ABSTRACT
Marshall Sahlins has explained the evolution of chiefdoms in terms of technological advance and increasing economic productivity. Chiefdoms have a stronger economic base than tribes and can support much larger populations, which makes it possible for a more complex political system to develop. This is undoubtedly part of the story, but, as Timothy Earle explains in this article, there is more to it than that. Earle believes that the crucial factor underlying political evolution is the transformation of property rights. Very small-scale societies based on hunting and gathering typically have communal rights; there is no private ownership of resources, and no person can deprive any other of access to vital economic resources. This system seems to break down under conditions of population growth. The increasing pressure of population makes resources more scarce, and the typical reaction to such scarcity is more individualistic or selfish behavior. Land and other resources come to be restricted to particular kinship groups, a step in the direction of the privatization of ownership. As population pressure becomes more severe, competition over resources intensifies even more, and ultimately a full system of private property is established. Resources (land in particular) come to be controlled by a small section of the population, who are now in a position to determine how these resources should be used. Chiefdoms emerge from this situation. Chiefs are persons who have acquired great economic power; they have the capacity to compel others to pay various penalties for the use of “their” land. These penalties involve such things as the performance of labor services or the paying of tribute in the form of a percentage of the products they produce. Earle illustrates his argument by drawing on studies of chiefdoms in Hawaii and ancient Europe, but only his discussion of Hawaii is reproduced here.
