Societies labeled chiefdoms have come to be defined by their variability in social and political structure rather than by any particular characteristic. Drennan (1987) has tackled the definition through comparative work in northern South America. Sequences of social changes, potential causal factors and material expressions of social structure are highly variable. The specific example of coastal Ecuador offers further evidence of the range of possible chiefly organizations.
Zeidler (2001), Valdez (1992) and Bouchard (1995) among others have applied the term “chiefdom” to La Tolita, Bahia and Jama-Coaque cultures, emphasizing the existence of primary centers with artificial platform mounds which served as a focus for elite residences or ritual activities, site hierarchies, elaborate mold and modeled figurines with apparel and iconography of power as well as possible shamanistic elements, and burials with highly valued goods of pottery, shell, stone, gold, silver and copper. However, all these were relatively ephemeral and short-lived institutions that did not always lead to further, more complex developments. Also of relevance, many of the ceramic figurines used in these models are looted artifacts without site context. In contrast, Guangala Culture exhibits florescence in ceramic arts and movement of luxury goods, but there is no evidence that one subgroup consolidated power or exhibited control or authority in access, production or distribution of either subsistence or luxury goods. Inter and intra settlement feasting and circulation, probably emphasizing gifting of materials such as fine, polychrome ceramics, is the most likely social situation. Cementing social ties through the exchange of valued material occurs today, through a vast network moving subsistence goods among producers in distinct environmental zones. This type of mutualism and interdependence between settlements and communities fits our current evidence for the Guangala Culture (Reitz and Masucci 2004). The archaeological evidence does not preclude, however, loose alliances in which certain individuals or segments of the society enjoyed higher status or power through either social, economic or even religious means.
Some coastal Ecuadorian cultures experienced florescence in ceramics and metallurgy along with brief periods of consolidation expressed in hierarchical social and settlement systems. In adjacent areas similar florescence is not accompanied by the rise of hierarchical structures but instead exhibits down-the-line trade, household level craft production, and circulation of luxury goods and sumptuary items among dispersed rather than nucleated or hierarchically arranged settlements. Although an argument for greater agricultural potential could be made as one moves from south to north along Ecuador’s coastal plain region, there is also great diversity from littoral to inland areas in all regions. Further, the few valley-wide surveys which have been conducted document population expansion into inland and upland areas as one of the key transitional changes marking transition from the Late Formative to Regional Developmental periods (Masucci 1992; Zeidler and Pearsall 1994). Therefore, there were similar conditions in each region with complex mosaics
Of lands with varying agricultural potential, littoral access to maritime long distance trade, contact and trade with neighboring coastal and other societies at even greater distances for obtaining exotic raw materials and finished goods, and technological expertise in ceramics, shell-working, lapidary work and metallurgy. Control and differential access to any of the above are common markers of hierarchical social structures and all were present as sources for, or demonstrations of power among the coastal societies. Such structures were not sustained for long periods in any of the regional systems and were absent from others.
More detailed, systematic evidence from Ecuador would allow us to consider the wide spectrum of expressions of hierarchical structures described for the northern Andean region such as in the Contact Period “cacicazgos.” For example, we might consider whether the proposed chiefdoms, which developed as regional polities in coastal Ecuador, were based on alliances or if segments of a society held sway or actually dominated other segments of the society or satellite groups. The lack of extensive iconographic and physical evidence of coercive force or warfare as well as the short-lived and often ephemeral nature of the stratification suggest a variation similar to that described by Cardenas-Arroyo (1996) for the Contact Period Quimbayas on the eastern bank of the Cauca River, Colombia. Chiefly status in this case was inherited, but these societies were not politically tightly structured and power was limited to the chief’s own people and did not extend to domination over other groups. Another example is that of the Tairona chiefdoms of the northern coast of Colombia described in sixteenth and seventeenth century chronicles as actually holding sway over other satellite groups rather than being part of a group of peoples united through alliances (Cardenas-Arroyo 1996). Cardenas-Arroyo (1996:68) uses the term “spheres of action” within which several satellite groups live. Based on detailed study of the postConquest cacique structures of southern Colombia and northern Ecuador, Rappaport (1990) warns against applying these structures to pre-Hispanic situations. But, these examples can offer more nuanced models to explain the range of hierarchical or incipient hierarchical organizations evidenced by Ecuadorian societies in the transition following the Late Formative period.
World History
