In the past decade, the museum and research environment around Harald Meller and his team at the Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte in Halle has produced various volumes on intriguing topics, rich in perspectives, case studies, and imagery. The publication of Rich and Poor — Competing for Resources in Prehistoric Societies, co-edited by Meller, Hans Peter Hahn, Reinhard Jung, and Roberto Risch, is no exception. The work, composed of two volumes, publishes the proceedings of the Eighth Archaeological Conference of Central Germany held in 2015.
The two volumes contain thirty-three contributions including a Preface by the editors. The chapters are written in English (fourteen) and in German (eighteen). Abstracts are provided in both languages. The contributions are split into three sections dealing with the following broad topics: Theory and Interdisciplinary Approaches (Section 1), Inequality in Pre- and Protohistoric Societies (Section 2), and, finally, Inequality in State Societies (Section 3). The subtitle of the work, Competing for Resources in Prehistoric Societies, is misleading since Section 3 and one contribution in Section 2 (Ch. 19, Birkhan) deal with (proto-)historic societies and written records in Egypt, Rome, and the Middle Ages. This is an important aspect of the publication because these chapters add to the long-term perspective and its comparative character (pp. 11‒12, 14).
In contrast to other volumes published in the Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle series, this publication seems at times to lack focus. The German subheading speaks of Resourcenverteilung (distribution of resources) while the English title mentions Competing for Resources. There is a significant conceptual difference between the two terms. In the Preface, the editors seem to be more concerned with social inequality, which is framed as a problem that is in need of archaeological and anthropological study (p. 11). Social inequality has been a staple of archaeological research at least since the mid 1990s (Price & Feinman, Reference Price and Feinman1995). Furthermore, social inequality does not only arise from economic differences―as suggested by the title Rich and Poor. Nonetheless, the aim to address ‘poverty’ and ‘being poor’ makes the volumes noteworthy and timely because this is an area of enquiry that is lacking in archaeology (p. 12), although it should be recognised that it is not entirely new (see contributions on the Iron Age by Trebsche et al., Reference Trebsche, Balzer, Eggl, Koch, Nortmann and Wiethold2007, and on historical archaeology by Orser, Reference Orser2011). The claim that research on poverty is also missing from social and cultural anthropology seems doubtful considering that entire journals, such as the Journal of Poverty, are dedicated to the topic. Nevertheless, the important issue here is that Rich and Poor offers a broader, long-term perspective, constituting an excellent contribution to European archaeology.
Four non-archaeological contributions are present in the volume (Chs 2, 9‒11). While these are generally thought-provoking, I find the closing of Wittig's paper (Ch. 2) problematic. He states, ‘human societies did not really change in the past 6‒8 million years.’ (p. 24, my translation). This represents a kind of essentialism that has long been criticized for good reason. Is there really no significant social change in societies developing from early hominids (or even primates) to the Aegean Bronze Age or to societies in the twenty-first century ad? Why do we study these societies then? Studies by anthropologist Hahn (Ch. 9), sociologist Burzan (Ch. 10), and social scientist Lepenies (Ch. 11) provide much-needed source criticism. Hahn demonstrates in the spirit of Sen (Reference Sen1974) that there are more factors to be considered in inequality than just economic differences. Burzan makes the important observation that different conceptualisations of social inequality exist (i.e. poverty in relative or absolute terms) with different advantages and disadvantages. Lepenies observes that the idea that poverty and inequality are problems that can be solved is a recent one. All these are crucial aspects that archaeologists should consider when they attempt to discuss rich and poor with archaeological data.
Two theoretical contributions are rooted in economic theory but were written by archaeologists. Jung and Risch (Ch. 3) focus on the relative inequality between rich and poor, making the argument that there is a historical perspective that needs to be studied. Thereafter, Risch (Ch. 4) discusses six strategies through which societies deal with economic gains, which represents a stimulating way of thinking about economic inequalities in prehistoric societies. However, both contributions rely heavily on recent work by Piketty (Reference Piketty2014), which is described as ‘much acclaimed’ (p. 34). This is an argumentum ad verecundiam, but beyond that it would have been beneficial to look at the critics of Piketty's work within economics. In their criticism the full complexity of the problem of economic inequality becomes apparent (e.g. Summers, Reference Summers2014; Blume & Durlauf, Reference Blume and Durlauf2015).
Due to spatial constraints not all contributions can be mentioned here. All chapters have a generally high standard but in the following only those subjectively considered most interesting will be mentioned.
In total, nine contributions concentrate on burial data. Among these, Gronenborn's paper (Ch. 6) stands out by making the most compelling argument of the publication. His careful discussion of the western-central European Neolithic data demonstrates that social inequality went through cycles of more or less pronounced forms. This is complemented by Grünberg's contribution (Ch. 12), which compiles convincing evidence of social inequality emerging during the later part of the Middle Palaeolithic. In the Mesolithic, a category of deceased without grave goods may demonstrate that despite persisting inequalities less privileged groups may still gain in status, if receiving a burial is an expression of the latter. Taking both contributions into account, notions of egalitarian hunter-gatherer or early farming societies must be reconsidered. This is supported by Wollenweber's paper (Ch. 14), which shows that new, creative ways of looking at existing data can yield excellent results. By measuring the distance between wells and longhouses in Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture settlements, he demonstrates convincingly that not all houses had equal access to water sources.
New interpretations with a greater degree of complexity can arise when analysis of grave goods is combined with stable isotope data (strontium, carbon, nitrogen). This combination makes Benz and colleagues’ study (Ch. 13) an important read. The group analysed the large cemetery at Körtik Tepe (Turkey), occupied from the Younger Dryas to the Early Holocene. Burial assemblages differ, indicating that the individuals were not socially equal. However, the results of the isotopic analysis are consistent with a local population and all individuals were subject to the same dietary regimen. The refreshing interpretation is that economic inequality was perhaps less important than other differentiating aspects.
Among the contributions that focus mostly on the built environment in settlements, the study by Arponen and colleagues (Ch. 5) stands out due to its transdisciplinarity (Arponen is a philosopher), taking a novel angle based upon Sen's capability approach (i.e. focusing on the capability of individuals to make something of their situation; see Clark, Reference Clark and Clark2006). Their argument—that in the Neolithic tell site of Okolište (Bosnia-Herzegovina) some social groups deprived others of capabilities by monopolizing crucial goods, while groups in the Chalcolithic mega-site of Maidanetske (Ukraine) maintained a ‘balance of power’ despite economic differences by providing the capacity to act—is extremely well maintained.
Object-centred approaches can also provide important insights, as Stockhammer (Ch. 7) argues by pointing out that an object's biography may contribute to its value in the same way that its other properties may do. This relates to the wider critique that archaeology is too focussed on quantity when addressing social inequality, as discussed by Hansen (Ch. 16). He applies this idea to the study of Bronze Age metalwork, arguing persuasively that metalwork functions as a kind of medium that not only represents but also reinforces social identities. These high-status identities are prescribed from the outside and shared by high-status individuals. Such identities are stable over extended periods of time, which Hansen interprets as an indication of very limited social mobility (p. 214). Bertemes's chapter (Ch. 15) supports the notion of high status individuals as a community of peers.
When Hansen argues that burial goods may have been used to normalize social inequality and maintain stability (p. 214), he is not only able implicitly to make a statement about lower classes, but also touches upon an issue that shines through in many other contributions: the idea that social inequality needs to be mediated to negate its destabilizing effect. Frangipane (Ch. 24) presents the case of Arslantepe (Turkey) where this may have failed during the fourth millennium bc, leading to instability, crisis, and finally collapse. In the Late Helladic palace at Tyrins (Greece) new rulers emerge after what Jung (Ch. 28) describes as a ‘revolution’. These new rulers may have succeeded by following a populist strategy, which Jung infers from architectural evidence and written sources. Higher classes in Avar society, which ruled over the Carpathian Basin from the sixth- to the eighth- centuries ad, seem to have used gold objects to the same effect (Ch. 32, Daim), demonstrating an understanding and concern for lower classes. During the late third millennium bc in Egypt, Moreno García (Ch. 25) observes an emerging new class that de-monopolizes wealth: they style themselves as modest and engage in charitable work. Such changes lasted because even after the pharaohs recovered some of their wealth distributive powers, they were still unable to hamper private wealth through taxation, becoming only one among other rich people. This is fascinating because it shows that even among higher status groups there is competition and inequalities.
Several studies indicate that it is not only a matter of rich and poor, but that there are many more layers archaeologists need to be concerned about. In the Troad (Biga Peninsula, Turkey) between the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries bc, Pavúk and Pieniążek were able to identify an intermediate stratum of people in possession of some luxury items but not buried with the privileged. An even more detailed hierarchy was observed through the careful typological and contextual investigation of Bronze Age Ösenkopfnadeln (eyelet pins) in Central Europe by Knoll and Meller (Ch. 20). Bunnefeld (Ch. 18) uses demographic and burial data to show that wealth does not equal status and political power, which may be achieved by alternative means (achievements?). This made the Early Nordic Bronze Age inherently unstable. In the pursuit of understanding what status is based on, Bartelheim and his team (Ch. 8) pull together three case studies (prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic) to argue vividly for a wide array of potential strategies to visualize inequalities that are not necessarily tied to material goods, and that ‘being poor’ could be a pathway to high status.
Four contributions on Central Germany highlight that detailed regional studies can uncover the internal complexity of social inequalities (Knoll & Meller, Ch. 20) and differing socio-economic structures between smaller groups within the same spatial, chronological, and cultural frame. Based on the so-called ‘princely graves’ dating to the Early Bronze Age, Zich (Ch. 21) reconstructs ten different domains (i.e. territories) with local rulers in the central German Únětice culture. Filipp and Freudenreich (Ch. 22) argue that a fealty system may have existed in the Dieskau micro-region, differing from the somewhat less hierarchical system of groups in the surrounding region. The case of the burial mound in Bornhöck presented by Meller and Schunke (Ch. 23) is a useful reminder that rich and poor are not only relative to the structure of past societies, but also to our current archaeological knowledge. The graves in Leubingen and Helmsdorf were always seen as the pinnacle of social inequality during the Únětice culture, but the tumulus in Bornhöck forces us to rethink this assumption.
Using the Auditorium villa in Rome as a case study, D'Alessio (Ch. 31) presents yet another facet of the relation between rich and poor. She demonstrates that Roman villas structurally separated social classes and exerted control over land and production. The Auditorium villa did so early on, steady throughout time, with different forms of administration controlling the labour provided by lower classes. We are informed about these different classes through written sources. This is an import critical aspect regarding sources. Social inequalities and especially the poor (i.e. slaves) may be masked by the nature of archaeological data (Profantová, Ch. 33). Maybe such differences only become visible at times when inequalities are being challenged (Dani et al., Ch. 17). Whenever possible, historical, and archaeological data should be considered in combination to achieve the best possible results (Birkhan, Ch. 19).
Overall, the publication demonstrates the difficulty of archaeologically investigating a topic such as poverty, which in most cases is only possible by inference. However, this is also what makes Rich and Poor so invaluable, because it demonstrates the possibilities for researching the relation of rich and poor, sometimes in surprising detail. The two volumes set a new standard in the investigation of economic inequalities, although, unfortunately, the German contributions will suffer from a language barrier.
