What archaeology reveals about the rise of all-powerful rulers
Autocracy wasn’t inevitable in early civilizations. But when riches were there to monopolize, strongmen and inequalities emerged
Autocracy was not a foregone conclusion in early civilizations. The rise of powerful rulers often coincided with the monopolization of riches and the emergence of inequalities. What shaped societies as they grew larger and more complex? Archaeology offers insight into the factors that foster autocratic governance or more inclusive forms of rule.
In Mesoamerica, archaeologist Gary Feinman of the Field Museum in Chicago found that the assumption that Mesoamerican civilizations featured top-down, despotic governments was not supported by the evidence. Excavations revealed that most people made goods for exchange, such as tools and pottery, and used imported items. The lack of storehouses to accumulate and hoard resources contradicted the notion of a centralized economy under autocratic control.
As Feinman's research revealed, the nature of rulership and city organization varied greatly across space and time in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. The Classic Maya, for instance, glorified their rulers with elaborate burials and palaces, while societies like Teotihuacan featured open plazas for public assembly, murals depicting processions of masked officials, and temples designed for group worship rather than a single ruler or priest.
The prevailing narrative of autocracy in pre-modern societies is an oversimplification, Feinman asserts. Societies around the world, including those in Teotihuacan, Mexico, and Mohenjo-daro, Pakistan, challenged the notion that autocracy was inevitable. These less autocratically organized societies existed globally, not solely in Europe, demonstrating that a variety of political systems coexisted throughout history.
Written by urgent.news from Scientific American's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
