<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">21.11.30</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>21.11.30, Quirós Castillo, ed., Social Inequality in Early Medieval Europe</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>Francesco Veronese</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff>Università di Padova</aff>
                    <address>
                        <email>francesco.veronese.3@unipd.it</email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021">
                <year>2021</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Quirós Castillo, Juan Antonio, ed</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>Social Inequality in Early Medieval Europe: Local Societies and Beyond</source>
                <year iso-8601-date="2020">2020</year>
                <publisher-loc>Turnhout, Belgium</publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>Brepols</publisher-name>
                <page-range>Pp. 360</page-range>
                <price>€80.00 (hardback)</price>
                <isbn>978-2-503-58565-9 (hardback)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Copyright 2021 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
            </permissions>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <p>Chris Wickham’s contribution to the renewal of our understanding of the social processes
            at work in the (not only) European Early Middle Ages is universally renown--and
            deservedly so. His recent retirement has offered the chance for a range of celebrations
            of his multi-faceted research activity, each focusing on some of its specific issues.
            This volume is one of them, the tribute especially paid by Spanish historiography--even
            though not all its authors are Spanish. Its fourteen papers (plus an introduction and a
            brief conclusive chapter), mostly resulting from an international congress held in
            Vitoria-Gasteiz in September 2016, are grounded on two of the keys of Wickham’s
            approach, namely, the intersection between written documentation and archaeological data
            on the one hand, and his scope on social structures, investigated from a perspective of
            historical materialism, on the other. As underlined in the Preface, especially the
            latter “has been particularly noticeable in places like Spain, where intellectual
            renewal and the overcoming of the Francoist historical discipline has been remedied
            through social history” (8). By placing the dynamics, expressions, reasons, and
            consequences of social inequality--or rather inequalities--in the Early Middle Ages at
            the core of their reflections, the volume’s editor and contributors equally show their
            debt towards other authors and streams, both in the field of history and socio-political
            thinking. Microhistory and its <italic>jeux d’echelles</italic> play a clear role in the
            special focus on the local level of inquiry. The considerations on contemporary
            socio-economical inequalities by Charles Tilly and, more recently, Branko Milanovic and
            Thomas Piketty are equally obvious references. But how much of this can be usefully
            applied to the study of early medieval societies? How can one cope with the condition of
            the sources from that period? The cooperation between history and archaeology is an
            absolute necessity from this perspective. But how should it be managed in order to
            produce satisfactory results? These are the key issues at stake in all the papers.</p>
        <p>In his brilliant introduction, the editor Juan Antonio Quirós Castillo traces not only
            the structure and contents of the volume, but also its historiographical and
            intellectual framework, starting from the inequalities of our globalized society and
            their readings by social and human scientists. Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,
            experiencing dramatical changes and experimentation in the structures of political and
            social organization, are described as especially interesting times for the study of
            inequalities and their transformations. Local communities developed as small worlds
            provided with logics of their own, but also had to deal with the processes pertaining to
            the redefinition of public and royal power, and the rulers’ attempts to establish their
            authority on the localities. This scenario provided chances and spaces for strategies of
            social distinction by individuals or groups emerging as interlocutors between their
            communities and the kings and their aristocracies, and thus setting themselves as local
            élites. And this is but one of the possible ongoings one can appreciate in the
            enormously wider framework of the transformation of Roman inequalities.</p>
        <p>In the first sub-section of the volume, the processes of State Formation and their role
            in social stratification are sketched. Julio Escalona focuses on North-Western Iberia
            between the 5th and 9th century. He points to four dynamics, intermingled with one
            another, that took to the (re-) establishment of the State after the political collapse
            of the Roman government: 1) direct inheritance from the Roman past; 2) reintroduction of
            an idea of State by ecclesiastics fleeing from the Muslim South; 3) “satellitisation” by
            external political entities, i.e., the Emirate; incorporation into the Asturian-Leonese
            kingdom. In the appreciation of these processes, the contribution of archaeology, by now
            quite exclusively visible in the rulers’ building politics and fortifications, is highly
            promising but still strongly underrated. The choice to include the anthropologist Robin
            A. Beck’s contribution on the Mississippian world between ca AD 1000 and 1250 is a very
            smart one. In the context of the volume his paper is interesting for at least two
            reasons. In its first part he reflects on a range of categories used by anthropologists
            and sociologists in their investigations of social inequality, such as status, class,
            differentiation, discrimination and so on. Then he takes them together in his own model
            of the processes defining individual and collective inequalities. His model, like anyone
            else’s, can be debated but it takes the whole volume’s contribution on these issues on
            an even higher level. The other reason why Beck’s paper is important is the role it
            assigns to environmental history in the social and political transformation of the
            Mississippian world. Both the introduction of new crops (maize) and the river’s
            waterfloods determined the amount of available resources and their distribution, as well
            as the consequential social differentiations. Far from “advocating a simplistic return
            to environmental determinism...bottlenecks are social phenomena that may be conditioned
            by environmental as well as social factors” (71).</p>
        <p>The second sub-section of the volume, dedicated to economic specialization and elite
            demand, is the one that most directly focuses on archaeology. In his account on Northern
            Italy, Sauro Gelichi proposes a reconsideration of the traditional approaches to pottery
            as a marker of inequality. The modes of production traced so far by scholars--household
            production, household industry, individual workshop--though rarely documented in their
            ideal shape, are nonetheless still effective as descriptive tools. Yet more parameters
            should be introduced and considered: resources, technology, consumption, audience.
            Pottery production is best understood only when reintroduced in its context of origin
            and circulation. “Not only must we conceptualize our heuristic approaches better--all
            too often theoretically weak, if not generic--but also, and above all, must we return to
            rigorous philological approaches to the contexts” (96). Gelichi’s remarks are indirectly
            shared and supported by Francesca Grassi’s paper. The four sites she considers are
            located in the Basque Country, a peripheral area with no central places or a strong
            political authority. While slipping aside from the patterns of international circulation
            of pottery in the 6th-7th century, internal production and distribution remained active
            all along the period. Items from outside reappear in archaeological contexts from the
            8th century, becoming markers of distinction for new elites. In Edith Peytremann’s paper
            the focus shifts to the organization of rural settlements in Northern France and Western
            Germany. The case-study of Sermersheim, Bas-Rhin-Alsace, attested in the charters as a
            dependance of the monasteries of Ebersmunster, Hohenburg and Seltz, shows a
            stratification of activities most probably connected to the needs and dynamics of these
            monasteries’ <italic>curtes dominicae</italic>. “Specific activities areas,” for
            instance for the production of textiles, were detected. Peytremann’s account is
            especially clear in highlighting the heterogeneous nature of the sites usually
            classified as rural settlements and the urgency to “display their singularity” (146).
            Catarina Tente’s analysis of four rural sites in Northern Portugal equally underscores
            heterogeneity between them, but also their strong connections. In the 9th century these
            local communities show some degree of specialization in their activities and
            productions, probably in the frame of regular contacts. In the 10th century signs of
            social differentiation start to emerge from archaeological evidence. The competition
            between Muslims and Asturians for the control of the area created chances for the rise
            of new local elites negotiating their military support for one side or the other, and
            thus obtaining further acknowledgement for their position of pre-eminence. So Tente
            demonstrates how social inequalities could work on a regional level, and that they can
            be better understood when different sites are compared. In the final paper of this
            section, Richard Hodges wonders whether early medieval rural settlements in Italy can be
            defined as primitive and poor, in comparison to both Late Antiquity and the High Middle
            Ages. His answer is resolutely and desolatingly positive. In his view archeologists have
            acritically relied on the written sources, only underlining the elements of continuity
            and liveliness in the Italian countryside.</p>
        <p>The third and longest part of the volume collects a range of case-studies, “small worlds”
            investigated in search of social inequalities. The lands owned by the monastery of Prüm
            in the village of Villance, on the Ardennes, and recorded in the polyptych of 893 are at
            the core of the paper by Jean-Pierre Devroey and Nicolas Schroeder. The different
            conditions and extension of the tenures both reflected and produced inequalities among
            their retainers, whose status could also significantly vary during (life-)time;
            polyptychs “often only provide a decontextualized snapshot” (179). Possibilities for
            social elevation were connected to the development of special relationships with the
            monastery and the attribution of specific tasks of responsibility and supervision.
            Individual success or failure were, as sociologists pointed out, the result of both
            structural and accidental conditions. Igor Santos Salazar offers a vivid picture of the
            disputes over fiscal lands in the Po Valley around Modena and their role in shaping
            rural societies in Carolingian times. Until the mid-9th century public and private
            charters attest a high level of judicial agency and knowledge by local communities, who
            support their own reasons and rights against the monastery of Nonantola and build their
            own identity as collective actors (<italic>populi</italic>). In the second half of the
            century, as the monastery’s control over fiscal lands grows and the kings’ authority
            slowly fades, local elites take the chance to establish special connections with the
            abbots in order to consolidate their status. Northern Italy is equally the area explored
            in Fabio Saggioro’s more archaeologically-focused paper. The cases of Nogara, where a
            castle was built in the early 10th century by royal concession, and the monastery of San
            Benedetto di Leno near Brescia offer glimpses of a framework in which “not only
            businesses, but also monasteries and--even though they were often invisible--communities
            or groups of freemen were part of an economic management system that was much more
            complex than previously thought” (251). The control of areas where land and water were
            strictly connected was often at stake in the strategies of these and also other actors’
            interventions. Iñaki Martín Viso examines the charter evidence concerning three villages
            in the 10th-century kingdom of León. Inequalities are especially reflected, and were
            shaped, by an active estate market fed by exchanges and sells of lands. Individuals and
            kin groups built both their social status and identity around their patrimonies. While
            the level of royal presence and intervention was low, monasteries, the other key players
            in the region, gradually developed their landed wealth by the means of the market, and
            only later through gifts. The author’s analysis thus helps to reconsider traditional
            readings, attributing the role of structuring local societies to the kings’ support in
            the processes of colonization of previously unpopulated areas. Álvaro Carvajal Castro is
            equally interested in testing historiographical interpretations concerning early
            medieval North-Western Iberia, in this case the one by Reina Pastor, who attributed to
            local communities a key role in the political life of the countryside. Conflicts are the
            perspective chosen by the author to examine social inequalities. Far from being simple
            expressions of contingent disputes, for villages and their élites judicial conflicts
            represented arenas for establishing and rethinking balances of power both at the local
            level and in their relationship with lay and ecclesiastical aristocracies. Juan Antonio
            Quirós Castillo ideally brings on the considerations of Martin Viso and Carvajal Castro,
            integrating them with a closer inspection of the archaeological data. Yet his paper is
            also deeply imbued with theoretical suggestions. The cases he deals with, situated in
            the areas of Madrid and the Basque Country, are analyzed from the points of view of the
            elements contributing to the formation of social memories among local communities, i.e.,
            the cultural biography of the household and the role of cemeteries and/or isolated
            burials. The evidence suggests that villages in Iberia were not the obvious consequence
            of the transformation of the Roman <italic>villae</italic>, but rather the result of
            negotiations between a whole range of social players. What is more, “in Iberia there has
            not been a single ‘village moment,’ but there were different village formation periods
            which were articulated at very different speeds and with differing results” (329). The
            picture of the rural communities in early medieval Iberia resulting from the previous
            papers is resumed by Carlos Tejerizo-García in the final contribution of this section.
            His purpose is to verify the validity of what Chris Wickham named the peasant mode of
            production (PMP), an economical regime structured around the peasant household, the
            distribution of roles and resources among its members, its relationships with the
            village and the market. Granted that it must be understood in a flexible way, in
            Tejerizo-García’s view “the PMP...creates [a] common ground of dialogue between the
            written sources and the archaeological record as a very exciting and stimulating way to
            take a step further in the analysis of early medieval peasant societies” (354).</p>
        <p>In his conclusions, Wickham traces the big issues at stake and the undisputable successes
            of the volume. That of the village has proven an ideal context for investigating
            inequalities. Even though the paucity of sources doesn’t allow a sort of inquiry like
            those conducted in the tradition of the Italian <italic>microstoria</italic>, local
            élites made themselves (and are now to us) visible through their patrimony, their public
            functions, their relationships with superior authorities. The volume also makes one more
            step toward the definitive inclusion of the Iberian Peninsula (or at least the Christian
            part of it) in the European historiographical debates on early medieval societies.</p>
        <p>One final remark. This is a political book, in the best sense of the word. By setting
            social inequality at the core of the authors’ scope, it not only draws the attention on
            a key issue for present day, but also proves one more time that history, even that of a
            (relatively) distant past such as the Early Middle Ages, can and must take its own
            contribution in these debates.</p>
    </body>
</article>