Over the past three decades, anthropology and archaeology have examined the multifaceted nature of social inequality through diverse theoretical and methodological lenses. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Randall McGuire introduced new approaches that framed inequality as a dimension of power relations, domination, and resistance.[1] Less visible social forces and economic structures emerged as crucial to historical development, moving anthropological and archaeological thought beyond simplistic associations of surplus production and social complexity as the primary drivers of inequality. Today, (in)equality is a central topic in international bestsellers,[2] while leading journals, such as World Archaeology, have dedicated multiple issues to its exploration.[3]
The volume by Thomas Leppard and Sarah Murray explores a specific aspect of inequality, focusing on its relationship with violence and their role in the emergence and development of the “state.” Inequality and violence are examined through eight chapters, each analyzing case studies from different regions, including three on the Americas, two on Mesopotamia and surrounding areas, and one each on China, Egypt, and Britain. A common challenge in these papers is the focus on inequality within prehistoric contexts, where the authors work to decipher the material record through various theoretical models.
The individual case studies, examined from multidisciplinary perspectives by scholars in anthropology, archaeology, biological anthropology, and bioarchaeology, are framed by an introductory and concluding chapter by the volume’s editors. The introduction establishes the theoretical framework that guides the exploration of each case, ensuring a consistent approach throughout the volume.
In their introduction, Murray and Leppard examine two key theoretical models on the relationship between inequality, violence, and the formation of the state. The first model, advocated by scholars like Charles Tilly and Ian Morris, argues that violence created structural inequalities, which were reflected in hierarchical social systems. These hierarchies ultimately gave rise to authoritative states that maintained peace to secure prosperity by curbing the inherent human tendency to exploit others.[4] The second model, inspired by capitalist paradigms, suggests that disproportionate wealth distribution in the modern world occurred during periods of reduced violence, implying, as Thomas Piketty argues, that inequality does not necessarily result from coercion. Instead, a major outcome of violence may be the emergence of equality through the renegotiation of power relations and wealth distribution. This view is supported by Walter Scheidel, who proposed that systemic violence, such as war and revolution, historically led to greater equality by dismantling authoritative states and disrupting the resource allocation controlled by elite groups.
The editors then pose the central question of the volume: whether violence inherently drives the development of either egalitarian societies or hierarchically structured states, or if a more contextually nuanced approach is required. They critique biases in historical (textual) evidence and suggest that prehistoric research, with its focus on material culture rather than potentially skewed textual records influenced by state and elite interests, may offer a more balanced understanding of social relations. The editors finally provide a concise overview of the various forms violence can take and conclude with a summary of the subsequent papers, which are further reviewed and critically analyzed in the final chapter.
The first case study examines violence in Shang Anyang (China) as a commons problem. Roderick Campbell attributes the rise of violence to the manipulation of common-pool resources by one group at the expense of others. He critiques the aforementioned theories for oversimplifying violence by reifying both war and the state, and emphasizes the role of social consent, rather than coercion, in shaping social structures.
In one of the best-structured and argued papers in this volume, Daryl Wilkinson introduces the concept of predatory violence as a means of self-definition and group membership in small-scale, non-state egalitarian societies, such as those in the Andes and among Caribbean pirates. Wilkinson argues that predatory violence also functioned as a mechanism to discourage the centralization of power. He critiques previous models for their rationalist approach to understanding the motives and objectives of premodern violence, illustrating the problematic distinction between ritualistic and strategic warfare. Wilkinson defines ontogenetic warfare—violence directed at outsiders—as a way for egalitarian societies to reproduce themselves. In such societies, chiefs held more prestige than actual power, with real centralization occurring only in times of war (predatory egalitarianism). Wilkinson further interprets the increased depiction of warriors in Andean iconography after 200 CE as evidence for the emergence of hierarchy and the monopolization of warfare by an elite warrior class, marking the end of democratizing violence.
The next paper also examines the Andean cultural context, focusing on the relationship between violence and Moche ceremonial architecture. Edward Swenson argues that humans—primarily pregnant women, young women, and children—along with animals and objects, were sacrificed and interred in successive temple terraces during different phases of rebuilding, suggesting a perception of the monument as a womb. This process of ritual renewal, in which sacrifice was intertwined with acts of sexual intercourse and feasting—often featuring high-quality tableware and food, implying elite control over ceremonies—symbolized the cyclical nature of life and death. At Huaca Colorada in Peru, the aforementioned monument underwent continual renovation in a ritual process involving sacrifice, which Swenson describes as the “ontological interpenetration of brick and flesh” (p. 88). The case study illustrates that sacrificial violence may play a role in constructing social hierarchies, with architecture functioning as a means of domination and exploitation.
Ryan Harrod and Debra Martin examine violence and inequality at the Great House of Pueblo Bonito in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Their study of the settlement plan, architecture, interregional trade, road systems, mortuary and bioarchaeological evidence indicates the emergence of a hierarchical social system. Archaeological and ecological data suggest that elites employed excessive violence to maintain social cohesion and peace during periods of resource shortages. On the one hand, violence evidenced on skeletal remains is interpreted as didactic, aimed at reducing warfare. Ritual gambling is also identified as a method used by elites to assert control and access to supernatural knowledge. On the other hand, injuries found on elite males from high-status burials are seen as evidence of ritual combat for social status, a practice not observed among high-status women. Additionally, while archaeological and palaeogenomic evidence points to the presence of high-status women establishing matrilineal descent in Pueblo Bonito society, the higher injury rates and more casual burials of female skeletons outside the Great House sites suggest a lower social status for these women.
Brenna Hassett’s paper begins with an in-depth examination of the visibility of violence and the broader challenges related to visibility in archaeology. This visibility is shaped by biases in both archaeological and bioarchaeological records and is influenced by the scale and methodology of the research. Hassett’s paper delves into the visual remnants of past social practices and their reconstruction, as well as the perceptions and sensations experienced by people in the past, contrasting these with contemporary interpretations of these practices and monuments. The paper specifically investigates the visual display of violence and power at Basar Höyük, a settlement located on a tributary of the Upper Tigris River. Hassett examines tombs thought to contain retainer burials and a mass grave, analyzing the reuse of prominent landscape features for burial and the intended audience of these practices. Despite this, the interpretation of the few violent deaths and the meticulous deposition of corpses in semi-walled cist graves alongside larger walled cist graves remains uncertain, given the limited evidence available for identifying these as retainer burials.
Non-human victims of violence are often overlooked in anthropological and historical discourse. Laerke Recht demonstrates how human violence against animals, as revealed through zooarchaeological and textual evidence, can both reflect and perpetuate human violence while influencing social structures, particularly in contexts like warfare and the construction of hierarchies. The author provides valuable insights into the relationship between animal violence and social inequality by exploring three state-sponsored activities in Mesopotamia: war, hunting, and feasting. A key finding of this study is that large-scale animal killings are closely linked to increasing social hierarchies and enhanced stability in state formation. However, the author’s critique of the human-animal dichotomy risks, as the editors caution, blurring the line between the ethics of heterotrophy and the deliberate human use of violence for cultural purposes (p. 260).
The next case study, focusing on Egypt during the First Dynasty, presents compelling evidence for the use of violence to consolidate social structures. Roselyn Campbell explores the practice of human sacrifice, acknowledging the ambiguities arising from looted and poorly documented burial contexts. Earlier studies by the same author, which revealed perimortem lethal trauma on some skeletons, along with certain archaeological observations, lend support to the theory of large-scale retainer sacrifice. Although the epigraphic and (bio)archaeological evidence is less conclusive—and no Strontium Isotope Analysis has been conducted—the author suggests that the sacrifice victims were likely native to the Nile Valley. However, epigraphic, spatial, architectural, and archaeological data, despite some contradictory bioarchaeological evidence, indicate that the individuals buried in these contexts were elite, not lower-class or foreign, and were sacrificed to continue serving their king in the afterlife. Retainer sacrifices are seen as a method of asserting authority during Egypt’s early state formation. These sacrifices were also a way to diminish the influence of political rivals, who primarily came from the elite class. Retainer sacrifices that were costly in terms of human resources were soon replaced by more efficient displays of power—such as large building projects (e.g., pyramids) and military campaigns—once the state had been fully established.
Robert Stephan’s re-assessment of an extensive osteological databank from Britain, which takes into account potential bioarchaeological biases, provides intriguing insights in the final case study of this volume. The analysis reveals that while the Roman occupation of Britain saw a decrease in physical interpersonal violence, it was not necessarily a more favorable time to live in compared to earlier periods. Changes in diet, labor, and settlement during this time contributed to an increase in structural violence, reflected in negative health outcomes. After carefully considering the theoretical framework for interpreting mortuary and bioarchaeological evidence, Stephan concludes that inequality increased with the onset of Roman rule and then declined following the empire’s collapse. One surprising finding, which challenges reconstructions based solely on textual evidence, is that despite resistance to Roman conquest, physical violence decreased, largely due to a rise in social inequality. A broader takeaway from the study is that Rome solidified its control over conquered regions not through continuous warfare but through various forms of structural violence.
In sum, the examination of individual case studies in the volume edited by Leppard and Murray reveals that the perspectives of Tilly/Morris and Piketty/Scheidel are not mutually exclusive. Violence has the potential to promote both equality and inequality, affecting the emergence or dissolution of states. The case studies presented in this volume demonstrate that universal models are insufficient for grasping the complex effects of violence on societal structures. Instead, the impact of violence on state formation or dissolution is contingent upon specific historical conditions and social contexts.
Authors and Titles
Sarah C. Murray and Thomas P. Leppard, “Introduction: Coercion, Violence, and Inequality in Archaeological Perspective”
Roderick Campbell, “Violence as a Commons Problem”
Darryl Wilkinson, “Monopolizing the Means of Predation: the Origins of the Andean Sacrifice State”
Edward Swenson, “Arenas of Alterity and the Aesthetics of Religious Violence”
Ryan P. Harrod and Debra L. Martin, “Inequality at Chaco Canyon (900–1150 CE): Creating Subordinates through Coercion and Fear or Ideology and Cohesion”
Brenna R. Hassett, “Seeing Socially Sanctioned Violence: Insights from an Archaeology of Visibility”
Laerke Recht, “Animals, Violence, and Inequality in Ancient Mesopotamia”
Roselyn A. Campbell, “The Violence Inherent in (Creating) the System: Inequality, Violence, and Human Sacrifice in Ancient Egypt”
Robert P. Stephan, “Embodied Inequality: Skeletal Evidence of Colonization in Roman Britain”
Thomas P. Leppard and Sarah C. Murray, “Conclusion: The Many Dimensions of Violence and Inequality”
Notes
[1] McGuire, R., and R. Paynter. 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
[2] Graeber, D., and D. Wengrow. 2021. The Dawn of Everything. A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[3] “Archaeology of Inequality,” World Archaeology 54(4), 2022, 491–639; “The archaeology of equality,” World Archaeology 39(2), 2007, 143–297.
[4] In contrast, collective action theory grants more agency to non-elite groups, highlighting communal and collaborative efforts in state formation rather than individual elite social agents (see, e.g., DeMarrais, E., and T. Earle, “Collective Action Theory and the Dynamics of Complex Societies,” Annual Review of Anthropology 46, 2017, 183–201).