Research reported in The Guardian provides support for the idea that prehistoric pastoral societies had egalitarian structures. Various other sources have argued before that hierarchical social structures originated with the emergence of agriculture and associated permanent settlements. This led to agricultural surpluses being accumulated and entrusted to and/or controlled by “authorities”. Although the members of agricultural communities may have consented in such arrangements, it does not seem farfetched to claim that those who exerted control over surpluses thereby also built up a position of material power with which they were able to create or strengthen their official positions in their societies, de facto creating states, the emergence of which has also been linked to the rise of agriculture. By contrast, pastoral societies that lived nomadic lives to feed their herds were probably less able to accumulate and store surpluses, providing less opportunity for relatively powerful individuals to increase their material and other forms of power. Nonetheless, we should be careful not to idealise pastoral societies as egalitarian, let alone democratic, communities. There is no a priori reason why relatively powerful individuals or groups of individuals in such societies would not have been able to, for instance, lay ownership claims on more cattle than others, thus also expanding their material power. Moreover, it is quite likely that differences in other power resources (physical, communicative, social) between individuals in pastoral (and any other) societies will have led some to obtain leadership positions (political institutions) that may also have provided a basis for privileges and material inequality to arise. But it is plausible that the potential for the accumulation of wealth (material power) in (city-) states was significantly bigger insofar as the area under production could be expanded (possibly by force), control over increased trade (of surpluses) could be enforced, and income could be generated by control over the labour power and productive efforts of those who were exempted from working in the fields (such as crafts people). In both cases, however, the key to increased inequality lay in the ability of some (relatively more powerful members of a community) to increase control (if not ownership) over material resources, by legitimate or non-legitimate means.
Pastoral Egalitarianism?
Although prehistoric pastoral societies may have been more egalitarian than agricultural societies, this does not necessarily mean they were democratic.