Of Coastal Ecuador
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology Dissertation Examination Committee: David L. Browman, Chair Gwen Bennett Gayle Fritz Fiona Marshall T.R. Kidder Karen Stothert TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY AND CHANGE: SHELL ARTIFACT PRODUCTION AMONG THE MANTEÑO (A.D. 800-1532) OF COASTAL ECUADOR by Benjamin Philip Carter A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2008 Saint Louis, Missouri Copyright by Benjamin Philip Carter © 2008 ii Acknowledgments For this research, I acknowledge the generous support of the National Science Foundation for a Dissertation Improvement Grant (#0417579) and Washington University for a travel grant in 2000. This dissertation would not exist without the support of many, many people. Of course, no matter how much they helped me, any errors that remain are mine alone. At Drew University, Maria Masucci first interested me in shell bead production and encouraged me to travel first to Honduras and then to Ecuador. Without her encouragement and support, I would not have begun this journey. In Honduras, Pat Urban and Ed Schortman introduced me to the reality of archaeological projects. Their hard- work and scholarship under difficult conditions provided a model that I hope I have followed and will continue to follow. While in Honduras, I was lucky to have the able assistance of Don Luis Nolasco, Nectaline Rivera, Pilo Borjas, and Armando Nolasco. I never understood why the Department of Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis accepted me into their program, but I hope that this document is evidence that they made the right choice. Dave Browman has acted both as my first advisor and my best academic supporter. He has defended me when I may not have deserved it. I hope his dedication is warranted. Patty-Jo Watson, Gayle Fritz, Fiona Marshall, and John Kelly all showed a great deal of patience in my years at Washington University. I have been inspired by their teaching and their scholarship. My fellow graduate students at Washington University, including Angela Gordon (Glore), George Crothers, Maria Bruno, Sarah Walshaw, Michael Glore, Karla Hansen-Speer and Liz iii Horton, provided needed criticism and made academic life more enjoyable. Leonard Blake has inspired a generation of archaeologists through his diligence and kindness. I am lucky to be among them. It is unfortunate that I have not been in St. Louis over the past few years and have not had the opportunity to associate with T.R. Kidder and Gwen Bennett, who have graciously agreed to sit on my committee regardless of my absence. During my research in Ecuador, many people were necessary to the success of this project. The ‘Chicos’, William Jagual, Luciano Jagual, Emilio Merejildos, Luis (Lucho) Mejillones and Alfonso Merejildos, from El Azúcar turned careful excavation mixed with Chaplinesque joking into an art form. Whenever I remember the meals in El Azúcar, made lovingly by Santa Rodriquez, my stomach fills and my taste buds are content. Karen Stothert has been the one of the main anchors of this project. No matter where I traveled, she provided generous hospitality and stimulating discussion at her home in Campamento Cautivo. In Salango, Patrick Gay, Richard Lunniss and Dan Bauer provided much needed academic companionship. Valentina Martinez and Michael Harris generously allowed me to join their project making two otherwise impossible trips to Ecuador feasible. Through this entire process my family- John, Audrey and Kate Carter- has supported me unerringly. My brother, Dennis Carter, has become a sounding board for my thoughts on social theory. My parents in-law, Kathi and Roger Jinks, provided innumerable hours of childcare during ‘Mimi days’ and “down the Shore”; time I desperately needed to write. Finally, my wife, Kathleen Carter, and kids, Dylan and Samuel, have ignored my grumpiness and pulled Daddy out from beneath piles of papers iv to go play in the backyard. It is to them that this dissertation is dedicated, with love and thanks. v Table of Contents Acknowledgment……………………………………………………………………...…iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………….....1 Table of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...7 Table of Tables…………………………………………………………………………..12 Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..19 Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2. Environmental Background ...................................................................... 29 2.1. Geology ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2. Climate and weather ......................................................................................... 31 2.2.1. Ocean currents .......................................................................................... 31 2.2.2. Precipitation .............................................................................................. 32 2.3. Ecoregions......................................................................................................... 33 2.3.1. Ecuadorian Dry Forest .............................................................................. 34 2.3.1.1. Ecuadorian and Tumbes coastal thorn scrub to semidesert .................. 35 2.3.1.2. Ecuadorian lowland dry deciduous forest ............................................. 36 2.3.1.3. Ecuadorian semi-deciduous forest on coastal hills ............................... 37 2.3.1.4. Ecuadorian seasonal evergreen forest on coastal hills .......................... 37 2.3.1.5. Mangrove forests .................................................................................. 38 2.3.2. Prehistoric relationship with the local environment ................................. 39 2.4. Summary ........................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 3. Cultural Background ................................................................................. 49 3.1. The archaeological culture known as Manteño ................................................ 49 3.2. One or more?..................................................................................................... 50 3.3. Manteño social structure ................................................................................... 53 3.4. Manteño subsistence ......................................................................................... 54 3.5. Manteño religion ............................................................................................... 55 3.6. The Manteño Spondylus-Balsa cartel ............................................................... 55 3.7. Arrival of the Inka ............................................................................................. 57 3.8. Summary ........................................................................................................... 58 Chapter 4. The Sites.................................................................................................... 59 4.1. Loma de los Cangrejitos (MV-C2-4) ................................................................ 59 4.1.1. Background ............................................................................................... 59 4.1.2. Excavations from which shell beads are analyzed .................................... 64 4.1.2.1. MV-C2-4f ............................................................................................. 65 4.1.2.2. MV-C2-4k ............................................................................................. 65 4.1.2.3. MV-C2-4n ............................................................................................. 67 4.1.3. Dating ........................................................................................................ 67 4.1.4. Sample....................................................................................................... 69 4.2. Puerto de Chanduy (MV-C2-3) ........................................................................ 70 4.2.1. Background ............................................................................................... 70 4.2.2. Excavation- MV-C2-3a ............................................................................. 70 4.2.3. Dating ........................................................................................................ 71 1 4.2.4. Sample....................................................................................................... 72 4.3. Mar Bravo (MV-A3-362) ................................................................................. 72 4.3.1. Background ............................................................................................... 72 4.3.2. Excavations ............................................................................................... 73 4.3.2.1. Sector A (MV-A3-362a) ....................................................................... 74 4.3.2.2. Sector B (MV-A3-362b) ....................................................................... 75 4.3.2.3. Sector C (MV-A3-362c) ....................................................................... 75 4.3.2.4. Sectors D and E (MV-A3-362d and 362e) ........................................... 76 4.3.3. Dating ........................................................................................................ 76 4.3.4. Sample......................................................................................................