Archaeology 1B

Introduction: social organization, variation and change

How were ancient societies organized ?
How can I understand their social, economic and political structures ?
Robert Leighton

Social organisation in Archaeology concerns the (almost) endless

variety of human ways of life (and hence societies) that have existed
at various times and places in the past

Karl Marx, 1818-1883

Evolutionistic concepts in Marxism

T i m e

Feudalism capitalism communism

Primitive egalitarian society class society egalitarian society of the future

Time periodization and evolutionary schemes

Lucretius, Roman writer, 95-55 BC
In De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of
Things) he mentions a remote age of
stone, when implements of stone were
employed; an age of bronze, when
implements were made of copper or
bronze; an age of iron, when tools were
made of iron, as in his day.

Christian J. Thomsen (1788-1865)

The Three Age System:
Stone > Bronze > Iron
(see Renfrew & Bahn 2012, p.26-28)

Thomsen showing
antiquities to visitors
in the Copenhagen
Museum

Vere Gordon Childe, 1892-1957

major works:
The Dawn of European Civilisation (1925)
The Most Ancient East (1928)
The Danube in Prehistory (1929)
Man Makes Himself (1936)
What Happened in History (1942)

Social Evolution (1951)

" archaeologists today have realized that they are dealing with the concrete remains of
societies, and that these societies, albeit illiterate, have left concrete embodiments not
only of their material equipment but also of their social institutions, superstitions [beliefs],
and behaviour, fragmentary and ambiguous though these undoubtedly be. Accordingly, I
thought that the theory of social evolution, deduced by Herbert Spencer and Lewis H.
Morgan from the comparative study of existing societies, might usefully be examined in
the light of the science [ie prehistoric archaeology], which presents societies in a
chronological sequence. V.G. Childe, Social Evolution, 1951.

C. Gamble, Archaeology: The Basics. Routledge, 2001, p.176

E. Service, Primitive Social

Organization, 1962
Notions of linear time tend to
stress progress and
evolutionistic schemes; in this
case from simpler or smaller
to more complex or larger
forms of social organisation
(Renfrew & Bahn, Archaeology,
Theories Methods & Practice, 2012,
p.170-173.)

STAGE
Band: small kin-based group
with limited differential power

CHARACTER
low population density
mobile foragers
e.g. Eskimo; Aborigines;
Bushmen
Archaeological examples:
temporary camps, artefact
scatters, Palaeolithic
Hunter-gatherers

STAGE
Tribe - Ranked (or
Segmentary society):
villages and/or descent
groups lacking formal
government and social
classes, but some social
differences in social rank

CHARACTER

population densities <1000s

sedentary agro-pastoralists
religious elders
e.g. Nuer, Dinka

Archaeology:
permanent villages/buildings
shrines
burials
e.g. some early farming
(Neolithic) societies
Nuer village, circa 1935

STAGE
Chiefdom:
more differential
access to power
and more marked
social rank;
symbols of status

CHARACTER
Higher population densities with:
major centres
redistributive networks (?)
specialised buildings/roles
hereditary chiefs; kinship-based
ranking
e.g Kwaikutl; Hawaii
Archaeology: European
Bronze-Iron Age
societies ??

STAGE
State: autonomous

political units with

stratified society (social
classes) and a formal
government machinery

CHARACTER
Population, large (eg several
thousand)
Administration
institutions for tax, tribute,
laws (bureaucracy)
class-based stratification
cities
theistic religion
e.g. archaic states, modern
states

State

Some Material Correlates

Writing
monumental architecture
(palaces, public/religious
buildings)
urban centres
site hierarchies
e.g. (Egypt, Hittites,
Babylonia, Mycenae, etc)
elaborate symbolic visual
imagery

Civilization also has quite variable meanings and

connotations
Dictionary definitions:
the stage of human social
development and organization which
is considered most advanced (the
Victorians equated the railways with
progress and civilization)
the process by which a society or
place reaches an advanced stage of
social development and organization.
the comfort and convenience of
modern life, regarded as available
only in towns and cities (in the UK
nowhere is very far from civilization)
the society, culture, and way of life of
a particular area (the great books of
Western civilization; the early
civilizations of Mesopotamia and
Egypt)

Urban, adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or comprising a city
or town.
2. living in a city.
3. characteristic of or accustomed to
cities.

Luxor, Egypt

Morton H. Fried (1923-1986)

The evolution of political society: an essay in political
anthropology. New York: Random House (1967)

Egalitarian Society
there are as many positions of prestige in any age/sex range as
there are persons capable of filling them
Ranked Society
positions of valued status are limited so that not all those of sufficient
talent actually achieve them
Stratified Societies and States
the maintenance of an order of stratification demands sanctions that
command power beyond the resources of a kinship system (which is
adequate for egalitarian and ranked societies)

Renfrew & Bahn,

Archaeology, Theory,
Methods and Practice,
(2012, 6th ed, p.172)

Some limitations of neo-evolutionary theory/labels (and ideas of

progress)
- Schematic generalisations over-simplify the real world
- It relied on observations mainly from the recent ethnographic record

- The categories are not discrete: the borders between one and another are bound to be
blurred
- The labels are not always well defined. E.g. there are lots of variations and different types of
chiefdoms (in the ethnographic record); some archaeologists/anthropologists prefer to call
them Middle-Range Societies
- There are many alternative trajectories in world history (neither necessarily better or
worse)

- Non-state societies may have complex or elaborate aspects (e.g. cosmologies, belief
systems, symbolic visual imagery, rituals and ceremonies)
- Archaeologists need to study the archaeological record and come up with their own ideas
about social organization

Linear path (ladder) versus branching alternative

trajectories of development
Notions of linear time
tend to stress progress
and evolutionistic
schemes from simpler
or smaller to more
complex or larger
forms of social
organisation (ladder
left). But there are
alternative trajectories
(see B: branches).
Ancient states also tend
to have limited life
spans.
Avoid moralizing judgements
about which is/are better
(what does better mean ?)

Related questions

Why didn't states emerge more often ?

What are the necessary ingredients or
circumstances for a state to emerge?
What factors constrain or restrict their
appearance ?

Settlement patterns:
Early farming (Neolithic) sites in central
Europe: scattered communities or clusters of
farmsteads, but essentially a non-hierarchical
settlement pattern (ie most sites look fairly
similar to each other); also limited variation in
material remains
Settlement patterns & organisation of labour
can help to elucidate social organisation

Burials: can give useful clues to social organization:

European Early Neolithic Burials: some limited variations in grave goods, but few
signs of marked inequality or status differences between individuals

Burials and elaborate monuments:

Neolithic ritual and monumentality

in Britain: the West Kennet Long
Barrow (Wiltshire), chambered
tomb, for communal burial
See Renfrew & Bahn, p.194-5; 486-7

Stonehenge

The size of sites or

monuments and
time required for
construction can
give clues to social
organization:
Renfrew & Bahn,
2012, p.195

Late Neolithic Maltese

temples
Large stone monuments
Considerable labour projects
Elaborate rituals and
ceremonies
Ritual specialists/priests ?
Collective burials
Hagar Qim, south entrance

Varna cemetery (Bulgaria): rich burials circa 4000 BC (with numerous high value
grave goods, of gold, copper, stone; items of adornment and display) suggesting
individuals of high social status

Relevant reading:
C. Scarre (ed.), The Human Past, p.403.
Renfrew & Bahn, p.400.

Iron Age burials: Hochdorf tomb (Germany)

Rich individual elite burial

Implications of status: restricted access to
luxury goods (objects of fine craftsmanship);
unusual elaboration; exotica; prestige items;
rarities; symbols of power and authority.
Elaboration of burial chamber
Visually prominent mound
High labour cost

Caere, an Etruscan cemetery in central Italy: elite burial mounds (tumuli) and
street tombs; unequal burials in an early State (700-500 BC)

Renfrew & Bahn,

Archaeology, Theory, Methods and
Practice, (2012, 6th ed, p.172)

A preliminary schematic
guide to various sorts of
societies and aspects of
social organisation.
Helpful, but this is also an
over-simplification.

To sum up: archaeologists and anthropologists note certain features of societies that
can shed light on social organization, and have come up with various labels to describe
them. Be wary of just applying these labels without investigating the archaeological
record. There are plenty of ways in which different kinds of social organization are
detectable using archaeological evidence.
E.g. :
- ways of life in general (hunters, foragers, farmers, (non-)sedentism)
- settlement patterns;
- large monuments or labour projects that require a considerable collective effort;
- ritual, religious or ceremonial activities;
- specialization, craft production;
- trade/exchange;
- prestige goods and anything that points to inequality or people of significantly
different rank and status (eg in burials).
There is more to social organization than just status or rank. For example, we are also
interested in all the different possible identities and roles of people in society.

Relevant reading: see handbook page 23-4,

plus these optional extras:
Johnson, M. 2010. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
[See chapter 9, Archaeology and Cultural Evolutionp.143-63].
Greene, K. & Moore, T. 2010. Archaeology. An Introduction. Routledge (5th
edition). [p.267 box 6.4].
Yoffee, N. 1993. Too many chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the 90s). In Yoffee, N. &
Sherratt, A. (eds), Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, p.60-78 [This is quite an advanced text, but you could have
a go at it. Dont worry if you cant follow all the connections that he makes, it will still help to
understand the main issues if you can get the gist of it].