Alternative Iron Ages

Social Theory from Archaeological Analysis

Brais X. Currás, Inés Sastre, Brais X. Currás, Inés Sastre

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138541023
• eBook ISBN: 9781351012096
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Alternative Iron Ages examines Iron Age social formations that sit outside traditional paradigms, developing methods for archaeological characterisation of alternative models of society. In so doing it contributes to the debates concerning the construction and resistance of inequality taking place in archaeology, anthropology and sociology.

In recent years, Iron Age research on Western Europe has moved towards new forms of understanding social structures. Yet these alternative social organisations continue to be considered as basic human social formations, which frequently imply marginality and primitivism. In this context, the grand narrative of the European Iron Age continues to be defined by cultural foci, which hide the great regional variety in an artificially homogenous area. This book challenges the traditional classical evolutionist narratives by exploring concepts such as non-triangular societies, heterarchy and segmentarity across regional case studies to test and propose alternative social models for Iron Age social formations.

Constructing new social theory both archaeologically based and supported by sociological and anthropological theory, the book is perfect for those looking to examine and understand life in the European Iron Age.

We are so grateful to the research project titled "Paisajes rurales antiguos del Noroeste peninsular: formas de dominacion romana y explotacion de recursos" [Ancient rural landscapes in Northwestern Iberia: Roman dominion and resource exploitation] (HAR2015-64632-P; MINECO/FEDER), directed from the Instituto de Historia (CSIC) and also to the Fundaçao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [Foundation for Science and Technology] postdoctoral project: SFRH-BPD-102407-2014.

Part I

Theory from and for the field

1Reconsidering egalitarianism for archaeological interpretation

Inés Sastre and Brais X. Currás

Introduction

The traditional archaeo-anthropological emphasis on understanding how hierarchy arose has lately been reconsidered. Wiessner synthesises this change:

The key question for any students of complexity is not “Why did hierarchy replace equality?” but rather “How was each force expressed in a society at a certain point in time, and how and why did the relation between the two change over time to create more complex societies?”

(Wiessner 2009: 218–219)

McGuire and Saitta critique the “tendency to frame questions in dichotomous ‘either-or’ terms in societies that are neither egalitarian nor hierarchical, but are both” (McGuire and Saitta 1996: 197; see also Flanagan 1989: 261–262). And from top-down political-economy approaches, Earle and Spriggs emphasise that “in traditional societies independent commoner actions characterised most situations” (Earle and Spriggs 2015: 517). But these new approaches have not considered the concept of egalitarianism relevant. Although it is no longer conceived as the “blank state of nature” of human condition, nor only a protagonist of the liberal-capitalist progress side by side with freedom and individuality—equality of all human beings; equality of opportunity; equality of outcomes (Gellner 1984; Béteille 1986; Dumont 1986; Robbins 1994)—egalitarianism has not deserved attention.

This chapter focuses on the concept of egalitarianism inside the complex relation between egalitarian and hierarchical tendencies: the conflictive or, conversely, systemic views that are used to frame these opposing trends, emphasizing on the negotiation of inequality (agency and individuals or collective actions) or the dismantling of egalitarian foundations (structural constraints) (Flanagan 1989: 247). The first part will explore the various proposals put forth describing the weaknesses and strengths of egalitarian societies. In the second part an analysis of the economic foundations of egalitarianism will assess their viability in contexts of stable productivity. This will culminate with some Iron Age examples that could correspond with egalitarian models.

Essential versus assertive egalitarianism

The abundance of studies of equality and egalitarian models in anthropology is beyond the scope of this chapter, hence the outstanding work of other authors is sufficient acknowledgement (Flanagan 1989; Ames 2010). Nonetheless, it is important to remember that, in general, these studies defend that “equality is indeed a social impossibility” (McGuire 1983: 100). In fact “the anthropological concept of egalitarianism lacks precision” inasmuch as “archaeologists lack methodologies for establishing whether an ancient society was egalitarian” (Ames 2010: 37). Perhaps this is related to the widespread tendency to avoid the concept or to relegate it to a background against which inequality flourishes or is deferred. The interpretative efforts that struggle to understand egalitarian behaviour in dominance models lead to ideas such as “reverse dominance hierarchy” (Boehm 1993), “counter-dominance” (Erdal and Whiten 1994), “transegalitarianism” (Hayden 2001: 232) or “anarchism” (which comprises egalitarian societies, but not only), avoiding the term.

Egalitarianism as an object of social research has normally been pushed into two corners: It is both the “natural” state of human origins, and it has been flatly denied in earlier stages of evolution. Conventional evolutionism holds closely the tenet that the progressive transformation of society changed the simple (egalitarian) for the complex (chiefdoms/states). Sahlins considered that the “strictly speaking segmentary” tribal organisations were the cause of underdevelopment (Sahlins 1958: 38), with local groups wielding all the power, and a minimal cultural relevance of any supra-local entities. Historical progress, therefore, depends on the development of regional power networks. This is where the concept of “tribe” takes root, and “chiefdoms” are established as a necessary precondition for the development of the state (Service 1975). Behind this association of non-hierarchical societies with underdevelopment is the understanding that the emergence of elites implies development and progress. Thus, social equality is a by-product of a natural society, in contrast to the political and historical character of hierarchisation (Flanagan 1989: 245; Ames 2010: 15). This ultimately derives from the old vision of the “savages” as people living in a “natural state” (Béteille 1998; Kuper 2005). This forms part also of the ideology of expanding states opposing “civilisation” (that is “state-subject”) against primitiveness, uncivilised, backward, archaic (that is to say, not-a-state-subject) (Scott 2009: 337). Haber has put forth another really interesting matter regarding the colonialist ideological domination: The idea that “indigenous societies” are “travelling along a path towards ever-increasing social inequality […] ending in colonial domination” and “became passive or non-existent once colonial rule was established” (Haber 2007: 282). This reinforces the universal character of inequality and uses it for justifying colonial domination.

Marxist theory also shares this double paradigm. On one side, primordial egalitarianism: Marx saw in “primitive communism” a pristine phase of the human condition in which solidarity and cooperation, not inequality and exploitation, were the norm. Hence, social exploitation was historically constructed, not unavoidable or unassailable (Vicent and Gilman 2012). But many Marxist historians, nonetheless, put their emphasis on inequality (Salzman 1999: 31), thereby denying the existence of egalitarian societies. Functionalist interpretations that rely on adaptive or systemic social mechanisms are rejected for hiding the evidence of exploitation (Nocete 1984). What is more, many authors consider functionalism as complicit with social exploitation since it serves to conceal forms of inequality such as gender or age, or even class conflict in remote history. Marxists’ emphasis on conflict and exploitation has considered “minimally the agency of general populace, although they assumed that people would, in principle, resist excessive demands” (De Marrais and Earle 2017: 186). Moreover, the dominant ideology thesis has forged an image of the subordinate classes as helpless and passive groups (Cascajero 1993; De Marrais and Earle 2017: 189). Both anarchist approaches and those based on cooperation and collective action have revised this inactive social role of commoners. The former emphasise conflict and resistance (Scott 2009). The latter theorise about negotiation, bargaining and compromise (Dumont 1986; Blanton and Fargher 2016).

In the mid-twentieth century Evans-Pritchard had established the models of “ordered anarchy” and “segmentary lineage,” which were fecund for the interpretation of this primitive past. Soon, however, many researchers began to unveil the various inequalities that had been overlooked. Also some clearly hierarchical societies, even states, were considered to be also constructed on segmentarity (Southall 1956; Middleton and Tait 1958; Gellner 1969). When ethnographic studies achieved historical depth, the concepts of Evans-Pritchard were thoroughly overhauled (Fried 1966; Wolf 1982; Leach 2004 [1959]). State expansion, as witnessed during European colonialism, has become a prime explanatory factor for the ethnographic record studied by anthropologists. These societies, far from being still in earlier stages of human evolution, were in fact the result of intercultural contact (Béteille 1998; Spriggs 2008; Scott 2009). The “pre-” had become “post-”; “tribes and ethnicity begin, in practice, where sovereignty and taxes stop” (Scott 2009: 335). If egalitarianism can, in fact, be the result of political choice in certain contexts of intercultural contact, then it is not just the ground level of evolution. Woodburn (1982) coined the term “assertive egalitarianism,” ratifying that equality could be a historical construction as well.

Woodburn’s concept was closely related with the hunter-gatherer societies he studied, in which a non-delayed return production system helped to disengage people from property. The absence of close links to the land and the relevance of goods that are not able be stored or hoarded are highlighted. The impossibility to accumulate made it also impossible to collect surplus. Egalitarianism, therefore, is usually related to mobile and sharing—versus stable and accumulating—societies without delayed-returns systems. For this reason, some perspectives constrain the viability of actual egalitarianism to very specific circumstances, often of dramatic shortage. Different approaches and perspectives lead to very similar conclusions in this regard.

Spriggs considered that the Melanesian “big man” was not an ethnographic model that could be useful for past societies, but rather the result of a dramatic demographic decline together with the peace imposed by colonial domination. This produced the democratisation of “the social organisation of once more hierarchical societies” (Spriggs 2008: 544).

Brunton went so far as to claim that

egalitarianism can be maintained by devaluing intellectual activity, and this seems to occur, to a greater or lesser extent, in most of the cases under discussion, accounting for the general indifference to matters other than those of immediate concern. But the outcome is cultural impoverishment. […] Societies that attempt to practise a thoroughgoing egalitarianism are just not viable. Their political and military weaknesses are widely acknowledged. But just as important is their structural inability to mount a defence against the cultural subversion of their egalitarianism, or perhaps even to recognise that it may be taking place.

(Brunton 1989: 279–280)

The reaction against egalitarianism is further fuelled when it is found that the discourses on equality applied to certain societies are built on liberal-capitalist notions. “Big men” were, for Sahlins, individuals who used their freedom and opportunities to overcome others in free competition (Jolly 1987: 173), such as “economic entrepreneurs” (Roscoe 2000: 88). A further anachronism occurs when, in some cases, “human equality” has been construed as a result of Western cultural influence (Jolly 1987: 179; Rio 2014), which implies the past projection of present motivations.

As seen above, egalitarianism is considered to require very specific circumstances, both historical and geographical. It is a social rarity. An anarchist perspective, however, helps to overcome this dead end. Societies that use the non-delayed returns economic system to resist accumulation are as common as expanding states.

Here it is worth recalling that most foragers and nomadic peoples—and perhaps swiddeners as well—were not aboriginal survivals but were rather adaptations created in the shadow of states. Just as Pierre Clastres supposed, the societies of many acephalous foragers and swiddeners are admirably designed to take advantage of agro-ecological niches in trading with nearby states yet manage to avoid subordination as subjects.

(Scott 2009: 334)

The “cultural instability” of egalitarian societies (Brunton 1989) is therefore a measure of successful state evasion. It is a social model that does not exist only when no other is possible, but rather because they chose to adopt it as a way of resisting state powers. “Their social structure as well is likely to favor dispersion, fission, and reformulation and to present to the outside world a kind of formlessness that offers no obvious institutional point of entry for would-be projects of unified rule” (Scott 2009: 329). Bern has also pointed out that, “the traditional primitive societies of anthropology,” far from being isolated communities on the margins of states, maintain their “egalitarian social organisation through their ability to avoid coercive powers of both the government and of their pastoral and agricultural neighbours” (1987: 220). “The egalitarianism of these communities is supported by, if not premised on, both the dependence and separation entailed in their incorporation within societies that are technologically sophisticated, economically exploitative and socially and politically differentiated” (Bern 1987: 222).

A substantial problem stems from all these ideas: How to conceptualise the relation between ethnographic studies of hunter-gatherers—communities conformed by historical factors, and thus not more “current primitives”—and the archaeology of Palaeolithic societies. The idea that egalitarianism is marginal in history and/or peripheral to states, has hampered its application to Prehistory at all: “Particular forms of human social relations are impossible without colonialism” (Spriggs 2008: 545). This reasoning would conclude that egalitarian societies are exclusive consequences of state expansion. Hence, the “premise of egalitarianism” would appear to be “inequality” (Bern 1987). On the other hand, the archaeology of “complex hunter-gatherers” has also brought into question the idea of universal egalitarianism in prehistoric societies. To the point that recognising institutions of rank among non-farming populations constitutes one of “the most significant advances in anthropological research in the last thirty years” (Sassaman 2004: 228). Today the “simple” Palaeolithic egalitarianism has been replaced by a varied landscape:

Perhaps over the much of the last 100.000 years the majority of human societies were small, with prestige competition and fluid rank orders, with a minority of formally egalitarian societies and another minority with stable, sometimes materially visible rank orders or perhaps formal ranking. Over the relatively short spans of centuries, so...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I Theory from and for the field
• Part II The different Iron Ages: Critical insights in a comparative perspective
• Part III From the core of the state: New visions on Mediterranean societies
• Index