This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

I
The anthropologist Elman Service defines a chiefdom as a redistributive society with a permanent, centralized coordinating agency. Chiefdoms differ from simple tribes and states primarily in the nature of their economic and political structure. Tribes are characteristically egalitarian: all positions of status are open equally to tribesmen who are able to fill them. Tribal leaders or “big men” normally exercise only limited authority over other tribe members, and their authority varies from one situation to another. On the
other hand, status positions in chiefdoms are ranked according to kinship distance from a prominent lineage which occupies the office of the chief and subordinate posts. Unlike state leaders who maintain a standing militia or army to insure that government policies are quickly translated into social action, chieftains lack the power to coerce their followers and must rely instead on their voluntary obedience. True social classes emerge in state organizations because broad segments of people are limited in their ability to secure certain essential raw materials, goods and services.
In contrast to reciprocal tribal economies, in which subsistence products are freely circulated and made available to all members, chiefdom economies are redistributive. Redistribution refers to the collection and reallocation of goods by the chieftain. These goods (and services) normally flow into and out of a specific place, generally the secular and religious seat where the principal chief lives.
Among the lower Mississippi chiefdoms of pro-tohistoric and early historic periods, food and gifts collected at community wide feasts and temple offerings were returned in part to the general populace during festivals, but only after the chief had appropriated the portion necessary to sustain his own position as well as those of his office holders. This practice reinforced his position; it created a unified following among his prestigious kinsmen and placated the commoners by awarding them material and religious benefits. From this collective wealth, the chief could support many specialists, whose primary duties were to maintain the chieftainship. However, the chief’s control over the flow of raw materials, food and services made the chiefdom a very precarious form of political organization. If he managed to use this wealth to maintain an army, the chiefdom would become a state, but if the rank and file resisted the chief’s power, the whole structure could fragment into simpler tribal forms.
(Cultures having chiefdoms as their primary sociopolitical units exhibit certain recurring features. Since many of these features leave archaeological traces, they can furnish an empirical basis for determining whether or not the Poverty Point culture conforms to the chiefdom model. Generally, chiefdoms, especially those in the lower Mississippi area, shared the following characteristics : (1) an average population between
98