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

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

http://www.jstor.org

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

?

Vol. 22, No. 1, February1981

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

The Developmentof Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe'by Antonio Gilman

has of beentakenforgranted sincethebeginning research intotheir materialremains over a century ago. The burialswhichmake up the bulk of the evidenceleave no doubtthat markedsocial inequalitiesemergedduringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C. Althoughsome earlier studies have attemptedto reconstruct Bronze Age social structure Europe (e.g., Otto 1955), it is in only recently that much detailed attentionhas been paid to either or descriptive theoretical aspectsofhowsocial stratificationcame intobeing(Gilman1976; Kempisty 1978; Randsborg 1973, 1974; Renfrew 1972; Shennan1975; Wuistemann 1977). These studiesstrongly suggestthat the elitesof the European BronzeAge werehereditary. The Early BronzeAge cemetery at Brancin Slovakia,for had numbers richsubadult example, of graves(Shennan1975),thelack ofpossibleachievements the of deceasedsuggesting their that superordinate statuswas ascribed (cf.Binford 1971). The increase theproportion richfemale in of to richmale burialsoverthecourseoftheEarly BronzeAge in Denmark (Randsborg1974) may be interpreted reflecting as the progressive separationof high status fromachievement, sincetheimportance female of activities relative male onesis to unlikely have increased to overthattime.2 Specific studiessuch as theseconfirm what has long been accepted on the basis of moregeneralconsiderations. Thus, the development metalof a lurgy, specializedtechnologv mainlyforthe manufacture ofTHE STRATIFICATION OF EUROPEAN BRONZE AGE SOCIETIEsI 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 Increasing1

ANTONIO

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

Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February 1981

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

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

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

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

Gilman:STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

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

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

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

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

4

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

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

CAPITAL-INTENSIVE

SUBSISTENCE

TECHNOLOGY

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

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

Vol. 22 * No. 1 - February 1981

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

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

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

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

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

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

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

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

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

Gilman: STRATIFICATION

IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE

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

It is no criticism say that its chiefweaknesslies in the to ables. At the same time,I am not convincedthat the "nonof are alternatives not open to the same criticism. lack of empiricalevidence for the capital-intensification functionalist" in and patchyinstances terms agriculture morethan a fewscattered aim is to "explainin nonmanagerial Gilman'sprofessed ofunequalvalue. It is partlyto remedy thisthatI am excavateconomiestend to have productive whysocietieswithhighly at inga Bell Beakersettlement Moncin, Borja (northern elites" and to suggesthow elitesestablishand maintaintheir Spain), for looking especially tracesofoliveand vine cultivation. With control"in spite of the fact that theiractions do not serve A. J. Legge, I hope to be able to identify points in the the exchangeas an rejecting commodity After interests." common profouraspectsof subsistence culturesequenceof the Ebro Valley at whichsubsistence he explanation, goes on to consider "capital-intensification duction changed gear, so that we can test Gilman's ideas. thathe sees as representing technology and specialized of subsistence."Althoughthe precise social and economic There may also be traces of early irrigation animalhusbandry. providedby the are mechanisms different, typeof explanation As an organizing modelforthe BronzeAge I findGilman's seemsto me much the same as the functionalist thesefactors ideas mostattractive and quite as usefulor convincing the as to to oneshe has rejected.Gilmanis right drawattention these ones. Otherpertinent workis that by Jodlowski theyare reallybeingused in a different functionalist but whether factors, in (1976) on salt production southern Poland around3200 B.C. objection A way seemsto me doubtful. particular explanatory and my fresh synthesis the wholeof the Bell Beaker pheof I would level at the modeldevelopedhereis that it does not (Harrison1980). in the consider veryvariednatureofwealthdistribution differ- nomenon of segments the BronzeAge. What is ent spatial and temporal rightfor,say, Branc in Early Bronze Age Slovakia cannot, byRONALD HICKS surely,apply equally to Early Bronze Age Spain or Late Department Anthropology, State University, of Ball BronzeAge Slovakia,let alone Late BronzeAge Spain, where Muncie, Ind. 47306, U.S.A. 4 viii 80 intoplay. wereundoubtedly factors coming different which One of the aspectsof the studyofsocial stratification Gilman'sthesisis a thought-provoking In particular, one. his one. What in has been neglected the past is the psychological paper is worthwhile havinglooked at the problemof the for mental factorslead men firstto desire and then to assume of development the BronzeAge eliteswiththe question"How in of positions dominance givenpopulationgroups?Concomi- do people behave?" in mindratherthan just by manipulating factorsenable themto do it? All tantly,what socioeconomic "maybes." However,it raises,in my mindat least, a number at so our explanations farhave been directed the secondpart offurther thatgo unanswered. questions none at the first. NaturallyI cannothere go of the problem, For example, why,or how,did the elitesbeginto developin evenwereI capable ofit; I assume,however, first intothisproblem, as place? Gilmanspeaksofthem "protectors." protection If and Europe was, both economically that life in prehistoric was necessary, why? If, as he says, plentyof land was still one can At socially,competitive. a crude level of description and compeavailable,warfare provoked populationgrowth by statusbecause theywishto be increased mendesiring imagine for tition land does notseemlikely.Were theysimply gangsof of the labor,because theyare from drudgery subsistence freed what amountedto a protection thugswho instituted racket, by naturallydominating character,because they genuinely threatening do harmto any who didn'tpay them? to This also themthatstatus (in believesocietystandsto gain by granting Gilmanclaimsthathis argument an alternais seemsunlikely. and of terms protection againstattack,production distribution tive to functionalism, it clearlywouldhave been dysfuncbut of goods,etc.), or forothersimilarreas