The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe [and Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Antonio Gilman, Robert McC. Adams, Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri, Alberto Cazzella,
Henri J. M. Claessen, George L. Cowgill, Carole L. Crumley, Timothy Earle, Alain Gallay, A. F.
Harding, R. J. Harrison, Ronald Hicks, Philip L. Kohl, James Lewthwaite, Charles A.
Schwartz, Stephen J. Shennan, Andrew Sherratt, Maurizio Tosi, Peter S. Wells
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb., 1981), pp. 1-23
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742414 .
Accessed: 25/03/2011 10:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 22, No. 1, February1981
? Research0011-3204/81/2201-0001$02.25
FoundationforAnthropological
1981by The Wenner-Gren
The Developmentof Social Stratification
in Bronze Age Europe'
by Antonio Gilman
THE STRATIFICATION OF EUROPEAN BRONZE AGE SOCIETIEs has
beentakenforgrantedsincethebeginning ofresearchintotheir
materialremainsover a centuryago. The burialswhichmake
up the bulk of the evidenceleave no doubtthat markedsocial
inequalitiesemergedduringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C. Al-
thoughsome earlier studies have attemptedto reconstruct
Bronze Age social structurein Europe (e.g., Otto 1955), it is
only recentlythat much detailed attentionhas been paid to
eitherdescriptiveor theoreticalaspectsofhowsocial stratifica-
tioncame intobeing(Gilman1976; Kempisty1978; Randsborg
1973, 1974; Renfrew1972; Shennan1975; Wuistemann1977).
These studiesstronglysuggestthat the elitesof the European
BronzeAge werehereditary.The Early BronzeAge cemetery
at Brancin Slovakia,forexample,had numbersofrichsubadult
graves(Shennan1975),thelack ofpossibleachievements ofthe
deceasedsuggesting thattheirsuperordinate
statuswas ascribed
(cf.Binford1971). The increasein theproportionofrichfemale
to richmale burialsoverthecourseoftheEarly BronzeAge in
Denmark (Randsborg1974) may be interpretedas reflecting
the progressiveseparationof high status fromachievement,
sincetheimportanceoffemaleactivitiesrelativeto male onesis
unlikelyto have increasedoverthattime.2Specificstudiessuch
as theseconfirmwhat has long been accepted on the basis of
moregeneralconsiderations. Thus, the developmentof metal-
lurgy,a specializedtechnologvmainlyforthe manufactureof
I In preparingthis paper I benefited
greatlv fromthe help and
advice of Keith Morton, Robert Newcomb, Charlotte Oyer, Alan
Richards, Gregory Truex, and especially Richard Harrison and
TimothyEarle. The writingwas completedduringtenureof a Tinker
Post-DoctoralFellowship.
2 Randsborg
suggeststhat the increasingwealth of femaleburials
relative to male ones may be due to an increasingimportanceof
women'sworkin farming.However,as Neustupny(1967) pointsout,
the plow agricultureof the Bronze Age would tend to increase the
importanceof male,not female,workin agriculture.
ANTONIO GILMAN is on leave this year from California State
University,Northridge(wherehe is Associate Professorof An-
thropology),as a Visiting Scholar at the Peabody Museum,
Harvard University,on a Tinker Post-Doctoral Fellowship (his
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 prehistoryof
North Africaand the Iberian Peninsula. He has published The
Later Prehistoryof Tangier,Morocco (American School of Pre-
historicResearch Bulletin29).
The presentpaper was submittedin finalform17 iv 80.
Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February 1981
displayitems,involvesan elaboratesystemof productionand
exchangeand therebysuggeststhe existenceof a permanent
upper class to consumethe goods so arduouslybroughtinto
being.The broadgeographicdistribution ofeliteartifactstyles
such as bell beakers and (in a later period) swordslikewise
pointsto the existenceof upperclasses whoserecruitment was
sufficientlystable forthemto establisha web of widespread,
mutuallysupportivepartnerships.Indeed, the very passage
fromcollectiveto "individualizing"burialrituals,a changeoc-
curringat the startof the Bronze Age over muchof Europe,
suggests the developmentof social stratification(Renfrew
1976). In theirrecentsurveyof BronzeAge Europe, Coles and
Harding (1979:535) conclude:
DuringthecourseoftheBronzeAgea number ofimportant changes
tookplace-changesthatlendtheperioditscharacteristicappearance
and distinguishit fromanythingthathad gonebefore.... Perhaps
themostobviousoftheseis theriseoftheprivileged .... It is hard
to thinkofthisprocessin termsotherthanthoseofaggrandizement
ofthefew,theriseoftheelite,and thestartofsocialstratification.
The scarcityofstudiesoflaterprehistoric social organization
in Europe is, no doubt,in part attributableto pessimismcon-
cerningthe possibilityof dealing with questions of social
structure usingarchaeologicaldata (Hawkes 1954). It is also in
partdue to thewideacceptanceofa coherenttheoryofhowand
why social stratificationarose in later prehistoricEurope, a
theorywhichobviatedany need to pay close attentionto the
internaldynamicsofsocialhistoryin Europeitself.The clearest
statementof thisoutlookis in thelater worksof Childe (1956,
1958). Childe's view was that Orientalpower and knowledge
had transformed Europe in later prehistorictimes much as
European power and knowledgehad transformed the world
under capitalism. Oriental centers would have sought raw
materials,in particularmetals,fromEurope and would have
providedthe initial capital to stimulatea networkof com-
modityexchangebased on metallurgy. Referring to the Copper
Age ofsoutheastern Spain,forexample,Childe(1957:284) in a
typicalpassage arguedthat "the urbanizationof the Almerian
economy... is presumablya reflection, howeverindirect,of
Orientalcities'demandformetal." The fortunesof local elites
in Europe would have dependedessentiallyon Near Eastern
events.This widelysharedtheory,as much as anythingelse,
was responsibleforrestrictingresearchon theEuropeanBronze
Age to typologicalstudiescapable ofdemonstrating linksto the
Orient.Understanding the developmentof social stratification
requiredno detailedconsideration oftheworkings ofprehistoric
politicaleconomy.
Increasinguneasinesswithdiffusionist arguments(e.g.,Clark
1
1966) and demonstrations oftheindependence ofEuropeancul-
turalfeaturessupposedto be of Near Easternderivation,such
as megaliths(Renfrew1967)and metalworking (Renfrew1969),
have combinedto bringabout the collapse of the traditional
theoryof culturechange. This collapse has largelybeen an
empiricalone, caused by radiocarbondeterminations, spectro-
graphicanalyses,and othermattersoffact.As a result,thereis
somethingof a theoreticalvacuum in European prehistoric
studies.How is the emergenceofelitesto be explainedwithout
Near Eastern intervention? The main candidate for a new
"paradigm"is thefunctionalism put forwardby Renfrew(1972,
1973a) and otherprehistorians of the youngergeneration.My
purposein thispaper is to showthatfunctionalist formulations
will not explain the developmentof social stratificationin
Europe'and to suggestan alternativetheoryto accountforthe
rise of dominantsocial stratain prehistoric
Europeansocieties
of the Copper and Bronze Ages. Mutatis mutandis,this non-
accountwillbe seento have broadapplicabilityto
functionalist
similarinstancesof social changebeyondEurope.
FUNCTIONALIST APPROACHES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
The rise of complex,hierarchicalsocietiespresentsitselfas an
evolutionaryadvance. Complexsocietieshave largerpopula-
tions than their egalitarian predecessorsand deploy more
powerfulproductiveforces. Once established,they tend to
expandat the expenseofless populousand hierarchicalneigh-
bors,thusillustrating the "principleof competitiveexclusion"
(Carneiro1978).It is hardlysurprising to see thestatedescribed
as exhibiting"greatermaturityin an ecologicalsuccession"of
politicaltypes (Gall and Saxe 1977:260). The adaptive effec-
tivenessof hierarchyin moderatingenvironmental and social
uncertaintyis so widelyacceptedin therecentanthropological
literaturethatscholarswhoquestionit feelit necessaryto decry
"evolutionism"as a whole (Yoffee 1979). What is at issue,
however,is the usefulnessof functionalism forunderstanding
howclass societiescomeintobeing.
A shared featureof the few archaic states for whichade-
quate documentarysourcesexistis a hereditarynobility:alii
(Hawaii), pilli (Aztec), orejones(Inca), etc. Membershipin
these groups is by ascriptionand grants a small minority
wealth disproportionate to their numbers(i.e., preferential
access to resources).These unquestionablerulingclassespose a
clear problemfor conventionalaccountsof the emergenceof
complexsocial organization.Harris (1971:393), forexample,
clearlyexpresseshisuneasinessat puttingforwarda functional-
ist accountof the originsof social stratification:"What were
the rewardsof those who were cut offfromthe two-million-
year-oldheritageoffreeaccess to resources?. . . Whywas con-
trolofsoil,water,and even theair yieldedup intothehandsof
a relativelysmall groupof people?" To these ratherdifficult
questionsmost anthropologists (includingHarris) give a dis-
arminglysimple answer: rulingclasses obtain theirposition
because they provideservicesessentialto the mass of their
subjects.
Most of the differences
betweentheoriesabout theoriginsof
complexsocietiesrevolvearoundthesortsofserviceswhichthe
elites would have providedin particularsituations.Mesopo-
tamia,Egypt,China,and othercenterslendprimafaciesupport
to Wittfogel'shydraulichypothesis:"The handlingofrelatively
large amounts of water. . . requirescoordinationof a com-
munallaborforceand, above a certainmagnitude,a leadership
that directsthe constructionand maintenanceof hydraulic
installationsand thedistribution
ofirrigation water"(Wittfogel
1972:70). Earle (1978:37-49) elucidates several functional
variantsofthismanagerialapproach.The diversity ofresources
2 CURRE
in regionssuch as Mesoamerica supportsthe redistribution
theoryput forwardby Sahlins(1958:5): "As dispensersoffood
and othergoods,and in rewardof theirlogisticsupportof the
community, chiefsgainedin prestigeand extendedtheirpoliti-
cal and ceremonialprerogatives." Flanneryand Coe (1968) and
Rathje (1971), for example,representinternaland external
variants,respectively,of this approach. As Earle (1978:5)
pointsout, althoughCarneiro(1970) presentshis resource-cir-
cumscription/warfare theoryas a "conflict"modelit in facthas
a strongfunctionalistcomponent:the population can only
secureaccess to needed resourcesthroughsuperior(i.e., more
hierarchical)militaryorganization(cf. Webster1977). Service
(1978:32) sums up the consensus of recent scholarship:
"Redistribution(and especiallytrade), militaryorganization
and publicworkswereall basic in theclassicalcivilizations, but
all musthave had small beginningsin the simpleattemptsby
primitiveleaders to perpetuate their social dominance by
organizingsuchbenefits fortheirfollowers."It is thepossibility
(indeed,the likelihood)of the co-occurrence of morethan one
"primemover"that leads Flannery(1972) to recasttheseap-
proachesintothemoregenerallanguageofinformation theory.
In thisversionelitesconstitute"higher-order regulators"ofthe
information needed forthe functioning of a complexsociety.
comesinto being,then,because in one or
Social stratification
more ways "the chiefcreates a collectivegood beyond the
conceptionand capacityofthe society'sdomesticgroupstaken
separately.He institutes a publiceconomygreaterthanthesum
ofits householdparts" (Sahlins 1972:140).
Most recent work on the developmentof the European
Bronze Age does not confrontthe questionof causes directly,
but,as Neustupny(1976:246) pointsout,a new consensushas
begun to emergeconcerningthe processes of social change
whichthatdevelopmentinvolves.The mostexplicitand exten-
sive instanceofthenewviewis Renfrew'suse oftheredistribu-
tion variant of the functionalist argumentoutlinedabove to
explaintheemergenceofsocial stratification in Greeceand the
Aegeanaround2000B.C. (Renfrew1972:chap. 18). The Minoan
and Mycenaean palaces would have been the focal pointsof
activitiescontributing to the generalwelfare:theirprincesen-
couragedtrade,craftswereimproved(leadingto "new metal
tools increasingagriculturalefficiency"), and foodstuffswere
more effectively made available to primaryproducers,who
werestimulatedto increasetheiroutput"by thewishto receive
redistributed goods" (p. 490). Renfrew(1973a:210) sums up:
"The redistribution ofgoods,whichis organizedand controlled
by the chiefhimself,. . . is, of course,exactlythe functionful-
filledby thepalaces of Minoan-Mycenaeancivilization,taking
in and storingthe produce fromthe very differentfields,
orchards,and pastureswhichare found,even in a small area,
in southGreece."Similar"individualizing chiefdoms"are sug-
gested for Bronze Age Wessex and elsewherein Europe. A
similarview has been extendedto the interpretation of trade
networksof the precedingperiod:in the Late Neolithic,stone
axes and coppersare the kula-likevayguawhoseexchangepro-
vided channelsto "carrya muchgreatervolumeofsubsistence
products" (Sherratt1976:568). Clarke's (1976) discussionof
beakersas primitivevaluables is in the same vein. The part
played by elites in the processof social change in later pre-
historicEurope is oftenleft somewhatunspecifiedin these
studies,but the rangeof citations,ifnothingelse,givesa clear
indicationof the increasingacceptance by Europeanistpre-
historiansofa functionalist accountof theemergenceofsuper-
ordinatesocial strata(cf.Milisauskas1978).The newparadigm
whichis proposedto replace the ex orientelux account of the
EuropeanBronzeAge elitemay be summarizedas follows:the
developmentof extensivenetworksfor the procurementand
allocationof resourcesnecessaryforeveryoneled to the emer-
genceof a permanentrulingclass,whichmanagedthecomplex
production/distribution problemsinvolved.
NT ANTHROPOLO GY
CRITIQUE
The functionalism of theauthoritiescitedabove involvesthree
steps,thefirsttwoofwhichare anthropological commonplaces.
First,a cultureis regardedas an integratedwhole ("a system
withsubsystems").Second,thissystemis seen as whatpermits
thoseinvolvedin it to survive("cultureas extrasomaticmeans
of adaptation"). Third,particularfeaturesof the systemare
explainedas beingadaptive. This last step is a dangerousone
whichtendstowardsa Panglossianacceptanceof theactual as
the necessary(cf. Friedman 1974). In particular,when this
thirdstep is takento explainwhatthe elitedoes in a stratified
society,severemisunderstandings arise.
The functionalist accountofthedevelopment ofelitesmaybe
criticizedat onceforitsfailureto explainthehereditary charac-
teroftheclass of "higher-order regulators."Even ifone grants
that certain economicsituationsdemand leadershipfor the
commongood, it does not followthat the rulersmust be re-
cruitedfroma rulingclass. It is notapparentthatthebestway
of choosingefficient managersis by birth.A classic defectof
functionalexplanationsis theirinabilityto accountforpossible
alternatives(Hempel 1959).
Quiteapartfromsuchlogicalknots,thefunctionalist account
doesnotmatchwhatwe actuallyknowaboutthepartplayedby
therulingclassesofstratified societies.The centralpropositions
of the functionalist accountare that elitesare in factinvolved
in managerialtransactions,that these transactionsconferan
adaptivebenefituponthepopulationas a whole,and thatelites
obtaintheirpositionsbecausetheyprovidethesebenefits. These
specifications are not met in the concretecases to whichthe
functionalist explanationsare applied.
Wittfogel'shydraulictheoryhas stimulatedseveraldetailed
studiesoftherelationbetweenirrigation and social complexity
(see thecriticalreviewof theliteratureby Earle 1978). On the
whole,these studies cast doubt on the theory'scrucial man-
agerialcomponent.Whereirrigationis extensiveor important,
ofwater.Thus,
elitesare oftennot involvedin the distribution
Glick (1970) shows that the extensiveirrigationsystemsof
mediaevalValencia werebuiltand operatedby the cultivators
themselves.Adams (1965) indicatesthat early Mesopotamian
irrigationsystems,while crucial to agriculturalproduction,
wereon a scale entirelycompatiblewithlocal controland man-
agement.In Dynastic Egypt,accordingto Butzer (1976), the
upper tiersof this indubitablystratifiedsocietyhad no man-
agerial functionswithrespectto the distribution of the Nile's
water:theflood-basin systemswereoperatedat thelocal level,
withonlyceremonialintervention by thepharaoh.Even where
elites (throughtheirrepresentatives) do administerlocal hy-
draulicsystems,theirintervention may not be generallybene-
ficial.In Hawaii irrigation was indeedsupervisedby appointees
ofthechiefs,butthisdirectionwas notrequiredbythetechnical
complexityof these small,simplenetworks.Earle (1978:141)
sums up the situationas follows:"Who were the most direct
beneficiaries of managerialactivities?For whomdid the man-
agers work?.. . Their main role was specificallyto mobilize
and to directlabor activitiesso as to maximizetheincomeflow
of the elites." In mostinstanceselitesare not involvedin the
managementofirrigation systems.Wheretheyare, it is mainly
in theirown interestratherthan on behalfof thesocial whole.
The redistribution and warfarevariantsof the functionalist
accountof social stratification are strongerthan the hydraulic
variantin that the empiricalevidenceforeliteinvolvement in
directingtheseactivitiesin personor throughrepresentatives
is unquestionable.What may be doubtedis whethertheseac-
tivitiesare adaptive-whethertheycontributeto the general
welfare.Cowgill (1975:506) puts matterssuccinctly:"People
in strongpositionshave oftenpromoted,and evenbelieved,the
argumentthat'What's goodforme is goodforthesystem,and
what's good for the systemis good for everybody,'but the
Vol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981
Gilman:STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
difficultieswith this idea hardly need spellingout." Earle's
examinationof redistribution in its classic instance,Hawaii, is
instructive.Althoughthe islands' ecologicaldiversityis sup-
posed to make organizedexchangebetweenregions(arranged
throughthechief'sgood offices) an adaptivearrangement, local
communities "werelaid out so as to minimizedifferences in the
resourcesavailable to theirpopulations"(Earle 1977:223). The
exchangesbetweenregionswhichdid take place wereby direct
barterand not throughchannelscontrolledby the chiefs.Re-
distribution is supposedto benefitprimarycontributors because
theycan becomepart of a largereconomicnetworkrunby an
elite.In Mesopotamia,forexample,one is told that the Sume-
rian eliteadministered a "Great Organization"needed,among
otherthings,to importbasic raw materials,such as wood and
stone,whichwere scarce on the Tigris/Euphratesfloodplain
(Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff1979:179). The clay sickles
that are so characteristic a featureof Mesopotamianartifact
assemblagesas earlyas Ubaid timesare mutetestimony to how
little was actually distributedto the primaryproducers.A
parallelargumentcan be mountedagainstthe warfarevariant
ofthefunctionalist theory.Warfare,directedby elites,is bene-
ficialin functionaltermsbecause it suppliesscarce resources,
suchas land, to the victors.If concretehistoricalcases are any
guide,however,veryfewofthespoilsaccrue to themass ofthe
populationwhosecontributions supportthemilitaryenterprise.
The conquestsof the Roman Republic provide a well-docu-
mentedexample (Anderson1974:67-68; cf. Finley 1973:55-
56):
The senatorialaristocracy profitedenormously fromthe financial
sackingoftheMediterranean thatsucceeded progressiveannexations
by Rome,makingboundless fortunes in tribute, landand
extortion,
slaves;but it was utterlyunwillingto provideevena modicumof
compensation whosefighting
to thesoldiery yieldedtheseunheard-of
gains.... To havepaidthembounties wouldhavemeanttaxingthe
possessingclasses,andthistheruling aristocracyrefusedtoconsider.
The redistribution and warfarevariants of the functionalist
account are strongerthan the hydraulicvariantonly because
taxesand bootyare moredirectthanagricultural improvements
as avenuesto eliteself-aggrandizement.
It is undeniable,ofcourse,thatrulingclassesmaysometimes
be of serviceto theirsubjects by directingpublic works,en-
couragingcommerce,helpingin the event of disasters,and so
forth.Such activitiesmay be usefulmeans by whichthe elite
can consolidate,extend,and legitimateits wealthand power,
but theyare not responsibleforits attainmentofpower.Marx
(1967 [1887]:322) puts the point clearly enough: "It is not
because he is a leaderofindustrythata man is a capitalist;on
the contrary,he is a leaderof industrybecause he is a capital-
ist."
If these theoriesabout the originsof elite are doubtfulin
general,theyseemeven moreunsuitedto an explanationofthe
originsof stratificationin Europe. In the cases forwhichthese
theorieswere developed, managerial functionsare at least
plausible:thereare cities,largepublicworks,etc. In laterpre-
historicEurope,virtuallythe onlyevidenceforsocial complex-
ity is the wealth of the elites themselves.Bronze Age settle-
ments,forexample,are extremely scarceovermuchofEurope,
a circumstancewhich does not suggestthey were large. In
regionswheremoresettlements are known,suchas southeastern
Spain, Copperand BronzeAge sitesusuallycovera hectareor
less. An exceptionis Los Millares,whosesettlement may cover
fourhectares;in Europe this passes for"urbanism" (Arribas
1959). In fact,it is notablethat settlementhierarchies, which
are oftentaken to be the primearchaeologicalindicatorsof
higher-order regulation(Wrightand Johnson1975, Isbell and
Schreiber1978),are definitely attestedin Europe onlyin those
regionsinvolvedin demonstrable commercewithMediterranean
civilizations:theAegeanin theBronzeAge and CentralEurope
in theEarly Iron Age (Frankenstein and Rowlands1978,Wells
1977).3That Mediterranean tradewas so importantto Minoan/
Mycenaean and Hallstatt/La Tene florescence gave strength,
of course,to the ex orientelux theoryof European prehistoric
development.This empiricallyfalsifiedaccount cannot be re-
placed by functionalist approaches,if only because in prehis-
toricEurope it is not apparentwhat positivefunctionsthere
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
The questionposed by functionalists in theirexplanationofthe
originsof stratification is "What servicesdo elitesprovidefor
society?"The oppositeattackon theproblembeginsby asking:
"In spite of the fact that theiractionsdo not serve common
interests,how do elitesestablishand maintaintheircontrol?"
This problematicis implicitin a numberofworkson theorigins
of social complexity.In his discussionof the "Urban Revolu-
tion" Childe (1951) emphasizedthe need to concentratea sur-
plus forthe supportof nonproducers and saw clearlythat the
nonproducerscapture that surplusin their own interest.A
similarrecognition oftherealitiesofsocial stratificationis clear
in the workofAdamswhenhe pointsout thatirrigation'scon-
tributionto the developmentof elitesis its "encouragement of
differential yields" (Adams 1966:72; cf. Diakonoff1969) or
that early trade is more fruitfully viewed as serving"the
interestsof the agents of exchange"than as fulfilling "broad
social needs" (Adams 1974:242; cf.Kohl 1978). Earle's (1978)
reconsiderationof the organizationof chiefdomsin Hawaii
showsclearlyhow the greedof the elite quite adequatelyex-
plains theirdealingswiththeirsubjects.The desireof the alii
to enhancetheirpoliticalpowermade themextractthe maxi-
mumpossiblesurplusby encouragingtheirsubjectpopulations
to producemoreand by conqueringyetmorepeople.The elites
sometimesfound it advisable to assist commoners(for ex-
ample,by helpingthemrebuildirrigation systemsafternatural
disasters),but it is clear that thiswas onlyto ensurea future
sourceofincome.Systemicbenefitscould have been securedat
lessercost to themass ofthepopulation.In short,theriseofan
elitecan be understoodwithoutreference to thecommongood.
What needsto be explainedis how elitesacquireand maintain
theirpowerin spite of the fact that, muchof the time,their
actionsare againstthe interestsof the mass of thepopulation.
The conditionspermitting elitesto establishthemselvesper-
manentlybecomeclearwhenone looksat theinternaldynamics
ofsocial systemswithouta rulingclass. The literatureon tribal
(rank)societiesmakesitplain thatthereis no wantofaspirants
to superordinatestatus. In Siuai, to choose a characteristic
example,thewould-beleaderachievesand maintainshis ambi-
tions by demonstrating
his abilitiesas a warrior,ceremonial
leader, food producer,etc.; "numerouscases were recorded
whereinambitiousfathersor maternaluncleshave wastedtheir
resourcesand effortto push forwardyoungmen" lackingthe
requisitecombinationof attributes(Oliver 1967:441). The in-
line is a con-
abilityto pass on leadershipwithina hereditary
sequence of the ease with which supporterscan shifttheir
I
Milisauskas (1978:156, 229) arguesthat,as of the 3d millennium
B.C., a two-tieredsettlementhierarchyis attested in areas where
there is adequate evidence for settlementpatterns (e.g., Funnel-
Beaker Poland). The differences in settlementsize may,however,be
attributableto differencesin the time spans of site occupation,the
richnessoflocal resourcebases, or othernonhierarchicalfactors.Even
in so thoroughlysurveyedan area as Late Bronze Age northwestern
Bohemia (Bouzek, Koutecky,and Neustupny1966), it is difficult to
discerna clear rankingof settlements.
4 CURRE
allegiancefroma leader who provesunsatisfactory. An egali-
tarian social orderis maintainedas such by the facilitywith
whicha leader,actual or potential,can be abandonedby his
followers,should he displease them. Carneiro(1968:136) has
pointedout how thissame weaknessin "internalpoliticalcon-
trols"leads to villageschisms.In a sense,then,one may con-
siderlineagesegmentation and concomitant villagefissionto be
the ultimatemechanismby whichthe self-aggrandizement of
"big-men"is checked.We seekto understandhowand whythe
attemptsofambitioustribesmento securehereditary, ascribed
leadershipposts succeededin Copperand BronzeAge Europe.
We mustlook,therefore, forconditionswhichwouldretardthe
processofsegmentation characteristicoftribalsocieties.
A commonexplanationfordecreasein segmentation is popu-
lation increase and consequentpressureon spatially limited
resources("resourcecircumscription"). The strengthof this
argumentis that it explains how dissidentscan affordthe
courageof theirconvictionsin tribalsocieties:it is ecologically
possibleforthemto escape ("land suitableas a habitat fora
dissidentgroupis easily found" [Carneiro1968:136]). What-
ever the empiricalmeritsof this argumentmay be in other
settings,it will not explainthe retardationof segmentation in
prehistoric Europe. Broad stretchesof uninhabited,but habit-
able, wildernessexistedin Europe and the Mediterraneanwell
intothemediaevaland earlymodernperiod.In laterprehistoric
times,when populationdensitiesmust have been far lower,
therewouldhave been plentyof land into whichpeople could
move to avoid unwantedmasters.The shifttowards social
complexityoccurs,furthermore, on too broad and diversea
frontfortheresource-circumscription argumentto be viable.
Any nonfunctionalist account of the developmentof social
stratificationmustconfrontthe centralfunctionalist idea that
hierarchyultimatelyis adaptive for society as a whole. In
generalterms,the functionalist positionis that elites retard
segmentation(attract a following)by providingmanagerial
servicesrequiredin a highlyproductiveeconomy:in theMeso-
potamiancase, forexample,theelitewouldorganize,in thearea
ofexchange,theprocurement ofwoodand stoneand,in thearea
of production,the construction and maintenanceof irrigation
works.The nonfunctionalist mustturnthisaroundand explain
in nonmanagerialtermswhy societieswithhighlyproductive
economiestendto have elites.In otherwords,whataspects of
the productionand exchangesystemsof Copper and Bronze
Age Europe openedup the opportunity foreffectivelong-term
exploitationby a rulingminority?
COMMODITY EXCHANGE
The basic nonfunctionalist argumenton theroleofexchangein
the originsof class societiesgoes back to Engels (1972 [1891]).
For Engelscraftproduction, and especiallymetallurgy, entailed
the developmentofa networkof commodityexchange,control
ofwhichgave middlementheopportunity to establishpositions
of wealthand power.This idea was, as we have seen,takenup
by Childein hisaccountofEuropeanBronzeAge social change.
Childetiedhis theoryto hypothetical Near Easternprospectors
and merchants,but one could easily allow local factorsmore
play.
In orderto use tradeas a motiveprocessfortheemergenceof
one mustargue that the goods exchanged
social stratification,
are essentialones.The goodswhichthemiddlemancan denythe
householdwhichrefusesto pay his price mustbe requiredfor
the household'slivelihood.In otherwords,trademustinvolve,
directlyor indirectly, the basic subsistencesectorof the econ-
omy.Thus, Adams (1966) showsthat specializationin agricul-
tural production(and the consequentneed to exchangefood-
stuffs)promoted the developmentof social inequalities in
Mesopotamia. Kohl (1978) suggeststhat highlandersin the
NT ANTHROPOLO GY
 Near East became dependenton grainimportsfromthe low-
lands and thuson theirsuppliers.Childe (1951, 1954) stressed
the importanceof metaltools (made fromexoticraw materials
by a fewspecialists)in facilitatingland clearanceand harvest-
ing. A nonfunctionalist accountof the importanceof exchange
in theoriginsofEuropeanBronzeAge elitescould,in principle,
be constructed along theselineswithoutOrientalintervention.
The difficulties attendantupon using these argumentsin a
Europeansettingare not theoretical,but empirical.Foodstuffs
are bulky:to movea sufficient volumeofthemto createlocal or
regionaldependenceon theirimportation wouldhave beenquite
beyondthecapacityofBronzeAge transportsystems.Further-
more,the available economicevidence does not supportthe
hypothesisof extensivetrade in subsistenceitems. If in the
BronzeAge "smokedfishfromthe Baltic would have made a
usefulcontribution to inlanddiets" (Coles and Harding 1979:
281), one should findappropriatefishbones on inland sites.
One does not, and theirabsence need not be attributedto
taphonomicor samplingbiases. All the animal and plant re-
mainsfromBronzeAge sitesare consistentwiththereasonable
view that their inhabitantsate foods produced or foraged
locally.It is hard to envisionAunjetitzor Argariccommoners
dependenton rationsfromafar and submissiveto the chiefs
who controlledtheirsupply.
Quite apart fromthe simplifications involvedin some for-
mulationsabout theroleofsmithsand prospectorsas agentsof
trade (Rowlands 1971), the metallurgicalvariantof the com-
modity-exchange argumentfacesthe difficulty that,on present
evidence,it is hard to see how the metal implementsactually
knownfromBronze Age Europe would have helped increase
overallproductionsubstantially.What Arribas(1968:49) says
of Iberia-"we know of no agriculturaltools of metal in the
BronzeAge"-is not quite trueforEurope as a whole,but it is
notfaroffthemark.Onlyin theLate BronzeAge are substan-
tial numbersofutilitarianmetalartifactsfound.The veryfact
that mostbronzesare foundin burialsand votivehoardssug-
geststhatmetalhad a social and ideologicalratherthana prac-
tical value. A luxurylike metalreflects, of course,the differen-
tial possessionofwealth,forwhichthe materialmay serveas a
convenientformof storage. By providingequipment both
prestigiousand suitablefortradeforotherluxuries(cf.Harrison
and Gilman1977),metallurgy mayhave consolidatedthesway
of an alreadyexistentelite. It would not seem,however,that
copperand bronzeplayed a significant role in maintainingthe
economicand social securityof households.Accordingly, it is
hard to accept thatit called the eliteintobeing.It is betterto
see metal as an index than as a cause of the developmentof
social stratificationin Europe.
Whilethecommodity-exchange theoryofeliteoriginsmaybe
usefulin othersettings,in laterprehistoricEurope it founders
on theapparentself-sufficiency oflocal communities. Trade was
mostlyconfinedto luxuries.4We must look, therefore, to the
processesof subsistenceproductionthemselvesratherthan to
exchangeforthematerialrootsofeliteorigins.
4 Coles and Harding (1979:61-63) emphasizetheimportanceofsalt
in the economy of the Bronze Age. Since it is both biologically
necessaryto its consumersand portable in quantities sufficient to
satisfydemand,salt arguablywould be a bettercenterpieceforthe
commodity-exchange theoryofeliteoriginsthaneithermetalor food.
Its exploitationin later prehistoricEurope is widespread (Nenquin
1961); in the Halle/Saale regionartifactsused in salt boilingdate to
the Early Bronze Age (Matthias 1976). This associationof earlysalt
productionwith the rich (i.e., clearly stratified[Otto 1955]) Saxo-
Thuringian Aunjetitz is suggestive but requires confirmationin
otherregions.Elsewhere,knownbriquetagesites are associated with
remainsof later periods,when social stratification was alreadv long
established.In any event,theinvisibilityof salt in thearchaeological
recordmakes it hard to assess its role in the economiesof areas that
importedit.
Vol. 22 * No. 1 - February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
CAPITAL-INTENSIVE SUBSISTENCE TECHNOLOGY
Nonfunctionalists have tendedto neglecttheroleofsubsistence
productionin providingpossibilitiesforlong-term exploitation
by a rulingminority. Once again it is Childewhohas suggested
a fruitfulapproach. Referringto the early developmentof
irrigationsystems,he writes:"All throughthe Near East the
bestsiteswerereclaimedwithtoil.Capital in theformofhuman
labor was beingsunkintotheland. Its expenditureboundmen
to the soil; theywould not lightlyforegothe interestbrought
in by theirreproductive works"(Childe 1951:89-90). This idea
may be extendedfromirrigationto any technologywhichsub-
stantiallyincreases productivitythroughpreparatorylabor.
Segmentationis onlyeasy if thosewho leave can readilypro-
duce in the mannerand at the levels to whichtheyare accus-
tomed.Departuremustnot involvethe abandonmentof sub-
stantialassets. If, forexample,subsistencedepends on slash-
and-burnfarming, one can effectively abandon an undesirable
leaderby bringing forwardthetimeofa shiftin cultivationsoon
to be undertakenin any event. Conversely,if the productive
systemrequiresa heavy preliminaryinvestmentof work,the
producerswillbe reluctantto relinquishtherestricted resources.
they themselveshave created. Whereirrigationor any other
capital-intensive formof subsistenceis crucial to production,
one can onlyabandonan undesirableleaderifone sacrificesthe
work expended to create facilitieswhich increase or insure
yields. Under conditionsthus impedingsegmentation,the
ambitionsofaspirantsto highstatuswillbe harderto check.In
thisway, then,elitescan formas moreproductivesubsistence
technologiesdevelop without the elites' being required to
organizetheproductiveimprovements. This theoryis,ofcourse,
particularlyusefulforexplainingsocial changein Copperand
Bronze Age Europe, whereelitesseem to have arisenwithout
managerialfunctions.What remainsto be specifiedis what
systems of productionwere developed in later prehistoric
Europe of sufficient intensityto have retardedthe fissionof
primitivesocial groups.
The generallyaccepted view of the agriculturalhistoryof
Europe duringthe4ththrough2d millenniaB.C. sees slash-and-
burnfarmingas the initialagriculturalform,followedby vari-
ous intensifications over the courseof time.There is overalla
progression towardsmorepowerful systemsofproductionwhich
is notonlylogical,butalso supportedby theavailable evidence
(Green1979). Information is too scatteredto permitsystematic
regionalreconstructions of the varied evolutionof subsistence
techniquesin laterprehistoric Europe.A numberofwidespread
developmentsdo involve, however,the substantial,durable
labor inputswhich,followingthe theoryjust outlined,would
help to unbalancean egalitarianpoliticaleconomy.Plow agri-
culture,Mediterraneanpolyculture,irrigation,and offshore
fishingwill be discussedhere in an attempt to specifythe
relationshipbetweenagriculturaland social change.
PLOW AGRICULTURE
Use of the ard is widelyattestedby the end of the 3d millen-
niumB.C. (Late Neolithicand Copper Age contexts).The evi-
dence falls broadlyinto five categories.First, thereare dis-
coveriesof the ards themselves.Examples fromHvorslev in
Denmark and the Polada-culturesite of Ledro in northern
Italy date to the earlier2d millenniumB.C. (Battaglia 1943,
Lerche 1968). Second, thereare artisticrepresentations,such
as the depictionsof ards in the rock art of southernSweden
(Glob 1951) and the southernAlps (Anati 1961),attributedto
theBronzeAge,orthecoppermodelofyokedoxenfromPoznanu
(Poland) of Copper Age date (Jazdzewski1965: pn.9). Third,
there are plowingmarks noted underneathbarrows.At the
South Streetlongbarrowin southernEngland thesecriss-cross
furrowsare C'4 dated to the early3d millennium B.C. (Fowler
and Evans 1967). Whilesome of theseexampleshave been re-
interpretedas being the result of turf-cutting rather than
plowing(Barkerand Webley1978:170), the widespreadoccur-
renceof thesesubsurfacemarkingsas of Late Neolithictimes
throughoutnorthernEurope (Neustupny1969) suggeststhat
the plow was in use on appropriatesoils well before2000 B.C.
Fourth,thereare thewidelynoted"Celtic" fieldsystemsin the
BritishIsles and northwestern Europe, fieldswhose lynchet
boundariesseem to have been produced by plowing.Many
examplesin GreatBritaincan now be placed in the 2d millen-
nium B.C. (Barrett,Hill, and Stevenson1976, Drewett 1978,
Fowler 1971,Thomas 1978), and in Ireland some of theseen-
closuresare dated to the 3d millennium(Caulfield1978). The
high phosphoruslevels in the soils of Bronze Age fieldson
Dartmoorsuggesta manuringregime(Denford 1975). Fifth,
thereis faunalevidenceforthe animalswhichpulled theards.
Clear metricalevidenceforcastratedcattleis reportedfromthe
Swiss BronzeAge (Higham 1968), and claimsforsimilarfinds
are made for contextsas early as the 3d millenniumB.C.
(Bok6nyi 1974:116). The horse,an animal typicallyused for
its tractionratherthansimplyas a nutritional resource,is first
domesticatedin the 3d millennium B.C. and is abundantin the
2d (Bokonyi 1974:243-48). The sum of thesediverselines of
evidence indicatesthat throughoutEurope plow agriculture
was firmly establishedby about 2000 B.C. or earlier.
The plowpresentsclearadvantagesto thefarmer in compari-
son to the hoe. Animaltractionincreasesthe area a man can
work(or enableshimto cultivatethesamearea withlesseffort).
At the same time,theplow turnsthe soil moreeffectively (for
example,by reincorporating plant materials),therebyincreas-
ing yieldsand shortening the fallowcycle.In a Mediterranean
climate the pulverizationof the soil by the ard helps retain
neededmoisture.On appropriatesoilseven thelightplowsused
in prehistoricEurope wouldpermita largeincreasein produc-
tivity.
This increaseis obtainedat a highinitialfixedcost. Fields
must be cleared more thoroughlythan for swiddenfarming.
The removalof stumps,once completedwithno littleeffort,
is a permanentasset.The farmermustalso have animalsto pull
theplow.This tractionpowermustbe createdby humaneffort
in advance ofproduction."Withplow agriculture. .. no direct
relationis exhibitedbetweenlabor currentlyinvestedin the
land and output.... To say plow agricultureis to say labor
storedin the ground,in animalsand in equipment"(Gudeman
1977:580). The lynchetsseparatingplots in prehistoricEuro-
pean field systemsmay be consideredthe fossilremainsof
propertyboundariesnewlyarisenundera systemof intensive
agriculture(Lancaster 1979:330) and reflecting fundamental
changesin land tenureand inheritance patterns(Goody 1976).
MEDITERRANEAN POLYCULTURE
Renfrew(1972). has emphasizedthe importanceof Mediter-
raneanpolyculture in generating theagriculturalsurplusneces-
sary forthe supportof Bronze Age Aegean civilization.Olive
pits,charcoalfromprunedolivebranches,oilpresses,and lamps
all clearlyindicatethe cultivationof the olive by the 3d mil-
lennium B.C.; a comparable range of palaeobotanical and
artifactualfindsshowsthat the vine was domesticatedat the
same time (J. M. Renfrew1973:125-34; Zoharyand Spiegel-
Roy 1975). The diffusion of vineand olive cultivationintothe
centraland westernMediterraneanis generallysupposed to
have occurredas part of the Greek colonizationof the 1st
millennium B.C. Thereis reasonto believe,however,that these
eminently usefulcultivarsmayhave beenexploitedin theWest
1,000 years or more earlier(Gilman 1976:315-16). In Spain,
forexample,olivepits have been recoveredfromEl Garceland
Nerja (Late Neolithic),Ereta del Pedregal(Copper Age), and
6 CURRE
El Argar and Serra Grossa (Bronze Age); grape seeds are
reportedfromMonte de la Barsella (Copper Age) and Serra
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
indigenousto the entireMediterraneanbasin, it is likelythat
theirprehistoriccultivationwas not restrictedto the eastern
sectorsof that region.Fig and carob are otherMediterranean
tree cropsforwhichevidenceof prehistoriccultivationexists
(AparicioPerez 1976:197-200;J. M. Renfrew1973:134-36).
Cultivatingthesetreecropshelpsthefarmerin severalways.
Olives and vinesare complementary to the staple cerealsand
legumes.The fruittreesmay be intercropped withannual har-
vests,and the scheduleof workwhichtheydemanddoes not
conflictwiththatof the othercultigens.Thus, olivesand vines
generatean absolute increasein productivityin the regions
wheretheycan be grown.As olive oil or wine,pickledolivesor
raisins,the crops lend themselvesto long-termstorage.Thus
Mediterraneanpolyculturepromotesthe materialsecurityof
the subsistencefarmer.
For the purposesof my argument,however,the most im-
portantfeatureofMediterranean polycultureis nottheincrease
in productivitywhich it permits,but the transformation of
propertyrelationswhichit implies.As farmingwas introduced
to prehistoricEurope,severalnew cultigens-oats and rye,for
example-were developed.They improvedcrop yieldsin tem-
perate climates(whichis whytheycame to be cultivated)but
did not change the dynamicsof domesticproduction:as an-
nuals,oats and ryehave muchthesamelaborrequirements and
storagepotentialas the wheat and barley they supplement.
Tree crops,in contrast,presentradicallynewtechnicalrequire-
ments.Vine cuttingsdo not yieldfruituntilthreeyears after
theyhave beenplantedbut produceforgenerationsthereafter.
Olives do not yieldfruitforten to fifteen
yearsafterplanting,
comeintofullproductionsometwentyyearslater,and continue
to give fruitforcenturies.In the meantime,the treesmustbe
pruned,the groundaround themplowed.In otherwords,the
farmermustinvesta lot ofworkbeforehe (or his heir)receives
a return.Mediterranean polycultureconstitutesa capital-inten-
sificationofsubsistence.
IRRIGATION
Chapman (1978) has stressedthe potentialimportanceof irri-
gationforagriculture in themorearid sectorsofMediterranean
Europe (cf. Gilman 1976:313-15). Direct evidence for pre-
historicirrigation(remains of dams and ditches) is scarce.
Balcer (1974) describesa Late Helladic dam nearTirynsin the
Argolid;Schule (1967) reportsa CopperAge irrigationditchat
Cerrode la Virgenin southeastern Spain. Giventhe likelihood
that recent irrigationsystemswill have obliteratedancient
ones,moreextensiveverification oftheimportanceofirrigation
in southernEurope mustrelyon indirectevidence,suchas the
locationof siteswithrespectto waterresources.Thus, in Late
Bronze Age Messenia sites are oftenlocated near springsand
irrigationsystemsnowin operation(Van Wersch1972). Copper
and BronzeAge sitesin the arid sectorsof southeasternSpain
are located at the confluenceof seasonal streamsto maximize
the potentialfor flood-waterfarming(Chapman 1978). The
evidenceremainsto be developed,but it seemslikelythatsim-
ple formsof irrigationwere widespread in Mediterranean
Europe duringlaterprehistoric times.
In regionsof Mediterraneanclimate,irrigationis generally
advantageous.The diversionof wateronto fieldssupplements
and stabilizesthe irregularrainfalland makes it possible to
growcrops in the summerdry season. In regionsof extreme
aridity,such as the Almeria/Murciaregionof southeastern
Spain (the "Nijar Desert" [Meigs 1966:89-91]), irrigationis
essentialforregularagriculturalproduction.By increasingand
NT ANTHROPOLO GY
insuringyields,irrigationpromotesthematerialsecurityofthe Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
subsistencefarmerin MediterraneanEurope.
In southeasternSpain, wherethe possibilityof prehistoric plantingof treescreate a man-madelandscape to whichcon-
irrigationhas beenlookedintomostclosely,it is apparentthat tinuedaccess must be insuredif the productionsecurityfor
hydraulicsystemswould have been small in scale. The flood- whichthelaborwas expendedis to be maintained.
water farmingsystemscurrentlyin operationin the region Underappropriatehistoricaland ecological conditions,the
(Vila Valenti 1961) are essentiallyof Neolithiccharacter,and desireformaterialsecurityled laterNeolithicfarmersto create
nothingmorecomplexneed be suggestedfortheirprehistoric productiveworksoflong-term and generalutility.These assets
predecessors.Irrigationcannothave demandedtechno-bureau- wouldbe of value to othersthan theircreators.Thus, capital-
cratic management.Its significancefor social stratification intensification of subsistencetransfers the problemof security
must,rather,be along the lines suggestedby Childe: once a fromthe materialto the social field.The investments of labor
systemhas been graduallyexpanded,its dams, ditches,and to insurefutureproductionwouldhave to be defended.But the
terracesrepresenta considerableinvestment. value of these same assets would dampen the potentialfor
social fission,so that it wouldbe difficult to checkthe aspira-
tions of those to whomthe defensehad been entrusted.In the
OFFSHORE FISHING
face of a protectorwhoseexactionsseem excessive,the house-
Accountsof prehistoricfishingin Europe afterthe Mesolithic hold's choicesare limited:it may abandon the asset forwhich
are scarce, Clark's (1977) discussionof the offshorefishing it soughtprotection;it may findanotherprotector(who may
activitiesof megalith-builders in AtlanticEurope and Evans proveno less self-aggrandizing thanhispredecessor);or it may
and Renfrew's(1966) descriptionof tunnyfishingat Saliagos submitto the excessiveexactions.Over the long term,these
in the Cyclades being salient examples. There is reason to options consistentlyfavor the protectors.In the end there
believe,however,thatfishing mayhave beenmoreimportantto wouldhave arisena permanentrulingclass. Its main symbols
laterprehistoric Europeaneconomiesthanthescantyliterature ofpowerand prestige-armsand flashyluxuriesentirelyappro-
wouldindicate.Thus,in southernScandinavia,thehundredsof priate to the elite's functionin society-constitutethe most
ships depicted on Bronze Age rock carvings and artifacts salientfeatureof the Early Bronze Age fromAunjetitzto El
(Brondsted1958:135-40,176), as wellas the cod and haddock Argar.
remains recoveredfrom one of the region's few excavated Verification of thisaccountultimatelymustdepend on the
Bronze Age settlementsites (Thrane 1971:160), suggestpre- reconstruction of detailed sequences of economicand social
historicexploitationof a richavailable resource.The evidence changein thevariousregionsofEurope.Two implicationscan,
remainsto be recoveredand developed,but the richnessof however,be at leastpartiallyexamined.Temporally,thetheory
Atlantic,Baltic,and Mediterraneanfisheries and the longtra- suggeststhatin any givenregiontheintroduction ofintensified
ditionofexploitingmarineresourcessuggestthat offshore fish- subsistencetechniquespreceded the developmentof social
ing may have made a substantialcontribution to the material stratification.Spatially,it suggeststhat at any giventimethe
securityoftheresidentsofcoastal Europe. degree of stratification was more intensein areas in which
To theextentthatfishing is carriedoutbeyondtheimmediate capital-intensification of subsistencewas either particularly
shore,it involvesprogressivelymore elaborate technological necessaryor particularlyadvantageous.
assistance.A hookand line,a castingnet,a leisterare all fairly Available evidencemeetsthe firstof these two corollaries.
simple,but the larger boats and nets requiredfor effective In Denmark,forexample,plow agricultureis widelyattested
exploitationof offshore fisheriesinvolve a very considerable in CordedWare/BattleAxe contextsofthelater3d millennium
investment oflabor in advance ofproduction.The 15-msewn- B.C. (Seebergand Kristensen1964),yet stratification does not
plank boats of Bronze Age date fromNorth Ferriby(York- developuntilthe Early BronzeAge (Randsborg1974). A simi-
shire)are estimatedto have had a workinglifetimeof50 years lar sequence of economicand social events occurs in central
(Wrightand Churchill1965). Once again, if such technologies Europe (Neustupny1969,Otto 1955). Olive and vine cultiva-
are importantto a group'ssubsistence,thatgroupis dependent tionis well establishedin the Aegean by Early BronzeAge 2,
upon capital investments to which continuedaccess mustbe wellbeforethe Minoan/Mycenaean"takeoff"intosocial com-
insuredby social means. plexity (Renfrew1972). Given the evidence for substantial
climaticstabilityoverthepast 7,000yearsinsoutheastern Spain
(Chapman 1978), irrigationmust have been practisedby the
DISCUSSION Nijar Desert'searliestfarmers in the4thmillennium B.C.; social
stratificationis firstapparentin the El Argarcultureofthe 2d
I have set forthfour capital-intensifications of subsistence millennium(the burialpatternsof the precedingLos Millares
introducedmoreor less widelyin Europe in later prehistoric phase beingcharacterizedby "ranking"[Chapman1977]).Off-
times. Other possibilities-Barfield's(1971:71) mention of shorefishinghas been suggestedas an importantsubsistence
agriculturalterracingin Bronze Age northernItaly, for ex- activityby Clark (1977) for the megalith-builders of later
ample-remain to be explored.The changesmentionedhere NeolithicAtlantic Europe, well beforeBronze Age develop-
share importantfeatures.All are simpletechnologiesto insti- ments. Capital-intensification of subsistenceclearly precedes
tute; the taskswhichtheyentailcan be carriedout withinthe theemergence ofelitesin laterprehistoric Europe.
scope of cooperationbetweenhouseholdswhich may be pre- The scarcityofdetailedstudiesofBronzeAgesocialstructure
sumedto existnormallywithinthe domesticmode of produc- makesit moredifficult to assess the spatial implicationsof my
tion (Sahlins 1972). In addition,all contributeto the produc- theory.For Early BronzeAge Denmark,Randsborg(1974) has
tion securityof households.The plow, olive trees,irrigation shownthat positivecorrelationsexistbetweenthe numberof
systemsnot only increase,but also (and more significantly) graves in a region,the degree of stratification reflectedby
stabilizeproduction.Thus, the adoption of these techniques wealth differentials in cemeteries,and the traditionalgrain
may be understoodwithoutappeal to factorssuch as popula- yieldsforthatregion.This is consistent withthesuggestion that
tion pressureor resourcedepletion.Finally,the benefitscon- plowagriculture generatesnotonlyhigherpopulationdensities,
ferredby the new methodsare all achieved by preparatory but also greatersocial inequalities.An exceptionto thistrend
labor inputswhich,once expended,assist productionover the occursin northwestern Jutland,wherepopulationdensityand
longterm.Developedfarming and fishingentailtheinvestment wealthconcentration are muchgreaterthanwouldbe predicted
of much work in long-lastingassets which cannot easily be by grainyields.It is notable,however,thatnorthwestern Jut-
relinquished.The buildingof dams, clearing of fields,and land is adjacent to therichLimfjordfishing grounds(Rasmus-
Vol. 22 *No. 1 February1981
sen 1974),whereoffshore fishing wouldbe highlyproductiveandat the expenseof an at least equally significant amassingof
comparativelysafe. Randsborg'sdetailedregionalassessments wealthand laborpowerfortheirownimmediatebenefitthrough
of social structureand economicpotentialare as yet rare in conflictand otherexploitativemeans. However,he seems to
Europeanprehistoric studies.For the mostpart one mustrely findit clear,whileI do not, that thereare coherent,opposed
on moregeneraldistributional argumentsin seekingconfirma-clusterings offunctionalist and nonfunctionalist scholarlyposi-
tion of the theory.Thus the significanceof Mediterranean tions.It is evenless apparentto me thatwe wouldscorea con-
polyculturein Aegean cultureprocessis reflected, ceptual or interpretive
as Renfrew advance by whollydenyingthe former
(1972:283) indicates, by the tendencyof major Minoan/ and insistingthatonlythe nonfunctionalist schoolcan contrib-
Mycenaean sites to be located in areas of large-scalepresentute to an understanding of social evolutionaryprocesses.As
viticulture.A similarargumentcan be put forwardforarid the increasinglyfruitlesscontroversiesover new versus old
southeasternSpain, whose Copper/BronzeAge sequence (the archaeologyand substantivistversus formalisteconomican-
Los Millaresand El Argarcultures)is therichestin theIberian thropology also suggest,ouraim shouldbe to redressa balance
peninsula.This relativewealthis definedby thegreaternumber ratherthan to prolongan oscillationbetweenpolarized,ideo-
of fine and exotic goods (ivory, metal, etc.) found in elitelogicallypurepositions.
burialsassociatedwithpermanent,oftenfortified AncientNear Easterndata shed some comparativelighton
settlements.
Immediatelyto the west in well-wateredcentralAndalusia,a otheraspects of his argumentin whicha slightreformulation
regionwhoseculturalsequenceis nowwellunderstood(Arribas mightbe helpful.Particularlyimportantis theplace he assigns
1976), metal and otherluxurygoods are scarce and wealth to craftsmanship, and especiallymetallurgy. In denyinga cen-
differentials tralrolefortradein theemergenceofsocial stratification,
betweenburialsrelativelysmall; indeed,collective he is
burialritualspersistwellintothe2d millennium at pains to identifythe specializedproductionof copperand
B.C., longafter
theirreplacementby individualizingburial rites in the arid bronzeas having been mainlvfordisplay,burial and votive
regionsto the east. Apparently,in better-watered hoarditemshaving"a socialand ideologicalratherthanpracti-
regionsdry
farming was easier,capital-intensification cal value." One mayask,however,to whatextenttheapparent
ofsubsistence(in the
formof irrigation)was less necessary,and, as a consequence, latenessand rarityof archaeologicallyattestedmetal agricul-
tendencies towards social stratificationwere less marked. tural tools are sufficient demonstration of thispoint. Excava-
Furtherinstancesoftheregionalassociationofsocialcomplexity tionsthathave been concentrated almostexclusivelyon graves
with capital-intensivesubsistenceremain,of course, to be and settlements are a grosslyunrepresentative sampleon which
developed. to base such a generalization, the moreso since thereis every
I have soughtto put forwardan accountoftheemergenceof reasonto believethatbrokenitemswerevaluable enoughto be
elitesin Bronze Age Europe whichwill improveon the func- repeatedlyreworkedand recast. Gilman makes referenceto
tionalismcurrentamongEuropeanistprehistorians. claysicklesthatwereindeedubiquitousin Mesopotamiaduring
The theory
presentedhere is more faithfulto the sequence and regional mostofthe4thmillennium, but it is equallysignificant thatby
distribution theendofthatspan theyhad practicallydisappearedfromcon-
of economicand social eventsin later prehistoric
Europe. Thus, even in Greece and the Aegean, where the temporaryuse (Adams 1981), surelyhavingbeen replacedby
Minoan and Mycenaeanpalaces give managerialtheoriessome metal equivalentseven thoughthe latterare still almost un-
plausibility,evidence for stratification knownin archaeologicalcontext.
precedesthe develop-
mentofcentersforhigher-order Whilewelcomingtheemphasishe givesto agricultural
regulationby severalcenturies. inten-
In addition,a nonfunctionalist sificationas a stimulusto social stratification,
approach explainsbetterthe T am similarly
militarismwhich characterizesthe accoutrementsof Bronze uneasyoverhis displacementofcommodity exchangefromany
Age elitesthroughout part in engendering
Europe. As the "protectors"established this process. Grantedthat long-distance
and consolidatedtheirpower over the capital-intensive movementof foodstuffs
food was "quite beyond the capacity of
producersunderthem,means to display theirsuperioritybe- Bronze Age transportsystems"(save in cases like Egypt and
came necessary.The developmentof specializedtechnologies, Mesopotamia,wherecentralriverinearteriespermittedlarge-
such as metallurgy, and the tradein luxuriesshouldbe viewedscale water-borne commerce),we cannotmerelybifurcatecul-
as indicationsratherthan as causes of the emergenceofstrati-turalinventories intoutiliarianproductsand luxuriesand deny
fication.As Lancaster (1979) pointsout,in societieswithcapi- theimportanceofinterregional tradeon thegroundsthatit was
tal-intensiveagriculture confinedto the necessarilyrestricted
subsistenceand prestigeare integrated flowof thelatter.A more
intoa unitarypoliticaleconomyofpower.Finally,the outlook functionalview, but one not inconsistentalso with Gilman's
takenherecorresponds betterthanthefunctionalist model of conflict-based
viewto the evolution,instead mightmake a case
actual role of elitesin historicallyand ethnographically forthe social utilityeven of preciousmetalsthat wereunam-
docu-
mentedclass societies.A focuson exploitation, biguousluxuries.Naturallyscarce,fungible,
ratherthan on durable,and with
management, as the central"function"of the rulingclass con-a widespreadreputationforfinenessand integrity, theycould
stitutesa moreuniformitarian be hoardedand rapidlydeployedas a formofbuffering
viewofsocialprocessin stratified against
societies.For thisreason,thetheoryput forwardheremayhelp riskand uncertainty. The movementof gold and silveracross
explainthe beginnings of social stratification muchof the Old Worldcontinuedsteadilyand withfewinter-
in otherinstances
besidesthat oflaterprehistoric Europe. ruptions,at least duringall laterpremodern periodsforwhich
our knowledgeis more adequate. For the Bronze Age, too,
therefore, someformofluxurytradeperhapsshouldbe seen as
a prototypefor what later became "a disguisedtransferof
essentialgoods" (Schneider1977:27) and "a major economic
Comments process-not merelyan epiphenomenon" (Richardsn.d.).
A finaldifficulty may be involvedin Gilman's attemptto
byROBERT McC. ADAMS documentthe coreprocessofthe growthofsocial stratification
OrientalInstitute,University
of Chicago,Chicago,III. 60637, fromarchaeologicaldata alone. Rich female and subadult
U.S.A. 29 vi 80 gravesmay indeed reflect"the progressiveseparationof high
Gilman'sanalysis,whileprimarilyconcernedwithprehistoric status fromachievement"in a prehistoricEuropean setting,
Europe, is of much widerinterestand relevance.I generally but Mesopotamiancuneiformtexts fromthe mid-3dmillen-
sharehis viewthatexplanationsfortheriseofsocial eliteshave niumnoware knownthat unambiguously attestto alternative
too frequentlystressedtheirintegrative,
managerialfunctions possibilities.In one case, the purchaserof a fieldfromthe

8 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
eldestson ofa dead templeadministrator undertookto provide
luxurious,carefullyspecifiedfuneraryofferingsnot onlyforthe
grave of the fatherbut forthe grave of the motherupon her
eventualdeath (Steinkeller1980). Such documentary evidence
raisesdoubtsthatextendto areas likeEuropewhereit does not
exist.How genuinely separableare statusand achievementany-
where,not forindividualsbut forsocial aggregates?By what
analyticalsubtletiescan we manageto interpret archaeological
associationsof gravegoods so as to disentanglepersonalhold-
ings,reciprocaltransfersof materialgoods,and perhapsalso
giftsor exchangesintendedto solidifyvariousformsofalliance?
The problemis compoundedby numerousindicationsthat the
roleof women,at any rate in earlySumeriansociety,was not
thepassive,subordinateone that is perhapstoo quicklytaken
forgrantedforthe Bronze Age generally.In short,increasing
variabilityin thewealthdisposedin gravescouldwellhave had
a numberofmeaningsforearlyEuropejust as forMesopotamia.
We shouldacknowledgetheconsiderableelementofspeculation
in explainingsuch variabilityon the basis of movementalong
the singleaxis frommodeststatus differentiation towardin-
creasinglyrigidand pronouncedsocial stratification.
byANNAMARIABIETTISESTIERI
via Monterone 4, 00186 Rome,Italy. 12 vi 80
The author'sviews on prehistoriceconomyseem to be based
mainlyon the categoriesand functioning of moderneconomic
systems;it is at least questionablethatwe can legitimately use
concepts as trade or capital investmentwith referenceto
Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe.
Furthermore, a basic culturalchange (that is, a structural
transformation cannot
such as the rise of social stratification)
be seenas determined by a singlefactor-herethepresenceofa
"capital-intensivesubsistencetechnology"-isolatedfromits
context.In a generalconsiderationof prehistoricEurope, it
shouldbe seenas theresultofbasicallyseparatelocal develop-
mentsassociatedwiththeexistenceofregionalsituationslargely
differentin environmental, social,economic,and, moregeneral-
ly, culturalconditions.The emergenceof social stratification
should thereforebe analyzed as a process internalto the
regionalculturalcontextand resultingfroma whole complex
of specificallylocal factors.
The author'scriticismof the functionalist approach to the
developmentof social stratification applies only to historical
situationsof advanced social division(Sumnerand Rome are
amongthe instancesproposed),that is, to trueclass societies.
In such instancesthe organizingactivityof the rulingelitesis
obviouslyfunctionalforthe rulingclass or classes and may or
may not also be functionalforthe lowerones. However,this
apparentlydoes not apply to unstratified societies,in which
specializedmanagerialor militaryactivityof groupsor indi-
vidualsmaywellbe functional forthecommunity as a wholeas
well as representing the startingpoint forthe formationof a
hereditaryelite (that is, forthe riseof class division).
As regards"capital-intensivesubsistencetechnologies,"all
subsistencetechniquesrelatedto agricultureas the main eco-
nomic basis of a societyimplya substantialenvironmental
change-preciselywhat the authorwouldcall a capital invest-
ment.Slash-and-burn agriculturein continentalEurope under
technicalconditionsof Neolithictype is a perfectlygood in-
stance.Plow agriculture and irrigation are widelydiffused agri-
cultural techniqueswith no special implicationsas "capital
investments" in respectto others.Moreover,fielddivisionsdo
not necessarilyimplyprivateownershipof the land, as is indi-
cated by instancesof the subdivisionof communalland into
individual familygardens or fields in modern "primitive"
societies.Mediterraneanpolycultureis a complexsubsistence
techniquethat cannotbe identified fromthe presenceof olive
pits or grape seeds alone, since it indeed impliespermanent
Vol. 22 No. 1 *February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
privateownership ofland. In centralItaly,thistechniqueis not
archaeologically knownbeforethe 7thcenturyB.C., apparently
as a consequence,notas a cause,oftheemergence ofpermanent
Offshore
social stratification. fishingmay be a "capital-inten-
sive technology"(thoughnot a durablyeffective one) but does
not seemto be so clearlyattestedon archaeologicalgroundsas
to be considereda widelydiffused subsistencetechniquein the
BronzeAge.
The limitedsize of the European Neolithicand BronzeAge
communitiesand the consistentdiscontinuitvin settlement
seem to excludethe hypothesisof durablysuccessful"capital
investment"and its effectsas the basis forthe emergenceof
permanentrulingclasses duringthese periods. As a general
hypothesisforprehistoric Europe,it seemspossibleto suggest
that one or more of the preconditionsfor the emergenceof
permanenteliteswerepresentat different timesand in different
culturalareas of Europe at least fromthe CopperAge on, but
thenecessarycombination ofpermanent preconditions(mainly,
generalisedlabour division,settlementcontinuity,and large
communities)did not appear beforethe Late Bronze and
Early Iron Ages.
byALBERTOCAZZELLA
Istitutodi Paletnologia,Universitd di Roma,via Palestro63
00185 Roma,Italy. 25 vii 80
Gilmanhas set himselfthe task of expressingin explicitterms
the theoreticalassumptionsthat formthe basis of various
interpretive hypotheses.AlthoughI agree with many of his
statements,thereare some thingsthat I findpuzzling.The
"functionalism"he discusses brings togetherscholars with
vastly different ideas: Wittfogel,Service, Sahlins, Flannery,
Renfrew,et al. Perhapsthe one thingtheyhave in commonis
theprecedencetheygiveto thesocialoverthepurelyeconomic,
whichaccordingto almostall of themderivesfromsubstanti-
visteconomics(in whichcase, Adamsshouldalso be included).
The significance assume,forexample,in
thatsocial institutions'
a neoevolutionistview cannot be applied to ideas based on
systemstheory.If it is rightto criticizea harmoniousconcep-
tionof societyand to emphasizethe exploitativenatureof the
emergingelite, then.it is necessaryto point out that even
Childe assignedsuch an elite an importantfunction,which,
independentof any moral considerations, contributedto the
creationof a basis formorecomplexhistoricaldevelopments.
Explanationssimplylabeled "nonfunctionalist" run the risk
of endingup as social psychologicalstatements:Some individ-
uals tend to dominateothersand can onlybe stoppedby the
splittingup ofthegroup;groupstendto splitunless,forreasons
of investment of capital,theyare forcedto confinethemselves
to specifiedterritories.Gilman states that technologicalele-
ments(theplow,vineand olivecultivation)are directlyrespon-
sible fora closerconnectionwiththe territory occupied; these
elementsshould,however,be considerednot as causes, but as
indicationsof an alteredsocioeconomicorder.Whetheror not
one can reallyspeak of a "rulingclass" in the Bronze Age of
Europe,class differences shouldbe based on concretedivergen-
ces ofgroupeconomicinterestsratherthanthoseofindividuals.
Although recent prehistoricresearch has recognized an
independentdevelopmentof the various European cultures
duringthe Bronze Age, it would be wrongto excludeentirely
the economicand social influencesof highlycomplexsocieties
derivingfromthe Aegeanand the Near East. This wouldonly
serve to confusethe phenomenaoutlinedby Childe with a
generic"diffusionism." The evolutionof social stratification
duringthe Bronze Age of Europe is perhapstoo complicated
to be explainedby a singlemechanismof actionand reaction.
9
byHENRIJ. M. CLAESSEN byCAROLEL. CRUMLEY
Instituteof Culturaland Social Studies,University ofLeiden, Departmentof Anthropology, University of NorthCarolina,
Stationsplein 10, Leiden,The Netherlands. 27 vi 80 ChapelHill, N.C. 27514, U.S.A. 2 viii 80
Gilmanconvincingly argueswhyBronzeAgeEuropeanfarmers Evidence forsocial stratification in the European BronzeAge
preferredto stay in theirvillages ratherthan to migrateto is confinedto burial furniture and a few isolated habitation
escape theburdenofexploiting(political)leaders.In thisway- sites.Thereis scantdemographic information, and thereare no
and in thisway only-his well-documented articleis a valuable data on settlementsize, composition,or function(s).Nothing
contributionto our knowledgeof the developmentof social is knownof the natureof social or economicrelationsor of
stratification and political leadership.It does not explain, land tenure.Lacking such information, it is particularlyrisky
however,howand whystratification and leadershipdeveloped. to speculatewhichsegmentsof the community mightmanipu-
We may safelyassume that inequalityand leadershipalready late capital and in whatformcapital mightchangehands.
existedlong beforethose farmersstarted to invest in their Gilmanrightly stressestheimportanceofnewlabor-intensive
agriculturalequipment.The new situationmay have led only practicesthat undoubtedlyconcentratedcapital in physical
to a morecomplexor moreintensiveformofleadershipand the space,buthe makesa leap offaithin theassumptionthatthose
formation ofa clearlydistinguished elite. who controlledfixedresourceswerethe same individualswho
He rejectstheviewthattheleadersor elitewerebenefactors wereburiedamidstmobilierpersonnel.The pointis that with
of theirpeoples,and he is probablyrightin this.However,in littleevidenceand no convincingethnographic parallels,it is
doingthisso rigorously he runsthe riskof throwingaway the entirely possiblethattwosegmentsofa BronzeAgecommunity
baby with the bathwater.There is substantialevidencethat mighthave made ratherdifferent capital investments-onein
sociopoliticalleadershave servedthe interestsof theirpeoples heritableland, the otherin easily disposed-of goods.In such a
welland fairly.It can even be arguedthat the rootsof leader- scenario,the dialecticof powerbetweenthe two mighthave
shipare foundexactlyin thisquality(e.g., Levi-Strauss1967). led in some cases to dominanceby personswho controlled
That leaderswerecompensatedfortheiractivitiesseemsrea- capital in bothforms.
sonableand evident;reciprocity is an almostuniversalfeature Gilman'sargumentthattheindividualsburiedwithprecious
in humanculture(cf. Sahlins 1965,Mauss 1970). That in the goods were consistently the rulingclass (i.e., at the top of a
courseof time,with the growthof sociopoliticalcomplexity, hierarchicalsocial and economicstructure)fallsintothe classic
reciprocalrelationsbecame asymmetricalcannot be denied flawedfunctionalist categoryhe decries:it is functionalist in
(cf. Claessen 1978,Friedman1979),but thisis not sufficient to that these people are mobile defendersof immobileagricul-
makea politicaleliteexploitersonly. turalists,hierarchicalin that they representa group which
controlstheproductionofagriculturalists throughtribute,and
"evolutionary"in that complexityis again associated with
byGEORGE L. COWGILL hierarchicalorganization.
Department of Anthropology, Brandeis University,Waltham, If one is to stresstheindependenceof EuropefromOriental
Mass. 02254, U.S.A. 14 VII 80 influences, thenone mustalso stressthe incrediblevarietyof
I am strongly in sympathywithGilman'sgeneralpointofview, Europeanculturesand theirdistinctivehistoric,economic,and
which is highlycritical of functionalistexplanationsof the culturalcircumstances. A rulingelitemay well have comeinto
originsofsocialstratification and also ofsimplistic
explanations beingin someareas whenconquerorsestablisheddominanceby
of stratification as an adaptive responseto environmental or forceofarmsoverlocal agriculturalists. In otherareas (as one
demographic pressures.I believeGilmanhas madea significant sees in Africa,forexample)a groupof individualsmay have
contribution to thoughtabout social stratification in general, establishedinheritablepower in a few generations.In still
as wellas to our understanding of BronzeAge Europe. others,the peculiarlyEuropean versionof patronage,linked
I have only a fewsuggestionsforsmall improvements and with the inheritanceof particularparcels of land (mountain
Thereis a slighttendencyto speakas ifbeneficial passes, riverfords,etc.) suitedforregionaldefense,may have
clarifications.
managementand selfishexploitationweremutuallyexclusive, solidified thesocialand economicpositionofa lineage.In some
althoughI doubt if Gilman reallyintendsthis. In any case, areas, it is possiblethat merchantsand otherswho controlled
human affairsare more complicated,and many elites have a variety of informationgained dominance throughtheir
surelyoperated by complexand shiftingmixes of coercion, associationwithmorepowerfulcontiguousgroups.
intimidation, bamboozlement, enthusiasm,and at least some- In short,I wouldarguethatno singletheoryoftheoriginsof
timessomereal benefitsforthosebeneaththem. social stratification,functionalistor nonfunctionalist (is thisa
Anothersourceof confusionin functionalist argumentscon- veiledreference to theNew Structuralism? ifso, Gilmanshould
cernsthe entityor entitiesbeingbenefited.With referenceto showthe forceof his convictions),can coverthe multitudeof
individualpersons,the shiftto stratification may mean a culturalcircumstances in Bronze Age Europe. Moreover,it is
deterioration in the qualityof lifeforall but a few.Yet, with best to considerhierarchicalnotionsof social stratification in
reference may be the only
to societies,a shiftto stratification Europe (forwhichonlylimiteddata exist) and elsewhereas a
way to surviveif the societyfindsitselfin competitionwith particularcase ofheterarchical (Crumley1979) social structure.
otherstratified and aggressivesocieties. This generalassumptionwouldallow variousfactions-landed
In connection withthislastpoint,I wonderifbronzeweapons agriculturalists, religiousfigures,merchants,skilled trades-
were merelyanothermeans by which elites displayedtheir persons,and a host of others-to jockey (as theymust have)
superiorityor if they don't reflecta considerableincreasein forsocial,political,and economicpositionin a systemopen to
seriouswarfareas various elites competedwith one another both cultural (e.g., mercantile,military)and natural (e.g.,
forsignificant materialstakes. climatic,topographic)variation.
Gilman makes good use of Earle's analysis of Hawaii and
notes the relevance of ethnographicand historicstudies of
othermorerecentstratifiedsocieties.I stronglyagree,and I byTIMOTHY EARLE
believethatanalysis,or reanalysis,ofnumerousotherinstances Departmentof Anthropology, Universityof California,Los
would supportand refineGilman'sgeneralthesis,if the work Angeles,Calif.90024, U.S.A. 24 vii 80
is undertakenwithoutstrongfunctionalist preconceptionsand Gilman'snonfunctionalist approachto explainingsocial strati-
without the opposite preconceptionthat all elites can be ficationis mostattractive,and I fundamentally agreewithhis
assumed to be purelyand simplyexploitativeunless proven argument.The functionalist positionhas had difficulty estab-
otherwise. lishinghow an institution withgeneralsurvivalvalue could be
10 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 selected for. In a small egalitarian society, the perceived
advantage of an institutionto the individualsof a group is
sufficient to explain why the institutionwould have been
adopted or elaborated.However,in a stratifiedsociety the
situationis morecomplicated.As Gilmanmakesclear,because
interestsdifferforthe various classes withinthe societyit is
best to see how an institutionfunctionsto maintaina given
classratherthanthesocietyas a whole.For example,irrigation,
warfare,and trade may be selectedforbecause they support
elitesand theircontroloverwealth.
Thus we returnto the questionof how to explain social
stratification.Can it be that elitesare requiredto solve prob-
lemsconcernedwithgroupsurvival?Gilmanarguesconvincing-
ly against this. Can therebe technologicalor environmental
characteristics that eitherprovideinherentdifferential access
to economicresourcesor,as Gilmansuggests,enablecontrolby
elites because of the high costs of segmentation? This is the
reasoningofthepresentpaper.We must,however,stillconsider
fullyhowelitesprovideservicesto theirdependentpopulations
and how this may affectthe evolutionof social stratification.
Elites provideaccess to land and technology,some security
againsthardtimes,and protectionfromattack.Ethnographers
frequently mentionthepaternalism ofelitesand theimportance
ofthisrelationship to thepeasants(cf.Johnson1971).Although
Gilmanrecognizes this,he emphasizesthewayelitesmanipulate
therelationship to increasetheircontrolofthecommoners, and
he dismissestheelite'sfunctional rolein theinitialdevelopment
ofstratification.
Despite the attractivenessof this position,I feel that the
functionalcharacteristics of the elite forthe broadersociety
maybe criticalforthedevelopment and stabilityofa stratified
society.In brief,whethera stratified systemcan developmay
depend on the importanceof the functionsprovidedby the
elite.Duringexpansion,the elite mustcontrolnew dependent
producersas potentialrevenuesources.Criticalto its ability
to expand is the cost of controlling theseadded producers.A
high-costoption is to controlthem throughforce.In most
situationsa lower-costoptionis to providecriticalservices.In
order to predictwhere stratification will evolve, it may be
necessaryto locate the conditionsthat minimizethe cost of
addingnewdependentproducers.Wherethefunctions provided
by the elite are of key importance,commonersare highly
dependenton the eliteand cost of controlis relativelylow. In
otherwords,wheremanagementis advantageousto the com-
monerpopulation,controlcostsare minimizedand a stratified
systemshould be able to develop rapidly. Such situations
includethosewithfrequentenvironmental and social disasters
and thoserequiringcomplexsubsistencetechnologies.
The potentialsuccess of a stratifiedsystem,therefore, de-
pendson thecostofcontrol.This in no waycontradictsGilman,
but simplyplaces his argumentin a broaderperspective.The
inhibitorsto segmentation that he discusseslowerthe cost of
socialcontrol.Similarly, elitesmaybe expectedto altereconom-
ic relationsin any way that will lowercosts,forexample,by
restricting access to land. The ecologicalcontextand thepoten-
tial functionalimportanceofelitesshouldbe consideredin this
same perspective,for it may well be these factorsthat are
crucialfortheinitialevolutionary successof stratification.
byALAIN GALLAY
Departement d'Anitliropologie,Universitede Gene've12, rue
1227 Garouge-Geneve,
Gustave-Revlilliod, Switzerland.8 VI 80
Gilman'spaper presentsan extremely interestingapproachto
in Europe at the end of the
the originsof social stratification
Neolithicand the beginningof the BronzeAge. The methodis
a hypothetico-deductive one (Gardin1974),whichis unfamiliar
to European prehistorians but is the only type of approach
that can go beyondthe dreadfulhistoricalexplanationsgen-
erated by an exclusivelyempirico-inductive method.My ob-
Vol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
servationsfocus,on theone hand,on the characteristics of the
modeland, on the other,on its fieldofapplication.
of themodel.The model appears to have
1. Characteristics
twoweak points.The firstconcernstheproblemofinnovation
in productiontechniques.The archaeologicalevidenceon which
the modelis based is stillverylimited,exceptwithregardto
plowagriculture and theutilizationoftheard.The development
of Mediterraneanpolyculture, Iberian irrigation,and offshore
fishingin the Atlanticand perhaps the Baltic requiresmore
support.Furthermore, innovationis not,evenfromtheauthor's
pointofview,explained,but onlyacknowledged.
The secondweak pointconcernsthe hereditary characterof
elites.The archaeologicalevidencesupportingthe hypothesis
thateliteswerehereditary (richgravesofwomenand children)
is substantial,and the interpretation of this phenomenonis
interesting.However,thecauses oftheemergence ofhereditary
authorityare not veryclear. My experienceof the ethnology
of West Africansegmentedsocietiesallows me to suggesta
solution to this problem. In a segmentedsociety, lineage
mobilityis considerable.To the principleof segmentationis
opposedthephenomenon ofaggregation.The foundinglineage
of a villageis joined by otherfamiliesof variedorigins,but it
retains,throughseniority,political power over the village
(Gallay n.d.). This powerremainslimitedas longas the chief-
dom is transmitted withinthe lineageby age rank. Real and
permanentlineagehierarchization becomespossibleas soon as
power is transmittedaccording to birthright(Meillassoux
1977).This mechanism, whichis in thelast analysisdetermined
by seniority,could explain the developmentof a permanent
lineagehierarchy.
2. Fieldsofapplication.In referring to severalexoticsocieties,
Gilman implies that his model can be generalizedbeyond
Europe.In adoptingthisposition,he runstheriskofadmitting
a simplisticevolutionism. As Scheurer(1979:120) has pointed
out, thisviewpointis strictlyconditionedby the advantageof
hindsight, whichprivilegesa singleevolutiveline and rulesout
all solutionswhich have had no historicaldescendants.In
biologythiswas fora longtimethe positionof the Darwinists
and is currentlyin the processof being abandoned (notably
withthe conceptof "evolutionbuissonnante").It is necessary
now to effectthe same decenteringof the observerin the
historicaldisciplines.Only then will it be recognizedthat
historicaleventsare multiform and not entirelysubjectto the
determinism impliedby a dogmaticevolutionism.
The West Africantraditionalsocietiesgive us, in thisfield,
an exampleofa different evolution.In thisregiona segmented
societyof hoe agriculturalists coexistswitha highlystratified
societycomprising chiefdoms, castes,and evenslavery(Maquet
1967:224-27). This stratified societyapparentlyhas its origin
in the developmentof trade in the Middle Ages, notablythe
trade in gold and salt (Mauny 1970). The structureand
historicalgenesisofthesocietyare therefore differentherefrom
the Europeansituationproposedby Gilman.
byA. F. HARDING
Department ofArchaeology,UniversityofDurham,46 Saddler
St., DurhamDHI 3NU, England.25 vi 80
Gilman'sarticleis an interesting contribution to Bronze Age
research.It is well knownthat differentiation in both grave
formand the provisionof gravegoodsin Europe startedon a
big scale in theEarly BronzeAge; thisis interpreted,rightlyor
wrongly, I am sure
as the startof markedsocial stratification.
Cilman is rightto be scepticalof the purelyfunctionalist ap-
proach to this problem.Many of the lines of explanation
advanced by the functionalists are simplisticand oftenseem
to me to adopt an almostdeterministic stance,concentrating
on onlyone elementin the complexmass of interwoven vani-
11
 ables. At the same time,I am not convincedthat the "non- It is no criticismto say that its chiefweaknesslies in the
functionalist" alternativesare not open to the same criticism. lack of empiricalevidence for the capital-intensification of
Gilman'sprofessedaim is to "explainin nonmanagerialterms agriculturein morethan a fewscatteredand patchyinstances
whysocietieswithhighlyproductiveeconomiestend to have ofunequalvalue. It is partlyto remedythisthatI am excavat-
elites" and to suggesthow elitesestablishand maintaintheir inga Bell Beakersettlement at Moncin,Borja (northern Spain),
control"in spite of the fact that theiractions do not serve lookingespeciallyfortracesofoliveand vine cultivation.With
commoninterests."Afterrejectingcommodityexchangeas an A. J. Legge, I hope to be able to identifythe points in the
explanation,he goes on to considerfouraspectsof subsistence culturesequenceof the Ebro Valley at whichsubsistencepro-
technology thathe sees as representing"capital-intensification duction changed gear, so that we can test Gilman's ideas.
of subsistence."Althoughthe precise social and economic There may also be traces of early irrigationand specialized
mechanismsare different, the typeof explanationprovidedby animalhusbandry.
thesefactorsseemsto me much the same as the functionalist As an organizingmodelforthe BronzeAge I findGilman's
oneshe has rejected.Gilmanis rightto drawattentionto these ideas mostattractiveand quite as usefulor convincingas the
factors,but whethertheyare reallybeingused in a different functionalist ones. Otherpertinentworkis that by Jodlowski
explanatoryway seemsto me doubtful.A particularobjection (1976) on salt productionin southernPoland around3200 B.C.
I would level at the modeldevelopedhereis that it does not and my freshsynthesisof the wholeof the Bell Beaker phe-
considertheveryvariednatureofwealthdistribution in differ- nomenon(Harrison1980).
ent spatial and temporalsegmentsof the BronzeAge. What is
rightfor,say, Branc in Early Bronze Age Slovakia cannot,
surely,apply equally to Early Bronze Age Spain or Late byRONALD HICKS
BronzeAge Slovakia,let alone Late BronzeAge Spain, where Department of Anthropology, Ball State University,Muncie,
differentfactorswereundoubtedlycomingintoplay. Ind. 47306, U.S.A. 4 viii 80
One of the aspectsof the studyofsocial stratification which Gilman'sthesisis a thought-provoking one. In particular,his
has been neglectedin the past is the psychologicalone. What paper is worthwhile forhavinglooked at the problemof the
mental factorslead men firstto desire and then to assume developmentof the BronzeAge eliteswiththe question"How
positionsof dominancein givenpopulationgroups?Concomi- do people behave?" in mindratherthan just by manipulating
tantly,what socioeconomicfactorsenable themto do it? All "maybes." However,it raises,in my mindat least, a number
our explanationsso farhave been directedat the secondpart offurther questionsthatgo unanswered.
of the problem,none at the first.NaturallyI cannothere go For example,why,or how,did the elitesbeginto developin
intothisproblem,evenwereI capable ofit; I assume,however, firstplace? Gilmanspeaksofthemas "protectors."If protection
that life in prehistoricEurope was, both economicallyand was necessary,why? If, as he says, plentyof land was still
socially,competitive.At a crude level of descriptionone can available,warfareprovokedby populationgrowthand compe-
imaginemendesiringincreasedstatusbecause theywishto be titionforland does notseemlikely.Weretheysimplygangsof
freedfromthe drudgeryof subsistencelabor,because theyare thugswho institutedwhat amountedto a protectionracket,
naturallydominatingby character,because they genuinely threatening to do harmto any who didn'tpay them?This also
believesocietystandsto gain by grantingthemthatstatus (in seemsunlikely.Gilmanclaimsthathis argumentis an alterna-
termsofprotectionagainstattack,productionand distribution tive to functionalism, but it clearlywouldhave been dysfunc-
of goods,etc.), or forothersimilarreasons.Is it a naturaland tional for the producersto abandon such resourcesas fields
invariableaspect of humannaturethat some menwill wishto clearedforplowing,vineyardsand orchards,or irrigatedland.
achievepositionsofdominanceand otherswillbe willingto be Andif,as he implies,theeliteswerein somesense"protectors,"
dominated(or at least unable to preventit)? If it is, thenthe thisagain involvesa function, thoughnot a managerialone. It
questionwe should be asking is why the Neolithicdoes not appears to me thathis thesisis therefore not an alternativeto
equallyshowsocialstratification. Could it be thattheapparent functionalism, but ratheran alternativeversion.
indicatorsofstatusin theBronzeAge are notreal indicatorsat That in someirrigating societiesthe elite has nothingto do
all, but marksof fashionand individualpreference? To return with water distribution(he gives the example of medieval
to the Neolithic:what materialthingschangedbetweenNeo- Valencia) doesn't mean this is always the case, and that a
lithicand BronzeAge? Veryfew.At least some of the things historicalelite only affectsdistribution of a resourcethrough
Gilman lists, for example,plough agriculture,were present managersor ceremonialfunctionsdoes not mean that those
long beforethe Bronze Age, much earlier than the model elitesdid not originallyhave a moredirectrole. What about
predicts.Even metallurgy,which Renfrewand othershave the evidencefortheocraticand merchantelites?This needs to
taken as one of the key stimulantsto unequal distribution of be explainedsomehow.What part was played by population
wealth,was of coursepresenton quite a large scale way back growth?
in the Neolithic,and I see no real reasonthatmanipulationof It is easy to see whydevelopedland wouldnotbe abandoned,
waterforirrigation orpolyculture shouldnothave beenpresent but Gilmanalso mentionsthat offshore fishingwithits heavy
too,even ifwe cannotyetproveit. To conclude:are we really capital investment in largerboats and netswouldhave allowed
sure that the supposedindicatorsof statusin materialculture the developmentof an elite. How? Why couldn't the fishers
are whattheypurportto be? simplyhave sailed down the coast to anotherport if they
didn'tlike thelocal elite?It isn't clearto me how thisexample
fitsintohisargument.Could thefishers have beenan important
byR. J.HARRISON link in long-distancetrade routesand unwillingto abandon
Department ofClassicsand Archaeology, UniversityofBristol, thatrole?
BristolBS8 IRJ, England.27 vi 80 In consideringthe originsof an elite,one mustalways look
By concentrating upon theprocessesofagricultural production to small moderncommunities forexamples.As Gilmanpoints
and the opportunities theyofferforexploitation,Gilmanhas out, thereare always aspirantsto leadershiproles; but they
muchimprovedon the viewsChildeheld 30 yearsago. I think have to be providedwithopportunities to assume such roles.
thispaper providesa mostinteresting explanationforthe rise There must be tasks-military, managerial,or whatever-
of "High Barbarian" societies in Bronze Age Europe and thatare necessaryand thatothersin thesocietyare less willing
stronglychallengessome of the functionalist and palaeoeco- or able to assume. Simpleinertiaon the part of much of the
nomicinterpretations thatare now so fashionable. populace seemsto me to go a long way towardexplainingthe

12 C UR R ENT A NT HR O POL OG Y
 persistenceof elites.An individual,and by extensiona family
or line, gains power throughexercisingneeded leadership.
Throughthereluctanceofothersto shoulderleadershiprespon-
sibilitiesor to offendthosewhohold somedegreeofpower,the
elite is able to maintainitselfand even gain morepower.To
the nextgenerationit seemsonlynaturalthat the elite should
be there;if it continuesto shoulderirksomeresponsibilities,
it
seemsonlyreasonablethatit shouldbe allowedsometolerance
in addition to materialrewards.And so on. By calling our
attentionto the reluctanceof people to abandon resources
whosedevelopmenthas requireda heavy investmentof labor,
Gilman has providedus with one more such reason for the
maintenanceofelites.
byPHILIP L. KOHL
Departmentof Anthropology, WellesleyCollege, Wellesley,
Mass. 02181, U.S.A. 29 vii 80
This is an extremelyvaluable and importantstudy on the
beginningsof social stratificationin Bronze Age Europe.
Gilman'sdiscussionof functionalist accountswhichemphasize
theessentialand beneficialservicesprovidedby elitesis cogent,
convincing,and far less jargon-ladenthan other,deservedly
well-known critiques(e.g., Friedman1974). Whilethearchaeo-
logicalevidencesupporting a causalconnection betweenintensi-
ficationof subsistencetechnologiesand social stratification is
tenuousor slightlyambiguous,the logic of his analysis that
such intensification createda changein propertyrelationsand
transferred "the problemof securityfromthe materialto the
social field"is compelling.Althoughforpurposesof discussion
the remainderof my commentswill be critical,I strongly
believethat thisis an exceptionallyimportantexaminationof
the emergenceof social stratification; credibleprehistory has
been reconstructed whichis consistentwithour understanding
of contemporarysociety and the exploitativerole of elites
withinit. Functionalistaccountssimplydo not-to paraphrase
Gilman-constitutea uniformitarian view of social processin
stratified societies;theydo not,in otherwords,pass the basic
litmustest of reconstructing historyas we know it fromour
dailylives.
My criticismsare both empiricaland theoretical.Gilman
takesas his unitofanalysistheculturallyand politicallyheter-
ogeneousBronzeAge Europe. What possiblejustificationcan
therebe forjumpingfromScandinaviato theIberianpeninsula,
fromCentralEurope to the Aegean,otherthan the historical
accident that Europe, a minor peninsula of the Eurasian
landmass, constitutesa field of study, a specialtyfor Old
Worldprehistorians? EuropeorEuropeancivilization, ofcourse,
has meaningforthe historianthatrelatesto its sharedreligion
and sharedhistoricalexperienceand thatcannotbe reducedto
itsphysicalcharacteristics; one mustdemonstrate, not assume,
similarcommonfeaturesforprehistoricEurope. The point is
importantbecause the divisionbetweenthe Near East and
Europe, the Orientand the Occident,is accepted as straight-
forwardand nonproblematic. Accordingto Gilman,ex oriente
lux modelshave been empiricallyfalsified;in my opinion,it is
notproven,but highlydubious,that theBalkans,an area that
we knowwas in contactwiththe Orientformillenniapriorto
the advent of metallurgy,somehowindependently developed
an extremelycomplextechnologyroughlyat the same time
that identicalmetallurgicaltechniquesappeared in Anatolia,
northof the Caucasus, on the Iranian plateau, in southern
Turkmenia,etc. (Wertime1973).Capital-intensification ofsub-
sistencetechnologiesand consequentsocial stratification were
moremarkedin therelativelyarid regionsofsouthernEurope,
particularlythe easternMediterranean,not forclimaticrea-
sons,but becausetheseareas wereinvolvedin a largerhistorical
reality(like thelaterEurope). This realityneednot be concep-
Vol. 22 *No. 1 *February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
tualizedin classicdiffusionarytermswiththe innovativeNear
East bestowingcivilization(or heresocial stratification) upon
barbarian Europe. Rather than dogmaticallyinsistingupon
isolatedregionaldevelopments, we need to accept and modify
Wallerstein's(1974:15) seminalconceptofa "worldeconomy"
withinteractingcore and peripheralareas to understandthe
linksbetweenthe BronzeAge Mediterraneanworldand conti-
nentalEurope and the Near East. SocietiesfromCentralAsia
to the Mediterraneanwerein contactwithone anotherforthe
same exploitative,acquisitive reasons that led to the emer-
gence of local elites. Cultures existed at different levels of
developmentnot simplybecause they had followeddifferent
evolutionarytrajectories,but because morepowerfulsocieties
could controland manipulatethelevel ofdevelopmentof their
"Third World" neighbors.In short,we mustbe consistentin
our uniformitarianism.
How we delimitour fieldofinquiryis not onlyan empirical,
but also a theoreticalquestion.Lurkingbehindor implicitin
Gilman'sanalysisis a mechanicalevolutionismthat deserves
carefulscrutiny.Does the adoption of capital-intensive sub-
sistencetechnologiesinevitablyresult(sufficient condition)in
social stratification
or simplymake possible(necessarycondi-
tion)theemergence ofelites?The distinctionis crucial(Godelier
1972:274-75) and ultimatelydistinguishes a dialecticalfroma
nondialecticalview of history.Similarly,Gilman's program-
maticassertionthat fortrade to have been importantforthe
developmentof social stratification it had to have been essen-
tial begs the questionof what is meant by "essential." Can
essentialitemsbe sociallyor culturallydefined,or must they
be absolute and natural (i.e., subsistence-related)? Did the
Neolithicfarmersofsouthwestern Asia engagein the exchange
of obsidian,sometimeson a substantialand significantscale
(e.g., Jarmo,Tell Shemshara),because it was functionally
superiorto flintor other locally available chipped stone or
because it possesseda culturallyimposedvalue that cannotbe
completelyunderstoodin rational,utilitarianterms?Such a
questionis not meant to deny objectivereality(clearly,only
stoneswith specificphysicalpropertiescould have been used
in Neolithictimes as harvestingtools), but to insist that a
selectionoccurs on this reality.Acceptanceof this fact does
not imply a returnto culturalparticularismor the sterile,
circularperspectivethat culturesvary because, in fact, they
are different(cf. Harris's [1968:403] excellentobjection to
Benedict'spatterns);the same attentionto detail and critical
awarenessof people acting in theirculturallyperceivedbest
intereststhat Gilman presentsso tellinglyin his attack on
functionalismcan be invoked to explain the creation and
manipulationof less than objectivelyessentialneeds. Luxury
metalartifactsmay be both an indexand a cause of incipient
social stratification.Chiefs,undoubtedly,did not need many
of the trinketsthey used to separate themselvesfromthe
masses,but once theyhad come to expectthemtheywillingly
consolidatedtheirpowerin orderto continuereceivingthem.
The substantialtradein textilesproducedlargelyin workshops
or factoriesin major urban centersthat connecteddifferent
regionsthroughout southwestern Asia in the 3d and 2d millen-
nia reliednot on recipients'physicalneed forclothing,but on
artificiallymanipulatedvalues that created a demand for
fashionable,high-qualitygoods. It is clear, of course, that
exchangein the contemporary Westernworldoperatesunder
a similarprinciple.
Undoubtedly,the intensification of subsistencetechnologies
had profoundsocial consequences.Gilman's focus upon this
intensification and its effectsis appropriateand directsour
attentionto basic considerations.His analysis provides the
structure,not the narrative,for the emergenceof elites in
BronzeAge Europeansocieties.
13
 byJAMES LEWTHWAITE universal-is not demonstratedby the limited and varied
Department ofArchaeology, CambridgeUniversity, Cambridge geographicalevidencepresented.Different typesof stratifica-
CB2 3DZ, U.K. 22 vii 80 tionmay have existedin specificareas in responseto varying
Basically, Gilmandeservescongratulations forhis deflationof social,economic,and politicalneeds.His reference to fishingin
certainadvocatesof a benevolentsquirearchybenton agricul- Atlantic Europe, Scandinavia, and the Mediterraneanis a
turalimprovement, a littlemodesttrade,and theadvancement goodexample.Certainly,thistechnology reflectssocial changes,
of the deservingpoor; it is all the moredisappointingto find but was the importanceoffishingthe same in each case? Also,
him thereaftercontentto confrontthe naive and simplistic does the existenceof fishingimply the same developmental
withits own mirrorimage.His centralpropositionis that the stageofsocial stratification,considering thetimegaps between
2d millenniumrevolved largely around an industriousbut the differentareas?
downtrodden peasantryunable to refuseprotectionmoneyto AlthoughI do not discountthe factthat theremay be evi-
a mob of flashilydressedracketeersforfear of having their dence forsocial differentiation in the archaeologicalrecord,I
ploughoxen kneecapped,piroguespirated,and olive treesset thinkthatcautionmustbe exercisedin theinterpretation ofthe
in cementovershoes.This e mafiadux historicalmelodramais data. Also,someinformation whichmightbe usefulto Gilman's
scarcelythe "uniformitarian view ofsocial processin stratified argumenthas been ignored.For example,the workof Frost
societies"its authorconsidersit. (1973), Betts (1973), and Schwartz(1976) on marinearchaeol-
Gilman's problemsstem fromhis aim of explainingthe ogy in the Aegean,establishingseafaringduringthe Neolithic
originsof what he terms "social stratification":this is too and BronzeAges,couldhave beenused to supportan argument
staticand restricted a concept.To treatsocial contrastsas rigid foroffshore fishingand trade.Further,in EasternEurope there
divisionsand concentratesolelyon the exploitativeaspect of is evidenceofsitespecializationduringthelate Neolithicbased
"elites" is to narrowthe scope ofexplanationto a self-fulfilling on the frequencyof castratedcattle (Schwartz1978).
circularity.What is missingis the idea of the controlof the Gilman'sdiscountingof metallurgyas a possible cause for
reproduction ofstructures: the ethologyofpatronage,hegemo- stratification precludesany associationof it with subsistence
nism,and clientage.Stratification is an anachronisticconcept: strategieswhich likely preceded "capital-intensified subsis-
itis thepeculiarity ofkinand clientrelationships thatinequality tence." However, metallurgicaltechnologyappears to have
does not precipitatealienation.The basis of the systemis been importantto particularareas and settlements whichwere
"fromeach accordingto his ability,to each accordingto his associatedwithsubsistenceagriculture(Jovanovic1979,Ren-
needs." frew 1969). Gilman's idea is that "if such technologiesare
Both Renfrewand Gilmanlocatetheirsocialevolutionin the importantto a group'ssubsistence,that groupis dependent
superorganic. By contrast,Chagnon(1975) has broughtsocial upon capital investmentsto whichcontinuedaccess must be
differentiation back to earthby askinghowsocial preeminence, insuredby social means." Therefore,metallurgycould be a
throughdifferential successin life,enhancessolidarity,thereby cause as wellas an indicationof stratification. In addition,the
promoting thecompetitive chancesofspecificlocal populations level of technologyis likelyto have variedamongand within
in thereal long-term struggleto reproducethemselves.Froma sites,as it did in westernHungaryduringthe Middle Bronze
Mediterraneanperspective,clans,not classes,are the heartof Age (Choyke,personalcommunication, 1980).
thematter,evenin thepresenceofards,polyculture, irrigation, Despite thesecriticisms, I considerGilman'spaperhelpfulin
and seagoingboats. The clan,as a unitofanalysis,mustbe the stimulatingthoughtabout stratification and its place during
startingpoint formodelsof social differentiation. The wide- the BronzeAge. Witha morethoroughinvestigation fromone
spread existenceof modularbiological,linguistic,and cultural geographicarea, a likelyhypothesisofhow social stratification
unitsis the outcomeof competingrequirements forshort-term developedmightbe possible.
subsistenceand long-termreproduction.This is resolvedby
externalappropriation and internalhierarchisation. Both inter-
groupwarfareand intragroup competition favourtheemergence bySTEPHEN J. SHENNAN
of the patron ("big-man," "Godfather") and maintain his Department ofArchaeology, UniversityofSouthampton, South-
position.The competingclans assert their relativeranks in amptonS09 5NH, England.31 vii 80
archaeologicallyvisibleformas conspicuousconstruction, dis- Gilmanhas putforwardan extremely important and interesting
tribution, and consumption. view of the developmentof social stratification in Bronze Age
Finally, Gilman,by denyingthe "elite" a managerialor Europe, one whichin its broad scope and abilityto pick out
redistributive role,reversesRenfrew'sachievementof linking importantthemesmakes a pleasant change fromthe usual
social and economicevolution,whichforceshim to resortto treatmentsof the periodin termsof its bronzetypology.He
tiredold "populationpressure."An alternativemodel would makesa good case forhis "nonfunctionalist" viewpointand for
see "intensification" as the progressivesegregationand ra- the importanceof the factorshe suggestsin helpingto explain
tionalisationof subsistenceprocurementin order to invest thechangesunderdiscussion.However,withinthecontextof a
labourin higher-priority activitiessuchas monumentconstruc- verypositiveviewofthepaper,I wouldliketo makea number
tion,theproductionof displayitems,and raiding,all of which of specificcriticisms,both of the situationreconstructed by
affected, in the long term,groupsize and success in an auto- Gilmanand ofhis explanationforit.
catalyticdevelopment. The thresholdofstateformation occurs Thereis certainlya greatdeal ofevidenceforsocial differen-
whenthegamepasses froma situationwhereeveryparticipant tiationin the archaeologicalrecordof the European Bronze
worksharderto stay in the same place to one in whichthe Age, but whetherit is satisfactoryto inferfromthis the
winnertakesall. presenceof economicallystratifiedclass societiesis another
In brief,each successivelevel of social differentiation, eco- matter:many archaeologistswould regardsome if not all of
nomicintensification, and modulargrowthrepresentsan equi- themas rankedratherthan stratified.This distinctionis an
libriumachievedaftera phase ofintergroup competition. important one,and muchhangson it in thecontextofGilman's
argument.It wouldhave been helpfulif it had been discussed
in moredetailand ifthe archaeologicalevidenceforthe strati-
byCHARLES A. SCHWARTZ ficationview had been more fullydocumented.This point
InstituteofArchaeology, 31-34GordonSquare,LondonWC1, raises itselfin a numberof guises.ThroughoutGilman talks
England.21 VII 80 yetoftentbisseemsto be overstating
about,.elites, thecase: the
The assumptionwhich underliesGilman's thesis-that the Early Bronze Age cemeteryat Branc, forexample (Shennan
developmentofsocial stratification duringtheBronzeAge was 1975),indicatesno morethana limiteddegreeofrankdifferen-
14 CURRE NT ANTHROPOLOGY
 tiationwithinthe community, whileto referto bell beakersas
an elitestylegivescompletelythewrongimpression. This may
have been the case in Iberia, althoughGilmanlater seemsto
referto the late Copper Age culturesof Iberia as "ranked"
ratherthan "stratified," but it is certainlynot the case in the
Central European part of the bell-beakerdistributionarea,
wherethe Bell Beaker gravessuggestno morethan a minimal
degreeofranking(Shennan1977).
The insistenceon thepresenceofelitesseemsin curiouscon-
trast to the denial of the existenceof settlementhierarchies.
Gilmanseemsto suggestthattheseimplymanagerialfunctions
fortheelite,but surelythisis not the case. At the basis ofany
elite's power must be some formof regionallycentralised
control,a centralpersonassociated with a centralplace. As
Gilman himselfnotes, the size of knownEarly Bronze Age
settlementsis minute,and inferencesabout populationsizes
from burial evidence also suggest that communitieswere
extremelysmall. If Gilmanis inferring a landscape in which
thereis simplyan endlessreplicationofindividualcommunities,
each witha leadingfamily,to referto thosefamiliesas an elite
seemsagain to overstatethe case. In fact,thereprobablywas
just such a landscape in the Early Bronze Age Slovakia,
exemplified by the Branc cemetery, but lateron in the Bronze
Age of this area and of othersthereseems to be quite good
evidence for the existence of settlementhierarchies(e.g.,
Tocik 1964), whichwouldactuallyfitin betterwithGilman's
argument.
To move fromGilman'sdescriptionof the situationto his
explanationofit and his argumentsthatfortradeto be impor-
tant it must involvesubsistence-related goods: I thinkhe is
essentiallycorrectin his argumentthat bulk exchange of
subsistenceproductscannothave beenimportantin prehistoric
Europe, althoughthe possibilitiesofferedby movinganimals
on the hoofshould not be forgotten. However,in dismissing
the importanceof nonsubsistence tradehe seemsto make the
same mistakeas manyofthefunctionalists he criticises.Fried-
man and Rowlands (1978), amongothers,have demonstrated
clearlythe possibilitiesforgainingpowerthroughthe control
ofvaluablesessentialforthetransactions involvedin theprocess
ofsocialreproduction. Simplyto referto suchgoodsas luxuries
is to neglecttheirpotentialsocial importance.In thiscontext
it is worthremarkingGilman's explanationfor the greater
wealthofnorthwestern Jutlandrevealedby Randsborg's(1974)
studyas the potentialof adjacent fishinggrounds;he neglects
to observethatit is also one of the mostprolificambersource
areas.
Finally,one or two doubtsarise fromhis discussionof the
roleofagricultural intensification in the developmentofstrati-
fication.First,so faras I understandthe argument,he seems
to be assigningan autonomyas independentvariablesto the
plough,olive trees,and irrigationsystems,and this seems to
me ratherdubious.Secondly,it seemsto me a problemarises
in his discussionof the chronological priorityof intensification
over stratification.There may well be a link here, but in
Denmark,forexample,the best part of a millenniumelapses
betweenthe firstappearance of evidence for ploughingand
evidenceforthe emergenceof social differentiation in thelocal
Early Bronze Age. One would not wish to argue that there
must always be a contemporary and correlating"cause" for
everyeffect,but the gap, whichis presentin otherareas as
well, suggeststhat if intensification was necessaryfor the
developmentof stratification in Bronze Age Europe it was
certainlynot sufficient.
byANDREW SHERRATT
AshmoleanMuseum,OxfordUniversity, OxfordOXi 2PH,
England.28 VII 80
Despite thefactthatmoreis knownoftheprehistory ofEurope
than of that of any otherregion,discussionsof the emergence
Vol. 22 *No. 1 February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
of social stratificationhave largelyconcentrated on areas such
as Mesopotamiaand Mesoamerica.The long agriculturalse-
quence beforeurbanisationin Europe poses problemsbecause
of therelativelylate appearanceofthe conventionalcriteriaof
state organisationand the evanescentoccurrenceof features
such as ceremonialmonumentsand defendedcentres.Yet
clearlythereare fundamental contrastsbetweenthe temperate
cultivatorsof the "Neolithic"and the "Bronze Age" whichgo
beyond the 19th-century technologicalcriteria.It is all the
more important,therefore, to avoid imposinginappropriate
divisionson this long sequence. The stark contrastbetween
"'stratified" and "nonstratified" societiesdoes not do justice
to thenatureoftheproblem,howeverrelevantit mayperhaps
be to the appearance of powerfulcentralisedstates in south-
westernAsia. The occurrenceof occasionalwealthobjects in
subadult graves and the general increase in status-linked
manufacturedproductshardlyadd up to the kind of stark
social contrastsimpliedby the termstratification. It is the
restricted natureofelitedifferentiation,ratherthanits extent,
that demandsexplanationin this context.Instead of a con-
frontation of rivalparadigms,closerattentionto the contrasts
betweendifferent areas-notably betweenMediterraneanand
temperateEurope-is the key to understanding the dynamics
of thisprocess.
Despite Gilman'sfailureto make use of the varietyin the
evidenceat his disposal,he perceptively identifiessome of the
commonfactorsleading towardssocial change whichcharac-
terisethe laterphases of Europeanagrarianprehistory. While
it is unlikelythattheearliestEuropeanagriculture consistedof
slash-and-burn farming(and "flood-water farming"is likelyto
have been an originalfeatureof Mediterraneancultivation
ratherthan a Bronze Age innovation[Sherratt1980a]), there
is nevertheless a significant horizonof change in the mid-3d
millennium, associatedwiththeintroduction ofox (not horse!)
tractionforploughing.This fundamentally altered both the
agrarianand the social basis of European communities, as I
have triedto show (Sherratt1980b).The increasein the scale
of animal utilisation,associatedwiththe keepingof sheep for
wool and milk,is likelyto have been especiallyrelevantto
social differentiation in the Mediterraneanin the 2d millen-
nium,throughthe differential accumulationofstock.
The questionof tree crops is more problematic,and it is
possibleto argue that the extensivecultivationof vine and
olive is as mucha consequenceof economiccentralisation as a
cause. The date oftheintroduction oftreecropsin thewestern
Mediterranean(includingalso theuse ofthechestnut)deserves
more systematicdiscussionthan it is given in this article.
Fishing,on theotherhand,is clearlybasic to an understanding
of Bronze Age economiesin both the Mediterraneanand the
Baltic, and the importanceof maritimetradeis reflectedboth
in artefactdistributions and in coastallocationsforsettlement.
On the widerquestionof the role of elites,it seemsunlikely
that theoversimpleviewof theiressentiallyparasiticexistence
is any morevalid than the converseview whichsees themas
benevolentprovidersof exotic necessities.As an antidote to
the Panglossianecologicalinterpretations of the 1960s,how-
ever,Gilman'spaper offers not onlya usefulantithesisbut one
whichaccordsmorecloselywiththe worldafterthe oil crisis.
byMAURIZIO Tosi
Seminario Studi Asiatici, Istituto UniversitarioOrientale,
80134Napoli, Italy. 12 viii 80
The essenceof Gilman'scontribution to developa
is the effort
systematicrelationbetweeneconomicfactsand formsofsocial
complexity.Since archaeologicaldata storeextensiveinforma-
tion on economicactivity,groundinga set of propositionsfor
15
 the systematicexplanationof social evolutionin economic
activitiesmayensurethemgreatervalidityfortheorybuilding.
Having been workingalongsimilarlinesmyself, I believethat,
to be properlyappreciated,beyondthelimitationsimposedby
its relativebrevityand certaincontradictions due mostlyto
the randomselectionof examples,the paper should be posi-
tioned withinthe ongoingcontroversyon the evolutionof
complexsocieties.
Functionalisttheoryis based on ethnographicdata, which
allow a broad spectrumof observationsand an interplay
betweenmaterialfactsand theaccompanying ideologicalback-
ground;naturally,superstructural aspects become dominant
and the stressis on culturaland individualdiversity.Archaeo-
logicaldata are verydifferent, but theirpresumedinferiority is
essentiallybased on theassumptionthattheyshouldbe demon-
strativeofa theoreticalcorpusgeneratedfromanotheruniverse.
We mightaccept that superstructural dimensionsdominate
infrastructuralones,but thereis no reasonto take forgranted
that a wholeclass of data, the onlyreal information we have
on extinctpopulationsand the primarystagesof social evolu-
tion,is deficient.
Like Spriggs's(1977) attemptto reopenthediscussionofthe
correlabilityofarchaeologicaland ethnographic data, Gilman's
articleis evidenceofan uneasyfeelingthatis spreadingamong
archaeologists whobelievein thehistoricaldimensionofhuman
evolution.Centralto thisdiscussionis the notionof economic
growthas expressedby the accumulationof wealth directly
relatedto the divisionoflabour (horizontalinequality)and to
the hierarchical/vertical inequalityin access to resourcesand
investments. The neglectof this conceptin recentyears has
undoubtedlycontributedto the successof the superstructural
perspectivein researchon the evolutionof complexsociety.
"Economic growth"became obsolete at the same time as
"surplus,"in the late 1950s,withthe successof substantivism
and ofthefunctionalist-structuralist offensiveagainstMarxism.
The devaluationofarchaeologicaldata was largelya by-product
of this conceptualsettlement,since the commonfeatureof
these various schools was that the evolutionof man, being
essentiallysuperstructural, is largelynonlinearand therefore
ahistorical.The politicaldimensionof this selectionbecomes
moreapparentthrougha criticallookat thestateofprehistoric
researchtoday.
Nowhere in the world is prehistoricarchaeologyinstitu-
tionallyindependent.Withfewexceptions,it is subordinateto
eitherthesocial or thehistoricalsciences.The subordination is
explainedin termsoftheshortcomings ofarchaeologicaldata in
comparisonwith those of either anthropologyor history.
Childe(1946) attemptedto overcomethisbarrierby suggesting
that it was possibleto sketchhumanevolutionin such a way
as to makeit testablearchaeologically. His attemptwas largely
unsuccessful in histime.Meanwhile,techniquesweredeveloped
thatgave prehistoric archaeologythemeansto becomea source
of coherentinformation on early societies:stratigraphic exca-
vations, total recovery,settlementstudies, ecofact-artefact
correlations, quantitativeanalysis,and, of course,the multi-
disciplinarymethodology that integratedthe naturalsciences
into the studyof man's recentpast. Childe'sideologicaloppo-
nents,amongthemClarkand Wheeler,masteredtheseinnova-
tive methodsand readilydemonstrated the factualunreliabil-
ity of his propositions, whichwerelabelled "politicallymoti-
vated" (Clark 1976). As a result,thestudyofcomplexsocieties
has remainedfirmlyin the hands of culturalanthropologists.
In continentalEuropeprehistoric studieshave been dominated
by the Montelius/Mtuller-Karpe continuumthatfora century
has been the backboneof what we may call descriptivefor-
malism.In this rigidsystem,based on the total recordingof
the artefactualevidence,thereis no roomfortheorybuilding,
whichremainsthepreserveof historians.
The "New Archaeology"aggregatedin a single coherent
discourseall the variousmethodsthat had been developedby
16
thepreviousgeneration(particularly theenvironmental dimen-
sion in regionalstudies) and imposed hypothetico-deductive
modesofinvestigation. This approachhas beenlargelyconfined
to the areas in whichit developed,west of the Appalachians.
Notwithstanding the importantworkit has produced,not a
singlerepresentative of the historicalcore of the movement
has occupieda major positionin one of the greatuniversities
of the East Coast. In England the reactionwas outspoken,
coalescing in the 1971 Sheffieldsymposiumorganized by
Renfrew(1973b).Althoughtheywerenot directlyproposinga
neo-Childeanor materialisticapproach,the "New Archaeolo-
gists" gave too muchattentionto aspects of materialculture
in the understanding of complexsocietiesnot to stimulatea
strongreaction.Since 1971Renfrewhas beenactivein develop-
ing thisperspectiveof social evolutionas dominatedby non-
economic factors.The "New Archaeology"has had little
impactelsewhereexceptin Scandinavia,wherewe findgroups
clusteredaround the NorwegianArchaeologicalReviewand
C.-A. Mobergin G6teborg.Basicallyitspropositions have been
eitherignoredor confutedon epistemologicalgroundsby the
neopositivist criticismof Gardin(1980).
In myopinionGilman'spaper shouldbe assessedin thelight
of the theoreticalparalysisconfronted by prehistorians since
the "New Archaeology"began retreating underthe onslaught
of functionalism, on the one hand,and taxo-formalism, on the
other.I see it as a kindof cornerstone of the theoreticalstruc-
turethat willhousea post-Childeanmaterialistic archaeology.
This orientationis beginningto appear in a very scattered
group of scholarsevenly spread worldwide.They still have
verylittlein commonapart froma certainuneasinessabout
subordinating the richbodiesof data theycontrolto a theory
generatedfromevidencetheycannotcontrol.Gilmancalls this
the "nonfunctionalist alternative"and see its manifestation in
emphasizingthe reconstruction of modes of subsistencein
orderto isolate the capital-intensive processescrucial to the
growthof wealthin a givenarea and period.The priorityof
this perspectiveis foundedon the fact that the means of
productionand the organizationsof labour necessaryto the
developmentof complexsocietiesalmosteverywhere pre-date
the emergenceof social segmentation, thussuggesting that the
demanddoes not createthe supply,but selectsamongexisting
options.In moregeneralterms,we mightoutlinethis type of
approachas the searchforcausativepatternslinkingnatural
conditionsand social structuresthroughdetailed analysis of
economicactivity.Economy is the social and technological
contextof the transformation of nature by human activity.
"Nature" here representsthe whole of Earth's resources
exploitedby a givenpeople in a givenperiod.These resources
must be identifiedand correlatedin various directionsto
providetheframework forthe reconstruction of the particular
economy.This is largelywhat Gilmanhas done here.We need
moreregionalprojects,each involvinga detailedreconstruction
of modes of subsistencein theirevolutionfromthe adaptive
stage of the Late Stone Age to the nonadaptive surplus-
producingphasesthatimmediately precedesocial stratification
in earlystates.I stressthe regionaldimensionbecause it is the
onlypossibleway of understanding economicstructuring in so
diversea territory as Europe.In peninsularItaly, forexample,
it was not irrigationor plow agriculturethat may have been
determinant oftheexpansionofmeansofproduction, but what
I have called the "conquestof the hills."Territorialexpansion
was possibleonlyiffarmingcould be carriedout on slopes,for
plains representless than 10% of the land area. This process
was almost completeby the end of the Bronze Age and was
probablyaccomplishedin two stages:firstincreasingterracing
of the hillsand thenthe introduction of cropsadapted to the
slopes.These crops,primarily fruittreesand vines,have become
the main featureof Europeanfarming, and Gilmanis rightin
pointingto their importance.I would emphasizethat to a
greatextentthe individualfactorsof capital-intensification of
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY
subsistenceactivitymightbe groupedtogetheras interrelated
aspectsof the same process.
Appropriateuse of archaeologicaldata in this materialistic
perspectiverequiresthe articulationof the economicrealityin
conceptssuitableto thiskindofevidenceand at thesame time
looselydefined
the linkingof it to relevantsocial institutions,
in termssuch as "rank society,"in orderto identifyactivities
and productsclassifiedin termsof theircapacity to extract,
transform,and storeresourcesas wellas to generategrowthand
surplus(Tosi n.d.).
byPETER S. WELLS
Department ofAnthropology, PeabodyMuseum,HarvardUni-
versity,
Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A. 8 vii 80
Gilman'spaper is an interesting and thoughtful approach to
theproblemof originsof social stratification. The disciplineof
Europeanprehistory has sufferedfromthe lack of attemptsto
explainimportantchangesevidentin thearchaeologicalrecord,
and this essay is a welcomestep in that direction.I wish to
make one generalsuggestion,then commenton two specific
points.
It wouldbe helpfulif the authorwoulddefineseveralterms
whose meaningsare understoodin a generalway but whose
specificconnotationscan be important.These include "func-
tionalist,")"elite,)"and "rulingclass."
My specificremarksconcernthe applicabilityof the model
to centralEurope. Of the fouraspects of "capital-intensifica-
tion"ofsubsistence, onlyplowagriculture couldpossiblyapply
to centralEurope.Severalrecentstudiessuggestthatthemajor
investmentof timeand energyin the preparationof land for
farmingoccurredmuch earlierthan Gilmanindicates,begin-
ningwiththe startof the Neolithic.It appears now that the
firstfarmersof centralEurope did not practiceslash-and-burn
agriculture, whichis unnecessaryin the richsoils of the area
(Modderman1971; Jarman1976: esp. 137-40). The evidence
suggestsa permanenceof occupationof settlements fromthis
earliestphase, withattendantclearingof fieldsforlong-term
agricultural use. Yet clear evidenceof social stratification
does
not appear untilmuchlater.
In arguingagainst the role of the developmentof bronze
metallurgyin the formationof elites, Gilman suggeststhat
veryfewagriculturalimplementsof bronzeare knownbefore
Late BronzeAge times.In centralEurope thisis not the case.
The sickle,the mostobviousagriculturaltool of metal at the
time,is well represented in settlements(e.g., Fischer1971:13
and pl. 3,5.6) and in hoards. The reasonsthat no more are
knownfromsettlements are twofold.First,veryfewEarly and
Middle BronzeAge settlements have been excavatedin central
Europe. Second,usable sickleswouldnot ordinarilyhave been
left behind in abandoned settlements.Broken sickles would
have been lost in the fieldsor thrownback into the metal-
caster'spot.
A substantialnumberof hoardsof Early and early Middle
Bronze Age date contain sickles. Some containnew, unused
objects (e.g., Krahe 1963) and can be interpreted as caches of
new toolsdepositedby travelingmerchantsor metalsmiths for
future,unrealizedrecovery.Otherscontainprimarilybroken
objects and scraps of bronze(e.g., Dehn 1952,Kimmig1955)
and probablyrepresent collectionsofmetaldestinedforremelt-
ing and recasting.There is no need to interpret eitherkindof
hoard as "votive," and both representaspects of the rapidly
growingindustryand trade in bronze implementsat the
beginning oftheBronzeAge (see Reinecke1930,Pittioni1976).
The evidenceof bronzetoolssuggeststo me that thismetal
was playinga role in agriculturalproductionfromthe Early
Bronze Age on in centralEurope and that the management
and controlof trade in bronze may have been a significant
factorin the emergenceof elitesduringthisperiod.
Vol. 22 *No. 1 February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
Reply
byANTONIO GILMAN
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. 15 ix 80
Social evolutionistshave had difficulty in formulating an ade-
quate account of the transitionfromclassless to stratified
societies.On theone hand,thelogicoftheirendeavorconstrains
them to give causal primacyto technologicalchanges,espe-
cially as these affectsubsistence.On the otherhand, in the
complex societies which emerge from the transitionsocial
factorsclearlyhave causal primacyin the dynamicsof culture
change:wheresocial positionsare determined not onlyby age,
sex, and achievement,but also by birth,a class analysis is
essentialto the understanding of history.Most evolutionists
have attemptedto reconciletechnological and social causation
by suggestingthat the elitesof early stratified societiesarose
as a resultof the managerial,organizationalrequirements of
more powerfulmethodsof production.I have tried to show
that this formulationis unsatisfactoryand to suggest an
alternativeway of reconcilingtechnologicaland social causa-
tion:theautonomousdevelopment ofcapital-intensive systems
of productionby householdgroupsopens up the opportunity
fora minorityto attain permanentsuperordinate statusesby
exploitativemeans.It is gratifying to see thatalmostall of the
commentatorsare generousenough to findmy approach of
someinterest.
It is impossible,of course,to do justiceto the varietyof the
commentsin any reasonablespace. I will attemptto respond
to the several empiricaland theoreticalquestionswhichare
shared by a numberof reviewers.Some criticisms(such as
Lewthwaite'sbelief that I consider "tired old 'population
pressure'" to be a primemoverof social change) seem to be
based on misunderstandings (or possiblymisreadings)of what
I have written.WhereI do notdiscusspointsraisedin particu-
lar comments, thereadermustjudge forhimselfhowto resolve
whateverdisagreements mayexist.The argumentative content
whichtheformatofthisreplyentailsonlyreflects myapprecia-
tionof the help of my colleaguesin clarifying my thinkingon
issuesof mutualconcern.
Problemsofevidence. For prehistorianspaucityof data is an
inescapablefactoflife.For theproblemsI am dealingwith,the
generalinadequacy of archaeologicalevidenceas such is ex-
acerbated by the small numberof studies which focus on
economic and social questions. I am particularlygrateful,
therefore, to those colleagues (Harrison,Schwartz,Shennan,
Sherratt,Tosi, and Wells) whohave confronted mythesiswith
concreteevidence.I willturnto someof theirconcernsbelow.
As Adams,Crumley,Harding,Shennan,and Sherrattpoint
out,I moveperhapstoo quicklyoverthecrucial(and inevitably
thorny)area of burialsociology.Indeed,it is fairto say that I
accept a consensuswhichsuits me ratherthan subject it to
detailedcriticism.I agreewithShennanand Sherrattthat the
wealth differentials seen withinBronze Age cemeteriesoften
are notlargeand withAdamsthatthekeyquestionofwhether
the contrastsreflectachievedor ascribedstatusdifferences can
neverbe conclusivelysettledusingpurelyarchaeologicalevi-
dence.Nevertheless, thereare strikingcontrastsbetweenNeo-
lithicand BronzeAge burialrites,and theprimafacieinterpre-
tationof thesedivergences as reflectingthepresenceof heredi-
tary status differences in the lattertends to be confirmed by
more detailed analysis. A diligentsearch throughthe ethno-
graphicliteratureno doubt wouldfind(and it would be even
easierto imagine)"archaeologicalnightmares"(Ucko 1969) in
which comparable contrastswould merely reflecta slight
increasein ranking(or have no social significance at all). On
the whole,however,I findthe consensusview acceptable,and
so, forthat matter,do those who have commentedhere (the
17
 readershouldconsider,forexample,thepassagefromColes and
Harding's[1979]surveyquotedabove). To say thatmorework
needsto be done is not to say that the mostlikelyconclusions
based on the evidencenow available are incorrector should
be ignored.
Even more tenuousis the evidenceon land tenure,which
Crumleycorrectlysees as a crucial question.The surviving
"Celtic" field systemssuggest,however,some stabilityin
landholding.(As BiettiSestierishouldknow,it is not the mere
existenceof boundarieswhichleads to thisinterpretation, but
the way in which the boundariesare formed:the lynchets
separatingthe fieldsare createdby plowing'saccelerationof
soil creep;theexistenceofa fieldsystemdelimitedby lynchets
implies,therefore, thatthesame fieldswereplowedin thesame
configuration fora long time;thisin turnsuggestsan orderly
regulationof access to the land, in otherwords,some formof
ownership.)Stable landholdingpatternsimplya commitment
to fixedresourceswhichwould permitthe developmentof a
protection/extortion complex.WhileI obviouslycannotspecify
whichfieldsprovidedthe surplusthat generatedthe wealthin
whichgraves,it hardlyseems a "leap of faith,"as Crumley
describesit, to supposethat,takenas a whole,the wealthof
BronzeAge elitesrepresents a shareofsubsistenceproduction.
In Classical times, when society was certainlymuch more
complexand "heterarchical"than duringthe BronzeAge, the
fundamentalsourceof wealth was, as Finley (1973) stresses,
theland. It seemsa matternotoffaithbut ofreasonto suppose
that in the simplersocietiesof European barbariansthe land
and thosewhoworkedit wouldalso have providedthe surplus
capturedby theprivilegedfew.
It is easy to be criticalof archaeologicaldata, to denounce
conclusionsas speculative,to indulgein proformamethodologi-
cal pessimism.Most prehistorians are selectivein theircon-
servatism,however.When the evidenceleads themto conclu-
sions theylike, the soberestscholarsspeculate.Thus, Bietti
Sestieri,who here considersit "at least questionablethat we
can legitimately use conceptssuch as trade. . . withreference
to Neolithicand BronzeAge Europe," has elsewhereaverred,
on the basis of typologicalparallelsalone, thatin the later 2d
millenniumB.C. Mycenaean smithswere workingin Italian
metal workshops(Bietti Sestieri 1973:408). Crumley,who
considersit "risky"to supposethat the occupantsof Fiirsten-
grdberobtained their wealth fromagriculturalproducersin
theirvicinity,is willingthreeparagraphslater to speculateon
the existenceof merchantelitesand on toll-collecting at fords
and passes in BronzeAge times.No archaeologistcan affordto
wait until thereis enoughevidence to make the writingof
prehistory "safe." What we can do is argueour cases forwhat
the past was like fromthe centraltendenciesof the available
evidenceand witha realisticgraspofhistoricalprocess.
Several commentators(Bietti Sestieri,Cazzella, Crumley,
Harding,Kohl, Schwartz,and Tosi) suggestthatdevelopments
in Europe duringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C. may be too
diverseforany singletheoryto account forthem.I am not
attemptingto explainall aspects of BronzeAge diversity,but
withinthe scope of my interestsI disagreewiththiscriticism
forthreereasons.In thefirstplace, themodelI put forwardis a
structuralone and thus accommodatesempiricaldiversityin
specificculturaldetails.I suggesta relationshipbetweencapital-
intensification of subsistenceand exploitationwhich can be
applied to a varietyof specificmodes both of intensification
and of surpluscapture.The modelis, so to speak, processual
and thus can account forseveral European transitionsfrom
rankingto stratification. To put the same pointanotherway,
if,as Adams and Cowgillseem to feel,my approachdeserves
considerationin entirelynon-Europeancontexts,thenit may
also be relevantto severaldifferent areas withinEurope.In the
secondplace, the modelaccommodatesstructuraldiversity.I
do notassume,as Schwartzseemsto think,thatsocialstratifica-
tionwas universalwithinEurope. On thecontrary, I acknowl-
18
edge the differential
rateofsocialchangeand attempttoexplain
this by the differential
rate of capital-intensification. If any-
thing,Sherratt'scriticismof my "failureto make use of the
varietyin the evidence"is morejust than the view that I cast
too widea net. In the thirdplace, thereare, in fact,strikingly
similardevelopments in manyareas ofEuropeduringtheEarly
BronzeAge. As Shennan(1980) stresses,the generalcharacter
ofeliteburialsand manyof the specificartifacttypesincluded
in them(e.g., rivetteddaggers)are much the same in south-
eastern Spain, Brittany,Wessex, Saxo-Thuringia,Bohemia,
and so on. This elite complexappears in thesedifferent areas
at about the same time (the beginningof the 2d millennium)
and contrastswiththe muchless differentiated burial ritesof
the precedingperiod. Given thesebroad similarities, it seems
reasonableto me to supposethat one can attempta common
explanation.
Harding,Shennan,and Wells are concernedabout the time
lag betweenthe introduction of subsistenceintensification and
the developmentofhereditary inequalities.In a basic sense,of
course,some capital stocksare inherentin the simplestfood
productionsystems:in one formor another,farmerswill have
storesto ensurefutureproduction,tidethemoverbad harvests
and lean seasons, and so on. These stores,being of general
value, must be defended,and settlementfortifications, non-
existentin the Palaeolithic,becomefrequentin the Neolithic.
It is the general understandingof social evolutioniststhat
rankingarises in responseto the need to create and defend
thesestores(Service 1962,Fried 1967). The questionis, there-
fore,at what pointthe community's assets becomesignificant
enough to permit the shiftfromranking to stratification.
Clearly,therelativelyunintensive agriculturalpracticeswhich,
pace Wells and Sherratt(1980a), characterizedthe earlier
Neolithic in Europe would not have entailed such critical
accumulationsof capital. Clearly,too, the firstintroduction of
moreintensivepracticeswouldnot immediately have provided
big-mentheleveragenecessaryto becomechiefs.We needmany
moredetailedregionalassessments,such as that providedby
Bradley (1978) forthe BritishIsles, of the complexenviron-
mentaland technologicalfactorsinvolved.In the absence of
suchstudies,I can onlyagreewiththeinevitablyimpressionistic
assessmentof Sherrattthat thereis a "significanthorizonof
change in the mid-3dmillenniumB.C." The adoption of the
plow and otherintensifications would not immediatelyhave
but it is apparent that the older social
led to stratification,
orderwas not unaffected. The replacementof collectiveburial
in megalithsby singlegrave ritesin northernEurope, on the
one hand, and the intensification of collectiverituals (in the
face of the undermining of theirmaterialbase) in Wessex (the
constructionof large ceremonialmonumentsby the "group-
orientedchiefdoms"of Renfrew[1974]), on the Boyne (the
spectacularNew Grangepassage-gravegroup),and in south-
easternSpain (the Los Millares phenomenon),on the other
hand, may be interpreted as varyingresponsesto the stresses
whichthe capital-intensification ofagriculture producedin the
Neolithicsocial order(Gilman 1976,Shennan1980). I thinkit
is perfectlyreasonableto suppose that it would take half a
millennium, or even longer,for these stressesto be resolved
withina new social order.
Commodity exchange and bronze.Adams,Kohl, and Shennan
believe that I underestimatethe importanceof primitive
valuablesin contributing to the developmentof stratification.
I agree with Adams that the "naturally scarce, fungible,
durable"propertiesof bronzewouldmake it an ideal medium
for storingand mobilizingcapital. Bronze and other such
preciositieswould thus help the elites that possessedthemto
consolidate,extend,and transmittheirpower. One can also
see howpreferential access to a valuableprizedin thecoreofa
stratifiedsystemcouldgive riseto compradoreelitesalong the
system'speriphery.This was Childe's view of Bronze Age
developments in Europeas a whole,ofcourse.Shennanfollows
CURRE NT ANTHROPOLO GY
a similarline on a morelocal scale whenhe argueshere that Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
ambermayhave beenimportantto thebeginning oftheDanish
BronzeAge: sincethefirsthorizonof clear stratification in the unlikelyto have existedin prehistoricEurope. A remaining
North occurs centuriesafterclasses had emergedin Central possibilityforthosewhowoulddefendtheimportanceof trade
Europe,theformercouldhave playedperipheryto thelatter's in the developmentof social inequalitiesin Europe is to argue
core.All theseapproachesassume,however,thepriorexistence thatbronzewas important inincreasingagricultural production.
ofthecapitalwhichthepreciosities willrepresent. Whenwe are This is the positionof Schwartzand Wells. Schwartzobserves
dealingwiththe pristinedevelopmentof hereditaryelites,the that centersof early metallurgyare associated withareas of
key question is how they captured surplus,not into what importantsubsistenceproduction.This provesthatminersand
convenientformtheyconvertedit. Metallurgywas knownfor smithsmusteat, not that metal toolswereimportantin agri-
over a millenniumin Europe before the intensification of culture.Wells indicatesthatat the startof the Middle Bronze
subsistencesystemscreateda social contextforthe storageof Age (ReineckeA2/B1) in CentralEurope agriculturalimple-
wealthand stimulatedthe florescence of the technology.It is mentsof bronzeare foundin settlementdebrisand foundry
difficultto acceptthatpreciositiescouldhave playedmorethan hoards.Excludingcastingfragments and countingeach piece
an ancillaryrole in an autonomoussocial evolutiontowards as a wholeartifact,the compositionof the metal assemblages
stratification.To argueotherwisewouldamountto sayingthat he citesis givenin table 1. Arbon-Bleiche is a settlementsite,
a fundamental changein humansocial systems"began witha and,as Wellsindicates,taphonomicconsiderations are sufficient
caprice" (Schneider1977:23). to accountforthe relativelysmallnumberof sicklesand large
My opinion that the developmentof the Bronze Age in numberof awls, needles,etc. ("Other Artifacts").The other
Europe was essentiallyan autochthonous processis based not two assemblages are foundryhoards consistingmainly of
on dogma (as Kohl seems to think),but on evidence.If the castingfragments and brokenartifacts;theseshouldbe fairly
Aegean in the mid-3dmillenniumor El Argar,Aunjetitz,or representative of the metal in use. It is clear that one must
Wessex in the early 2d millenniumhad been peripherally interpret axes as agriculturalimplements (presumablyused for
involvedin a GreaterNear Eastern"worldsystem,"one would land clearance) forany significant proportionof the metal in
expectthisto be reflected materiallyby thepresenceofcertifi- theseassemblagesto be consideredrelevantto foodproduction.
able importsfromthe putativecoreareas. In spiteof the fact Because they are foundin graves with swordsand daggers,
that such findswere predictedby the theorydominantin axes are usually interpretedas weapons. In the absence of
prehistoric European studiesforalmosthalf a century,there analysesoftheuse markson axes and ofexperiments determin-
are none in Westernand CentralEurope earlierthan the 1st ing the effectiveness of replicasin wood chopping(see Coles
millennium and extremely fewin the Aegean earlierthan the 1979:101-4),theissueis hardto resolve.Experimental evidence
2d (Renfrew1972:211-17). Cazzella may wishnot "to exclude does show,however,that bronzesicklesare not much better
entirelythe economicand social influences"of the Orientand thanflintonesintermsofharvesting efficiency (Coles 1979:117-
theAegean,and Kohl may insiston principlethatan analogue 18). As usual in archaeology,the issueis not clear-cut,but the
to Wallerstein's(1974) theoryofthedevelopment ofcapitalism evidence Wells presentsdoes not persuade me that metal
is applicableto prehistoric Europe,but I fail to see how these artifactswereas importanttechnoenvironmentally as theywere
connectionscan be both economicallyand sociallyimportant sociallyand ideologically.
and materiallyinvisible.Connectionsextensiveenoughto effect I do notthinkthatthedevelopment ofexchangesystemslies
significant social change over wide areas of Europe must be at the root of the emergenceof a hereditaryelite in Bronze
expectedto involveat least someartifactualconsequences.The Age Europe,but thisdoes not mean that such a processcould
core/periphery model may help us understandthe Aegean not account for such developmentsin other historical or
Late BronzeAge or the CentralEuropeanEarly Iron Age,but, ecologicalsettings.In otherinstances,whereecologicalcondi-
when social stratification firstarose, Europe was, in Waller- tionsfavorspecializationin subsistenceor requireimportation
stein'sterms,marginal. of commodities neededto maintainsecureproductionor where
Whetherornotcoreand peripheralareas can be distinguished a core/periphery tradingsystemcan be documented,an ex-
withinBronzeAge Europedeservesdetailedempiricalexamina- change-basedtheorymay well be viable. All the same, the
tion. I am not persuaded,however,by Shennan'ssuggestion "decentering oftheobserver"whichGallayrecommends should
about the causal importanceof amberforthe developmentof not implythat essentialprocesseswilldiffer in separateareas.
stratificationin Denmark.Randsborg(1974) showsa general Any account of the originsof stratification must explain in
correlationbetweenagriculturalproductivity(based on the termsof the survivalstrategiesof householdproductiveunits
plow) and degreeof inequality.If Shennan were right,one what constrainedthe mass of the populationto accept the
wouldexpectthe entirewest coast of Jutlandto be an excep- ascriptivecomponentof superordinate status.
tion, since it is uniformly a source of amber and relatively Functionalism and theroleof elites.Crumley,Harding,and
unproductive agriculturally.Onlythearea aroundtheLimfjord, Hicks seemto feelthatmyapproachis, afterall, a functionalist
a rich and shelteredfishingground,fails to fit Randsborg's one.To theextentthatI do notbelievesocietyto be a thingof
correlation.The facts,such as they are, fit my speculation shredsand patches,I of course mustbe a functionalist. As I
betterthan Shennan's.The idea that in some areas of Europe attemptedto explainat the startof the "Critique" sectionof
secondaryelitesarose as a resultof theircompradorestatusin
exchangeswith more powerfulelites elsewherewithin the
continentmeritscarefulconsideration, but it is hard to recon- TABLE 1
cile with the generallyrudimentarycharacterof European COMPOSITION OF METAL ASSEMBLAGES FROM
Bronze Age stratification (which Shennanhimselfunderlines THREE CENTRAL EUROPEAN SITES
in his commenthere).
OTHER OTHER
A commodity-exchange theoryof the originsof social strati-
WEAP- ORNA- ARTI-
ficationapplicableto the EuropeanBronzeAge mustpointto SITE AND SOURCE SICKLES AXES ONS MFENTS FACTS
internalor externalcommercein goods whichmeet the basic
needs of households.To the extentthat householdscould do Arbon-Bleiche
withoutthe goods,theycould do withoutthe exactionsof the (Fischer1971)...... 2 4 16 35 42
suppliers.Evolutionarylogic suggeststhat we look to the Bohl (Dehn1952)..... 17 9 8 230 1
subsistencesectorforsuchcommodities, yetit is apparent(and Ackenbach
no responsedisagrees)that significanttrade'in foodstuffs is (Kimmig1955) .. 12 ... 9 . 10 22 -

Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February1981 19

my paper,however,a beliefthatsocial systemsare integrated
need not involvethe view that a particularaspect of a society
(in thisinstance,hereditary preferential access to resourcesby
a rulingminority) is necessaryto thatsociety's(and itspartici-
pants') existence.This, however,is preciselythe argumentof
the functionalists-with-respect-to-stratification; the leadership
ofan elite,theysay,is necessaryto achievetheDarwiniangood
of higherand more secure production.My positionis that
certainefforts by householdsto achievehigherand moresecure
productionprovide leaders holdingtheir positionsby their
achievementsthe leveragewithwhichto make theirpositions
permanent.By adding the threatof violenceagainst the now
immobilemass of the populationto the promisesof assistance
theygave before,theleaderscouldmaketheirstatushereditary
and reduce the amount of assistance to theirfollowers.My
approachmaybe functionalist in thebroadsenseofrecognizing
the interdependence of the social and the technological, but it
is nonfunctionalist with respectto the relationshipbetween
stratificationand production.
I agreewithCazzella, Claessen,Cowgill,Earle, Lewthwaite,
and Sherrattthat (to repeat myself)"it is undeniablethat
rulingclasses may sometimesbe of serviceto theirsubjects."
In orderto maintainhereditary power,an elite mustuse both
the carrotand the stick.As the collapses of the Pahlevi and
Somoza dynastiesshow,even in our own day, whenthe tech-
nologyofforceis incomparably morepowerfulthanin thepast,
it is impossibleforeven the mostruthlessrulerto maintainhis
power unless he reconcilesan adequate proportionof his
subjects to his regimeby means of positiveincentives.It is
important to be a "good massa." At thesame time,no stratified
regimeis contentto confidethe positionof the elite to the
consentof the governed:forceis the ultimateguaranteeof
power.As Earle pointsout, the extentto whichelitesextend
theirpowerand the ease withwhichtheymanage theirsub-
jects are largely determinedby the judicious provisionof
servicesto at least someofthepopulation.In thefinalanalysis,
however,an elite maintainsits powerthroughits predictable
abilityto apply violenceeffectively to all its subjects.
I emphasizethe roleofnegativeincentivesin the emergence
of hereditaryelitesbecause preciselywhat is characteristic of
the transitionto stratification is the normallysuccessfuluse of
forceas one of the means by which leaders maintaintheir
power.Wheresystemsofproductionare unintensive, thethreat
of violenceis mostlyineffective: the populationcan abandon
its would-be master. Where systemsof productionrequire
importantcapital investments, the populationcannot escape
the unwantedattentionsof its leaders. During the millennia
whichprecededthe developmentof capital-intensivesubsis-
tence, all the servicesprovidedby egalitarianredistributors
failed to gain themhereditaryleadershippositions.Once the
successfulapplicationof forcebecame possible,stratification
emergedwithina fewcenturies.
Lewthwaite'samusingcomments concerning myMafiatheory
of historicalprocessundeniablyhit close to the mark. Yet I
wouldrecommend to himthathe read Blok's (1974) illuminat-
ingstudyof the Mafia in Sicilyin orderto disabusehimselfof
hisfanciful beliefthatleadersand followers are all in it together
and thatpatron-client relationships are essentiallysymmetrical
("to each accordingto hisneed" is hisastonishing characteriza-
tionof the allocationof resourcesbetweenchieftainsand their
supporters).What Lewthwaitefailsto realizeis thatthebenign
surfaceof clientage(in which,in his words,"inequalitydoes
not breed alienation") depends upon the fact that, as Wolf
(1966) points out, both patronand clientoperate withinthe
overarchingstructureof state institutions. When the state is
presentto guaranteethe asymmetryof the patron-clienttie,
the patroncan affordto maintainan appearanceof unalloyed
munificence. When the patron'sambitionsand operationsrun
counterto the state's prescriptions, however,he cannot avail
himselfof state powerto certifyhis predominanceand must
20
himselfenforcethe asymmetry betweenhimselfand his sup-
porters.This, as Blok explains,is the situationof the Mafia.
Leadersfacethesameproblemwhenstateinstitutions are weak
or nonexistent. Justas whenhis activitiesare opposed by the
state,theleadermusthimselfsupplythe violencenecessaryto
disciplinedissidentfollowers. As Moore (1966:214) pointsout,
"gangsterism is likelyto cropup wherevertheforcesoflaw and
orderare weak. European feudalismwas mainlygangsterism
that had become society itselfand acquired respectability
throughnotionsof chivalry."In the BronzeAge,of course,no
state structures existedto maintainthepowerof the emergent
elite over theirfollowers. The eliteswouldhave had to supply
their own enforcement, and the furnitureof their burials
suggeststhey gloriedin that necessity.As Anderson(1974)
has shown,furthermore, there is a direct historicallink in
Europe betweenfeudalismand the barbarian social system
whicharose in the BronzeAge.
Many responsesseem to findmy theoreticalpositionto be
"polarized" (Adams) and "oversimple" (Sherratt). This is
probablyinevitable.As Moore (1966:522) has said,
any simplestraightforward truthabout politicalinstitutionsor
eventsis boundto havepolemicalconsequence. ... In any society
thedominant groupsare theoneswiththemostto hideaboutthe
way societyworks.Veryoften,therefore, truthful analysesare
boundto have a criticalring,to seemlike exposures ratherthan
objectivestatements.. ..
We are so miredin the theoriesand mythologies whichjustify
the systemsof stratification that surroundus that a clear
in the remotepast in
expositionof the originsof stratification
termsofuniversalsocial processescannotavoid seemingsome-
how too radical.
Cited
References
ADAMS, ROBERT McC. 1965. Land behindBaghdad.Chicago: Univer-
sityof Chicago Press.
- . 1966. The evolutionofurbansociety.Chicago: Aldine.
. 1974.Anthropological perspectiveson ancienttrade.CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY15:239-58.
. 1981. Heartland of cities: Surveysof ancient settlement and
land use on thecentralfloodplainoftheEuphrates.Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press. [RMA]
ANATI, EMMANUEL. 1961. Camonica Valley.New York: Knopf.
ANDERSON, PERRY. 1974. Passages from antiquityto feudalism.
London: New Left Books.
APARICIO PEREZ, JOSE.1976,Estudio econ6micoy social de la Edad
del Broncevalenciano.Valencia: Diputaci6n Provincial.
ARRIBAS, ANTONIO. 1959. El urbanismopeninsularduranteel Bronce
primitivo.Zephyrus10:81-128.
. 1968. "Las bases econ6micas del Neolitico al Bronce," in
Estudios de economiaantigua de la peninsula iberica. Edited by
M. Tarradell,pp. 33-60. Barcelona: Vicens-Vives.
. 1976. Las bases actuales para el estudio del Eneolitico y la
Edad del Bronce en el sudeste de la peninsula iberica. Cuadernos
de PrehistoriaGranadina 1: 139-55.
BALCER, JACK MARTIN. 1974. The Mycenaean dam at Tiryns.
AmericanJournalofArchaeology 78:141-49.
BARFIELD, LAWRENCE. 1971. Nortlhern Italy beforeRome. London:
Thames and Hudson.
BARKER, GRAEME, and DERRICK WEBLEY. 1978. Causewayed camps
and early Neolithic economies in central southern England.
ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety44:141-49.
BARRETT, JOHN, PETER HILL, and J. B. STEVENSON. 1976. "Second
millenniumB.C. banks in the Black Moss of Ashnacree: Some
problemsof prehistoricland use," in Settlement and economyin
thethirdand secondmillenniaB.C. Edited by C. Burgess and R.
Miket,pp. 283-87. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.
BATTAGLIA, R. 1943. La palafitta del Lago di Ledro nel Trentino.
Memoriedel Museo di Storia Naturale della Venezia Tridentina
7:3-63.
BETTS, J. H. 1973. "Ships on Minoan seals," in Marine archaeology.
Edited by D. J. Blackman, pp. 326-36. London: Butterworth.
[CAS]
BIETTI SESTIERI, A. M. 1973. The metal industryof continental
Italy, 13th to 11th centuryB.C., and its connectionswith the
Aegean. ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety39:383-424.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
BINFORD, LEWIS R. 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study and
potential.MemoirsoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology 25:6-29.
BLOK, ANTON. 1974. The Mafia of a Sicilian village 1860-1960.
Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
BOK6NYI, S. 1974. Historyofdomestic mammalsin centraland eastern
Europe. Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6.
BOUZEK, JAN,DRAHOMIR KOUTECKY, and EVZEN NEUSTUPNY. 1966.
The Knoviz settlement of north-westBohemia. Fontes Archeologici
Pragenses 10.
BRADLEY, RICHARD J. 1978. The prehistoric settlementof Britain.
London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
BR0NDSTED, JOHANNES.1958. DanmarksOldtid.Vol. 2. Copenhagen:
Gyldendal.
BUTZER, KARL W. 1976. Early hydraulic civilizationin Egypt.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
CARNEIRO, ROBERT L. 1968. "Slash-and-burncultivationamong the
Kuikuru and its implicationsfor cultural developmentin the
Amazon Basin," in Man in adaptation: The cultural present.
Edited by Y. Cohen,pp. 132-45. Chicago: Aldine.
. 1970. A theoryof the originof the state. Science 169:733-38.
. 1978. "Political expansionas an expressionof the principle
of competitiveexclusion," in Originsof the state.Edited by R.
Cohen and E. R. Service,pp. 205-33. Philadelphia: Institutefor
the Study of Human Issues.
CAULFIELD, SEAMAS. 1978. "Neolithic fields:The Irish evidence," in
Early land allotmentin theBritishIsles. Edited by H. C. Bowen
and P. J. Fowler, pp. 137-43. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
CHAGNON, NAPOLEON A. 1975. Genealogy,solidarity,and related-
ness. YearbookofPhysicalA nthropology 19: 95-110. (JL)
CHAPMAN,R. W. 1977. "Burial practices: An area of mutual inter-
est," in Archaeologyand anthropology: Areas of mutual interest.
Edited by M. Spriggs,pp. 19-33. Oxford:BritishArchaeological
Reports.
-. 1978. The evidenceforprehistoric watercontrolin Southeast
Spain. Journalof Arid Environments 1: 261-74.
CHILDE, V. GORDON. 1946. Archaeologyand anthropology.South-
western JournalofAnthropology 2:243-51. [MT]
. 1951. Man makeshimself. New York: MentorBooks.
1954. Whathappenedin history.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
. 1956. The Bronze Age. Past and Present12:2-15.
1957. The dawn ofEuropean civilization.London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
- . 1958. The prehistory of European society.Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
CLAESSEN, HENRI J. M. 1978. "The early state: A structuralap-
proach," in The earlystate.Edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and
Peter Skalnik,pp. 533-96. The Hague: Mouton. [HJMC]
CLARK, GRAHAME. 1966. The invasion hypothesisin Britisharchae-
ology.Antiquity40:172-89.
-. 1977. "The economiccontextof dolmensand passage graves
-in Sweden," in AncientEurope and theMediterranean.Edited by
V. Markotic,pp. 35-50. Warminster:Arisand Phillips.
CLARK, J. G. D. 1976.Prehistorysince Childe.BulletinoftheInstitute
ofArchaeology 13:1-21. [MT]
CLARKE, D. L. 1976. "The Beaker network:Social and economic
models," in Glockenbecher SymposionOberried1974. Edited by
J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 459-76. Bussum:
Fibula-van Dishoeck.
COLES, JOHN. 1979. Experimentalarchaeology.London: Academic
Press.
COLES, J. M., and A. F. HARDING. 1979. The BronzeAge in Europe.
London: Methuen.
COWGILL, GEORGE L. 1975. On causes and consequencesof ancient
and modernpopulationchanges.AmericanAnthropologist 77:505-
25.
CRUMLEY, CAROLE L. 1979. "Three locational models: An epistemo-
logical assessmentforanthropologyand archaeology,"in Advances
in archaeologicalmethodand theory, vol. 2. Edited by Michael B.
Schiffer, pp. 141-73. New York: Academic Press. [CLC]
DEHN, WOLFGANG. 1952. Ein Brucherzfund der Htigelgraberbronze- GUDEMAN, STEPHEN. 1977. Morgan in Africa. Reviewsin Anthro-
zeit von Buihl,Ldkr. N6rdlingen(Bayern). Germania30:174-87.
[PSW]
DENFORD, G. T. 1975. Economyand locationofBronzeAge "arable"
settlementsin Dartmoor. Bulletin of theInstituteof Archaeology
12:175-96.
DIAKONOFF, I. M. 1969. "The rise of the despotic state in ancient
Mesopotamia," in AncientMesopotamia.Edited by I. M. Diakon-
off,pp. 173-203. Moscow: Nauka.
DREWETT, P. L. 1978. "Field systemsand land allotmentin Sussex,
3rd millenniumB.C. to 4th centuryA.D.," in Early land allotment
in theBritishIsles. Edited by H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler,pp.
67-80. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports.
EARLE,TIMOTHYK. 1977. "A reappraisalof redistribution: Complex
Hawaiian chiefdoms,"in Exchangesyslemsin prehistory. Edited
by T. K. Earle and J.E. Ericson,pp. 213-32. New York: Academic
Press.
Vol. 22 * No. 1 * February1981
Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
. 1978. Economicand social organization ofa complexchiefdom:
The Halelea district,Kaua'i, Hawaii. Museum of Anthropology,
Universityof Michigan,AnthropologicalPapers 63.
ENGELS, FREDERICK. 1972 (1891). The originsof thefamily,private
property, and thestate.New York: InternationalPublishers.
EVANS, J. D., and COLIN RENFREW. 1966. Excavationsat Saliagos
nearAntiparos.London: Thames and Hudson.
FINLEY, M. I. 1973. The ancienteconomy.Berkeley: Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
FISCHER, FRANZ. 1971. Die frahbronzezeitliche Ansiedlungin der
Bleiche bei ArbonTG. Basel: SchweizerischeGesellschaftftirUr-
und Friihgeschichte. [PSW]
FLANNERY, KENT V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations.
Annual ReviewofEcologyand Systematics 3:399-426.
FLANNERY, KENT V., and MICHAEL D. COE. 1968. "Social and
economicsystemsin Formative Mesoamerica," in New perspec-
tivesin archaeology. Edited by S. R. Binfordand L. R. Binford,
pp. 267-83. Chicago: Aldine.
FOWLER, P. J. 1971. "Early prehistoricagriculturein western
Europe: Some archaeologicalevidence,"in Economyand settlement
in Neolithicand Early BronzeAge Europe. Edited by D. D. A.
Simpson,pp. 153-82. Leicester:LeicesterUniversityPress.
FOWLER,P. J., and J. G. EVANS. 1967. Plough-marks,lynchets,and
early fields.Antiquity41:289-301.
FRANKENSTEIN, SUSAN,and M. J. ROWLANDS. 1978. The internal
structureand regionalcontextof Early Iron Age societyin south-
westernGermany.BulletinoftheInstituteofArchaeology 15: 73-112.
FRIED, MORTON H. 1967. The evolution ofpoliticalsociety.New York:
Random House.
FRIEDMAN, J. 1974. Marxism,structuralism, and vulgarmaterialism.
Man 9:444-69.
--. 1979. System,structure, and contradiction in theevolutionof
"Asiatic" social formations.Copenhagen: National Museum of
Denmark. [HJMC]
FRIEDMAN, J.,and M. J. ROWLANDS.1978. "Notes towardsan epi-
geneticmodel of the evolutionof civilisation,"in The evolutionof
social systems.Edited by J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, pp.
201-79. London: Duckworth. [SJS]
FROST,H. 1973. "Anchors,the potsherdsof marinearchaeology:On
the recordingof pierced stones foundin the Mediterranean,"in
Marine archaeology.Edited by D. J. Blackman, pp. 397-406.
London: Butterworth. [CAS]
GALL,PATRICIAL., and ARTHUR A. SAXE. 1977. "The ecological
evolutionof culture:The state as predatorin successiontheory,"
in Exchangesystemsin prehistory. Edited by T. K. Earle and J. E.
Ericson,pp. 255-68. New York: Academic Press.
GALLAY, ALAIN, with the collaboration of CLAUDINE SAUVAIN-
DUGERDIL. n.d. Le SarnyereDogon, Mali, Afrique occidentale:
Archeologie d'un isolat. Paris. [AG]
GARDIN, JEAN-CLAUDE. 1974. A propos des modeles en archeologie
(Review of:Modelsin archaeology, editedby D. L. Clarke [London:
Methuen,1972]). RevueArcheologique 2:341-48. [AG]
GILMAN, ANTONIO. 1976. Bronze Age dynamicsin southeast Spain.
DialecticalAnthropology 1:307-19.
GLICK, THOMAS F. 1970. Irrigationand societyin mediaevalValencia.
Cambridge:Harvard UniversityPress.
GLOB, P. V. 1951. Ard og plovi NordensOldtid.Arhus: Universitets-
forlaget.
GODELIER, M. 1972. Rationalityand irrationality in economics.New
York: MonthlyReview Press. [PLK]
GOODY, JACK. 1976. Production and reproduction: A comparative
studyof thedomesticdomain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
GREEN, STANTON. 1979. "Expanding agriculturalsystems:Elabora-
tion of a least-costmodel," in Modelingsubsistence changein pre-
historiceconomies.Edited by T. K. Earle and A. L. Christenson.
New York: Academic Press. In press.
pology4:575-80.
HARRIS, M. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory.New York:
Crowell. [PLK]
. 1971. Culture,man, and nature.New York: Crowell.
HARRISON, RICHARD J. 1980. TheBeaker folk.London: Thames and
Hudson. [RJH]
HARRISON, RICHARD J., and ANTONIO GILMAN. 1977. "Trade in the
second and thirdmillenniaB.C. betweenthe Maghreb and Iberia,"
in AncientEurope and theMediterranean. Edited by V. Markotic,
pp. 90-104. Warminster:Aris and Phillips.
HAWKES, C. F. C. 1954. Archaeologytheoryand method: Some
suggestionsfromthe Old World.AmericanAnthropologist 56:155-
68.
HEMPEL, CARL G. 1959. "The logic of functionalanalysis," in Sym-
posium on sociologicaltheory.Edited by L. Gross, pp. 271-307.
New York: Harper and Row.
21
HIGHAM, C. F. C. 1968. Patternsofprehistoric
economicexploitation RANDSBORG,KLAVS. 1973. "Wealth and social structureas reflected
in the Alpine foreland. Vierteljahresschrift der naturforschenden in Bronze Age burials: A quantitativeapproach," in The explana-
Gesellschaft in Zurich 113:41-92. tionofculturechange:Modelsin prehistory. Edited by C. Renfrew,
HOPF, MARIA. 1971. Vorgeschichtliche Pflanzenreste aus Ostspanien. pp. 565-70. London: Duckworth.
MadriderMitteilulngen 12:102-14. in Early Bronze Age Denmark: A
. 1974. Social stratification
HOPF, MARIA, and MANUEL PELLICER CATALAN. 1970. Neolithische study in the regulationof cultural systems.Praehistorische Zeit-
Getreidefundein der Hohle von Nerja. Madrider Mitteilungen schrift 49:38-61.
11:18-34. RASMUSSEN, HOLGER. 1968. Limfjordsfiskeriet fOr1825: Sedvane og
ISBELL, WILLIAM H., and KATHARINA J. SCHREIBER. 1978. Was central dirigering. NationalmuseetFolkelivsStudier2.
Huari a state? AmericanAntiquity43:372-89. RATHJE, WILLIAM L. 1971. The originand developmentof lowland
JARMAN,H. N. 1976. "Early crop agriculturein Europe," in Origine Classic Maya civilization.AmericanAntiquity36:275-85.
de l'elevageet de la domestication(Proceedings of IX Congres, REINECKE, PAUL. 1930. "Die Bedeutung der Kupferbergwerke der
Union Internationaledes Sciences Prehistoriqueset Protohistor- Ostalpen fur die Bronzezeit Mitteleuropas," in Schumacher-
iques, vol. 20). Edited by E. Higgs,pp. 116-44. Nice. [PSW] Festschrift, pp. 107-15. Mainz: L. Wilckens. [PSW]
JAZDZEWSKI,KONRAD. 1965. Poland. London: Thames and Hudson. RENFREW, COLIN. 1967. Colonialismand Megalithismus.Antiquity
JODLOWSKI, A. 1976. Technikaprodukcjisoli na terenieEuropy w 41: 276-88.
pradziejachi we wczesnym gredniowieczu (The techniqueofsalt pro- . 1969.The autonomyoftheSouth-eastEuropean CopperAge.
ductionin Europe in prehistorictimesand the earlyMiddle Ages). ProceedingsofthePrehistoric Society35:12-47.
Studia i Materialydo Dziejow zup Solnychw Polsce 5. [RJHI . 1972. The emergenceof civilisation:The Cyclades and the
JOHNSON,ALLEN. 1971. The sharecroppers of the Sertdo.Stanford: Aegeanin thethirdmillennium B.C. London: Methuen.
StanfordUniversityPress. [TE] . 1973a. Beforecivilisation:The radiocarbonrevolutionand
JOVANOVIC, B. 1979. Copperminingin SoutheastEurope. Proceedings prehistoric Europe. London: JonathanCape.
ofthePrehistoric Society45:103-10. [CAS] - . Editor. 1973b. The explanationof culturalchange.London:
KEMPISTY, ANDRZEJ. 1978. The Corded Ware culturein the lightof Duckworth. [MT]
new stratigraphicevidence.PrzegladArcheologiczny 26:5-41. .1974. Beyond a subsistenceeconomy:The evolutionof social
KIMMIG, WOLFGANG. 1955. Ein Hortfundder frtihenHiigelgraber- organizationin prehistoricEurope. AmericanSchools of Oriental
bronzezeitvon AckenbachKr. Uberlingen.Jahrbuchdes Romisch- ResearchSuppl. 20:69-85.
Germanischen Zentralmuseums 2:55-75. [PSW] - . 1976. Megaliths, territories,and populations.Dissertationes
KOHL, PHILIP L. 1978. The balance of trade in southwesternAsia Archeologicae Gandenses16:198-220.
in the mid-thirdmillenniumB.C. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY19: RENFREW, JANE M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. London: Methuen.
463-92. RICHARDS, JOHN F. n.d. "Precious metals and patternsof commerce
KRAHE, GUNTHER. 1963. Hortfund der friihen Bronzezeit von in the late medievalworldeconomy,1200-1500 A.D.," in Precious
Haitzen, Ldkr. Memmingen.Germania41:74-76. [PSW] metalsin thelate medievaland earlymodernworld,1200-1800 A.D.
LAMBERG-KARLOvSKY,C. C., and JEREMY A. SABLOFF. 1979.Ancient Edited by J. F. Richards and M. Mazzaoui. Durham: Duke Uni-
civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica. Menlo Park: versityPress. In press. [RMA]
Benjamin/Cummings. ROWLANDS, M. J. 1971. The archaeological interpretation of pre-
LANCASTER,CHET S. 1979. The influenceof extensiveagricultureon historicmetal-working. WorldArchaeology 3:210-24.
the study of sociopoliticalorganizationand the interpretation of SAHLINS, MARSHALL D. 1958. Social stratification in Polynesia.
history.AmericanEthnologist 6:329-48. Seattle: Universityof WashingtonPress.
LERCHE, GRITH. 1968. The radiocarbon-dated Danish ploughing -. 1965. "On the sociology of primitiveexchange," in The
implements.Tools and Tillage 1:56-58. relevanceof modelsfor social anthropology. Edited by M. Banton,
LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE. 1967. "The social and psychologicalaspects pp. 139-236. (ASA Monographs1.) London: Tavistock. [HJMC]
of chieftainshipin a primitivetribe," in Comparativepolitical - . 1972. StoneAge economics.Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
systems.Edited by Ronald Cohen and JohnMiddleton,pp. 45-62. SCHEURER, PAUL. 1979. Revolution de la scienceetpermanence du reel.
Garden City: Natural HistoryPress. [HJMC] Paris: Presses Universitairesde France (Croisees). [AG]
MAQUET, JACQUES. 1967. Les civilisations noires:Histoire,techniques, SCHNEIDER, JANE. 1977. Was there a precapitalistworld system?
arts,societes.Paris: Marabout Universite. [AG] Peasant Studies6:20-29. [RMA]
MARX, KARL. 1967 (1887). Capital. Vol. 1. New York: International SCHtLE, WILHELM. 1967. Feldbewasserung in Alt-Europa. Madrider
Publishers. Mitteilungen 8: 79-99.
MATTHIAS, WALDEMAR. 1976. Die Salzproduktion:Ein bedeutender SCHWARTZ,C. A. 1976. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle. Paper
Faktor in derWirtschaftder friuhbronzezeitlichen Bevolkerungan presentedat the IX International Congress of Prehistoricand
der mittlerenSaale. Jahresschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte Protohistoric Sciences,Nice, France, September13-18. [CAS]
60:373-94. --. 1978. Variationin Balkan Neolithiccattle. Paper presented
MAUNY, RAYMOND. 1970. Tableau geographique de l'Ouestafricainau at theThirdInternationalZoologicalConference,Szezecin,Poland,
Moyen Age d'apres les sourcesecrites,la traditionet l'archeologie. April23-28. [CAS]
InstitutFondamentalde l'AfriqueNoire Memoire61. [AG] SEEBERG, PETER, and H. H. KRISTENSEN. 1964. Mange striberpa
MAUSS, MARCEL. 1970. The gift.London: Cohen and West. [HJMC] krydsog tvaers.Kuml,pp. 7-14.
MEIGS, PEVERIL. 1966. Geographyof coastal deserts.Arid Zone SERVICE, ELMAN R. 1962. Primitivesocial organization.New York:
Research 28. Random House.
MEILLASSOUX, CLAUDE. 1977. "Essai d'interpretation du phenomene --. 1978. "Classical and moderntheoriesof theoriginsofgovern-
economiquedans les societes traditionnellesd'auto-subsistance," ment,"in Originsofthestate.Edited by R. Cohenand E. R. Service,
in Terrainsettheories, pp. 21-62. Paris: Anthropos. [AG] pp. 21-34. Philadelphia:Instituteforthe Study of Human Issues.
MILISAUSKAS, SARUNAS. 1978. European prehistory.New York: SHENNAN, STEPHEN J. 1977. "The appearance of the Bell Beaker
Academic Press. assemblagein CentralEurope," in Beakersin Britainand Europe:
MODDERMAN,P. J. R. 1971. Bandkeramikerund Wanderbauerntum. Four studies.Edited by R. Mercer, pp. 51-70. British Archaeo-
Archdologisches Korrespondenzblatt 1: 7-9. [PSW] logical ReportsSupplementarySeries26. [SJS]
MOORE, BARRINGTON,JR. 1966. Social originsofdemocracy and dic- - . 1980. Cluster interactionand the European Early Bronze
tatorship:Lord and peasant in the makingof the modernworld. Age. Paper given at the Arhus Conference on Relations between
Boston: Beacon Press. the Near East, the Mediterranean,and Europe fromthe 3rd to
NENQUIN, JACQUES. 1961. Salt: A studyin economicprehistory. Dis- the 1st millenniumB.C.,August.
sertationesArcheologicaeGandenses6. SHENNAN, SUSAN. 1975. The social organizationat Branc. Antiquity
NEUSTUPNY, EVZEN. 1967. K pocatkum patriarchatu ve stfedni 49:279-88.
Evrope. RozpravyCeskoslovensk6 Akademie Ved, Rada Spolecen- SHERRATT,ANDREW G. 1976. "Resources,technology,and trade: An
skychVed 77 (2). essay in early European metallurgy,"in Problems in economicand
. 1969. Economy of the Corded Ware cultures.Archeologicke social archaeology. Edited by G. de G. Sieveking,I. N. Longworth,
Rozlhedy21:43-68. and K. E. Wilson,pp. 557-81. London: Duckworth.
--. 1976. "Paradigm lost," in Glockenbecher SymposionOberried - . 1980a. Water, soil, and seasonality. WorldArchaeology
1974. Edited by J. N. Lanting and J. D. van der Waals, pp. 241- 11:313-30. [AS]
47. Bussum: Fibula-van Dishoeck. . 1980b."Plough and pastorialism:Aspects of the secondary-
OLIVER, DOUGLAS L. 1967. A Solomon Island society. Boston: products revolution," in Patternsin thepast: David ClarkeMemorial
Beacon Press. Volume. Edited by N. Hammond, I. Modder, and G. Isaac.
OTTO, KARL-HEINZ. 1955. Die sozial-okonomische Verhaltnisse bei den Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. [AS]
KulturinMitt
derLeubinger
Stamme eldeutschl
and. Ethnographisch- SPRIGGS, MATTHEW. Editor. 1977. Archaeologyand anthropology:
ArchaologischeForschungen3(1). Areasofmutualinterest. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
PITTIONI, RICHARD. 1976. "Bergbau-Kupfererx," in Reallexikonder [MT]
germanischen Altertumskunde. 2d edition. Edited by J. Hoops, STEINKELLER, PIOTR. 1980. Early Dynastic burial offerings in the
pp. 251-56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [PSW] light of the textual evidence. Paper presented at the annual

22 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 meetingof the AmericanOriental Society,San Francisco, Calif., Gilman: STRATIFICATION IN BRONZE AGE EUROPE
April. [RMA]
THOMAS,CHARLES.1978. "Types and distributionsof pre-Norman
fieldsin Cornwalland Scilly,"in Early land allotment in theBritish terranean:One suggestion,"in AncientEurope and theMediter-
Isles. Edited by H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler,pp. 7-15. Oxford: ranean.Edited by V. Markotic,pp. 189-96. Warminster:Arisand
BritishArchaeologicalReports. Phillips.
THRANE,HENRIK. 1971. En broncealdersbopladsved JyderupSkov WERTIME,T. W. 1973. The beginningsof metallurgy:A new look.
i Odsherred.Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark, pp. 141-69. Science 182:875-87. [PLK]
WITTFOGEL, KARLA. 1972. "The hydraulicapproach to pre-Spanish
TOCIK, A. 1964. Opevnendosada z dobybronzovej vo Veselom.Brati- Mesoamerica," in The prehistory of the Tehuacdn Valley, vol. 4.
slava: SlovenskaAkademiaVied. [SJS] Edited by F. Johnson,pp. 59-80. Austin:UniversityofTexas Press.
TOSI, MAURIZIO. n.d. "Domesticationand pyrotechnology: Aspects WOLF, ERIC R. 1966. "Kinship, friendship, and patron-clientrela-
of the technologyfor the transformationof nature," in Early tionshipsin complexsocieties,"in The social anthropology of com-
agriculture and metallurgy:Contributions to a symposiumon origins plex societies.Edited by Michael Banton, pp. 1-22. London:
in East and WestAsia. Edited by P. Mortensenand P. Sorensen. Tavistock.
Arhus.In press. [MT] WRIGHT, E. V., and D. M. CHURCHILL. 1965. The boats fromNorth
UCKO,PETER J. 1969. Ethnographyand archaeologicalinterpreta- Ferriby,Yorkshire,England, with a reviewof the originsof the
tionof funeraryremains.WorldArchaeology 1:262-80. sewnboats of the BronzeAge. ProceedingsofthePrehistoric Society
VAN WERSCH,HERMANJ. 1972. "The agriculturaleconomy," in 31: 1-24.
The MinnesotaMessenia expedition.Edited by W. A. MacDonald WRIGHT, HENRY T., and GREGORY A. JOHNSON. 1975. Population,
and G. R. Rapp, Jr.,pp. 177-87. Minneapolis: Universityof Min- exchange,and early state formationin southwestern Iran. Ameri-
nesota Press. can Anthropologist77:267-89.
VILAVALENTi,J. 1961.L'irrigationpar nappes pluvialesdans le sud- WtUSTEMANN,HARRY. 1977. Versuch einer soziologischGliederung
est espagnol.Mediterranee 2(2):19-32. der alterbronzezeitlichen Grabausstaltungen(Periode I bis III)
WALLERSTEIN, I. 1974. The modernworld-system: Capitalistagricul- in Norden der DDR. Studien zur Ur- und Frzihgeschichte 30:
tureand theoriginsof theEuropean world-economy in thesixteenth 131-53.
century. New York: Academic Press. [PLK] YOFFEE, NORMAN. 1979.The declineand riseofMesopotamiancivili-
WEBSTER, DAVID L. 1977. "Warfare and the evolution of Maya zation: An ethnoarchaeologicalperspective on the evolution of
civilization,"in TheoriginsofMaya civilization.Edited by R. E. W. social complexity.AmericanAntiquity44:5-35.
Adams,pp. 335-72. Albuquerque:UniversityofNew Mexico Press. ZOHARY, DANIEL, and PINHAS SPIEGEL-RoY. 1975. Beginningsof
WELLS,PETER S. 1977. "Late Hallstatt interactionswith the Medi- fruit-growingin the Old World.Science 187:319-27.

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

Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity

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

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

Vol. 22 *No. I * February 1981 23