For centuries, scholars, economists, and historians have debated the nature of inequality. Is it inevitable? Does it always rise with the growth of civilizations? Is the divide between rich and poor simply a side effect of progress? A fascinating new study, published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), flips these assumptions on their heads. By analyzing more than 50,000 houses from over 1,000 archaeological sites worldwide, researchers have unearthed an extraordinary revelation: inequality is not an unchanging law of history. It’s a choice—shaped, reinforced, or resisted by human decisions, social structures, and governance.
Unearthing Inequality: A Global Archaeological Effort
The study is led by Dr. Gary Feinman, MacArthur Curator of Mesoamerican, Central American, and East Asian Anthropology at the Field Museum in Chicago. Feinman and his international team embarked on an ambitious project: measuring economic disparity across 10,000 years of human settlement by using one consistent, tangible indicator—house size.
“We’ve assembled an unprecedented dataset in archaeology,” Feinman explains. “Over 50,000 dwellings across six continents, spanning millennia, analyzed with a single goal: to systematically understand how inequality has waxed and waned through time.”
House size, it turns out, is a surprisingly effective proxy for wealth. Larger homes usually indicate greater resources—more labor, better materials, and often, more power. By comparing distributions of house sizes within ancient settlements, the researchers were able to calculate Gini coefficients—a statistical measure that reflects inequality within a population.
Gini values range from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (maximum inequality, where one person holds everything and everyone else has nothing). These coefficients allowed the researchers to map inequality across civilizations, from prehistoric villages to mighty empires.
The Myth of Inevitable Inequality
A central—and profoundly disruptive—conclusion of the study is that inequality is neither a fixed outcome of human nature nor a guaranteed consequence of agricultural or political development.
“For centuries, it’s been assumed that as societies grow in size and complexity, inequality naturally intensifies,” Feinman says. “But the data show a much messier, more interesting story. Inequality is not inevitable—it’s conditional.”
The research challenges the longstanding narrative that ancient Greece, Rome, or medieval Europe represent typical stages in human development. “These iconic civilizations, often used as reference points in history and social science, actually represent just a fraction of possible outcomes,” Feinman notes. “When we broaden the scope to include data from all over the world, patterns emerge that undermine the idea of a singular path toward inequality.”
In fact, some large societies, despite having complex hierarchies and growing populations, managed to maintain relatively low levels of inequality. How? Through social systems that prioritized redistribution, cooperation, and balance—rather than concentration of power and wealth.
The Role of Governance and Choice
Perhaps the most compelling insight from the research is that the level of inequality in a society has more to do with choices made by its members and leaders than with impersonal forces like population size or technological advancement.
“There’s a clear signal in the data,” Feinman emphasizes. “Human governance—our choices about cooperation, institutions, and social contracts—has a powerful influence on how inequality plays out.”
Some societies implemented what Feinman calls “leveling mechanisms”—cultural, political, or religious practices that kept wealth and power from accumulating excessively. These mechanisms might include communal land ownership, mandatory redistribution of food or resources, or ritual obligations that bind elites to support the wider community.
Other societies, however, allowed or encouraged wealth to concentrate, leading to rising inequality and often, social instability. In those places, elites built larger and more elaborate homes—often with thicker walls, special architectural features, and restricted access—that symbolized their dominance.
Decoding the Data: Complexity vs. Inequality
An important aspect of the study was comparing Gini values not only across space and time but also in relation to each society’s political complexity. Were larger, more hierarchical societies always more unequal? The answer, surprisingly, was no.
The team found significant variability in Gini coefficients even among societies with similar levels of political organization. In some large settlements, inequality was muted; in others, it was stark. “This variability tells us that inequality doesn’t simply track with political complexity,” Feinman says. “There’s no one-size-fits-all model.”
This is a striking finding. It implies that inequality isn’t the unavoidable byproduct of civilization but rather a reflection of how societies choose to organize themselves. It also has enormous implications for how we understand our modern world.
Implications for Today: Lessons from the Past
Why does this research matter in 2025? Because it offers a powerful counter-narrative to modern fatalism. In a world where income gaps are widening and economic inequality seems entrenched, the past offers a hopeful perspective: humans have, in many times and places, actively managed to limit inequality.
“Technology, population growth, and market forces do create opportunities for inequality,” Feinman acknowledges. “But whether that potential becomes reality depends on governance—on how we structure our institutions and what values we prioritize.”
In this light, ancient history is not a distant relic but a mirror and a map. It shows us both the dangers of unchecked accumulation and the power of cooperative systems. Societies that failed to manage inequality often suffered unrest or collapse. Societies that developed fairer systems endured—and sometimes flourished.
A House as a Measure of Hope
Feinman’s own fieldwork in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, adds a deeply human element to the study. “When you dig up a site,” he says, “you’re not just uncovering bricks and stones. You’re uncovering lives—how people lived, what they valued, and how they treated each other.”
In Oaxaca, larger houses often had thicker walls and special features—symbols of economic advantage. But in many early villages, homes were remarkably uniform, suggesting a culture of egalitarianism. “There’s a beauty in that simplicity,” Feinman reflects. “It tells us that communities can make different choices.”
Rethinking Progress: Beyond Material Accumulation
This groundbreaking research also forces us to reconsider what “progress” really means. For too long, human development has been equated with material accumulation, centralized power, and technological sophistication. But this study suggests that true progress may lie in the opposite direction—in creating systems that support fairness, cooperation, and collective well-being.
“History is not a straight line leading to greater inequality,” Feinman insists. “It’s a web of possibilities, shaped by decisions and values.”
That idea is as revolutionary as Einstein’s theory of relativity—only instead of bending spacetime, it bends our assumptions about society, fairness, and the future.
Looking Forward by Looking Back
What can we learn from 10,000 years of house sizes? That inequality is not destiny. That our ancestors, in many parts of the world, made conscious choices to limit disparities. And that we, too, have the power to shape our future.
As we face climate change, automation, and global economic disruption, the study offers a timely message: the structure of our societies is not written in stone—it is built by human hands, house by house, choice by choice.
In the end, archaeology is not just about the past. It’s about possibility. And this study, spanning continents and millennia, offers a profound one: that a more equal world is not a utopian dream, but a historical reality that we can learn from—and build upon.
Reference: Feinman, Gary M., Assessing grand narratives of economic inequality across time, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2025). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2400698121