Money or ingots? Metrological research on pre-contact Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1962271/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Money or ingots? Metrological research on pre-contact Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1962271/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Axe-monies, trapezoidal sheet objects made of arsenical copper, are associated with graves and hoards of the Manteño-Huancavilca (600–1532 A.D) and Milagro-Quevedo (400–1532 A.D.) cultures, both located in the coast of Ecuador. Historically, scholars identified these artifacts as monies, relating them to a currency system. This paper aims to test this hypothesis by searching for standardization analyzing an important sample of these objects. Metrological analyses on dimensions (length, width) and weight show that the currency hypothesis is flawed because neither apparent clustering of dimensions nor a tendency to a single (range of) weight value(s) is found. We suggest ‘axe-monies’ were used as ‘ingot-objects’ and copper was a commodity in the framework of exchanges involving different cultures throughout America's Pacific coast.

Axe-money

Ecuador

Manteño-Huancavilca

Milagro-Quevedo

The existence of money as a concept is often found in archaeological studies long before coinage adoption. In fact, we should consider coins as just one specific form of money, bearing in mind that “coinage is money; but money is not necessarily coinage” (Haselgrove & Krmnicek, 2012, p.236). Ethnographic and historical studies confirm the use of objects or commodities as money – their raw material (and shape) varies considerably from beads, stones, shells, salt, clothes, cocoa, flesh, tobacco, sugar, metals, etc. - even among modern precapitalist Indigenous societies (e.g., Einzig, 1966; Godelier, 1970). In anthropology and archaeology, money functions as a standard of value, unit of account, means of payment, and stores value (Dalton, 1965). However, it is long debated the effectiveness of ancient (not minted) money in performing at the same time all the functions listed above. Thus, several obstacles have hampered the identification of money systems in prehistoric archaeology.

For instance, some pre-coinage money consisted of perishable material, which is not preserved in the archaeological record. Moreover, some materials or objects may have been used simultaneously as a commodity, prestige goods, heirlooms, and currency, making their primary function indistinguishable. Finally, the archaeological research on money is partly influenced by ‘substantivist’ theories, figuring the ancient world exchanges were more interested in strengthening social relationships than individual enrichment (Polanyi, 1944). However, some presumed prehistoric monies were made of durable material, which allows us to test the hypothesis that some objects circulated as monies. Recently, studies on metal pre-coinage European monies from the second Millennium BC showed the possibility of applying statistical methods in recognition of ancient monetary systems (Kuijpers & Popa, 2021; Ialongo & Lago 2021). This paper discusses the possibility that pre-columbian Manteño-Huancavilca and Milagro-Quevedo (800–1532 b.C.) copper axes from Ecuador (Fig. 1) could served as monies. The so-called ‘axe-monies’ are made of a thin copper sheet molded into a trapezoidal, flat shape with expanded curved edges. They are objects probably not used as tools but rather related to the circulation, exchange, and accumulation of goods (Holm, 1966/67, 1978, 1980; Hosler et al., 1990; Zevallos-Menendez, 1995, pp. 290–297; Stemper, 1993, pp. 172–174; Marcos, 2005, pp. 175–190; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008; Shimada & Merkel, 2021). However, the way in which they were exchanged is still not completely clear. Studies previously published on axe-monies focused on qualitative and typological approaches, often neglecting quantitative aspects. The research presented here investigates the metrology of axe-monies. Our working hypothesis is that if axe-monies had an economic function as weight-regulated object-monies, then dimension, morphology, or weight had to be standardized. Otherwise, it is possible that while playing a role in trade, they were likely used more as a commodity than a currency. We measured the dimension (height, blade width, base width) and weight of a representative sample of axe-monies from coastal Ecuador. We used descriptive statistics to prove (or disprove) the supposed standardization of dimensions and shape by analyzing measurements and weights. The results do not show a well-defined clustering in dimension and weight, suggesting the use of axe-monies more akin to object-ingots than object-monies.

R. Vernau and P. Rivet first stated the definition of ‘axe-monies’ as a comparison with the Mexican Oaxacan types of axe-monies, documented in early Spanish chronicles (Rivet & Vernau, 2019, p.297, p.433; Holm, 1966/67; Easby et al., 1967; Holm, 1978; Hosler et al., 1990, pp. 1–3; Mayer, 1992, pp. 54–57). P. Rivet, R. Vernau, and M. Saville reported the first findings of axe-monies during the early 20th century explorations in coastal Ecuador (Saville, 1910, p.176, fig. XLII; Rivet & Vernau, 2019, p. 297; Holm, 1966/67, 1978). They reported that these objects were uncommon, primarily discovered in the Isla Puna and the gulf of Guayaquil (part of the Manteño Huancavilca area) (Holm, 1978). The main findings of these objects occurred between the 1930s and 1980s related to archaeological excavations of graves and hoards located in the territories of Manteño - Huancavilca and Milagro - Quevedo cultures (Bushnell, 1951; Estrada, 1954, 1957; Holm, 1966/67, 1978, 1980; Marcos, 1981; Ubelaker, 1981; Hosler et al., 1990; Stemper, 1993; Zevallos-Menendez, 1995; Delgado-Espinoza, 2005; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008).

2.1. Manteño-Huancavilca and Milagro-Quevedo cultures

Manteño-Huancavilca culture was located in the actual provinces of El Oro, Santa Elena, the coast of Guayas, and the southern and central areas of Manabi. This culture characterized itself by its navigation skills and articulated hierarchical organization (McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008). This culture flourished between 900 to 1530 A.D. Navigation skills, and technology allowed them to establish trade relations based on spondylus circulation with the coastal areas of Peru and Mesoamerica (Zevallos-Menendez, 1995; Marcos, 2005; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008; Shimada & Merkel, 2021). Also, according to some, Manteño polities were organized in a trade federation (Jijon y Caamaño, 1952, pp. 84–86). Manteño-Huancavilca culture was organized in chiefdoms as reported in early Spanish chronicles where prominent chiefs and towns, along with lower ones like in Puna Island, are recorded. Inner and coastal settlements articulated the settlement pattern. The inland settlements controlled the coastal ones that served as ports. C. McEwan & F. Delgado-Espinoza, (2008) report three polities identified in southern Manabi: Jocay, Salangome, and Picoazá. In contrast, the Milagro-Quevedo culture occupied the hydrographical basin of the Guayas River and its tributaries in the inland of the Ecuadorian coast, modern-day Guayas, Los Rios, and parts of Santo Domingo de Los Tsachilas. This culture was characterized - like the Manteño - by an articulated hierarchical organization and high capacity in building mounds and agrarian infrastructures between 400 and 1532 A.D. (Stemper, 1993; Delgado-Espinoza, 2005, 2006; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008). Milagro-Quevedo culture was also organized in chiefdoms. The Agrarian production was combined with a capillary occupation of the landscape and articulated with administrative centers distinguished by the presence of earth mounds where D. Stemper and F. Delgado-Espinoza identify Daule and Yaguachi as important chiefdoms (Stemper, 1993; Delgado-Espinoza, 2005, 2006; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008). Milagro-Quevedo exchange links between the highlands and the coast were crucial in exploiting surplus agricultural production and favoring the circulation of exotic materials in both directions (Muse, 1991; Stemper, 1993, pp. 166–178; McEwan & Delgado-Espinoza, 2008).

2.2. Main discovery contexts of axe-monies

Unfortunately, a large number of axe-monies come from fortuitous or illegal discoveries. However, there is also a good number of specimens found in archaeological excavations. They are usually, as mentioned before, graves and hoards. C. Zevallos-Menéndez (1995, pp. 199–260, 261–326) reports the finding of axe-monies in graves - both Manteño-Huancavilca and Milagro-Quevedo - as part of the grave goods that included ceramic, shell, and metal. In the case of the burials of Loma de los Cangrejitos, a Manteño-Huancavilca site located in modern-day Santa Elena province, the cited author found axes in small numbers located in the hands or the thoracic areas and inside the mouth of the individual buried, interpreting them as passage payment to the other world (Zevallos-Menéndez, 1995, pp. 294–295; Marcos, 1981, 2012, pp. 42); or near the body (Ubelaker, 198, pp. 100–101; Hosler et al., 1990, p. 16). About the findings in Milagro-Quevedo graves, C. Zevallos-Menèndez mentions the presence of axe-monies in large quantities, without any further detail, but related to a “chimney” type of grave (Zevallos-Menèndez, 1995, pp. 274–281).

About the hoards, O. Holm (1978; 1980) reported the findings of ceramic storage pots with a massive quantity of axe-monies at Hacienda Los Alamos (30 kg) and El Retiro Site (around 13.000 axes, including the large insignia types). Further, axe-monies collected in hoards come both from El Oro Province and Manabi. In the Plagosa site, located in modern-day Manabi Province, thousands of small axe-monies were found wrapped in textiles. D. Hosler et al. (1990, pp. 16) suggested that these massive findings were probably associated with burials. However, it is impossible to know since they were recovered by looters and occasional civilian findings.

2.3. Economy of pre-colonial Mesoamerica, middle America, and the Andes

The existence of markets regulated by the principles of supply and demand is strongly debated in archaeology. Overall, the emergence of money is alternatively deemed to be either a milestone of the market system (metallist theory) or the creation of institutions (chartalist theory). Both theories are well rooted in anthropological studies, albeit archaeological research in some cases shows more nuanced evidence (Baron, 2018). The economic models in Mesoamerica, middle America, and the Central Andes differ from area to area and evolved over time.

The Aztec civilization is characterized by a well-structured commercial economy, almost unanimously recognized by scholars (Hirt & Pillsbury, 2013; Baron, 2018). Maya civilization, especially before the Postclassic period, is by some considered ‘less commercially developed’ (Hirt & Pillsbury, 2013), while others traced back the evidence for marketplaces as early as the Preclassic period (Baron, 2018). The Andean economy has been long deemed a noncommercial economy (Hirt & Pillsbury, 2013, p. 3, 11), led by redistribution criteria reminiscent of Polanyi’s arguments (1957). J. Murra stated the model of verticality (1975), according to which goods were collected and redistributed by regional leaders. The model denies the existence of markets. However, as proposed by several scholars, the paradigm of ‘verticality’ should be refuted since it does not consider the complexity of economic mechanisms (Hirt & Pillsbury, 2013) and the evidence of market and marketplaces in some Andean sites (Mayer, 2002; Salomon, 1986). Several studies recently opened the possibility of different approaches to the circulation and provision of goods and raw materials in space and time. New approaches propose the existence of marketplaces in a barter exchange system, limited to some types of goods (Stanish & Coben, 2013; Topic, 2013; Burger, 2013; Mader et al., 2022). In contrast to the Murra model for the Ecuadorian area, the micro-verticality model favors easy access to different raw materials and products in a community, favoring the exchange within (Oberem, 1978; Salomon, 1986). As chronicles inform about the presence of merchants in Ecuador (mindalaes) and the circulation of goods in exchange networks, these factors were considered in the model. While the existence of an exchange network is no longer in question – also for the Andean area -it is not yet clear whether the exchanges involved metallic money. Research suggested that Peruvian naipes and Ecuadorian and Mexican’ axe-monies’ could serve this purpose.

2.4. Axe-monies or just axes?

Since the first findings of ‘axe-monies,’ the function of these objects was related to trading by comparing them with Mexican axe-monies. The aviso, a colonial form of inventory about the valley of Chincha in Perú, suggests that copper foils were used in exchange operations as well (Rostworoswsky de Diez Canseco, 1970; Hosler et al., 1990; Shimada & Merkel, 2021). O. Holm (1966/67, 1978) stated axe-monies were used as currency. According to this author, in order for axe-monies to comply with the function of money theory, they must possess some specific qualities:

Intrinsic value of raw material, in this case, copper
The added value by the labor required to obtain the raw material and the work of it
Portability that can facilitate its circulation
Durability, in this case, a characteristic of the metal
Standardization and uniformity of size, weight and shape
Divisibility or the possibility of grouping
Stability of the exchange value
Storage and taking off circulation by accumulation, in this case, grave and ritual offerings
Recognizability of its function/value based on the other characteristics previously described.

Further, Holm sustained that the weight of axes followed a pattern of multiples of 5 grams (5, 10, 15, etc. gr), probably resulting from the accurate calculation of dimensions during the production (Holm, 1966/67, p. 138). Unfortunately, the author does not provide weight data of analyzed ‘axe-monies,’ making it impossible to verify results by replicating analyses. I. Shimada and J. Merkel (2021) repropose the same qualities in the study of the Peruvian naipes assigning five dimensional groups (Shimada & Merkel, 2021, table 2). Also in this case, however, dimensional and weight data are not available for a re-analysis. In this paper we tested the hypothesis that Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’ were really molded in order to be standardized by analyzing dimensions and weights of axes with statistical replicable methods.

2.5. Data collection criteria and processing

The sample comprises 728 axe-monies’ from several museum collections reported in the bibliography. From the total sample, 600 axes come from the collection of the Remigio Crespo Toral Museum of Cuenca, 45 axes come from the collections of the Museo Casa del Alabado, Museo Arqueológico Weilbahuer of the Pontificia Universidad Católica of Ecuador, Museo Arqueológico y Antropológico Santiana of the Universidad Central del Ecuador, and Museo Alberto Mena Caamaño of Quito. The SIPCE database was consulted for this research, and 228 records were found. Of these, only 82 were suitable to be used by applying the proposed analysis (Table n.1). Of these objects, four measures were collected: weight, length, base width, and blade width (Data available in a supplementary spreadsheet).

Table 1 Summary of the collection of the provenance of the money axes

Museum/ Collection/ Bibliography	Sample
Museo de Arte Precolombino Casa del Alabado	28
Museo Arqueológico Weilbahuer - PUCE	6
Museo Arqueológico y Antropológico Santiana	6
Museo Alberto Mena Caamaño	5
Museo Remigio Crespo Toral - Cuenca	598
Bibliography (Kullen-Kobb et al. 2022)	3
SIPCE	82
TOTAL	728

The samples used were only complete objects, discarding fragmented and corroded ones. All the objects have been measured by recording in a database the: a) weight; b) height (from the middle of the base to the middle of the rounded blade); c) base width; d) blade width (Fig. 2).

2.6. Statistical analysis

Using all the dimensional and weight measures, we employ a methodology based on descriptive statistics.

2.6.1 Frequency Distribution Analysis

The Frequency Distribution Analysis (FDA) is a statistical method to organize and visualize numerical data (Vanpool & Leonard, 2011, pp. 20–28). For instance, the results can be represented with a histogram grouping the frequency of occurrence of numbers falling within intervals of values: bins. The y-axis is a graduate scale showing the frequency in the number of occurrences. The x-axis is a graduate scale showing the bins’ value intervals. Consequently, each bin is as high as the frequency of occurrence is. In the presence of standardized production of objects – like the one of ‘axe-monies’ is supposed to be – we legitimately expect a ‘normal’ frequency distribution with a means roughly corresponding to the highest frequency value.

2.6.2. Pairplot

The scatterplot is a graphical statistical technique to display the data distribution of datasets having more variables. This methodology is used to understand whether (or not) a correlation between two (or more) quantitative variables exists (Drennan, 2009, pp. 200–201). In this case, we used a type of scatterplot called pairplot from the Seaborn data visualization library (https://seaborn.pydata.org/generated/seaborn.pairplot.html). This type of graph creates a scatterplot grid to visualize pairwise relationships in a dataset. This tool is particularly important because it allows the visualization of multivariate datasets, such as the one proposed, in a single graph. Each variable is plotted on a horizontal and vertical axis of the pairplot. A scatterplot is proposed at the intersection of two variables to differentiate the relationship between the two measurements. On the other hand, at the intersection of the same variable, a histogram is shown, allowing the variable’s univariate frequency distribution (§ 2.6.1) to be seen.

2.6. Expectations

Current scholarship shows the presence of small and normal-shaped ‘axe-monies’ (Hosler et al., 1990, type 1a and 1b) (Fig. 3). Based on the assumption that this difference exists, we expect a clusterization of dimensions and weight within two distinct groups. We also considered the possibility that clusters identifiable do not exist, perhaps resulting from partial or arbitrary sampling. In the presence of standardized production, we expect a ‘normal’ dimensional distribution and weight, plotting a bell curve. In particular, if ‘axe-monies’ really perform as currency – hence accomplishing the role of a unit of account – we would expect that they tend to a specific ‘standard’ value.

FDA shows the absence of dimensional and weight clusters around one or more groups. There is no clear distinction between small and big ‘axe-monies’ as they are not grouped within two clusters. Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘axe-monies’ of different and well-defined sizes existed is not supported by data. Also, it is impossible to recognize the ‘quinary groups’ set by Holm (1966/67, 138). The frequency distribution of height, blade width, and base width is non-normal, showing no value concentration around a specific value or range of values. Weight data show a skewed-right distribution with a right tail longer than the left one, with the latter having most of the data. Overall, the data distribution is symmetric and uniform (Fig. 4). Pairplot shows the dimensions of the objects have a relationship of direct proportionality: the longer an object, the larger and heavier it is.

Statistical analyses show the existence of no dimensional and weight clusters of ‘axe-monies.’ Some authors suggested a difference in dimensions of axe-monies based on chronology. In particular, large axes found in Cangrejitos cemetery would be more ancient than smaller ones (Marcos, 1981, 2012). The hypothesis that the axe-monies decrease in size over the centuries remains to be proved with more research. However, the direct proportionality of different dimensions (height, blade width, base width) proves that ‘axe-monies’ were molded with a standard reference model. The hypothesis we put forward is the use of ‘axe-monies’ like copper ingots, i.e., objects having a conventional and recognizable shape, durable, easy to collect, and portable, most likely used for trading copper, which is a commodity. Given the wide range of weight (ranging from 0.8 to 33.4 gr), it is not sustainable the fungibility of ‘axe-monies,’ the latter fundamental in money-object. Furthermore, ‘axe-monies’ cannot properly be defined as ‘money’ because, even though they can be considered means of payments and store value, they lack some of the main functions of money: the use of the unit of account and standard of value (Dalton, 1965).

This evidence would suggest the standardization of weight or the compliance of objects’ weight with precise multiples of values. Weight standardization of objects would assume the existence of a weight system. However, the only evidence of weight balances and weight scales comes from Samano-Xerez and Estete chronicles (Hartmann & Holm, 1981; Samano-Xerez, 1937), reporting the existence of scale devices and defined weights for the exchange of goods in the Manteño and Jama – Coaque areas (“romanas”). As mentioned in the cited documents, the intended use of these objects was to weigh metals, especially gold and silver. These devices also reported in the “aviso '' for the Chincha area (Hartmann & Holm, 1981; Rostworoswsky de Diez Canseco, 1970; Shimada & Merkel, 2021), are important as they suggest the existence of traffic of weighed metals and other commodities. It is not clear whether weighing technology was also present in pre-colonial times. To date, there is no clear archaeological evidence of balance beams and weights, and the ‘axe-monies’ do not provide indirect evidence of a weighing system not being weight regulated.

As I. Shimada and J. Merkel (2021) proposed, the standardization of naipes included color, shape, measures, and probably weight, beyond the possibility of stocking them in defined numbers. While not doubting the possible use of naipes as a means of exchange, we believe that statistical analysis on a large sample and data availability could shed new light on this kind of supposed ‘money-objects’ as well, by confirming or rejecting the currency hypothesis. It is possible that once the weight and dimension distribution is analyzed, the naipes turn out to be ingots just like Ecuadorian’ axe-monies’.

Axe-monies, naipes, and their relatives were part of the interchange relations and contacts between the northern coast of Perú, Ecuador’s central coast, and even the Mesoamerican pacific coast. Within this network, it is possible to find an intense circulation of goods, including spondylus shells, textiles, different kinds of metals, etc. (Dillehay, 2013; Marcos, 2005; Hosler et al., 1990; Holm ,1966/67, 1978). In this context, copper was probably melted to produce ingots of conventional forms like ‘axe-monies’ and naipes. Copper ingots were commodified between the parties while value and ‘price’ was negotiated each time. The use of well-typified ingots allows us to trace back the route of copper, mainly from south to north, involving polities in the northern coast of Perú and Manteño/Milagro-Quevedo areas (Shimada & Merkel, 2021, pp. 24–25).

In Manteño-Huancavilca and Milagro-Quevedo territories, axe-monies were widely recognized as symbols of personal wealth and prestige goods, as naipes were in Sicán polity (Shimada & Merkel, 2021). Since Sicán naipes are also attested in the Manteño-Huancavilca area (Shimada & Merkel, 2021, p. 21), they testify to the circulation of copper molten in sheets to and from the other polities. The same cannot be stated for Ecuador and Mexico, as there is no evidence of Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’ in Mexico and vice-versa (Cullen-Kobb et al., 2022, p. 372). It is possible that an articulated net of exchange between Perú and Ecuador, including the spondylus – which is not the only/main exchange product – existed (Carter, 2022).

The metrological study of Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’ allowed us to shed new light on the economy of the pre-contact Andean area. Unfortunately, the analyzed sample lacks provenance information, preventing discussing the distribution of axes. Provenance data would have also allowed us to investigate the existence of standardized site-to-site or regional production. Significantly, large and ‘random’ sampling allows us to affirm that no weight regulation of ‘axe-monies’ existed on a large scale, thus excluding the possibility that these objects were proper money but ingots instead. The metrological analysis could also be applied for other supposed metallic money from Andes, Middle America, and Mesoamerica, particularly naipes and Mexican axe-monies. It cannot be ruled out that very deep-rooted paradigms in archaeological studies can be newly and further discussed after a re-analysis of data. More chronological data could also help us understand differences in axe-monies diffusion and trace differences in their shaping. Lastly, future research on this topic would be enriched by the study on the standardization of profiles. For example, machine-learning algorithms can be used on thousands of objects to recognize and measure the variability of shapes through objective parameters, reaching high detail levels, unbiased by human subjectivity.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design in equal parts. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Carlos E. Montalvo Puente and Juan C. Perez Molina, analyses were performed by Giancarlo Lago and Lorenzo Cardarelli. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Carlos E. Montalvo Puente and Giancarlo Lago and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

No funds, grants, or other support was received.

We declare that there are no ethical issues with this research and paper.

The data used to perform the analysis is provided as a supplementary file with this article.

Acknowledgments:

We thank the Board of Directors of the Tolita Foundation for the support of the Casa del Alabado Museum of Pre-Columbian Art. We thank the staff of the Museo Casa del Alabado, in particular Lucía Durán, executive director, for her support of the project. We thank Ximena Pulla, head of the Remigio Crespo Toral Museum in the city of Cuenca- Ecuador, Pablo Quelal, head of the Santiana Archaeological Museum of the Central University, Quito - Ecuador, Ricardo Gutiérrez, director of the Weilbahuer Archaeological Museum of the Pontifical University of Ecuador, Quito, to Francisco Hidalgo, responsible for the archaeological reserve of the Alberto Mena Caamaño Cultural Center, Quito – Ecuador and to the National Institute of Cultural Heritage of Ecuador for access to the SIPCE documentation. Without the kind help of these people and institutions, it would not have been possible to collect the data. We thank Kevin Torres-Spicer, who graciously and patiently proofread the article. Finally, we thank the reviewers who kindly read the article. We are sure that their comments will further enrich the document.

Baron, J.P. (2018), Ancient monetization: The case of Classic Maya textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.12.002
Burger, R. (2013) In the Realm of The Incas: An Archaeological Reconsideration of Household Exchange, Long Distance Trade and Marketplaces in the Pre-Hispanic Central Andes. In Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (Eds.) Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world, 319–334. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Bushnell, G.H.S. (1951). The archaeology of Santa Elena Peninsula in South-West Ecuador. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, B. (2022) Spondylus as a Driver of Interregional Exchange: Mapping Recent Ecological Research on Spondylus to Inform Pre-Columbian Extraction and Use. In Beekman, C. S. and McEwan, C. (Eds.) Waves Of Influence: Pacific Maritime Networks Connecting Mexico, Central America and Northwestern South America, 419–456, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia.
Cullen-Cobb, K., Beekman, C. S., Kaplan, E. And Lam, T. (2022) The Craft, Use, and Distribution of Axe Monies in Mesoamerica. In Beekman, C. S. and McEwan, C. (Eds.) Waves Of Influence: Pacific Maritime Networks Connecting Mexico, Central America and Northwestern South America, 347–418, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia.
Dalton, G. (1965). Primitive Money. American Anthropologist, 67(1), 44–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/668655
Delgado-Espinoza, F. (2005). Organización Política en la cuenca baja del rio Guayas, Ecuador, durante el periodo de Integraciòn (c.a. 500 d.C. - Contacto español). Antropologìa. Cuadernos de investigación 6, 211–228.
Delgado-Espinoza, F. (2006). Organización de la producción de los camellones de la baja cuenca del Guayas durante la ocupación de los Chonos. In Valdez, F. (Ed.) Agricultura Ancestral Camellones y Albarradas, 159–168. Quito: Abya Yala.
Dillehay, T (2013) Economic Mobility, exchanges and Order in the Andes. In Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (Eds.) Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world, 283–308. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Drennan, R.D. (2010), Statistics for archaeologists: a commonsense approach, 2nd ed. ed, Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. Springer, New York.
Easby, J., Dudley, T., Caley, E.R., Moazed, K. (1967). Axe-money: Facts and Speculation. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 21, 107–136.
Einzig, P. (1966). Primitive money: in its ethnological, historical and economic aspects.
Estrada, E. (1954). Ensayo preliminar sobre la arqueología de Milagro. Guayaquil: Archivo Histórico del Guayas.
Estrada, E. (1957). Últimas civilizaciones prehistóricas de la cuenca del río Guayas. Guayaquil: Publicación del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada.
Godelier, M. (2013). La moneta di sale: economia simbolica e del dono presso gli indigeni Baruya della Nuova Guinea. Pgreco, Milano.
Hartmann, R. And Holm, O. (1981) La “Romana” en tiempos prehispanicos y su uso actual en la costa del Ecuador. Miscelanea Antropológica Ecuatoriana I, 155–186.
Haselgrove, C., Krmnicek, S. (2012). The Archaeology of Money. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 41, 235–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145716
Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (2013). Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world. In Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (Eds.) Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world, 1–22. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Holm, O. (1966/67). Money Axes from Ecuador. Folk 8–9, 136–143.
Holm, O. (1978). Hachas-moneda del Ecuador. In Stothert, K. (Ed.) Lanzas Silbadoras y otras contribuciones de Olaf Holm al estudio del pasado del Ecuador. Tomo II, 43–53. Guayaquil: BCE.
Holm, O. (1980). Monedas primitivas del Ecuador prehistórico. Cuadernos prehispánicos 8, 53–67.
Hosler, D., Lechtman, H., & Holm, O. (1990). Axe-monies and their relatives. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, 30, 1–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41263471
Ialongo, N., Lago, G. (2021). A small change revolution. Weight systems and the emergence of the first Pan-European money. Journal of Archaeological Science 129, 105379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105379
Kuijpers, M.H.G., Popa, C.N. (2021). The origins of money: Calculation of similarity indexes demonstrates the earliest development of commodity money in prehistoric Central Europe. PLoS ONE 16, e0240462. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240462
Jijón y Caamaño, J. (1952). Antropología prehispánica del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Museo Jacinto Jijón y Caamaño.
Mader, C., Reindel, M., Isla, J. (2022). Economic Directness in the Western Andes: A New Model of Socioeconomic Organization for the Paracas Culture in the First Millennium BC. Latin American Antiquity, 1–19. doi:10.1017/laq.2022.40
Marcos, J. (1981). Informe sobre el área ceremonial del complejo Manteño Huancavilca de la Loma de los Cangrejitos, Valle de Chanduy, Ecuador. El Arquitecto 1, 54–63.
Marcos, J. (2005). Los pueblos navegantes del Ecuador prehispánico. Quito, Ecuador: Ediciones Abya-Yala.
Marcos, J. (2012). La historia prehispánica de los pueblos Manteño-Huancavilca de Chanduy. Quito: UIDE.
Mayer, E. (1982) Metallgeld und Metallbesitz in Altamerika. AVA-Beitrâge 4.
Mayer, E. (2002). The articulated peasant: Household economies in the Andes. Boulder: Westview Press.
McEwan, C., Delgado-Espinoza, F. (2008). Late Pre-Hispanic Polities of Coastal Ecuador. In: Silverman, H., Isbell, W.H. (eds) The Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74907-5_26
Murra, J. V. (1975). Formaciones económicas y políticas del mundo andino. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Muse, D. (1991) Products and politics of Milagro Entrepot: Peñon de Rio, Guayas Basin, Ecuador. Economic Anthropology 13, 269 − 263.
Oberem, U. (1978) El Acceso a Recursos Naturales de Diferentes Ecologias en la sierra ecuatoriana (Siglo XVI). In Actes du XLII Congrés Itnernational des Americanistes, 51–64. Paris 1976. Vol IV.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time.
Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., Pearson, H.W. (Eds.), 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Free Press, New York.
Rivet, P., Vernau, R. (2019) Etografìa antigua del Ecuador. Traducción de Lara, C. Cuenca: Cruz del Sur.
Rostworoswsky de Diez Canseco, M. (1970) Mercaderes del valle de Chincha en la epoca prehuispanica. Un documento y unos comentarios. Revista española de antropología americana 5, 135–177.
Salomon, F. (1986). Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas. Cambridge University Press.
Samano-Xerez, (1937 [1528]) Relacion. Cuadernos de Historia del Peru 2, 63–68. Imprimeries Les Presses Modernes, Paris.
Saville, M.H. (1910). Contributions to South American archeology: the George G. Heye expedition [2], [2]. Contributions to South American Archeology. New York: Irving Press.
Stanish, and Coben, L. S. (2013) Barter markets in the Pre-Hispanic Andes. In Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (Eds.) Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world, 419–434. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Shimada, I. and Merkel, J. F. (2021): Naipes: Functions and Significance of Middle Sicán Standardized Sheetmetal Artifacts, Ñawpa Pacha, 41:2, 211–249, DOI: 10.1080/00776297.2021.1878618
Stemper, D.M. (1993). The persistence of prehispanic chiefdoms on the Río Daule, Coastal Ecuador: La persistencia de los cacicazgos prehispánicos en el Río Daule, Costa del Ecuador, University of Pittsburgh memoirs in Latin American archaeology. University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Anthropology ; Libri Mundi, Pittsburgh.
Topic, J. (2013) Exchange on the Equatorial Frontier. A Comparison of Ecuador and Northern Peru. In Hirth, K., Pillsbury, J. (Eds.) Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world, 335–360. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Ubelaker, D. (1981). The Ayalàn Cemetery. A Late Integration Burial Site on the South Coast of Ecuador. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 2. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.
VanPool, T.L., Leonard, R.D. (2011), Quantitative analysis in archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Malden, MA.
Zevallos-Menendez, C. (1995). Nuestras Raíces Guancavilcas. Guayaquil: Casa de la cultura Núcleo del Guayas.

No competing interests reported.

databaseaxemonies.xlsx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Money or ingots? Metrological research on pre-contact Ecuadorian ‘axe-monies’

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials And Methods

2.1. Manteño-Huancavilca and Milagro-Quevedo cultures

2.2. Main discovery contexts of axe-monies

2.3. Economy of pre-colonial Mesoamerica, middle America, and the Andes

2.4. Axe-monies or just axes?

2.5. Data collection criteria and processing

2.6. Statistical analysis

2.6.1 Frequency Distribution Analysis

2.6.2. Pairplot

2.6. Expectations

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Final Observations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1