Rousseau does not support his arguments with archaeology, but his ideas relating to inequality can be used in the same way that many archaeologists use anthropology; for inspiration and to open the mind (e.g. Ingold 1986, Ucko 1969).

According to Rousseau, two kinds of inequality exist; natural or physical, where age, health, and state of mind divide people; and moral or political, where inequalities occur due to established conventions (Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 3). Rousseau believed that fundamentally these inequalities are perpetuated, and were created, despite an ‘internal impulse’ for compassion, by the human desire for self improvement. Rousseau sees this not only as the dividing factor between ‘men’ and other ‘brutes’ but as the downfall of the human race in our departure from the state of nature (ibid.: 2-8). The concept of a ‘natural state’ was central in 17th and 18th century philosophy, though not all philosophers viewed it in the same way. Whilst Hobbes and Locke saw it as a fearful time, where the life of a ‘savage’ man would be ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’ (Hobbes, Leviathan, 186 quoted in Wolff 1996: 8), Rousseau took a different approach. Whilst agreeing that a modern man placed in the state of nature may fall victim to this ‘savage’ way of life, Rousseau believed that the human impulse of compassion would have acted ‘as a powerful restraint on the drives that might lead to attack or war’ (Wolff 1996: 27):

[In a state of nature, compassion]…supplies the place of laws, morals and virtues…they looked upon every violence…rather as an injury that might easily be repaired than a crime that ought to be punished.

(Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 14).

However, the drive for self-improvement meant that humans had depart from the natural state and form societies (Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 9).

There follows in his Discourse a series of mechanisms by which humans detached themselves from the natural state and became unequal. These begin with a need for language and fixed habitation, which enabled humans to ‘improve or enlighten one another’ (ibid.: 9). But Rousseau argues that as society develops, education itself becomes a basis for inequality, dividing ‘those who are cultured and those who are not’ (ibid.). While egalitarianism does not have to mean ‘sameness’ (Paynter 1989: 381), it is an interesting point that knowledge, and differential access to knowledge can generate inequality. Rousseau believed the opportunity for the strong to suppress the weak now existed and, critically, servitude could be maintained through property (ibid.: 16). This is a key point as Rousseau continues his Discourse with a discussion of how ownership developed and generated inequalities between people.

Rousseau considered that fundamental social divisions stemmed from the environment. Conditions such as soil types and climate led to the development of different lifestyles and technologies such as tools that enabled men to hunt; mastery over animals gave hunters pride, making them feel ‘pre-eminence as an individual’ (Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 18). Technologies enlightened people and made them industrious. Seeing the short term advantages of team work, they hunted together and built huts which, according to Rousseau, were a sort of property and ‘the source of a thousand quarrels and conflicts’ (ibid.: 18-19). Additionally, geographical separations would have isolated certain technologies and peoples, consequently ‘men began to take the difference between objects into account, and to make comparisons’ (ibid.: 19). Ideas of preference were transposed onto people who began considering one another and attaching value to public esteem (ibid.: 19-20). So, while private property was not completely embedded into society, it was a basis (in Rousseau’s mind) for social self-awareness; individuals could live ‘free, healthy, honest and happy lives’, while social comparisons generated inequality (ibid.).

Rousseau shares a common philosophical stance with others like Locke; that invested labour entitles possession (Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 21; Locke 1976). While it could be argued that everyone has equal opportunity to invest labour in hunting, tool manufacture or hut building, Rousseau argues that natural human differences like talent, strength, skill and cunning prevent this (ibid.). At the same time, these differences can earn respect, so people employed trickery and cheating to achieve them, cajoling others into helping them (ibid.: 22). Here Rousseau focuses on individuality. Returning to his fundamental concept that humans have a built in desire for self-improvement, his argument has no room for friendships or working for group benefit, and does not consider reciprocity, a common anthropological theme (see Keesing & Strathern 1998).

Rousseau believed that the first representations of wealth existed in land and cattle; through these commodities, people attempted to better themselves (Rousseau 2003 [1754]: 22). He believed that as populations grew, ownership saturated the land and for want of another way to demonstrate wealth, people competed to gain resources, breeding violence and slavery (ibid.). By this stage, inequality is firmly rooted within human life and irretrievably connected to private ownership. Rousseau classifies the groups that were created in contemporary terms, as ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, believing that whichever group people found themselves in, there was still a dependency on others: ‘if rich, they stood in need of the services of others; if poor, of their assistance; and even a middle condition did not enable them to do without one another’ (ibid.).

It is feelings of injustice, and fear of enslavement or losing possessions, that Rousseau believed led to the emergence of laws and warfare. Intended to protect people, law actually ‘bound new fetters to the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality’ (ibid.). War became justified as warriors felt a sense of duty and honour in fighting, and groups set up chieftains to protect rather than enslave them but with the desire for self improvement, this ideal did not hold (ibid.: 23-24). Rousseau concludes that three steps divided society; the rich and poor were separated through property; the powerful and weak through magistracy; and masters and slaves through arbitrary power.

While it does not provide material clues for an archaeologist to look for, this synopsis highlights possibilities of how inequality might be related to material possessions. Clearly affected by contemporary civilization, Rousseau attacks eighteenth century society as false and corrupt, robbing humans of their natural liberty. His work is permeated with notions of cultural evolution (this was prevalent in the eighteenth century (see Johnson 1999: 139-50)), and laid the groundwork for communism and Marxism, virtually taboo topics today, but his ideas seem coherent and plausible. Wars are frequently over land, and one wonders what the world would be like if everyone was prepared to denounce possessions. Interestingly, Rousseau and modern archaeologists have both looked to the past for reassurances about human nature and society (see above). However, the idea that societies developed in complexity over time (and therefore for Rousseau became increasingly unequal) masks the existence of egalitarian societies and complexity without inequality (Paynter 1989: 370). Binford was among the first who recognised that anthropology can provide archaeologists with useful insights about the past (e.g. Binford 1971). It is therefore pertinent to reconsider Rousseau’s ideas in the light of modern archaeological and anthropological research and consider ownership and inequality in a wider context.