The first complex states depended on brutal coercion rather than spontaneous cooperation.

True: archaeological and historical scholarship as of 2012 broadly holds that the earliest complex states (e.g., Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica, China) relied substantially on coercion such as slavery, forced labour, violent punishment and conquest, rather than on spontaneous cooperation. Mostly true: coercion is well documented as central, but the claim slightly overstates its exclusivity. Mixed: scholarship is substantially divided, or coercion and voluntary cooperation are both documented as comparably important. Mostly false: coercion is documented, but the claim distorts its role, for example where the literature shows cooperative or consensual mechanisms were primary in the first states. False: the evidence shows the first complex states did not substantially depend on coercion.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 [PDF] Beyond Slavery and Freedom in Ancient Mesopotamia University of Cambridge repository (Bartash and Pottorf, special issue introduction) · 21 April 2025

   “if they failed to fulfill their duties, they could be imprisoned, beaten, fined, or forced into labor by the authorities of these institutional households (Molina 2025: 310).”

2. E2 [PDF] Beyond Slavery and Freedom in Ancient Mesopotamia University of Cambridge repository (Bartash and Pottorf, special issue introduction) · 21 April 2025

   “identifying its two primary purposes as part of the judicial process and as a means to coerce labor.”

3. E3 Consensus and coercion-prerequisites for government in early States - International Journal of Anthropology Springer (International Journal of Anthropology, Claessen) · 1994

   “The article discusses the paradoxical situation that in early States, kings who were strongly legitimized by their sacred position, yet exerted much coercion.”

Claessen's 1994 article on early states (E3) says kings exerted much coercion, and its title presents consensus and coercion together as prerequisites for government. This supports coercion as substantial but suggests the claim's 'not cooperation but coercion' framing overstates its exclusivity. E1 and E2 describe Mesopotamian institutional households punishing workers with imprisonment, beatings and forced labour, and using coercion to extract labour. The evidence is limited and E1–E2 postdate 2012, but together the sources point to coercion being central alongside legitimating mechanisms.