The study of hierarchy in early civilizations is measured through a series of proxy material and symbolic indicators of social status. These measures were arrived at over years of analyzing social status in a number of cultural contexts for the theoretical reasons outlined above. At this point, it is worth offering an outline of how archaeologists approach questions regarding social status and furnishing examples from Ancient Southern Mesopotamia, the Andes, and the Maya area.
Residential Architecture as an Indicator of Social Status
Residential architecture offers one of the most sensitive indicators of social status in pre-industrial societies. It is an important measure of social status because, in many ways, it is the truest measure of household wealth. This is because in most societies, and all civilizations, residential architecture represents the single largest material investment that a given household possesses. In all of the societies being discussed in this article, residential architecture represents an important class of evidence for examining questions regarding hierarchy.
Residential architecture is present in all of the societies in question, but represents very different types of houses in all three cultures. The lowest level commoners in these societies tended to live in simple abodes, whereas the highest status elite lived in sumptuous and elaborate palaces. Beyond this simple division, however, there is a high degree of variability in both elite and commoner housing. In many Mesopotamian cities commoners, both relatively affluent craftspeople and less affluent families, lived in what can be best described as row-housing lining the labyrinthine streets of cities like Ur. That is not to say that smaller rural communities were not present in Mesopotamia, but instead that the majority of people, elite and commoner, lived in cities. Andean society was much less urbanized than Mesopotamian, and the majority of commoners lived in multi-family villages located in the countryside. The Classic Maya fall somewhere between these two societal extremes, having both rural and more urban commoners. These people tended to live in single or extended family compounds, made up of a series of houses and specialized structures organized around one or more ambient spaces such as courtyards.
The elite in all these societies lived in much more elaborate housing than the commoners. Mesopotamian palaces comprised a large residential area often found adjacent to important religious architecture. In Mesopotamian society, especially in early times, there was an important connection between the palaces of kings and the realm of the religious practitioners, the temple. Both of these institutions were involved in the collection and redistribution of tribute, effectively centralizing the economy. From the outset, these elite households were diverse, as they were made up of the elite and their servants and retainers. As the realm of the temple was subsumed by the palace as time progressed, the Mesopotamian palace became a socially complex and heterogeneous place, as priests, bakers, brewers, and service people were incorporated into the realm of the palace.
Andean palaces were variable in antiquity, differing across time and space. Among the most spectacular palatial complexes located in the region are the palaces located at Chan Chan, the capital of the Chimu Empire. These palace complexes combined storage space, bureaucratic structures, and the domiciles of the elite. Similarly, many Classic Maya palace complexes were complex aggregations, made up of series of residential structures organized around outdoor courtyards in hierarchal fashions. They were made up of much more expensive materials than lower-level elite and commoner houses. In addition, Classic Maya palaces often incorporated symbols of authority that were held in common by members of the elite, but were not always important or germane to members of local vernacular traditions.
As mentioned early on, in all of these societies residential architecture did not paint a picture of a simple black-and-white dichotomy between elite and commoners. In all the societies discussed, a middle stratum developed between the uppermost elite and the commoners, who fulfilled different functions in different contexts. Among the Classic Maya, for example, there is ample residential architectural evidence of a middle stratum that fell between the elite and the commoners. Classic Maya middle-stratum architecture perhaps more closely resembles the architecture of the commoners than the elite in terms of its scale, but it does incorporate more stone architecture than commoner architecture as well as some of the symbols of authority that were employed by the uppermost elite. This is best exemplified in the Sky Band group at Copan, Honduras, which is an upper-middle/low-level elite compound that actively emulated the signs and symbols of the elite in this city center.
The Archaeology of Interments and Burials
The archaeology of interment, both in the form of skeletal and mortuary analysis, also gives a great deal of insight into social stratification. One of the most obvious ways in which this works is through the analysis of mortuary remains and interments. The study of tombs and their contents give archaeologists very personal insights into the social status of the buried individuals who are buried. This is not a direct one-to-one correlation, however, and caution must be employed in mortuary analysis as many ethnographers, sociologists, and ethnoarchaeologists have pointed out. That being said, this form of analysis is particularly useful for examining social status.
In all three of the societies being discussed, there are marked differences in elite and commoner burial practices. The famed Royal Cemetery of Ur is one such example: this series of burials is notable because all the graves involve lavish grave goods, burial architecture and, perhaps most importantly, the presence of deceased retainers, presumably killed for the purposes of the burial. Among the Inca, the mummies of deceased kings were held up as examples of the power of the royal family and maintained much of their power and prestige ‘after’ death. That is to say that the mummies of former Inca rulers were maintained by a retinue of retainers who also maintained the property of the dead ruler after they died. Dead Maya kings did not receive this auspicious treatment, but were buried in lavish tombs with elaborate artifacts and their tombs were encased by major pieces of architecture, such as the pyramids at sites like Tikal.
The burial practices of people of lower status are quite variable, tied in part to family wealth and also to local religious traditions. The burials of Mesopotamian commoners differed both in scale and nature from the most elaborate burials seen among Mesopotamian elite, such as the aforementioned cemetery of Ur. Lower status Maya burial practices, conversely, reflect similar cosmological and social principles as those seen among the upper strata, albeit in less dramatic and less ‘expensive’ forms. An example of this is the residential shrines seen in a number of nonelite residential groups in the Maya area. These shrines effectively replicate the large funerary pyramids seen in site centers on a smaller scale.
Osteological and bone chemistry studies paint similar pictures of social differences. In most archaic states, osteological differences are apparent between higher and lower status individuals. Higher status individuals are often larger, showing evidence of better and more varied nutrition. This is confirmed by isotopic studies, which show varied and broader diets, once again suggesting a strong division in the diet and nutrition in many of these societies between elites and commoners.
Writing, Iconography, and Art as Indicators of Social Status
Writing and art paint a similar picture of societal cleavage. All of the societies being discussed have examples of symbolic and written (or recorded) symbols and tools of power. Writing is present in both Maya and Mesopotamian society, whereas ancient Andean states recorded information using a complex mnemonic system of knotted strings, referred to as khipus. These khipus were used by ancient Inca administrators to record populations and labor obligations, and give insights into the ways in which the Inca elite dominated subservient populations. Classic Maya writing did record written language, and gives a number of insights into specific historical events, especially related to war, and the stratification of elites and sub-elites. Maya hieroglyphs recorded a number of official titles related to elite and sub-elite ranks, ranging from the rough conceptual equivalent of ‘emperor’ to scribe.
Mesopotamian writing and monumental art is interesting in comparison to the previous two cases because of the nature of what was being recorded. Mesopotamian writing expanded into a rich literary tradition by the second millennium BCE, but began as what amounted to a complex system of accounting in the third millennium. This system recorded, among other things, economic transactions between families and individuals, and between the palace, state, and individuals. This class of evidence gives a brilliantly detailed record of social hierarchy and stratification, because of record of these debts and assets. The material discrepancies between rich and poor, royalty and peasant are recorded with such specificity that they give incredible insights into social stratification.
Evolution of Inequality Among the Maya
At this point, it is worth giving a more detailed and explicit sketch of the evolution of social inequality in a specific historical context in order to illustrate some of the processes and approaches discussed earlier. This article examines the evolution of inequality among the Maya in large part because this is the author’s own area of specialization.
The origins of the Maya are murky and complicated, depending on the sub-region of the area being discussed. What is clear is that by about 1000 BCE, a series of subregional traditions were beginning to coalesce into what scholars would refer to as the Maya culture. The roots of inequality in this region, however, have their antecedents not in the core of the Maya area, but in the southwestern periphery of the region, along the Pacific Piedmont of Southern Guatemala.
In the Ocos and Barra archaeological phases in this region (c. 2000 BCE) scholars have found evidence to suggest that prominent people were holding feasts that involved the production and distribution of both beer and beer-drinking jars as part of a larger nascent prestige economy centered around aggrandizement and feasting. These scholars have also found evidence of social differentiation in housing, suggesting that the earliest ancestors of the elite that would later come to characterize the upper echelons of Mesoamerican society were already beginning to coalesce into an embryonic social aggregation.
In the Maya lowlands, we do not begin to see the intensification of social inequality until the Middle Preclassic (c. 1000-600 BCE), and even then only in uneven and poorly understood ways. The site of Cuello, located in Northern Belize, does show early evidence of social differentiation in terms of both the presence of prestige goods (including goods traded with the Olmec) being found with limited numbers of individuals, as well as emerging differences in residential architecture. It is worth noting that the aforementioned exotic goods were found interred with the bodies of individuals, beginning a trend towards differentiated burial, which would continue until the practice was suppressed by the Catholic clergy during the conquest. Once again, we do not see fully developed elite as a social class at this site, but we do see a move away from relatively undifferentiated agrarian villages.
During this time period at the site of Nakbe, located in the Mirador basin of Northern Guatemala, we begin to see more profound shifts towards both sociopolitical complexity and social differentiation. Like most other Maya centers, the origins of Nakbe are somewhat unclear. What is clear, however, is that towards the end of the Middle Preclassic period (between 600-400 BCE) massive architecture had been erected at the site, and Nakbe dwarfed its neighbors in terms of its size and the size of its buildings.
During the Late and Terminal Preclassic periods, this discrepancy between the elite and commoners becomes even more pronounced. This is due in part to a general shift in ideology towards kingly rule, as the institution of kingship coalesces in the region. At a number of sites during this time period (e. g., Lamanai and Cerros) monumental art associated with this office first appears in the form of kingly iconography being found in association with pyramidal structures, presumably used as performance platforms. A number of important iconographic depictions of kingship date from this time period, as do symbols associated with royal costume and regalia.
Elite palaces, as opposed to more ornate houses, first appear during this time period, suggesting once again that the lifestyles of the uppermost elite and commoners were significantly diverging. These very early palaces do not appear as elaborate as the Classic Period ones that are discussed ahead. Suffice it to say that what little is understood of Late Preclassic palaces suggests that they were larger than the residences of non-elites, typically made of more elaborate materials than commoner houses (dressed stone as opposed to pole and thatch) and tended to be more centrally located than non-elite houses, although a direct correlation between a house’s location and social status of its occupants is not possible.
At this time, the uppermost elite in society was being buried with increasingly diverse exotic and prestige items in important, and in addition were being buried in important and elaborate locales. As an example, it was during this time period that the North Acropolis at Tikal, which would serve as an important royal acropolis for centuries, was first constructed. This architectural complex signifies the increasing importance being placed on continuity and space by the Ancient Maya, particularly as these concepts relate to burial and land tenure. It is important to note that these concepts of place and land tenure apply equally to commoners in Maya society, and that the primary difference between the commoner and elite practices is one of scale. This edifice also contains the earliest identified vaulted room in the Maya lowlands, which was to later become an important architectural hallmark of elite architecture, both residential and ceremonial. In addition to the development of these very important markers of elite status, namely palaces, elite burials, and paraphernalia, an important additional line of evidence comes into being sometime during this time period: writing.
Mayan writing at this time period is not particularly well understood, and most examples of writing using this system from this time period come from portable objects. One major exception is the recently discovered Late Preclassic San Bartolo mural, which pictorially details a number of mythological scenes including imagery related to kingship and coronation, which has suggested to epigraphers and art historians that rulership was divinely sanctioned at this early date. The glyphs themselves are opaque with regards to meaning.
The Classic Period (comprised of the Early Classic (CE 250-600), the Late Classic (CE 600-800), and the Terminal Classic (CE 800-900)) represents what has traditionally been associated with being the apogee of social stratification in the Maya area. Much of our understanding of the Early Classic is obscured by the fact that in most locales, particularly city centers, remains from this time period have been built over by later construction efforts. The Early Classic did, however, see the first introduction of writing in much of the region, and an expansion of the class structure seen in many regions in previous time periods.
The Early Classic saw the development of a number of truly impressive palaces, including the Central Acropolis at Tikal and Structure A-V at Uaxactun, both of which would become important loci of power during the Late Classic. Elite burials continue during this time period, and the interments of the highest ranking members of society, the kings and queens, are among the most impressive edifices erected at this time and contain sumptuous remains. The kings, attested to through iconography in the Late Preclassic, become fully historical personages at this time, as the writing system is adopted more fully and more widely. It is important to note that in AD 378 the nature of rulership changed, as a series of important kingly symbols were introduced from the highland Mexican center of Teotihuacan. The nature of the interaction between the Early Classic Maya cities and Teotihuacan is unclear, but is suggestive of some sort of profound and relatively long-lasting interaction.
At the beginning of the Late Classic (c. CE 600800) the trend towards increasing social stratification reached its apogee. This time period saw the erection of the largest palaces in Maya history, the most elaborate funerary architecture among the elites, and what has been suggested to have been the greatest social distance between the commoners and the elite.
The epicenters of major sites like Tikal and Calakmul literally bristled with royal edifices such as pyramids and raised roadways and the large palaces of the royal elites. Major cities also appear to have controlled smaller centers, complete with lower level elites with all of the material trappings of the upper elite.
This time period also saw the beginnings of the proliferation of a middle stratum, conceptually similar to (but not identical to) the middle class that developed in renaissance Europe. This middle stratum appears to have developed as a managerial class of sorts that oversaw certain aspects of Classic Maya economies in peripheral areas. In addition, in urban areas, a middle stratum of craft specialists appears to have emerged, which likely overlapped to some extent with craft specialists who were lower-ranking members of the elite. This occupational specialization is indicative of the degree to which economic specialization and social status appear to have been linked in the Late Classic. It is important to note that because of the inadequacies of the archaeological and epigraphic record what these middle-stratum people would have specialized in is often very difficult to ascertain. As was alluded to above, this middle stratum showed many of the material trappings of the uppermost elite, mixed in different ways with the material attributes seen among lower ranking commoners.
Commoners during the Late Classic lived variable lives depending on which kingdoms they were citizens of and the amount of agricultural land that they had control over. Almost all rural commoners appear to have been farmers, although some were certainly more affluent than others. For the most part, they were still living in multi-house household groups centered around ambient spaces such as courtyards and patios. In urban areas, these people might have served as semi-skilled or unskilled laborers, although this is uncertain.
In the Terminal Classic (CE 800-900) the rigid social stratification seen in the Late Classic appears to have dissipated somewhat. During this time period, lower level elite and members of the middle stratum were often making bold and brash statements about their own affluence such as the aforementioned Sky Band group. This was a result, in part, of the increasing power vacuum that came about as the Classic states faltered, but also appears to represent a new form of power-sharing strategy. In some sites, such as Lamanai where the collapse had little effect, there was little in terms of a reorganization of social hierarchy, which suggests that these changes in social organization might represent a fundamental societal shift that happened in response to changing power dynamics.
Throughout the Postclassic (c. CE 900-1500 ) these patterns persisted, with the period around the time of conquest perhaps representing one of the most socially heterogenous times in Mayan history in terms of social stratification. Spanish chroniclers detail concentric settlement patterns in cities, where the elite live in the site core, with social status declining as one reaches the realm of peasants in the hinterlands. While this ethnohistoric model has been questioned to some extent, other ethnohistoric as well as archaeological studies do indicate that these cities were, at the very least, socially complex and heterogenous entities, with a number of people of different social backgrounds and statuses being present.
World History
