Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Chiefdom
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== 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.}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)