A recent scientific inquiry has overturned the long-held assumption that democratic governance originated solely in the classical Mediterranean context of Greece and Rome. After analyzing archaeological and historical evidence from 31 ancient civilizations across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, researchers determined that shared, inclusive governance was far more prevalent than previously assumed. The findings indicate that numerous ancient communities globally developed sophisticated methods for curbing the authority of rulers and granting ordinary citizens a voice in decision-making, suggesting that the roots of ancient democracy extend much deeper and wider than the established Western narrative implies.
“It is frequently assumed that democratic methods began exclusively with the Greeks and Romans,” notes the study’s lead author, Gary Feinman, from the Integrative Research Center at the Field Museum. “However, our research demonstrates that many societies internationally devised means to limit the potency of their leaders and afford common people input on governing.”
The researchers, whose outcomes were detailed in the journal Science Advances, examined 40 instances spanning 31 distinct political entities across millennia. Because many of these groups left no written records, the team created an “Autocracy Index” utilizing archaeological indicators to position each society on a continuum ranging from highly autocratic to strongly collectivist. This index relied on 27 metrics reflecting crucial aspects of governance, such as the scale and design of monumental architecture, artwork depicting rulers, urban layouts, bureaucratic structures, and evidence of wealth disparities.
Feinman mentioned that the utilization of urban space proved particularly revealing. “When you observe metropolitan areas featuring expansive open plazas or public structures with large venues where populations could convene and exchange ideas, those societies tend to be more democratically inclined,” he explained. Conversely, civilizations characterized by towering structures with minimal upper-level space, or city plans where all thoroughfares directed toward a ruler’s residence, signaled a more authoritarian consolidation of power. Art showcasing life-sized effigies of leaders and grand burial sites also pointed toward greater autocracy, whereas broad public squares and infrequent portrayals of rulers suggested less centralized authority.
The geographical scope of the findings is striking. While Athens and Republican Rome indeed occupy relatively democratic slots according to the Autocracy Index, comparable patterns were identified in unexpected corners of the ancient world. Mohenjo-daro, an early urban center in the Indus Valley—present-day Sindh province of Pakistan—exhibited significant egalitarian characteristics comparable to those in Classical the Mediterranean. In the Americas, the early highland Mesoamerican centers of Teotihuacan and Monte Albán, alongside Tlaxcallan, a state rivaling the Aztecs, demonstrated strong communal governance. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) and the proto-historic Zuni in North America were also found to have maintained highly inclusive political frameworks.
“There’s a persistent belief among archaeologists that Athens and the Roman Republic were the only two democratic polities in antiquity, with governance in Asia and the Americas being predominantly despotic or autocratic,” stated Feinman. “Our analysis revealed that societies elsewhere in the world achieved levels of democracy comparable to those in Athens and Rome.”
Some of these centers, including Teotihuacan and Monte Albán, sustained their collective governance for centuries—in Monte Albán’s case, for over a thousand years—proving that early democratic experiments were neither fleeting nor inherently unstable. David Stasavage, a NYU Professor and study co-author, commented that “these findings illustrate that both democracy and autocracy were widespread realities in the ancient world.”
One of the most substantial revelations from the investigation is that neither the sheer size of a society’s population nor its level of hierarchical complexity dictated whether it would lean autocratic. This directly challenges the entrenched neo-evolutionary tenet, rooted in 19th-century social theory, which posits that population growth and political sophistication naturally result in forceful, centralized rulers. Instead, the foremost determinant of power concentration appeared to be how rulers financed their authority. Societies heavily reliant on revenues controlled or monopolized by leaders—such as mining operations, long-distance trade routes, enslaved labor, or military spoils—tended to become more autocratic.
Conversely, polities funded primarily through widespread internal taxation of agricultural yields or communal labor were more likely to diffuse power and uphold systems of shared rule. The research further indicates that societies featuring more inclusive political structures generally displayed lower levels of economic disparity, thereby undermining the notion that hierarchy and wealth concentration are inescapable features of large, organized societies.
The study’s authors make it clear that their discoveries hold immediate relevance for contemporary times. As wealth and power continue to aggregate globally into the hands of a tiny elite, a deeper understanding of historical markers for autocracy can equip societies to recognize and respond to troubling trends.
“When you engage in archaeology, you are searching for patterns that might carry lessons for the modern world,” Feinman concluded. “Our findings in this research provide us with a perspective and set of benchmarks we lacked before, and they are exceptionally pertinent to our lives today.”
“Societies also developed mechanisms that allowed people to share power and foster inclusion, suggesting deep and widespread historical antecedents for democracy. I suspect many people will be surprised by this,” added study co-author Linda Nicholas from the Field Museum.
About the Author
