Chiefdoms 1

Society for American Archaeology
Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Variability in the Mississippian Southeast

Author(s): Robin A. Beck, Jr.
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 641-661
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557066
Accessed: 13-08-2015 03:41 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557066?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:41:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONSOLIDATION AND HIERARCHY: CHIEFDOM VARIABILITY IN
THE MISSISSIPPIAN SOUTHEAST
Robin A. Beck, Jr.
Explaining variability among Mississippian period (A.D. 1000-1600) chiefdoms has become a key research aim for archae-
ologists in the southeastern United States. One type of variability, in which simple and complex chiefdoms are distinguished
by the number of levels of regional hierarchy, has dominated chiefdom research in this part of the world. The simple-com-
plex chiefdom model is less applicable to the Mississippian Southeast, however, as there is little empirical evidence that
chiefdoms here varied along this quantitative dimension. This article offers a qualitative model in which regional hierar-
chies are distinguished by the manner in which authority is ceded or delegated between an apical or regional chief and con-
stituent, community-level leaders; chiefly power may be ceded from local-level leaders upward to the regional chief, or
delegatedfrom the regional chief downward to local leaders. This apical-constituent model addresses variation in the admin-
istrative structures of chiefdoms: it is not a chiefdom typology. The model is used to contrast two Mississippian polities,
Moundville in west-central Alabama and Powers Fort in southeastern Missouri, and illustrates variability in the process by
which local communities were integrated into regional institutions.
La explicacion de la variabilidad de los cacicazgos delperiodo Misisipiano (1000-1600 d. C.) se ha convertido en un objetivo
clave de investigacion entre los arque6logos que se centran en el estudio del sureste de los Estados Unidos. Un tipo de variacion,
en el que se distinguen cacicazgos simples y complejos por el numero de niveles de jerarquizacion regional, ha dominado los
estudios sobre los cacicazgos ojefaturas en esta parte del mundo. El modelo dejefaturas simples-complejas es poco aplica-
ble al sureste Misisipiano dada la escasa evidencia empirica de variabilidad en esta dimension cuantitativa de los cacicaz-
gos de la regi6n. En este articulo se propone un modelo cualitativo en el que las jerarquias regionales se distinguen por la
direccidn en la que se cede o delega la autoridad entre el cacique regional o que ocupa la posicion jerdrquica mds alta y los
lideres constituyentes de las comunidades locales. El poder del cacique puede ser cedido hacia arriba, de losjefes locales al
cacique regional, o delegado hacia abajo, del cacique regional a los jefes locales. Este modelo sugiere variaciones en las
estructuras de poder administrativo de los cacicazgos: no es una tipologia de jefaturas. El modelo se utiliza para comparar
dos unidades sociopoliticas, Moundville en el centro-oeste de Alabama y Powers Fort en el sureste de Misuri, e ilustra la vari-
abilidad en el proceso por el que las comunidades locales fueron integradas en instituciones regionales.
T he chiefdomis one of the most resilient,if doms. I use the term "chiefdom"in referenceto
controversial,anthropologicalconcepts of hierarchical, multicommunity polities lacking
the past forty years. Today, however, internaladministrativespecializationat any level
numerousandoftencontradictorydefinitionsexist in the regional hierarchy (e.g., Carneiro 1981;
in the chiefdom literature,and many anthropolo- Earle 1978; Wright1977). I suggest thatthis def-
gists perceivethe chiefdomconceptas little more inition sufficientlyframesthe limits of inclusion,
thana heuristicdevice (DrennanandUribe 1987; andthatthese boundariesrepresentorganizational
FeinmanandNeitzel 1984;Plog andUpham1983; watershedsin the integrativecapacityof adminis-
Upham 1987; Yoffee 1993); still others advocate trativeinstitutions(Spencer 1987, 1990). Chief-
theimmediateretirementof thisandotherneo-evo- doms representa particularthresholdin the range
lutionaryformulations(e.g., Hodder1982). I sug- of variabilityamong nonstate societies and may
gest, rather,that the chiefdom concept is most sharean arrayof featureswith autonomouscom-
useful if selectively appliedto a specific range of munities lacking regional integration (Arnold
variationamongcomplex,nonstatepoliticalinsti- 1996; Blitz 1993).
tutions.Not all such institutions,thatis, arechief- Inthispaper,I proposethatthemulticommunity
Robin A. Beck, Jr. ? Dept. of Anthropology,NorthwesternUniversity, 1810 HinmanAvenue, Evanston,IL 60208
AmericanAntiquity,68(4), 2003, pp. 641-661

Copyright? 2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
641
642 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 4, 2003
hierarchyof anychiefdommaybe characterized by treatmentof the chiefdomas a redistributivesoci-

themannerin whichauthorityis delegatedorceded ety differedmarkedlyfromOberg'sconceptionand
between the apical or regionalchief and the con- seems insteadto have been based upon Sahlins's
stituent,community-levelleaders.Chiefly author- Polynesianresearch(Cameiro 1981:43;Feinman
ity maybe cededfromthelocal-levelchiefsupward andNeitzel 1984:43).WhileSahlins(1958) argued
to theregionalchief, ordelegatedfromtheregional that redistributionwas the economic basis for
chief downwardto community-levelleaders.This chieflypowerin Polynesia,Servicebelievedthata
apical-constituentmodeladdressesvariationin the redistributive economywas thedistinguishingtrait
administrative powerstructuresof chiefdoms:it is in all chiefdoms, and his approachdevoted less
not a chiefdomtypology.Chiefdomsare complex emphasis to the issue of regional consolidation
socialinstitutions,andit is doubtfulwhetheranyone (Careiro 1981:43).
criterion of variation-be it the administrative During the 1970s, archaeologicaland ethno-
powerstructureor the numberof levels of regional historical studies began to undermineService's
hierarchy-is sufficientto accountfor thisrangeof functionalistmodel (Careiro 1981; Earle 1977,
complexity.Afterreviewingthehistoryof thechief- 1978; Helms 1979; Peebles and Kus 1977). Con-
domconcept,I presenta detailed,comparative expli- traryto Feinmanand Neitzel's suggestionthatno
cation of the proposedapical-constituentmodel. I clear diagnosticfeatureemergedin the chiefdom
use thismodel,in turn,to addressvariabilityamong literature(1984:44), severalseminalstudiesbegan
thelateprehistoricMississippianchiefdomsof east- to reconsiderthe multicommunitynatureof chief-
ern NorthAmerica,focusing in particularon the doms (Careiro 1981; Earle 1977, 1978; Peebles
well-documentedcasesof Moundvillein west-cen- andKus 1977;Renfrew1974;Wright1977,1984).
tralAlabamaandPowersFortin southeasternMis- Careiro, for example,arguedthat"thetranscend-
souri. The comparison of these temporally and ing of local sovereigntyandthe aggregationof pre-
geographicallyrelatedpolitieswill illustratevaria- viously autonomousvillages into chiefdomswas a
tionin theprocessby whichlocalleadersintegrated critical step in political development-probably
multiplecommunitiesinto regionalinstitutions. the most importantone ever taken"(1981:38).A
surveyof recentchiefdomliteratureindicatesthat
Theoretical Perspectives on Chiefdoms
regional consolidation has generally supplanted
The chiefdom concept has undergonenumerous otherfeaturesat the heartof the chiefdomconcept
permutationsduringthe last fourdecades(Ander- (e.g., Anderson 1994a, 1996a; Blitz 1999; Dren-
son 1994a; Careiro 1981; Earle 1987; Feinman nan 1991; Earle 1987, 1991, 1997; Hally 1996;
and Neitzel 1984; Spencer 1987). Althoughmost JohnsonandEarle 1987;Junker1999; Milnerand
studies have associated the concept with social Schroeder1999; Redmond 1998; Spencer 1987,
inequalitybasedon the principleof ascribedstatus 1990, 1994; Sturtevant1998).
(Johnsonand Earle 1987; Renfrew 1974; Service
ChiefdomTypologies
1962), the relative significance accordedto two
otherproperties-regional consolidationandeco- Anthropologists have developed at least eight
nomic redistribution-has shifted throughtime. typologiesto characterizedifferentkindsof chief-
The term"chiefdom"originatedwith the typology doms. In 1959, Steward and Faron proposed a
that Oberg(1955) proposedfor tribesin lowland typology of South Americanchiefdoms compar-
SouthandCentralAmerica.The centralfeatureof ing militaristicand theocraticmodes of regional
Oberg's chiefdom was regional consolidation: integration.Renfrew (1974) has since contrasted
"multicommunitychiefdoms [are] governedby a group-orientedand individualizingchiefdoms in
paramountchief underwhose controlaredistricts Europe:while the formeremphasizedthe solidar-
and villages governedby a hierarchyof subordi- ity of the social groupthroughcorporateactivities
nate chiefs"(1955:484). (e.g., the constructionof large-scalepublic archi-
It was not until 1962, with the landmarkpubli- tecture), the latter emphasized disparitiesin the
cationof Service'sPrimitiveSocial Organization, accumulationof individual wealth and prestige
thatthe chiefdombecame a well-establishedcon- (1974:74). Careiro (1981) has proposeddividing
cept in the anthropologicalliterature.Service's chiefdoms into minimal, typical, and maximal
Beck] CHIEFDOMVARIABILITYIN THE MISSISSIPPIAN SOUTHEAST 643
types, but offers ambiguous criteria for distin- tify chiefdoms as regional,multicommunitypoli-
guishingtheseclasses.Morerecently,Earle(1997) ties-Steponaitis does not. Steponaitis's simple
has associatedthreedifferentkindsof chiefdoms- chiefdoms would not be consideredchiefdomsin
hillfort,wealth-finance,and staple-finance-with the Wright-Andersonmodel.
three differentroutes to social power-military, Each of these typologies identifiesone or more
ideology, and economy. aspects of variability,whetherthe criteriaconsid-
Terminologicalproblemsmuddle the familiar ered are qualitative,quantitative,or continuous,
distinctionbetween simple chiefdoms and com- and each representsa valid way of dealingwith a
plex chiefdoms;no fewerthanfourdiscretetypolo- specificrangeof variationamongchiefdoms.One
gies differentiate between these terms. Using of the difficulties that springs from using these
evidence from Hawaii,Earleoffereda qualitative typologies, however,is the potentialfor any one
model in which the rise of a regionalelite signaled chiefdomto meet the proposedcriteriafor numer-
the shiftfromsimpleto complexchiefdoms:"Elite ous chiefdom types:it is possible, that is, to clas-
lineageswere no longerlinkedto communitypop- sify a single polity as a group-oriented,
ulations as kinsmen, but were superimposedon staple-finance,simple,complex,typicalchiefdom.
these local subsistenceunits as their leaders and Ratherthanviewingthese modelsas classificatory
landlords"(1978:169). While regionalconsolida- tools,I believeit is moreusefulto considerthateach
tiondidexistin simplechiefdoms,constituentlocal addressesa specific range of variationsubsumed
groups maintainedconsiderable autonomy, and withinthechiefdomconcept;viewingthemas such
multicommunityintegrationwas restrictedto spe- takesus awayfrombuildingtypologiesandmoves
cific, typicallyceremonial,situations.In complex us closerto understanding theunderlyingprocesses
chiefdoms,the regional"aristocracy" impededthe that structurechiefdom variability.Anderson's
segmentation of constituentunitsby monopolizing model of chiefdomcycling (1994a), for example,
access to local and regional chiefly offices movesin thisdirectionby addressingthelong-term
(1978:168-169). Johnsonand Earle (1987) have processes that structurequantitativechange in
also proposeda continuummodel of simple and chiefdom settlementhierarchies,as does Blitz's
complex chiefdoms and suggest that "atthe sim- (1999) recently proposed "fission-fusion" per-
plerendof thisspectrum,chiefsprovideonly a lim- spective on Mississippianchiefdoms. In the fol-
ited numberof services ... at the upperend chiefs lowing section,I elaborateEarle's(1978)relatively
providea full rangeof services"(1987:211). underdevelopedqualitative perspective, and by
Steponaitis (1978) proposed the first of two identifyingtwo kinds of regionalhierarchyasso-
quantitativemodels.In his typology,simplechief- ciated with chiefdoms,I addressvariabilityin the
doms are characterizedby only a single level of process of regionalconsolidation.
superordinate politicaloffice.Complexchiefdoms,
on theotherhand,areidentifiedby atleasttwo such Consolidation and Hierarchy
levels, in which "a higher-rankingchief has con- Regional consolidationis the process by which
trolovera numberof lower-rankingchiefs, eachof multiplecommunitiesareintegratedinto a hierar-
whom, in turn,directlycontrolsa certainterritor- chicallyorganized,regionalpolity;it is theprocess
ial districtorsocialunit"(1978:420).Regionalcon- that structuresthe regional hierarchiesof chief-
solidationis thereforerequiredonly of complex doms (Anderson 1994a, 1996a; Carneiro 1981;
chiefdoms. Autonomous communities with one Earle 1987, 1991, 1997; Peebles and Kus 1977;
level of hereditaryoffice would be identified as Spencer 1987, 1990, 1994; Wright 1977, 1984).
simple chiefdoms (see also Smith 1978a:495). The emergence of multicommunity polities is
Wright(1984) andAnderson(1994a)offereda sec- closely tiedto theemergenceof politicaleconomies
ond quantitativetypology,this modelbasedon the baseduponstaplefinance(Figure1), in which sur-
number of levels of multicommunityhierarchy. plus productionfinancesthe institutionsof chief-
Simplechiefdomshaveone decision-makinglevel, ship (D'AltroyandEarle 1985;Earle1997).Local
or controlhierarchy,above the local community; leaders strivingto expandthese institutionsmust
complex chiefdoms have at least two such levels increasetheiraccess to agriculturalsurplus,a goal
(Anderson 1994a:8).Wrightand Andersoniden- thatmay be achievedin two ways: (1) by promot-
condition Politicaleconomy based on staple surplus production
process REGIONAL
CONSOLIDATION
condition Producermobility constrained Producermobility open
1r
strategy EXPANSION
COERCIVE PERSUASIVE
AGGREGATION
I (LOCAL
COMPETITION)
APICALHIERARCHIES CONSTITUENT
HIERARCHIES
GROUP-DISTANCING GROUP-BUILDING
STRATEGIES STRATEGIES
Figure 1. Regional consolidation.
ing the intensificationof agriculturaltechnologies strained,consolidationoften proceedsby coercive

(Earle 1978, 1997; Feinman 1991; Kirch 1984; expansion:becausefarmersareboundto theplaces
Spencer1994);and(2) by attractingadditionalfol- where they live (e.g., Gilman 1981), chiefs incor-
lowersto augmenttheamountof humanlaboravail- poratenew land and its attachedhumanlaborby
able for agriculturalproduction (Arnold 1996; defeatingrivalsin war(Cameiro1981, 1990;John-
Clark and Blake 1994; Junker 1999; McIntosh son and Earle 1987:234;Kirch 1984:199).In set-
1999). Each strategyfuels conflictbetweenlocal- tings where mobility is relatively open, regional
level chiefs strivingto controlthe regionalpoliti- consolidation typically proceeds by persuasive
cal economy.Regionalhierarchiesemergethrough aggregation:local chiefs must draw enough fol-
the temporaryresolutionof this conflict. lowers from rivals to effectively underminetheir
Local chiefs who consolidatean areaincrease capacityfor resistance.Warfarein such settingsis
their access to agriculturalsurplusby incorporat- partof a broaderideological agendaused in com-
ing othercommunitiesinto tributaryrelationships. petitionfor additionalfollowers(e.g., Johnsonand
Consolidation takes different forms depending Earle 1987:219; Joyce 2000:77; Redmond
upon the degree of mobility in these other com- 1994:52) and usually consists of raids and skir-
munities.Underconditionswheremobilityis con- mishes intendedto underminesupportfor one's
Constituent Hierarchy Apical Hierarchy
DDL
WEl
) Directionof Authority
RegionalChief
LocalChief
El
Figure 2. Apical and constituent hierarchies.
rivals. Spanish documentsfrom the Philippines, that promotesstabilityand integration,and local

for example, suggest that early contact-period competition,a processthatpromotesdisintegration.
chiefs usedthis styleof warfareto establishweakly Given the natureof this opposition,I suggest that
integratedregionalpolities: hierarchicalpowerrelationsin chiefdomsarestruc-
Whenanyoneof thesechiefswasmorecoura- turedas scalarhierarchiesratherthancontrolhier-
geousthanothersin waranduponotherocca- archies (Crumley1995:2; cf. Anderson 1994a:9;
sions, such one enjoyedmore followersand Wright1984:43).In controlhierarchies,decisions
men;andtheotherswereunderhis leadership, made at the upperlevels of integrationaffect the
even if theywerechiefs.Theselatterretained
to themselvesthe lordshipandparticulargov- operationof lower levels, but not vice versa; in
ernment of their own following [Morga scalarhierarchies,decisionsmadeat any one level
1609:296,in Junker1999:74]. may affectthe operationof anyotherlevel (Crum-
ley 1995:2). Chiefdomsare always characterized
Any local chief pursuingregional consolidation by a degreeof localautonomyandresistance.Deci-
must contend with the resistance of other local sions madeby community-levelchiefs oftenaffect
chiefs, resistancethat I refer to as local competi- the operationof higherintegrativelevels.
tion. If regional consolidationis the process by
which multiplecommunitiesare integratedinto a ConstituentHierarchiesand Apical Hierarchies
regionalpoliticalhierarchy,thenlocal competition Depending upon the relative autonomyof com-
is the processby which the characterof thathier- munity-levelleaders(i.e., the intensityof commu-
archy is negotiated between its apical and con- nity-level resistance),the scalarhierarchyof any
stituent units. The power relations that emerge chiefdom may be characterizedas either a con-
betweenregionalchiefs andtheirsubsidiarycom- stituenthierarchyoranapicalhierarchy(Figure2).
munitiesarerarelyfixed andstable.Rather,power These conceptsdenotehow authorityis organized
relationsestablishedthroughtheprocessof regional within a chiefdom'sregionalhierarchy,and refer
consolidationare subjectto continuedchallenge not to differenttypes of chiefdoms,but ratherto
anddisputenegotiatedthroughtheprocessof local differentkindsof powerrelationsin chiefdoms.In
competition.Thereis thusanongoinganddynamic a constituenthierarchy,community-levelleaders-
interplaybetweenregionalconsolidation,a process the constituent units-cede a portion of their
646 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 4, 2003
authorityupwardby acknowledging,if only dur- ual hegemonyover integratedlocal communities.

ing ceremonialoccasions, a regional chief (e.g., Finally,apicalhierarchiesneed not develop along
Earle1978:168-169;Helms 1998:156-157; John- an evolutionarycontinuumfrom constituenthier-
son andEarle1987:218-220;Junker1999:75-78). archies.Rather,givenparticularhistoricalandeco-
These local-level chiefs gain their positions pri- logical conditions,apicalhierarchiesmay develop
marilythroughpoliticalties withintheirown com- insteadof constituenthierarchies.
munities,andthusmaintainconsiderableautonomy Chiefdoms structuredby apical hierarchies
fromtheregionalchief.Althoughtheregionalchief rarelyemergein non-islandareasunderconditions
lacks sufficientpowerto determinepoliticallegit- with few constraintson residentialmobility,such
imacy at the local level, the natureof this chief's as the MississippianSoutheast.Apicalhierarchies,
interactionswith constituentcommunities,partic- that is, are less likely to emergein settingswhere
ularlyin termsof gift-giving(e.g., prestigegoods, regionalconsolidationis achievedthroughpersua-
feasts, and wives), gift-withholding,and outright sive aggregation. Under such circumstances,
coercion, may significantlyaffect the statureand humanlaboris the resourcerequiredto expandthe
legitimacyof thecommunity-levelleaders.Polities productionof surplus;potentialfollowers are not
structuredby constituenthierarchiesare therefore bound to an intensified agriculturaltechnology
weaklycentralizedandtendto be ratherephemeral, (e.g., irrigatedor raised field systems) and thus
as well: becauseintensecompetitionpreventsfor- have morefreedomto shift theirsupportfromone
mal rulesof chiefly successionfrombeing institu- leader to another (Junker 1999:63; McIntosh
tionalizedat the regional,multicommunitylevel, 1999:8; Netting 1990:56-57; Robertshaw
such hierarchiesusually deterioratewithin a few 1999:126). Competition is usually pervasive in
generations(Blantonet al. 1996:4;Hally 1993:163, these settings,hinderingthe growthof well-inte-
1996; Junker1999:75;Redmond1998:3). gratedchiefdoms.To pursueconsolidationunder
In an apical hierarchy,the regional chief, or such conditions, a community-level chief must
apicalunit,delegateslocal authoritydownwardby attractthe followers of chiefs in otherlocal com-
appointingspecificallychosen leadersto adminis- munities,therebyputtingthese competingchiefs
ter the communitiesunderregionalcontrol(Beat- at a significantmilitary and labor disadvantage.
tie 1960:36-47;Earle1978:168-169,1997:35-36; Any chief pursuinga strategyof persuasiveaggre-
Kirch 1984:230-231, 258-259). These secondary gationmusthavesufficientresourcesto providefor
chiefs serve as local representatives,or stand-ins, new followerswhile continuingto produceanagri-
of the regional chief, and acquiretheir positions cultural surplus. The environment'sproductive
throughpoliticaltiesto theapexof theregionalhier- potentialclearlylimitsthenumberof followersthat
archy. The regional chief often delegates local any chief can attractand retain.As Brumfielsug-
authorityto highly rankedkin, therebypromoting gests,
local allegiance(i.e., stability)andremovingpoten- the successof factionleadersis partlydeter-
tial rivals to more peripherallocales (Anderson minedby local resourceproductivity.... For
1994b;Beattie 1960). This particularcombination example,underconditionsof low agricultural
of factors-a regional chief who delegates local intensification, factionleaderswill do best in
areas...wherea largefollowingcan gatherto
authority,and the delegationof such authorityto
kinsmen-leads to boththeemergenceof a regional enjoy the benefits of factionalmembership
withoutincurringthe costs of intensifiedsub-
aristocracyand the disenfranchisementof com- sistenceeffort[1994:7].
munitiesfromlocal leadership(Earle1978). Con-
flictsmayemergebetweenregionalandlocal-level Apical hierarchiesmay developin the absence
chiefs,butaretypicallydueto statusrivalrieswithin of either agriculturalintensification or circum-
the polity,ratherthanresistanceto the process of scribedconditionsif regionalpopulationdensityis
consolidation.Local competition,or resistanceto low relativeto environmentalproductivityduring
consolidation,is less effectivein apicalhierarchies; the early stages of polity formation. To achieve
chiefdoms structuredby such hierarchiesare for- regionalconsolidationunderconditionssimilarto
mal institutionswith political, economic, and rit- those in the MississippianSoutheast,local chiefs
mustdrawandretainenoughfollowersfromcom- Chiefdom Variability

peting chiefs to significantlyunderminecommu- in the Mississippian Southeast
nity-level resistance. For apical hierarchies to Explainingvariationamong Mississippianchief-
emerge,this underminingof local resistance(i.e., doms has become a centralaim for archaeologists
local competition)mustbe overwhelming.Apical in the eastern United States (Anderson 1994a,
hierarchiesarethereforemorelikely to arisein set- 1996b;BarkerandPauketat1992;Blitz 1993, 1999;
tings thatpermitthe majorityof a region's popu- Brown1996;DePratter1991;Emerson1997;Hally
lationto coalesce, if for no morethantwo or three 1993, 1996; Hudson 1988; King 2001; Knight
generations,arounda single chief or factionleader 1990; Knightand Steponaitis1998; Milner 1998;
in a richlocale suitablefor surplusproduction(Mil- Milnerand Schroeder1999; Muller 1997; Pauke-
ner 1998:166-169). This conditionis morereadily tat 1994; Peebles and Kus 1977; Peregrine1992;
met if regionalpopulationdensity is low relative Scarry1996,1999; Smith 1978a,1990;Steponaitis
to environmentalproductivity:local chiefs in areas 1978, 1991;Welch 1991;Widmer1988;Williams
with high population density will be unable to and Shapiro1990). Due to this extensivebody of
attractenoughfollowersto successfullyovercome research, Careiro (1998:182) suggests that the
competingchiefs if availableresourcesare insuf- Mississippian Southeast has actually surpassed
ficientto allow an adequateaggregationof people. Polynesia as the region of the world where chief-
Particularhistoricaland ecological settings may doms standout most prominently.Following the
thus createan inverserelationshipbetween popu- quantitativemodels offeredby Steponaitis(1978),
lation density and the stabilityof regionalhierar- Wright (1984), and Anderson (e.g., 1994a), the
chies (e.g., Fortes and Evans-Pritchard 1940; hierarchicalvariationamongMississippianchief-
McIntosh 1999; Netting 1990; contra Carneiro doms has usuallybeen subsumedwithintwo cate-
1981;Harris1968;Service 1970;Stevenson1968). gories: simple chiefdom and complex chiefdom.
Apical hierarchies, once entrenched, may be Before proceedingwith a furtherconsiderationof
markedby populationdispersalawayfromthepri- the proposedapical-constituentmodel, I will first
mary center and the foundingof secondarylocal providea moredetailedexplicationof the simple-
centers. complex dichotomyin orderto evaluateits effec-
To thispointI haveaddressedhow the dynamic tiveness in dealing with hierarchicalvariability
relationshipbetween two opposing processes- amongMississippianchiefdoms.
regionalconsolidationandlocalcompetition-may
result in two distincttypes of scalarhierarchyin Simple Chiefdomsand ComplexChiefdoms
chiefdoms-constituent hierarchies and apical Mississippianarchaeologistscurrentlyemphasize
hierarchies.I suggestthatthe institutionalstability the simple and complex chiefdom typology ini-
characteristicof apical hierarchiesgenerallypro- tially proposed by Wright (1984) and later
vides a competitive advantage over chiefdoms expanded upon by Anderson (1994a, 1996a,
structuredby volatile,short-livedconstituenthier- 1996b). This typology is founded upon two
archies. Apical hierarchies, however, need not premises:(1) chiefdomsaredefinedby theregional
evolveoutofconstituenthierarchies.Instead,either integrationof multiplecommunities(distinguish-
set of scalarrelationsmay emergefrom a regional ing it from Steponaitis's[1978] model), and (2)
networkof competing,community-levelchiefs;the much of the variationamong chiefdomsis linked
formof hierarchythatemergeswithina given set- to quantitativevariationin the numberof levels of
ting is due to particularhistoricaland ecological controlhierarchy(distinguishingit fromthe qual-
circumstancesaffecting the relationshipbetween itativeEarle[1978] model). Simplechiefdomsare
regionalconsolidationandlocalcompetition.Hav- markedby a single level of administrative,control
ing groundedmy theoreticalargumentwithin a hierarchy above the local community,while com-
comparativeframework,I will turnnow to consider plex chiefdoms are characterizedby at least two
the applicabilityof this argumentin studyingvari- such levels of multicommunityintegration.Fur-
ation among late prehistoricMississippianchief- thermore,the model proposesthat administrative
doms of the AmericanSoutheast. levels withina given regionwill periodicallyfluc-
3km
6~1g-
O Center
O Village
* Hamlet/Farmstead
D
,
Figure 3. The Powers phase settlement pattern (after O'Brien and Krakker 2001:78).
tuate,or cycle, between one and two levels above cussion on the natureof Cahokia'sregionalpolit-
thelocalcommunity(Anderson1994a:9).Complex ical hierarchy).If Mississippianchiefdomsexhib-
chiefdomsthusemergeout of a regionalmatrixof ited little variabilityin the number of levels of
simple chiefdoms, persist for a relatively short multicommunity integration, then the Wright-
period, then fragmentand collapse, cycling back Andersonmodel cannotcapturethe kindof varia-
into a configurationof simple chiefdoms. tion among Mississippian chiefdoms, most of
While the Wright-Anderson typology does which would meet the criteriafor simple chief-
addressa specificrangeof variabilityin thoseparts doms.A comparisonof integrativehierarchiesasso-
of theworldwherechiefdomswereclearlymarked ciated with Powers Fort and Moundville-two
by two levels of integrationabove the local com- well-documentedMississippianchiefdoms often
munity(e.g., Polynesianchiefdomssuchas Hawaii, characterizedas simple and complex chiefdoms,
the Society Islands,and Tonga [e.g., Earle 1978; respectively(e.g., Scarry1999)-will illustratethis
Goldman 1970; Kirch 1984; Oliver 1974]), there point.
is a lack of empiricalevidence thatMississippian PowersFortwasthecentraltownof a short-lived
chiefdoms were ever characterizedby more than (A.D. 1250-1400) Mississippian chiefdom situ-
one level of multicommunityhierarchy (Smith ated along a series of sand ridges in southeastern
1978a:496-498; with the possible exception of Missouri (Price 1978). The Powers phase settle-
Cahokia:see e.g., Emerson[1997], Milner[1998], mentpatternconsistedof four size classes (Figure
Muller[1997], andPauketat[1994] for recentdis- 3). PowersFort,at4.6 ha, was the largestsite in the
Black Warrior River
Projected palisade line
150m
Figure 4. Schematic map of the Moundville site (after Knight and Steponaitis 1998:3).
regionandcontainedfourmounds,a centralplaza, integratedat the multicommunitylevel by Powers

a residentialzone, and was surroundedby fortifi- Fort.Using theWright-Andersonmodel,the Pow-
cations. Paired nonmoundvillages occupied the ers Fortchiefdomwould be identifiedas a simple
second tier in the site-size hierarchyand can be chiefdomwith only a singlelevel of administrative
groupedinto two classes on the basis of site size. hierarchyabove the local community.
Smallvillagesmeasuringapproximately.6 hawere Moundville,locatedon theBlackWarriorRiver
often pairedwith largevillages coveringabout1.0 in west-centralAlabama,is one of the mostelabo-
ha (Price 1978:213-214). Eachvillage type seems rateceremonialcenterseverconstructedin theMis-
to havebeen associatedwithdifferentkindsof cor- sissippianSoutheast.At its greatestextent,the site
porateactivities,suggestingthateach village pair covered75 ha and boasted29 mounds(Figure4).
constituted a single community (Price Recent archaeologicalresearchhas revealedthat
1978:227-228). The thirdlevel in the size hierar- therewere no nucleatedsettlementson the Black
chy consisted of small hamlets (.1 ha), while the WarriorRiver duringthe height of Moundville's
fourthlevel consistedof limited-activitysites.The prominence.FromA.D. 1300-1450, most people
PowersFortchiefdomappearsto havehadtwo lev- living in theMoundvillepolityoccupieddispersed
els of integration:family-level households, dis- farmsteadsand smallhamletsthatoften measured
persed as hamlets or nucleatedin villages, were less than .05 ha (Welch 1998:138). Likewise,the
integratedatthecommunitylevelby pairedvillages secondarymound centers lacked associated vil-
withcorporatezones;individualcommunitieswere lages and were markedinsteadby small residen-
650 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 4, 2003
-' , - Edge of floodplain
e Multi-mound site
O Single mound site
* Hamlet/Farmstead
5km
I
I, I *
It ft
Stephens Bluff O
Figure 5. The central Black Warrior Valley (after Welch 1998:137).
tialzones.TherelativelylargeWhitesite ( Ha 7/8), munitylevel by Moundville,itself characterized by

for example, covered only about .57 hectares a relativelysmall residentpopulationof elites and
(Welch1991:50).Moundvilleappearsto havebeen theirretainers.Moundville'schiefdom,like Pow-
markedby only one level of regional hierarchy. ers Fort,had only one level of regionalhierarchy
Family-level households, occupying dispersed above the local community. Using the Wright-
farmsteadsor hamlets,were integratedat the local Andersonmodel, Moundvillewould also be iden-
level by secondarysingle-moundcenters (Figure tified as a simple chiefdom.
5), each of which measuredless than 1.0 ha and While MoundvilleandPowers Fortexhibitlit-
was likely occupiedby a smallresidentpopulation tle quantitativevariationin the numberof levels of
(Bozeman1982;KnightandSteponaitis1998;Mis- administrative hierarchy, most archaeologists
tovich1995;Welch1991);eachof theminormound wouldagreethatthese chiefdomsrepresentdiffer-
centers,that is, integrateda single large commu- ent scales of internalpowerandcomplexity.How-
nity of dispersedfarmsteadsand hamlets.Minor ever,emphasison controlhierarchieshas led to a
mound centers were integratedat the multicom- unidirectional,top-downview of the powerstruc-
turesin chiefdoms,whereinthe power of a chief- forcetheemergentaristocracy.Thegroup-building

dom can be quantitativelymeasuredby the num- (i.e., group-oriented[Renfrew1974] or corporate
berof levels of regionalhierarchy;one corollaryof [Blantonet al. 1996])activitieslinkedto constituent
this perspectiveis that chiefdoms with the same hierarchiesand persuasiveaggregationmanifest
numberof hierarchicallevels shouldexhibitequiv- archaeologicalpatterningdistinctfromthe group-
alent scales of internalcomplexity.Mississippian distancing(i.e., individualizing[Renfrew1974] or
data indicate that this quantitativeperspectiveis network[Blantonet al. 1996])strategiesassociated
insufficientin areaswhere chiefdomswith differ- with institutionallyentrenchedapical hierarchies.
ent scales of complexity,such as Moundvilleand In the following sections, I will use the develop-
PowersFort,exhibitlittlevariabilityin the number mentaltrajectoriesof the MoundvilleandPowers
of levels of hierarchy.I suggest that a qualitative Fortchiefdoms to considerhow the materialcor-
approachfocused on scalarhierarchies-specifi- relatesof apicalandconstituenthierarchiesmaybe
cally the apical-constituentmodel-provides a distinguishedin the MississippianSoutheast.
more suitablelens throughwhich to view hierar- Moundville.Moundvilleseemsto havefirstbeen
chical variationamongMississippianchiefdoms. occupiedaboutA.D. 1050, when small,dispersed
settlementswere located throughoutthe central
Apical and ConstituentHierarchies in the BlackWarrior Valley;theMoundvilleterrace,how-
Mississippian Southeast ever,had the most extensiveknownconcentration
Theapical-constituent modelproposesthatregional of occupationaldebris.Archaeologicalevidence
consolidationwill proceedby persuasiveaggrega- suggests that regional populationdensity within
tion in settings with relatively open residential the highly productiveBlack WarriorValley(a 15-
mobility. Local chiefs or faction leaders will km sectionwithMoundvilleatits centerholdsmore
attemptto persuasively draw enough followers than14,000 hectaresof arableland)was relatively
away from rivalchiefs to significantlyundermine low prior to this time-considerably lower, for
local resistance,while simultaneouslyexpanding example,thanin theneighboringTombigbeewater-
their own political and economic power.Persua- shed (Knightand Steponaitis1998:12). Only two
sive aggregationis thus a strategyassociatedwith knownmoundswerebuiltin theBlackWarriorVal-
episodes of intensecompetitionbetweencommu- ley from A.D. 1050-1200, both of which are
nity-level chiefs and is usually pervasivein con- located on the Moundville terrace. Knight and
stituenthierarchies.This strategymay cease to be Steponaitissuggest that these mounds, although
effective or necessarygiven: (1) the collapse of a small, represent"a substantiallabor investment
regionalpoliticaleconomybased upon staplesur- [and]can be viewed ... as tangibletestamentsto
plus production,or (2) the emergenceof an apical leadership"(1998:13). Givenboth the likely exis-
hierarchy.In the first scenario,naturalcalamities tence of othercommunity-levelchiefs within the
suchas droughtandfloodingmaydrasticallylower valley and the lack of other mounds built during
agriculturalproductivity,makingtheproductionof this period, they suggest that Moundville had
surplusunfeasibleandprecipitatingthecollapseof alreadyassumeda regionalstatusas "primusinter
political economies based upon surplusproduc- pares"(1998:13).
tion.Persuasiveaggregationwill cease to be a use- The nature of the Moundville settlement
ful strategyunder such conditions:there is little changeddramaticallyfromA.D. 1200 to 1250, as
economicbenefitto attractingadditionalfollowers whathadpreviouslybeen a dispersedandunstruc-
(i.e., labor),andmostlocal environmentswouldbe turedcommunityalongthebanksof theBlackWar-
unableto supportthe additionalpopulation. riorRiverbecame a plannedandhighly structured
In the second scenario,persuasiveaggregation town. All major mounds were begun duringthis
may be used to maintaina regionalpoliticalhier- time, and public and domestic architecturewere
archy for as long as local autonomyis viable. If carefully arrangedarounda large centralplaza.
local autonomyis undermined,as in therise of api- Knight and Steponaitissuggest that the arrange-
cal hierarchies,group-buildingactivitieslinkedto ment of moundsbuilt in this period can be inter-
persuasive aggregation may be abandoned for pretedas a sociogram,"inwhich the placementof
group-distancing strategiesthatlegitimizeandrein- moundsaroundtheplazareflectsrankedstatusrela-
tionshipsamongkin groups"(1998:17). focused upon persuasive ritual practice and the

An immense palisadeenclosing the entire75- forging of a corporateidentity;prior to approxi-
ha settlementwas also builtat this time, andlarge
mately A.D. 1300, there is no iconographicevi-
numbers of people moved within its bastioned dence of an exclusive, elite-oriented ideology,
walls. Knight and Steponaitis(1998:15) estimate which Knight (1986:677) has associated with a
thatthe populationmay have grownto 1,000 peo- "warfare/cosmogonycomplex of sacra" in Mis-
ple.Althoughno othersettlementin theBlackWar- sissippianreligion.AlthoughMoundville'sarchi-
rior Valley was of a scale comparableto that of tecturalelaborationwas of a much granderscale
Moundville,the constructionof the defensivepal- than that of most Mississippiancenters, the site
isade suggeststhatlocal competitioncontinuedto itself was not,I suggest,qualitativelydifferentdur-
present a hindrance to Moundville's emerging ing this time. Thatis, Mississippianregionalcen-
hegemony. Economically, the acquisition of terswereusuallymarkedby mounds,palisades,and
imported raw materials increased significantly carefullyarrangedpublicanddomesticzones.After
throughoutthisperiod:mortuaryanalysisindicates A.D. 1300, however, the character of the
thatburialsfromthisperiodhavea higherpercapita Moundville polity changed dramatically once
frequencyof copper and shell goods than at any again, and it is this transformationthat illustrates
other time in Moundville's history (Knight and the differentscales of consolidationrepresentedby
Steponaitis1998:16).Also, as a resultof increased
apical and constituenthierarchiesin the Missis-
agriculturalproduction,maize now accountedfor sippianSoutheast.
65 percentof total dietarycalories,an increaseof Between A.D. 1250 and 1300, most of
25 percentfromthe previousperiod(Schoeninger Moundville'sresidentsabandonedtheregionalcen-
and Schurr1998:128). ter,while the defensivepalisadehadno rebuilding
During the time fromA.D. 1200-1250, I sug- episodes afterthis time. In addition,over half of
gest thatMoundville'slocal elites used a strategy
the earthenmoundsconstructedduringthe previ-
of persuasiveaggregation(emphasizingan inclu- ous periodceasedto be used by A.D. 1400, partic-
sive, corporateideology andgroup-buildingactiv- ularlythose moundsalong the southernperimeter
ities such as palisade and platform mound of the plaza.Moundvillebecamea necropolis,the
construction,as well as unrestricted regionalcenterof mortuaryritual,and was occu-
accessto exotic
rawmaterials)to drawa largeproportionof theval- piedby only a few elites andtheirretainers(Knight
ley's population to their community upon the and Steponaitis1998:18-19). Single-moundcen-
Moundville terrace.In the Mississippian South- ters were constructed north and south of the
east,platformmoundswereparticularlyimportant regional center, and presumablyserved as local
symbolsoftenassociatedwiththeforgingof group nodes in Moundville's administrativenetwork;
identity, and thus with strategies of persuasivethese small mound centers,all of which measure
aggregation (Hally 1996; Knight 1986, 1990; less thanone hectare,were probablyoccupiedby
Muller1997;Pauketat2000). Knightsuggeststhat individuals closely associated with the regional
these communal monumentswere one of three aristocracyatMoundville(e.g., KnightandStepon-
iconic families (i.e., "the set of sacra ... associ-
aitis 1998; Mistovich 1995; Welch 1991, 1998).
ated with a corresponding cult institution" Mostof thevalley'spopulationresidedin dispersed
[1986:676]) in Mississippianreligion: farmsteads,integratedinto local communitiesby
the single-moundcenters.Duringthis time, "there
Despite their size and communalderivation,
Mississippianplatformmoundsare no less is no sign of a nucleatedsettlementin the Black
.
sacra . . than are embossed copper plates, Warrior Valley"(KnightandSteponaitis1998:20).
engravedshell cups, or monolithicaxes . . . In additionto transformationsin the character
the symbolismof the earthenplatformis that of Moundvilleitself, the presenceof Moundville's
of aniconrepresentative of earth,manipulated
by periodicburialas a temporarymeans of aristocracybecame quite conspicuous by A.D.
achievingpurificationin the of
context a com- 1300, aboutthe same time thatthe settlementwas
munalriteof intensification[1986:678]. abandonedby most of its residents. Knight and
In these early periods,Moundville'sdominant Steponaitis note that "a chiefly cult symbolism
ideology seems to have been almost entirely became elaborated[with] certainburialsdecked
out with luxurygoods and costumerybearingthis elaboratedat the expenseof corporateidentityand

symbolism"(1998:17). These elite goods include ritual.Moundville'sleaders,in effect,drewenough
marineshell beads,coppergorgetsandear spools, followersto overcomethe threatof local competi-
notched stone paint pallets, galena crystals, and tion, and,certainlyby A.D. 1300, achieveda radi-
mineral-basedpigments;one adultmale, presum- cal institutionalrestructuring(Spencer1987:382).
ablya chief, was interredwithankletsandbracelets In light of these transformations, I suggestthatthe
of copper-coveredbeads, three sheet-coppergor- Moundvillechiefdomemergedduringthis time as
gets, a sheet-copperhairornamentheld by a bison a fully entrenchedapical hierarchy.The group-
hornpin, a pearlnecklace,an effigy amethystpen- buildingideology associatedwith a strategyof per-
dantcarvedin the formof a humanhead, and one suasive aggregation was replaced by a
of seven copper-bladedaxes known to have been group-distancing ideologythatreinforcedthepres-
recovered from the site (Knight and Steponaitis tige, or otherness,of the regionalaristocracy;this
1998:18).Significantly,all of theelaborate,chiefly segregationis indicatedboth by the movementof
burialsdate to the periodfrom A.D. 1300-1450. the masses out of the sacred center (see Eliade
Knightassociatesthese aristocraticburialdeposits 1959; Geertz 1980;Wheatley 1971 on exemplary
with the warfare/cosmogonycomplex of Missis- ceremonialcenters) and by the highly restricted
sippiansacra: (i.e., ascribed) accessibility of a cosmologically
the datasuggestthatits cultwas notnormally charged,ceremonialregalia(Helms 1998).
age graded,norsex bound,noroccupationally Equallysignificantwas the foundingof the sec-
specialized.... Nevertheless... theevidence ondary,single-moundcenters.Thereis no archae-
consistentlysuggests that membershipwas ological evidence of aggregation around
not communal,but insteadwas particularly
exclusive,consistentwitha single,genealogi- community-level leaders at any of these sites.
cally determinedcorporategroupof greater Rather,it appearsthat rural settlementwas also
magnitudethan an individualfamily. This characterizedby a segregationof elite from non-
points,then,to a typeof cultinstitutionwhose elite, suggestingthat,throughoutthis period,local
membershipwas ascribedsolely by virtueof chiefs residing at the secondary mound centers
belonging to privileged unilineal descent were moreactivelyinvolvedin maintainingstable
groups or clans [i.e., an aristocracy] relationswith the regional center at Moundville
[1986:680].
(i.e., with a more politicallyand rituallypowerful
Again, the appearanceof this cult complex at groupof elites) thanwithbuildingtheirown, com-
Moundville coincides with the abandonmentof petingfollowings througha strategyof persuasive
half of the mounds at the regional center.Com- aggregation.Furthermore, all of the secondarycen-
paringKnight'splatformmoundcomplexof sacra tershadbuta single mound,a patternthatindicates
with his warfare/cosmogonycomplex, it seems an effort by leaders at Moundville to regulate
clearthatthedominantideologyatMoundvillewas moundconstructionanduse elsewherewithinthe
transformedfrom the inclusive, group-building valley, and perhapsto ensurethat secondarycen-
rites of moundconstructionand use to the exclu- ters providedonly a modestreflectionof the cos-
sive, group-distancingdisplayof chieflycult para- mological forces made accessible at the regional
phernalia. centeritself.
The time from A.D. 1300-1450 representsa Ironically,this transformationmay have been
significant shift in the strategy pursued by the eventualundoingof Moundville'shegemony,
Moundville'sleaders.Thecivic-ceremonialcenter as power in the Black WarriorValley gradually
was abandonedby most of its residentpopulation, shiftedawayfromMoundville.By A.D. 1500,only
as were the palisade and many of the southern threemoundswere still being used at the regional
mounds,while secondarymoundcenterswerecon- center, and nucleatedvillages reappearedin the
structedto administerthe flow of laborandtribute valley; local leaders, that is, began to forge their
from the dispersedlocal communities.Mortuary own followings throughpersuasive aggregation.
dataindicatethataccessto exotic goods grewmore By dispersing and alienating their populace,
restricted,and thata new cult symbolismempha- Moundville's elite provideda stimulusfor local
sizing the status of specific individualsbecame rivalsto emerge and challengetheirmonopolyon
chiefly authorityin the region.In A.D. 1540, Her- 1983:256;Perttula1998:196-197). The nucleated
nando de Soto passed throughthe Black Warrior communities characteristicof the Powers phase
Valley (Hudsonet al. 1990). Writtenaccountsof mayhavedrawnpopulationsfromthe centralMis-
Soto's expeditionsuggestthata weakly integrated sissippi Valley and from the hills of the Eastern
chiefdom called Apafalayawas located along the Ozarks(Lynott1991:198),as well as fromEmer-
Black WarriorRiver;this polity included several gentMississippianpopulationsthatalreadyinhab-
small towns or communitiesand was headedby a ited the Western Lowlands region (Perttula
leaderof the same name (Knightand Steponaitis 1998:197).
1998:23).KnightandSteponaitissuggestthatthese In the late 1960s andearly 1970s, archaeologi-
Soto accountsdocumenta "nominallycentralized cal surveyin the Missourisection of the Western
political situation"(1998:24) within the valley, Lowlands located at least 80 sites with Powers
probablycenteredon the Moundvillesite. ByA.D. phase occupations(Price 1978; Price and Griffin
1600, however,all of the mound sites, including 1979:10);the distributionof these sites is largely
Moundvilleitself,wereunoccupied.Nucleatedvil- restrictedto eight sandyridges thatrise about4.6
lages dottedthe Black WarriorValley for another m above the low, surroundingswampland(Price
50 years, but by A.D. 1650 the entirevalley was 1978:209). Not coincidentally, the only well-
abandoned. drained soils suitable for farming are likewise
Inpresentingthisinterpretation of Moundville's restrictedto the sandyridges(Krakker2001; Price
trajectory, I am not suggestingthatanyregionhav- 1978:207).PowersFort,the civic-ceremonialcen-
ing both a high agriculturalpotentialand an opti- terof the Powersphase,is on the northernedge of
mum populationdensity will ultimatelygive rise BarfieldRidge,whichat 5 km long and 1.2to 2 km
to an apical hierarchy.On the contrary,when a wide is one of the largestsand ridges in the sur-
highlycentralizedpolitysuchas Moundvilledevel- veyedarea(Perttula1998:170).TennucleatedPow-
ops, leaders in nearbyareas may be deprivedof ers phase villages have been recordedin a radial
access to the very "tokens"they requireto attract patternthat arcs to the north, east, and south of
additionalfollowers (Blitz 1993:182; Steponaitis BarfieldRidge. Althoughthereis little patterning
1991:226). Regionalconsolidationmay therefore in the distributionof farmsteadssuch as Gypsy
be unfeasible in areasperipheralto those where Joint(Smith1978b),thesesmallsites seemto have
highly centralizedchiefdomsemerge.Chiefdoms been integratedat the communitylevel by nearby,
structuredby apicalhierarchiesmay, in fact, have nucleatedvillages.
constituentrelationswith weakerpolities in such The PowersFortsite covers approximately4.6
peripheralareas, as was probablythe case with ha and is markedby one large flat-toppedmound
Moundville and contemporaneous,single-com- andthreehemisphericalsecondarymoundsplaced
munity polities on the Tombigbee River (Blitz arounda centralplaza;largeresidentialareaswere
1993;JenkinsandKrause1986;Welch 1998:135). situatedaroundthe plaza (Price 1978:215).Most
Although an optimumpopulationdensity and a communitiesin thePowersFortpolityconsistedof
high agriculturalpotential clearly did not cause pairedlarge and small settlements.Largevillages
Moundville'sclimb to regionalprominence,they in a settlementpaircoveredabout 1.0 ha (e.g., the
did permitthe scale of its transformation. Snodgrasssite);smallvillagesmeasured.6 ha (e.g.,
Powers Fort. The Powers Fort polity emerged the Turnersite) and were sometimes associated
in the WesternLowlandsregion of southeastern with large cemeteriesthat may have servedboth
Missouriandwas spreadoutalonga clusterof sand villages in the settlementpair (Price 1978:216).
ridges in the Little Black River basin adjacentto Althoughthe Powers phase villages exhibit little
the OzarkEscarpment(Black 1979; Laffertyand convincingevidence of publicbuildings(O'Brien
Price 1996; Morse and Morse 1983: 256-262; 2001b), severalmay have had centralplazaareas.
O'Brien 2001a; Perttula1998; Price 1978; Price Price suggests thatpeople who lived in these vil-
andGriffin1979; Smith 1978b).Priorto the Pow- lages and their associatedfarmsteadswere rela-
ersphase(A.D. 1250-1400), peopleinhabitingthe tively autonomousof theregionalcenterat Powers
WesternLowlandsarealivedin smallvillages,dis- Fort:"while villages were tied into a system that
persedcamps,andhomesteads(MorseandMorse was integratedby PowersFort... populationson
eachmajorridge... weremoreorless autonomous nearestcompetitors,this was insufficientto create

and self-sufficient"(1978:228). a regional hegemony such as that instituted by
Thedevelopmentaltrajectoryof thePowersFort Moundville'saristocracy.This pattern,consisting
chiefdom manifests the expected archaeological of a nucleated,moundedsettlementapproximately
correlatesof a constituenthierarchy.The Powers two to threetimes largerthananyof its constituent
Fort chiefdom was a short-livedpolity that per- settlements(or settlementpairs),has been docu-
sisted for fewer than 100 years, or probablythree mented for other Mississippianchiefdoms (e.g.,
to four generations;I have noted that constituent Beck 1997;Hally 1993, 1996;Ham 1978;Jeffries
hierarchiestend to collapse after relativelybrief et al. 1996;Morse 1990) and is one of the clearest
periodsof time, usuallybecauselocal competition archaeologicalcorrelatesof constituenthierarchies
preventsrulesof chieflysuccessionfrombeingfor- in this partof the world.
malized at the regionallevel. Otheraspects of the
Powersphase settlementpatternalso suggest that Conclusions
local competitionhada moresignificantrole in the Chiefdomsemergeas multiplelocal communities
organization of this chiefdom than in the areintegratedintohierarchically organizedregional
Moundvillepolity'slaterphases.Powersphasevil- polities. This process of regionalconsolidationis
lages exhibit tight nucleationof domestic struc- tied to the emergenceof politicaleconomiesbased
tures (e.g., Price 1978:218-219), a patternthat upon formsof staplefinance,usuallyagricultural,
suggeststhatlocal-levelleaderswereactivelyusing that fund the institutionsof chiefship. Emergent
strategiesof persuasiveaggregationto competefor leadersmustexpandthese institutionsby increas-
followers.Also, Powersphasedataexhibitno mate- ing theiraccess to agriculturalsurplus,a goal that
rialindicatorsof statusdifferentiation,whetherone maybe achievedby eitherintensifyingagricultural
is comparing artifact classes between different technologiesor by attractingadditionalfollowers
houses in the same settlement,betweenhouses in to augmentsurplusproduction.The first strategy
different villages, or between burial contexts is usually associated with coercive expansion, a
(O'Brien 2001b:294-296). Rather, throughout form of regional consolidation that proceeds as
Powers phase times, leaders emphasized group- farmersbecome tied to theiragriculturalplots and
buildingactivities,manifestedin the construction their mobility is subsequently diminished; this
of platformandburialmoundsat PowersFortand developmentpermitslocal leadersto incorporate
in the nucleationof local communities;thereare, new communitiesthroughconquest.The second
in sum, no archaeological data to suggest that strategyis linkedto persuasiveaggregation,a form
group-distancingstrategiesever emerged during of consolidationthatproceedsas local-level lead-
the relativelyshortlife of the PowersFortpolity. ers compete to attractnew followers. Regardless
I suggestthatthe constituenthierarchycentered of whichformconsolidationtakes,localleadersand
at Powers Fort may have developedas leadersof theirconstituencies,to greaterorlesserdegrees,are
the smallercommunitiesceded a portionof their certainto resistincorporationandits concomitant
ritual authorityupwardto the leaders of Powers loss of autonomy.This resistance,or local compe-
Fort,as evidencedby the fact thatmoundbuilding tition, acts counter to regional consolidation.
took place exclusively at the regional center. Togethertheseprocessesstructureany chiefdom's
Although Powers Fort was clearly the seat of a multicommunityhierarchy.
chiefdom,it was onlythreetimeslargerthanitscon- Given the dynamicinterplaybetween regional
stituent,paired-villagecommunities;thisindicates consolidationandlocal competition,I suggestthat
a markedly different pattern than Moundville, administrativehierarchiesin chiefdoms take the
whichby A.D. 1200mayhavebeen as muchas 100 form of scalarhierarchiesratherthancontrolhier-
times largerthananycontemporaneouscommuni- archies:in the latter,decisionsmadeat higherlev-
ties along the Black WarriorRiver. While local els of integration affect the operation of lower
leadersatPowersFort-perhaps notcoincidentally levels, but not vice versa;in the former,decisions
situatedon one of the largestsandridgesin theLit- made at one level may affect the operationof any
tle Black Riverbasin were able to attracta resi- otherlevel. Scalarhierarchiesin chiefdomsmaybe
dent population more than double that of their structuredas eitherconstituenthierarchiesor api-
cal hierarchies.Local leadersin a constituenthier- tionof agriculturalsurplus,andthefoundingof sec-

archy cede a portion of their chiefly authority ondary centersto managedispersedlocal commu-
upwardto the regionalchief, if only duringperi- nities.
odic,ceremonialoccasions.Constituenthierarchies Apical hierarchies usually arise in settings
aremarkedby endemiccompetitionbetweenlocal where regional consolidationis pursuedthrough
leaders striving to attractnew followers and are coerciveexpansion;however,theymayalsoemerge
thereforecharacteristicof areaswhere consolida- throughpersuasiveaggregationif regionalpopu-
tion is accomplishedby persuasiveaggregation.In lationdensityis low relativeto environmentalpro-
apical hierarchies, the regional chief delegates ductivity during the early stages of polity
authoritydownwardto community-levelleaders. formation.Of course,noteverysettinghavingthese
Localleadersacquiretheirpositionsthroughaccess conditionswill witnessthe emergenceof an apical
to the regionalchief ratherthandirectlyfrom the hierarchy(Steponaitis1991). Rather,these social
communities they administer.This process con- andecological conditionsserve as framingfactors
tributesto the emergenceof regionalaristocracies thatofferlocal-levelchiefs an opportunityto over-
thatmustbe legitimizedthroughgroup-distancing whelmrivalchiefsby drawingmostof theirregion's
ideologies; these group-distancingideologies and populationto a single locale. The developmentof
theirmaterialcorrelatesmay quicklysupplantthe the Moundville chiefdom illustrateshow apical
group-buildingideologiesthatarecharacteristicof hierarchiesmay emerge in settingswhere consol-
less-centralizedconstituenthierarchies. idationis achievedthroughpersuasiveaggregation.
Clearly, any specific action through which a Duringthe time fromA.D. 1200-1250, local lead-
leaderdelegatesadministrativepower downward, ers at Moundvilleused elements of an inclusive,
or throughwhich otherscede power upward,will corporateideologyto drawa substantialproportion
lack archaeologicalvisibility.As I have demon- of the BlackWarriorRiver'spopulaceto theircom-
stratedin this article,however,such actionsdo not munity upon the Moundville terrace.The Black
takeplacein historical-processual vacuums.Rather, Warriorhad a lower Late Woodlandpopulation
actions such as these takeplace in social contexts densitythanneighboringriverssuchas theTombig-
marked by long-term patterning.Each of these bee, thoughthese nearbyriversenjoyed similarly
means of structuringadministrativepower-dele- high productivepotentials;given how persuasive
gating it downwardor ceding it upward-is char- aggregationunfolds, I suggest that local leaders
acteristicof a differentformof regionalhierarchy, alongthe BlackWarriorRiverhada greateroppor-
each of which emerges underdistinct social and tunityto coalescetheirvalley'spopulationthandid
ecological settings.Apical and constituenthierar- local leadersin nearbyrivervalleys.
chies, far from indistinguishablein the archaeo- The EarlyMississippiancoalescence achieved
logical record, each manifest different material by emergentelites at Moundvillewas markedby
correlatesthathavegreatarchaeologicalvisibility. the rapidconstructionof featuresthattypify most
Under conditionssuch as those of the Mississip- Mississippiantowns,includingplatformandmor-
pian Southeast,constituenthierarchiesarecharac- tuarymounds,a centralplaza, and a palisadethat
terizedby group-buildingstrategiesthat promote enclosed the settlement.Unlike most Mississip-
persuasive aggregation:these include nucleated pian towns, however,many of Moundville'sfoci
towns and villages, corporatelabor projects,and of corporateideology were abandonedwithin 50
communalmortuaryfacilities.The rise of an api- years of theirconstruction.By A.D. 1300 most of
cal hierarchy,on the otherhand, is characterized Moundville's inhabitantshad moved away from
by a radicalrestructuringof social relationsin the theregionalcenterto occupysmallfarmsteadsscat-
polity (i.e., the emergence of a regional aristoc- teredthroughoutthe valley;these farmsteadswere
racy)thatrequiresmateriallegitimationthroughan integratedintothe Moundvillepolityby small sin-
emphasison group-distancingstrategiesandactiv- gle-moundsites,andMoundvilleitself becamethe
ities: these include restrictedaccess to the sacred regional center of mortuaryritual.At this same
centerand to culturallyspecificiconographicele- time, Moundville's elites began to distinguish
mentsmaterializedin exotic media,the transferof themselvesfromtheirfollowerswithmaterialsym-
laborfromcorporateprojectsto increasedproduc- bols of aristocracy,or otherness.The timing and
distributionof these symbols, together with the on the basis of multicommunityintegration,then

emptying of the sacred center, suggest that Mississippianchiefdomsexhibitlittle variationin
Moundville's leaders achieved a radical restruc- the numberof levels in theiradministrativehierar-
turingof the polity.I suggest thatone key feature chies, and that the quantitative dichotomies
of this restructuringwas the foundingof an apical betweensimpleandcomplexchiefdomsareof less
hierarchythat likely persistedfor more than two aid in exploringthe rangeof variationamongMis-
centuries. sissippian chiefdoms than among chiefdoms in
The emergenceof the PowersFortpolity illus- otherpartsof the world. I suggest thatthe apical-
tratesa trajectorythatis moretypicalof chiefdoms constituentmodel addresses a kind of variation
consolidatedthroughstrategiesof persuasiveaggre- with greater applicability to the Mississippian
gation. The PowersFortchiefdom emergedin an Southeast,andthatthisparticularkindof variation
ecological settingwherethe best-drained,agricul- has significantcross-culturalapplicability,as well.
turallyproductivesoils were restrictedto a series Itis hopedthatthismodelmayproducefruitfulnew
of relativelysmall sandridges;in addition,the dis- avenues in studying the structuresof chiefdoms
tributionof Powers phase villages suggests that andin illuminatingthe dynamicprocessesthrough
contemporaneouspopulationsmay have occupied which these structuresemerge.
eachridge.Theseconditions,takentogether,would
havemadeit verydifficultforanylocalchiefto have Acknowledgments.First, I would like to acknowledge the
drawna majorityof the Powersphase population generosity of James Brown, Timothy Earle, and Vernon
to a single community,as appearsto havebeen the Knight, Jr. toward helping me shape this article, from its
case at Moundville.Rather,leadersat PowersFort beginning to its end. I would also like to thank Richard
Krause, David Moore, Gil Stein, Michael O'Brien, Charles
achieved a short-lived constituent hierarchyby Spencer,David Anderson, CharlesStanish, TimothyKohler,
drawinga residentpopulationapproximatelythree and threeanonymousreviewersfor insightful commentsand
times thatof any neighboring,pairedsettlements. suggestions. Douglas Bolender,ChristopherRodning,Virgil
Like most Mississippian towns, including Beasley, Elizabeth Klarich, Andrew Roddick, Aimee
Plourde,MatthewBandy, and Gail Eby have read and com-
Moundville in its early, nucleatedconfiguration,
mented on different drafts of the article and have shown
Powers Fort was markedby platformand mortu- great patience over the past few years in allowing me to
ary mounds, a centralplaza, and a palisade that change the topic of innumerableconversationsto chiefdoms;
enclosed the settlement.That these architectural thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas. Pedro Diaz
featurescharacteristic of a group-building del Rio kindly translated the abstract into Spanish. Final
ideology
were never supplantedby the materialcorrelates responsibility for the contents of the article is, of course,
mine alone.
of a group-distancingideology indicatesthatlead-
ers of the PowersFortcommunityattaineda less- References Cited
stableformof regionalhierarchythanthatattained Anderson,D. G.
by Moundville'selites. 1994a TheSavannahRiverChiefdoms:PoliticalChangein
In this paper, I have proposed a model that the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama
Press,Tuscaloosa.
addressesthe mannerin which chiefly authorityis 1994b FactionalCompetitionandthePoliticalEvolutionof
negotiatedbetweenthe apicalandconstituentele- Mississippian Chiefdoms in the SoutheasternUnited
ments of a chiefdom'sregionalhierarchy,as well States. In Factional Competitionand Political Develop-
ment in the New World,editedby E. M. Brumfieland J.
as the processes that structuredifferentmodes of W. Fox, pp. 61-76. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cam-
hierarchy.The model is not a chiefdomtypology, bridge.
in thatit seeks to examinea particularrangeof vari- 1996a Chiefly Cycling Behavior and Large-ScaleAban-
donmentsas Viewed from the SavannahRiverBasin. In
ability among chiefdoms, recognizing that other Political Structureand Changein the PrehistoricSouth-
kinds of variationexist and should be elaborated easternUnitedStates,editedby J. F. Scarry,pp. 150-191.
Universityof FloridaPress,Gainesville.
throughdifferentmodels. As such, the proposed 1996b Fluctuationsbetween Simple and ComplexChief-
apical-constituentmodelis not intendedto replace doms:Cycling in the LatePrehistoricSoutheast.In Polit-
quantitativemodels foundedupon variablessuch ical Structureand Changein thePrehistoricSoutheastern
as thenumberof levels of chieflyoffice orthenum- UnitedStates, edited by J. F Scarry,pp. 231-252. Uni-
versityof FloridaPress, Gainesville.
ber of levels of regionaladministrativehierarchy. Arnold,J. E.
I do suggest,however,thatif we definechiefdoms 1996 OrganizationalTransformations:Power and Labor
among ComplexHunter-Gatherers and OtherIntermedi- 1995 Heterarchyand the Analysis of Complex Societies.
ate Societies. In EmergentComplexity:TheEvolutionof In Heterarchyand the Analysis of ComplexSocieties,
IntermediateSocieties, editedby J. E. Arnold,pp. 59-73. editedby R. M. Ehrenreich,C. L. Crumley,andJ. E. Levy,
InternationalMonographsin Prehistory,Ann Arbor. pp. 1-6. ArchaeologicalPapersof the AmericanAnthro-
Barker,A. W., andT. R. Pauketat(editors) pological AssociationNo. 6. Washington,D.C.
1992 Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the D'Altroy,T., andT. K. Earle
Native Elites of SoutheasternNorth America. Archaeo- 1985 Staple Finance,WealthFinance, and Storagein the
logical Papersof the AmericanAnthropologicalAssocia- Inca Political Economy. Current Anthropology
tion Number3, Washington,D.C. 26:187-206.
Beattie,J. DePratter,C. B.
1960 Bunyoro:An African Kingdom.Holt, Rinehart,and 1991 LatePrehistoricandEarlyHistoricChiefdomsin the
Winston,New York. SoutheasternUnitedStates. GarlandPress,New York.
Beck, R. A., Jr. Drennan,R. D.
1997 The BurkePhase:Late PrehistoricSettlementsin the 1991 Pre-HispanicChiefdom Trajectoriesin Mesoamer-
UpperCatawbaRiverValley,NorthCarolina.Unpublished ica, CentralAmerica, and NorthernSouth America. In
Master'sthesis, Departmentof Anthropology,University Chiefdoms:Power,Economy,and Ideology,edited by T.
of Alabama,Tuscaloosa. K. Earle,pp.263-287. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cam-
Black, T. K., III bridge.
1979 The Biological and Social Analyses of a Mississip- Drennan,R. D., andC. A. Uribe
pian Cemeteryfrom SoutheastMissouri:TheTurnerSite, 1987 Introduction.In Chiefdomsin theAmericas,editedby
23BU21A. Museum of Anthropology,Anthropological R. D. DrennanandC.A. Uribe,pp. vii-xii. UniversityPress
PapersNo. 68. Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor. of America,Lanham,Maryland.
Blanton,R. E., G. M. Feinman,S. A. Kowalewski,and P. N. Earle,T. K.
Peregrine 1977 A Reappraisalof Redistribution:ComplexHawaiian
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Chiefdoms.In ExchangeSystemsin Prehistory,editedby
Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson, pp. 213-229. Academic
37:1-14. Press, New York.
Blitz, J. H. 1978 Economic and Social Organizationof a Complex
1993 Ancient Chiefdomsof the Tombigbee.Universityof Chiefdom:TheHaleleaDistrict,Kaua'i,Hawaii.Museum
AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa. of AnthropologyAnthropologicalPapersNo. 63. Univer-
1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion sity of Michigan,AnnArbor.
Process.AmericanAntiquity64:577-592. 1987 ChiefdomsinArchaeologicalandEthnohistorical Per-
Bozeman,T. K. spective.AnnualReviewofAnthropology16:279-308.
1982 MoundvillePhaseCommunitiesin theBlackWarrior 1991 The Evolutionof Chiefdoms.In Chiefdoms:Power,
River Valley,Alabama.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Economy,and Ideology,edited by T. K. Earle,pp. 1-15.
Departmentof Anthropology,University of California, CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
SantaBarbara. 1997 How ChiefsCometo Power: ThePoliticalEconomy
Brown,J. A. in Prehistory.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford.
1996 The Spiro CeremonialCenter:TheArchaeologyof Eliade,M.
ArkansasValleyCaddoanCulturein Eastern Oklahoma. 1959 TheSacredand the Profane:TheNatureof Religion.
Memoirs of the Museum of AnthropologyNo. 29. Uni- Harcourt,BraceandWorld,New York.
versityof Michigan,Ann Arbor. Emerson,T. E.
Brumfiel,E. M. 1997 Cahokiaand the Archaeologyof Power. University
1994 FactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentin of AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
the New World:An Introduction.In Factional Competi- Feinman,G. M.
tion and Political Developmentin the New World,edited 1991 Demography,Surplus,and Inequality:EarlyPoliti-
by E. M. Brumfieland J. W. Fox, pp. 3-13. Cambridge cal Formationsin HighlandMesoamerica.In Chiefdoms:
UniversityPress, Cambridge. Power,Economy,and Ideology, editedby T. K. Earle,pp.
Careiro, R. L. 229-262. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1981 The Chiefdomas Precursorof the State.In TheTran- Feinman,G. M., andJ. E. Neitzel
sition to Statehoodin the New World,editedby G. Jones 1984 Too ManyTypes:An Overviewof SedentaryPrestate
and R. Kautz, pp. 39-79. CambridgeUniversity Press, Societies in theAmericas.In AdvancesinArchaeological
Cambridge. Methodand Theory7, editedby M. Schiffer,pp. 39-102.
1990 Chiefdom-LevelWarfareas Exemplifiedin Fiji and AcademicPress,New York.
the CaucaValley.In TheAnthropologyof War,edited by Fortes,M., andE. E. Evans-Pritchard
J. Haas,pp. 190-211. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cam- 1940 African Political Systems.OxfordUniversityPress,
bridge. London.
1998 Review of Mississippian Political Economy, by J. Geertz,C.
Muller.SoutheasternArchaeology17(2):182-183. 1980 Negara:TheTheatreStateinNineteenth-CenturyBali.
Clark,J. E., andM. Blake PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton.
1994 The Powerof Prestige:CompetitiveGenerosityand Gilman,A.
the Emergenceof RankSocieties in LowlandMesoamer- 1981 The Developmentof Social Stratificationin Bronze
ica. In Factional Competitionand PoliticalDevelopment Age Europe.CurrentAnthropology22:1-23.
in theNew World,editedby E. M. BrumfielandJ. W.Fox, Goldman,I.
pp. 17-30. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. 1970 AncientPolynesianSociety.TheUniversityof Chicago
Crumley,C. L. Press, Chicago.
Hally,D. J. gion. AmericanAntiquity51:675-687.

1993 The TerritorialSize of MississippianChiefdoms.In 1990 Social Organizationand the Evolutionof Hierarchy
Archaeologyof EasternNorthAmerica:Papersin Honor in SoutheasternChiefdoms.Journal of Anthropological
of StephenWilliams,editedby J.B. Stoltman,pp. 143-168. Research46:1-23.
MississippiDepartmentof ArchivesandHistory,Jackson, Knight,V. J., andV. P. Steponaitis
Mississippi. 1998 A New Historyof Moundville.InArchaeologyof the
1996 PlatformMoundConstructionand the Instabilityof MoundvilleChiefdom,edited by V. J. Knight and V. P.
Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Steponaitis,pp. 1-25. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Wash-
Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, ington,D.C.
edited by J. F. Scarry,pp. 92-127. Universityof Florida Krakker,J. J.
Press,Gainesville. 2001 ThePhysical-Environmental Contextof PowersPhase
Har, A. D. Settlements.In MississippianCommunityOrganization:
1978 MississippianSettlementPatternsin the CentralIlli- ThePowersPhase in SoutheasternMissouri,editedby M.
nois River Valley. In MississippianSettlementPatterns, J. O'Brien, pp. 55-76. KluwerAcademic/PlenumPub-
editedby B. D. Smith,pp.201-231. AcademicPress,New lishers,New York.
York. Lafferty,R. H., and J. E. Price
Harris,M. 1996 SoutheastMissouri.In Prehistoryof the CentralMis-
1968 TheRise of AnthropologicalTheory.Croswell,New sissippi Valley,edited by C. H. McNutt, pp. 1-46. Uni-
York. versityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Helms, M. W. Lynott,M. J.
1979 AncientPanama:Chiefsin Searchof Power.Univer- 1991 Identification of AttributeVariabilityin EmergentMis-
sity of TexasPress,Austin. sissippian and MississippianArrowpointsfrom South-
1998 Access to Origins:Affines,Ancestors,andAristocrats. easternMissouri.MidcontinentalJournalofArchaeology
Universityof TexasPress,Austin. 16:189-211.
Hodder,I. McIntosh,S. K.
1982 TheoreticalArchaeology:A ReactionaryView. In 1999 Pathwaysto Complexity:An AfricanPerspective.In
Symbolicand StructuralArchaeology,edited by I. Hod- Beyond Chiefdoms:Pathwaysto Complexityin Africa,
der,pp. 1-16. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. editedby S. K. McIntosh,pp. 1-30. CambridgeUniver-
Hudson,C. M. sity Press,Cambridge.
1988 A Spanish-CoosaAlliance in Sixteenth-Century
North Milner,G. R.
Georgia.GeorgiaHistorical Quarterly72:599-626. 1998 The CahokiaChiefdom:TheArchaeologyof a Mis-
Hudson,C. M., M. T. Smith,andC. B. DePratter sissippian Society. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Wash-
1990 The Herando De Soto Expedition:FromMabilato ington,D.C.
theMississippiRiver.In TownsandTemplesalongtheMis- Milner,G. R., and S. Schroeder
sissippi,editedby D. H. Dye andC. A. Cox, pp. 181-207. 1999 MississippianSociopoliticalSystems.In GreatTowns
Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa. and RegionalPolities in the PrehistoricAmericanSouth-
Jeffries,R. W., E. Breitburg,J. Flood, and C. M. Scarry west and Southeast,edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 95-108.
1996 MississippianAdaptationon the NorthernPeriphery: Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Settlement,Subsistence,and Interactionin the Cumber- Mistovich,T. S.
land Valley of Southeastern Kentucky. Southeastern 1995 Towardan Explanationof Variationin Moundville
Archaeology15(1):1-28. PhaseHouseholdsin the Black WarriorValley,Alabama.
Jenkins,N. J., and R. A. Krause InMississippianCommunitiesandHouseholds,editedby
1986 The TombigbeeWatershedin SoutheasternPrehis- J. D. RogersandB. D. Smith,pp. 156-180. Universityof
tory.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa. AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Johnson,A. W., andT. K. Earle Morse, D. F, andP.A. Morse
1987 TheEvolutionof HumanSocieties. StanfordUniver- 1983 Archaeologyof the CentralMississippiValley.Acad-
sity Press, Stanford. emic Press,New York.
Joyce,A. A. Morse,P.A.
2000 The Foundingof MonteAlban:SacredPropositions 1990 The ParkinSite and the ParkinPhase. In Townsand
andSocial Practices.InAgencyinArchaeology,editedby TemplesAlong the Mississippi,editedby D. H. Dye and
M. DobresandJ. Robb,pp.71-91. RoutledgePress,Lon- C. A. Cox, pp. 66-97. University of Alabama Press,
don. Tuscaloosa.
Junker,L. L. Muller,J.
1999 Raiding,Trading,and Feasting:ThePoliticalEcon- 1997 MississippianPoliticalEconomy.PlenumPress,New
omy of the Philippine Chiefdoms.Universityof Hawaii York.
Press,Honolulu. Netting,R.
King,A. 1990 Population, PermanentAgriculture, and Polities:
2001 Long-TermHistoriesof MississippianCenters:The Unpackingthe EvolutionaryPortmanteau.In TheEvolu-
DevelopmentSequenceof Etowahandits Comparisonto tion of PoliticalSystems,editedby S. Upham,pp. 21-61.
Moundville and Cahokia. Southeastern Archaeology CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
20(1):1-17. Oberg,K.
Kirch,P.V. 1955 Typesof Social Structureamongthe LowlandTribes
1984 The Evolutionof the Polynesian Chiefdoms.Cam- of Southand CentralAmerica.AmericanAnthropologist
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. 57:472-487.
Knight,V. J. O'Brien,M. J.
1986 The InstitutionalOrganizationof MississippianReli- 2001a ThePowersPhase:An Introduction. InMississippian
CommunityOrganization:The Powers Phase in South- 1999 Seeking and Keeping Power in Bunyoro-Kitara,
eastern Missouri, edited by M. J. O'Brien, pp. 1-18. Uganda.In Beyond Chiefdoms:Pathwaysto Complexity
KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers,New York. in Africa, edited by S. K. McIntosh,pp. 124-135. Cam-
2001b ConcludingRemarks.In MississippianCommunity bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Organization:The Powers Phase in SoutheasternMis- Sahlins,M. D.
souri, editedby M. J. O'Brien,pp. 293-300. KluwerAca- 1958 SocialStratificationin Polynesia.Universityof Wash-
demic/PlenumPublishers,New York. ingtonPress, Seattle.
O'Brien,M. J., andJ. J. Krakker Scarry,J. F.
2001 Powers Phase Settlementin the WesternLowlands. 1996 Stability and Change in the Apalachee Chiefdom:
In Mississippian CommunityOrganization:The Powers Centralization, andSocialReproduction.
Decentralization,
Phase in SoutheasternMissouri,editedby M. J. O'Brien, InPoliticalStructureand Changein thePrehistoricSouth-
pp. 77-98. Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers,New easternUnitedStates,editedby J. F Scarry,pp. 192-227.
York. Universityof FloridaPress,Gainesville.
Oliver,D. 1999 How GreatWerethe SoutheasternPolities?In Great
1974 AncientTahitianSociety.Universityof HawaiiPress, Townsand Regional Polities in the PrehistoricAmerican
Honolulu. SouthwestandSoutheast,editedby J.E. Neitzel,pp.59-74.
Pauketat,T. R. Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
1994 TheAscent of Chiefs.Universityof AlabamaPress, Schoeninger,M. J., and M. R. Schurr
Tuscaloosa. 1998 HumanSubsistenceat Moundville:The Stable-Iso-
2000 TheTragedyof theCommoners.InAgencyinArchae- tope Data. In Archaeologyof the MoundvilleChiefdom,
ology, edited by M. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-129. editedby V. J. KnightandV. P. Steponaitis,pp. 120-132.
RoutledgePress,London. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Peebles, C. S., and S. Kus Service,E. R.
1977 SomeArchaeologicalCorrelatesof RankedSocieties. 1962 PrimitiveSocial Organization:An EvolutionaryPer-
AmericanAntiquity42:421-448. spective.RandomHouse, New York.
Peregrine,P. N. 1970 CulturalEvolutionism:TheoryinPractice.Holt,Rine-
1992 MississippianEvolution:A World-SystemPerspec- hart,andWinston,New York.
tive. PrehistoryPress,Madison,Wisconsin. Smith,B. D.
Perttula,T. K. 1978a Variationin MississippianSettlementPatterns.In
1998 PowersFort:A MiddleMississippian-Period Fortified MississippianSettlementPatterns,editedby B. D. Smith,
Community in the Western Lowlands of Missouri. In pp. 479-503. Academic Press,New York.
ChangingPerspectiveson theArchaeologyof the Central 1978b PrehistoricPatternsof Human Behavior:A Case
MississippiRiver Valley,editedby M. J. O'Brien and R. Studyin theMississippiValley.AcademicPress,NewYork.
C. Dunnell, pp. 169-199. Universityof AlabamaPress, 1990 Introduction.In TheMississippianEmergence,edited
Tuscaloosa. by B. D. Smith, pp. 1-8. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,
Plog, F, and S. Upham Washington,D.C.
1983 TheAnalysisof PrehistoricPoliticalOrganization.In Spencer,C. S.
TheDevelopmentof PoliticalOrganizationinNativeNorth 1987 Rethinkingthe Chiefdom.In Chiefdomsin theAmer-
America,editedby E. Tooker,pp. 199-213. AmericanEth- icas,editedby R. D. DrennanandC.A. Uribe,pp.369-389.
nological Society,Washington,D.C. UniversityPress of America,Lanham,Maryland.
Price,J. E. 1990 On the Tempo and Mode of State Formation:Neo-
1978 The SettlementPatternsof the PowersPhase.InMis- evolutionismReconsidered.Journal of Anthropological
sissippianSettlementPatterns,editedby B. D. Smith,pp. Archaeology9(1):1-30.
201-231. AcademicPress,New York. 1994 FactionalAscendance, Dimensions of Leadership,
Price, J. E., andJ. B. Griffin andtheDevelopmentof Centralized Authority.InFactional
1979 TheSnodgrassSite of thePowersPhase of Southeast Competitionand PoliticalDevelopmentin theNewWorld,
Missouri. Museum of Anthropology,Anthropological editedby E. M. BrumfielandJ. W. Fox, pp. 31-43. Cam-
Papersno. 66. Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor. bridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
Redmond,E. M. Steponaitis,V. P.
1994 ExternalWarfareand the InternalPolitics of North- 1978 LocationTheory and Complex Chiefdoms:A Mis-
ern South American Tribes and Chiefdoms. Factional sissippianExample.InMississippianSettlementPatterns,
CompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentin theNew World, editedby B. D. Smith,pp.417454. AcademicPress,New
editedby E. M. BrumfielandJ. W. Fox, pp.44-54. Cam- York.
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. 1991 ContrastingPatternsof MississippianDevelopment.
1998 Introduction:The Dynamics of Chieftaincyand the In Chiefdoms:Power,Economy,and Ideology,editedby
Developmentof Chiefdoms.In Chiefdomsand Chieftaincy T K. Earle, pp. 193-228. CambridgeUniversityPress,
in theAmericas,editedby E. M. Redmond,pp. 1-17. Uni- Cambridge.
versityof FloridaPress,Gainesville. Stevenson,R. F.
Renfrew,C. 1968 Populationand Political Systemsin TropicalAfrica.
1974 Beyond a SubsistenceEconomy: The Evolution of ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.
Social Organizationin Prehistoric Europe. In Recon- Steward,J. H., and L. Faron
structing ComplexSocieties: An Archaeological Collo- 1959 NativePeoplesof SouthAmerica.McGraw-Hill,New
quium,editedby C. Moore,pp.69-95. Supplementto the York.
American School of OrientalResearch 20, Ann Arbor, Sturtevant,W. C.
Michigan. 1998 TupinambaChiefdoms? In Chiefdomsand Chief-
Robertshaw,P. taincy in the Americas, edited by E. M. Redmond,pp.
138-149. Universityof FloridaPress,Gainesville. Williams,J. M., and G. Shapiro(editors)

Upham,S. 1990 LamarArchaeology:MississippianChiefdomsin the
1987 A TheoreticalConsiderationof Middle Range Soci- Deep South.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
eties. In Chiefdomsin theAmericas,editedby R. D. Dren- Wright,H. T.
nan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 345-368. UniversityPress of 1977 Recent Researchon the Originof the State.Annual
America,Lanham,Maryland. ReviewofAnthropology6:379-397.
Welch,P. D. 1984 PrestatePoliticalFormations.In On theEvolutionof
1991 Moundville'sEconomy.Universityof AlabamaPress, ComplexSocieties:Essays in the Honorof HarryHoijer
Tuscaloosa. 1982, editedby T.K. Earle,pp.43-77. UndenaPress,Mal-
1998 OutlyingSites Withinthe MoundvilleChiefdom.In ibu, California.
Archaeologyof the MoundvilleChiefdom,edited by V. J. Yoffee,N.
Knight and V. P. Steponaitis,pp. 133-166. Smithsonian 1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or Safe Texts for the '90s). In
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C. ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets the Agenda?edited by
Wheatley,P. N. Yoffee andA. Sherratt,pp. 60-78. CambridgeUniver-
1971 ThePivotof theFourCorners:APreliminaryEnquiry sity Press, Cambridge
into the Origins and Characterof the Ancient Chinese
City.Aldine, Chicago.
Widmer,R. J.
1988 TheEvolutionof the Calusa.Universityof Alabama ReceivedAugust6, 2002; RevisedJanuary23, 2003;
Press,Tuscaloosa. AcceptedJanuary27, 2003.
MOCKERIESAND -
METAMORPHOSES
- I
OF AN AZTECGOD
Tezcatlipoca,Lordof the
SmokingMirror J>
by GuilhemOlivier
translatedbyMichel Besson
$75.00 Hardcover
LATEPALEOINDIAN
OCCUPATION OF THE
SOUTHERNROCKY MOUNTAINS :
EarlyHolocene ProjectilePointsand
Land Use in the High Country
byBonnieL. Pitblado
$45.00 Hardcover
I lsy' 0 00000 0

Chiefdoms 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chiefdoms 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chiefdoms 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society for American Archaeology

Consolidation and Hierarchy: Chiefdom Variability in the Mississippian Southeast

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Robin A. Beck, Jr.

AmericanAntiquity,68(4), 2003, pp. 641-661

hierarchyof anychiefdommaybe characterized by treatmentof the chiefdomas a redistributivesoci-

condition Politicaleconomy based on staple surplus production

condition Producermobility constrained Producermobility open

Figure 1. Regional consolidation.

ing the intensificationof agriculturaltechnologies strained,consolidationoften proceedsby coercive

Constituent Hierarchy Apical Hierarchy

rivals. Spanish documentsfrom the Philippines, that promotesstabilityand integration,and local

authorityupwardby acknowledging,if only dur- ual hegemonyover integratedlocal communities.

mustdrawandretainenoughfollowersfromcom- Chiefdom Variability

Black Warrior River

Projected palisade line

regionandcontainedfourmounds,a centralplaza, integratedat the multicommunitylevel by Powers

-' , - Edge of floodplain

O Single mound site

Figure 5. The central Black Warrior Valley (after Welch 1998:137).

tialzones.TherelativelylargeWhitesite ( Ha 7/8), munitylevel by Moundville,itself characterized by

turesin chiefdoms,whereinthe power of a chief- forcetheemergentaristocracy.Thegroup-building

tionshipsamongkin groups"(1998:17). focused upon persuasive ritual practice and the

out with luxurygoods and costumerybearingthis elaboratedat the expenseof corporateidentityand

eachmajorridge... weremoreorless autonomous nearestcompetitors,this was insufficientto create

cal hierarchies.Local leadersin a constituenthier- tionof agriculturalsurplus,andthefoundingof sec-

distributionof these symbols, together with the on the basis of multicommunityintegration,then

Hally,D. J. gion. AmericanAntiquity51:675-687.

138-149. Universityof FloridaPress,Gainesville. Williams,J. M., and G. Shapiro(editors)

You might also like