Societies evolve slowly, just like biological species

Oct 14, 2010 by Lin Edwards report
A Tagalog couple of the Maginoo caste depicted in the 16th century Boxer Codex. Image credit: Wikipedia.

( -- It has been a contentious issue for some time among historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists whether societies and cultures arise slowly or in sudden bursts and if they collapse in the same way. Now researchers using the tools of evolutionary biology instead of anthropology have created an evolutionary tree of political forms in the Pacific Islands and concluded that cultures evolve towards higher complexity by a slow process of incremental steps, but may take larger steps towards lower complexity.

Researchers from University College, London, Thomas Currie and Ruth Mace, said the debate about how complex societies evolve has continued "largely in the absence of rigorous, quantitative tests," and their study aimed to fill this gap.

The classical theory is one of slowly evolving levels of complex in societies, beginning with egalitarian bands of related people, and evolving into larger, egalitarian tribes with informal leaders, and then chiefdoms of clusters of tribes with hereditary leaders. These further evolved into states with associated administrative and bureaucratic offices.

Other scientists dispute the theory, saying that the evolution is not gradual but occurs in rapid bursts, with bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states all representing evolutionary trajectories and not stages in a linear evolutionary process. They say there is also a movement from higher to lower complexity in societies that the classical theory underestimates.

The new research, published in the journal Nature today, focuses on Austronesia, which is the general name for Pacific islands settled by people who left Taiwan around 5,200 years ago. Their descendants spread from island to island throughout much of Oceania and southeast Asia, from Easter Island to Madagascar. As the settlers spread out their language bifurcated repeatedly, and local forms appeared that in some cases still remain today.

Currie, Mace and colleagues studied the available archaeological and language data for 84 societies in this Austronesian-speaking group and used phylogenetic methods adapted from to compare six computer models of their political evolution. In this method societies are seen as branches of a large family tree, like a biological , but language characteristics are used instead of genetic data.

The researchers defined political complexity as the number of layers of local and regional authority in the , and found examples of a wide range of political organizations, from small egalitarian societies in the Iban of Borneo, simple chiefdoms in Easter Island, more chiefdoms in Sumatra and Tahiti, and states such as those of Java.

The best-fitting computer model was one in which political complexity rose and fell in a series of small steps, with one layer of authority added or taken away at a time. The second-best fit was a model of sequential increases in complexity, but decreases in complexity that could be sequential or could occur in larger drops. This could happen if a society collapsed altogether, for example, or if a breakaway group started a simpler colony elsewhere.

Currie said there are parallels between biological and social evolution, with a tendency towards increased complexity, and with competition playing an important role. Their results show that non-sequential, big jumps in increasing complexity did not occur during the evolution of the Austronesian societies, and the steps forward were small and incremental. The team concluded this could be because of a psychology more adapted to life in small groups, and to the difficulty of reorganizing existing institutions, especially when they are large and involve large numbers of individuals.

Explore further: 85 college students tried to draw the Apple logo from memory: 84 failed

More information: Rise and fall of political complexity in island South-East Asia and the Pacific, Nature 467, 801-804 (14 October 2010), doi:10.1038/nature09461

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Complexity not so costly after all, analysis shows

Sep 27, 2010

The more complex a plant or animal, the more difficulty it should have adapting to changes in the environment. That's been a maxim of evolutionary theory since biologist Ronald Fisher put forth the idea in 1930.

Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained

Apr 12, 2006

Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.

Recommended for you

Boys plagiarise more than girls at school

Mar 27, 2015

Research by the University of the Balearic Islands has analysed the phenomenon of academic plagiarism among secondary school students. The study, published in the journal Comunicar, confirms that this practi ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Oct 14, 2010
ah, but bioology can evolve within a generation or how accurate can the title be??
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2010
ah, but biology can evolve within a generation or how accurate can the title be??

I'm sure you are very much like your grandfather Brandon. Societies, like organisms, occasionally change in a generation but, in historical terms, it's exceptional... though I think we are living in such a time driven by the unprecedented advance of technology.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2010
Over a century of anthropological investigations into society and culture, and this is the best we seem to be able to come up with; arrogant 19th Century evolutionism countered by equally regressive "scientific models". This is the kind of article that makes one despair. Curb the western superiority complex, spend some time living with the people you purport to study and you;ll soon come to appreciate the awesome complexity of their social worlds, instead of trying to place them on such retarded scales.
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2010
Over a century of scientific education and this is the best you seem to be able to come up with? Arrogant 19th Century Anti-Evolutionism countered by equally primitive attacks on "scientific models". This is the kind of comment that makes one despair. Curb the anti-scientific superiority complex, spend some time actually learning how to do science, and you'll soon come to appreciate the awesome complexity of their work, instead of trying to dismiss it with such retarded posts.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.