Class hierarchies are held together by the ‘unproductive uses of economic surplus’ (Eyer 1984: 52). In early civilizations conspicuous consumption affirmed the power of the upper classes and served to distinguish strata amongst them. Ordinary people – supporting themselves with simple technologies, able to produce only meagre food surpluses, and allowed by rulers to keep only a small portion of those surpluses – easily appreciated the social significance of the ruling classes' being able to expend large amounts of surplus energy on non-utilitarian projects. Key examples of such undertakings were the creation of costly luxury goods and monumental architecture – cost being measured by the amount of labour required to produce them (Maisels 1999: 344). The ability of the upper classes to sponsor such production reinforced their political power in the imaginations of ordinary people, even though it was lower-class craft workers and corvée labourers who were the producers. Public displays of such production encouraged the loyalty and obedience of the lower classes (Tate 1992: 31).

Yet such a functionalist approach does not account for all the evidence. While temples, palaces, and tombs were often impressive from the outside, much elaborate art and architecture remained hidden from public view. Most palaces, temples, and government buildings were located behind walls that prevented ordinary people from observing what was inside them. Functionalists can argue that what was visible only to the upper classes reinforced their self-image and helped to demarcate and reinforce internal hierarchies.