This study presents a global, deep-time comparative analysis of governance, questioning entrenched viewpoints about the origins and evolution of democratic institutions. Drawing on archaeological and textual data from 40 case observations across 31 polities, we develop a quantitative framework to assess governance along a collective-autocratic axis, defined by two key dimensions: concentration of power and citizen inclusiveness. Using bridging arguments and robust proxies, we construct an autocracy index to assess where cases fall on this axis and examine them in relation to population size, hierarchical complexity, geographic region, modes of fiscal financing, bureaucratic structure, ritual practices, and socioeconomic inequality. Neither polity population nor geographic region tightly correlates with the collective-autocratic axis of governance, challenging extant neoevolutionary models. Instead, the strongest associations for autocratic governance are with external financing, patrimonial bureaucracy, spectacular ritual, and high inequality. The study underscores the diversity and persistence of collective governance, offering a scalable methodology for future comparative research and reframing historical narratives.
Feinman et al. (2026) studied this question.