Chicago City Wire

Archaeologists have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of over 50,000 ancient houses across six continents to study historical patterns of inequality. The research, led by Gary Feinman, MacArthur Curator of Mesoamerican, Central American, and East Asian Anthropology at Chicago's Field Museum, serves as part of a larger study exploring wealth disparities.

“This paper is part of a larger study in which over 50,000 houses have been analyzed to use differentials in house sizes as a metric for wealth inequality over time,” says Feinman. He emphasizes the study's significance, calling it "an unprecedented data set in archaeology," enabling a systematic exploration of inequality patterns across time.

Feinman's investigation focuses on comparing inequality across various archaeological locations to identify historical changes. Contrary to the belief that inequality has an inevitable upward trajectory, Feinman notes, “While there is not one unilinear sequence of change in wealth inequality over time, there are interpretable patterns and trends that cross-cut time and space.”

The researchers challenge traditional views that associate the rise of inequality with societal factors like larger populations or farming societies. “There are a lot of things that have been presumed for centuries— for example, that inequality rises inevitably,” Feinman explains. “The traditional thinking expects that once you get larger societies with formal leaders, or once you have farming, inequality is going to go way up.”

To measure economic inequality historically, the study utilized the Gini coefficient, calculated from the distribution of house sizes at more than 1,000 settlements. The analysis related inequality to variables such as political complexity and population size.

“Variability in the size of houses may not be the full extent of wealth differences, but it's a consistent indicator of the degree of economic inequality,” Feinman says. His own fieldwork in Oaxaca, Mexico, showed a consistent link between house size and wealth.

Findings revealed no uniform pattern of increasing inequality, despite population growth over the years. Feinman says, “The measure of inequality we found in these sites is quite variable,” indicating diverse reasons for economic disparity across societies.

Ultimately, Feinman highlights the impact of human agency and governance in mitigating inequality. “Human choice and governance and cooperation have played a role in damping down inequality at certain times and places,” he asserts, suggesting implications for both our understanding of the past and current views on inequality.

Feinman concludes by questioning assumptions about the inevitability of wealth disparity, noting that “The often-expressed views that certain economic, demographic, or technological conditions or factors make great wealth disparities inevitable simply are not borne out by our global past.”