My aim is to establish the theoretical meanings of ownership and inequality and determine whether they are detectable in the Neolithic archaeological record. In doing so, it will be possible to establish a) whether the two concepts can be justifiably linked and b) if ownership has any social implications as suggested by Rousseau. This will be achieved by three main objectives, the third consisting of four separate archaeological topic chapters, each following a similar format:

• To summarise Rousseau’s mechanisms for inequality. This will help to understand and define the term, and, most notably, whether it relates to material wealth or what individuals are allowed to do in terms of power. Section 1.4 outlines Rousseau’s belief that social inequalities have natural foundations (e.g. in different environments) and that man’s natural impulse for self-improvement perpetuated these, enabling some individuals to gain power and wealth and exert control over the poor. His theories, while not necessarily accurate, are key to this project.
  
• To examine how inequality and ownership can be understood archaeologically, and to highlight the importance of their study. Section 1.5 reconsiders Rousseau’s theories from an archaeological perspective. Problems with Rousseau’s idea that environment can generate inequalities, which is shared by ‘processual’ archaeologists such as Binford (1983, in Clark & Blake 1996), are highlighted. Using anthropological examples and ‘interpretive’ archaeological theories, it is argued that generalisations should be avoided, and that individuals are key to change. This section considers Rousseau’s self-improvement theme, comparing it to anthropological ‘aggrandizing’ individuals. It is also argued that regardless of popular opinions, archaeologists should not be afraid to challenge ‘the norm’. This approach is central to the format of the subsequent topic chapters.
  
• To examine the theory and evidence for ownership and inequality in the British Neolithic, in relation to settlement and agriculture, mortuary practice, monuments and warfare. Each chapter considers concepts of ownership and inequality in relation to past archaeological approaches, with a theoretical discussion providing a basis for reconsidering the available evidence. This will make it possible to determine whether or not ownership and inequality can be identified in the British Neolithic, and if the two can be linked, as specified in the above aim.
  
  
1. Chapter Two tackles settlement and agriculture together, largely because they are commonly associated, but also because there is limited permanent settlement evidence from Neolithic Britain. This chapter reconsiders the assumption that agriculture forces permanent settlement. In considering whether inequality can be identified in land ownership, storage or settlement sites, the idea that social stratification can emerge through economic control is questioned.
   
2. Chapter Three examines Neolithic burial contexts and considers whether mortuary practice can indicate inequality through grave goods or ritual practice. Archaeologists such as Binford (1971) Tainter (1978) and Ucko (1969) proposed that status can be ‘read’ from mortuary remains. But are their approaches justified or appropriate to the Neolithic, and does the influence of ideology break any obvious links between inequality and the burial evidence?
   
3. Chapter Four examines the social function of Neolithic monuments. Renfrew (1973) was among the first archaeologists to do this, suggesting that Neolithic monuments represent the territories of emerging chiefdoms. His paper forms the basis for a theoretical discussion regarding the function of monuments, but is riddled with inappropriate assumptions and misinterpretations of the archaeological record. The architecture of monuments is emphasised as essential to the debate.
   
4. Having suggested the existence of inequality, and potential for ownership, Chapter Five considers whether this led to animosity, perhaps in warfare or violence. This topic is rarely considered in the Neolithic due to preconceptions that non-state societies are peaceful or not capable of warfare. This idea is confronted and the available evidence for warfare is considered.