Abstract
While our understanding of long-term trends in material wealth inequality in prehistoric societies has expanded in recent decades, we know little about long-term trends in other dimensions of wealth and about social developments within particular societal segments. This paper provides the first evidence of inequality in relational wealth within the upper societal segment of a supra-regional network of communities in prehistoric Central Europe over the first four millennia BCE. To this end, we compiled a novel dataset of 5000 single-funeral burial mounds and employed burial mound volume as a proxy for the buried individual’s relational wealth. Our analysis reveals a consistently high level of inequality among the buried individuals, showing a wave-like pattern with an increasing trend over time. Additionally, our findings show temporal shifts in the size of the upper societal segment. Based on a review of archeological and paleo-environmental evidence, the temporal change in inequality may be explained by technological progress, climate and population dynamics, trade and social networks, and/or sociopolitical transformations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
For decades, researchers have been trying to learn about the evolution of social inequality in humanity’s deep past. Empirical advances have been made in understanding inequality in modern and preindustrial as well as ancient societies (Alfani, 2021; Milanovic, 2016; Piketty, 2014; Piketty and Saez, 2014; Scheidel, 2017; McGuire, 1983; Bogaard et al., 2019; Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2009; Fochesato et al., 2019, 2021; Kohler et al., 2017; Windler et al., 2013). Especially our knowledge about the development and drivers of ancient inequality has greatly improved in recent years. But, the literature often focusses on explaining inequality in the entire society. To gain a comprehensive understanding of (ancient) inequality, however, it is also crucial to examine inequality within specific societal segments, such as the very rich or very poor.
Current research emphasizes the importance of understanding inequality dynamics within so-called “elites,” as intra-elite inequality and conflicts can potentially destabilize entire societies (Turchin, 2023). However, such conflicts and substantial societal changes typically occur only every few decades. Therefore, adopting a long-term perspective and studying social dynamics in ancient societies can provide valuable lessons for the present and future.
At this point, we still lack long-run data on inequality within “elites” or, more broadly, within an “upper societal segment.” Furthermore, when studying this segment, we need to look beyond material wealth inequality and explore other types of inequality. The reason is that members of an upper societal segment exert power not only through their material wealth but also through, for example, their social ties and networks.
In this paper, we take an initial step in providing long-run evidence from prehistorical Central Europe regarding the development of inequality within an upper societal segment. In particular, we focus our analyses on inequality in relational wealth and changes in the size of the upper societal segment. In this context, we consider the relational wealth of an individual as its endowment with social ties and networks (Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2009). To study relational wealth inequality among individuals in prehistorical Central Europe, we constructed a dataset of ~5000 single-funeral burial mounds that date back to the first four millennia BCE. Central Europe is archeologically well studied, but a detailed quantitative assessment of inequality in the longue durée is still lacking.
The focal point of our inequality analyses is the volumes of the burial mounds, which we employ as proxies for the relational wealth of the buried individuals. We assume that the larger the volume of the burial mound, the greater the individual’s relational wealth. In other words, an individual who possessed a large burial mound had a higher economic and political ability to mobilize people and resources within its (social) network to accomplish specific goals than an individual with a small burial mound. It is important to note that these networks were typically confined to local communities/societies and did not extend across the entire region of Central Europe. Nonetheless, we assume that the respective communities/societies were economically and socially highly interconnected, forming part of a supra-regional network. This perspective is supported by existing archeological evidence (Parker Pearson, 2003; Kristiansen and Larsson, 2005; Milisauskas, 2011; Kerig and Shennan, 2015; Furholt, 2021).
Despite potential variations in social–cultural formations within prehistoric societies, individuals with greater access to resources and networks constitute the upper societal segment. Of course, the proportion of individuals holding higher social status in comparison to the entire population may vary due to differences in social practices. However, as burial mounds were predominantly reserved for those individuals who had a high social status, these data offer us a unique opportunity to analyze inequality between those socially distinguished individuals that formed the upper societal segment of the mentioned supra-regional network (Capelle, 2000; Eggert, 1999). To analyze inequality among these individuals, we employ inequality indices such as the Gini index to the data. We interpret the resulting values as measures of inequality among buried individuals’ leverage to make use of their resources and networks.
In addition to the burial mound data, we collected information on the number of individuals buried in flat and collective burials. From these data, we can estimate the share of individuals buried in burial mounds over time. This share gives us an idea about how many people were able to express their relational wealth via burial mounds. Or, to put it differently, this share tells us about the size of the upper societal segment.
Our analyses reveal two key findings about prehistoric inequality. First, there is a wave-like trend in the share of individuals who had sufficient relational wealth for the construction of a burial mound. This finding indicates a changing size of the upper societal segment in Central Europe over time. Second, the level of inequality in relational wealth between these individuals was high throughout the entire period. However, it was not constant but steadily changed with an increasing trend over time—especially during the last 1200 years BCE. From an archeological perspective, factors that help to rationalize our results are the establishment of new technologies and their social implications (Boserup, 1981; Childe, 1957; O’Brien and Shennan, 2010), improvement or deterioration of weather and climate conditions (Roberts, 1998; Erdkamp and Manning, 2021), changes in the size and composition of the population (Johnson, 1982; Bettencourt et al., 2007; Müller, 2013a; Zimmermann, 2012), the emergence and rearrangements of trade and social networks (Furholt, 2014; Feinman, 2017; Kristiansen et al. 2018), and shifts in the sociopolitical structure (Furholt et al., 2020; Kienlin and Zimmermann, 2012).
Burial mound volume as a proxy for relational wealth
Earth mounds are among the most well-known archeological structures in Europe (Harding, 2000; Johansen et al., 2004; Bourgeois, 2013). They represent a complex social practice involving economic, ideological, and political realities and are considered as the graves of individuals with a distinguished social status (Capelle, 2000; Assmann, 2013; Müller-Scheeßel, 2013; Endrigkeit, 2014; Osborne, 2014; Müller, 2018). To assess the social status of a buried individual, we use the volume of its burial mound as a proxy for its relational wealth (Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2009; Beck and Quinn, 2023). The relational wealth of an individual represents its economic and political ability to mobilize people and resources in its (social) network to achieve certain goals. Since the buried individual is dead at the time when the burial mound is erected, we consider the erection as a posthumous form of its relational wealth. Furthermore, studies on ethnoarcheological documented communities show that constructing a monument often involves a larger kinship group that extends beyond the individual household (Jeunesse, 2018; Miller, 2021; Wunderlich et al., 2021). In this context, the construction of a burial mound can also be understood as a social signal symbolizing a long-term investment of the deceased and the associated group (Bliege Bird and Smith, 2005; Quinn, 2019). Hence, burial mounds demonstrated the economic and political ability of the individual and group to compete and collaborate with other individuals and groups in the local and regional network (Parker Pearson, 2003; Leach, 1979).
In our analyses, we only use burial mounds dedicated to a single individual. Therefore, it is possible to interpret the construction of a burial mound as directly related to an individual’s relational wealth. Hence, the larger the burial mound, the wealthier, more powerful, and the better integrated the buried individual into local and regional networks. Furthermore, we use a burial mound’s volume instead of its floor area to measure relational wealth. The reasoning is as follows: If we assume that the effort required to build a burial mound is proportional to its floor area, this will mean that a burial mound with a large floor area would have the same height as one with a small floor area. Given the observed shapes of burial mounds, this relationship does not seem reasonable. Since we cannot observe the volume of each burial mound in the dataset, we make archeologically reasonable assumptions about a burial mound’s shape to compute the respective volumes. We explain the computation procedure in the methods section in more detail.
Measuring prehistoric inequality with burial mound data
To construct our dataset, we collected information on the size of burial mounds from extensive archeological catalogs. Our dataset provides information on 4986 burial mounds in Central Europe. It covers the first four millennia BCE and includes burial mounds from the Neolithic up until the appearance of the Romans in Central Europe. Additionally, we collected data on the prevalence of individuals buried in flat and collective burials. In our analysis, we measure inequality in relational wealth between individuals in the entire geographic area of Central Europe, which yields the most time-granular perspective. Although our dataset’s spatial granularity allows for subregional analyses, we leave them for future research. Such analyses require a thorough discussion of the regional archeological background, which is beyond the scope of this article. SI, Sections 1 and 2 display all variables included in our dataset and the additional data, along with a concise description of their meaning. The references of the primary archeological catalogs from which we compiled the data are available in SI, Section 8.
Given that the dating intervals of the burial mounds vary between 10 and 4700 years, we decided to limit our analysis to burial mounds with a maximum dating interval of 600 years. This restriction reduces the size of our dataset, but it ensures more precise results. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that limits beyond 600 years do not significantly alter our findings (see SI, Section 7). Hence, our results are mainly driven by the well-dated burial mounds. Finally, we split our observation period into intervals of 200 years and assign each burial mound to one of the intervals according to the average of the initial and final value of its dating interval. The choice of 250- and 300-year intervals, again, does not substantially alter the results (see SI, Sections 5 and 6).
Figure 1 displays maps with the spatial location of the burial mound sites in each 200-year interval. To avoid confusion about small sample sizes, we note that some sites consist of multiple burial mounds. However, for the intervals 0–200 BCE, 2800–3000 BCE, and 3000–3200 BCE, the number of burial mounds is too low for a credible analysis (see SI, Section 4). Although the burial mound sites are spatially dispersed within the 200 intervals, we consider the entire study region to be characterized by high economic and social connectivity (Parker Pearson, 2003; Kristiansen and Larsson, 2005; Milisauskas, 2011; Kerig and Shennan, 2015; Furholt, 2021). Furthermore, we view the communities within this region as parts of a supra-regional network that spans across Central Europe.
To assess the degree of inequality in relational wealth between the individuals of the upper societal segment of the supra-regional network, we use the Gini index and indices from the class of Generalized Entropy Measures (Kohler et al., 2017; Windler et al., 2013; Cowell, 2000).Footnote 1 It is important to emphasize that the estimates obtained for the indices are subject to statistical uncertainty. A typical method to calculate the standard error of an index is the use of asymptotic theory, notably bootstrapping. In the present dataset, however, the summary statistics in SI, Section 4 show that we face “heavy-tailed” distributions, a reason why bootstrapping is not sufficient (Davidson and Flachaire, 2007; Cowell and Flachaire, 2015; Dufour et al., 2019). We, therefore, apply permutation tests to assess the statistical significance of differences between two inequality estimates (Dufour et al., 2019).
Methods
Computation of a Burial Mound’s Volume from its Ground Area
As argued in the section “Burial Mound Volume as a Proxy for Relational Wealth,” we use a burial mound’s volume instead of its floor area as a proxy for the buried individual’s wealth. Since we cannot observe the volume of each burial mound, we employ a non-linear transformation of its floor area and information about its shape to reconstruct the volume. It is important to mention that the dataset contains burial mounds of five different geometric shapes (viewed from a bird’s eye view): round, round-oval, oval, rectangular, and trapezoid. For the transformation, we summarize the shapes round, round-oval, and oval as “round” and the shapes rectangular and trapezoid as “rectangular.”
Starting with round-shaped burial mounds, the procedure is as follows: Let r be the radius of a circle and a sphere, A be the area of the circle, and V be the volume of the sphere. Then
and
Supposing that the volume of a round-shaped burial mound can be approximated by the formula of a hemisphere
and that the height of the burial mound is proportional to its radius, then reformulating Vround yields:
Multiplying the volume by an arbitrary constant would not influence the outcomes of the inequality indices in this paper since they all satisfy the scale invariance axiom (Cowell, 2000). Hence, if all round-shaped burial mounds have a hemisphere shape, transforming the floor area of each burial mound by an exponent of 1.5 yields its volume.
Concerning rectangular-shaped burial mounds, the procedure is very similar. Let l be the length of a rectangular, w its width, A its area, and let V be the volume of a corresponding cuboid with length l, width w, and height h. Then
and
Furthermore, suppose that the volume of a cuboid Vrec—which corresponds to an area Arec—approximates the volume of a rectangular-shaped burial mound. Also, assuming that the length of this cuboid is proportional to its width \(\left(l:={c}_{1}w\right)\), and that the height of the cuboid is proportional to its width (h: = c2w), then
and
Reformulating \({V}_{\rm {{{rec}}}}\) yields
Again, multiplying the volume by an arbitrary would not matter for the computation of the inequality indices. Hence, if all rectangular-shaped burial mounds have a cuboid shape, with their length and height proportional to their width, transforming the floor area of each burial mound by an exponent of 1.5 yields its volume as well.
Mathematical formulas for the inequality indices and their asymptotic standard errors
The following three expressions present formulas for computing the indices from the class of generalized entropy measures \(\left({I}_{c},{I}_{0},{I}_{1}\right)\) the Gini index (G), and the normalized Gini index (G*) Cowell (2000).
The notation is as follows: n denotes the number of burial mounds in the sample, i and j specific burial mounds, xi and xj the volume of burial mounds i, j, \(\bar{x}\) the arithmetic mean of x, and c a sensitivity parameter.
The following expression states the formula for the asymptotic standard error (ASE) that is valid for all indices from the GEM class (Cowell and Flachaire, 2015).
Zi denotes a term that differs for particular values of the sensitivity parameter c, and \(\bar{Z}\) is the average of all Zi. Using the same notations as in the previous formulas, the following three expressions give the respective Zi for different values of c.
Regarding the normalized Gini index, the subsequent expression displays a formula for its asymptotic standard error (ASE) with the notation being as before (Cowell and Flachaire, 2015).
Correspondingly, the next expression defines the formula of the Zi, where \({x}_{\left(i\right)}\) denotes the \({i}{\rm {{{th}}}}\) element of the ordered sample. The observations in the ordered sample are ranked by ascending magnitude of their burial mound volume.
Procedure of performing permutation tests
A primary methodological objective of this paper is to present a suitable tool for testing the statistical significance of a difference in two values of an inequality. In the presence of heavy-tailed distributions, the most appropriate tool for this exercise is permutation tests (Dufour et al., 2019). The theoretical foundations of the permutation test date back to the early 20th century (Pitman, 1937), but the recent work of Dufour et al. (2019) demonstrates their superiority in testing differences in inequality. Therefore, this section aims to provide a step-by-step procedure for conducting permutation tests based on their work. Concerning more detail on the method’s technical foundations, we refer to the respective paper.
Suppose there are two populations, A and B. For example, population A could be the population of all burial mounds in the Neolithic in Central Europe, while population B could be the population of all burial mounds in the Bronze Age in Central Europe. The primary purpose lies in determining if the degree of inequality differs between these two periods. To measure the degree of inequality, we can use an inequality index θ. Hence, the “true” population degree of inequality in the Neolithic is θA and in the Bronze Age θB. However, since it is impossible to observe the entire population of burial mounds in each period, we cannot determine \({\theta }_{A}\) and \({\theta }_{B}\). Thus, both values are unknown. Therefore, relying on observable sample data, we need to estimate them to get an idea about their values. The vector \({X}_{A}=\left({x}_{1}^{A},{x}_{2}^{A},...,{x}_{m}^{A}\right)\) contains the sample data from the Neolithic, and the vector \({X}_{B}=\left({x}_{1}^{B},{x}_{2}^{B},...,{x}_{n}^{B}\right)\) the sample data from the Bronze Age. There are m burial mounds in the sample \({X}_{A}\) and n burial mounds in the sample \({X}_{B}\). The elements \({x}_{1}^{A},{x}_{2}^{A},...,{x}_{m}^{A}\) are the corresponding volumes of observed burial mounds in the Neolithic, and the elements \({x}_{1}^{B},{x}_{2}^{B},...,{x}_{n}^{B}\) are the corresponding volumes of observed burial mounds in the Bronze Age. Ideally, these samples are representative of their respective populations. Using the volumes in each sample, we can compute \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B},\) where \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) is the degree of inequality in the sample \({X}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B}\) the degree in sample \({X}_{B}\). Both \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B}\) are estimates of the true but unknown population degree of inequality. From this perspective, it is evident why statistical uncertainty surrounds the estimates \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B}\) and why computing the difference between \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B}\) does not answer the question if the degree of inequality between the population differs. A more appropriate answer to this question is to perform hypothesis testing using, for example, permutation tests. The most appropriate permutation test for testing differences in inequality proceeds as follows:
-
1.
Set up a pair of hypotheses: \({{{H}}}_{0}:{\theta }_{A}={\theta }_{B}\) vs. \({{{H}}}_{1}:{\theta }_{A}\,\ne\, {\theta }_{B}\). The null hypothesis \({{\rm {H}}}_{0}\) states that employing inequality index θ to assess the degree of inequality in population A and B, inequality does not differ between them. In contrast, the alternative hypothesis H1 states the degree of inequality differs.
-
2.
To test this pair of hypotheses, the permutation test uses the sample data from \({X}_{A}\) and \({X}_{B}\). To guarantee the asympotitc validity of the permutation test, it is necessary to scale the samples \({X}_{A}\) and \({X}_{B}\) using their respective sample means \({\bar{x}}_{A}\) and \({\bar{x}}_{B}\). Hence, the scaled samples are \({X}_{A}=\left(\frac{{x}_{1}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}},\frac{{x}_{2}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}},...,\frac{{x}_{m}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}}\right)\) and \({X}_{B}=\left(\frac{{x}_{1}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}},\frac{{x}_{2}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}},...,\frac{{x}_{m}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}}\right)\).
-
3.
Under \({{{H}}}_{0}\), it does not matter from which sample the data for computing \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and \({\hat{\theta }}_{B}\) stems. Therefore, the permutation test merges \({X}_{A}\) and \({X}_{B}\) to obtain a combined sample \({X}_{C}=\left(\frac{{x}_{1}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}},\frac{{x}_{2}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}},...,\frac{{x}_{m}^{A}}{{\bar{x}}_{A}},\frac{{x}_{1}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}},\frac{{x}_{2}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}},...,\frac{{x}_{m}^{B}}{{\bar{x}}_{B}}\right)\). \({X}_{C}\) contains \(m+n\) burial mound volumes.
-
4.
The next exercise is to permute \({X}_{C}.\) In total, there exist \(\left(m+n\right)!\) different permutations.
-
5.
The problem is that the larger the sample sizes m and n, the larger the number of possible permutations. Therefore, the permutation test randomly draws K of these \(\left(m+n\right)!\) permutations without replacement. Hence, including the initially combined data \({X}_{C}\), there are \(K+1\) permutations available for the analysis.
-
6.
Subsequently, we need to choose a suitable test statistic for testing the difference in the degree of inequality between the two populations. In this case, \(S=\frac{{\hat{\theta }}_{A}-{\hat{\theta }}_{B}}{\sqrt{\hat{V\left({\theta }_{A}\right)}+\hat{V\left({\theta }_{B}\right)}}}\) is an appropriate test statistic. \(\hat{V\left({\theta }_{A}\right)}\) and \(\hat{V\left({\theta }_{B}\right)}\) are estimates (asymptotic/bootstrap) of the variance of \({\hat{\theta }}_{A}\) and\(\,{\hat{\theta }}_{B}\). If the samples are dependent, it is necessary to adjust the denominator by including the covariance of the samples.
-
7.
Using the formula for the test statistic from 6., as well as the data from the original samples \({X}_{A}\) and \({X}_{B}\), the permutation test computes the observed test statistic \({S}_{{{\rm {obs}}}}\).
-
8.
The next step splits each of the K permutations into two samples of size m and n. For example, the first m burial mound volumes form the elements for the sample of population A, whereas the remaining n burial mound volumes form the elements for the sample of population B.
-
9.
The computation of the test statistic from 6—using the data from the split samples of the K permutations—yields K values of the test statistic.
-
10.
Finally, comparing the values of the K test statistics with the initially observed test statistic \({S}_{{{\rm {obs}}}}\) yields the permutation test’s p-value. The formula for the p-value is the following: \(p-{{\rm {value}}}=2\min \left\{\frac{\mathop{\sum }\limits_{j=1}^{K}I\left({S}_{j}\le {S}_{{{\rm {obs}}}}\right)+1}{K+1},\frac{\mathop{\sum }\limits_{j=1}^{K}I\left({S}_{j}\ge {S}_{{{\rm {obs}}}}\right)+1}{K+1}\right\}\). \({S}_{j}\) is the test statistic’s value corresponding to permutation K and \(I\left(\cdot \right)\) is an indicator function taking on the value 0 if the condition within the brackets is not true and 1 if the condition is true.
In addition to the importance of rescaling the samples, there is another condition under which permutation tests are asymptotically valid. This condition holds when the sample sizes are equal, or the underlying distributions have the same asymptotic variance. However, it has been shown that even for very unequal sample sizes and heavy-tailed distributions, permutations tests outperform bootstrap and asymptotic testing procedures (Dufour et al., 2019). It has also been shown that permutation tests are superior to other testing procedures from a size and power perspective (Dufour et al., 2019). Therefore, they are the best option for testing differences in inequality in our dataset.
A time-granular perspective on social inequality
Figure 2 shows the results of the temporally fine-grained analysis of inequality in relational wealth between individuals of the upper societal segment, the sum of buried individuals (individuals buried in burial mounds, flat burials, and collective burial), and the share of individuals buried in burial mounds. Since the results are very similar across the four inequality indices (see SI, Section 4), we discuss our findings considering the Gini index. We use the share of individuals buried in burial mounds to get an idea about the size of the upper societal segment. To calculate this share, we divide the number of single-funeral burial mounds by the sum of individuals buried in collective and flat burials and burial mounds.
Studying our results and accompanied archeological evidence, we recognize a repeating, wave-like pattern in the share of individuals buried in burial mounds over time. The pattern consists of two phases. In the initial phase, only a few individuals were buried in burial mounds, whereas in the second phase, many more were buried in burial mounds. In each of the two phases, we observe fluctuations in inequality in relational wealth between the individuals of an upper societal segment that follow an increasing, overarching trend. The pattern emerges first from about 3800 BCE to 3300 BCE and second from 3300 BCE to 2200 BCE. Then, the third and fourth time, it emerged from roughly between 2200 BCE and 1200 BCE and from 1200 to 200 BCE. We rationalize the context of the pattern and its two phases based on the rich corpus of literature on the emergence of (ancient) inequality and social stratification (Borgerhoff Mulder et al., 2009; Kohler et al., 2017; Kienlin and Zimmermann, 2012; Lenski, 1966; Price and Feinman, 1995, 2010; Stanish, 2017; Thomas and Mark, 2013):
The pattern’s first phase (1) is characterized by the occurrence of innovations, such as new production techniques and technologies in the form of new tools, metals, or crops. This occurrence often goes along with the emergence of new or shifting over-regional trade and exchange networks. Goods being exchanged over such networks are not only commodities and resources but also knowledge. Initially, only a few people take pivotal positions in these networks and make use of the incoming innovations. The management of the flow of information and resources in their network also helps these few people consolidate their social position over time. This setup can then be used to further gain economic and political power. As a result, the relational (and material) wealth of those individuals steadily increases and makes them part of the upper societal segment. Those who have nodal positions in regional and inter-community exchange networks are likely part of a local managerial elite (Stanish, 2017). At the end of phase (1) and during the transition process to phase (2), the innovation becomes established and is more widely used in society; but key network positions are still held by a few individuals.
At the start of the pattern’s second phase (2), disruptive events such as migration, cultural transformation, or environmental change trigger a rearrangement of large-scale trade and exchange networks established in phase (1). This rearrangement offers more individuals the opportunity to install their own and more localized networks. These networks are large enough for individuals to accumulate sufficient relational wealth that separates them from individuals from other parts of society. However, there are still individuals who can take pivotal positions in aggregated localized networks. These positions allow them to accumulate a high level of relational wealth.
This two-phase pattern repeats with the occurrence of another set of innovations and can be accelerated due to advances in transportation and infrastructure. Over time, the spread of certain innovations raises agricultural productivity, which can increase overall prosperity and might induce changes in population size (Turchin et al., 2022). Throughout these two phases, changes in technology, prosperity, and population size might result in competition between the individuals of the upper societal segment to aspire to more influence. All these changes may alter the pace of interaction within and the density of networks, which lead to increasing, but fluctuating levels of inequality in relational wealth. A comprehensive overview of our proposed patterns is described in the following paragraphs and summarized in Table 1. The trends in network structures shown in Table 1 are derived from the modeled size of collectively acting groups (Zimmermann, 2012), the influences of the innovations and transformation triggers listed in Table 1, and the findings of the cited works.
The first occurrence of the pattern (P1, 3800–3300 BCE) started with the emergence of new agricultural technologies such as animal traction and the ard around 3800–3400 BCE (Bakker et al., 1999; Whitehouse and Kirleis, 2014). The first phase (Ph 1.1, 3800–3500 BCE) is connected to long and round burial mounds with considerable size differences, which explain the high values of the Gini index. However, the large inequality estimates in the North and Central region of our research area partly contradict our views on the character of these Neolithic societies (Müller, 2001). Instead, they correspond to a higher degree of social stratification and are consistent with the unexpected extent of regional cooperating networks (Sørensen, 2014). In addition to changes in the subsistence economy, there were advances in copper metallurgy, and early copper items became valuable prestige goods (Brozio et al., 2023).
The second phase (Ph 1.2) dates between 3500 and 3300 BCE, and due to the low numbers of burial mounds and their decreased differentiation, a low Gini index is measured. A climatic cold event (Bond −5.9 ka climate event), dating around 3500 BCE, probably affected Central European societies as decreases in indicators of human activity show (Kolář et al., 2022; Bond et al., 2001; Heitz et al., 2021; Parkinson et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the technology of the wheel and the increasing use of animal traction in transport and agriculture became established around 3500–3400 BCE (Klimscha, 2017; Mischka, 2022). In contrast to other phases, a collective burial tradition emerged in our research area (northern parts) or burials in general became less visible (central part). Relational wealth, in this phase, was less attached to single individuals as labor investments were mostly assigned to structures of communal character, such as collective megalithic graves. However, it is reasonable to expect communication of economic and relational wealth between communities or extended sociopolitical groups through the erection of collective building endeavors (Gebauer, 2014; Wunderlich, 2019). The megalithic graves between 3500 and 3300 BCE show differentiation in size, respectively, in labor investment, but lower compared to earlier long barrows. Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of burial monuments (Müller, 2019; Wunderlich, 2019). The size of collective acting groups, compared to the preceding phase (Ph 1.1), decreased (Zimmermann, 2012).
Especially between 3600 and 3000 BCE, megalithic tombs were built in Northern Central Europe, which were used for collective burials of lineages or other sociopolitical groups (Schulz Paulsson, 2016). This raises the question of whether ideology played a role in the adoption or subsequent abandonment of collective burial practices (Müller, 2010; Brozio et al., 2019). To compute the sum of buried individuals, we assume in average 25–50 burials in one collective burial (Schiesberg, 2012), which led to the high numbers visible in Fig. 2.
Given the predominant practice of collective burials in our study area, the initial phase (Ph 2.1, 3300–2800 BCE) of the second instance of the pattern (P2, 3300–2200 BCE) proves difficult to capture with our proxy. In the time intervals from 3200 to 2800 BCE, we only observe 7 burial mounds in our data, which is the reason why we do not compute any inequality index. In phase Ph 2.1, there are mostly collective megalithic graves, but the types of monuments altered from dolmen variations to architectural elaborate passage or gallery graves. The latter ones show higher differentiation in size and labor investment. Also, fewer such monuments were built, and there was an increase in individual flat graves (Müller, 2019; Wunderlich et al., 2019; Wunderlich, 2019). This demonstrates the ability of some communities to acquire more relational wealth than their contemporaries and is similar to the first phase of our pattern. Ph 2.1 is associated with a resurgence of human activity observed in many regions around 3300–3000 BCE (Parkinson et al., 2021; Kolář et al., 2022). During this phase, two contemporary transregional trade networks of prestige goods played a major role in connecting major parts of our research area–jade axes in the Western region of our study area and copper tools in the Eastern region (Klassen, 2004; Pétrequin et al., 2012). In the subsistence economy cattle became important as draft animals as well as for dairy products (Weber et al., 2020; Evershed et al., 2022). In this respect, livestock may have acted as mobile capital.
The pattern (P2) continued into the second phase (Ph 2.2., 2800–2200 BCE). The shift from Ph 2.1 to Ph 2.2 is profound, as the building of collective burials was abandoned, and a single burial mound tradition became established (Brozio et al., 2019). In principle, the increase in the size of the upper societal segment could result from the low number of total burials. However, comparing the absolute number of burial mounds between 3800 and 2800 BCE and 2800 to 2200 BCE, the increase in the size of the upper societal segment seems reliable. The period from 2800 BCE onward is closely associated with the subcontinental cultural phenomenon of Corded Ware. The 3rd millennium BCE in Eastern and Central Europe is characterized by the creation of new and changing communication networks, including an influx of individuals from the Central Eurasian steppe (Furholt, 2021; Kristiansen et al., 2017; Papac et al., 2021). The level of inequality between the individuals of the upper societal segment is high but also changed during that period. An interesting observation is the significant decline in the Gini index in 2600–2400 BCE which cannot be directly linked to any major external event (e.g., climate, migration, disease). Nevertheless, the change could relate to the onset of the Bell Beaker phenomena in Central Europe from 2600 BCE onward (Heyd, 2007; Olalde et al., 2018) and a decline in population numbers beginning around 2500 BCE (Müller, 2013b). A further possible indicator for high social differentiation over the considered time frame is the establishment of clear gender differentiation from the beginning of the Final Neolithic (about 2800 BCE), which consolidated during the Bronze Age (Robb and Harris, 2018).
The pattern (P3) occurred a third time from 2200 to 1200 BCE, with its first phase (Ph 3.1) from 2200 to 1600 BCE. The Bond −4.2 ka climate event lasting from about 2350–1900 BCE—which is argued to have triggered the collapse of the Akkadian empire (Cookson et al., 2019; Bradley and Bakke, 2019)—did not have a uniform or strongly visible effect in our study area (Kleijne et al., 2020). With the later Early Bronze Age (2000–1600 BCE), tin bronze metallurgy became available in nearly all regions of our study area. However, access to metals, such as copper, tin, and gold, as well as other prestigious objects, was limited (Metzner-Nebelsick, 2021; Mittnik et al., 2019; Radivojević et al., 2019). Most of the burial mounds from 2000 to 1800 BCE belong to the so-called “princely” burials of the Únětice groups (2200–1600 BCE) in today’s Eastern Germany (e.g., Helmsdorf) and South-West Poland (e.g., Łeki Małe) showing high differentiation between each other. The size of the upper societal segment was small. The world-famous “Sky Disc of Nebra” as well as circular ditch enclosures connected to astronomical observation, hint at the control of knowledge (Meller, 2019). Differentiated house sizes in densely populated but not fortified settlements and fortification features at some settlements support the interpretation of a socially stronger differentiation on community and regional scale (Meller, 2019). The inequality between the individuals of the upper societal segment is substantially higher than in the previous periods. The overall increase of inequality from 2400–2200 BCE to 2000–1800 BCE is significant (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, the literature points to a growth in community sizes and population in general (Zimmermann, 2012). In addition to the increasing long-distance trade, which was dominated by the exchange of metals, the amber trade from the Baltic South shaped transregional networks in our research area (Ernée, 2016; Ling et al., 2013). Between 2000 and 1200 BCE, tin bronze became increasingly available, and improvements in bronze metallurgy emerged (Radivojević et al., 2019; Krause, 2003). These developments led to the establishment and increased use of bronze tools (e.g., sickles) or weapons (e.g., swords) from the Middle Bronze Age onward (Horn and Kristiansen, 2018; Arnoldussen and Steegstra, 2015). With the significant drop in inequality from 2000–1800 BCE to 1800–1600 BCE, the size of the upper societal segment grew larger as the increased number of burial mounds indicated.
The second phase (Ph 3.2, 1600–1200 BCE) started with a surge in burial mounds in our dataset that can be connected to the phenomenon of the so-called “Tumulus Culture” (ca. 1600–1300 BCE) and the early Older Nordic Bronze Age (ca. 1750–1500 BCE). This time frame is also characterized by major reorganizations in long-distance trade networks as well as economic and social changes often associated with the end of the Minoan society in the Mediterranean (Harding, 2000; Meller et al., 2013). Furthermore, from 1600 to 1200 BCE, the size of collectively acting groups shrunk, but we generally expect an increasing population size for this phase (Zimmermann, 2012; Müller, 2013b; Nikulka, 2016). Compared to the previous subphase (2200–1800 BCE), inequality between the individuals of the upper societal segment stayed constantly high throughout the period from 1800–1200 BCE but paused the general increasing trend for a while. An indicator of potential conflict at the end of Ph 3.2 is the battlefield of a possible caravan raid of Tollenseetal, Northern Germany, dating around 1300–1250 BCE, with possibly more than 2000 combatants involved (Lidke et al., 2017).
The final repetition of the pattern (P4) in our dataset has its first phase (Ph 4.1) from 1200 to 800 BCE and starts its second phase (Ph 4.2) around 800 BCE. At the beginning of 1200 BCE, millet was established and spread as a crop (Filipović et al., 2020). There was also an increasing usage of horses and chariots, but these seemed to be limited to the upper societal segment, which was of small size during this period (Metzner-Nebelsick, 2021; Jantzen et al., 2014). Based on the estimations of the size of collectively acting groups, the community became larger compared to preceding periods (Zimmermann, 2012; Nikulka, 2016). In addition, there was an increase in fortified settlements in the central and southern parts of our study area during 1200–800 BCE (Hansen, 2019). Inequality in relational wealth first increased compared to the previous interval and then again decreased to its former level. However, the decrease is statistically insignificant. The time frame from about 1200–800 BCE is also connected to the “Urnfield Culture”, which is tied to the area-wide adoption of cremation as a dominating burial rite in Central and Northern Europe. It shared iconographic symbolism (Harding, 2000; Brunner et al., 2020; Falkenstein, 1997) and is argued to be influenced by major cultural changes in the Mediterranean (Knapp and Manning, 2016; Mühlenbruch, 2017).
The second phase (Ph 4.2) from 800–400 BCE, known as the Hallstatt Iron Age, is characterized by the introduction of iron as a “disruptive” force. It was scarce at the beginning of the period but later became increasingly available due to the exploitation of regional deposits (Kristiansen, 1998; Wells, 2011). Due to the considerable difference in sample sizes, the increase in inequality from 1000–800 BCE to 800–600 BCE is insignificant. Although the share of burial mounds increased, the strong social differentiation in the upper societal segment suggests the establishment of structural network positions that represent an institutionalized hierarchy. We expect local network importance for the individuals buried in smaller mounds, as the exceptionally high mounds represent pivotal positions in over-regional networks. The corresponding settlement system indicates a centralization process and the establishment of so-called “princely seats” or hilltop settlements in southern Central Europe. These settlements were often accompanied by large burial mounds of richly endowed individuals. The trade link to Mediterranean Greek colonies and the increasing use of the horse in combat and transportation also was an essential factor for social development (Wells, 2011; Krausse, 2010; Schumann and van der Vaart-Verschoof, 2017; Nakoinz, 2019). Emerging divisions of agricultural land, so-called “Celtic fields,” appearing in the northern part of Central Europe hint at differentiated property rules (Arnold, 2011; Løvschal, 2014). The decline in inequality from 800–600 BCE to 600–400 BCE appears to be related to the collapse of some “princely seats,” e.g., the Heuneburg, Germany, and Mont Lassois, France, during around 480 BCE. This transformation was followed by a sociopolitical reorganization and the beginning of the abandonment of hilltop settlements and the burial mound tradition in many parts of the southern parts of our study region (Fernández-Götz, 2017). Because of our temporal resolution, we miss a more precise picture of the development in the upper societal segment’s inequality. The “princely seat” of the Heuneburg, for example, was established around 600 BCE and was abandoned in the mid-5th century BCE. During the occupation of the settlement, we expect similar high inequality as in the temporal block before. Moreover, the size of collectively acting groups peaked during the establishment of the princely seats and decreased after their disappearance (Zimmermann, 2012; Nikulka, 2016).
The time frame of our study concludes around 200 BC, limiting our ability to trace the continuation of the observed pattern into subsequent centuries. Notably, the Late Iron Age Hunsrück-Eifel regional groups (620–250 BCE) in the western part of our study area contribute to the rise in the Gini index and its very high level during the period 400–200 BCE. Around 300 BCE (possibly Ph 5.1), the establishment of large proto-urban centers known as “oppida” in the central and southern regions of our research area coincided with the emergence of an early monetary economy (Kristiansen, 1998). The conclusion of this phase could potentially be associated with the “Gallic Wars” and the Roman conquest in 58 BCE and 50 BCE (Wells, 2011).
Discussion
By using burial mound volume as a proxy for relational wealth, it is possible to broaden our view on different types of ancient inequality and include the network dimensions attached to it. We can show an increasing trend in inequality of relational wealth within an upper societal segment, likely connected to increasing overall population densities and advances in transportation and infrastructure. This trend, however, is not reflected in the share of the upper societal segment, which fluctuates over time, mostly initiated by external events. The differently scaled networks in our research area increased their connectivity; however, it seems that there were times when more people were involved in connecting the lower-scaled networks with each other and gained relational wealth.
The core findings of our investigation are in line with current research that suggests an evolution of social complexity, where especially increasing agricultural productivity, the introduction of technological innovations (e.g., metallurgy), and external conflicts seem to be related to the rise of state societies (Turchin et al., 2022). We link the general trend of increasing inequality at the top of society to technological and agricultural developments. Both variables influence small- and large-scale networks through their impact on density and connectivity via population growth and transport infrastructure. Moreover, our study also offers novel insights into ancient inequality, revealing the non-linear behavior of inequality in relational wealth and the shifting size of the upper societal segment over time. These findings highlight the significance of examining developments within distinguished societal segments in addition to studying inequality across the entire society to better understand ancient inequality.
Concerning access to networks, conflict and violence could be possible means in this regard. Indicators of violent conflict in our study area increase over time. The increasing presence of stone, bronze, and later iron offensive weapons such as axes, hatchets, swords, and spearheads in burials, but also the availability of metal defensive weapons and horse gear from the Late Bronze Age onwards, supports the establishment or at least the acceptance of violence as an identity marker (Horn and Kristiansen, 2018; Otto et al., 2006; Fernández-Götz and Roymans, 2017). Another indicator could be the gradual increase of fortified settlements over time (Hansen, 2019). However, it is too superficial to consider them only as signs of increasing violent conflict since they are also intra- and inter-communal social signals that testify to the power of their builders and are integral parts of regional and over-regional exchange networks (Veit, 2018; Brunner, 2023). The general idea that violence increases with the stratification of society to enforce the current social hierarchies should be brought into focus, as warfare or rebellion can be seen as a strategy to level the emerging social hierarchies and socio-economic asymmetric relations (Angelbeck and Gier, 2012). Conflicts in our study are less likely to be large external conquests but rather small-scale conflicts resulting from socio-political tensions or resource scarcity, perhaps rooted in larger-scale “disruptions” (Fernández-Götz, 2017).
Based on our findings, we hope to motivate future research in four aspects. First, there is a substantial gap in our knowledge about the development of inequality between individuals of specific societal segments. To better understand the historical and current trajectory of social inequality in general, the gap needs to be filled. Second, we have learned about the development of inequality in the upper societal segment and related it to changes in the sociopolitical structure of societies. But how peaceful were these changes? Did inter- or intra-group violence accompany them? Third, by focusing on inequality in relational wealth, we shed new light on a type of wealth that has been little studied. Thus, for future research, it seems interesting to us to explore different types of wealth in more depth and to provide quantitative evidence. Fourth, the spatial granularity of our dataset also enables regional analyses. To maintain a clear storyline, we have decided to leave these analyses for future research. We believe that integrating this data with other regional datasets can yield additional valuable insights into ancient inequality.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IRB59T and upon request from the authors.
Notes
Other common measures of inequality used in empirical work are variance, coefficient of variation, relative mean deviation, and variance of logarithms (Atkinson, 1970). Although easy to compute, these measures are inferior to the Gini index and Generalized Entropy Measures. While the Gini is more sensitive to changes in the middle of the wealth distribution, the Generalized Entropy Measures can highlight inequalities in other parts of the distribution. Broader measures such as Sen’s capability approach (Sen, 1985) are not applicable here because they require multidimensional data sets and are not yet sufficiently operationalized for statistical evaluation.
References
Alfani G (2021) Economic inequality in preindustrial times: Europe and beyond. J Econ Lit 59:3–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191449
Angelbeck B, Gier C (2012) Anarchism and the archaeology of anarchic societies—resistance to centralization in the coast Salish region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Curr Anthropol 53:547–587. https://doi.org/10.1086/667621
Arnold V (2011) Celtic Fields und andere urgeschichtliche Ackersysteme in historisch alten Waldstandorten Schleswig-Holsteins aus Laserscandaten. Archaeol Korresp 41:439–455
Arnoldussen S, Steegstra H (2015) A bronze harvest: Dutch Bronze Age sickles in their European context. Palaeohistoria 57–58:63–109
Assmann J (2013) Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. C.H. Beck
Atkinson AB (1970) On the measurement of inequality. J Econ Theory 3:244–263
Bakker JA, Kruk J, Lanting AE, Milisauskas S (1999) The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. Antiquity 73:778–790. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065522
Beck J, Quinn CP (2022) Balancing the scales: archaeological approaches to social inequality. World Archaeol 54:572–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2169341
Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J, Helbig C, Kühnert C, West GB (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:7301–7306
Bliege Bird R, Smith E (2005) Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Curr Anthropol 46:221–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/427115
Bogaard A, Fochesato M, Bowles S (2019) The farming-inequality nexus: new insights from ancient Western Eurasia. Antiquity 93:1129–1143. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.105
Bond G et al. (2001) Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294:2130–2136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065680
Borgerhoff Mulder M et al. (2009) Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale societies. Science 326:682–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178336
Boserup E (1981) Population and technological change: a study of long-term trends. University of Chicago Press
Bourgeois Q (2013) Monuments on the horizon: the formation of the barrow landscape throughout the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BC. Sidestone
Bradley RS, Bakke J (2019) Is there evidence for a 4.2 BP event in the northern North Atlantic region? Clim Past 15:1665–1676. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-1665-2019
Brozio JP et al. (2019) Monuments and economies: what drove their variability in the middle-Holocene Neolithic? Holocene 29:1558–1571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683619857227
Brozio JP et al. (2023) The origin of Neolithic copper on the central Northern European plain and in Southern Scandinavia: connectivities on a European scale. PLoS ONE 18:e0283007. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283007
Brunner M (2023) Dynamik und Kommunikation prähistorischer Gesellschaften im zentralen Alpenraum. Konzepte zu Mobilität und Netzwerken. Sidestone
Brunner M, Felten J, von, Hinz M, Hafner A (2020) Central European Early Bronze Age chronology revisited: a Bayesian examination of large-scale radiocarbon dating. PLoS ONE 15:e0243719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243719
Capelle T (2000) “Hügelgrab” in Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. In: Brather S, Heizmann W, Patzold S (eds) Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
Childe VG (1957) The dawn of European civilization. Paladin
Cookson E, Hill DJ, Lawrence D (2019) Impacts of long term climate change during the collapse of the Akkadian Empire. J Archaeol Sci 106:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.03.009
Cowell FA (2000) Measurement of inequality. In: Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F (eds.) Handbook of income distribution. Elsevier, pp. 87–166
Cowell FA, Flachaire E (2015) Statistical methods for distributional analysis. In: Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F (eds) Handbook of income distribution. Elsevier, pp. 359–465
Davidson R, Flachaire E (2007) Asymptotic and bootstrap inference for inequality and poverty measures. J Econ 141:141–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.01.009
Dufour J-M, Flachaire E, Khalaf L (2019) Permutation tests for comparing inequality measures. J Bus Econ Stat 37:457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2017.1371027
Eggert MKH (1999) Der Tote von Hochdorf: Bemerkungen zum Modus archäologischer Interpretation. Archaeol Korresp 29:211–222
Endrigkeit A (2014) Älter- und mittelbronzezeitliche Bestattungen zwischen Nordischem Kreis und süddeutscher Hügelgräberkultur. Rudolf Habelt
Erdkamp P, Manning JG (2021) Climate change and ancient societies in Europe and the near east. Diversity in collapse and resilience. Palgrave Macmillian
Ernée M (2016) Eine vergessene Bernsteinstrasse? Bernstein und die klassische Aunjetitz Kultur in Böhmen. In: Cellarosi PL, Chellini R, Martini F, Montanaro AC, Sarti L, Capozzi RM (eds) The Amber roads. The ancient cultural and commercial communication between the peoples. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Ancient Roads. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, pp. 85–105
Evershed RP et al. (2022) Dairying, diseases and the evolution of lactase persistence in Europe. Nature 608:336–345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05227-6
Falkenstein F (1997) Eine Katastrophen-Theorie zum Beginn der Urnenfelderkultur. In: Becker C, Dunkelmann ML, Metzner-Nebelsick C, Peter-Röcher H, Roeder M, Terzan B (eds) Chronos. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernhard Hänsel. Marie Leidorf, pp. 549–561
Feinman GM (2017) Multiple pathways to large-scale human cooperative networks: a reframing. In: Chacon RJ, Mendoza RG (eds) Feast, famine or fighting? Multiple pathways to social complexity. Springer, pp. 459–478
Fernández-Götz M (2017) Contested power: Iron Age societies against the state? In: Hansen S, Müller M (eds) Rebellion and inequality in archaeology. Proceedings of the Kiel workshops ‘archaeology of rebellion’ (2014) and ‘social inequality as a topic in archaeology’ (2015). Rudolf Habelt, pp. 271–288
Fernández-Götz M, Roymans N (2017) Conflict archaeology: materialities of collective violence from prehistory to late antiquity. Routledge
Filipović D et al. (2020) New AMS 14C dates track the arrival and spread of broomcorn millet cultivation and agricultural change in prehistoric Europe. Sci Rep 10:13698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70495-z
Fochesato M, Bogaard A, Bowles S (2019) Comparing ancient inequalities: the challenges of comparability, bias and precision. Antiquity 93:853–869. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.106
Fochesato M, Higham C, Bogaard A, Castillo CC (2021) Changing social inequality from first farmers to early states in Southeast Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113598118
Furholt M (2014) Upending a ‘totality’: re-evaluating corded ware variability in Late Neolithic Europe. Proc Prehist Soc 80:67–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2013.20
Furholt M (2021) Mobility and social change: understanding the European Neolithic period after the Archaeogenetic revolution. J Archaeol Res 29:481–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-020-09153-x
Furholt M, Grier C, Spriggs M, Earle T (2020) Political economy in the archaeology of emergent complexity: a synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches. J Archaeol Method Theory 27:157–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09422-0
Gebauer B (2014) Meanings of monumentalism at Lønt, Denmark. In: Furholt M, Hinz M, Mischka D, Noble G, Olausson D (eds) Landscapes, Histories and Societies in the Northern European Neolithic. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 101–112
Hansen S (2019) Hillforts in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. In: Hansen S, Krause R (eds) Proceedings of the third international LOEWE conference on materialisation of conflicts. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp. 93–132
Harding AF (2000) European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press
Heitz C, Laabs J, Hinz M, Hafner A (2021) Collapse and resilience in prehistoric archaeology: questioning concepts and causalities in models of climate-induced societal transformations. In: Erdkamp P, Manning JG (eds) Climate change and ancient societies in Europe and the near East: diversity in collapse and resilience. Springer International Publishing, pp. 127–199
Heyd V (2007) Families, prestige goods, warriors & complex societies: beaker groups of the 3rd millennium cal BC along the upper & middle Danube. Proc Prehist Soc 73:327–379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00000104
Horn C, Kristiansen K (2018) Warfare in Bronze Age society. Cambridge University Press
Jantzen D et al. (2014) An early Bronze Age causeway in the Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania—the starting point of a violent conflict 3300 years ago? Ber. Roemisch-Ger. Komm. 95:13–49
Jeunesse C (2018) Current collective graves in the Austronesian world. A few remarks about Sumba and Sulawesi (Indonesia). In: Schmitt A, Déderix S, Crevecoeur I (eds) Gathered in death. Presses universitaire de Louvain, pp. 85–107
Johansen KL, Laursen ST, Holst MK (2004) Spatial patterns of social organization in the Early Bronze Age of South. Scand J Anthropol Archaeol 23:33–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2003.10.002
Johnson GA (1982) Organizational structure and scalar stress. In: Rowlands MJ, Seagraves BA (eds) Theory and explanation in archaeology. Academic Press, pp. 398–412
Kerig T, Shennan SJ (2015) Connecting networks. Characterising contact by measuring lithic exchange in the European Neolithic. Archaeopress
Kienlin TL, Zimmermann A (2012) Beyond elites: alternatives to hierarchical systems in modelling social formations. Rudolf Habelt
Klassen L (2004) Jade und Kupfer. In: Untersuchungen zum Neolithisierungsprozess im westlichen Ostseeraum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Kulturentwicklung Europas 5500–3500 BC. Aarhus University Press
Kleijne J, Weinelt M, Müller J (2020) Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic maritime resilience? The 4.2 ka BP event and its implications for environments and societies in Northwest Europe. Environ Res Lett 15:125003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba3d6
Klimscha F (2017) Transforming technical know-how in time and space Using the Digital Atlas of innovations to understand the innovation process of animal traction and the wheel. J Anc Stud 6:16–63. https://doi.org/10.17169/FUDOCS_document_000000026267
Knapp AB, Manning SW (2016) Crisis in context: the end of the late Bronze Age in eastern Mediterranean. Am J Archaeol 120:99–149. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.120.1.0099
Kohler TA et al. (2017) Greater post-Neolithic wealth disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica. Nature 551:619–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24646
Kolář J, Macek M, Tkáč P, Novák D, Abraham V (2022) Long-term demographic trends and spatio-temporal distribution of past human activity in Central Europe: comparison of archaeological and palaeoecological proxies. Quat Sci Rev 297:107834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107834
Krause R (2003) Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Marie Leidorf
Krausse D (2010) “Fürstensitze” und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten. Theiss
Kristiansen K (1998) Europe before history. Cambridge University Press
Kristiansen K et al. (2017) Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe. Antiquity 91:334–347. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.17
Kristiansen K, Larsson TB (2005) The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge University Press
Kristiansen K, Lindkvist T, Myrdal J (2018) Trade and civilisation: economics networks and cultural ties, from prehistory to the Early Modern Era. Cambridge University Press
Leach ER (1979) Discussion. In: Burnham BC, Kingsbury J (eds) Space, hierarchy and society: interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis. BAR, pp. 119–124
Lenski GE (1966) Power and privilege: a theory of social stratification. McGraw-Hill
Lidke G, Jantzen D, Lorenz S, Terberger T (2017) The Bronze Age battlefield in the Tollense Valley, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, north-east Germany—conflict scenario research. In: Fernández-Götz M, Roymans, N (eds) Conflict archaeology. Materialities of collective violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Routledge, pp. 61–68
Ling J, Hjärthner-Holdar E, Grandin L, Billström K, Persson P-O (2013) Moving metals or indigenous mining? Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotopes and trace elements. J Archaeol Sci 40:291–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.040
Løvschal M (2014) Emerging boundaries: social embedment of landscape and settlement divisions in Northwestern Europe during the First Millennium BC. Curr Anthropol 55:725–750. https://doi.org/10.1086/678692
McGuire RH (1983) Breaking down cultural complexity: inequality and heterogeneity. Adv Archaeol Method Theory 6:91–142
Meller H (2019) Princes, armies, sanctuaries: the emergence of complex authority in the central German Únětice culture. Acta Archaeol 90:39–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0390.2019.12206.x
Meller H, Bertemes F, Bork H-R, Risch R (2013) 1600—Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs? 4. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 2011 in Halle (Saale). Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt - Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte
Metzner-Nebelsick C (2021) Chariots and horses in the Carpathian Lands during the Bronze Age. Distant Worlds J Spec Issue 3:111–131. https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.886.c11954
Milanovic B (2016) Global inequality. In: A new approach for the age of globalization. The Belknap Press
Milisauskas S (2011) European Prehistory: a survey. Springer
Miller GL (2021) Ritual, labor mobilization, and monumental construction in small-scale societies: the case of Adena and Hopewell in the Middle Ohio River Valley. Curr Anthropol 62:164–197. https://doi.org/10.1086/713764
Mischka D (2022) Das Neolithikum in Flinkbek. Eine Feinchronologische Studie zur Besiedlungsgeschichte anhand von Gräbern. Rudolf Habelt
Mittnik A et al. (2019) Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe. Science 366:731–734. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax6219
Mühlenbruch T. Von der (2017) “Urnenfelderwanderung” zum “Seevölkersturm”. Zum Kulturwandel zwischen Mitteleuropa und Ägypten um 1200 v. Chr. In: Brandherm D, Nessel B (eds) Phasenübergänge und Umbrüche im bronzezeitlichen Europa. Beiträge zur Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bronzezeit auf der 80. Jahrestagung des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 215–222
Müller J (2001) Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung- und Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr). Marie Leidorf
Müller J (2010) Ritual cooperation and ritual collectivity: the social structure of the middle and younger funnel beaker North Group (3500–2800 BC). J Neolit Archaeol 12. https://doi.org/10.12766/jna.2010.44
Müller J (2013a) Demographic traces of technological innovation, social change and mobility: from 1 to 8 million Europeans (6000–2000 BCE). In: Kadrow S, Włodarczak P (eds) Environment and subsistence—forty years after Janusz Kruk’s ‘Settlements studies’. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 1–14
Müller J (2013b) Eight million Neolithic Europeans: social demography and social archaeology on the scope of change—from the near East to Scandinavia. In: Kristiansen K, Turek J (eds) Paradigm change. Oxbow Books, pp. 200–214
Müller J (2018) Social memories and site biographies: construction and perception in non-literate societies. In: Bakels CC, Bourgeois QPJ, Fontijn DR, Jansen R (eds) Local communities in the Big World of prehistoric Northwest Europe. Sidestone Press, pp. 9–17
Müller J (2019) Boom and bust, hierarchy and balance: from landscape to social meaning—Megaliths and societies in Northern Central Europe. In: Müller J, Hinz M, Wunderlich M (eds) Proceedings of the international conference “Megaliths—societies—landscapes. Early monumentality and social differentiation in Neolithic Europe” in Kiel. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 31–76
Müller-Scheeßel N (2013) Untersuchungen zum Wandel hallstattzeitlicher Bestattungssitten in Süd- und Südwestdeutschland. Rudolf Habelt
Nakoinz O (2019) Zentralität. Theorie, Methoden und Fallbeispiele zur Analyse zentraler Orte. Pro Business
Nikulka F (2016) Archäologische Demographie. Methoden, Daten und Bevölkerung der europäischen Bronze- und Eisenzeiten. Sidestone Press
O’Brien MJ, Shennan S (2010) Innovation in cultural systems: contributions from evolutionary anthropology. MIT Press
Olalde I et al. (2018) The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature 555:190–196. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25738
Osborne JF (2014) Monuments and monumentality. Approaching monumentality in archaeology. State University of New York Press
Otto T, Thrane H, Vandkilde H (2006) Warfare and society: archaeological and social anthropologicak perspectives. Aarhus Universitetsforlag
Papac L et al. (2021) Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe. Sci Adv 7:eabi6941. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941
Parker Pearson M (2003) The archaeology of death and burial. Sutton
Parkinson WE, McLaughlin TR, Esposito C, Stoddart S, Malone C (2021) Radiocarbon dated trends and Central Mediterranean Prehistory. J World Prehist 34:317–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-021-09158-4
Pétrequin P, Gauthier E, Pétrequin A-M (2012) JADE: grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen. Centre de Recherche Archéologique de la Vallée de l’Ain
Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Piketty T, Saez E (2014) Inequality in the long run. Science 344:838–843. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251936
Pitman EJG (1937) Significance tests which may be applied to samples from any populations. II. The correlation coefficient test. Suppl. J. R. Stat. Soc. 4:225–232
Price TD, Feinman GM (1995) Foundations of social inequality. Springer
Price TD, Feinman GM (2010) Pathways to power. New perspectives on the emergence of social inequality. Springer
Quinn CP (2019) Costly signaling theory in archaeology. In: Prentiss AM (ed.) Handbook of evolutionary research in archaeology. Springer, pp. 275–294
Radivojević M et al. (2019) The provenance, use, and circulation of metals in the European Bronze Age. State Debate. J Archaeol Res 27:131–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-9123-9
Robb J, Harris OJT (2018) Becoming gendered in European prehistory: was Neolithic gender fundamentally different? Am Antiq 83:128–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2017.54
Roberts N (1998) The Holocene. An environmental history. John Wiley & Sons
Scheidel W (2017) The great leveler. Violence and the history of inequality from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press
Schiesberg S (2012) Bevölkerungsdichten und Populationsgrößen in der Trichterbecherzeit. Eine hermeneutische Diskussion. In: Hinz M, Müller J (eds) Siedlung, Grabenwerk, Großsteingrab. Studien zu Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Umwelt der Trichterbechergruppen im nördlichen Mitteleuropa. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 112–141
Schulz Paulsson B (2016) Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813268116
Schumann R, van der Vaart-Verschoof S (2017) Connecting elites and regions. Perspectives on contacts, relations and differentiation during the Early Iron Age Hallstatt C period in Northwest and Central Europe. Sidestone Press
Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland
Stanish C (2017) The evolution of human co-operation: ritual and social complexity in stateless societies. Cambridge University Press
Sørensen L (2014) From hunter to farmer in Northern Europe: migration and adaptation during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Wiley
Thomas RJ, Mark NP (2013) Population size, network density, and the emergence of inherited inequality. Soc Forces 92:521–544. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot080
Turchin P et al. (2022) Disentangling the evolutionary drivers of social complexity: a comprehensive test of hypotheses. Sci Adv 8:eabn3517. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn3517
Turchin P (2023) End time: elites, counter-elites, and the path of political disintegration. Penguin
Veit U (2018) Gewalt – Konflikt – Theorie: Überlegungen zur theoretischen Grundlegung einer prähistorischen Konfliktforschung unter Mitberücksichtigung der Burgenforschung. In: Hansen S, Krause R (eds) Bronzezeitliche Burgen zwischen Taunus und Karpaten. Beiträge der Ersten internationalen LOEWE-Konferenz vom 7. Bis 9. Dezember 2016 in Frankfurt/M. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 125–138
Weber J, Brozio JP, Müller J, Schwark L (2020) Grave gifts manifest the ritual status of cattle in Neolithic societies of northern Germany. J Archaeol Sci 117:105122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105122
Wells PS (2011) The Iron Age. In: Milisauskas S (ed) European prehistory. A survey. Springer, pp. 405–460
Whitehouse NJ, Kirleis W (2014) The world reshaped: practices and impacts of early agrarian societies. J Archaeol Sci 51:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.007
Windler A, Thiele R, Müller J (2013) Increasing inequality in Chalcolithic Southeast Europe: the case of Durankulak. J Archaeol Sci 40:204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.017
Wunderlich M (2019) Megalithic monuments and social structures. Comparative studies on recent and Funnel Beaker societies. Sidestone Press
Wunderlich M, Jamir T, Müller J, Rassman K, Vasa D (2021) Societies in balance: monumentality and feasting activities among southern Naga communities, Northeast India. PLoS ONE 16:e0246966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246966
Wunderlich M, Müller J, Hinz M (2019) Diversified monuments: a chronological framework of the creation of monumental landscapes in prehistoric Europe. In: Müller, J, Hinz M, Wunderlich M (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on “Megaliths–Societies–Landscapes. Early monumentality and social differentiation in Neolithic Europe” in Kiel. Rudolf Habelt, pp. 25–29
Zimmermann A (2012) Cultural cycles in Central Europe during the Holocene. Quat Int 274:251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.05.014
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, we are grateful to Prof. Dr. Johannes Bröcker, who was a driving force in the conception of this project and always provided us with critical and insightful comments. We thank Mateusz Cwaliński and Stefanie Schaefer-Di Maida for sharing their data with us. Also, we would like to thank Michael Bilger, Niklas Dopp, Kristina Hüntemeyer, Katrin Anna Lehnen, Eva Reinke, Jan-Eric Schlicht, and Sebastian Wilhelm for their excellent research assistance. We are grateful for valuable comments from the Subcluster “ROOTS of Inequalities”, participants of the World Economic History Congress 2022, and several colleagues from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the Institute for Prehistoric Archaeology at Kiel University. The research was conducted and financed in the context of the Collaborative Research Centre 1266 “Scales of Transformation: Human-environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies” of the German Research Foundation (DFG, German Research Foundation—project number 2901391021—SFB 1266) and Cluster of Excellence “ROOTS—Social, Environmental, and Cultural Connectivity in Past Societies” (DFG, German Research Foundation—project number 390870439—EXC 2150).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Data analysis: Johannes Marzian, Julian Laabs. Research design: Johannes Marzian, Julian Laabs, Johannes Müller, Tilman Requate. Writing the paper: Johannes Marzian, Julian Laabs, Johannes Müller, Tilman Requate.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Marzian, J., Laabs, J., Müller, J. et al. Inequality in relational wealth within the upper societal segment: evidence from prehistoric Central Europe. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 557 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03053-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03053-x