This paper compares and contrasts the anthropological theories of Elman Service and Timothy Earle regarding the development and structure of chiefdoms. While both scholars recognize chiefdoms as intermediate social formations between tribes and formal states, they diverge significantly on the mechanisms driving their formation. Service emphasizes mutual benefit and symbiotic relationships between leaders and followers, whereas Earle argues that chiefdoms arise primarily from leaders' pursuit of power and control over economic resources. The paper examines these similarities and differences and concludes that Earle's framework more convincingly accounts for the role of self-interest and power dynamics in chiefdom evolution.
Both Elman Service and Timothy Earle were anthropologists who wrote about the concept of chiefdoms. Service's work represents some of the pioneering efforts of Western civilization to formally study and analyze various facets of chiefdoms. Since Earle's work came after Service's, he was able to use the latter's ideas as a starting point for comparisons and contrasts with his own. As such, there are poignant similarities between the tenets of these two authors as related to chiefdoms, as well as critical dissimilarities. On the whole, it appears that the more modern perspective of Earle is the more convincing.
It is important to realize that Service contextualized the development of chiefdoms within the wider process of socialization as it occurs within a civilization. Quite simply, he viewed chiefdom as a stage in social evolution between that of a tribe and a formal state. Service postulated that chiefdoms stemmed through a sort of regional mutualism, in which there were benefits of the chiefdom for both the leaders and the followers. The benefits for the leader were that he could amass a following under a form of centralized leadership. The benefits for the followers were that the leader could help to provide order and stability for them in a way that they were able to obtain their basic resources for life. The key tenet usually attributed to Service and his idea of chiefdom is that there was a symbiotic relationship between the leader or chief and his followers, which helped to form the basis of the chiefdom.
The primary similarity between the aforementioned ideas of Service and those of Earle revolves around the basic notion of the term chiefdom and its definition. Both authors agreed that chiefdoms arose from situations in which there was a group of people bound by familial ties in which there was a formal or semiformal aristocracy akin to a council of elders. From such a council comes forth a chief to represent the rest of the society as its leader. The critical factor is that chiefs have not necessarily earned their status; their title as leader is instead ascribed to them.
Despite the similar recognition of both authors regarding what a chiefdom is and how it relates to non-industrialized societies, Earle's main thoughts on the development of chiefdoms differ from Service's. Whereas Service believed that chiefdoms were based on mutual benefit between leaders and followers, Earle posited the notion that the chief aim of chiefdoms was power. That power is actualized by the leader and represented in the form of economic resources and other material goods. Earle believes that the attainment of these resources is the principal objective of chiefs, which they use to base chiefdoms around. Such resources also include the production of labor and are closely akin to the political authority that leaders exercise.
Earle's theory seems more plausible than Service's for the simple fact that the former takes into account the self-interested nature of human behavior, which is evident in his belief that the chief merely desires to control those things worth controlling in a particular society. The mutual benefit that Service believes is responsible for the evolution of chiefdoms benefits the leader or chief far more than it does the followers. Granted, the latter receive some form of a social contract guaranteeing their safety to a certain extent, but to much less of a degree than in a true state. Understanding power dynamics and resource control provides a more parsimonious explanation for why such hierarchical structures emerge and persist.
Earle's views on the evolution of chiefdoms are similar to, yet distinct from those of Service. Earle's are more plausible because they directly account for human greed and constructs of power.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.