The discussion of social stratification, and the archaeological evidence for such stratification, was something that I found especially interesting about this weeks readings and lectures

Most of the archaeological evidence for social stratification comes from the material remains of mortuary practices. Highly differentiated Naqada II graves at cemeteries in Upper Egypt, but not in Lower Egypt, probably symbolize an increasingly hierarchical society. Competition and the aggrandizement of rulers is represented by high-status burials, such as Cemetery T at Naqada, whose graves were even larger, contained more grave goods and had larger, internally divided rooms. Unequal distribution of wealth is also often an indicator of social inequality. This is observable among late Neolithic Badarian burials where a small number of the graves (8 percent) display greater material wealth than the vast majority (92 percent). This difference in wealth distribution suggests an early form of social distinction and a two-tiered society, possibly reflecting inequality in access to resources. When social development in Egypt reached the stage of specialized, full-time craft industries, a redistributive economy, and centralization, high-status elites were now in firm control of the access and distribution of resources. Separation between elites and commoners grew, particularly in the South, where an abundance of well-documented mortuary data shows that elites were clearly distinguished with larger, more architecturally elaborate graves containing large quantities of grave goods, including pottery and stone vessels containing food, drink, tools, weapons, ornaments and personal belongings.

While mortuary evidence and data is useful, I would agree with Kohler’s assessment that the socio-political processes of Naqada expansion is difficult to characterize from evidence that is almost solely mortuary in nature. The limited quantity of archaeological evidence from other aspects of material culture, as well as from different regions of Egypt limits the usefulness of examinations of social and political processes. Even among mortuary data, southern Egypt is overrepresented, limiting successful explanations of social and economic development to that region. Such limitations to the known archaeological record mean that socio-political changes evidenced outside the arena of mortuary custom, or outside the southern region of Egypt, cannot be reliably accounted for.

In order to remedy these problems, Kohler calls for a reexamination of existing evidence from southern Egypt and further exploration of the North. I would suggest reexamination and further exploration of both areas, and I think that something that could be useful is an examination of non-funerary material culture from a framework of investigating socio-political differences. Additionally, perhaps information regarding nutrition could be gained from human remains. Differences in nutrition and in general health may be another way to learn what kinds of differences existed between social strata.