Social Complexity and Population: A Study in the Early Bronze Age Aegean

Abstract

It is suggested that the size of a population to some extent defines the limits of its social complexity. State level societies tend to have relatively large populations, and egalitarian communities tend to be relatively small. Since the 1960s, anthropologists have tried to describe and explain this relationship between population size and social complexity, suggesting a causal link between large populations and social differentiation, based on studies of game theory and human cognitive capacity. Once a population rises above a certain level, change in social organisation is deemed inevitable. Approximate figures for these 'population thresholds' have been proposed, but their accuracy and applicability to archaeological populations and communities remain uncertain. This paper explores the hypothetical population threshold at the point when societies begin to show the first signs of ranking in the context of the Early Bronze Age Aegean, comparing the estimated population sizes of particular sites with the evidence they show for ranking and social hierarchy. While larger communities tend to show more evidence for social differentiation, it is recognised that population size is not the sole factor in determining its development.

Urbanity as a Process and the Role of Relative Network Properties—A Case Study From the Early Iron Age

“…In this paper, effective contacts are defined as interactions between people that usually have a social, economic or cultural impact. There are thresholds for the size of communities (MacSweeney, 2004;Feinmann, 2011) that define at what point these communities become unstable and thus obtain a certain degree of instability.…”

Alternative Pathways to Complexity A Collection of Essays on Architecture, Economics, Power, and Cross-Cultural Analysis

“…Oddly, none of the five principal paradigms (table 13.2) that have been most influential in anthropological archaeology over the last 50 to 60 years comfortably conforms to all of these tenets, nor, in our opinion, have these extant paradigms found just the right balance between accounting for generalities and specifics. Blanton et al 1993;Chandler 1987;Culbert et al 1990;Kowalewski et al 1989;MacSweeney 2004;Modelski 1997Modelski , 1999Morris 2010;Stanish 2010;Underhill et al 2008;Yoffee 2005. ) The first three frameworks tend to give inadequate consideration to the "whys" and "hows" of human groups, often simply presuming their existence, continuity, and closure (e.g., Schortman and Urban 1992:12).…”

Enduring Nations and Emergent States: Rulership, Subjecthood, and Power in Early Scandinavia

“…Oddly, none of the five principal paradigms (table 13.2) that have been most influential in anthropological archaeology over the last 50 to 60 years comfortably conforms to all of these tenets, nor, in our opinion, have these extant paradigms found just the right balance between accounting for generalities and specifics. Blanton et al 1993;Chandler 1987;Culbert et al 1990;Kowalewski et al 1989;MacSweeney 2004;Modelski 1997Modelski , 1999Morris 2010;Stanish 2010;Underhill et al 2008;Yoffee 2005. ) The first three frameworks tend to give inadequate consideration to the "whys" and "hows" of human groups, often simply presuming their existence, continuity, and closure (e.g., Schortman and Urban 1992:12).…”