History of Social Institutions — A 3-Part Series

• Part 1: Without Kings — Decision-Making in Primitive and Nomadic Societies (current article)
• Part 2: The Birth of Kings — The Origins of Ancient States and Monarchy
• Part 3: The Dismantling of Monarchy — How Democracy Came Back

History of Governance Part 1: Without Kings — Decision-Making in Primitive and Nomadic Societies

Imagine someone returns to camp in Africa’s Kalahari Desert after taking down a large animal. That night, the hunter might be forgiven for feeling a little proud. But in this society, the opposite happens. The other members point at the meat and say things like: “Is this really meat? Looks pretty tough.” “There’s barely half a meal here.” The hunter nods his head and agrees. “You’re right, it’s not great.” This scene is an actual practice observed among the Khoisan people of the Kalahari. Anthropologists call it “insulting the meat.”^[1]

Why? The answer is simple. They had learned through long experience that someone who boasts destroys the group.

The Age Without Kings Was Not Chaos

The things we take for granted today — leaders, laws, taxes, the state — are inventions that appeared only very recently in human history. Homo sapiens evolved into their current form roughly 300,000 years ago, while the first states appeared barely 5,000 years ago.^[2] For the remaining 295,000 years, humanity lived without kings, laws, or bureaucrats. So was that time one of anarchic disorder?

Research in paleoanthropology and comparative cultural anthropology tells a different story. Societies that lived without leaders were not simply lacking organization. On the contrary, they were societies that maintained equality in sophisticated and proactive ways.^[3]

Band Societies: Equality Did Not Come Naturally

The basic unit of hunter-gatherer societies is the “band.” These are small groups of typically 20 to 50 people, at most around 80, made up of kin connected by blood and marriage, who moved with the seasons.^[4]

There were no formal chiefs in these societies. Decision-making happened through consensus reached by discussion. Which direction to move, when to hunt, how to resolve disputes within the community — all these matters were handled by talking things through until everyone could agree.^[5] For one person to issue orders to another was essentially taboo.

That said, this equality was not maintained naturally. Anthropologist Christopher Boehm, after analyzing ethnographies of dozens of hunter-gatherer societies, explains that these societies developed a “reverse dominance hierarchy.”^[1] The entire group would unite to suppress any individual who tried to stand out.

The means were graduated. First came ridicule and criticism. The Khoisan practice of “insulting the meat” is the prime example. If someone started showing off their hunting skills, grabbed more than their share, or began telling others what to do — the whole group would pile on with humor and criticism. If behavior still didn’t change, ostracism followed. In the desert, social exclusion was directly tied to survival, making this a very powerful tool.^[1]

This is no mere custom. Boehm argues that humans carry a primate inheritance of dominance instinct, and that hunter-gatherer societies consciously built a culture to collectively suppress it.^[1] Equality was not a natural state — it was the product of unceasing effort.

The Rise of the “Big Man”: A Turning Point in Tribal Societies

The next stage, distinct from band society, is the “tribe.” In these societies of several hundred to several thousand people loosely connected, there is still no formal leadership position, but influential figures known as “big men” emerge.^[4]

A big man’s authority is not inherited. Instead, it is accumulated through sustained generosity. By throwing feasts, distributing gifts, and mediating disputes, the big man creates a sense of obligation in others. That obligation is the source of his leadership. But the position is hard to maintain. If people no longer follow him, the status disappears. A big man has no authority to give orders — only persuasion and the logic of reciprocity keep him in place.^[5]

The important change that occurred in these societies was that small bands began forming alliances for specific purposes — ritual, defense, trade. When the group grows larger, consensus alone is not enough. Someone has to coordinate decisions. The big man took on that coordinating role, and in the process began accumulating ever greater authority.

Chiefdoms: When Power Becomes Hereditary

Between tribal society and chiefdoms, there is a decisive difference. The chief’s position is inherited. Authority no longer derives from individual ability — it is granted from birth.^[4]

Chiefdoms, ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of people, were forms in which multiple villages were integrated under a single central power. The chief collected surplus resources in the form of taxes or tribute and redistributed them. A clear distinction in status emerged between chief and commoner. This is a completely different world from band society.^[6]

Archaeological evidence shows that chiefdoms did not form through any single path. Across the globe, chiefdoms emerged independently in multiple regions between roughly 7,000 and 1,000 years ago.^[6] In some places power concentrated through ritual and religious authority; in others through military leadership or control of trade. The paths differed, but the outcome was similar: stratified society.

One notable point is that chiefdoms were a very unstable form of organization. Anthropologists note that chiefdoms tended to cycle through expansion and collapse.^[6] Multiple groups would integrate under a powerful chief, then split apart again when the chief died or their power weakened. Very particular conditions were needed for this to evolve into a lasting state.

The Paradox of Göbekli Tepe: Cooperation Without Agriculture

Around 9,600 BCE, something remarkable happened in the hills of what is now southeastern Turkey. Hunter-gatherers who had not yet begun farming erected stone pillars weighing tens of tons and constructed circular structures carved with sophisticated animal reliefs. This is Göbekli Tepe.^[7]

What makes this site so startling is that it overturns the conventional wisdom of the time. The traditional anthropological scenario ran as follows: agriculture → surplus production → settled life → complex social organization → construction of large structures. But Göbekli Tepe reverses this sequence. Hunter-gatherer societies before agriculture managed to mobilize the labor of thousands.^[7]

Archaeologists believe the site served as a regional ritual center. Groups from a wide area periodically gathered to feast, erect pillars, and perform ceremonies. It was not built by the power of a single group, but was the product of a cooperative network spanning a large region.^[7]

This case gives rise to the argument that complex social organization was not the result of agriculture but in some cases may actually have been its cause. A shared ritual purpose may have first drawn people together, and that concentration of population may have in turn stimulated the need for food production.^[7]

The Agricultural Revolution: How Surplus Created Inequality

Around 11,700 years ago, as the last ice age ended and the climate warmed, plant cultivation and animal husbandry began independently in multiple regions. Agriculture developed in its own way in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, the Yellow River basin of China, Central America, the highlands of New Guinea, and elsewhere.^[8]

Agriculture brought humanity two new realities.

The first was surplus production. In hunter-gatherer societies, food was difficult to store for long periods, and a structure of relatively equal sharing operated naturally. But once farming begins, grain that can be stockpiled in a storehouse comes into being. Surplus makes wealth possible, and wealth becomes the basis of power.^[8] (For more on the origins of agriculture and crop domestication, see The Origins of Agriculture: The Discovery and Cultivation of Crops.)

The second was settled life. One of the important means of maintaining egalitarianism in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies was “voting with your feet” — simply leaving if you were unhappy. Settlement removes this option. People tied to the land cannot easily leave even an unsatisfactory leader.^[9]

Political philosopher James C. Scott explains the reason early agricultural states were obsessed with grain in this context. Grain has a clear harvest season, is highly visible, and can be collected all at once. It is a tax collector’s dream. Root vegetables and fruits, by contrast, can be harvested a little at a time as needed, making them hard to tax. States could simultaneously control population and surplus by controlling grain cultivation.^[9]

The First Settled Communities: How Hierarchy Became Entrenched

Agriculture did not immediately create a stratified society. The archaeological evidence from early Neolithic settlements actually shows considerable egalitarianism.

Çatalhöyük in Turkey was a settlement that existed from around 7,400 BCE for roughly 1,200 years, estimated to have housed up to 8,000 people. The buildings were of standardized size and form, and differences in burial goods were not large. There are no traces of rulers or temples.^[10] It presents the picture of a society where many people lived together without any marked concentration of power.

Over time, however, change came. Graves excavated at the Varna necropolis on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria, dating to around 4,600–4,200 BCE, tell a completely different story. An adult male in Grave 43 was buried with gold jewelry, a gold-clad scepter, and around 990 gold ornaments — an amount estimated to have been greater than all the gold existing in the world at that time.^[3] What this single grave says is clear: a society had emerged in which wealth accumulated to a degree that had to be taken along even in death.

From Equality to Hierarchy: Why Did Humanity Accept Power?

Why did a humanity that had actively maintained egalitarianism for thousands of years come to accept hierarchical structures? There is no easy answer to this question. Several factors likely worked in combination.

First, the problem of group size. The consensus-based approach that works for a band of 20–50 people does not work for thousands. The larger a community grows, the more it needs someone to whom coordination and decision-making can be delegated.^[4]

Second, external threats. In environments where conflict with other groups became frequent, rapid military decisions were necessary. A leader in wartime comes to hold greater authority than in peacetime. And that authority often remained in place during peacetime as well.^[6]

Third, religious legitimacy. A person who presided over rituals and claimed a connection to the sacred order could gain special authority. Those who organized cooperation at ritual centers like Göbekli Tepe may have accumulated authority in this process.^[7]

Yet James Scott’s observation reminds us of one uncomfortable fact. Analysis of skeletal remains from early agricultural states shows that settled farmers were shorter than hunter-gatherers, had poorer nutrition, and suffered from more diseases.^[9] The birth of the state did not bring a better life for everyone. Stratification was prosperity for some and a new form of subjugation for many.

Before the Kings Arrived

Before kings appeared, humanity lived for hundreds of thousands of years without them. Those societies were not disorderly. On the contrary, they maintained equality through social skills so sophisticated it is hard for us to imagine today. Mockery, sharing, leaving, and exclusion were the tools used to prevent the concentration of power.

Agriculture and settlement changed that balance. As surplus accumulated, the freedom to move diminished, and groups grew larger, the old ways were no longer sufficient. Chiefs emerged, hereditary power arose, and kings came next. But that transition was not simple. There were multiple paths, and multiple counter-examples.

Humanity did not want rulers from the beginning. On the contrary, for a long time it worked hard to ensure no rulers emerged. The birth of kings was the product of conditions in which that effort could no longer hold.

Next: Part 2: The Birth of Kings — Origins of Ancient States and Monarchy