Editing Chiefdom (section)

==Concept==
In [[anthropology|anthropological theory]], one model of human social development rooted in ideas of [[cultural evolution]] describes a chiefdom as a form of social organization more complex than a [[tribe]] or a [[band society]], and less complex than a [[State (polity)|state]] or a [[civilization]].

Within general theories of cultural evolution, chiefdoms are characterized by permanent and institutionalized forms of political leadership (the [[Tribal chief|chief]]), centralized decision-making, economic interdependence, and social hierarchy.

Chiefdoms are described as intermediate between tribes and states in the progressive scheme of sociopolitical development formulated by [[Elman Service]]: ''band - tribe - chiefdom - state''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Service|first1=Elman R|title=Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective|date=1976|publisher=Random House|location=Chicago, IL|isbn=0394316355|language=en|oclc=974107713|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/primitivesocialo0000serv}}</ref> A chief's status is based on [[kinship]], so it is inherited or [[ascribed status|ascribed]], in contrast to the [[achieved status]] of [[Big man (anthropology)|Big Man]] leaders of tribes.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sahlins|first1=Marshall D.|title=Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia|journal=Comparative Studies in Society and History|date=1963|volume=5|issue=3|pages=285–303|doi=10.1017/S0010417500001729|s2cid=145254059 |issn=1475-2999|doi-access=free}}</ref> Another feature of chiefdoms is therefore pervasive social inequality. They are ranked societies, according to the scheme of progressive sociopolitical development formulated by [[Morton Fried]]: ''egalitarian - ranked - stratified - state''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Fried|first1=Morton Herbert|title=The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology|date=1976|publisher=McGraw-Hill|isbn=0075535793|language=en|oclc=748982203}}</ref>

The most succinct definition of a chiefdom in anthropology is by [[Robert L. Carneiro]]: "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief" (Carneiro 1981: 45).

=== Chiefdoms in archaeological theory ===
In [[archaeological theory]], Service's definition of chiefdoms as “redistribution societies with a permanent central agency of coordination” (Service 1962: 134) has been most influential. Many archaeologists, however, dispute Service's reliance upon redistribution as central to chiefdom societies, and point to differences in the basis of finance ([[staple finance]] v. [[wealth finance]]).<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Earle|editor1-first=Timothy|title=Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology|date=2004|publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press|isbn=0521448018|language=en|oclc=611267761}}</ref> Service argued that chief rose to assume a managerial status to redistribute agricultural surplus to ecologically specialized communities within this territory (staple finance). Yet in re-studying the Hawaiian chiefdoms used as his case study, Timothy Earle observed that communities were rather self-sufficient. What the chief redistributed was not staple goods, but prestige goods to his followers that helped him to maintain his authority (wealth finance).<ref>{{cite web | title=Timothy Earle: Department of Anthropology | website=Northwestern University | date=2017-03-30 | url=http://www.anthropology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/earle.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170330122906/http://www.anthropology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/earle.html | archive-date=2017-03-30 | url-status=dead}}</ref>

Some scholars contest the utility of the chiefdom model for archaeological inquiry. The most forceful critique comes from [[Timothy Pauketat]], whose ''Chiefdom and Other Archaeological Delusions''<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pauketat|first1=Timothy R|title=Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions|date=2011|publisher=AltaMira Press|isbn=9780759108295|language=en|oclc=768479880}}</ref> outlines how chiefdoms fail to account for the high variability of the archaeological evidence for middle-range societies. Pauketat argues that the evolutionary underpinnings of the chiefdom model are weighed down by racist and outdated theoretical baggage that can be traced back to [[Lewis H. Morgan|Lewis Morgan]]'s 19th-century cultural evolution. From this perspective, pre-state societies are treated as underdeveloped, the savage and barbaric phases that preceded civilization. Pauketat argues that the chiefdom type is a limiting category that should be abandoned, and takes as his main case study [[Cahokia]], a central place for the [[Mississippian culture]] of North America.

Pauketat's provocation, however, has been accused of not offering a sound alternative to the chiefdom type. For while he claims that chiefdoms are a delusion, he describes Cahokia as a civilization. This has been debated to uphold rather than challenge the evolutionary scheme he contests.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Beck|first=Robin|year=2009|title=On Delusions|journal=Native South|volume=2|pages=111–120|doi=10.1353/nso.0.0011|s2cid=201784072}}</ref>{{Explain|date=August 2020|reason=Civilization can just mean living in cities without any evolutionary implication.}}

===Simple category===
Chiefdoms are characterized by the centralization of authority and pervasive inequality. At least two inherited [[social class]]es ([[elite]] and [[commoner]]) are present. (The [[Ancient Hawaii#Caste system|ancient Hawaiian chiefdoms]] had as many as four social classes.) An individual might change social class during a lifetime by extraordinary behavior.  A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom, with the greatest influence, power, and prestige.  [[Kinship]] is typically an organizing principle, while marriage, age, and sex can affect one's social status and role.

A single simple chiefdom is generally composed of a central community surrounded by or near a number of smaller subsidiary communities.  All of the communities recognize the authority of a single kin group or individual with hereditary centralized power, dwelling in the primary community.  Each community will have its own leaders, which are usually in a [[tribute|tributary]] and/or subservient relationship to the ruling elite of the primary community.

===Complex category===
A complex chiefdom is a group of simple chiefdoms controlled by a single paramount center and ruled by a [[paramount chief]].  Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political [[hierarchy]].  Nobles are clearly distinct from commoners and do not usually engage in any form of agricultural production.  The higher members of society consume most of the goods that are passed up the hierarchy as a tribute.

Reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by the nobles carrying out rituals that only they can perform. They may also make token, symbolic redistributions of food and other goods. In two- or three-tiered chiefdoms, higher-ranking chiefs have control over a number of lesser ranking individuals, each of whom controls specific territory or social units. Political control rests on the chief's ability to maintain access to a sufficiently large body of tribute, passed up the line by lesser chiefs.  These lesser chiefs in turn collect from those below them, from communities close to their own center.  At the apex of the status hierarchy sits the [[paramount chief|paramount]].

Anthropologists and [[archaeology|archaeologists]] have demonstrated through research that chiefdoms are a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone to [[Social cycle theory|cycles]] of collapse and renewal, in which tribal units band together, expand in power, fragment through some form of social stress, and band together again.  An example of this kind of social organization were the [[Germanic Peoples]] who conquered the western [[Roman Empire]] in the 5th century [[Common Era|CE]].  Although commonly referred to as tribes, anthropologists classified their society as chiefdoms.  They had a complex social hierarchy consisting of kings, a warrior aristocracy, common freemen, [[serfs]], and [[slaves]].

The Native American tribes sometimes had ruling kings or satraps (governors) in some areas and regions. The Cherokee, for example, had an imperial-family ruling system over a long period of history. The early Spanish explorers in the Americas reported on the Indian kings and kept extensive notes during what is now called the conquest. Some of the native tribes in the Americas had princes, nobles, and various classes and castes. The "[[Natchez people|Great Sun]]" was somewhat like the Great Khans of Asia and eastern Europe. Much like an emperor, the Great Sun of North America is the best example of chiefdoms and imperial kings in North American Indian history. The Aztecs of Mexico had a similar culture.