Did every civilization have inequality? New 10,000-year study reveals a surprising answer.

A photo of an archaeological site in El Palmillo, Mexico, including the remains of walls and rooms of a residence. People in work clothes and wide brimmed hats are gathered around the site.

The researchers directing excavations at the Platform 11 residence in El Palmillo, Mexico. (Image credit: Linda Nicholas and Gary Feinman)

Inequality is nothing new, but it's also far from inevitable.

That's the takeaway from a new study of more than 1,000 settlements around the world over the last 10,000 years. Archaeologists found that while social inequality did tend to grow with population, the trend is not guaranteed.

To arrive at the conclusion, the archaeologists behind the research used a surprisingly simple measure: house sizes. The findings, made as part of the The Global Dynamics of Inequality (GINI) project, were published April 14 in the journal PNAS.

 

"Regarding economic inequality, the old saying that history tends to be written by the winners, the wealthy and powerful, is likely applicable here," study lead-author Gary Feinman, a professor of archaeology and the MacArthur Curator of Mesoamerican, Central American, and East Asian Anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago, told Live Science. "If inequality is argued to be natural or inevitable, then any efforts to mitigate or check it likely would be discouraged."

From the lavish burial tombs of Egyptian pharaohs to forgotten hoards of treasure and even child sacrifices, the traces of social inequality can be found everywhere throughout history. Yet despite being a key goal of archaeology, quantifying the evolution of human inequality, and the factors that led to its rise, is as difficult as it is contentious.

Related: Who were the first farmers?

The conventional narrative holds that inequality was baked into our societies once humans began farming, enabling rich elites to hoard the surpluses produced by agricultural workers. Yet other research has suggested this account is likely misleadingly simplistic.

To chart the rise of wealth differences between social classes, archaeologists have begun developing quantitative measures of the social structures at different sites, so that data can be compared across geographies and times.

A common measure used in modern societies is the Gini coefficient, a number between 0 and 1 where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone has the same wealth) and 1 perfect inequality (with one individual owning everything). For reference, the United States has a gini coefficient of about 0.41, and Norway one of 0.27, according to the World Bank.

The study researchers analyzed 50,000 houses across 1,000 settlements in Mesoamerica, North America, Europe, and Asia that were built between the end of the Pleistocene epoch (roughly 12,000 years ago) and the 15th century.

By using the variability in house sizes in these settlements as a rough proxy for wealth, the archaeologists calculated a Gini coefficient for each site. They followed this up with statistical analysis that compared the Gini scores with the political complexity of each society.

By comparing the trends in Gini values to those in governmental structures, the researchers arrived at a simple conclusion: Historical inequality doesn't occur the same way everywhere, and doesn't naturally increase as populations grow and governments become more complex. Instead, the choices human societies made about how to distribute wealth were key in keeping social disparities under control.

"Such leveling mechanisms are highly variable across time and space," Feinman said, but he highlighted that they tended to use taxation systems and laws that redistributed or prevented highly concentrated wealth. For example, in ancient Athens, wealthy individuals were expected to fund public works and certain festivals. And in many societies, the wealth of the dead was redistributed or the debts of those who died canceled.

Feinman said that he was unsurprised by this regional and temporal variability, but that he was pleased to document the trends empirically across a large number of sites.

"Now, arguments over one data point or another will likely have little impact on the broad-based patterns we see," he added. "I did not ever adhere to the ideological claims that inequality is inevitable or natural, ideas that hopefully will not rise again after this collective study."

Ben Turner
Senior Staff Writer

Ben Turner is a U.K. based staff writer at Live Science. He covers physics and astronomy, among other topics like tech and climate change. He graduated from University College London with a degree in particle physics before training as a journalist. When he's not writing, Ben enjoys reading literature, playing the guitar and embarrassing himself with chess.

Conversation

|

Please follow our community guidelines.

All Comments

    1. Comment by teacher lynda.

      With this information, it’s highly improbable that we as a society today in 2025 are going to be able to change this data in one generation I say this with a heavy heart. If this is how we have behave throughout human history, we as humans ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We need to be better and do better for our future for this planet, and for what being a human means.

      • Comment by Joseph Garcia.

        So they literally have the most biased "academics"!working on the "inequality" issue? No mention of Pareto or Price (inequality due to a measure of personal effort, inequality as a constant in nearly everything from animal mating to star size). No understanding of inequality as a metric of human ingenuity vs. human inability. No accounting for inequality as a result of natural inequalities between se...... dimorphic species (of course not, that would mean researchers have to acknowledge those differences, and that those differences mean strength for each in different but just as potent areas of human existence.) No mention of inequality as a result of genetic bottlenecks / IQ differentials. No mention of inequality as an outcome of luck, war loss or victory, population collisions or sociocultural biases. It's all about the house sizes and "political choices". This study needs a lot of work. Is this "The Grievance Studies Magazine" or "LiveScience"? You might as well post a study on weather patterns with only bovine flatulence as the predicated causal factor and with no others considered.

        • Reply by Jason Schneider.

          Haha! I was thinking exactly the same while reading this, and it gives me an urge to rant. You put it perfectly... "Grievance Studies." Their thinking: It must not have anything to do with any of the things that you mention... ALL realities of nearly every society since the beginning of time.

          It seems to me that more, and more people are just not living in reality anymore. It is really a travesty for all of us that every single area of Science these days are all being taken over by forms of ideology at the expense of any kind of actual urge to fact-find.

          We are entering, or may already be in an age were will learn nothing, and we all be dumber for it. An age of "Trust the Experts" while we unlearn everything we've been taught, not seeking to further understand our world. Lately, I wonder to myself if this what happened to all of the great civilizations over time... ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, etc., who's wisdoms and technologies were lost for millennia? Like us, did they all get way too comfortable, therefore complacent, fat, and lazy, and in the end destroy themselves over such foolishness. This seems to me to be our trajectory in current times. And I would really like to know who thinks it is a good idea to be providing the funding and the time for studies like these. For what ultimate purpose or goal do they seek?

        • Reply by Dasho.

          Purpose or goal?

          Why, to reaffirm or establish ideological agendas!

          But yes, "science" is clearly and obviously becoming more woke. If there is any doubt, start reading livescience articles starting in, say, 2015 through today and it becomes painfully obvious. I have watched this site go through the change slowly but surely for quite a while.

      • Comment by Tom Martin.

        One issue is also inequality of the sexes. In ancient Athens, women had basically no rights, definitely could not vote even when Athens had democracy, were hardly better than the slaves, and ancient Athens had plenty of slaves, who of course had no right to vote. On the other hand, in ancient Sparta, women had much more rights, could own land and other property. Sparta was a very militarized society, with military training for boys, which was needed, because Sparta had many slaves, far more than free people, so the military training was necessary to keep control of the many slaves. Of course I am writing about ancient times, before Greece became part of the Roman empire, and subject to Roman laws.

        • Comment by FundamentalistScience.

          Oh, and did they take into account that maybe there were people who lived in wooden houses or huts that weren't preserved? Or that there were slaves living in some of those houses with their masters? Or other forms of inequality (perhaps severe) that didn't show up in the size of the remaining architectural remains? I'd like to hear about that, too.

          • Comment by pragen.

            Inequality is based on capability. Some people are more capable/inventive/efficient/adaptable than others.

            • Reply by pragen.

              Well, the capable/inventive/efficient/adaptable would find a way out of poverty. If you pay attention, history is full of rags to riches stories.

            • Reply by Dasho.

              Not even history. I'd say there are many more examples of this in today's society.

          • Comment by Robert Christian.

            If wages were tied to profit outcome, i. e. if people working in a company had some share in the profits, including shareholder profits, things would be different. After all, without workers there would be no profitable companies.

            Too, I worked for a small company once that figured what they were paying by the hour per job (labor and "overhead") (in a factory) and then they offered that much money per job. Well, production and quality went up while overhead (electric, maintenance, etc.) went down. I made about 50% more money than previously and worked fewer hours and enjoyed my work more. I became more productive and efficient in ways I could not have imagined beforehand.

            • Reply by Dasho.

              So you held your employer hostage by being CAPABLE of doing more but not doing so because there was no incentive other than what you both agreed on for a salary when you were hired with the understanding you would give 100%? Because no one hires anyone for the 72% effort they'll bring the company. I'm not following.

            • Reply by Robert Christian.

              Not at all. Every person involved got the same or similar results. When one sees the actual money earned, casual conversations on company time stop and the mind works toward efficiency when proper motivation is there. Nobody could have predicted the results of this innovative approach. People who were the most productive became more productive. People who had been labeled as "kind lazy" began to do very well indeed. Win win. No way to know these kinds of results in advance as they are caused by self training.

          • Comment by Dasho.

            Well if that was true 10000 years ago it has certainly changed due to societal influences. It sounds more like "data" in favor of equality of outcome.