ChapterPDF Available


This volume on the emergence of inequality brings a renewed perspective, through varied lenses, at questions surrounding the origins of modern human social organization. In 1995 we edited a volume entitled Foundations of Social Inequality, concerned with many of these same issues. Here we return to this fascinating subject, to unanswered questions, new ideas, and new directions of study and explanation.
Chapter 1
Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human
Social Organization
T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman
This volume on the emergence of inequality brings a renewed perspective, through
varied lenses, at questions surrounding the origins of modern human social orga-
nization. In 1995 we edited a volume entitled Foundations of Social Inequality,
concerned with many of these same issues. Here we return to this fascinating
subject, to unanswered questions, new ideas, and new directions of study and
Archaeology provides a unique perspective on this question because of the time
depth available. Many aspects of our human condition evolved in the deep past and
cannot be fully understood without the long vantage point of history and prehistory.
This is certainly true for the fundamental principles of human organization—
the structure and function of the operation of society—which have been present
for thousands of years. The study of inequality is essentially a concern with the
evolution of human society and in fact is a predominant issue in recent considera-
tions of social evolution (e.g., Ames 2007, Earle and Johnson 2000, Marcus 2008,
Pluciennik 2005, Rousseau 2006, Shennan 2008, Trigger 2003).
This chapter is intended to outline some of the major questions concerning
inequality and to introduce the contents of this volume. We will do this first by
considering a definition of social inequality and some of the evidence that has been
used to identify this condition in the past. A subsequent section pursues key ques-
tions. Why are we still talking about these issues? Why does the emergence of social
inequality matter, and what don’t we know? There are three major issues in the
archaeological study of inequality that relate to the questions of when, why, and
how. When did inequality originate? Why did inequality emerge in human society?
How did/does it operate? Are there different manifestations of inequality that struc-
ture human society? These questions are considered in our discussion and in the
chapters that follow.
T.D . Pr ic e (B)
Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
T.D. Price, G.M. Feinman (eds.), Pathways to Power, Fundamental
Issues in Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6300-0_1,
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
2 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
A Definition of Social Inequality
There are few larger questions in the prehistory of our species than the emergence of
social inequality. Social inequality, the organizing principle of hierarchical structure
in human society, is manifested in unequal access to goods, information, decision
making, and power. Status is the determinant of social position, and status differ-
entiation is the foundation of inequality. A variety of human conditions are used in
ordering social hierarchies and in determining status and access. These include age,
gender, birth order, class, race, and a number of others. Social inequality is a charac-
teristic of virtually every society on earth today and its history goes back thousands
of years.
This structure of unequal relations, of status differentiation, is essential to higher
orders of social organization and is basic to the operation of more complex societies.
So, questions about inequality are intricately bound up with questions concerning
human cooperation, leadership, and social differentiation both vertical (hierarchical)
and horizontal. An understanding of the transformation from relatively egalitar-
ian societies to more hierarchical organization is fundamental to our knowledge
about the contemporary world. This volume is intended to examine some of the
mechanisms, forces, and motivations involved in the shift in human societies
from egalitarian to hierarchical and the relationship between these changes and
Why Are We Still Talking About Social Inequality?
A fair question might be raised at this point—why are we still talking about the
emergence of social inequality? The simple answer is that we still don’t know very
much. The origin of inequality remains essential because there is no scholarly con-
sensus. The jury is still out. Archaeologists working in vastly different time periods
seem to suggest that inequality appears de novo in their particular part of time and
space. Individuals working in the Iron Age or with state-level societies often write
as though inequality was something new and previously unknown. Different forms
of inequality may appear in social and political arrangements, but it is our distinct
impression that status differentiation and inequality have been around for a very
long time.
We do know that social inequality has been the dominant structuring principle
in most human societies over the last 5,000 years or more. At the same time, we
still do not know precisely when or why this principle became dominant, or how it
operated in the past. How was inequality expressed in the past? Were there different
trajectories to hierarchy?
At some point in the deep human past, the biological imperative for dom-
inance behavior, common in our closest animal relatives, was dampened by a
cultural mechanism. This mechanism, known as egalitarianism, reflects the impor-
tance of cooperative behavior in the emergence of culture, in learning and sharing
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 3
knowledge, and in survival (e.g., Boehm 1993,2000, Knauft 1991, Wiessner
2002). Human society operates within this didactic tension between dominance and
equality, between hierarchical and egalitarian, between modes of behavior that
feature or privilege the group to those that accent individuals.
A number of authors have written about the evolutionary value of cooperative
behavior (e.g., Bowles 2006, Fehr and Fischbacher 2004, Henrich 2003, Maschner
and Patton 1996,Nowak2006, Smith and Choi 2007), in the face of the competition
that is natural selection. Bowles, for example, argues that lethal conflicts between
early human groups may have selected for more altruistic units. He suggests that
practices such as food sharing beyond the family, monogamy, and other forms of
reproductive leveling were crucial to this process and presume advanced cognitive
and linguistic skills associated with fully modern humans.
The roots of cooperation and egalitarian behavior are probably linked to the evo-
lution of groups and social cognition in the human species. Tomasello et al. (2005,
see also Dunbar 1993) have proposed that the crucial difference between human
cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in col-
laborative activities with shared goals and intentions: a shared intentionality. The
remarkable human capacity for cooperation thus seems to have evolved mainly for
interactions within the group. It is because they are adapted for such collabora-
tive activities that human beings are able to do so many exceptionally complex and
impressive things (e.g., Tomasello 1999).
We suggest that a small degree of inequality in some form or another has always
been present in human society, albeit largely suppressed among various groups of
hunter-gatherers. At some point in time, perhaps with the rise of Homo sapiens
sapiens, human relations must have been transformed by the rise of cooperation and
egalitarian behaviors that were selected for learning and alliance building. We would
argue that inequality and dominance behavior re-emerge in early farming societies
(or perhaps earlier, see, e.g., Coupland et al. 2009, Hayden 2001) as human numbers
increase and larger group size becomes common. Various causes for an increase in
human numbers and group size with the advent of agriculture have been proposed
(e.g., Armelagos et al. 1991, Cohen 1977, Sellen and Mace 1997, Spielmann 1989).
Becker et al. (1990), for example, document a fascinating relationship between food
costs and fertility in historical Europe. Group size apparently increased dramatically
in the Neolithic, but again specific causality is not well understood (e.g., Adams and
Kasakoff 1975, Bandy 2008, Bentley et al. 1993, Johnson 1982, Sussman 1972).
Whatever the reason, there seems little doubt that human numbers increase dramat-
ically during the Holocene, and specifically with the onset of the Neolithic (e.g.,
Boquet-Appel and Bar-Yosef 2008, Chesnais 1986).
The advent of larger group sizes and greater densities of interpersonal interac-
tions likely was intertwined with new social arrangements. Boyd and Richerson
(1988; Richerson et al. 2003) have demonstrated from game theory and com-
puter simulation that reciprocal cooperation becomes more difficult as group size
increases. In a very real sense, human society over the last 100,000 years or
more may have been characterized by a fundamental tension between relations
based on dominance, hierarchy, and kin altruism (part of our primate heritage)
4 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
and new capacities for social cognition, cultural learning, alliance building, and
cooperation, whether the latter behaviors were learned or part of recently acquired
innate tendencies (Boehm 2000, Stone 2008: 79, Tomasello et al. 2005).
A major question we consider in this volume involves the different pathways
or trajectories that the development of social inequality follows. We suggest that
the tension between cooperation and dominance in human behavior is reflected in
different paths of leadership and in the organization of inequality over time and
space. Certainly there is a great deal of variation in inequality represented among
the societies, both ancient and modern, encountered in the pages of this book. Some
of that inequality is a matter of degree, but other differences relate to the nature
or the specific ways in which inequality can be articulated. Blanton, Feinman, and
others (Blanton et al. 1996, Feinman 1995,2000,2005) have described these latter
trajectories as ranging between corporate and network (or exclusionary) modes of
interconnection between leaders and followers. At one end of a range, leadership
and inequality emphasize the group and the special roles within that group, while at
the other end of the spectrum leadership is more directly linked to the amassing of
wealth, and those individuals who hold power stand out ostentatiously from the rest
of the population (e.g. Bender 1978,1989, Hayden 1990,2001).
The definition of this range of variation was influenced by Renfrew (1974), who
contrasted group-oriented and individualizing chiefdoms, as well as by Lehman
(1969), who contrasted different ways that power may be wielded. In more collec-
tive, corporately organized groups, leaders tend not to monopolize wealth in their
own hands, but they do use their offices or special access to societal beliefs and ritu-
als to wield their power and influence. For example, larger Puebloan societies in the
past, as well as in more recent times, may have been organized in this way (Feinman
2000, Feinman et al. 2000, Mills 2000).
In contrast, the chiefdoms of prehispanic Panama generally were character-
ized by more individualizing chiefs, who derived considerable resources through
exchange and warfare. Prestige goods, such as decorated metal objects, were both
distributed to followers to encourage allegiance and worn and held by chiefs to dis-
play their own power, which often was passed down through lineal descent to their
immediate kin (Fowler 1992,Helms1976,1979, Linares 1977). Clearly, both of
these regions were internally heterogeneous, characterized by spatial and temporal
diversity, but in an overarching sense, the bases of power were markedly different
in accord with the contrast outlined above (see also Earle 1997).
The Chapters in This Volume
The following paragraphs provide an overview of the chapters in this volume in
order of appearance. Our goal is to provide a brief summary to introduce the authors
and their essays. We believe strongly that the chapters collected here provide an
extraordinary statement on the study of inequality in human society and a starting
point for breakthrough research in the future.
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 5
Ken Ames
Ken Ames (PhD, Washington State 1976, Professor, Portland State University)
begins this series of contributed papers with an outstanding essay on the nature of
and the relationship between dominance and cooperative behaviors in human soci-
ety. Ken’s deep background in hunter-gatherer studies brings important insight to
the subject. He reminds us of the fact that both of these behaviors are present in all
human societies. Ken argues that dominance behavior, rather than equality, is likely
the norm in human society. We need to describe and document the nature of egalitar-
ian societies, rather than prove the existence of inequality among hunter-gatherers
and early farming societies in the archaeological record.
There are many cases of discordance between expectations for egalitarian behav-
ior and visible evidence for hierarchy in the archaeological record: small-scale
societies that exhibit some degree of inequality, but lack many of the other traits
associated with complexity. Ames provides examples from several prehistoric
North American cultures. Recognizing this variability in the archaeological record,
Ames examines the foundations of our concepts regarding inequality. He visits
a series of issues including the human propensity for inequality based on our
primate heritage, conceptions of egalitarianism—including its origins and persis-
tence, explanations for the long-term existence for prestige seeking, the evolution of
prestige technologies, and the evolution of egalitarianism.
Important concepts in this consideration are external and internal constraints on
cultural variation (Trigger 1991), dominance and prestige (Henrich and Gil-White
2002), and attention structures and costly signaling. The idea of attention structures
and rank orders comes from ethological research with primates and pre-school age
children. The frequency of being at the center of attention may be the best measure
of status (Hold-Cavell 1996: 20). Attention structure also may complement costly
signaling and conspicuous consumption, at least in terms of status dynamics. Costly
signaling has been used to explain the seemingly irrational displays associated with
high status (Bliege Bird and Smith 2005, Smith and Bliege Bird 2005). In terms of
attention structure, costly signaling is what one does to attract and sustain attention.
Ames’ discussion leads to a conclusion that human inequality and egalitarianism
may be aspects of the illusive quality of “modernity.”
Dick Drennan, Christian Peterson, and Jake Fox
This chapter also considers the variation in manifestations of hierarchy present
among archaeological cultures. The chapter is a thoughtful and deliberate con-
sideration of the degrees and kinds of inequality from the minds of Robert D.
(Dick) Drennan (PhD, University of Michigan, 1976, Professor, University of
Pittsburgh), Christian Peterson (PhD, 2006, University of Pittsburgh, Assistant
Professor, University of Hawai’i at Manoa), and Jake R. Fox (PhD, University of
Pittsburgh, 2007, Assistant Professor, Radford University).
6 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
This chapter sets the tone for the volume, emphasizing the evidence for multiple
pathways to power, using examples from a variety of prehistoric contexts. These
authors take an objective approach to distinguishing levels of inequality, quantifying
major variables like burial contents and construction, household differences in size
and wealth, and amount of public architecture. Their aim is to develop methodology
for comparing both kind and degree of hierarchy among early complex societies. In
this chapter the focus is largely on chiefdoms, but the methods they are using can
be applied across a broad range of human societies. Emphasis is on the empirical
archaeological evidence. They point out that inequality may not be expressed in all
categories of archaeological evidence and that it is thus essential to consider a range
of information in such studies. They note for example that an archaeological culture
may have a very homogeneous set of burials, but nonetheless possess hierarchical
social organization that might be manifest in household wealth.
The authors use statistical analysis—multidimensional scaling—of data on vari-
ation in burial, household assemblages, and public construction to examine the
organization of status, wealth, and economic and ritual specialization. These analy-
ses tend to reveal differences in status versus wealth revealed in patterns of corporate
versus individual structures for hierarchical organization. The results of their study
point to several conclusions. There is substantial variability in how inequality is
expressed among archaeological cultures. This variation is measurable and quantifi-
able and expressed in different kinds of archaeological evidence. Drennan, Peterson,
and Fox argue that more quantitative investigations of hierarchical societies are
needed to begin to better understand and explain this variation.
Mark Aldenderfer
Mark Aldenderfer (PhD, Penn State University, 1977, Professor, University of
Arizona) in Chapter 4 examines the role of ritual and religion in creating and main-
taining inequality, a reminder that there are many facets to this topic. Mark argues
in his chapter that religion needs to be considered among the causal factors that led
to the emergence and establishment of persistent inequality in the past. Religion is
a vague and abstract concept in archaeology, so he focuses not on definition, but
action—on what religion does.
He points out that actors of all kinds—aggrandizers, their followers, and their
opponents—live in a context that is in part created and directed by religious practice
and belief. Aldenderfer argues that religion is part of practice, of the habitus,in
the social and economic world and cannot be understood outside of other aspects
of human behavior. More specifically, in terms of the debate here, he argues that
religion provides the sanctions for the emergence of persistent social inequality or
creates resistance to it (Aldenderfer 1993,2005: 30). The changes in human social
behavior that we seek to understand likely involve important beliefs and practices
that were key elements in the lives of the actors. In sum, Aldenderfer argues that we
need to look for the material manifestations of religion in the archaeological record
of societies experiencing the emergence of persistent social inequality.
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 7
Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve
The next contribution moves in a different direction, as Brian Hayden (PhD,
University of Toronto, 1975, Professor, Simon Fraser University) and Suzanne
Villeneuve (MA, University of Victoria, 2008) ask a very pragmatic question: who
benefits from status differentiation? Their study of this question focused on the
chiefdoms on Futuna, some 500 km northeast of Fiji. Futuna is a relatively small
volcanic island, only 20 ×5 km. Today, 5,000 people live on the island, politi-
cally divided into two competing chiefdoms in a total of 14 villages. They examine
the question of who benefits from the perspective of political ecology—the way in
which resources (and in particular surplus resources) are used by certain members
of pre-industrial communities to acquire practical, political, and economic benefits.
It is important to note that pigs represent the consummate wealth item on Futuna,
used for feasts, while bark cloth and mats were highly valued wealth items produced
by women. Pigs represent a household’s major investment of surplus food and labor.
The main points in this study by Hayden and Villeneuve are that feasting
played a critical role in creating political complexity, that creating political hier-
archies requires considerable supplemental resources beyond subsistence needs
(Rambo 1991)—especially for the feasts and prestige goods required to make these
systems function—and that the possibility of controlling some portion of commu-
nity surpluses provided great potential for self-aggrandizement and the acquisition
of power which consequently motivated ambitious individuals to create complex
sociopolitical structures.
Hayden and Villeneuve argue that claims that chiefs served their communities to
their own material detriment are untenable and inaccurate. Nor do traditional chiefs
appear to take up their positions primarily out of a sense of duty. On the basis of
their Futunan research, it seems clear that chiefly families were the main benefi-
ciaries of the chiefdom political organization. Just as in transegalitarian societies,
aggrandizers are the motivating force behind a number of social, political, and ideo-
logical changes. They use a range of strategies to achieve self-interested goals; they
pander to common interests when necessary, they use economic leverage or coer-
cion when they can, and they promote new ideological concepts as justifications
for their endeavors or as a means of obtaining compliance. The ultimate motivation
for developing and maintaining status inequality is the benefit conferred on those in
T. Douglas Price and Ofer Bar-Yosef
The volume then moves to a series of case studies from the Old World, arranged
in chronological order from the Neolithic, to the Bronze, and ultimately the
Iron Age. Price (PhD, University of Michigan 1975, Professor, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, University of Aberdeen) and Ofer Bar-Yosef (PhD, Hebrew
University, 1970, Professor, Harvard University) raise again the question of the
8 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
origins of inequality, arguing that agriculture and status differentiation appear
almost simultaneously. Focus is on Southwest Asia and the changes from the
Natufian to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Their discussion involves a review of archae-
ological evidence from the time of the transition to agriculture in the ancient
Near East. The context for this review is the emergence of social inequality and
whether this phenomenon is associated with the beginnings of farming. The shift
from hunting to farming takes place in the Levant and southern Anatolia between
approximately 14,500 and 8,200 cal BP.
Their discussion begins with a consideration of social inequality and some of
the arguments for the timing and nature of the shift from egalitarian to hierarchical
society. Evidence from the Natufian and Neolithic periods is considered in detail
as it relates to questions about status differentiation in human society. Attention
is focused on burial practices and body decoration, household architecture and
contents, exotic artifacts, monumental construction, and variation in site size and
function. Price and Bar-Yosef suggest that indications of the emergence of inequal-
ity during the transition to agriculture are indeed present and can be used to argue
for a strong association between social relations and subsistence behavior, two of
the bigger changes that have taken place in the evolution of human society.
Kristian Kristiansen
Kristian Kristiansen (PhD, University of Aarhus, 1975, Professor, University of
Gothenburg) examines the Bronze Age of northern Europe and another context of
inequality. In this case, Kristiansen writes about the decentralized complexity that
characterizes chiefdoms of the Bronze Age, distinct from more clear-cut, stratified
cultures in the eastern Mediterranean at this time. More specifically, he writes about
change over time in these societies that lasted from 1750 to 500 BC.
The arrival of the northern Bronze Age is characterized by the introduction and
use of simple bronze tools, especially axes. At the same time huge longhouses for
large (chiefly) households begin to appear. New tools, weapons, and ornaments
made of bronze appear, together with a warrior elite. After 1500 BC, a distinctive
Nordic Bronze Age culture appears, characterized by the construction of thousands
of large barrows, a new material culture, and new more elaborate house architecture.
Thousands of burial barrows marked long lines of communication and interaction
across the landscape of southern Scandinavia. Barrows belonged only to members of
chiefly clans, perhaps 15–20% of the population. These groups were highly diversi-
fied in terms of power and prestige, with the lowest ranks being close to commoners,
as demonstrated by variation in burial wealth and the huge differences in farm sizes.
Kristiansen focuses on the analysis of political economy to understand how
complex power structures operated in societies defined by the Germanic mode of
production (Gilman 1995), wealth finance (Earle 1997), or a prestige goods system
(Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, Kristiansen 1998). While the institution of ritual
chiefs represented the highest level of chiefly power, only enjoyed by a relatively
small group among the upper chiefly clans, access to the warrior groups was more
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 9
open, and membership could probably be recruited from a larger segment of the
chiefly clans. Kristiansen argues that the pastoral economy of Early Bronze Age
Denmark was used as mobile wealth, linking production of cattle to the production
and distribution of prestige goods and control over people. He follows Bourdieu’s
(1977) argument to explain how gift obligations among elite are transformed over
time into tribute and slavery. For more than 1,000 years a relatively stable, complex,
hierarchical, and decentralized society existed in southern Scandinavia without large
settlements, concentrated population, or public works. Thus the Danish chiefdoms
relied heavily on networked strategies, using systems of wealth finance to structure
political hierarchies.
Tina Thurston
Tina Thurston (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996, Associate Professor,
SUNY—Buffalo) takes a detailed look at the Iron Age and what power and king-
ship meant in that time of transition to state-level societies, again in the context of
northern Europe, and particularly southern Scandinavia. Her title—“bitter arrows
and generous gifts”—in many ways captures the nature of hierarchical society dur-
ing the period between 500 BC and about AD 1075, including the Viking period
during the last 250 years or so.
This contribution begins with a detailed look at the meaning of power and its
use in archaeology. Thurston then considers various ways that power is expressed
among hierarchical human groups. Thurston points to two ends of a range among
such societies that reflect the network and corporate approaches we have discussed
above. Visual differentiation characterizes network structures in terms of architec-
ture, burial, and personal ornament. Chiefs and rulers rarely redistributed anything
unless they are forced to do so by the power of their constituencies (e.g. Fisher
2000). On the other hand, there are the enigmatic examples like the Anasazi,
Harappans, and Teotihuacanos that appear politically complex but show little evi-
dence for typical indicators such as aggrandizement of individual rulers, centralized
institutions, and markedly stratified social classes. Iron Age societies in south-
ern Scandinavia follow a pattern similar to what is described for the Bronze Age
(Kristiansen, this volume, Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). Her concern in this essay
is that many Iron Age archaeologists have failed to recognize this range of vari-
ation and that the complexity of the Iron Age is often underestimated because
of such oversight. She quotes Feinman et al. (2000: 450), who observed archae-
ologists “failed to recognize the potential for hierarchy and equality to coexist
simultaneously in all human societies.”
In this context, Tina’s primary question becomes more than intriguing—what
was a king in the Iron Age north of the Alps? Her focus is on political organization,
its development, and the nature of political power. In the arena of the north, power
was constituted as a shared responsibility or privilege. Thurston argues for a view
of the northern European Iron Age as one in which decentralized power within a
stratified society is manifest in heterarchic organization and political power is
10 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
balanced between the warlord, and the assembly (or ting), and religious special-
ists who retain substantial power in their own realm. Kings they may be, but power
is shared and negotiated.
Gary Feinman
Gary Feinman’s (PhD, CUNY, 1980, Curator, Field Museum) contribution provides
a conclusion to this volume, as well as a very different perspective—bringing ideas
and concepts from the study of the past to bear on contemporary society. Feinman
(1995,2001, Blanton et al. 1996) has been at the fore of developing dual-processual
theory, postulating exclusionary (or network) versus corporate strategies in hierar-
chical society. In the exclusionary mode, political actors endeavor to consolidate and
monopolize sources of power. In the corporate mode, power is shared and divested
in different groups or social segments.
A number of questions and counterarguments have been raised about this theory.
In his essay here, Gary addresses those concerns though the use of the “metaphor”
of modern American political economy. Metaphor is, of course, the wrong word
because the modern American political economy is different only in scale in terms
of many of the principles that also operated in ancient chiefdoms and states. Gary
finds remarkable resonance between the implications of dual processual theory and
the operation of American government. At the outset it is important to note as
well that the corporate/exclusionary continuum in the way power was supported
and implemented is, in a sense, orthogonal to the vertical dimension of hierarchi-
cal complexity (Feinman et al. 2000: 454). That is to say, both forces of this theory,
corporate and network/exclusionary, operate in the same social and political context.
One of the advantages of considering modern history is the wealth of informa-
tion, quantitative data, and tight chronological control. Using this rich historical
database, Gary examines five key aspects of the corporate/network continuum: (1)
the balance of power or shifts in the ways that political power is divided or shared,
(2) the associated strategies of legitimation, (3) the relative importance of personal
networks, (4) the broader economic underpinnings of power, and (5) shifts in the
distribution of wealth and economic manifestations of inequality. The discussion of
these dimensions is followed by a consideration of some of the factors, strategies,
and global conditions that are thought to have fostered observed shifts. In conclu-
sion, Feinman returns to implications for the study of change and inequality in the
deeper archaeological past.
Pathways to Power
Selecting a title for a book is not an easy task. Pathways to Power is taken from the
paper by Brian Hayden that appeared in the volume Foundations of Social Inequality
in 1995. The title was chosen to indicate continuity with our earlier efforts. At the
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 11
same time the subtitle—New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality—
emphasizes that many new ideas have emerged in the last 15 years and that our
understanding of the emergence of inequality has grown in that period.
The title also was selected to highlight the fact that this volume is indeed con-
cerned largely with pathways, with the various ways that human societies have
moved toward hierarchical structure and organization. The authors in the volume
look at inequality from many different perspectives, a variety of angles—theoretical,
ethnographic, ethnohistoric, typological, archaeological—and in many different
times and places. Times and places include the ancient Near East, Bronze Age
Europe, present-day islands in the South Pacific, and modern America. The vocabu-
lary of concept and evidence used in the discussion of social inequality in the past is
staggering: ritual and religion, biology, population and fertility, prestige technology,
monumental construction, burial, household, feasting, agriculture, heterarchy, and
many, many more. This is a large and complex question in archaeological research.
The goals of a new book also vary considerably. We put this volume together
because of our common interest in the subject of social inequality as one of the
truly big questions in archaeology. We asked friends and colleagues to join us in
conference and authorship to share their knowledge and thoughts on this subject. It
is our hope that the results, compiled in this volume, will inspire new discussions of
the emergence of inequality and drive new research that will enlighten our under-
standing of hierarchy, and, more importantly, of the human condition in the deep
past as well as for the present and future.
Adams, J.W., and Kasakoff, A.B. 1975. Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size. In Nag,
M. (ed.), Population and Social Organization, pp. 147–173. The Hague: Mouton.
Aldenderfer, M. 1993. Ritual, hierarchy, and change in foraging societies. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 12: 1–40.
Aldenderfer, M. 2005. Preludes to Power in the Highland Late Preceramic Period. In Conlee,
C., Ogburn, D., and Vaughn, K. (eds.), Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes,
pp. 13–35. Washington: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
Paper No. 14.
Ames, K. 2007. The Archaeology of Rank. In Bentley, R.A., Maschner, H.D.G., and Chippendale,
C. (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Theories, pp. 487–514. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.
Armelagos, G.J., Goodman, A.H., and Jacobs, K.H. 1991. The origins of agriculture: Population
growth during a period of declining health. Population and Environment 13: 9–22.
Bandy, M. 2008. Global Patterns of Early Village Development. In Bocquet-Appel, J.P. and Bar-
Yosef, O. (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, pp. 333–357.
New York: Springer.
Becker, G.S., Murphy, K.M., and Tamura, R.F. 1990. Human capital, fertility, and economic
growth. Journal of Political Economy 98(5Pt. 2): pp. S12–37.
Bender, B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: A social perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204–222.
Bender, B. 1989. The Roots of Inequality. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M., and Tilley, C. (eds.),
Domination and Resistance, pp. 83–95. London: Unwin Hyman.
Bentley, R.G., Goldberg, T., and Jasienska., G. 1993. The fertility of agricultural and non-
agricultural traditional societies. Population Studies 47: 269–281.
12 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
Blanton, R.E., Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A., and Peregrine, P.N. 1996. A dual-processual
theory for the evolution of mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 1–14.
Bliege Bird, R., and Smith., E. 2005. Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital.
Current Anthropology 46: 221–248.
Bocquet-Appel, J.P., and Bar-Yosef, O.(eds.). 2008. The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its
Consequences. New York: Springer.
Boehm, C. 1993. Egalitarian society and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology 34:
Boehm, C. 2000. Forager Hierarchies, Innate Dispositions, and the Behavioral Reconstruction of
Prehistory. In Diehl, M.W. (ed.), Hierarchies in Action: Cui Bono? pp. 31–58. Occasional
Papers No. 27. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowles, S. 2006. Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism.
Science 314: 1569–1572.
Boyd, R., and Richerson., P.J. 1988. The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 132: 337–356.
Chesnais, J.C. 1986. La Transition Démographique: Etapes, Formes, Implications Économiques.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Cohen, M.N. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Coupland, G., Clark, T., and Palmer., A. 2009. Hierarchy, communalism, and the spatial order of
Northwest Coast Plank houses: A comparative study. American Antiquity 74: 77–106.
Dunbar, R.I.M. 1993. Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size, and language in humans.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 681–735.
Earle, T. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Earle, T., and Johnson., A. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Forager Group to
Agrarian State. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Fehr, E., and Fischbacher, U. 2004. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 8: 185–190.
Feinman, G.M. 1995. The Emergence of Inequality: A Focus on Strategies and Processes. In Price,
T.D. and Feinman, G.M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, pp. 255–275. New York:
Plenum Press.
Feinman, G.M. 2000. Corporate/Network: New Perspectives on Models of Political Action and
the Puebloan Southwest. In Schiffer, M.B.(ed.), Social Theory in Archaeology, pp. 31–51. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Feinman, G.M. 2001. Mesoamerican Political Complexity: The Corporate-Network Dimension. In
Jonathan, H. (ed.), From Leaders to Rulers, pp. 151–175. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Feinman, G.M., 2005. The Institutionalization of Leadership and Inequality: Integrating Process
and History. In Scarborough, V. (ed.), A Catalyst for Ideas: Anthropological Archaeology and
the Legacy of Douglas W. Schwartz, pp. 101–121. Santa Fe: School for American Research
Feinman, G.M., Lightfoot, K.G., and Upham, S. 2000. Political hierarchies and organizational
strategies in the puebloan southwest. American Antiquity 65: 449–470.
Fisher, W.H. 2000. Rainforest Exchanges: Industry and Community on an Amazonian Frontier.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fowler, W.R., Jr. 1992. The Historiography of Wealth and Hierarchy in the Immediate Area. In
Lange, F.W.(ed.), Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, pp. 357–377. Washington:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Gilman, A. 1995. Prehistoric European Chiefdoms: Rethinking “Germanic” Societies. In Price,
T.D. and Feinman, G.M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, pp. 235–254. New York:
Plenum Press.
Hayden, B. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers and planters: The emergence of food production.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31–69.
1 Social Inequality and the Evolution of Human Social Organization 13
Hayden, B. 2001. Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Chief: The Dynamics of Social Inequality. In
Feinman, G. and Price, T.D. (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium, pp. 231–272. New York:
Plenum Publishing.
Helms, M.W. 1976. Competition, Power, and Succession to Office in Pre-Columbian Panama.
In Helms, M.W. and Loveland, F.O. (eds.), Frontier Adaptations in Lower Central America,
pp. 25–35. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.
Helms, M.W. 1979. Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Henrich, J. 2003. Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions. Science 312:
Henrich, J., and Gil-White, F. 2002. The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a
mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior
22: 165–196.
Hold-Cavell, B. 1996. The Ethological Basis of Status Hierarchies. In Wiessner, P. and
Schiefenhovel, W. (eds.), Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective,
pp. 19–31. Providence: Berghahn Books.
Johnson, G. 1982. Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M.,
and Segraves, B.A. (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, pp. 389–421. New York:
Academic Press.
Knauft, B.M. 1991. Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropology 32: 391–428.
Kristiansen, K. 1998. The Construction of a Bronze Age Landscape. Cosmology, Economy and
Social Organisation in Thy, Northwest Jutland. In Hänsel, B. (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der
Bronzezeit Europas, pp. 281–293. Kiel: Oetkers-Voges Verlag.
Kristiansen, K., and Larsson., T. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and
Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehman, E.H. 1969. Toward a microsociology of power. American Sociological Review 34:
Linares, O.F. 1977. Ecology and the Arts in Ancient Panama: On the Development of Social Rank
and Symbolism in the Central Provinces. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Marcus, J. 2008. The archaeology of social evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:
Maschner, H., and Patton., J. 1996. Kin Selection and the Origins of Hereditary Social Inequality.
In Maschner, H. (ed.), Darwinian Archaeologies, pp. 89–108. New York: Plenum Press.
Mills, B. (ed.). 2000. Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Nowak, M.A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.
Pluciennik, M. 2005. Social Evolution. London: Duckworth.
Rambo, A.T. 1991. Energy and the Evolution of Culture: A Reassessment of White’s Law. In
Rambo, A. and Gillogby, K. (eds.), Profiles in Cultural Evolution, pp. 291–310. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Renfrew, C. 1974. Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organization
in Prehistoric Europe. In Moore, C.B. (ed.), Reconstructing Complex Societies: An
Archaeological Colloquium, pp. 69–85. Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R.T., and Henrich., J. 2003. The Cultural Evolution of Human Cooperation.
In Hammerstein, P. (ed.), The Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, pp. 357–388.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rousseau, J. 2006. Rethinking Social Evolution. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Sellen, D.W., and Mace., R. 1997. Fertility and mode of subsistence: A phylogenetic analysis.
Current Anthropology 38: 878–889.
Shennan, S. 2008. Evolution in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 37: 754–791.
Smith, E.A., and Bliege Bird., R. 2005. Costly Signaling and Cooperative Behavior. In Herbert
G., Samuel B., Robert B., and Ernst F. (eds.), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: On the
Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life, pp 115–148. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14 T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman
Smith, E.A., and Choi., J.-K. 2007. The Emergence of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies: Simple
Scenarios and Agent-Based Simulations. In Kohler, T.A. and Van der Leeuw, S.E. (eds.),
Model-Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems, pp. 105–120. Sante Fe: SAR Press.
Spielmann, K.A. 1989. A review: Dietary restrictions on hunter-gatherer women and the implica-
tions for fertility and infant mortality. Journal of Human Ecology 17: 321–345.
Stone, B.L. 2008. The evolution of culture and sociology. The American Sociologist 39: 68–85.
Sussman, R.W. 1972. Child transport, family size, and increase in human population during the
Neolithic. Current Anthropology 13: 258–259.
Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, H. 2005. Understanding and sharing
intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–735.
Trigger, B.G. 1991. Distinguished lecture in archaeology: Constraint and freedom – A new
synthesis for archaeological explanation. American Anthropologist 93: 551–569.
Trigger, B.G. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiessner, P. 2002. The vines of complexity: Egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of
inequality among the Enga. Current Anthropology 43: 233–269.
... The specific methodology used by bioarchaeologists to model stress and the interaction between culture and biology is discussed in more detail below (see the section titled The Study of Stress in Bioarchaeology in this chapter). 23 Social differentiation in the archaeological record is more difficult to tease out due to geographic, temporal, and cultural variability as well as other aspects of identity (Price & Feinman, 2010;Wason, 1994). When available, written documents are a fruitful avenue to investigate social status differences. ...
This project considers the status and health experiences of subadults in Late Bronze-Iron II northwestern Iran (1450 – 800 B.C.E.) using osteological and archaeological analysis. It investigates how wealth, status, and health interact with the rise of fortified citadels during ca. 1450 – 1000 B.C.E. and the beginning of urbanization and imperial conflict ca. 1000 – 800 B.C.E. First, I analyze subadult skeletal remains, focusing on cribra orbitalia, a stress marker that has been linked with a wide array of causes, including anemia, malaria, and parasite infection. Second, I consider the wider context of where these subadults were buried and how they may have lived, by analyzing, grave type, associated personal materials, and burial goods. A biocultural approach is applied to thread together the concepts of subadults in archaeology, mortuary practice, social status, age estimation, and skeletal stress. I analyzed 64 subadult skeletons from three contemporaneous skeletal samples from two archaeological sites: 5 from the cemetery context of Dinkha Tepe (1450 – 800 B.C.E.); 26 from the cemetery of Hasanlu (1450 – 800 B.C.E.); and 33 from the destruction level of Hasanlu (c. 800 B.C.E.). At the regional center of Hasanlu, a cemetery was located on the Low Mound outside of the fortified citadel whereas the subadults recovered from the destruction level had sought refuge on the High Mound during a military conflict. The cemetery at the smaller provincial town of Dinkha Tepe was likely located just outside of the town. Results indicate that the relationship between stress and social status as expressed in burial context, grave goods, and other material culture was complex. The cemetery context included more infants and children than adolescents, whereas the destruction level sample included more children and adolescents and fewer infants. Data showed cribra orbitalia was more frequent in the cemetery population at Hasanlu than in the destruction level or cemetery population at Dinkha Tepe. Cemetery burials do not appear to be segregated by age or elite status. Social status as assessed in this dissertation was not a mitigating factor for cribra orbitalia. Skeletal and archaeological data together present a more holistic picture than from either source independently.
... Unfortunately, on both sides of the argument, inferences about social organization were based on an absence of evidence for social exclusion and structural violence (Cork, 2005;2011). This makes sense in light of Crumley's (2005) suggestion that in hierarchical societies, exclusion should emerge from the archaeological record, or Price & Feinman's (2010) suggestion that hierarchy is evidenced by unequal access to power and resources. ...
... Doug Price and Gary Feinman lament this lack of scholarly consensus. 7 According to Blair Fix, the origin of inequality and exclusion remains "one of the great mysteries of human evolution." 8 Bar-Yosef concurs that the reasons for the transition to non-egalitarian society and the rise of inequality have hardly been explained. ...
Full-text available
Abstract: The dream of a just society has endured in our civilization for ages. The turmoil that has engulfed America and the world today shows that this dream is very much alive. The problem of inclusion and equality is in the center of the current political unrest. The search for its solution is the main motivation for this article. The article will first provide a critical examination of the dominant theories on the origin of inequality and exclusion. It will also offer a critical analysis of the current policies on inclusion and equality pursued by the progressive liberals. The study will formulate a new perspective on the problem of inclusion and equality. Finally, it and will outline the path toward the solution of this problem. Key words: inclusion, equality, conservation, the process of creation, evolution, progressive politics.
... Wealth differentiation, then, does not just happen whenever the opportunity presents itself-a well-integrated local economy invites wealth accumulation, but is not, by itself, a sufficient condition. This finding may call into question a notion that has been strong in a major part of the chiefdom literature: that self-aggrandizing behavior by ambitious individuals is ever present and, given the opportunity, will drive societal development [34,[50][51][52]. Jenné-Jeno and Ç atalhöyük did develop into local communities that were demographically much larger than any in Oaxaca, Barinas, the Alto Magdalena, or the Western Liao Valley, but wealth differentiation and other indicators of self-aggrandizement are absent at Jenné-Jeno and Ç atalhöyük. ...
Full-text available
Archaeological research has by now revealed a great deal of variation in the way early complex societies, or chiefdoms, developed. This variation is widely recognized, but our understanding of the forces that produced it remains relatively undeveloped. This paper takes aim at such understanding by exploring variation in the local economies of six early chiefdoms; it considers what implications this variation had for trajectories of chiefdom development, as well as the source of that variation. Economic exchange is a primary form of local interaction in all societies. Because of distance-interaction principles, closer household spacing within local communities facilitated more frequent interaction and thus encouraged productive differentiation, economic interdependence, and the development of well-integrated local economies. Well-integrated local economies, in turn, provided ready opportunities for aspiring leaders to accumulate wealth and fund political economies, and pursuit of these opportunities led to societies with leaders whose power had a direct economic base. Wider household spacing, on the other hand, impeded interaction and the development of well-integrated local economies. In such contexts, aspiring leaders were able to turn to ritual and religion as a base of social power. Even when well-integrated local economies offered opportunities for wealth accumulation and a ready source of funding for political economies, these opportunities were not always taken advantage of. That variation in the shapes of early chiefdoms can be traced back to patterns of household spacing highlights the importance of settlement and interaction in explaining not just chiefdom development, but societal change more generally.
... An understanding of the social organization of past societies is crucial to understanding recent human evolution, and several generations of archaeologists and anthropologists have worked to develop a suite of methods, both scientific and conceptual, for detecting social conditions in the archaeological record [1][2][3][4] . These methods have been used to investigate when social complexity, including social inequality, first appeared [5][6][7][8] , the nature and function of early forms of social stratification, and how these emergent structures were perpetuated over time and space [9][10][11] . ...
Full-text available
Twenty-four palaeogenomes from Mokrin, a major Early Bronze Age necropolis in southeastern Europe, were sequenced to analyse kinship between individuals and to better understand prehistoric social organization. 15 investigated individuals were involved in genetic relationships of varying degrees. The Mokrin sample resembles a genetically unstructured population, suggesting that the community’s social hierarchies were not accompanied by strict marriage barriers. We find evidence for female exogamy but no indications for strict patrilocality. Individual status differences at Mokrin, as indicated by grave goods, support the inference that females could inherit status, but could not transmit status to all their sons. We further show that sons had the possibility to acquire status during their lifetimes, but not necessarily to inherit it. Taken together, these findings suggest that Southeastern Europe in the Early Bronze Age had a significantly different family and social structure than Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age societies of Central Europe.
... Se ha escrito y discutido mucho en torno a la emergencia de la desigualdad social en la prehistoria (Aldenderfer, 2010;Price y Feinman, 2010, entre otros), siendo especialmente relevante el énfasis puesto últimamente en el rol jugado por las creencias religiosas y la cosmovisión como sustento ideológico de la desigualdad en la sociedad humana. Aldenderfer ha señalado -entre otros rasgos funcionales de un sistema religioso dado-la capacidad de "crear una base formativa para la identidad individual o grupal" (Aldenderfer, 2010, p. 81). ...
Full-text available
Este trabajo entrega parte de los resultados de una investigación multidisciplinaria centrada en el estudio contextual de los ajuares funerarios de seis cementerios prehispánicos de los oasis de San Pedro de Atacama, Región de Antofagasta, Chile. El objetivo central fue profundizar en los aspectos sociales y rituales del sistema religioso prehispánico en Atacama (500-1500 d. C.), tomando como base las evidencias arqueológicas de la parafernalia alucinógena para dilucidar la identidad de los individuos que la poseían, y verificar la hipótesis acerca de su condición de integrantes de la elite atacameña. Bases de datos con la información transcrita desde las Notas de Le Paige para dichos cementerios sirvieron como instrumento básico para el análisis estadístico de las diversas categorías artefactuales; ello permitió establecer correlaciones entre los diferentes componentes de las ofrendas mortuorias, comparando aquellos que incluían elementos del equipo sicotrópico con los que carecían de ellos. De esta forma, surgieron diferencias en el manejo de determinados bienes que integran el círculo de objetos "materializadores” de la elite atacameña. Lo anterior plantea la existencia de diferentes especializaciones artesanales entre ayllus y diferencias de estatus al interior de esta sociedad, así como el control de los circuitos de intercambio interregional por parte de dicha elite.
Full-text available
Coastal prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Atlantic Iberia were particularly important to understanding Paleolithic human innovation and resilience. This study will focus on Middle and Upper Paleolithic adaptations to the Iberian Atlantic border. Elements such as intensity and diversity of marine foods, site location, distance to shore, submerged platform, and bathymetry are discussed for the region between Gibraltar and the Gulf of Biscay.
The tension between hierarchy and communalism is a prominent feature of social life in transegalitarian societies. How are hierarchy and communalism combined in these societies? How are they materialized in everyday life? In this paper, we examine the relationship between hierarchy and communalism in the transegalitarian societies of the Northwest Coast of North America. We focus on households, the primary socioeconomic units of the culture area, and on the plank houses that contained them. Despite the apparent contradiction between hierarchy and communalism, we find that in Northwest Coast households with highly developed social hierarchies, communal practices remained deeply entrenched, while in households with weaker hierarchies, communalism was less developed. The relative importance of hierarchy and communalism in daily household life was clearly materialized in the spatial order of plank houses. By simultaneously objectifying both principles, the house may have played an important role in easing the tension between them.
This chapter discusses the factors underlying endogamous group size. Endogamy is the tendency of people to mate within their own group. Endogamous groups are important as a social universe in which all sorts of basic interaction go on; the study of endogamy is, therefore, the study of social communication in the broadest sense. The chapter describes the range of sizes of endogamous groups and some of the reasons for variations that exist within this range. It also discusses to what extent and by what forces the social horizon of man is confined; for confined it is, and our evidence indicates that even modern society, with its sophisticated means of transport and communication, fits quite nicely into the set of conclusions reached for primitive groups. When percentages of endogamy are plotted on a vertical axis against size of group on the horizontal it is found that the majority of societies are bunched together, but a few bunch closer to the vertical, that is, high endogamy in small groups, and a few closer to the horizontal, that is, low endogamy in large groups.
Inequality is a somewhat slippery concept. As Price and Hayden stress in their contributions to this volume, any society is liable to contain potential aggrandizers; and the constraints that suppress these ambitious individuals altogether are imposed only by relatively few societies, all of them (in the ethnographic record, at least) operating in extremely harsh environments, where risk pooling is imperative, and individual accumulation is counterproductive. As a result, one can find some foreshadowing of the characteristics of fully developed “complexity” in almost any simple society. Within the household, as Blanton indicates in his contribution, inequality is pervasive, and households are the charters for society. “Marginalization,” the dimension of inequality emphasized in Arnold’s contribution, likewise occurs at all social scales: within households as well as between them, within settlements and between them, within polities and between them, and so on. The whole thrust of Boasian relativism was to stress these continuities in the social evolutionary scale: the similarities to be found in societies of vastly different scales suggested their essential parity as historical outcomes.
The tension between hierarchy and communalism is a prominent feature of social life in transegalitarian societies. How are hierarchy and communalism combined in these societies? How are they materialized in everyday life? In this paper, we examine the relationship between hierarchy and communalism in the transegalitarian societies of the Northwest Coast of North America. We focus on households, the primary socioeconomic units of the culture area, and on the plank houses that contained them. Despite the apparent contradiction between hierarchy and communalism, we find that in Northwest Coast households with highly developed social hierarchies, communal practices remained deeply entrenched, while in households with weaker hierarchies, communalism was less developed. The relative importance of hierarchy and communalism in daily household life was clearly materialized in the spatial order of plank houses. By simultaneously objectifying both principles, the house may have played an important role in easing the tension between them.