Beck describes how the term ‘chiefdom’ gets tossed around a lot and it has so many varying definitions.

While others emphasoze the importance of a redistributive economy to finance chiefly institutions in a
chiefdom, Beck maintains that the dual factors of hierarchy and regional consolidation were vital in
forming and defingin chiefdoms. Some were simple in that there was only one level of administration
between local communities and the regional chief, and others were complex with two or more
administrative levels separating the local leaders from the chief. By hierarchy, Beck means to examine the
differential in status from the lowest of the low in nucleated communities to the high and mighty, chief set
above the rest by cult and status symbols and wealth. Regional consolidation is the integration of multiple
smaller communities into regional institutions and a single political system. A chiefdom focussed on
consolidation of multiple communities under one “paramount chief” and a succession of hierarchically
ranked leaders ruling over certain districts, based on an economy of redistribution, and followers are gained
through warfare, coercion, or by rallying support away from rival powers to the extent that resistance is
undermined. Local conflict emerges and exists between village communities and polities. He proposes the
“apical-constituent model” which defines two structures of chiefdom polities The apical model of
chiefdoms is defined by a regional chief who delegates power to lesser leaders of his choice and appoints
them to rule over the communities under his control. In keeping all power tied to himself, the chief creates
a very strong system of rule. Conversely, constituent chiefdoms involve local community leaders ceding
power upwards through acknowledgement of the regional chief, yet, for the most part retaining autonomy.
Power is quite decentralized and these chiefdoms tend to deteriorate from lack of cohesion and central
uniting force.
Once this theory is explained, Beck applies it to the two Mississipian sites of Powers Fort and Moundville,
comparing and contrasting them to determine which model best represents each chiefdom site.
Moundville was a multi-mound site, integrated and regionally consolidated. In 1050 AD only 2 mounds
existed and the population was very small, but by 1200 AD, populations had grown and
Powers – central town of the chiefdom, 4 mounds, plaza, residential area and fortification. . three
hierarchical levels below if, but simple cause only one level of administration above local community.
Moundville – multiple levels of integration, each mound site integrated a community, and mound sites were
integrated by Moundville ann regionally consolidated. But only one level os admin over local sommunity =
simple chiefdom.
Material correlates of apical and constituent:
Moundville – very small population 1050 AD, 2 mounds built, but both huge labor investments. Change
around 1200 AD – population increase and social org and structure. – major mound production all around
central plaza – reflected ranked relationships amon kin groups? Buil up fortification and many people
moved within walls – suggests local competition. Moundville tried to coerce local populations to join them
AD 1300 – change that proves higher levels of consolidation, abandoned by e1400, ceased to be used, not
repaiered, become a necropolis (city of the dead) a few elites occupied it and built single mound centers.
Aristocracy becomes conspicuous around time of abandonment.Found elaborate burials from this time,
luxury items of hthe elite like copper, shell beads, ear spools, carvings.shift in manner from group building
activities and inclusion to distancing of locals from chief and nobels, lavish display of wealth and staunch
segregation of commoners in their own villages and elites in their own mound sites. By AD 1300 it was a
fully entrenched apical society, had drawn enough followers to limit local competition, emergence of new
cult and status symbols – group distancing to enforce prestige of the select few  evidence = “the
movement of the masses out of the sacred center and by the highly restricted acceddibilit of a
cosmologically charges, ceremonial regalia” and the new construction of secondary mounds for elite and
rural segregation and habitation of communities and local leaders. Undoing by 1500, power slips away and
local leaders persuing their own settlements and nucleated villages. Alienation allowed for challenging
authority
Powers fort – 3 large flat top mounds and 3 secondary mounds, central plaza and residential area. Villages
appeared in pairs, one laerge one small, more or less autonomous existence but tied into over all powers
fort system. Individual villages show signs of local competition for followers and it was a short lived polity,
and archaeology suggest little status differentiation, group building activities – suggests constituent. Local
leaders ceded power to Powers Fort elite, mound building took at the regional center and the population
was larger than other places but not excessively so.