As economies become more complicated with increasing interdependence tied to exchange and specialization, inequality appears as an outcome of dispersed versus concentrated flows and accumulations of value that affect differences in well-being, power, and institutional formations. We look at the complicated institutional arrangements that favor or limit inequality, perhaps the most important of which is the development of institutional property and how it allowed control over production and distribution. The theoretical and empirical breadth of inequality is vast. For this comparative effort, we formulate an approach that can analyze inequalities in wealth and property from widely different social formations, including the segmentary societies of Pare, Tanzania, and Zuni in the American Southwest, chiefdoms in the Scandinavian Bronze Age (BA), and advanced states and empires such as Rome and the Inca. Within this broad spectrum, differences in the control of wealth, prestige, ranking and/or ascribed rank are intertwined but not necessarily overlapping. Our approach focusses on how access to and control over material wealth is distributed in our sample.

The development of commerce and integrated market exchange is perhaps one of the most dramatic factors determining the nature and evolution of human economies. Among other things, these developments become closely linked to urban communities and other central places as points to assemble and distribute labor and goods. These places, when they developed as part of the broader process of commercialization, were transformative, increasing the ease of day-by-day interactions, specialization, and freedom of movement.

Specialization characterizes all economies to some degree, but its variation is profound, and an objective of economic theory has been to explain its development. Since Adam Smith, economic specialization has been a focus of social scientific inquiry into the evolution of sociopolitical-economic complexity. In the words of Henrich and Boyd (2008:715), “Anthropologists and sociologists … have defended a wide variety of theories that link economic specialization, a division of labor, and the emergence of socially stratified inequality since the birth of their discipline at the end of the 19th century.” Archaeological inquiry, however, compels us to rethink this simple correlation. As the flip-side to self-sufficiency (Chapter 3), we examine variation in economic specialization found in thirteen ancient, premodern, or small-scale economies across Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas. Our analysis looks at the nature, type, and scale of specialization found in societies of different sizes and internal complexity. This is followed by a discussion of production, distribution, and infrastructural/service specializations, and where they occur within the thirteen societies examined. Although specialization apparently has different causes related to efficiency, it links strongly to developing markets with their expanded access to demand.

All societies mobilize resources for different purposes. The product of human labor, these goods and services become especially important in the formation and support of multi-scalar organizations that include communities, regional polities, and beyond. The labor and its resources must be mobilized to finance these organizations as they are developed and maintained across time.