Highlights
-
Up until now, our understanding of governance and organized power has largely been amassed from societies with written records. By incorporating archaeological evidence in this study, new insights reflect an array of past societies and human experiences.
-
One of the study’s key findings challenges the assumption that population size determines how power is organized. Instead, access to resources and funding play a more critical role in shaping governance structures.
-
Findings from the study can help our understanding and better inform our future governance decisions, opening paths to options that may be more just or more sustainable.
A newly published study in Science Advances is taking a broader look at how societies have organized power across history, combining archaeological and historical evidence to better understand governance over time.
Coauthor Sarah “Stacy” Barber, professor and associate chair for UCF’s Department of Anthropology, says the project was driven in part by the growing availability of archaeological data and a need to think more expansively about human history.
“Archaeology has been a scientific area of study for about a century, so we now have 100 years of aggregate data about ancient societies,” Barber says.
She explains that many past societies are often excluded from research because they did not leave behind written records the way most European, South Asian and East Asian societies did. Incorporating archaeological evidence ensures that the interpretation of ancient governance is not limited to societies with written history but instead allows for the reflection of an array of human experience.
“When we forget about huge swaths of our past, we are weakening our ability to make decisions in the present, so anything that broadens our knowledge of how people can be people is a good thing,” Barber says. “It opens paths to other options that may be more sustainable or more just in the future.”
Challenging Assumptions About Power
One of the study’s key findings challenges the assumption that population size determines how power is organized.
Although very densely populated societies are more likely to align with an autocracy — one person ruling with absolute power — Barber says the study found there are other options for managing large populations that do not require autocratic governance.
Instead, access to resources and funding play a more critical role in shaping governance structures.
“When the governing entities are relying on funding that comes from taxation and the general population, the population is going to have more influence in governing decisions, and leaders are constrained in how they can decide to use those resources,” she says.
The study also points to a connection between governance and potential for imbalance.
“The less your governing regime has to answer to the populace, the more your governing regime can amass wealth for its own interests as opposed to the interests of everyone,” Barber says.
Expanding the Definition of Governance
The study approaches governance as a spectrum rather than a set of fixed categories, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of how societies function and the wide range of ways that humans organize themselves. To analyze governance across societies, the research team developed an index focused on two key factors: how concentrated power is and how much of the population is involved in decision making.
“We broke it down in terms of how many individuals or entities were involved in making decisions for a general population, and what proportion of the population was involved or had a voice in governing decisions,” Barber says.
Looking Ahead
Barber says the team’s plans for future research could expand the number of cases studied to determine whether findings shift as more societies from additional world regions are included.
More broadly, she says the work creates space for scholars to revisit fundamental ideas about governance.
“This research offers opportunities for scholars across the social sciences to reconsider what we mean by ‘democracy’ and to try and refine our understanding of how different aspects of governance affect the well-being of everyday citizens,” she says. “We have the choice to reframe the way we live and redirect our futures, if we as a society deem it necessary. The future is not inevitable, and history shows us that.”
The funding for this project was provided to the project leads by The Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis, the Amerind Foundation, and the Field Museum of Natural History provided the funds to hold two workshops at the Amerind Foundation in Dragoon, Arizona. Publication support was provided to co-author David Stasavage by Arts & Science at New York University.
