There are two main models according to the text of the study of chiefdoms, according to Earle, a chiefdom is a polity that is centrally organized in a regional population that has institutional governance. Earle further states that some forms of social stratification organize the community in tens of thousands of people. Chiefdoms are intermediate policies that bridge the gap between large bureaucratic states and small villages. According to Earle's understanding, Chiefdoms musty have an institutional government; this involves both democratic and centralized systems ( Earle, 1989).
Elman Service, on the other hand, is the scholar who introduced the concept of chiefdoms into the academic field. According to Elman Service, he understood that chiefdoms are the medium-range polity of a given population that has the following features: they are redistribution societies, this implies that they have a permanent central agency that deals with coordination. The system is hereditary in that when a chiefdom is introduced, a person with the highest status in the society assumes the permanent office. His highest status when he becomes a chief also raises the status of the members of his family who are ranked above ordinary families. Even those in the local kin group to some extents are raised in status. The chief is given powers to organize, plan, and deploy public labor. Chiefdoms exhibit exceptional features from a band or tribe both in economic, political, and social ranks (Knight Jr, 1990) . The most notable difference between a chiefdom and a tribe is that chiefdoms practice pervasive inequality of persons in the society whereby the position of the chief as the functions are redistributed. Ranks go by the genealogical nearness of the persons to the chief.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Timothy Earle and Elman Service’s theories on the evolution of chiefdoms have basic differences. On the features of chiefdoms, Timothy Earle differs from Elman. Service Elman formulated the “managerial benefits” theory that states that Chiefdoms developed for the benefit of all the members of the society because they approached a centralized leadership structure (Knight Jr, 1990) . The leader; the chief was the symbol of unity to the community and provided benefits to all his following, which with time had significant benefits for the society. The system kept chiefs in power, which is the main reason for the growth of bureaucratic organizations that later developed into states ( Scupin, 2016) . On the contrary, Timothy Earle, in his theory, focuses more on the economic reasons for the formation of chiefdoms. In his theory, Earle notes that Chiefdoms were developed purposely for the advantage of the emergence of complex societies at the advent of social inequalities that necessitated political centralization that paved the way for powerful groups that emerged as rulers over multiple communities ( Scupin, 2016) .
Elman’s theory on the evolution of chiefdoms appears to be more viable because of the benefits that the chiefdoms had to the communities of their establishment. Notably, chiefs established chiefdoms for the good of the people who thought that it was beneficial for them to have protection or cover of centralized leader to whom they paid allegiance and obedience. Consequently, Elman emphasized more on the benefits of chiefdoms when a community installs a powerful leader as the head. Elman points out that the benefits that the ruling parties presented to the community outweighed the exploitative consequences of their rule in the early civilization. This enabled the peaceful coexistence of the community and economic growth.
References
Earle, T. (1989). The evolution of chiefdoms. Current Anthropology , 30 (1), 84-88.
Knight Jr, V. J. (1990). Social organization and the evolution of hierarchy in south-eastern chiefdoms. Journal of Anthropological Research , 46 (1), 1-23.
Scupin, R. (2016). Cultural anthropology: a global perspective . Pearson Education.
