Although the term, “chief,” has a long history of use in the English language designating persons of authority, the concept of a “chiefdom” is a relatively recent development in anthropology. Oberg (1955:477,484) seems to be the first to have used the term to describe regionally integrated tribes under higher authorities in the lowlands of South and Central America. In his definition, he emphasized the paramount chiefs who controlled districts and other villages via a hierarchy of subordinate village chiefs who had judicial powers to settle disputes, punish offenders, and requisition men and supplies for war (although they lacked permanent armies). Oberg also insisted that surpluses were necessary for political development (in particular chiefdoms) together with class stratification. Service (1962, 1971:134,144–5, 159), Fried (1967:117), and Sahlins (1958) picked up this concept and redefined it so that in their definitions the core function of the chiefdom organization, and the basis of chiefly power, became economic redistribution (see Figure 7.1).

There have been other views on the fundamental nature of chiefdoms so that defining chiefdoms can become contentious. Moreover, there is considerable variation between chiefly societies in size, power, privileges, and other characteristics. However, the concept of a level of sociopolitical complexity intermediate between transegalitarian societies (with independent villages) and full-blown states (with multilevel political hierarchies, standing armies, and urban centers) is a useful one for research purposes. From my perspective, I find definitions of chiefdoms that stay close to Oberg’s original concept to be the most useful for archaeologists (see H. Wright 1977, 1984; D. Anderson 1994a:5–6; Junker 1999:66).