A theory the origin the state. structure." in Symby T. 1978. Man makeshimself. Binford.Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE potential. Ericson.American domain. The evidenceforprehistoric watercontrol Southeast "Asiatic" social formations. The prehistory European society. The rise of anthropological theory. KENT V. The dawn ofEuropean civilization. CLAESSEN. 1979. 90-104. J.pp. 153-82.Prehistory since Childe. Morgan in Africa. CARNEIRO.. Science 169:733-38. 1971. TheBeaker folk. New York: Academic Press. J. DiakonHARRISON. pp. Ein Brucherzfund Htigelgraberbronze. 1968. Chicago: Aldine. ANTONIO. Edited by S. Oxford:BritishArchaeological Man 9:444-69. Experimental archaeology. Edited by T. "The economiccontextof dolmensand passage graves Archeologie d'un isolat. 1972. A. J. contradiction theevolution and in of --. "Early prehistoricagriculturein western of competitiveexclusion. KARL W. 397-406. Copenhagen: FISCHER. Ard og plovi Nordens Oldtid. J."in Advances for and historic economies. 1975. CAROLE L. 1972 (1891).Antiquity 40:172-89. [CAS] Penguin."in The evolution of . [AG] ofArchaeology 13:1-21. NAPOLEON A. 1977. KENT V. 1967. 22 * No. pp. 1977. Peter Skalnik. 271-307. Paris. [HJMC] SouthCHILDE. 1954. CLARK. J. in J. of 19: ness. G. RICHARD J. GALL. The BronzeAge in Europe.pp. van der Waals. betweenthe Maghreb and Iberia. 173-203. settlements Dartmoor. [HJMC] Ericson.Edited by R. . 1979. The prehistoric of FINLEY. Afrique occidentale: -. Bleiche bei ArbonTG." in Ancient Mesopotamia. The internal Reports.PATRICIA and ARTHUR A. Bussum: Press. 1977. 1976. History domestic of mammals central in and eastern of University Michigan. Markotic. Past and Present12:2-15. Production and reproduction: comparative COWGILL. 1951.Anthropological Papers 63. T. J. Simpson. thestate. J. In press. BOK6NYI. D. HAWKES.
tionofculture pp. 1955. Mange striberpa Kuml. Service. London: Thames and Hudson. Salt: A studyin economic sertationes Archeologicae Gandenses6. (ASA Monographs1. 1200-1800 A. 1969. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle." economiquedans les societes traditionnelles in Terrainsettheories. de G. implements. Research and . The archaeological interpretation pre3:210-24. 1976.Antiquity 41: 276-88. SCHWARTZ. ductionin Europe in prehistoric Studia i Materialydo Dziejow zup Solnychw Polsce 5. 1972. Social origins democracy tatorship:Lord and peasant in the makingof the modernworld. [AS] Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity and anthropology: SPRIGGS.1200-1500 A. Bandkeramiker Archdologisches 1: [PSW] Korrespondenzblatt7-9. Capital. London: JonathanCape. of of --. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. du MEILLASSOUX. Modder. [AG] pp. BARRINGTON. n. F. de MAUNY. Paper presented at the annual CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY . MATTHEW. Was there a precapitalistworld system? [RMA] Peasant Studies6:20-29. in . Beacon Press. [AG] InstitutFondamentalde l'AfriqueNoire Memoire61. KRISTENSEN. 1978. 1980a. and K. 1971. [HJMC] MAUSS. 1968. "On the sociology of primitiveexchange. Revolution la scienceetpermanence reel. The originand development lowland 36:275-85. Social stratification Early Bronze Age Denmark: A Zeitstudy in the regulationof cultural systems. 1967. and G. pp. Edited by J.August. Colonialismand Megalithismus. New York: MILISAUSKAS. New York: social organization. WILLIAM H. Society35:12-47.London: . 1958. 1970. MadriderMitteilulngen HOPF.." in The Edited by M. of MEIGS.Arid Zone Research 28. 21-62. "Classical and moderntheories theorigins governEdited by R. 1973. 1964. H. Hortfund der friihen Bronzezeit von [PSW] Germania41:74-76. WOLFGANG. 1980. SEEBERG. RENFREW. AmericanSchools of Oriental organizationin prehistoric Suppl. [AS] . MARIA. 251-56. der PITTIONI. 22 in Bronze Age burials: A quantitativeapproach. Paper given the Near East." in Origine H. WILHELM. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY19: in the mid-third 463-92. [SJS] logical ReportsSupplementary . Poland. MARIA. Bussum: Fibula-van Dishoeck. Benjamin/Cummings. KARL. RENFREW. ELMAN R. social archaeology. GRITH. of Press. Patternsofprehistoric as RANDSBORG. "Precious metals and patternsof commerce in the late medievalworldeconomy.der in the Alpine foreland."Plough and pastorialism:Aspects of the secondaryin products revolution.Poland. Stanford University [TE] in B. 1978. 1955.societes. Sieveking. SHENNAN. R. [HJMC] noires:Histoire. Les civilisations Paris: Marabout Universite.PrzegladArcheologiczny new stratigraphic HiigelgraberKIMMIG. Cluster interactionand the European Early Bronze on at the ArhusConference Relations between Age. 1978. The sharecroppers the Sertdo. HOLGER. 1974. London: Duckworth. . Rozlhedy Oberried Symposion --. Mainz: L. systems. The influence extensive of the study of sociopoliticalorganizationand the interpretation 6:329-48. de l'elevageet de la domestication et Union Internationaledes Sciences Prehistoriques Protohistor[PSW] iques. F. "Essai d'interpretation phenomene d'auto-subsistance. WorldArchaeology historic metal-working. Limfjordsfiskeriet 1825: Sedvane og fOr NationalmuseetFolkelivsStudier2. Jahresschrift Mitteldeutsche 60:373-94. ZoologicalConference. British ArchaeoSeries26.Nice. "Bergbau-Kupfererx. CLAUDE. Antiquity 49:279-88. 1965. Durham: Duke Uni[RMA] Press. . RAYMOND. Edited by E. ofthePrehistoric [CAS] KEMPISTY. Editor. N. E. Coppermining SoutheastEurope. tradition l'archeologie. pp. aus Pflanzenreste Ostspanien. The emergence civilisation:The Cyclades and the B. GUNTHER. 24147.. Higgs. 1977. PHILIP L. In press. Disprehistory. Beforecivilisation:The radiocarbon Europe. 1978. LAMBERG-KARLOvSKY. Was 43:372-89.KLAVS. [RJHI of JOHNSON.JR. Madrider 8: Mitteilungen 79-99. SCHNEIDER. and dicof MOORE. 1976. for relevance models social anthropology. Vierteljahresschrift naturforschenden in Gesellschaft Zurich 113:41-92. [HJMC] Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Verhaltnisse den bei OTTO. at SHENNAN. 21-34. SABLOFF. Europy w JODLOWSKI.ALLEN. RICHARD. SCHREIBER. the Mediterranean. The social organization Branc. EVZEN. ISBELL. vol. "The appearance of the Bell Beaker assemblagein Central Europe. 7-14. 1965. Social stratification Polynesia. NEUSTUPNY. N. 139-236. 1979. 1970. 1967 (1887). London: Methuen. 1930.pp. C. 1978. JACQUES. Memmingen. 45-62. A.C.) London: Tavistock. PEVERIL. HOPF. 1973. central of RATHJE.Dissertationes 16:198-220." in Comparative in political Edited by Ronald Cohen and JohnMiddleton.The autonomy the South-eastEuropean CopperAge. Press. 1979." Problems economic I. SERVICE. Boston: Beacon Press. 1973a. Vol. 1977. de du SCHEURER." in Beakersin Britainand Europe: Four studies. 1979. Isaac. Rada SpolecenEvrope. 1963. Banton. 1970. 51-70. 1977. 1967. NENQUIN. American Ethnologist history. Richards and M.d.C." in Precious and earlymodern world. London: Duckworth.and Europe fromthe 3rd to the 1st millennium B. SUSAN.P. Primitive Random House." in Glockenbecher 1974. 1976. Nice. schrift RASMUSSEN. 1967. economy:The evolutionof social . MODDERMAN. J. populations.Ancient Menlo Park: civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica. und Wanderbauerntum. . Edited by G. Haitzen. Palaeoethnobotany. 1978. "Paradigm lost. Wilckens. Antiquity Huari a state? American in JARMAN. Ein bedeutender MATTHIAS. C. D. Early Dynastic burial offerings in the light of the textual evidence. J. Mercer. 1977. JANE. Madrider Mitteilungen 11:18-34. PETER. KRAHE. Archaeology BritishArchaeologicalReports. [PSW] Germanischen Asia KOHL. ment.C. 557-81. Editor. The gift." in Schumacher[PSW] pp. Paris: Anthropos. krydsog tvaers. der der Kupferbergwerke REINECKE. Academic Press. Uberlingen.ANDREW G. SCHtLE. MARSHALL D. American Antiquity Classic Maya civilization. Hoops. Lanting and J. Vorgeschichtliche 12:102-14. 1. Zentralmuseums 2:55-75. 1976. 1971.pp. techniques. "Die Bedeutung Ostalpen fur die Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas. 1979. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle. Hammond.Stanford: Press. "Early crop agriculture Europe. Edited by N. Die Salzproduktion: an der Bevolkerung Faktor in derWirtschaft friuhbronzezeitlichen der mittleren Vorgeschichte fur Saale. StoneAge economics. Renfrew. Ethnographischand der Kultur Mitt Stamme Leubinger Archaologische Forschungen 3(1). 1967. 1966. London: Cohen and West. New York: International Publishers. 1966. Gandenses Archeologicae London: Methuen.C. in SAHLINS. The balance of trade in southwestern millenniumB. COLIN.D. The explanation cultural [MT] Duckworth. 1961. K pocatkum patriarchatu ve stfedni Akademie Ved. Technikaprodukcjisoli na terenie of gredniowieczu technique salt pro(The i pradziejach we wczesnym timesand the earlyMiddle Ages). 116-44. Wilson. Geography coastal deserts. Paper presentedat the IX International Congress of Prehistoricand [CAS] Protohistoric Sciences. JAZDZEWSKI. MARX. Neolithische in Getreidefunde der Hohle von Nerja. 1976. JANE M. 1980b.Archeologicke 21:43-68. and in in essay in early European metallurgy. and seasonality. Beyond a subsistence Europe. WALDEMAR. RozpravyCeskoslovensk6 skychVed 77 (2). territories. The Corded Ware culturein the lightof 26:5-41. N. Water. prehistoric of change.Edited by R. A Solomon Island society. PIOTR. "Resources. Philadelphia:Instituteforthe Study of Human Issues. WILLIAM L. CLAUDE. France. 1973b. 1971.D. (Proceedings of IX Congres. September13-18." in Patterns thepast: David ClarkeMemorial Volume. Die sozial-okonomische economicexploitation HIGHAM. Edited by J. Ein Hortfundder frtihen des Jahrbuch Romischbronzezeit von AckenbachKr. Mazzaoui. Tableau geographique l'Ouestafricainau et la Moyen Age d'apres les sourcesecrites. Szezecin. Festschrift..Praehistorische 49:38-61. versity of ROWLANDS. 1962. JOVANOVIC. 1968. R. 20). of Proceedings thePrehistoric of ." in The explanaEdited by C. 1980. C. European prehistory. 565-70. and KATHARINA J.pp. Paper presented --. 20:69-85.C. Oxford: [MT] STEINKELLER." in Reallexikon germanischen Altertumskunde. of . evidence. de [AG] Paris: Presses Universitaires France (Croisees). aspects LEVI-STRAUSS. Megaliths. change:Modelsin prehistory. Economy of the Corded Ware cultures. 1971. Feldbewasserung in Alt-Europa. PAUL. I. LERCHE. in metals thelate medieval Edited by J.1974. on of agriculture LANCASTER. RICHARDS. Areasofmutual interest. 1976. 1967. M. 1967. and MANUEL PELLICER CATALAN. PAUL. A. ANDRZEJ. soil. "Wealth and social structure reflected in eldeutschl . Seattle: University Washington -. and trade: An SHERRATT. and H. 1971. 107-15. of state. Longworth. dirigering. pp. MAQUET. 1976. SARUNAS. 1968. [AG] arts. JACQUES. 1972. MARCEL. and JEREMY A. Boston: OLIVER.KONRAD. 1976. van der Waals.technology.. edition. 1969. The radiocarbon-dated Danish ploughing Tools and Tillage 1:56-58. Ldkr. 1975. STEPHEN J. KARL-HEINZ.CHET S. 2d [PSW] pp. at theThirdInternational [CAS] April23-28. Garden City: Natural HistoryPress. Proceedings Society45:103-10. of pp."in Origins the pp. "The social and psychological of chieftainship a primitivetribe. Cohenand E. WorldArchaeology 11:313-30. JOHN F. millennium Aegeanin thethird and revolution . DOUGLAS L.
remains. $45. V. CHURCHILL. 7-15." Theorigins Maya civilization. UCKO. with a reviewof the originsof the Society sewnboats of the BronzeAge. Studien zur Ur. BAYWOODPUBLISHING INC. 1977.pp. DAVID L. of of Edited by F. Arbejdsmark. HARRY. KARLA. Edited by H."in The social anthropology comin plex societies. Rapp.und Frzihgeschichte 131-53.adCnd societies along withthe more traditional academic museum research activities. A. A WERTIME. and D. [RMA] April. 1977. "Domesticationand pyrotechnology: of of the technologyfor the transformation nature. 120 Marine Street/P. 1965. 1969. WITTFOGEL. The modern in tureand theoriginsof theEuropean world-economy thesixteenth [PLK] New York: Academic Press. Proceedings thePrehistoric of 31: 1-24.PETER J. pp.. Population. Versuch einer soziologischGliederung der alterbronzezeitlichen Grabausstaltungen(Periode I bis III) 30: in Norden der DDR. W. 1975.pp. NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGIST C 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. WtUSTEMANN. Markotic. Edited by P. 1961. Opevnend [SJS] slava: SlovenskaAkademiaVied.Edited by Michael Banton. 1975. 1974. R.L'irrigation nappes pluvialesdans le sud2(2):19-32.Science 187:319-27. The boats from Ferriby. Fra Nationalmuseets pp. of tionships complexsocieties.. Ameriexchange.1978. 1972.d. BritishArchaeological ved Jyderup Skov HENRIK. par J.HERMANJ. "Late Hallstatt interactions WEBSTER. Edited by R. with the MediWELLS. 189-96. Albuquerque:University New Mexico Press. Warminster: Phillips.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. J. 1-22. "Kinship. NY 11735 Prices subject to change without notice. "Warfare and the evolution of Maya Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE terranean:One suggestion. Calif. YOFFEE. 1964.J Vol. and patron-client relaWOLF.and early state formation southwestern can Anthropologist 77:267-89. Austin:University Texas Press." in The prehistory the Tehuacdn Valley. friendship. Brativo osada z dobybronzovej Veselom. London: Tavistock. SoftCover $6.PETER S. "The agriculturaleconomy. COMPANY.pp. NORMAN. and PINHAS SPIEGEL-RoY. Visa Master Charge Credit Cards accepted."in AncientEurope and the MediterArisand ranean. century. in in fields Cornwalland Scilly." in Early on to Contributions a symposium origins and agriculture metallurgy: in East and WestAsia.WorldArchaeology tionof funerary VAN WERSCH. 59-80. It to a privateaddress willincorporate the resultsof Cultural Resource by Subscription volume onlyAdd $3. C. Box D Farmingdale. The beginnings metallurgy: new look.meetingof the AmericanOriental Society. Jr. pp. n. of Adams. TOCIK. Oxford: Reports. MAURIZIO. En broncealdersboplads THRANE.Mediterranee Capitalistagriculworld-system: I. 177-87. DANIEL. JOHNSON.In press. Ethnographyand archaeologicalinterpreta1:262-80. est espagnol. VILAVALENTi.00 state and regional Management and workwithin otg usd h . Johnson. ERIC R. WRIGHT.. "Types and distributions pre-Norman THOMAS. in Iran.. England. 1972. 1971. 1966. 1979. of and G.. W.The declineand riseofMesopotamiancivilization: An ethnoarchaeological perspective on the evolution of 44:5-35.pp. vol. i Odsherred. Fowler. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press. 1977.00 (Paid by personal check and mailed archaeology withinan evolutionaryperspective. in A new journal from the publishers of Abstracts in Anthropology The only general journal dedicated solely to North America.00 surveysall aspects of prehistoricand historical Personal Subscription: $28. HENRY T. Beginningsof fruit-growing the Old World. Payment must be made In U S Dollars drawn on a U S Bank. 141-69. T. 4.O. of [PLK] Science 182:875-87. of in civilization. 1973. Bowen and P. withtotal coverage of archaeological Volume 2 Institutional Subscription: activityin the USA. 22 *No. Mortensenand P. North WRIGHT. [MT] Arhus. Canada.Edited by V. of CHARLES.Yorkshire. social complexity. A. M. Sorensen. I * February 1981 23 ."in Early land allotment theBritish Isles. Aspects TOSI. and GREGORY A. American Antiquity ZOHARY." in Edited by W. E. E. MacDonald The MinnesotaMessenia expedition. "The hydraulicapproach to pre-Spanish Mesoamerica. 335-72. WALLERSTEIN. and northern Mexico.San Francisco..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.