The idea of a chiefdom is a term pertaining to a society which is more complex than those of band or tribal nature, but not quite as intricate as a state or civilization. A chiefdom is characterized by an existence of social inequality, and centralized authority. Anthropologists have tried to explain the development of chiefdoms, and have come to several different conclusions.  Elman Service claimed that chiefdoms emerged as a result of regional symbiosis, which states that chiefs have obtained their social and political power through their economic abilities of allocating and manipulating important resources. A second idea, presented by Timothy Earl, suggests that a chief's power was initially obtained by a small number of individuals who secured control over important resources by military force. To test these theories out, we will apply them to two chiefdoms we know today as the Samoans and the Trobriand Islanders. The Trobriand Islands are a cluster of islands found off the coast of Eastern New Guinea. The Samoans reside on a cluster of islands about 2300 miles south of the Hawaiian islands. Both societies are primarily ruled by chiefs, and are deemed Chiefdoms by anthropological standards. By observing their power structure, one can infer where the power may have derived from.
	The Samoans have a very complex and hierarchical power structure, consisting of many levels of power. Starting at a family level, the Matai run the household which consist largely of all family and those tied to it through various means. This entire unit is known as the Aiga. Above the matai are the various levels of chiefs, whose power and structure may vary depending on the size and setup of the village. The power of a chief spans over his entire village. Samoan chiefs enjoy a higher social class than all others in the society, as is reflected by their authority. However, their control over the people is not absolute, as their power consists largely of the Matai beneath them. A Samoan chief tends to work with other chiefs from nearby villages, as they often help one another in decision-making processes. The power of a Trobriand chief also spans primarily to his own village, although his power does see greater distances. Trobriand villages are divided into districts, governed by all the chiefs. Trobriand chiefs do compete against one another between villages, striving to prove that their own lineage is superior. This competition is done in the form of dancing, and more recently, in Cricket tournaments.
	Samoan chiefs hold prestigious social power, a lot of which is ritualistic. Most of the practical decision making is done by households as a whole, while the chief's role is to primarily lead them through largely preset rituals. The chief has the final say in disputes, but does not regularly practice direct authority over the people. Socially, a Samoan chief is of highest class, and will act as the leader for a social event. A Trobriand chief has similar power, as they are responsible for organizing and funding the great social events which occur during the days of “vacation” when less emphasis is placed on cultivating yams. Like Samoan chiefs, they too act as the leader in such events. Neither Samoan or Trobriand chiefs are directly involved in religion, although Samoan chiefs are required to have a very thorough understanding of it.
	Neither the Samoan or Trobriand chiefs have large economic power. Through their upper-class ties they often have a more abundant supply of resources, but they have little influence over the trade and flow of goods throughout their society. Trobriand economy is based largely on yams, which are grown by each individual family. The yams that are grown directly resemble wealth, and this aspect of the society is in almost no way at all affiliated with the chiefs. A Samoan chief cannot even decide how a family will use their land, or how it will be put to use, as such decisions fall within the family as a unit. In both societies, the economy is largely controlled by the families, rather than chiefs.
	Both Elman Service and Timothy Earl hypothesized that control of resources in a chiefdom is a chief's claim to power. In the Samoan and Trobriand societies, however, we observe that the chiefs in fact have very little affiliation with the economy, or the resources within them. Their roles primarily tend to favor social status, with some emphasis on social operation. Their purpose tends to lean primarily toward accountability. Therefore, in the cases of the Trobriand and Samoan societies, the hypotheses of both Service and Earl are incorrect.