“`html
Why do some societies find themselves under the rule of autocrats—powerful individuals who make decisions with little to no checks and balances—while others allow their citizens to have a genuine voice in governance? The conventional explanation provided by archaeologists, historians, and political scientists is as follows: early humans lived in small groups, hunting and gathering, and making decisions collectively. The advent of agriculture, however, tethered them to specific plots of land, enabling some to hoard resources, which inevitably led to disparities in wealth and power. As populations grew, some villages evolved into cities that required strong leaders to maintain order among ever-expanding populations. This dynamic persisted until the ancient Greeks introduced a groundbreaking concept known as ‘democracy.’
Democracy waned during the Middle Ages but regained momentum centuries later, again in Europe, according to historical narratives. From that point, it gradually spread to other regions, challenging autocrats. While this narrative is well-structured, it is also an oversimplification, argues archaeologist Gary Feinman from Chicago’s Field Museum. His research indicates that autocratic governance is not an inevitable outcome of population growth. Throughout history, diverse societies around the globe have exhibited varying governance structures.
Moreover, these less autocratic societies were not confined to Europe, nor were they more prevalent there; examples can be found worldwide, from Teotihuacán in Mexico to Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan. Feinman articulated his archaeological perspective on long-term political change in a 2023 article in the Annual Review of Anthropology. Together with his colleagues, he tested these ideas in subsequent research published in PNAS and Science Advances. In a recent discussion with Knowable Magazine, he elaborated on the factors that encourage either autocracy or more inclusive forms of governance.
Fieldwork and Its Influence on Perspectives
Feinman has devoted the majority of his academic research career to archaeological fieldwork in Mexico and China. His primary focus has been on Mesoamerica, where he has engaged in both regional studies and intensive excavations at various sites, including numerous residential areas. Initially, researchers who studied Mesoamerican societies operated under the assumption that these civilizations were characterised by top-down, coercive, and despotic governance, with political control over the economy. This was a widely accepted hypothesis during his student years in the 1970s.
However, upon excavating residential structures, Feinman and his team frequently discovered evidence that inhabitants were producing goods for exchange—tools or pottery, for example—and using items that they did not manufacture themselves, which may not have even originated in their own settlements. This raised questions about the feasibility of a central authority controlling the economy, as the widespread production of exchangeable goods would complicate such control. Moreover, the absence of storage facilities that would allow leaders to hoard resources contradicted the prevailing notion that a despotic state monopolised key resources to empower a ruler.
As data on pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica accumulated over time, it became evident that the nature of power and urban organisation was highly variable. It was not solely characterised by a singular model of a powerful king, as seen in the classic Maya civilization along the Usumacinta River. While the classic Maya glorified their rulers with elaborate burials and opulent palaces, Teotihuacán and Monte Albán displayed entirely different governance models. For instance, Teotihuacán featured open plazas for public gatherings and murals depicting masked officials rather than named kings, suggesting a more collective form of governance.
Challenging Traditional Theories
This perspective challenges the view held by many Western social scientists, who believed that, apart from Greece and Rome, all pre-modern societies were autocratic until the Enlightenment ushered in rational thought. In China, Feinman’s research in Shandong province—a region that was the last to join the empire of the first emperor, Qin Shi Huang—also defies conventional wisdom. Traditional theories predicted that this incorporation would lead to difficulties and decreased well-being. Contrary to this expectation, historical and archaeological data indicate that the region experienced a surge in prosperity after joining the empire, remaining unified for centuries under the later Han dynasty, with population growth, new settlements, and improved transportation infrastructure enhancing integration and commerce.
The findings suggest that the assumption of inherent autocracy in pre-modern governance fails to align with empirical evidence. This accumulation of data ultimately culminated in the 2023 article in the Annual Review, which sought to redefine entrenched beliefs about governance that have persisted in social sciences for approximately 500 years. Following this, Feinman collaborated on two significant studies with different teams to further test these theories.
Recent Studies on Governance and Inequality
The first study, set to be published in 2025 in PNAS, investigates the relationship between inequality and demographic and political scale by analysing the differences between larger and smaller residences across over a thousand archaeological sites. The second study, which Feinman led and was published in March 2026 in Science Advances, examined the relationship between governance nature and scale within 40 archaeological and historical contexts.
For a long time, it has been assumed that throughout history, both power concentration and inequality increase with population size, as individuals lacked the means to conduct activities without coercive, hierarchical leadership. However, these two studies demonstrated that while population size is relevant, it is not determinative; it explained only about a quarter of the variability in equality or the extent of autocracy. Furthermore, the data revealed indications of democratic practices in regions beyond ancient Greece and Republican Rome, possibly occurring around the same time or even earlier. Although these two civilisations may have significantly influenced modern society due to the preservation and transmission of their records, they are not unique, and it is inaccurate to assume that all other regions were organised autocratically.
Understanding Resources and Power Dynamics
Additionally, the research established that the advent of agriculture did not universally lead to autocracy, countering the pervasive narrative that a shift to agriculture and sedentary life inevitably resulted in increased scale and concentrated power. While agriculture was undoubtedly a significant innovation with long-term implications, these effects were not always immediate or uniform.
Feinman’s research indicates that while increased scale does create opportunities for autocrats, it is primarily the manner in which resources are channelled into political institutions that determines the concentration of power. When a state must collect a large portion of its taxes from a small number of farmers or merchants, it is likely to be more democratic. In such scenarios, citizens can exercise their agency by voting with their feet and choosing to leave if they are dissatisfied, compelling authorities to cultivate a sense of contribution among the populace.
Conversely, when resources and technologies can be monopolised—whether through control of trade routes, war booty, mines, plantations, or slavery—autocracy tends to emerge. Monopolised external resources diminish the need for a ruler to depend on widespread citizen engagement for revenue. Instead, a small number of individuals can be compensated to protect the monopolised resources, allowing rulers to largely disregard the general populace.
The Role of Citizenry in Autocratic Systems
Feinman argues that a common misconception in previous literature is the belief that autocrats typically terrorise and exploit their citizens. In reality, it is more common for autocratic parties to overlook their citizens, as they may not rely on taxes from them. Such rulers may not want to see their citizens suffer, as they can be valuable resources at some point. Thus, there may be a tendency to ignore them altogether.
To quantify concepts like autocracy or inclusivity, Feinman and his team developed a protocol during their first meeting to compare levels of autocracy across various cases with input from a dozen experts. They focused on two key dimensions: the concentration of power in a few individuals and the opportunities available for ordinary people to communicate and express their opinions. The challenge was to measure these dimensions using archaeological and historical data.
Indicators of Inclusivity in Governance
The team devised 27 ‘substitute indicators’ that could be measured or reconstructed to provide insights into governance characteristics. They examined whether decisions were made in fortified strongholds or open council rooms, whether state art glorified a singular ruler or focused on deities and community, and whether there were accessible public squares for citizen gatherings versus restrictive architecture. This data was collated from 31 locations worldwide, with multiple time intervals included, resulting in a total of 40 cases, which were integrated into an index of autocracy developed by the team.
This approach enabled a comprehensive examination of the causes and consequences of variability in autocracy. With numerous indicators, the overall results were robust, minimizing the impact of any individual criticism regarding a specific indicator.
Archaeological Evidence of Equality
Feinman highlights that a more egalitarian society can manifest in the archaeological record. For example, many societies were initially assumed to be autocratic due to their monumental architecture. Teotihuacán, with its massive pyramids, was presumed to be organised autocratically, as why else would people construct such structures unless compelled by a ruler? Yet, evidence suggests that Teotihuacán operated quite collectively, without signs of a singular leader. The pyramids featured broad summits capable of accommodating groups of at least 10 or 12 individuals, contrasting with classic Maya temples that typically allowed space for only one or two individuals at the top, indicating a more hierarchical structure.
Despite ongoing speculation about the existence of a royal tomb in