Political Systems: Chiefdoms Social + Cultural Anthropology United World College Costa Rica

Chiefdoms First developed c.1,000 yrs ago – few remain today Often a transitional form between tribes and states Chiefdom is an ‘ideal type’ (See Max Weber) Continuum from tribe to state Archaic states first emerged in Mesopotamia – blurred boundary with complex chiefdoms (Johnson & Earle, 2000)

Chiefdoms in time and space Circum-Caribbean, lowland Amazonia, Europe either side of Roman Empire and Polynesia Much ethnography on Chiefdoms from Polynesia – European exploration

Chiefdoms & States: Key difference In chiefdoms, social relations are based mainly on kinship, marriage, descent, age, generation, and gender States bring nonrelatives together and oblige them all to pledge allegiance to a government.

Chiefdoms are characterised by permanent political regulation of territory Unlike bands & tribes May include 1,000s people in many villages Regulation is carried out by the chief and his or her assistants, who occupy political offices. An office is a permanent position, which must be refilled when it is vacated by death or retirement. Because offices are refilled systematically, the structure of a chiefdom endures across the generations - ensuring permanent political regulation.

Case Study: Polynesian Chiefdoms Chiefs – full time political specialists in charge of regulating economy (production, distribution, consumption) Used religion to supplement authority Commanded/forbade use of land for crops using religious taboos (production) At certain festivals products moved up social chain until they reached the chief Chiefs then sponsored certain festivals and distributed much of what they had received (chiefly redistribution)

Chiefly redistribution: Economic rationale If the different areas specialized in particular crops, goods, or services, chiefly redistribution made those products available to the entire society. Chiefly redistribution played a role in risk management - stimulated production beyond the immediate subsistence level and provided a central storehouse for goods that might become scarce at times of famine

Social Status in Polynesian Chiefdoms Based on seniority of descent Rank, power, prestige and resources came through kinship and descent Extremely long genealogies (up to 50 generations) – without writing All people ion chiefdom considered to be related to each other – common group of founding ancestors

Seniority of descent Status of chief was ascribed – oldest child of oldest child of oldest child etc etc (usu. Male) Potentially very complicated – as many ranks as people E.g. the third son would rank below the second, who in turn would rank below the first. The children of an eldest brother, however, would all rank above the children of the next brother, whose children would in turn outrank those of younger brothers.

Lowest-ranking person in a chiefdom was still the chief’s relative. In such a kin-based context, everyone, even a chief, had to share with his or her relatives.

Difficult to draw a line between elites and common people – everyone had slightly different status Other chiefdoms calculated seniority differently and had shorter genealogies than in Polynesia. Concern for seniority and lack of sharp gaps between elites and commoners are features of all chiefdoms.

Status Systems: Moving towards states Chiefdoms and states both based on differential access to resources Privileged access to power, wealth and prestige by some individuals Control of strategic resources (land, water etc)

Earle argued chiefs were… “…an incipient aristocracy with advantages in wealth and lifestyle” (1987, p. 290).

Comparison: Archaic States and Chiefdoms Archaic states drew a much firmer line between elites and masses Kinship ties did not extend from the nobles to the commoners because of stratum endogamy

Bands/Tribes vs. Chiefdoms In bands/tribes status systems are based on prestige, rather than on differential access to resources. The prestige differentials that do exist in bands reflect special qualities and abilities. E.g. Good hunters get respect from their fellows if they are generous. So does a skilled curer, dancer, storyteller—or anyone else with a talent or skill that others appreciate

Distribution of prestige in tribes Some prestige goes to descent-group leaders, to village heads, and especially to the big man. All these figures must be generous, however. If they accumulate more resources—such as property or food—than others in the village, they must share them with the others. Strategic resources are available to everyone - social classes based on the possession of unequal amounts of resources can never exist.

Distribution of prestige in chiefdoms In many tribes, particularly those with patrilineal descent, men have much greater prestige and power than women. Gender contrast in rights may diminish in chiefdoms, where prestige and access to resources are based on seniority of descent, so that some women are senior to some men. Unlike big men, chiefs are exempt from ordinary work and have rights and privileges that are unavailable to the masses. Like big men, however, they still return much of the wealth they take in.