Chiefdom

Part of a series on

Political and
legal anthropology

hide

Basic concepts

Status and rank

 Ascribed status
 Achieved status
 Social status
 Caste
 Age grade/Age set
 Leveling mechanism
Leadership
 Big man
 Patriarchy
 Matriarchy
 Pantribal sodalities
 Chief
 Paramount chief
Polities
 Band society
 Segmentary lineage
 Tribe
 Chiefdom
 House society
 Ethnic group
 Theatre state
Law and custom
 Customary law
 Legal culture

show

Case studies
 show

Related articles

show

Major theorists

Social and cultural anthropology

 v
 t
 e

Part of the Politics series

Basic forms of government

List of forms of government

show

Source of power

show

Power ideology

show

Power structure

 Politics portal

 v
 t
 e

A chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies

usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the
legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'. These elites form a political-
ideological aristocracy relative to the general group.[1]

Contents
  1Concept
o 1.1Chiefdoms in archaeological theory
o 1.2Simple category
o 1.3Complex category
 2Chiefdoms on the Indian subcontinent
 3Native chieftain system in China
 4Alternatives to chiefdoms
 5See also
 6Bibliography
 7References
 8External links

Concept
In 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 or a civilization.
Within general theories of cultural evolution, chiefdoms are characterized by permanent
and institutionalized forms of political leadership (the 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.[2] A chief's status is based on kinship, so it is inherited or ascribed, in
contrast to the achieved status of Big Man leaders of tribes.[3] 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.[4]
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: 144) 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).[5] 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).
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[6] 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 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, fails to offer a sound alternative to the chiefdom type.
For while he claims that chiefdoms are a delusion, he describes Cahokia as a
civilization. This upholds rather than challenges the evolutionary scheme he contests.[7]
[further explanation needed]

Simple category
Chiefdoms are characterized by the centralization of authority and pervasive inequality.
At least two inherited social classes (elite and commoner) are present. (The 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 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.
Anthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated through research that
chiefdoms are a relatively unstable form of social organization. They are prone
to 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 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 American Indian 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 "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.

Chiefdoms on the Indian subcontinent

The Arthashastra, a work on politics written some time between the 4th century BC and
2nd century AD by Indian author Kautilya, similarly describes the Rajamandala (or
"Raja-mandala,") as circles of friendly and enemy states surrounding the state of a king
(raja).[8][9] Also see Suhas Chatterjee, Mizo Chiefs and the Chiefdom (1995).[10]

Native chieftain system in China

Main article: Tusi
Tusi (Chinese: 土司), also known as Headmen or Chieftains, were tribal leaders
recognized as imperial officials by the Yuan, Ming, and Qing-era Chinese governments,
principally in Yunnan. The arrangement is generally known as the Native Chieftain
System (Chinese: 土司制度, p Tǔsī Zhìdù).

Alternatives to chiefdoms
In prehistoric South-West Asia, alternatives to chiefdoms were the non-hierarchical
systems of complex acephalous communities, with a pronounced autonomy of single-
family households. These communities have been analyzed recently by Berezkin, who
suggests the Apa Tanis as their ethnographic parallel (Berezkin 1995). Frantsouzoff
(2000) finds a more developed example of such type of polities in ancient
South Arabia in the Wadi Hadhramawt of the 1st millennium BCE.
In Southeast Asian history up to the early 19th century, the metaphysical view of
the cosmos called the mandala (i.e., circle) is used to describe a Southeast Asian
political model, which in turn describes the diffuse patterns of political power distributed
among Mueang (principalities) where circles of influence were more important than
central power. The concept counteracts modern tendencies to look for unified political
power like that of the large European kingdoms and nation states, which one scholar
posited were an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century advances in map-making
technologies.[11][12]
Nikolay Kradin has demonstrated that an alternative to the state seems to be
represented by the supercomplex chiefdoms created by some nomads of Eurasia. The
number of structural levels within such chiefdoms appears to be equal, or even to
exceed those within the average state, but they have a different type of political
organization and political leadership. Such types of political entities do not appear to
have been created by the agriculturists (e.g., Kradin 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004).

See also

 politics portal

 Chief of the Name

 Band society
 Mandala (Southeast Asian political model)
 Tanistry
 Tribe

Bibliography
 Berezkin, Yu. E. 1995. "Alternative Models of Middle Range Society" and "
'Individualistic' Asia vs. 'Collectivistic' America?", in Alternative Pathways to
Early State, Ed. N. N. Kradin & V. A. Lynsha. Vladivostok: Dal'nauka: 75–83.
 Carneiro, R. L. 1981. "The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State", The Transition
to Statehood in the New World / Ed. by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37–
79. Cambridge, UK – New York, NY: Cam-bridge University Press.
 Carneiro, R. L. 1991. "The Nature of the Chiefdom as Revealed by Evidence
from the Cauca Valley of Colombia", Profiles in Cultural Evolution / Ed. by
A.T. Rambo and K. Gillogly, pp. 167–90. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
 Earle, T. K. 1997. How Chiefs Came to Power: The Political Economy of
Prehistory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 Frantsouzoff S. A. 2000. "The Society of Raybūn", in Alternatives of Social
Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri Bondarenko, V. de
Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 258-265). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences.
 Korotayev, Andrey V. 2000. Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe?,
in Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri
Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 242-257). Vladivostok: Far
Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; reprinted in: The Early
State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Ed. by Leonid Grinin et al. (р. 300–
324). Volgograd: Uchitel', 2004.
 Kradin, Nikolay N. 2000. "Nomadic Empires in Evolutionary Perspective",
in Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, Dmitri
 Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (p. 274-288). Vladivostok: Far
Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; reprinted in: The Early
State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Ed. by Leonid Grinin et al. (р. 501–
524). Volgograd: Uchitel', 2004.
 Kradin, Nikolay N. 2002. "Nomadism, Evolution, and World-Systems: Pastoral
Societies in Theories of Historical Development", Journal of World-System
Research 8: 368–388.
 Kradin, Nikolay N. 2003. "Nomadic Empires: Origins, Rise,
Decline", Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, Dmitri
Bondarenko, and T. Barfield (p. 73-87). Moscow: Center for Civilizational
Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.