2004/11/15 by Naoise MacSweeney · 1 citation
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Arts and Humanities · #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Ancient Near East History #Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History #Social complexity #Population #Context (archaeology) #Ranking (information retrieval) #Population size #Hierarchy #Social hierarchy #Geography #Bronze Age #Differentiation #Demography #Economic geography #Sociology #Social science #Political science #Computer science #Archaeology
paper · pdf · doi:10.5334/pia.225
openalex publication_date 2004/11/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/06
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<br />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<br />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<br />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<br />its development.