Cahokia and the Mississippi Mound Builders
Chiefdoms

The materials below are summarized from Paul D. Welch's presentation of the concept of Chiefdoms in his book Moundville's Economy (1991).

Many Mississippian communities were characterized by alliances of tribes and villages, with one identified and recognized leader.  This leader was the chief, who was given differential access to resources, thought to be superior to the common people, and inherited his position as chief.  Because the Mississippian Period evidenced a collection of smaller settlements (farmsteads), mid-level settlements (perhaps with one or several mounds), and a few large urban centers - the effect of chiefdoms on Mississippian Settlements is thought to have varied widely dependent on the actual location of the settlement.  Chiefdoms were believed to be strong influences in the urban center, such as Cahokia, Moundville, and Etowah, with little influence in other areas (such as Fort Ancient).

The word "chiefdom" was first applied in anthropological circles in the 1950's.  Oberg (1955) and Steward and Faron (1959), used the word chiefdom to "denote ranked, multivillage polities headed by a paramount chief" (Welch, 1991, p. 6).

Elman Service gave a very detailed definition of a chiefdom in his influential 1971 work, Primitive Social Organization.  He proposed a definition that included the concept of redistribution at its core.  Redistribution means that chiefdom societies had specialization in production and redistributed project from a center - presumably controlled by the chiefdom.

Although highly influential and widely respected, not everyone agrees that redistribution is a necessary requirement of a chiefdom, with multiple chiefdom models being generated, researched and discussed to this day.

Welch presents Wright's (1997, p. 381) definition of a chiefdom as a useful one:

A chiefdom is "a sociocultural formation with a decision-making hierarchy lacking internal differentiation and having no more than two to three levels above the level of local production and local social process" (Welch 1991, p. 7).

Regardless of the specific definition or models, it is widely agreed that the Mississippian Period had societies that were, to a greater or lesser degree, dominated by chiefdoms.  The large centers of  Cahokia ,  Moundville , and  Etowah  in particular were thought to have complex chiefdoms that rose and then fell from power.  The reasons for their rise and fall, however, are not widely understood.  It was likely related to warfare and, perhaps, the depletion of resources (such as wood) that became scare with increasing population density.

David Anderson has proposed factors critical to stability and change in chiefdoms
(with text below taken from Welch, 1991, p. 58).

1.   Strength of ideologies to sanctify chiefly authority

2.   Effectiveness of social mechanisms to deal with chiefly succession, population growth, territorial maintenance, or expansion

3.   Ability of chiefly organizational structures to maintain stability in the face of stress

4.   Degree of control over status goods and the position of individual polities in elite goods exchange networks

5.   Impacts from other surrounding societies
 

References specific to this page

Oberg, K. (1955).  Types of social structure among the lowland tribes of South and Central America, Anthropologist, 57, 472-487.

Service, E. (1971).  Primitive social organization: An evolutionary perspective. 2nd ed.  New York: Random House.

Steward, J. H.,  Faron, L. C. (1959).  Native peoples of South America.  New York: McGraw Hill

Wright, H. T. (1977).  Recent research on the origin of the state.  Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 379-397.