This is by far the longest chapter in the book. It takes the archaeological picture and returns to the biblical material, as analyzed critically in Chapter 2. Putting names and details to the generalities, it shows how the move to centralized sites fits with the biblical picture of Saul, the expansion of the highland polity into the surrounding areas fits with the biblical picture of David, and the building program plus investment in copper mining fits with that of Solomon. The chapter delves into many specifics such as the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa, David’s competition with Ish-Boshet, and the list of Solomon’s officials. It uses both minute archaeological information and specific details from the biblical descriptions to present a thorough reconstruction of the sociopolitical developments of the tenth century, and of the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon.

The chapter discusses empires from a broader historical and anthropological perspective, defining the topic and revealing several false assumptions that led the entire discussion of the United Monarchy astray. The chapter shows that while scholars were often using the Roman or even the British empire as a model when assessing the United Monarchy, most empires had a different form, rising very quickly – often evolving not from “states” but from simpler forms of sociopolitical organization, in what is sometimes referred to a stateless empires – and then dissolving just as quickly, often a generation or two after their foundation. Both the very rapid growth of such empires and their rapid disintegration means that although such empires were common, they did not exist long enough to have material manifestations resembling Assyria or Rome. As examples, the chapter looks at the empires founded by Shaka and Genghis Khan as models of empires that seem to serve as better antecedents to the United Monarchy. The chapter concludes that the reconstruction of the United Monarchy presented in the book is very much in line with what is known historically and anthropologically about empires.

A bird’s eye view of the ancestral traits of proboscideans, both facilitated and constrained by their large body sizes. A sweeping journey starting with the origins of the extant elephants in Africa, their niche diversification and eventual genetic speciation owing to changes in climate, diet, and distributions. A deep dive into genetics takes us blow by blow into the fierce scientific debate concerning the species status of elephants in Africa as well as the extinct and extant species in Asia. The divergence between the Loxodonta and Elephas clades, today represented by just three living species, is thrown into relief against this long evolutionary story, with selective pressures imposed both by the environment and other species – including their most notable predators, humans. Multiple hypotheses offer competing explanations for the origins and maintenance of sociality in elephants, as well as the threats that brought about their extinction in the past and threaten to do so in the present.

In a short Conclusion, I provide a final review of the book’s argument. Although much of the book is concerned with making the case for certain forms of competition, at the end I reflect with some trepidation on the current fraught state of domesticated competition and liberal society, and their possible futures.

Chapter 2 presents the theoretical approach that informs the argument and analysis. I view the generation and distribution of power in society, and how and why that evolves over time, as inherently linked and thus the fundamental context for social inquiry. The chapter defines social power, arguing that power needs to be understood as something distributed among agents. Thus the definition of social actors is also central, and especially the fact that in the modern period these are increasingly collective, corporate entities, based on modes of association other than kinship. The sharpening and proliferation of such corporate actors, and the domestication of competition, are reciprocal processes. Competition and competitors are mutually defining. Drawing on the tradition of cultural ecology, I also clarify what I mean by ‘social evolution’, emphasising a shift in focus from ‘societies’ to forms of social organisation as the key units of analysis.

The term ultrasocial refers to those complex human and social insect societies that actively manage the cradle-to-grave production of the food they depend on. Contemporary theoretical concepts in evolutionary biology – including group selection, epigenetics, and social evolution – help to understand the transition to ultrasociality. Twentieth-century biology was dominated by a gene-centric view of evolution and natural selection. Today, biologists and social scientists are applying the basic principles of Darwinian evolution – selection, variation, and inheritance – at multiple levels. The recognition that Darwinian natural selection need not be gene based opens the door for a rigorous analysis of the common factors in the transformative evolution of humans and social insects that came with agriculture. Concepts of group selection can be successfully applied to understand how and why differentiated social structure and social complexity evolved. For humans and other ultrasocial animals, the evolution of complexity was propelled by their ability to produce surplus food. Basic economic laws drove the evolution of this major evolutionary transition.

Even if all the reforms outlined in Chapter 8 were enacted, the growth imperative would still drive the economic system. This chapter explores ways to move toward an evolutionary path leading to an entirely new system not based on growth and exploitation. It does not offer a blueprint for a utopian future but rather examines the human potential for radical social change given our physical and psychological characteristics, particularly brain plasticity and “evolvability.” Examples of sustainable human societies with very different economic systems from market capitalism are discussed, including Tikopia, Ladakh, and the Inca Empire. These cases illustrate the human capacity for innovation and radical change. As we face an uncertain future, nonmarket economies can at least show us that sustainable and equitable societies are possible. It is not human nature that is preventing us from constructing a better world.

The “society” emerged in the warmth of the early Holocene, absorbing the preceding communities and confederations into institutions of more than a thousand members. The chapter contrasts two models of society, exploring whether diversity was beneficial or harmful. A cultural-evolution model places a premium on evolutionary unity within societies, so that each would maximize internal cooperation and fare better in conflict with others. A social-evolutionary model emphasizes diversity within society, favoring migration, multiple institutions, and tension of network and hierarchy. Further modeling of social evolution traces, society, its clans, and its elites, as both networks and hierarchies emerged in the institutions of agriculture, animal husbandry, artisanal workshops, towns, and judiciary. Some societies grew larger: they built states, measured time and created calendars. Agriculture supported cities but also sustained migrations: agriculture created enough greenhouse gases to warm Earth. Afro-Eurasian advances led the mid-Holocene in literacy, empires, water supply, and large-scale religion.

This chapter, presenting the main theoretical statements on social evolution, stems from the hypothesis of a sudden rise of spoken, syntactic language in Northeast Africa, 70,000 years ago. The youth among a small population of Founders formed a cohesive group through the shared efforts of developing agreed-upon syntax and vocabulary, and then formed a community of roughly 150 persons to sustain their language. These were the initial social institutions. These institution led to creation of others, such as for ritual and migration, and enabled processes of social and institutional evolution: innovation (through representation or modeling as a source of variation), inheritance (through social reproduction and regulation), and the assessment of the fitness of institutions for the community. These processes brought into existence the Human System. At the multiple scales of family, community, and cross-community networks, it underwent coevolution among biological, social, cultural, and environmental influences, yielding a “group-level human nature” that relied on emotions at group as well as individual levels.