(A.D. 800-1532) of Coastal Ecuador

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 hardwork 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....................................................................................................... 77 4.4. Los Frailes (OMJPMH-101 to OMJPMH-113) ................................................ 77 4.4.1. Background ............................................................................................... 77 4.4.2. Excavations ............................................................................................... 78 4.4.3. Dating........................................................................................................ 79 4.4.4. Sample....................................................................................................... 80 4.5. López Viejo (OMJ-PLP-15) ............................................................................. 81 4.5.1. Background ............................................................................................... 81 4.5.2. Excavations ............................................................................................... 81 4.5.3. Dating........................................................................................................ 82 4.5.4. Sample....................................................................................................... 83 4.6. Salango 140 (OMJPLP-140) ............................................................................. 84 4.6.1. Background ............................................................................................... 84 4.6.2. Excavation................................................................................................. 84 4.6.3. Dating........................................................................................................ 86 4.6.4. Sample....................................................................................................... 87 Chapter 5. The Life and Times of the Thorny Oyster, Spondylus sp. ...................... 107 5.1. Animal............................................................................................................. 107 5.1.1. Basic biology .......................................................................................... 107 5.1.2. Vertical distribution ................................................................................ 111 5.1.3. Horizontal distribution ............................................................................ 116 5.2. Archaeological evidence for prehistoric use of Spondylus............................. 120 5.3. A note on dating. ............................................................................................. 122 5.3.1. Period A (before 1100 B.C.)- Dispersed Low-Level Consumption ....... 122 5.3.1.1. Coastal Ecuador .................................................................................. 122 5.3.1.2. Ecuadorian highlands .......................................................................... 126 5.3.1.3. Coastal Peru ........................................................................................ 128 5.3.1.4. Period A (before 1100 B.C.)- Summary ............................................. 130 5.3.2. Period B (1100- 100 B.C.) Chavín and Cupisnique................................ 131 5.3.2.1. Coastal Ecuador .................................................................................. 131 5.3.2.2. Ecuadorian highlands .......................................................................... 133 5.3.2.3. Peruvian highlands, Chavín ................................................................ 133 5.3.2.4. Coastal Peru, Cupisnique .................................................................... 135 5.3.2.5. Period B (1100-100 B.C.) summary ................................................... 137 5.3.3. Period C1 (100 B.C.- A.D. 900)- The Age of Chaquira ........................ 137

2

5.3.3.1. Coastal Ecuador- Regional Development Period ............................... 137 5.3.3.2. Coastal Panama- Tonosí ..................................................................... 140 5.3.3.3. Ecuadorian and Colombian highlands ................................................ 141 5.3.3.4. Coastal Peru- Moche and beyond ....................................................... 142 5.3.3.5. Peruvian highlands .............................................................................. 150 5.3.3.6. Period C1 (100 B.C.-700 A.D.)- Summary ........................................ 152 5.3.4. Period C2 (A.D. 900-1100): The Spread of Production ......................... 153 5.3.4.1. Coastal Ecuador- Manteño and Atacameño ........................................ 153 5.3.4.2. Coastal Panama- Cubitá ...................................................................... 157 5.3.4.3. Coastal Peru- Sicán ............................................................................. 157 5.3.4.4. Highland Peru- Huari and beyond ...................................................... 166 5.3.4.5. Period C2 (A.D. 700-1100) summary ................................................. 169 5.3.5. Period C3 (A.D. 1100-1532) Control Shifts South ................................. 170 5.3.5.1. Coastal Ecuador .................................................................................. 170 5.3.5.2. Ecuadorian highlands .......................................................................... 171 5.3.5.3. Coastal Peru- Chimú ........................................................................... 172 5.3.5.4. Highland and coastal Peru- Inka ......................................................... 184 5.3.5.5. Period C3 (1100-1532 A.D.) summary ............................................... 195 5.3.6. Ethnohistoric records .............................................................................. 196 5.3.7. Extreme northwest Peru .......................................................................... 200 Chapter 6. Theoretical Background- Society and Technology................................. 215 6.1. Archaeological Style. ...................................................................................... 218 6.1.1. Defining Style and Function ................................................................... 219 6.1.1.1. James Sackett’s isochrestic and iconological style ............................. 219 6.1.1.2. Polly Weissner’s active and passive styles ......................................... 221 6.1.1.3. What is stylistic? and what is functional? ........................................... 222 6.1.2. Agents (re)producing structure (re)building agents ................................ 224 6.1.2.1. Pierre Bourdieu and habitus................................................................ 224 6.1.2.2. Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory .............................................. 227 6.1.2.3. Style by Bourdieu and Giddens. ......................................................... 230 6.1.3. Agency theory or structuration/practice in archaeology. ........................ 231 6.2. The Fuzzy People Model- On thinking about structuration statistically. ....... 234 6.2.1. Assumptions of the Fuzzy People Model ............................................... 235 6.2.2. The Biological individual or neurocognitive predispositions. ................ 238 6.2.3. Dispositions............................................................................................. 242 6.2.3.1. Learning dispositions .......................................................................... 243 6.2.3.2. Learned dispositions ........................................................................... 245 6.2.3.3. Technological dispositions.................................................................. 247 6.2.3.3.1. Chaîne opératoire ......................................................................... 250 6.2.4. Social structure........................................................................................ 252 6.2.5. Social contexts ........................................................................................ 254 6.2.5.1. Personal contexts ................................................................................ 254 6.2.5.2. Material contexts................................................................................. 258 6.2.5.3. Physical properties of materials .......................................................... 260

3

6.2.5.4. Spatial contexts ................................................................................... 261 6.2.5.5. Temporal contexts ............................................................................... 263 6.2.5.6. Environmental contexts ...................................................................... 264 6.2.6. Social interaction .................................................................................... 265 6.2.7. Social stability and change...................................................................... 267 6.2.7.1. Social stability. .................................................................................... 267 6.2.7.2. Social change. ..................................................................................... 269 6.3. Shell beads- An application of the Fuzzy People Model ................................ 276 6.4. Summary and proposal ................................................................................... 278 Chapter 7. Data Collection ....................................................................................... 285 7.1. Shell bead production throughout the world................................................... 285 7.2. Data ................................................................................................................. 288 7.3. Pilot project ..................................................................................................... 288 7.4. NSF-funded research ...................................................................................... 291 7.5. Database .......................................................................................................... 292 7.6. Shell beads ...................................................................................................... 295 7.6.1. Quantitative observations........................................................................ 295 7.6.1.1. Diameter. ............................................................................................. 295 7.6.1.2. Thickness ............................................................................................ 296 7.6.1.3. Perforation........................................................................................... 297 7.6.1.4. Quantitative observation conclusion ................................................... 297 7.6.2. Qualitative observations.......................................................................... 298 7.6.2.1. Stage of manufacture. ......................................................................... 298 7.6.2.2. Material ............................................................................................... 300 7.6.2.3. Fragmentation. .................................................................................... 301 7.6.2.4. Type of bead ....................................................................................... 301 7.6.2.5. Color ................................................................................................... 302 7.7. Lithic microdrills ............................................................................................ 303 7.7.1. Quantitative observations........................................................................ 303 7.7.2. Qualitative observations.......................................................................... 304 7.7.2.1. Shape ................................................................................................... 304 7.7.2.2. Cross-section ....................................................................................... 305 7.7.2.3. Fragmentation ..................................................................................... 305 7.8. Microscopic analyses of shell beads. .............................................................. 306 7.9. Catalog of other artifacts ................................................................................. 309 7.10. Data collection conclusion .............................................................................. 311 Chapter 8. Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 319 8.1. Statistical tools ................................................................................................ 320 8.1.1. Significance levels .................................................................................. 321 8.1.2. ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests ................................................ 323 8.1.3. Kruskal-Wallis, Tamhane and Mann-Whitney tests ............................... 324 8.1.4. Chi-squared, Cramer’s φ (phi), and adjusted residual tests .................... 325 8.2. Shell beads as a single group .......................................................................... 327 8.2.1. Chaîne analysis ....................................................................................... 327

4

8.2.1.1. Comparison of chaîne and measurements........................................... 328 8.2.1.1.1. Diameter. ...................................................................................... 329 8.2.1.1.2. Thickness ...................................................................................... 332 8.2.1.1.3. Perforation measurements. ........................................................... 335 8.2.1.1.4. Cylindrical beads .......................................................................... 337 8.2.1.1.5. Comparison of chaîne and measurements conclusion.................. 337 8.2.1.2. Comparison of chaîne and fragmentation ........................................... 338 8.2.1.3. Comparison of chaîne and color ......................................................... 341 8.2.1.4. Summary of chaîne analysis ............................................................... 344 8.2.2. Fragmentation ......................................................................................... 345 8.2.2.1. Comparison of fragmentation and measurements............................... 345 8.2.2.2. Comparison of fragmentation and color. ............................................ 347 8.2.3. Color ....................................................................................................... 348 8.2.3.1. Comparison of color and measurements ............................................. 349 8.2.4. Shell bead analysis as a single group summary ...................................... 350 8.3. Analysis of shell beads by site ........................................................................ 351 8.3.1. Comparison of site and chaîne ................................................................ 351 8.3.2. Comparison of site, chaîne, and measurements ...................................... 354 8.3.2.1. Is it normal? ........................................................................................ 355 8.3.2.1.1. Is it log-normal? ........................................................................... 357 8.3.2.1.2. Non-normal and non-lognormal distributions .............................. 362 8.3.2.1.3. Normality conclusion ................................................................... 367 8.3.2.2. ANOVA. ............................................................................................. 368 8.3.2.2.1. Diameter ....................................................................................... 370 8.3.2.2.2. Thickness ...................................................................................... 373 8.3.2.2.3. Perforation measurements ............................................................ 374 8.3.2.2.4. ANOVA summary........................................................................ 375 8.3.3. Comparison of site, chaîne and color ...................................................... 377 8.3.3.1. Comparison of site, stage, color and measurement............................. 379 8.3.4. Comparison of site, chaîne and fragmentation ....................................... 382 8.3.4.1. Comparison of site, chaîne, fragmentation and measurements........... 384 8.3.5. Conclusion for analysis by site. .............................................................. 385 8.4. Shell bead impressions analysis. ..................................................................... 388 8.5. Lithic microdrill analysis. ............................................................................... 388 8.5.1. Frequency of microdrills by site ............................................................. 389 8.5.2. Microdrills as a whole and by site. ......................................................... 392 8.5.2.1. Measurements. .................................................................................... 392 8.5.2.1.1. Length........................................................................................... 392 8.5.2.1.2. Width ............................................................................................ 394 8.5.2.1.3. Tip measurements ........................................................................ 398 8.5.2.2. Fragmentation ..................................................................................... 399 8.5.2.3. Shape. .................................................................................................. 401 8.5.2.4. Number of sides and worked sides. .................................................... 403 8.5.3. Lithic microdrill conclusion.................................................................... 406

5

8.6. Analysis of cataloged artifacts. ....................................................................... 406 8.6.1. Type of material. ..................................................................................... 408 8.6.1.1. Shell artifacts. ..................................................................................... 408 8.6.1.1.1. Whole shell artifacts ..................................................................... 408 8.6.1.1.2. Non-whole shell artifacts ............................................................. 411 8.6.1.2. Ground stone artifacts. ........................................................................ 419 8.6.1.3. Ceramic artifacts. ................................................................................ 422 8.6.1.4. Other cataloged material types............................................................ 423 Chapter 9. Summary and Interpretation ................................................................... 493 9.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 493 9.2. Culture History of Spondylus ......................................................................... 493 9.3. Methods........................................................................................................... 498 9.4. Summary of Manteño shell bead production. ................................................. 498 9.5. Shell Bead Production by Site ........................................................................ 503 9.6. Interpretation ................................................................................................... 510 Chapter 10. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 525 Chapter 11. References Cited ..................................................................................... 529 Appendix A. Raw Data for Radiocarbon Dates .............................................................. 572 Appendix B. Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates ................................................................... 574 Appendix C. Catalog of Associated Artifacts. ................................................................ 579 Appendix D. Compact Disc of Data. .............................................................................. 580

6

Table of Figures Figure 1-1. In-process and completed beads from Loma de los Cangrejitos. Note the regularity of these beads, especially ‘e’ compared to those in Figure 1-2. ....................... 27 Figure 1-2. A sample of beads from Mar Bravo. Note the irregularity of these beads..... 27 Figure 1-3. Lithic microdrills from Loma de los Cangrejitos. .......................................... 27 Figure 1-4. Lithic microdrills from López Viejo. Note the length of these drills compared to those from Loma de los Cangrejitos. ............................................................................ 28 Figure 2-1. Map of Southwestern Ecuador, showing the coast, Chongón-Colonche Mountains, river systems and sites mentioned in the text. ............................................... 42 Figure 2-2. Geological Map of Southern Manabí and the Santa Elena Península. Redrawn from Masucci and Macfarlane 1997:Figure 3. .................................................................. 43 Figure 2-3. Map showing major currents affecting the climate of the coast of Ecuador. Solid arrows represent surface currents and small arrows represent subsurface currents. Redrawn from Terán et al. 2004: Figura 2.2. .................................................................... 44 Figure 2-4. Map showing average sea surface temperatures. Redrawn from Terán et al. 2004: Figure 2.3 ................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 2-5. Precipitation isohyets for coastal Ecuador. Redrawn from Jørgensen and León-Yánez 1999: Figure 1. ............................................................................................. 46 Figure 2-6. Sea surface temperature and depth of 20ºC thermocline approximately 20 km offshore from La Libertad, Ecuador. Lines across the bottom, solid represents an El Niño and dashed represents a La Niña. Redrawn from Garcés-Vargas et al. 2005: Figure 1. .. 47 Figure 2-7. Ecoregions of Ecuador and Extreme Northwest Peru. See text for Ecoregion codes indicated in figure. Redrawn from National Geographic Society 2001. ................ 47 Figure 2-8. Terrestrial Ecosystems of Coastal Ecuador. Redrawn from Terán et al. 2004: Mapa 4. ............................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 4-1. Location of Loma de los Cangrejitos and Puerto de Chanduy....................... 91 Figure 4-2. Sketch map of Loma de los Cangrejitos. Redrawn from Marcos 1981. ........ 92 Figure 4-3. West profile of MV-C2-4f indicating the white and yellow floors and the midden beneath. ................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 4-4. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates for Loma de los Cangrejitos, showing probability distribution (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). ................................................................................................................................ 94 Figure 4-5. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates for Puerto de Chanduy, showing probability distribution. (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993) ............ 95 Figure 4-6. Locations of Excavations at Mar Bravo. Drawn by Franklin Fuentes for Karen Stothert. .................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 4-7. Eastern profile of the excavation in Sector A, showing the yellow floors, layers of fish scales and layers of gastropods. Courtesy of Karen Stothert. ..................... 97 Figure 4-8. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates from Mar Bravo, showing probability distribution. (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). ........... 98 Figure 4-9. Sketch map of Los Frailes. Redrawn from Mester 1992: 331. ...................... 99 Figure 4-10. Eastern Profile of the subterranean workshop. From Mester 1992: 331 ... 100 Figure 4-11. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates from Los Frailes, showing probability distribution. (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). ......... 101

7

Figure 4-12. Map of modern Puerto López, showing the location of López Viejo as the shaded area in the central right of the map. From Currie 2001: Figure 2. ...................... 102 Figure 4-13. Map of López Viejo. From Currie 2001: Figure 3. .................................... 103 Figure 4-14. Map of excavations at López Viejo, showing the location of the two excavations analyzed for the present study, G and I. From Currie 2001: Figure 4. ....... 103 Figure 4-15. Calibrated Radiocarbon dates from López Viejo, showing probability distribution (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). .......... 104 Figure 4-16.Calibrated Radiocarbon dates from Salango, showing probability distribution (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). ............................. 105 Figure 4-17. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from all six sites studied for this dissertation. (Reimer et al. 2004; Reimer et al. 2005; Stuiver and Reimer 1993). ............................. 106 Figure 5-1. An immature Spondylus princeps from Salango, Ecuador. Shell is approximately 8 cm across, not including the spines. .................................................... 207 Figure 5-2. An immature Spondylus calcifer that was attached to a group of mussels from just below low tide at Puerto Peñasco, Gulf of California. Shell is approximately 8 cm across, not including the spines. Collected by Chris Brown, Photo Courtesy of Chris Brown. ............................................................................................................................. 207 Figure 5-3. A gerontic Spondylus calcifer found attached to rocks just below the low tide line. From Puerto Peñasco, Gulf of California. Note the extensive pitting and calcareous growths left by epibionts. Collected by Chris Brown, Photo Courtesy of Chris Brown. 208 Figure 5-4. Photograph of live S. princeps showing the dramatic camouflage of the epibionts as well as the colorful margin. Photo Courtesy of Peggy Williams. ............... 208 Figure 5-5. Map of Ecuador and Northern Peru, showing average sea surface temperature from 2000-2003. Redrawn from Teran et al. 2004: Figura 2.3....................................... 209 Figure 5-6. Map of Ecuador and Peru, showing sites mentioned during the discussion of Period A (before 1100 B.C.) Map based upon Moseley 1996: Figure 42 ...................... 210 Figure 5-7. Map of Ecuador and Peru, showing sites mentioned during the discussion of Period B (1100 to 100 B.C.). Map based upon Moseley 1996: Figure 42...................... 211 Figure 5-8. Map of Ecuador and Peru, showing sites mentioned during the discussion of Period C1 (100 B.C.- 700 A.D.). Map based upon Moseley 1996: Figure 42................ 212 Figure 5-9. Map of Ecuador and Peru, showing sites mentioned during the discussion of Period C2 (700 to 1100 A.D.). Map based upon Moseley 1996: Figure 42 ................... 213 Figure 5-10. Map of Ecuador and Peru, showing sites mentioned during the discussion of Period C3 (1100 to 1532 A.D.). Map based upon Moseley 1996: Figure 4. .................. 214 Figure 6-1. A normal curve indicating the measure of central tendency (MCT) and measure of dispersion (MD). .......................................................................................... 280 Figure 6-2. The development of dispositions. The three small distributions represent three separate social interactions. The dotted curve represents the cumulative effect of the social interactions. Note that the durability (height of the curve) of the disposition is low and the MD is large. ........................................................................................................ 280 Figure 6-3. The development of dispositions. This represents a child who has developed begun to develop a disposition based upon ten social interactions. Note that the durability of the disposition has increased and the MD has decreased. .......................................... 281

8

Figure 6-4. The development of dispositions. This represents an increase in the durability of the disposition through continued social interaction (19 events). The durability of the disposition has increased, the MD has decreased and the MCT has shifted to the left as dispositions similar to those on the right are rare encountered. ...................................... 281 Figure 6-5. The development of a disposition when exposed to distinct dispositions associated with separate communities of practice. ......................................................... 282 Figure 6-6. Theoretical diagram of individual dispositions represented by distributions. MD=Measure of Dispersion and MCT=Measure of Central Tendency. ........................ 282 Figure 6-7. Theoretical diagram of group dispositions represented by distributions. A, B, and C represent the cumulative frequency distributions of all members in a society regarding a particular disposition. MD=Measure of Dispersion and MCT=Measure of Central Tendency. ........................................................................................................... 283 Figure 6-8. Theoretical diagram of how distributions ‘fit’ more or less to produce stability. ........................................................................................................................... 283 Figure 6-9. Theoretical diagram of a ‘disjuncture’ in the distributions of the factors of social interaction. Disjuncture often leads to change, but not necessarily...................... 284 Figure 7-1. Electromicrograph of partially perforated Stage 3 bead showing clear striations resulting from the drilling process. Note the rough texture of the broken shell in the background. ............................................................................................................... 312 Figure 7-2. Electromicrograph of the impression of a stage 5 bead showing little evidence of striations. Note the hourglass shaped compared to the image in 7-3 ......................... 312 Figure 7-3. Electromicrograph of impression of perforation of stage 4 bead. Note the clearly biconical nature of the perforation, which is clearly different than the hourglassshape of the perforation in Figure 7-2............................................................................. 313 Figure 7-4. Electromicrograph of the impression of a perforation, showing the platy structure of the shell. ....................................................................................................... 313 Figure 8-1. Mean and Median of both Diameter Measurements and the Difference between them. ................................................................................................................. 427 Figure 8-2. Graph of Standardized Measurements for Discoid Shell Beads by Stage. Note: Standardized as Z-scores based upon overall mean and standard deviation......... 432 Figure 8-3. Percent of Bead in each Fragmentation Code by Stage. .............................. 434 Figure 8-4. Percentage of Beads in Each Stage of Production by Color. ....................... 436 Figure 8-5. Percent of Beads in Each Fragmentation by Color for Beads in Stages 3 and 4 and in All Stages ............................................................................................................. 437 Figure 8-6. Percentage of All Beads at Each Archaeological Site by Stage................... 440 Figure 8-7. Histogram of maximum thickness measurement and the natural log of maximum thickness measurements. Note: The solid black line is the normal curved based upon mean and standard deviation. The histogram of the natural log of the data are normal, but the untransformed data are not. ................................................................... 442 Figure 8-8. Un-transformed and Log-Transformed Distributions of Minimum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads that are More than 50% Complete in stage 4.1 from Puerto de Chanduy. Note: the black curve represents the normal curve for the calculated mean and standard deviation. .......................................................................................................... 452

9

Figure 8-9. Un-transformed and Log-Transformed Distributions of Minimum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads that are More than 50% Complete in Stage 2 from López Viejo. Note: the black curve represents the normal curve for the calculated mean and standard deviation.......................................................................................................................... 453 Figure 8-10. Same as Figure 8-9, except the 198 Stage 2 beads from context LV-752 have been removed. Note: The data are log-transformed data are normal (p=.017). .............. 453 Figure 8-11. Four pairs of distributions for untransformed and log-transformed data for discoid shell beads from López Viejo, Puerto de Chanduy, and Mar Bravo. Note: All of these distributions are non-normal according to the Wilk-Shapiro test; see text for explanation. ..................................................................................................................... 454 Figure 8-12. -transformed and Log-Transformed Distributions of Minimum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads that are More than 50% Complete in Stage 2 from López Viejo. Note: the black curve represents the normal curve for the calculated mean and standard deviation. Notice the two distinct modes/ ...................................................................... 455 Figure 8-13. Means of Maximum Diameter for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 456 Figure 8-14. Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Maximum Diameter by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 457 Figure 8-15. Means of Minimum Diameter for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 457 Figure 8-16. Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Minimum Diameter by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 458 Figure 8-17. Means of Maximum Thickness for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 458 Figure 8-18 Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Maximum Thickness by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 459 Figure 8-19. Means of Minimum Thickness for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 459 Figure 8-20. Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Minimum Thickness by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 460 Figure 8-21. Means of Maximum Perforation for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 460 Figure 8-22. Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Maximum Perforation by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 461

10

Figure 8-23. Means of Minimum Perforation for Log-Transformed Data by Site and Stage Showing One Standard Deviation. Note: Ovals indicate groups of statically similar site/stage combinations. .................................................................................................. 461 Figure 8-24. Diagrammatic Representation of Tukey HSD Results for Log-Transformed Minimum Perforation by Site/Stage Groups. Note: Larger circles indicate greater likelihood that the means of the two groups are similar. ................................................ 462 Figure 8-25. Smoothed Distributions for Maximum Diameter for All Stage 5 Discoid Shell Beads More than 50% Complete. .......................................................................... 462 Figure 8-26. Bar Graph, showing the distribution of beads of different color. Data are from Table 8-33. ............................................................................................................. 464 Figure 8-27. A Comparison of ROP and Light Bead Smoothed Distributions for Maximum Diameter Measurements for Stage 5 Beads. Note the similarity of ROP beads and the dramatic differences between Light beads, especially those from Salango and Mar Bravo. ...................................................................................................................... 467 Figure 8-28. A Comparison of ROP and Light Bead Smoothed Distributions for Maximum Thickness Measurements for Stage 5 Beads. Note the similarity of ROP beads and the dramatic differences between Light beads, especially those from Salango and Mar Bravo. ...................................................................................................................... 468 Figure 8-29. A Comparison of Smoothed Distributions for Maximum Diameter Measurements for Stage 5 Beads from Mar Bravo and Salango. Note how ROP beads are at the smaller end of the distributions. ............................................................................ 469 Figure 8-30. Percent of beads with each fragmentation code by site. ............................ 470 Figure 8-31. Smoothed Distributions of Length Measurements by Site. Note: Bins are 1 mm. ................................................................................................................................. 475 Figure 8-32. Comparison of distributions for untransformed and log-transformed maximum width measurements for lithic microdrills that are either whole or missing only the tip. Note: The normal curve fits the transformed data much better. ......................... 478 Figure 8-33. Comparison of distributions for untransformed and log-transformed maximum width measurements for lithic microdrills that are either whole or missing only the tip. Note: the normal curve fits the transformed data only slightly better. ............... 478 Figure 8-34. Smoothed distributions for maximum width measurement for all lithic microdrills with body intact ............................................................................................ 479 Figure 8-35. Smoothed distributions for minimum width measurement for all lithic microdrills with body intact ............................................................................................ 480 Figure 8-36. Bar Graph Showing Proportion of Microlithic Assemblage from Each Site with Different Number of Sides. Note: Only microdrills coded 0 or 1 (i.e., unbroken or missing the tip) for fragmentation are included. ............................................................. 485 Figure 9-1. Distribution of beads by maximum diameter and excavation level at Puerto de Chanduy. Note that not all excavation levels are equal, but are generally sequential with upper levels on the left; see section 4.2.2 for description of excavation. ....................... 524

11

Table of Tables. Table 4-1. Phases of occupation identified by Marcos (1981) at Loma de los Cangrejitos. ........................................................................................................................................... 89 Table 4-2. Lithics, beads, lithic drills, obsidian and volume excavated at Loma de los Cangrejitos. ....................................................................................................................... 89 Table 4-3. Total number of shell and other beads, lithic microdrills and cataloged objects analyzed for this dissertation by site. ................................................................................ 89 Table 4-4. Worked shell from OMJPLP-140, Salango, from Allan 1989. ....................... 90 Table 5-1. Comparison between the three Panamic Spondylids. From Skoglund and Mulliner 1996:Table 1. ................................................................................................... 203 Table 5-2. The depth at which Spondylus can be recovered as indicated by major articles on the shellfish. ............................................................................................................... 204 Table 5-3. The natural distribution of Spondylus as indicated by major articles on the shellfish. .......................................................................................................................... 205 Table 5-4. Possible Spondylus artifacts from Moche III burials from Pacatnamú . Note: All Spondylus artifacts are beads unless otherwise noted. All information from Donnan and McClelland 1997. ..................................................................................................... 206 Table 7-1. Frequency and percent of all beads, shell beads, other beads, shell beads more than fifty percent complete, and discoid shell beads more than fifty percent complete for which data was collected from each archaeological site. ............................................... 314 Table 7-2. Frequency and percent of successful measurement acquisition for six measurements. ................................................................................................................. 314 Table 7-3. Stage codes and description of modification of edges, faces, and perforation for all shell beads, including the chaîne used to make the bead. .................................... 315 Table 7-4. Frequency and percent of each stage for all shell beads. .............................. 315 Table 7-5. Frequency and percent of all beads for by material. ..................................... 315 Table 7-6. Fragmentation codes, frequency and percent of all shell beads. ................... 316 Table 7-7. Frequency and percent of each type of shell bead. ........................................ 316 Table 7-8. Frequency and percent of colors identified for all shell beads. Note: percents total to 122% because some beads contained more than one color. ............................... 316 Table 7-9. Frequency and percent of recoded colors for all shell beads. ........................ 316 Table 7-10. Frequency and percent of total lithic microdrills by site. ............................ 316 Table 7-11. Frequency and percentage of measurements taken for lithic microdrills. ... 317 Table 7-12. Microdrill shape codes. ............................................................................... 317 Table 7-13. Cross-section codes for lithic microdrills. .................................................. 317 Table 7-14. Fragmentation codes for lithic microdrills. Note: fragmentation codes for lithic artifacts are different than for shell beads.............................................................. 318 Table 7-15. Cataloged items by material. Note items not cataloged, but included in second count include 718 ceramic beads and 328 Oliva/Olivella beads from López Viejo and 300 mother-of-pearl artifacts from Los Frailes. See text for discussion .................. 318 Table 8-1. Frequency of Successful Measurements for Discoid Shell Beads that are More than 50% Complete from all Sites. Note: This does not include non-shell beads, nondiscoid beads, or beads less than 50% complete............................................................. 425

12

Table 8-2. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Maximum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. .................... 425 Table 8-3. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Minimum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. .................... 426 Table 8-4. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for the Difference between Maximum and Minimum Diameter for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. ..................................................................................... 426 Table 8-5. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Maximum Thickness for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. .................... 427 Table 8-6. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Minimum Thickness for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. .................... 428 Table 8-7. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for the Average of Maximum and Minimum Thickness for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test.......................................................................................................... 428 Table 8-8. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for the Difference between Maximum and Minimum Thickness for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. ..................................................................................... 429 Table 8-9. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Maximum Perforation for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. .................... 429 Table 8-10. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Minimum Perforation for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. ............. 429 Table 8-11. Difference between the two perforation measurements for >50% complete discoid shell beads by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test. ..................................................................................... 430

13

Table 8-12. Comparison of the Means of all Measurements of Discoid and Cylindrical Shell Beads That are More Than 50% Complete by Stage. Note: * indicates that an ANOVA test indicates that the differences between the means of the two types of shell bead are significant. † indicates that a Mann-Whitney test indicates that the differences between the means of the two types of shell bead are significant. ................................. 431 Table 8-13. Summary of statistically significant differences for discoid shell beads that are more than 50% complete by Stage. ........................................................................... 432 Table 8-14. Counts, expected counts, and standardized residuals (ê) for all shell beads by Stage and Fragmentation. Note: Cells with actual counts significantly above the expected are in bold (i.e., ê>3.4) and below the expected are underlined (i.e., ê3.4) and below the expected are underlined (i.e., ê50% complete

Maximum Thickness

Shell Beads

N % N %

Minimum Diameter

All Beads

Maximum Diameter

Table 7-1. Frequency and percent of all beads, shell beads, other beads, shell beads more than fifty percent complete, and discoid shell beads more than fifty percent complete for which data was collected from each archaeological site.

7654 98.4% 7522 98.3% 6980 99.9%

5945 76.4% 5835 76.3% 5822 83.3%

7661 98.4% 7530 98.4% 6913 98.9%

6213 79.8% 6112 79.9% 6043 86.5%

5463 70.2% 5347 69.9% 5320 76.1%

3028 38.9% 2965 38.8% 2953 42.2%

7782 100% 7650 100% 6990

Table 7-2. Frequency and percent of successful measurement acquisition for six measurements.

314

Stage 0 1 2 3 4 4.1 4.2 5

Edge Unidentified At least partially ground Ground, but faceted Ground Ground Not Ground Not Ground Rounded

Faces Unidentified Roughly correct shape Ground

Perforation Unidentified None

Chaîne Unidentified I, II(?)

None

I

Ground Ground Ground Not Ground Ground

Partially perforated Fully perforated Fully perforated Fully perforated Fully perforated

I I II II I and II

Table 7-3. Stage codes and description of modification of edges, faces, and perforation for all shell beads, including the chaîne used to make the bead.

All Sites n All Sites %

0 63

1 32

2 808

0.8% 0.4% 10.6%

3 524

4 722

4.1 1341

4.2 457

5 3703

Total 7650

6.9%

9.4%

17.5%

6.0%

48.4%

100%

Table 7-4. Frequency and percent of each stage for all shell beads.

Material Shell Mystery Material Ceramic Greenstone Stone Total

Frequency 7650 58 45 28 1 7782

Percent 98.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.01% 100%

Table 7-5. Frequency and percent of all beads for by material.

315

Fragmentation Code 1 2 3 0

Description Less than 50 % complete Between 50 and 100% complete 100% complete- no apparent breakage. Unknown

Total beads in category 657

Percent

1291

16.9%

5698

74.5%

4

0.1%

8.6%

Table 7-6. Fragmentation codes, frequency and percent of all shell beads.

Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

Shape Discoid Cylindrical Barrel-shaped Plaque Rectangular Rhomboidal Unidentifiable Total

Frequency 7406 181 4 1 3 1 54 7650

Percent of all shell beads 96.8% 2.4% 0.05% 0.01% 0.04% 0.01% 0.7% 100%

Table 7-7. Frequency and percent of each type of shell bead.

N %

Purple 484 6.3

Red 1381 18.1

Orange 1847 24.1

Green 6 0.08

Tan 835 10.9

Gray 96 1.3

Black Pink Burnt White Total 57 112 31 4475 7650 0.7 1.5 0.4 58.5 100

Table 7-8. Frequency and percent of colors identified for all shell beads. Note: percents total to 122% because some beads contained more than one color.

Dark N %

249 3.3

Dark/ Light 61 .8

Green

Light

Other

7 .1

4710 61.6

77 1.0

ROP ROP/ Dark 2263 1 29.6 .0

ROP/ Light 263 3.4

Table 7-9. Frequency and percent of recoded colors for all shell beads.

Site Loma de los Cangrejitos López Viejo Los Frailes Mar Bravo Puerto de Chanduy Salango Total

N 444 460 35 24 9 24 996

% of total microdrills 44.6% 46.2% 3.5% 2.4% .9% 2.4% 100%

Table 7-10. Frequency and percent of total lithic microdrills by site.

316

UnID

Total

20 .3

7650 100

N %

Length 992 99.6%

Width 1 993 99.7%

Width 2 991 99.5%

Length of tip 96 9.6%

Width of tip 114 11.4%

Table 7-11. Frequency and percentage of measurements taken for lithic microdrills.

Microdrill shape code 1

Point

Shoulder Very distinct Distinct

203 (20.4%)

3

Edges of point are parallel Edges of point are widen toward the shoulder (Vshaped) V-shaped

Microdrills in category N (%) 46 (4.6%)

4

V-shaped

2

1.5 2.5 3.5 5 6

No distinct separation between shaft and point No distinct separation between shaft and point Between 1 and 2 Between 2 and 3 Between 3 and 4 Between 2 and 4 Unidentifiable

Overall Shape

Edges of shaft are parallel, looks cigar-shaped Edges of shaft are not parallel, looks more like an eye

333 (33.4%)

146 (14.7%)

15 (1.5%) 16 (1.6%) 30 (3.0%) 45 (4.5%) 162 (16.3%)

Table 7-12. Microdrill shape codes.

Code for cross-section 3.00 4.00 4.20 4.30 4.40 5.00 5.30 6.00 6.10 7.00

Description triangular Total with three sides square rhombus slanted trapezoid trapezoid top and bottom parallel Total with four sides pentagonal slanted pentagonal Total with five sides round round with one side flat Total with six sides other

Table 7-13. Cross-section codes for lithic microdrills.

317

Number of sides 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 ?

Number of microdrills in category (%) 117 (11.7%) 117 (11.7%) 592 (59.4%) 4 (0.4%) 24 (2.4%) 12 (1.2%) 632 (63.5%) 103 (10.3%) 6 (0.6%) 109 (10.9%) 75 (7.5%) 44 (4.4%) 119 (11.9%) 19 (1.9%)

Fragmentation (broken?) code 0 1 2/4 3

description

Total microdrills in category

Unbroken, completely whole Tip broken and missing Breakage other than tip Tip only present

391 (39.3%) 364 (36.5%) 175 (17.6%) 66 (6.6%)

Table 7-14. Fragmentation codes for lithic microdrills. Note: fragmentation codes for lithic artifacts are different than for shell beads.

Material

N

% 24.1% 7.4% 41.5%

N (with noncataloged artifacts) 153 47 564

% (with noncataloged artifacts) 7.3% 2.2% 26.7%

Shell- general Shell- Spondylus Shell- Mother-ofpearl ShellOliva/Olivella Total Shell Pearl Ground Stone Ceramic Glass Bone Greenstone Copper Unidentifiable Total

153 47 264 65

10.2%

393

18.6%

529 2 67 17 14 1 1 1 4 636

83.2% .3% 10.5% 2.7% 2.2% .2% .2% .2% .6% 100%

1157 2 67 735 14 1 1 1 4 2110

54.8% 0.1% 3.2% 34.8% 0.7% 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% .2% 100%

Table 7-15. Cataloged items by material. Note items not cataloged, but included in second count include 718 ceramic beads and 328 Oliva/Olivella beads from López Viejo and 300 mother-of-pearl artifacts from Los Frailes. See text for discussion

318

Chapter 8.

Data Analysis

In order to answer questions about the role of shell industries among the Manteño, we must turn to the hard data. The first part of this analysis (section 8.2) deals with all shell beads as a single group. The first analysis (section 8.2.1) is used to determine whether or not the differences noticed between the two different chaînes are in fact statistically valid and how much they differ. That is, are chaîne I beads smaller and more regular than chaîne II beads? This analysis is supplemented by an analysis of the fragmentation of all beads in order to determine when, in their use life, beads break. Many of the tests employed are non-parametric because the distributions are clearly non-normal, therefore parametric tests cannot be used. These tests identify that the different stages of production are significantly different in many attributes and do in fact represent statistically separable categories. The second part of the analysis is designed to analyze the differences (and commonalities) in beads between the different sites/time categories. It appears that most of the chaîne I beads were produced in the early part of the Manteño sequence while chaîne II beads were produced later. Many of the conclusions of the first analysis are supported when the beads are separated by site. An analysis of lithic drills supports and expands the conclusions of the shell bead analysis. Specifically, the high number of drills from López Viejo and Loma de los Cangrejitos probably indicates a focus upon tiny shell bead production at the two sites. In contrast to beads, drills were limited at Puerto de Chanduy and Los Frailes, suggesting that use of shell beads, and not manufacture, was the primary concern at these two sites.

319

At the later sites of Mar Bravo and Salango 140, drills were also in short supply, though large, irregular beads were abundant. This suggests that bead production was much less formalized; beads may have been quickly made out of beach-worn shells with expedient drills that may have been organic (e.g., cactus spines) or may have been left elsewhere. They certainly were not kept at the site and used until they were almost worn-out as at Loma de los Cangrejitos and Lopez Viejo. Finally, an analysis of cataloged artifacts is less quantitative, but appears to generally support the conclusions from the other analyses. 8.1. Statistical tools Initially analyses involve a straightforward comparison of means, medians and frequency for the different stages of the chaînes opératoires. Ideally each chaîne would be analyzed separately, but I avoided determining the chaîne for each artifact opting to identify the stage which is based upon clear attribute differences. The choice of statistical tests used is largely based upon whether the data are categorical, ordinal or interval. Categorical data involve non-numeric categories that have no natural order, such as color or shape. Ordinal data are not directly measured, but can be placed in some sort of order. The only ordinal data concern the amount of fragmentation, which is treated as categorical because then the same tests can be used. Treating ordinal data as categorical is more conservative. Interval data concern measurements, such as length and diameter. The statistics used herein are intentionally relatively common and straightforward. Most of the tests are based upon ANOVA and chi-squared analyses. Regression analysis was attempted, but because there are no independent and dependent variables,

320

these were abandoned. The knowledge used here is based upon my own statistics education at Washington University. I used a few books as references, including the textbook from Washington University (Runyon et al. 2000), as well as reputable statistics help web sites, such as the Statistical Computing website of UCLA Academic Technology Services (Statistical Consulting Group, n.d.). 8.1.1. Significance levels All statistical tests used yield a significance statistic, which if less than a predetermined significance level (α), are considered not to have been random. Because of potential problems with the data, the most conservative tests are used for all analyses. Therefore, for all statistical tests, the significance level was set at α=.001, which means that a significant result is where p.01 (i.e., the test statistic is a factor of ten higher than needed) suggesting that using an alpha of .001 as the cutoff is not highly problematic. For the Levene test for non-normality I have opted for an inclusive strategy rather than an exclusive one mainly because ANOVA tests (see discussion below) is fairly robust even when the assumption of normality is violated. Therefore, if a distribution is close to normal it is best to treat it as normal because a slightly non-normal distribution can be used with ANOVA.

322

8.1.2. ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey HSD tests For continuous numerical data divided into categorical groups (for example comparing measurements by stage), an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test is preferred. An ANOVA test compares the means and the variation between two or more normally distributed groups. For two groups, it identifies whether or not there are statistically significant differences among the means of the groups. For multiple groups it only identifies that there are significant differences between the means of the groups, but doesn’t tell us which means are different. A post-hoc Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test (a.k.a., Tukey test) can tell us which means are statistically different. Since an ANOVA test is based upon certain assumptions, a priori tests were performed to ensure that an ANOVA was appropriate. ANOVA assumes that the data are normally distributed, variance between groups is homogenous, and that observations in each sample are independent of each other. Tests to ensure that these assumptions are not violated included a test of homogeneity of variance (also known as homoscedasticity), specifically Levene’s test, and a test of normality, the Shapiro-Wilk test. Many of the groups of data were non-normal and variance was heterogeneous (a.k.a., heteroscedastic). Most of the samples are non-normal because there is a lower limit for bead size (about 2 mm) but no upper limit causing the distribution to have a long tail to the right and a truncated distribution to the left. This is known as a left-skewed distribution. Because of the skew, both mean and median are reported for groups of data (for an example, see Figure 8-7). A median that is lower than the mean indicates a left-skewed distribution.

323

8.1.3. Kruskal-Wallis, Tamhane and Mann-Whitney tests Even though ANOVA is robust even when assumptions are violated, nonparametric tests are also performed to ensure that tests do accurately represent the data. Non-parametric tests have fewer assumptions about the shape of the distribution, but often have less power to identify true patterns; that is, small, but significant, differences are less likely to be recognized with non-parametric tests. A Kruskal-Wallis test (often known as ANOVA of rank) was used as a supplement to ANOVA. This test, instead of comparing the mean and the distribution of the data, ranks the data and compares the sum of the ranks. If the shape of the distribution is similar, then the sum of the ranks should be similar. The Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests often agree, highlighting the well-known robusticity of ANOVA tests when assumptions are violated. When the assumptions of the ANOVA test are violated, the Tukey HSD test is problematic because it is built upon similar assumptions. Two supplemental tests were used. The Tamhane test is similar to the Tukey HSD, but does not assume homogeneity of variance. The Mann-Whitney test, uses a rank system like the Kruskal-Wallis test and, therefore, assumes nothing about the shape or the measure of central tendency for the distribution. Indeed, the Kruskal-Wallis is an extension of the Mann-Whitney test. The only difference is that the Kruskal-Wallis identifies differences between multiple groups while a Mann-Whitney test works for two groups. Like an ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis does not indicate which groups are different, merely that there is a difference. Since a Mann-Whitney is binary, if a difference is found, it is obvious where the difference is located. Therefore, if a Mann-Whitney is performed to support the Tukey and Tamhane

324

tests, the Kruskal-Wallis is unnecessary. All three (Tukey, Tamhane, and Mann-Whitney) are used when the data appear to be non-normal. A difference of means is only considered significant if all three tests agree (which is more often than not). Nonparametric tests are less powerful than parametric tests, but for large samples this is less important. However, once the data are broken up into many groups with relatively small sample sizes, nonparametric tests are less able to identify statistically significant data. Therefore, once the data are broken up by site and stage, parametric tests are both more highly desirable as well as more appropriate. Also, with an increased number of groups, performing ANOVA with Tukey and Tamhane tests along with MannWhitney tests would be a great deal of work. Since the non-parametric tests would yield few statistically significant results because of a reduction in sample size, this work would yield little information. The reasoning for relying more heavily upon parametric tests for data broken up by stage and site is discussed in detail below. 8.1.4. Chi-squared, Cramer’s φ (phi), and adjusted residual tests Nominal (color, site, and stage) and ordinal (fragmentation) data require different analyses. The main tests to identify differences in the categories between groups are the chi-squared (χ2) test and its post-hoc tests. The cross tabulation function in SPSS was used to identify statistically significant differences between groups. Cross tabulation creates a matrix of the frequency where the two variables intersect; if 23 people in St. Louis drive Ford pickup trucks, then 23 goes in the cell where location is St. Louis and type of vehicle is Ford pick-up. A chi-squared test shows us whether or not the differences identified by the cross tabulation are statistically significant. A chi-square analysis tests the null hypothesis that the variation seen in a data set is simply random. If

325

the null hypothesis is rejected (i.e., p50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test.

Frequency Mean Std. Dev. Median Stage 4 Stage 4.1 Stage 4.2 Stage 5

Stage 4 307 1.57 .42 1.51 -------

Stage 4.1 1324 2.52 .60 2.49

Stage 4.2 453 2.49 .59 2.47

------*§‡

*§‡ -------

Stage 5 3116 1.80 .54 1.75

Total 5200 2.03 .65 1.97

-------

Table 8-9. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Maximum Perforation for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage.. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test.

Frequency Mean Std. Dev. Median Stage 4 Stage 4.1 Stage 4.2 Stage 5

Stage 4 279 1.08 .26 1.08 -------

Stage 4.1 501 1.85 .36 1.83

Stage 4.2 107 1.73 .35 1.76

------*§‡

*§‡ -------

Stage 5 1980 1.35 .36 1.28

Total 2867 1.42 .42 1.35

-------

Table 8-10. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation, Median and Statistical Comparisons for Minimum Perforation for Discoid Shell Beads >50% Complete by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test.

429

Frequency Mean Std. Dev. Median Stage 4 Stage 4.1 Stage 4.2 Stage 5

Stage 4 279 .49 .32 .44 -------

Stage 4.1 501 .74 .47 .69

Stage 4.2 107 .79 .48 .69

------*§‡

*§‡ -------

Stage 5 1980 .35 .26 .30

Total 2867 .45 .36 .36

-------

Table 8-11. Difference between the two perforation measurements for >50% complete discoid shell beads by Stage. Note: *= Not significantly different by Tukey HSD post hoc test. §= Not significantly different by post hoc Tamhane test. ‡= Not significantly different by Mann-Whitney test.

430

2

Discoid

Cylindrical

3

Discoid

Cylindrical

4

Discoid

Cylindrical

5

Discoid

Cylindrical

N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. Sig. N Mean Std. Dev. N Mean Std. Dev. Sig.

722 3.97 .97 21 4.00 .67

645 3.85 .94 18 3.89 .68

358 4.11 .77 16 3.62 .52

90 3.88 .82 5 3.50 .61

720 1.69 .63 21 5.60 2.08 *† 354 1.75 .65 16 4.34 1.01 *†

499 4.30 .95 7 4.06 1.24

232 4.18 1.07 7 3.98 .97

Minimum Perforation

Maximum Perforation

Minimum Thickness

Maximum Thickness

Minimum Diameter

Type of Bead

Maximum Diameter

Stage

658 1.61 .60 19 5.49 2.18 *† 147 1.72 .55 7 4.53 .78 *†

486 1.71 .64 7 5.00 2.11

294 1.63 .60 5 5.15 2.44

303 1.57 .42 7 2.00 .65

276 1.08 .26 6 1.21 .25

*† * 3343 2968 3318 3006 5.16 5.20 2.20 2.02 2.12 2.11 1.05 .95 100 62 100 68 3.63 3.57 5.49 5.20 .95 1.03 1.93 1.86 *† *† *† *†

3083 1.79 .53 83 1.76 .43

1963 1.34 .35 74 1.32 .33

Table 8-12. Comparison of the Means of all Measurements of Discoid and Cylindrical Shell Beads That are More Than 50% Complete by Stage. Note: * indicates that an ANOVA test indicates that the differences between the means of the two types of shell bead are significant. † indicates that a Mann-Whitney test indicates that the differences between the means of the two types of shell bead are significant.

431

Diameter- size Diameterdifference between two measurements Thickness- size

Thicknessdifference between two measurements Perforation- size Perforationdifference between two measurements

Stage 2, 3, and 4 beads smaller less

Stage 4.1 and 4.2 beads larger greater

Stage 5 beads

maximum- less minimum- equal average- less

maximum- greater minimum- equal average- greater

less

greater

maximum- in between minimum- equal average- in between, but similar to 4.2 similar to stage 3 and 4 beads

Maximum- less minimum- less less

Maximum- greater Minimum- greater greater

in between Less than all others

Both- in between less than both of the others (p