Priest-chief in feathered cape and headdress.
|
It is likely that part of the chief's responsibility was to redistribute
resources from areas with an abundance to areas in need. The effectiveness of
such economic redistribution, however, would depend on the scale and location
of the shortfalls. Localized flooding along upland fed streams that destroyed
crops and villages, for example, could be offset by the chief's ability to draw
on his and other's food stores. Similarly, a local leader or headman whose
village was beset by illness could be temporarily supported by the paramount
chief at Cahokia.
It is important to realize that any assistance provided by the chief reinforced his stature and worth. Public assistance was a measure of his largess and wealth. At the same time his help created indebtedness. Commoners gaining assistance in troubled times would be expected to repay the debt with tribute and honor to the chief. Thus, localized disasters may have actually improved the chief's position. |
Radar image of 1993 flood. |
More severe disasters effecting larger regions would make it difficult for the chief to offset all losses. This would seriously stress the political economy and structure of the chiefdom. Recovery from large-scale flooding like that seen in 1993, for example, would have required a more sophisticated political economy and greater social integration than exhibited by the Mississippian chiefdom (SCTY). In comparison, even modern states are seriously stressed when faced with crop failures and economic devestation brought on by such widespread natural disasters. |