Ideology, Chiefly Power, And Material Culture an Example From the Greater Antilles

7/27/2019 Ideology, Chiefly Power, And Material Culture an Example From the Greater Antilles

1/19

Society for American Archaeology

Ideology, Chiefly Power, and Material Culture: An Example from the Greater AntillesAuthor(s): L. Antonio CuretReviewed work(s):Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 114-131Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971613 .

Accessed: 04/10/2012 18:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLatin

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/971613?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/971613?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam


2/19

Temporalchanges in material culture normallyhave been used by archaeologists to reconstructthe cultural history of anarea or site. In the case of the Caribbean,shifts in artifactualstyle have been used to traceprehistoricmigrationsand inter-actions between differentculturalgroups. Unfortunately, here have been few attempts to explain these changes in terms ofthe social structuresof these cultures. This paper reviews the archaeological evidencefor cultural change in eastern PuertoRico andproposes a model to explain it. Basically, the model suggests that changes in material culturein Puerto Rican pre-historyare related to the developmentof social complexity.Shifts in decoration and types of artifacts are seen as an attemptby elite groups to have greater control over the symbolism represented n the artifacts in order to acquire and maintaintheirpower. These changes are not abrupt,but gradual, as social organizationevolves from simple to morecomplex chiefdoms.Cambiosen la culturamaterial a trave'sdel tiempo han sido normalmenteutilizados por los arqueologospara reconstruir ahistoria cultural de unsitio o region. En el caso del Caribe, los cambios en los estilos de los artefactos han sido usadosparadelinear las migraciones prehistoricas y las interacciones entre los distintos grupos culturales. Desafortunadamente,sonpocos los estudios que han intentadoexplicar estos cambios en te'rminosde las estructurassociales de estas culturas. Estetrabajoexamina la evidencia arqueologica de cambioculturalpara el este de Puerto Rico y propone unmodelo para explicardichos cambios. Ba'sicamente,el modelo sugiere que los cambios en la cultura material en la prehistoria puertorriquenaesta'nrelacionados con el desarrollo de la complejidadsocial. Cambios en la decoracion y los tipos de artefactos son con-siderados como un intentode parte de los grupos elitistas de conseguir un mayor control sobre el simbolismo representadoen los artefactos lo que a su vez les permite obtenery mantenersu poder polftico. Estos cambios no son abruptospero grad-uales y envuelven la evolucion de la organizacion social de unos cacicazgos simples a unos mas complejos.

L. Antonio Curet * Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Colorado,CarnpusBox 103, P.O. Box 173364, Denver,CO80217-3364 Latin AmericanAntiquity,7(2), 1996, pp. 114-131 .

Copyright C)by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

Changes across time in materialculturenor-mally have been used by archaeologists oreconstruct he culturalhistoryof an area

or site. Although this approachhas proven to bevery useful in the determination of culturalgroups and chronological periods, a necessarystartingpoint for most archaeologicalresearch, ttends to ignore other socioculturaldimensionsofceramics, such as ideology and symbolism. It isfor this reason, for example, that, even thoughpotterystudies often have determinedand identi-fied cultural and chronologicalchanges in a pre-cise maxwer,most of them have been unable toexplainceramic transitions hroughprehistory.It is the purposeof this paper o proposea pos-sible explanation or changes in the archaeologi-cal record, particularly pottery, observed ineastern Puerto Rico (Figure 1 between the

Saladoid (300 B.C.-A.D. 600) and the ElenanOstionoid periods (A.D. 60s1200) eventuallyleading to the Chican Ostionoid period (A.D.120>1500). During this transitiona gradualandcontinuousdecrease n the diversity,quantity,andquality of decorative echniquesand designs tookplace. It is argued here that since pottery is amedium that carries messages of different sym-bolic types (Cusick 1991; Roe 1989, 1993),ceramicchanges reflect modificationsin the ide-ological structures f the social groups. In PuertoRico one of the majorsocial processes thatcouldhave promotedsuchmodificationswas the devel-opmentof complex societies or chiefdoms duringthe Elenan Ostionoid period. As is suggestedbelow, this marked change in the social, eco-nomic, and political institutions of prehistoricgroups must have altered the ideological realm,

114

IDEOLOGY,CH I


3/19

IDEOLOGY,CHIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTURE115

Curet]

- SCa 20 Km

lFigure 1. Map of Puerto Rico with the sites mentioned in the text numbered: (1) Maisabel, (2) Tibes, (3) El Bronce, (4)Las Flores, (5) Punta Candelero, (6) Monserrate.and, therefore,the symbolism represented n thematerialculture.Although my emphasis in thisstudyis on ceramics, similarsuggestionsarepre-sented for other aspects of the archaeologicalrecord, including decorated artifacts such asstone, bone, and shell objects.Theoretical Background and Considerations

Manyarchaeologicalmodels for the developmentof social complexity in the GreaterAntilles havestressed demographic and environmental vari-ables as the main causal factors (ChanlatteandNarganes 1986; Lopez Sotomayor 1975; VelozMaggiolo 1977, 1987; see Curet1991, 1992bfora more detaileddiscussionof this type of model).From this perspective,chiefs are viewed as hav-ing a social functionto fulfill; their actionsare onbehalf of the social groupand are aimedto bene-fit all or most of its members.Althoughthey takedifferent orms,traditionally,hesemodelsinvokecriticaldemographic, ocial, and/orecological sit-uationsthatthreaten he survivaland reproductionof society. According to some of these models,under hese circumstancesnew subsistencestrate-gies (e.g., diversification and intensificationofproduction) hatrequire hepresenceof manager-ial positions (i.e., the chief and elite groups) toorganizeanddirectthenew social systemarenec-essary.It is fromthis necessity that thepermanentposition of the chief develops. Other modelsemphasizethe need for central eadership o con-

trol andmanage the greatamountof informationgeneratedby the increasein populationandpop-ulationdensity.In general,the adaptationistmod-els (see Brumfield and Earle 1987) have beenpopularamong archaeologistsdue to the feasibil-ity of measuringsuch variablesas demography,agricultural roduction,and environmental ondi-tions in the archaeologicalrecord.

Contrary o the adaptationist iew, othermod-els based on differentpremisessuch as social andpolitical factors have been suggested (e.g.,Moscoso 1986, 1987). In these political models,chiefs are not considered public servants, butindividual entrepreneurswho seek mainly toincreasetheirown prestige andthat of their closerelativesor descent groups.Here the chief is notactingon behalfof the group,but for his/herownpurposes.In many instances, these models havebeen developed from Marxist perspectives andnormally argue that conflict and competitionamong individualsor social groupsare the mainfactorsbehindtheprocess of increasingcomplex-ity. Contraryto adaptationistmodels, politicalmodels view populationincrease and the devel-opmentof production ntensityas a consequenceof the process of the developmentof social com-plexity and not as a triggering factor (e.g.,Steponaitis1991:198).However, regardless of which of these twoapproachesis selected, any model that tries toexplainthe developmentof chiefdoms,and even-


4/19

116 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996

tually of states, has to include in its explanatorystatements a developmental process beginningwith the specific conditions of tribal societies(i.e., what Friedmanand Rowlands [1977] havecalledepigeneticmodels).This leadsto a problemof explaining (1) how competition in egalitariansocieties, wherereciprocityandgenerosityarethemainbasis forprestige,led to the accumulationofwealth, power, and ascribedstatus;and (2) howelite groups were able to acquire and maintainpower in an egalitariancontext whereindividualshave options to resist centralized authoritybyexercising autonomy,avoiding excessive obliga-tions, andmobility(i.e., fissioning).Accordingtomanyethnographicandarchaeologicalexamples,elite groupsmadeuse of the egalitarian deologi-cal structure o overcomethese problems,chang-ing it eventuallyto reinforcethe chiefly position(e.g., see several papers in Earle 199 b; seeHelms 1979, 1992). Thus,it is proposedherethatin the case of pristinechiefdoms,whereideologywas used as the main sourceof power,the devel-opmental process had to be gradual and notabrupt,as suggestedby many(see variouspapersinDrennanandUribe 1987;see Earle l991b), duetothe difficultyof shiftingfroma group-orientedto a chiefly ideology. This might not be trueforsecondarychiefdoms nor for pristine chiefdomswherechiefly power was based on secularpowerorforce.While both the adaptationist and politicalmodelspredicta correlationbetweenthedevelop-mentof social complexity, population increase,and ntensificationof production,they differ intheir handling of the ideological structure.

Interestingly,lthoughsome adaptationistmodelsinclude changes in the ideological structuremainly o emphasize the managerialposition ofthe hief, most of themdo not predictthe changein he ideological realmto reinforcechiefly insti-tutionsas an intermediarybetween the naturaland he supernaturalworlds. If chiefs acquiredtheir ower and authorityfrom their sociofunc-tional osition, then there is no need to use reli-gious deology to reinforce and legitimize theirauthority.n this view, chiefly benefits are con-sidered privilegefor "publicservants"andnot arightf the position or institution hey represent.Inontrast,most of thepoliticalmodels stressthe

importanceof the use of ideological mechanismsto increasethe status,power,andauthorityof theemergingelite. Underthese circumstances, hiefsneed to reinforcetheirauthoritycontinuously.Inmost cases this is accomplishedthroughthe useof the ideological structure, articularly y claimsof proximityto the supernaturalworld,ancestors,ordeities (see Curet1991, 1992bfor a moreelab-oratediscussionof political models).Following a similarline of thinkingandusingthe early Europeanchronicles, Moscoso (1986,1987) hasarguedagainstthe adaptationistmodelssuggestedfortheGreaterAntillesandstressed he"exploitative"natureof Caribbeanchiefdoms oflateprehistoricgroups.Althoughhe is notclearinexplaining why a particular ineage of societycameto amassso muchpower(Hulme1988:113),Moscoso illustrateshow chiefly groups manipu-latedreligious ideology to control surplusin theformof tributeandto acquireprestigeandpower.However, his discussion centers specifically onthefully developed chiefdoms of the late prehis-toricand early contactperiods.Little attention spaidto the early developmentalstages of socialcomplexity.Archaeological data are needed tostudyearlypolitical developments.In a recentstudyI tested the premisesof sev-eralpopulation/resourcembalance models sug-gested for the GreaterAntilles (Curet 1992b).After omparingpopulationandcarryingcapacityestimatesortheValleyof Maunabo,PuertoRico,underonservativeconditions,my resultsdemon-stratedhatthelocal environmentwas ableto sup-port arger numbers of people than the onesestimatedorprehistoric imes.Twomainconclu-sionscan be derivedfrom these results:(1) pre-historic populations never reached or evenapproachedheminimumcarryingcapacityof theregion, nd (2) there is no reason to believe thatprehistoricroups overexploited the local envi-ronment,ven if they were producingsome sur-plus. ince these conclusions do not supportthemainpremise of the adaptationistmodels pro-posedor the GreaterAntilles, these models canbe ejecteduntil more supportivedata are avail-able.n light of this evidence, political models,thus,eem to be more reasonablefor explainingthedevelopment of complexity in the GreaterAntilles.However, as with the adaptationist


5/19

Curet] IDEOLOGY,CHIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTURE 117

model, these models have to be tested rigorouslyin futureresearch.Although the previously mentioned regionalproject did not measurethe variables necessaryfor testingpolitical models, recentarchaeologicalresearch in Puerto Rico provides informationupon which to base some suggestions in thisrespect.Eventhoughthesedataaresketchyandinmost instances come from geographicallysepa-rate areas of PuertoRico, I believe they can beused to present some support for this kind ofmodel andto prepare hebasis for futureresearchaimedat testingthe political models. The discus-sion presentedhere emphasizes culturalchangeson the eastern side of Puerto Rico (i.e., VirginPassage) since more information s availableforthis region. Some evidence from the west side(i.e., MonaPassage)also is considered Figure1).The purposeof this paper is to present the evi-dence and discuss it from the perspectiveof thepolitical models. As discussed below, it appearsthatthe culturalchanges are relatedto the mech-anisms by which elite groups manipulatereli-gious ideology to acquire and maintainpower,authority, ndprestigeover therestof the popula-tion.A descriptionof change in the archaeologicalrecord is presentedin the next section. Then amodel to explain some of the changesin materialculture that correlate with the development ofchiefdoms is presented.This model is based onpreviousanthropological ndarchaeological tud-ies of complex societies in differentregionsof theworld. The model deals particularly withdiachronicchanges and the relationshipbetweenchiefly power,the controlof elite groupsover thereligious ideology, and the representation f thisideology in the material culture. However, thismodel is by no means complete nor final, andmore studiesexclusively directedto this problemare needed to refine it. The archaeologicalevi-dence is then discussed and compared to theexpectationsraisedby the model.

The Archaeological RecordThe archaeologicalrecordin PuertoRico incor-porates a numberof changes that correlatewithwhatseems to be the developmentof social com-plexity. Particularly, the following changes

between the Saladoid and Ostionoid series areconsidered in the discussion that follows: (1) ashift in ceramicstyles andlapidarywork, (2) thedevelopmentof ball courtsandplazas, (3) possi-ble changes in household sizes, (4) changes inreligious rituals, (5) changes in mortuaryprac-tices, (6) intensificationof agriculturalproduc-tion, and (7) trends in settlement patterns(includingdemographic rends).TheCedrosanSaladoidSubseriesTheSaladoidceramicseries(300 B.C.-A.D. 600)represents the first agricultural and ceramicgroups that migrated to Puerto Rico from theSouth American continent (Rouse 1952, 1964,1982, 1986, 1989, 1992).This tradition s charac-terizedby high quality ceramics,which have nocounterpart n Caribbeanprehistory.In general,Saladoidceramicsare hard,relativelythin, well-fired,andof fine paste.Decorationnormallycon-sists of painting the vessels with one or morecolors, white-on-red,white-on-orange,and red-on-buff being the most common combinations.Other decorative techniques include false-neg-ative decoration, crosshatched incisions andengraving, excision, and modeled zoomorphicand anthropomorphicadornos, among others(Roe 1989:269).Two styles have been definedfor the Saladoidtradition n PuertoRico: the Early SaladoidandCuevas styles. For the purposeof this argumentand for the sake of simplicity, the term EarlySaladoid is used to include both the HaciendaGrande and La Hueca ceramic styles. 'Ceramically, the Early Saladoid styles (300B.C.-A.D. 400) are characterized by mono-chrome, bichrome,and polychromedesigns, theuse of incisions (especially zone-incised cross-hatcheddesigns), thepresenceof effigy vases andbottles, and modeled-inciseddecoration.White-on-redpainteddepictionsof curvilinear,geomet-ric, andanthropomorphic esigns areparticularlycharacteristicof these styles. In addition, theEarlySaladoidstyles (especially La Hueca style,see note 1) are associated with great amountsofstone ornaments made of exotic materials(Chanlatte1979; Chanlatteand Narganes 1983,1986; Cody 1991, 1993; Rodriguez 1993; SuedBadillo 1974).


6/19

118 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996Compared to the Early Saladoid style, theCuevas style (A.D. 400-600) experienced adecreasein the use of polychromepainting,mod-eling, and incisions for decoration. However,otherdecorative orms,in particularwhite-on-redpottery, were still retained, but with a shifttowards the use of geometric designs. Throughthis period a gradualdisappearance f the use ofpaints is registeredin the archaeologicalrecord,leaving only monochrome painted vessels andsimple modeledface lugs by its end.The people of the Saladoidseries do not seemtohaveengagedin the constructionof monumen-tal architecture for religious ceremonies.Nevertheless, houses within the villages werearranged rounda centralplaza thathad multiplefunctions (e.g., Chanlatte Baik and NarganesStordes1983; Rodriguez 1991; Rouse 1992:80;Siegel1989; Siegel and Bernstein 1991) and, inadditiono domesticactivities, it mighthavebeenusedas a dancing area, cemetery,and ball court(Rouse 992:80).Houses seem to have been sim-ilaro the SouthAmericanmaloca (Hugh-Jones1985; chinkel 1992;Siegel 1989;Versteeg1989,1991;Versteegand Schinkel 1992) andtendedto

bearge enough to shelter more than 60 people(Curet992a;Schinkel 1992; Siegel 1989),prob-ablymembersof extended families. In general,sites onsisted of relatively large, independentvillagesnd were located close to riversand at ashortistance back from the shore during theearlyartof the series. However,duringthe timeofhe Cuevas style the interiormountainsof theislandeganto be populated.No site hierarchy sapparenturing this ceramic subseries (Curet1992b;odriguez1992).Religious rituals are evident in differentaspectsf the archaeological record. Snuffingvesselssedin rituals nvolvinghallucinogensarecommon,articularlyduringthe Early Saladoidphase.n addition, t is duringthis series thatthefirstemies or idols appeared, indicating thebeginningf a cult that has been referredto aszemieismStevens-Arroyo1988). The small sizeofheidols and their wide distributionseem toindicatehatthey were used mostly in householdrituals,nd not in communal ones. Other orna-mentalrtifactshave been found in the form oflapidarymulets, which are relatively homoge-

neous and, due to theirrepetitivenatureand theconsistencyof theirrepresentations,eem to carrysome symbolism,possiblyreligious.Although heevidence for ceremonialismduringthe Saladoidseries is abundant, o the best of my knowledge,no significant social differentiation has beenreported or the intrasitedistributionof such arti-facts. This seems consistent with the idea thatduring this time prehistoricgroups were orga-nized in egalitariancommunities.Deceased peo-plewereburied n cemeteries n thecentralplazasof the villages. At least four of these cemeterieshave been partially excavated at the sites ofMonserratesee Appendix n Rainey 1940),Tibes(Gonzalez Colon 1984), Maisabel (Budinoff1991;Siegel 1989), andPuntaCandelero Crespo1989, 1991; Rodriguez l991). None of theseinvestigators as reportedany differentialtreat-ment f the deceasedthatcould reflect statusdif-ferentiation,although in some cases burialsvariedn the items includedandin theirquantity.In terms of the economy, to date there is noevidenceor agriculturalntensificationor surplusproductionuringthe Saladoidseries. Due to thelackf evidence for intensive production, t hasbeen ssumed that staple productionrelied pri-marilyn slash-and-burnagriculture.Productsfromunting,fishing, and shell and crabgather-ingeemed to have complementedthe diet (deFrance989;Wing andReitz 1982).ThelenanOstionoidSubseriesThelenanOstionoidsubseries(A.D. 600-1200)isharacterizedby a dramaticdecrease in thequalityndaestheticsof the ceramics.Duringtheearlyartof this subseries (i.e., the Monserratestyle,.D. 600-900), the technology and shapesofhe late Cuevaspotterywere retained, nclud-inghe tabular lugs and red-painted surfaces,withoutny major addition of decorative tech-niques.radual decorative change led to theappearancef the Santa Elena style (A D.900-1200). odeling and incision, particularlyzoomorphicnd anthropomorphic andles, wereusedgain.Vessel formswere simplified,andredpaintas used less. Most of the diagnosticdeco-rations restrictedto crude, vertical, rectilinearincisionslose to the rims of bowls, which arefrequentlyccompaniedby applique strips and


7/19

Curet] IDEOLOGY,HIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTURE 119

characterizeshe distributionof sites throughouttheandscape.Artifacts related to religious activitiesdecreasedn both numbersand quality.Snuffingvesselsare almost completely absent duringthewholesubseries. Three-pointedzemies are stillpresent but are less common. During theMonserratetyle they are small, similar to theSaladoid nes, while they tendto increasein sizeduring he latter part of the subseries. Besidesmodeled epresentations f bats and zoomorphiccreatures,he pottery of this time presents veryfewother symbolic representations.Stone orna-mentalartifacts also decreased in number andcraftingquality.Treatmentof the dead seems tohavevariedacrosstime andspace. In some casesburialswere concentrated n cemeteries duringtheMonserrate tyle (e.g., Budinoff 1991; Siegel1989),while in othersthey were interred itherintrash middens or under house floors (e.g.,GonzalezColon 1984). To the best of my knowl-edge cemeteries have not been reportedfor theSantaElena style nor has evidence of statusrep-resentationbeen discoveredfor any burialof theElenanOstionoidsubseries.It is during he latterpartof this subseries i.e.,SantaElenastyle) thatthe firstevidenceof inten-sive agriculturalproductionappearsnot only inPuertoRico but also in the DominicanRepublic(OrtizAguilu et al. 1993; Rouse 1992:98, 109;VelozMaggiolo 1977:64,1987:80,1991:170).Theuse of mounded fields or montoneshas beenreported or the southcoast of PuertoRico duringthe Santa Elena style (Veloz Maggiolo 1987),while terraceshave been discovered n the centralmountains, which date to this period (A.D.60s1200) (OrtizAguiluet al. 1993).Finally, t isduring hetimesof theSantaElenastylethatchief-doms (probably group-orientedchiefdoms; seebelow)seemtohavefirstdeveloped n PuertoRico.Rouse(1992:108,Figure8) hasidentified histimeperiodas thebeginningof theFormativeAge.TheChicanOstionoidSubseriesThe ceramics of the Chican Ostionoid subseries(A.D. 1200-1500) also arecharacterized y mod-eled-incised decoration, although the content,variability, and quality of those designs varygreatly from the Elenan Ostionoid. Most of the

vestigial andles. Technologically,the ceramicsbecameofter,thicker,coarser,androugher.This"devolution"n the pottery is accompaniedby adecreasen the numberand quality of lapidaryobjects.It is probablyduringthe earlypartof this sub-seriesthat the first ceremonial ball courts orplazaswere constructed,although it is possiblethat hey were more developed with the firstcomplex f such structures i.e., whathave beencalled, in Caribbean archaeology, ceremonialcenters)constructed during the second half.Plazasdatedto this subserieshave been reportedformanysites (Alegria 1983), includingthe sitesofEl Bronce (Robinson et al. 1983, 1985) andLasFlores (Veloz Maggiolo 1977:64,1991: 170),andat the earliest ceremonial center of Tibes(GonzalezColon 1984). Interestingly, he largestplazain Tibes was built on top of a Saladoidcemetery,suggesting a continuity in the use ofceremonialspace and practices. The construc-tion of monumental architectureseems to evi-dence the allocation and possible controlof labor in activities not related to subsistenceproduction.Duringthe Monserrate tyle, houses tendedtoremain large for extended families. However,duringthe Santa Elena style they decreased insize dramatically, possibly to house mostlynuclear amilies (Curet1992a).While morestud-ies are needed, this drasticshift seems to reflectmajorchanges in production,distribution,repro-duction, and transmissionwithin the householdgroup. Arrangementof houses within villagesvaries greatly.Althoughin some cases the struc-tures seem to have been arrangedarounda cen-tral plaza (e.g., El Bronce and Maisabel), inothersthey followed moreor less a linearpatternalong the coast. Duringthis time the indigenouspopulationcontinuedexpandingto the interiorofthe island, and population increased rapidly onthe basis of the large numbersand sizes of sites,especially of the SantaElenastyle (Curet1992b).However, the settlement patternfor this perioddiffersfromthe one for the Saladoidseries in twoways. First, a hierarchyof site sizes developed(Curet1992b;Rodriguez1990, 1992;WalkerandWalker 1983); and second, a combination ofnuclear village and dispersed settlementpattern


8/19

120LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY lVol. 7, No. 2,1996

incised designs consist of differentcombinationsof horizontal ines parallelto the rim;ovoid, cir-cular,andsemicircular iguressometimesenclosehorizontal dashed lines or dots. Single incisedlines parallelto the rim,andsmall, modeledheadlugs representing anthropozoomorphicfiguresalsoarecommon.Most of the differencesamongthedifferentstyles of this subseries(i.e., theBocaChica,Capa,andEsperanza tyles) consist of dif-ferentdegrees in the complexity of the designs.However, ome differences in vessel shape alsoseemto exist. For example, in the DominicanRepubliche Boca Chica style includes a highnumberf bottles andeffigy vessels, which seemto e almost absent in the Capa and Esperanzastyles f Puerto Rico. Recently Roe (1993) hascorrelatedome ceramic designs with mythicalrepresentationsn rock art, arguing a "cross-mediaisomorphism"n Tainoart.Although the chronicles state that houses ofthiseriodin theBahamas,Cuba,andDominicanRepublicere large enough to shelter severalfamilies,hearchaeological ecordpresentsa con-tradictoryiew, at least for PuertoRico. As in thecasef the Santa Elena style, houses of theEsperanzatyle (A.D. 120s1500) of easternPuertoico tended to be small in size, possiblyforuclear families (Curet 1992a). In villages,housesere arrangedarounda centralplaza orballourtdelimitedin some cases by stone rows(e.g.,Robinson et al. 1983, 1985).Archaeologicallyhere is little architecturalorresidentialvidence for status differentiation.However,he scarcity of this kind of evidencemighte the product of lack of archaeologicalresearch,ince mostrecentworkhasconcentratedonarliereriods,andlate sites tendto havebeendisturbedr destroyed by agriculturalpracticesandoderndevelopment.Unusuallyarge villages that includedseveralplazasr ball courts also have been reported orthiseriodAlegria 1983; GarciaArevalo 1990;Mason917, 1941; Oliver 1992). The settlementpatternncludedboth nucleatedvillages and iso-latedouses. A site hierarchyhas been reportedforhisime (Curet 1992b; Rodriguez 1990,1992;iegel 1991a), which seems to follow acentrallace model wheresmall sites are locatedaroundlarge,multiplazasite.

Religious paraphernaliancreasedin number,quality,andsize during heChicanOstionoidsub-series. Zemies became larger and included awider variety of mythological beings, althoughthe small three-pointeddols characteristic f pre-vious periods also were present. Idols made ofcotton, wood, and stone are not uncommonfortheChican subseries.Religious artifactsused indifferentrituals also increased in number,com-plexity, and raw materials (Rouse 1982:52,1992: 21). Vomiting spatulas, snuffing tubes,stonecollars and elbows, duhos or ceremonialbenches,and small tables or platters made ofshell,bone, stone, or wood pertaining to thisperiodhave been found in Puerto Rico andHispaniolaRouse 1992:119-121).2 The increaseinhe quality, size, and frequency of religiousartifacts has been interpreted by mostCaribbeanistss anincrease n religious,political,andocial complexity.Most burialswere located underhouse floors,apractice lso reportedby the early chronicles,althoughossible cemeterieshave been reportedforhe DominicanRepublic (Veloz Maggiolo etal.973). However, despite the high complexityofhesociopoliticalsystemandthemarked ocialdifferentiationmong different internal groupsdescribedn the chronicles, there has been noarchaeologicaleportof differentialtreatmentofburials.heethnohistoric ourcesstatethatchiefswereuried n moreelaborated ombs,accompa-niedith several offerings, and in some casesaccompaniedy one of their wives. A possibleexamplef this last practicehas been reported ntheominicanepublic(Veloz Maggiolo 1973),buto vidence has been found in PuertoRico.Again,his lackof informationon statusdifferen-tiationmong burialsmight be an artifactof thescarcityf studieson ChicanOstionoidsites.Accordingo the chroniclesthe TainoIndiansofhiseriodutilized a combinationof intensiveandnonintensivegricultural trategies ncludingtheontones, irrigation ystems in relativelydryregions,nd slash-and-burn(Sturtevant 1961).Theseof this combination of techniques isresponsibleor the large surplusproductionofstapleseportedby the Spaniards.The politicalorganizationf this culturalgroupseems to haverangedrom simple to paramountchiefdoms.


9/19

Curet] IDEOLOGY, HIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTURE 121

tant ncreasein religiouscomplexity.In anotherline of thinking,Rouse (1982:52)hasimpliedthatceramicshifts arerelatedto reli-gious trends, although he does not explain thenature of such a correlation. Veloz Maggiolo(1974) has suggestedthatthese shifts in materialcultureare intimatelyrelatedto changes in ideo-logical structure,whichincluded hedevelopmentof chiefdoms. Nonetheless, although he arguesfor thepresenceof therelationshipbetweenecon-omy, politics, and ideology, he does not explainthe dynamicsinvolved in such changes.In a recentpaper,Roe (1989) has arguedthatthe climax of Saladoidceramicswas the resultoflong-distance trade or interaction spheres withgroups from the South American continent.Although Roe recognizes that ceramic changesmay have been influenced by shifts in politicalspheres(1989:297-298), he believes thatthe rup-tureof this interaction s the mainfactoraccount-ing for ceramic changes in the post-SaladoidCaribbean.Roe's argumentpostulatesthat theseearlier interactions produced large audiences,who received the symbolic messages representedin ceramicdesigns. However,with time, anddueto local adaptations o insularenvironments, uchinteractionsceased, restricting he potentialaudi-ence solely to local groups.This changecausedadecrease in the amount of informationsent insymbolicmessages, producingat the same time areduction n ceramicdecorationsandquality.Finally, I have suggested (Curet 1992b, seebelow) that the decrease in decorationbetweenthe SaladoidandOstionoidseries is relatedto thedevelopmentof social complexity.In particular,argue that this shift in ceramics representsincreased control by the emerging elite groupsover symbols and ideology in general. A moredetaileddiscussionof this argument ollows.

The Model: Chiefly Power,Ideology, and Material CultureBefore discussingthe model, some definitionsofterminology are in order.First, the concept ofchiefdomused in this workdoes not refermerelyto "apolity thatorganizesa regionalpopulation nthe thousands"as definedby Earle(1991a:1) andCarneiro 1981:45). It also refersto a sociopoliti-cal systemwithan institutionalized ffice of lead-

Contraryo traditionalviews, it is believed nowthatnot all regionsof PuertoRico andHispaniolabelongedto paramountchiefdoms; a mosaic ofdifferent levels of complexity seems to haveexisted throughoutthe GreaterAntilles (Curet1992b;Wilson 1990:108).

Previous Explanations for CulturalChange in Caribbean PrehistoryThedramatic hangefroma fine, richlydecoratedSaladoidceramic to a low-quality,poorly deco-ratedpotteryduring heElenanOstionoidseriesishardto explain.One is temptedto arguethatthisdecrease in pottery decoration and quality isrelated o some sortof cultural mpoverishment ftheislandgroups,whereceremonialismandsym-bolic representationsin the arts decreased inimportance.In fact, Rouse (1982:52) has com-pared this reduction in religious art during theElenan period with the dark age between theClassic and Renaissance art in Italy. However,when other aspects of the archaeologicalrecord(i.e., evidence showing a developmentof politi-cal, economic, and religious complexity) aretaken into consideration, a contrasting pictureemerges. This evidence demonstrating anincrease in economic, political, and religiouscomplexity does not supportthe idea of culturalimpoverishment.A wide variety of argumentshave been sug-gested for explainingthis change in materialcul-ture. The earliest ones (Alegria 1965; Rainey1940) argued for new migratory waves fromSouth America, influencing or replacing theSaladoidgroups. However, Rouse's later studies(1952, 1964, 1982, 1986) suggestedthatthe tran-sition from the Saladoid to the Ostionoid serieswas a local developmentwith littleexternal nflu-ence. Adaptation o insularenvironmentsalso hasbeen invoked as an explanationfor the ceramicshift (PonsAlegria 1983;Roe 1989). Otherexpla-nations relate the shift in material culture tochanges in subsistence systems, producedby anincrease in population and/or a decrease inresource availability (Goodwin 1979, 1980;Lopez Sotomayor 1975; Veloz Maggiolo 1977,1991). Although most of these suggestions pre-sentfactorsthatcouldhave influencedthe shift inceramicstyles, they do not addressthe concomi-


10/19

122 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY lVol. 7, No. 2,1996

ershipwithheritablesocial rankingandeconomicstratification Service 1962). Inthis typeof socio-cultural ntegration,ascribedstatus s morepreva-lent thanachievedstatus,andaccess to statusandresources is more restricted than in egalitariansocieties.I use the definition of power suggested byCohen (1979:88): "an abstractionreferringsim-ply to the relationsof dominationand subordina-tion." In addition, I make use of his perspectiveon the relationshipbetween power and symbol-ism. He states, "Powerrelations are objectified,developed, maintained, expressed, or camou-flaged by means of symbolic forms and patternsof symbolic action,both of which are referred ohere as symbolism"(Cohen 1979:89). The con-cept of ideology usedhereis theone presentedbyBloch (1985:33): "a system of knowledge whichlegitimates the social order by building upschemes about the nature of the world whichplace authorityat the source of all good things."In buildingup the schemes, ideologies make useof symbols or units of elaborate ritual (Bloch1985:36).These definitionsof ideology andsym-bols are concomitant with the relationshipbetweensymbolism and power as expressed byCohen.The developmentof ideology in a societyis strongly related to the appearanceof socialhierarchysee discussion thatfollows). In nonin-dustralizedocieties, ideology is builtaroundreli-gious beliefs and rituals and comes from past,already established, nonideological cognition(Bloch1985:34,44; see also Drennan1976).Originally,when chiefdoms were recognizedbyanthropologistsas a stage in social evolution,the hief's powerwas seen as theresultof a redis-tributiveconomic system (Sahlins 1958;Service1962,1975). Laterstudies(e.g., Peebles andKus1977),however,have demonstratedhatredistrib-ution s not the only source of power in mostchiefdoms.Recently anthropologistshave cometo cknowledgethatchiefly powerhas threemaincomponents:ontrol over the economy, militaryforce,and ideology (Earle 1989:86, 1991a:4;Vincent1978:177). Although the three compo-nentseem to be presentin most chiefdoms, typ-icallyone of them is more emphasized in thepoliticaltructure hanthe others.Recently,Anderson(1990) has argued hatthe

more emphasized component in a particularchieftainship often depends on the historicalnatureof its emergenceand subsequentdevelop-ment (i.e., pristine vs. secondary chiefdom).Althoughrecognizingthatsome controlover theeconomy is presentin most of the cases, he sug-gests that ideological power is more common inpristine chiefdoms, while secondary chiefdomsuse more secular power or force (1990:32). Ofthese, ideological power,in the formof rituals nwhichtheelite legitimize theirrule,is moreeffec-tive and stable thanthe use of militaryforce buttakes a longer period of time to establish.Thus,thedevelopmentalprocessof some pristinechief-doms is expected to be gradualand should showa process of increasingcomplexityroughlyshift-ing from an egalitarian organizationto simplechiefdomsand,dependingon the particular ase,eventually o a complex chiefdom.With regard to pristine chiefdoms, it seemsthat,at least initially,previous communalritualsstressingactivities reinforcingcommunitybondsandnorms of behavior are more effective mea-sures o startestablishingelite ideology thanritu-als stressing status differences (Anderson1990:31;Drennan,cited in Earle 1989:86). Thatis,emergentelite groupsmakeuse of thepreviousegalitarianeremonialstructure s a startingpointtoestablish theirchiefly ideology. At this evolu-tionarypoint leaders cannot guarantee ndepen-dent power, however, as institutions ofcommunalismnherited from tribal antecedentsare till present.The institutionalizationof elitepower is inhibited by communal traditions;expressionsof chiefly authorityproduce resis-tance from the people subject to control(Nassaney 992:131).Thus, the ideological structureof emergingchiefdomsends to emphasizecommunalritualsandymbolism,while diminishingthose carryingindividualizingdeas and status. In this context,we xpect to find an increasein the construction,elaboration,nd use of communalstructures, nmost ases, monumentalin nature. In contrast,ornamentalrtifactsof personaluse thatsymbol-izendividualprestigeandreligious/mythologicalcontexthould decreasein numberand in elabo-ration. he decrease in artifacts of individualprestiges necessaryto: (1) eliminateany possi-


11/19

IDEOLOGY,CHIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTUREuret] 123

ble competition of the emerging elite, and (2)avoid weakening the new communal approach.Utilitarian artifacts that also carry symbolismwould suffer a decrease in symbolic representa-tions that could undermine he emphasis on com-munal cohesiveness. However, these changes arenot expected to be absolute,as little evidence ofindividual status differentiation or inequalitymight be apparent t this stage. In terms of settle-ment pattern,a site hierarchyand possibly a cen-tral place arrangementwith no more than twolevels might emerge, since the chiefly site tendsto attractpopulations rom other settlements n acentripetal ashion.

Later,as pristinechiefdoms and chiefly powerare better established, a gradualshift to an ideol-ogy that stresses elite authority will take place.Thus, elite ideology will tend to startreinforcinggroup unity and behaviorwhile gradually trans-forming it to legitimize chiefly power in the per-son of the chief. Although deologies legitimizingchiefly power takemany forms (e.g., StewardandFaron 1959:177), most of the time they empha-size the sanctity of the chief and his/her positionas intermediary etweenthe supernatural ndnat-ural worlds (Friedman and Rowlands 1977;Helms 1979,1987,1992; Marcus 1989). Thecon-trol over symbols and esoteric materials (whichmight representcontactwith places that aregeo-graphically and cosmologically located beyondthe borderof the group's territoryor "universe"),and their incorporationn local ceremonies, rein-force the intermediaryaspects of the chief's per-son and his/herpower (Cohen 1979; Helms 1979,1987; Vincent 1978).The use of nonpolitical,reli-gious symbols in power relations is not uncom-mon. For example, Godelier (1978:181) haspointed out that religion is the dominantform ofideology in classless societies and emergentclasssocieties. Cohen (1979:87) also has stressedthat"most of the symbols that are politically signifi-cant are overtly nonpolitical."This condition cre-ates an ambiguoussituation n which the symbolshave different meaningsand are not given a pre-cise definition. In chiefdoms this ambiguityserves the purposes of elite groups since nowsymbols will have both political and religiousmeanings. Under these circumstances,at least inprimary chiefdoms, the position of chief has a

dual function (i.e., political and religious) thatcannot be separated n its parts until the develop-mental process is in a later stage (e.g., see Kirch[1991] for an example where different chieflyfunctions were sharedwith priests and warriors).During this later stage an increase in socialinequality shouldbe indicated n burial and resi-dential evidence and in the numberand differen-tial distribution of high-status artifacts, at thesame time that previous structuresused to rein-force communal bonds are reinterpreted o focusmore on the intermediaryposition of the chief.Artifacts or structures hat are used in religiousceremonies to contact the supernaturalor thatsymbolize the intermediary position of elitegroups should become more abundantand com-plex. The settlement pattern should present thesame trend of site hierarchy and central placearrangement, lthough o a greaterdegree;thesitehierarchymight show three tiers rather han two.The transition rom an egalitarian o a chieflyideology can also be approachedfrom anotherperspective. By definition (Nassaney 1992:117;Service 1962), a major difference between tribalsocieties and chiefdoms is that n the formermostof the people have access to status (i.e., achievedstatus) and resources, while in the latter thisaccess (at least to status) is more restricted o theelite (i.e., ascribedstatus). Since most of the timestatus is markedby symbolic and religious repre-sentations, then differential access to resourcesincludes differentialownershipof symbols.More restrictedaccess to status and resourcesalso shouldbe reflected n religious structures ndthe materialculture.Althoughmost people (giventhe right gender, age, and abilities) in egalitariansocieties could presentofferings or "contact" hesupernatural ersonally, n complex societies thisaccess is more limited, and in many instances t isaccomplished through the intercession of thechief or a religious specialist, who acts as anintermediary (Friedman and Rowlands 1977;Helms 1979, 1992; Moscoso 1987).3 Thus, interms of materialculture, commoners in alreadydeveloped chiefly societies will have less accessto symbols and religious iconography than inegalitarian ocieties. However, n emergingchief-doms, while commoners are gradually losingtheir access to prestigeand esoteric symbols, the


12/19

LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996124

elite cannotmake use of them in an overt manner;otherwise, they would encountera conservativereactivationof egalitarianprinciples thatempha-size thegrouporientationof the ideological struc-ture. Therefore, in emerging, simple chiefdomsthe material culture should lack noncommunalsymbolic representationand status differentia-tion. Lateron, once the institutionof chief is bet-ter established, symbolic representationsmightincrease, although not evenly across the socialsectors.It is importanto stress,however,that althoughmostof the symbolsare controlledby a small sec-torof the social groups,not all of them arerelatedto and monopolized by the elite group. Somesymbols might actually be related to commonersor other institutions with little political signifi-cance such as descent groups. For example, forpreclassicOaxaca,Marcus 1989) arguesthatcer-tain symbols representing commoner groupsmight symbolize theirdifferentoriginalegalitar-ian lineages. Therefore,the social hierarchymayalso emphasizea hierarchyof symbolsrather hanexclusive access to symbols. Furthermore, ince,in general, chiefdoms are relatively unstablesocial organizations (e.g., see Anderson 1990),elite groups may not only make use of a greaternumberof high-statussymbols,but they may alsoinclude commoners' or low-status symbols intheirrepertoire o maintainan ideological nexuswith therest of the populationandgain more sup-port.Thus,in termsof materialculture t is expectedthat simple, emerging chiefdoms will present adecrease in the numberand quality of symbolicrepresentationshat reflect personal status,whilecomplex, "mature" hiefdoms should show qual-itatively and quantitatively ncreaseddifferentia-tion of symbolic representation. Although ahierarchy of symbols might be present, somehigh-status ymbolsshouldhave a morerestricteddistribution,while othersrelated o commonersorthe ethnic group may show a more generalizeddistribution.In summary,if social complexity developedfromconflict andcompetitionas suggestedby thepolitical models, then it is expected that initiallythe shift from tribesto pristinechiefdoms shouldinclude an emphasis on communal ritualism,

where group cohesiveness is emphasized,at thesametime thataccess to statusand religioussym-bolism decreases.Later,as the elite's authority sbetterestablished,religiousrituals end to empha-size chiefly authority.Thistrend, n whichthe rul-ing elite concentrates on controlling theideological structureand its symbolism to legit-imize its power,shouldbe detectablearchaeolog-ically. The restrictions in access to status andreligious ideology should be evidenced by adecreasein the representation f symbols,partic-ularly on artifactsof domestic and personalusethathave the ability to carrysymbolic messages,andon limited distributionwithina site or intrare-gionally. At the same time, at least in the earlystages,symbolism shouldbe retainedor increasedin aspects of artifactsand features used in com-munal ceremonies. Settlement patternevidenceshould show a site hierarchyandpossibly a cen-tral place arrangement rom the early develop-mental stages. Later stages should present thesame trend but strongerand, in some cases, inmore complex arrangements.

This distinction between emerging (simple)and"mature"(complex) chiefdoms as presentedhere is analogous to what Renfrew (1974) hascalled group-orientedand individualizingchief-doms, respectively. Although Renfrew did notpresent these types within an evolutionarycon-text, according to the model presented here, Iexpect that group-oriented hiefdoms are simple,emergingcomplex societies, while the individual-izing chiefdoms have a more complex socialorganization.The descriptionof group-oriented,emergingchiefdomsas describedby Renfrewandused in this model is also comparable o the cate-gory of "complex tribes"described by Hoopes(1988; see also Habicht-Mauche t al. 1987 citedby Hoopes). According to Hoopes this termdescribes those archaeologicalcases wheremate-rial evidence of"communal architecture, ong-distancetrade,specializedcrafts, and a degree ofsocial differentiation" ppearsin the absence ofevidence for centralized authorityor individualchiefs. However, besides not having any evolu-tionaryor dynamicvalue (i.e., Hoopes's conceptdoes not explainor describethe processof changefrom"simple" o "complex" ribes),this categorydoes not take into consideration he possibilityof


13/19


having central authoritiesthat are archaeologi-cally invisible due to the lack of conspicuousandflagrantexhibitionof status.I believe thatstudiesof these groupshave to emphasizethe natureandcontextof the communalactivities, long-distancetrade,specializedcrafts,anddegree of social dif-ferentiation,ratherthan the presence or absenceof theseparticulareatures.Forexample,it is cru-cial whetheran irrigationsystem was developedby an egalitarian social group to support anincreasingpopulation n an aridregion,or,rather,was constructed o increasethe surplus o financeelite activities andprojects.Althoughthis model proposes that the rise ofpristine chiefdoms was the result of a longprocess, it also suggests why it often appearstohave occurredat a rapidratein the archaeologicalrecord. During the early stages of development(probablythe longest stage), pristine chiefdomsproduce very little archaeological evidence ofsocial differentiationdueto theemphasison com-munalism. During later stages, the ideologicalemphasisshiftsto focus on thepersonof thechiefand the elite, stressing social differentiation.Social hierarchy is more overt, and, therefore,detectable in the archaeological record in thisfinal stage. In sum, although social complexitymight have takena long time to develop, we areable to detectmost of the evidence for social dif-ferentiation during the advanced stages of theprocess.The impressionof a fast social processisonly an archaeologicalartifact.As a final comment I stress that this modeldoes not presentthe only trajectory or the devel-opmentof chiefdoms;a wide rangeof trajectoriescould have been followed by different socialgroups (Drennan 1991; Sanders and Webster1978). The modelconcentratesmainlyon pristinechiefdoms developing from egalitariansocietiesand does not include simple chiefdoms that"devolved"from previous more complex chief-doms in a cyclic process as described byAnderson (1990; see also Petersen 1985). Thismodel, however, is in agreementwith Friedmanand Rowlands's argument(1977) on epigeneticmodels concerning new, complex social struc-tures that arose from previous egalitariancondi-tions. Althoughit is suggested here that shifts inpolitical and religious structures can produce

changesin materialculture, t is importanto rec-ognize thatotherfactorsmightalso influencethedirection of such changes (Roe 1989; Braun1991).Discussion

From the perspective of the model presentedabove, it can be argued hat f earlycomplex soci-eties in theGreaterAntillesweredevelopmentallypristine,as most Caribbeanists onclude (Wilson1990:6), and if chiefly power was acquiredandmaintained hrough he controlof religiousideol-ogy, then these expectationsshould be observedin the archaeologicalrecord. It is expected thatduringthe early developmentalstages of chief-doms, domestic and personalartifactsthat carryideologicalmessages shoulddecrease n theirdis-play of symbols, while items representingcom-munal ritualism should increase. Theseexpectationsarecomparable o the changesin thearchaeologicalrecordregistered or the CedrosanSaladoid/ElenanOstionoidtransition.Duringthisperiod a decrease in symbolic representationssapparentn artifactsof personalor domesticuse,such as ceramics and, possibly, personal orna-mentsor stone, shell, or bone zemies as well. It isclearthatElenanpotterypresentsnot only a morerestrictedset of decorative techniques than theprevious Saladoid groups but also simpler andless diversedesignsandsymbolicrepresentations.This argumentdoes not contradictcompletelyRoe's (1989) suggestionsconcerning herelation-ship between the cessation of pan-Caribbeanlong-distance radeandceramicchange.It is pos-sible that the ceramic changes also were influ-enced by a decreasein informationneededto besent andin therecipientaudience.Nevertheless,Ithinkthatthe shift in trading nteractionwas notmerely caused by the adaptation o insularenvi-ronmentsas Roe suggestsbut possibly due to thecontrol of extraregionalrelations by emergentelite groups.Althoughdrasticchanges in tradinghave been recognized in the archaeologicalrecord,tradedoes not seem to have ceased com-pletely in latertimes. Forexample,Helms (1987)argues or spheresof interactionbetweenlatepre-historicchiefdoms from the GreaterAntilles andthose fromPanamaandpossibly Colombia.Althoughmoreresearch s needed, it is possi-


14/19

126 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996

ble thatstone artifacts hatwere used as personalornamentsor idols suffered a similar transition.For example, zemies, which duringthe Saladoidperiodseemed to have been smallpersonal tems,increased n size during he late Elenansubseries,while the small ones decreased n number Rouse1982; Siegel 1991a). This increasein the size ofidols has been interpretedby Walker(1993) as atendency owardsmorecommunalorpubliccere-monialism(see also Roe 1989:280). In addition,thedecrease in the numberof small, ornamentallapidary rtifactsandrawmaterialsusedfromthetimeof Saladoid, particularlyduring the EarlySaladoid tyles, to the Elenansubseriesseems torepresent decline in the number of personalsymbolic rtifacts Chanlatte1979;ChanlatteandNarganes 1983, 1986; Cody 1991, 1993;Rodriguez1991, 1993; Rodriguez and Rivera1991;Roe 1989).At the same time that personal or domesticartifacts ecreased in symbolic representations,there as an increase in communalceremonial-ism. irst,as discussed above, the use of zemiesbecamemore public. Also, the development ofballourtsandceremonialcenters(Alegria 1983;Gonzalez olon 1984) duringthe Elenanperiodindicatesn increasein "public" ituals.I alreadymentionedhat some of the early Elenan ballcourtsrom the ceremonial center of Tibes arelocatedver earlierSaladoidcemeteries,suggest-ingcontinuity n the use of ritualspacebetweenthewo periods(CionzalezColon 1984).A similarcontinuityetween Saladoid and Taino ancestorcultslso has been suggested by Siegel (1991a),whorgued hatthey wereused by theTainoelitetoeinforceheirpower.This continuity n ritualsthroughime also was predictedby the model,becauset contends that pristine chiefdoms usethestablished ritual structure to implementchieflydeology. Finally, Roe (1991, 1993) hasarguedhat the development of petroglyphs(whichsuspect were probablyused in "public"orommunal ceremonies) in Puerto Rico isrelatedo theElenanperiod,in particularwith theusef the ancestorcult andmythologyby chiefstoegitimize their control over importantresourcese.g., fishing areas)andterritories.Thisevidencelso implies an increase of "public"symbolismndceremonialism.

All this evidence suggests that the develop-ment of social complexity in the Caribbeaninvolved the controlof ideology by elite groups,creatingeventually what can be called an ''ofEl-cial"religion.Thiscontrastsgreatlywithpreviousperiods in which the archaeological evidenceindicatesa morepersonal nteractionbetweenthesupernatural ndthe individual,as is representedby the widespreaduse of symbolism in a widevarietyof artifactsandmedia.Objects of status differentiationand possiblyevidence of the control of religious ideologyemphasizing he chief's individual power seemnot o be presentuntil the ChicanOstionoidsub-series.It is duringthis time thatthe most elabo-ratedreligious paraphernaliaappeared, which,according o the descriptionsin the chronicles,wascontrolledby elite groupscomposed mainlyof he chiefs, theirimmediateassistants,andreli-giousspecialists. Particularly he chief and thereligiouspecialistsweretheonly ones allowedtoparticipaten the ceremonyof the cohoba, a hal-lucinogen sed for consulting the supernaturalentitiesMartirdeAngleria1964:196).Theunim-portancef this ceremony during the ElenanOstionoidubseries s evidencedby a decreaseintheumberof snuffingtubesor vessels comparedtohe Saladoidseries. Larger,new kindsof idolsalsore producedduring the Chican Ostionoidperiod,ncludingstone,cotton,andwoodenidols.The ChicanOstionoidsubseriesalso producedothertatus objects which were not presentbefore,uch as stone collars and elbows, whichhaveeen argued o be relatedwith theball gameandave a functionsimilarto the stone yokes inMesoamerican all games (Alegria 1983).Nevertheless,hese kinds of artifacts have notbeenoundin Elenanball courts,plazas,or cere-monialenters. If ball courts and plazas werelocatedn Chican chiefly settlements, then it ispossiblehatthese stoneartifactsarerelatedmoretohieflydeology as symbolsof high statusthantoheball game, as suggestedby manyarchaeol-ogistse.g., Alegria 1983).Duhos(stools) used only by the chiefs in reli-giouseremonies, and related to their position,arenotherkind of artifactpresent only in theChicanstionoid subseries and which alsoemphasizehe supernaturalsource of chiefly


15/19

Curet] IDEOLOGY,HIEFLYPOWER,AND MATERIALCULTURE 127

power Fernandez de Oviedo 1959:117, 145).Thus,he informationprovided by the archaeo-logical ecordcombinedwith theearlychroniclessupportshe suggestion that there was a shift inthedeological structureroma group-onentationdunngheElenanOstionoidto a moreindividual-izing or chiefly-oriented ideology during theChicanOstionoid.In conclusion, the model for pnstine chief-domspresentedherenot only explainsthe "devo-lution"of ceramic styles between the Saladoidand heElenanOstionoidpenod, butalso clanfiesthecontradiction f a concomitant ncrease n cer-emonialism. In addition, it suggests thatCanbbean hiefdomswere morecomplex in theirongins and functioningthan has been suggestedpreviously.Future research in this area shouldconcentrateon the speciElcpaths taken by elitegroups to control the ideology, economy, andsociopoliticalstructure,n orderto amve at a bet-terunderstanding f the natureand dynamics ofsocial andpoliticalchanges.Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Mary Jane Berman,Geoff Clark, Sylvia Gaines, Keith Kintigh, Diana L6pez,Jaime Perez, Kate Spielmann, Barbara L. Stark, SamuelWilson, and anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlierversions of this paper. I am also grateful to Peter G. Roe forencouraging me and making it possible for me to attend the10th International Symposium of the Latin American IndianLiteratures Association held in San Juan where a simplifiedversion of this paper was presented.

References CitedAlegria, R. E.

1965 On Puerto Rican Archaeology. American Antiquity21:113-131.

1983 Ballcourts and Ceremonial Plazas in the WestIndies. Yale University Publications in AnthropologyNo. 79, New Haven, Connecticut.

Anderson, D. G.lsso Political Change in Chiefdom Societies: Cycling inthe Late Prehistoric Southeastern United States, 2 vols.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Bloch, M.1985 From Cognition to Ideology. In Power and

Knowledge: Anthropological and SociologicalApproaches, edited by R. Fardon, pp. 2148. ScottishAcademic Press, Edinburgh.

Braun, D. P.1991 Why Decorate a Pot? Midwestern Household

Pottery,200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 10:36s397.

Brumfiel, E. N., and T. K. Earle1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies:

An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange andComplexSocieties, edited by E. M. Brumfiel andT. K.Earle,pp. 1-9. CambridgeUniversityPress,New York.Budinoff,. C.1991 An Osteological Analysis of the Human BurialsRecovered Froman EarlyCeramicSite Located on theNorthCoastof PuertoRico. Proceedings of the TwelfthInternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology,edited by L. S. Robinson, pp. 117-133. InternationalAssociation for CaribbeanArchaeology,Martinique.Carneiro, . L.1981 The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State. In TheTransition o Statehoodin the New World, dited by G.D. Jones and R. R. Kautz, pp. 37-79. CambridgeUniversityPress,New York.Chanlatteaik, L. A.1979 La Bueca y Sorce' (Vieques, Puerto Rico):primeras migraciones agroalfareras antillanas. SantoDomingo.Chanlatteaik, L. A., andY.M. NarganesStordes1983 Vieques-PuertoRico: asiento de unanuevaculturaaborigen antillana. SantoDomingo.1986 Proceso y desarrollo de los primeros pobladoresde Puerto Rico y las Antillas. SantoDomingo.Cody,A.1991 From the Site of Pearls, Grenada:Exotic Lithicsand RadiocarbonDates. Proceedings of the ThirteenthInternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology,edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 589-604.Reports No. 9. Archaeological-AnthropologicalInstitute,Curac,ao,NetherlandsAntilles.1993 Distributionof Exotic StoneArtifactsThroughtheLesser Antilles: Their Implications for Prehistoric

Interaction and Exchange. Proceedings of theFourteenth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by A. Cumminsand P. King, pp.204-226. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Barbados.Cohen,A.1979 Political Symbolism. Annual Review ofAnthropology8:87-113.Crespo,E.1989 Analysis of Sex, Age, and MortuaryPractices ofHuman Burials Recovered from Punta Candelero: ASite on the SoutheastCoastof PuertoRico. Manuscripton file, Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity,Tempe.1991 Informe preliminar sobre los enterramientoshumanos en el yacimiento de PuntaCandelero, PuertoRico. Proceedings of the Thirteenth InternationalCongressfor CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by E. N.Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 84s853. Reports No. 9.Archaeological-Anthropological Institute, Curac,o,NetherlandsAntilles.Curet,L. A.1991 E1cacicazgo en registro arqueol6gico: modelos yvariablesarqueologicos.Proceedings of the ThirteenthInternational Congress for Caribbean Archaeology,edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 15-21.Reports No. 9. Archaeological-AnthropologicalInstitute,Curac,ao,NetherlandsAntilles.1992a House Structure and Cultural Change in theCaribbean:ThreeCase Studies from PuertoRico. LatinAmericanAntiquity3:16s174.1992b The Development of Chiefdoms in the Greater


16/19

[Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996128

Antilles: A Regional Study of the Valley of Maunabo,Puerto Rico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University,empe.Cusick, J. G.1991 Culture Change and Ceramic Change in a TainoVillage. Proceedings of the Thirteenth InternationalCongress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by E. N.Ayubi and J. B. Haviser, pp. 446-461. Reports No. 9.Archaeological-Anthropological Institute, Curac, o,NetherlandsAntilles.de France,S. D.1989 Saladoid and Ostionoid Subsistence Adaptations:Zooarchaeological Data From a Coastal Occupation ofPuerto Rico. In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways andAdaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P. E.Siegel, pp. 57-77. BAR International Series 506.British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Drennan,R. D.1976 Religion and Social Evolution in FormativeMesoamerica. In The Early Mesoamerican Village,edited by K. V. Flannery,pp. 345-368. Academic Press,New York.1991 Pre-Hispanic Chiefdom Trajectories inMesoamerica, Central America, and Northern SouthAmerica. In Chiefdoms:Power, Economy,and Ideology,edited by T. Earle, pp. 263-287. School of AmericanResearch and CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.Drennan,R. D., and C. A. Uribe (editors)1987 Chiefdoms in the Americas. University Press ofAmerica, New York.Earle,T. K.1989 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. Current

Anthropology30:8v88.1991a The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms:Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp.1-15. School of American Research and CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.Earle, T. K. (editor)1991b Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology.School of American Research and CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.Fernandezde Oviedo y Valdez, G.1959 Historia general y natural de las Indias. InBiblioteca de Autores Espanoles, vols. 117-122.Ediciones Atlas, Madrid.Friedman,F., and M. F. Rowlands1977 Notes Towards an Epigenetic Model of theEvolution of "Civilization." In The Evolution of SocialSystems, edited by F. Friedmanand M. F. Rowlands, pp.201-278. University of PittsburghPress, Pittsburgh.GarciaArevalo, M.1990 E1juego de pelota taino y su importancia comer-cial. Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationalCongress for Caribbean Archaeology, edited by A. G.Pantel Tekakis, I. Vargas Arenas, and M. SanojaObediente, pp. 178- 186. La Fundacion Arqueologica,Antropologica, e Historica de Puerto Rico, San Juan,Puerto Rico.Godelier, M.1978 Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.Gonzalez Colon, J.1984 Tibes: un centro ceremonial ind gena .Unpublished Master's thesis, Centro de Estudios

Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe, San Juan, PuertoRico.Goodwin, C. R.1979 The Prehistoric Cultural Ecology of St. Kitts, WestIndies: A Case Study in Island Archaeology.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology,Arizona State University, Tempe.1980 Demographic Change and the Crab-ShellDichotomy. Proceedings of the Eighth InternationalCongress of the Lesser Antilles, edited by S. M.Lewenstein, pp. 45-68. Archaeological ResearchPapers No. 22. Department of Anthropology, ArizonaState University, Tempe.Habicht-Mauche, ., J. W. Hoopes, and M. Geselowitz1987 Where's the Chief?: The Archaeology of ComplexTribes. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archaeology, Toronto.Helms, M. W.1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power.University of Texas Press, Austin.1987 Art Styles and Interaction Spheres in CentralAmerica and the Caribbean: Polished Black Wood inthe Greater Antilles. In Chiefdoms in the Americas,edited by R. D. Drennan and C. A. Uribe, pp. 67-83.University Press of America, New York.1992 Political Lords and Political Ideology inSoutheasternChiefdoms: Comments and Observations.In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and theNative Elites of SoutheasternNorth America, edited byA. W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 185- 194.Archaeological Papers No. 3. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation, Washington,D.C.Hoopes, J. W.

1988 The Complex Tribe in Prehistory: SociopoliticalOrganization n the Archaeological Record. Paper pre-sented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Phoenix.Hugh-Jones,S.1985 The Maloca: A World in Houses. In The HiddenPeoples of the Amazon, edited by E. Carmichael, S. H.Jones, and D. Tayler, pp. 76-93. British MuseumPublications, London.Hulme, P.1988 Chiefdoms of the Caribbean. Critique ofAnthropology8: 105-118.Kirch, P. V.1991 Chiefship and Competitive Involution: TheMarquesasIslands of Eastern Polynesia. In Chiefdoms:Power, Economy, and Ideology, edited by T. Earle, pp.119-145. School of American Research and CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.L6pez Sotomayor,D.1975 Vieques: un momento en su historia. UnpublishedMaster's thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropologa eHistoria, Mexico City.Marcus,J.1989 Zapotec Chiefdoms and the Nature of FormativeReligions. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec,edited by R. J. Sharer and D. C. Grove, pp. 148-197.CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.Martirde Angleria, P.1964 De'cadas del Nuevo Mundo. Porrua e Hijos,Sucesores, Mexico City.Mason, J. A.1917 Excavation of a New Archaeological Site in Porto

LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY


17/19


Rico. Proceedings of the 19thInternationalCongressofAmericanists,pp. 220-223. Washington,D.C.1941 A LargeArchaeological Site at Capa, Utuado,WithNotes on OtherPorto RicanSites Visited n 1914-1915,Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the VirginIslands,vol. 18, pt. 2. New York Academy of Sciences, NewYork.Moscoso, F.1986 Tribuy clase en el Caribe antiguo. UniversidadCentral del Este, San Pedro de Macoris, DominicanRepublic.1987 Etapas historicas de la sociedad tribal en lasAntillas. De'dalo25:99-136.Nassaney,M. S.1992 Communal Societies and the Emergence of Elitesin the PrehistoricAmerican Southeast.In Lords of theSoutheast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites ofSoutheasternNorth America, edited by A. W. BarkerandT. R. Pauketat,pp. 111-143. Archaeological PapersNo. 3. American Anthropological Association,Washington,D.C.Oliver,J. R.1992 The Caguana Ceremonial Center: A CosmicJourney Through Taino Spatial and IconographicSymbolism. Paper presentedat the 10th InternationalSymposium, Latin American Indian LiteraturesAssociation, San Juan,PuertoRico.OrtizAguilu, J. J., J. Rivera,A. Principe,M. Melendez, andM. Lavergne1993 Intensive Agriculture in Pre-Columbian WestIndies: The Case for Terraces. Proceedings of theFourteenth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by A. Cummins and P. King, pp.278-285. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Barbados.Peebles,C. S., andS. M. Kus1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of RankedSocieties. AmericanAntiquity42:421-448.Petersen,G.1985 One Man Cannot Rule a Thousand.University ofMichiganPress,Ann Arbor.PonsAlegria, M.1983 Las figuritas de barro de la cultura saladoide dePuerto Rico. Proceedings of the Ninth InternationalCongressfor the Studyof the Pre-ColumbianCulturesof the Lesser Antilles, pp. 121-129. Centre deRecherches Caraibes, Universite de Montreal,Montreal.Rainey,F.1940 Porto Rican Archaeology. Scientific Survey ofPorto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 18, pt. 2. NewYorkAcademy of Science, New York.Renfrew,C.1974 Beyond a SubsistenceEconomy: The EvolutionofSocial Organization in Prehistoric Europe. InReconstructingComplexSocieties: An ArchaeologicalColloquium, edited by C. B. Moore, pp. 69-75.Supplement to Bulletin No. 20, American Schools ofOrientalResearch. Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor.Robinson,L. S., E. R. Lundberg,andJ. B. Walker1983 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce,Puerto Rico: Final Report, Phase 1. Report preparedfor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville,Florida.1985 Archaeological Data Recovery at El Bronce,

Puerto Rico: Final Report, Phase 2. Report preparedfor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville,Florida.Rodriguez,M. A.1990 Arqueologia del Rio Loiza. Proceedings of theEleventh International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by A. G. PantelTekakis,I. VargasArenas, and M. Sanoja Obediente, pp. 287-294. LaFundacionArqueol6gica,Antropol6gica,e Hist6ricadePuertoRico, San Juan,PuertoRico.1991 Arqueologia de Punta Candelero. Proceedings ofthe ThirteenthInternational Congress for CaribbeanArchaoelogy, edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser,pp. 605-627. Reports No. 9. Archaeological-Anthropological Institute, Curac, o, NetherlandsAntilles.1992 Late Ceramic Age Diversity in Eastern PuertoRico. Paperpresentedat the 57thAnnualMeetingof theSociety for AmericanArchaeology, Pittsburgh.

1993 Early Trade Networks in the Caribbean.Proceedings of the Fourteenth InternationalCongressfor CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by A. CumminsandP. King, pp. 306-315. InternationalAssociation forCaribbeanArchaeology, Barbados.Rodriguez,M. A., andV. Rivera1991 Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Pre-Saladoid"CrosshatchConnection."In Proceedings of the TwelfthCongress of the International Association forCaribbeanArchaeology, edited by L. S. Robinson,pp.45-51. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Martinique.Roe, P.G.1989 A GrammaticalAnalysis of Cedrosan SaladoidVessel Form Categories and Surface Decoration:Aesthetic and Technical Styles in Early AntilleanCeramics.In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways andAdaptive Strategies in the Caribbean, edited by P. E.Siegel, pp. 267-382. BAR InternationalSeries 506.BritishArchaeological Reports,Oxford.1991 The Petroglyphs of Maisabel: A Study inMethodology. Proceedings of the TwelfthCongress ofthe International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by L. S. Robinson, pp. 317-370.InternationalAssociation for CaribbeanArchaeology,Martinique.1993 Cross-MediaIsomorphisms n TainoCeramicsandPetroglyphs from Puerto Rico. Proceedings of theFourteenth International Congress for CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by A. Cummins and P. King, pp.637-671. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Barbados.Rouse, I.1952 Porto Rican Prehistory.Scientific Survey of PortoRico andtheVirginIslands,vol. 18, pts. 3-4. New YorkAcademy of Science, New York.1964 Prehistory of the West Indies Science144:499-513.1982 CeramicandReligious Development in the GreaterAntilles. Journal of New WorldArchaeology 5:45-55.1986 Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring PopulationMovement from Cultural Remains. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut.1989 Peoples and Cultures of the Saladoid Frontier inthe Greater Antilles. In Early Ceramic PopulationLifewaysandAdaptiveStrategies,editedby P. E. Siegel,


18/19

130 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996pp. 383-403. BAR InternationalSeries 506. BritishArchaeological Reports,Oxford.1992 The Tainos:Rise and Decline of the People WhoGreetedColumbus.Yale UniversityPress, New Haven,Connecticut.Sahlins,M. D.

1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia. University ofWashingtonPress, Seattle.Sanders,W.T., andD. Webster1978 Unilinealism, Multilinealism,and the EvolutionofComplex Societies. In Social Archaeology: BeyondSubsistenceand Dating, edited by C. L. Redman,M. J.Berman,E. V.Curtin,W.T. Langhorne,N. M. Versaggi,and J. C. Wanser,pp. 249-302. Academic Press, NewYork.Schinkel,K.1992 The Features of Golden Rock-l, St. Eustatius,N.A. In The Archaeology of St. Eustatius: The GoldenRockSite, editedby A. H. VersteegandK. Schinkel,pp.143-212. PublicationNo. 2, Historical Foundation St.Eustatius, and No. 130 Foundation for ScientificResearch in the Caribbean Region. St. Eustatius,NetherlandsAntilles.Service,E. R.1962 Primitive Social Organization:An EvolutionaryPerspective. RandomHouse, New York.1975 Origins of the State and Civilization. W. W.Norton,New York.Siegel, .E.1989 Site Structure, Demography and SocialComplexityin the EarlyCeramicAge of the Caribbean.In Early Ceramic Population Lifeways and AdaptiveStrategies in the Caribbean,edited by P. E. Siegel, pp.193-245. BAR International Series 506. BritishArchaeological Reports,Oxford.l991a Political Evolutionin the Caribbean.Proceedingsof the Thirteenth nternationalCongress or CaribbeanArchaeology, edited by E. N. Ayubi and J. B. Haviser,pp. 232-250. Reports No 9. Archaeological-Anthropological Institute, Curac, o, NetherlandsAntilles.l991b Migration Research in Saladoid Archaeology: AReview. TheFloridaAnthropologist44:79-91.Siegel,.E., andD. J. Bernstein1991 Sampling for Site Structure and SpatialOrganization in the Saladoid: A Case Study.Proceedings of the TwelfthInternationalCongressforCaribbeanArchaeology, edited by L. S. Robinson, pp.87- 107. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Martinique.Steponaitis,. P.1991 Contrasting Patterns of MississippianDevelopment. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, andIdeology, edited by T. Earle, pp. 193-228. School ofAmerican Research and CambridgeUniversity Press,New York.Stevens-Arroyo,. M.1988 Cave of the Jagua: TheMythological Worldof theTainos.Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.Steward,. H.1974 American Culture History in the Light of SouthAmerica. In Native SouthAmericans:Ethnologyof theLeast KnownContinent,edited by P. J. Lyon, pp. 4-21.WavelandPress, ProspectHeights, Illinois.Steward,. H., andL. C. Faron

1959 The Native Peoples of South America. McGraw-Hill, New York.Sturtevant,W.1961 Taino Agriculture. In The Evolution ofHorticulturalSystemsin Native SouthAmerica: Causesand Consequences, a Symposium,edited by J. Wilbert,pp. 69-82. Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales La Salle,Caracas,Venezuela.SuedBadillo,J.1974 La industria lapidaria pretaina en las Antillas.Proceedings of the 41st International Congress ofAmericanists3: 717-724. Mexico City.VelozMaggiolo,M.1973 La Athebeanenequen: evidencia de sacrificiohumanoentrelos Tainos.Boletfndel Museodel HombreDominicano 3:63-69.1974 Economia, arte y superestructura ntre los abori-genes antillanos.CuadernosPrehispa'nicos6:49-55.1977 Medioambiente y adaptacion humana en laprehistoria de Santo Domingo. 2 vols. Editora de laUniversidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo, SantoDomingo, DominicanRepublic.1987 Distribucionde espacios en los asentamientospre-urbanosen las Antillas precolombinas.Actas del TercerSimposio de la Fundacion Arqueologica del Caribe:relaciones entrela sociedad y el ambiente,editedby M.Sanoja,pp. 78-85. FundacionArqueologica del Caribe,Washington,D.C.1991 Panorama historico del Caribe precolombino.Ediciondel Banco Centralde la RepublicaDominicana,SantoDomingo, DominicanRepublic.Veloz aggiolo,M., E. Ortega,R. O. Rimoli,andF.Calderon1973 Estudiocomparativoy preliminarde dos cemente-

rios neo-Indios: la Cucama y la Uni6n, RepublicaDominicana. BoletEn del Museo del HombreDominicano 3:11-47.Versteeg,. H.1989 The InternalOrganizationof a Pioneer Settlementin the Lesser Antilles: The SaladoidGolden Rock Siteon St. Eustatius,NetherlandsAntilles. In Early CeramicPopulation Lifeways and Adaptive Strategies in theCaribbean, edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 171-192. BARInternational Series 506. British ArchaeolosJicalReports, Oxford.1991 Saladoid Houses and Functional Areas AroundThem: The Golden Rock Site on St. Eustatius(Netherlands Antilles). Proceedings of the TwelfthCongress of the International Association forCaribbean Archaeology, edited by L. Robinson, pp.35-44. International Association for CaribbeanArchaeology, Martinique.Versteeg,. H., andK. Schinkel1992 TheArchaeologyof St. Eustatius:TheGoldenRockSite. Publication No. 2, Historical Foundation St.Eustatius, and No. 130, Foundation for ScientificResearch in the Caribbean Region. St. Eustatius,NetherlandsAntilles.Vincent,.1978 Political Anthropology. Annual Review ofAnthropology7:175- 194.Walker,. B.1993Stone Collars, Elbow Stones and Three-Pointers,and the Nature of TainoRitualand Myth.Ph.D. disser-tation, Washington State University, Pullman.UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor.


19/19

2. It has been suggested thatmany of these ceremonialarti-facts might have existed in previous periods but have not sur-vived until present times because of age and poorpreservation.Although it is truethat many of these artifactswere made of wood, cotton, or other organic materials,theyalso weremade of more durablematerials uch as stone, shell,or bone. Thus, differences in preservationand age alone can-notexplain the differentialpresence of these types of artifactsthrough ime.3. Interestingly,one of the criteriaused by Steward o distin-guish between Circum-Caribbeanchiefdom level societies)and Tropical Forest (egalitariansocieties) cultures was thisaccess to the supernaturalworld. He stated that Circum-Caribbean cultures had temple cults with idols served bypriests (1974:12), while in TropicalForestcultures"mostreli-gious observances were private" 1974:15). I recognized thatwhile most South Amerindiangroups tend to have religiousspecialists for curing and divination, many permit people tocontact the supernatural irectlyand others allow anyone tobecome a shaman. In other words, everyone has potentialaccess to the supernatural;here is no monopoly of the reli-gious structure s is the case in chiefdoms. In my argument nreligiousspecialists in chiefdomsI am not referring o simpleshamanswho might have existed in these polities but to aneven more specialized religious position which Stewardreferred o as priests.In mostcases, priestlypositions in chief-doms seem to descend from the same descent line as secularoffices (Service 1962:171).ReceivedFebruary28, 1994; accepted October20, 1995.

Curet] IDEOLOGY,CHIEFLYPOWER, AND MATERIALCULTURE 131

Walker,J. B., and R. L. Walker1983 Final Report of the PreliminaryArchaeologicalSurvey of the Guyanes River System, SoutheasternPuerto Rico. Submitted to the State HistoricPreservationOffice, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Wilson, S. M.1990 Hispaniola, Caribbean Chiefdoms in the Age ofColumbus.University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa.Wing, E. S., and E. J. Reitz1982 Prehistoric Fishing Economies of the Caribbean.Journal of New WorldArchaeology 5:13-32.

Notes1. I am aware that this term does not reflect the wide varietyof possibilities for explaining the cultural affiliation of LaHueca style (see Siegel 1991b). Nevertheless,due to the lackof a better erm I decidedto use this one. I do notwant to givethe impression that I am ignoring the La Hueca debate.However, that debate is irrelevant o the argumentspresentedhere, in which I attempt o explain the shift from a highly elab-oratedand decoratedpottery eitheror both fromthe HaciendaGrandeor La Hueca style) to a more rustic,coarser ceramictradition,a process that Roe (1989:270) has called "ceramicdevolution." In terms of politics and ideology, I believe (inagreement with Roe) that both the HaciendaGrande and LaHueca people (who might or might not have belonged to thesame ethnic or migratorygroup) had similarpolitical organi-zations and ideological structures. This, I would argue,explains why both "styles"have very complex ceramic wares.

Documents

Ideology, Chiefly Power, And Material Culture an Example From the Greater Antilles