Books by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
María Auxiliadora Cordero, editora
Durante las seis últimas décadas, las mujeres hemos sido pa... more María Auxiliadora Cordero, editora
Durante las seis últimas décadas, las mujeres hemos sido parte importante en el campo de estudio del pasado de los pueblos originarios del actual Ecuador, a través de la disciplina de la arqueología. En la actualidad, mucho del trabajo académico y de rescate arqueológico cuenta con la participación de numerosas profesionales, sea en el campo, el laboratorio, los museos, o las aulas. Sin embargo, en el imaginario ecuatoriano, la arqueología sigue concibiéndose como una actividad principalmente masculina. De manera inconsciente o no, los hombres que se dedican al quehacer arqueológico concentran, mayormente, el poder en universidades, en la organización de reuniones profesionales y de publicaciones. Por este motivo, las mujeres somos muchas veces invisibles en esta disciplina, a nivel de la opinión pública. Es así como un grupo de arqueólogas decidimos organizar un simposio con presentaciones exclusivamente realizadas por nosotras y varias colegas, nacionales y extranjeras, con el fin de ir ganando acceso a espacios y a tener voz dentro del ámbito cultural, académico y profesional de la arqueología en el Ecuador. Este libro recoge los aportes presentados en la Provincia de Manabí, dentro del Primer Simposio de Arqueólogas del Ecuador ̶ De Arqueología ̶ Hablamos las Mujeres, realizado en julio de 2017. Presentamos al público este trabajo que pone en evidencia el rol activo e importante que cumplimos en el estudio de los pueblos originarios del Ecuador antiguo.
1 cl desarrollo de la compl<:Jidad social en la sierra norte del c cuador: el caso del cacicazgo ... more 1 cl desarrollo de la compl<:Jidad social en la sierra norte del c cuador: el caso del cacicazgo Ca~ambi El estudio de la compltjidad social Esta investigaci6n se enfoca en el desarrollo de las sociedades complejas en los Andes septentrionales de lo que hoy es Ecuador, y en particular en la reconstrucci6n de la trayectoria de/ cacicazgo prehispanico de Cayambe. La explicaci6n de/ origen y mantenimiento de la desigualdad es un tema que ha recibido abundante atenci6n en las ciencias sociales y particularmente en la antropologfa (Flanagan. 1989) La bibliograffa arqueol6gica de decadas recientes tiene varios ejemplos de/ interes que han despertado las sociedades de rango medio o cacicazgos, es decir, los grupos no igualitarios. y el desarrollo de la desigualdad social (ver por ejemplo Brumfiel y Fox, I 994, Drennan y Uribe, I 987; Earle I 987, 199 I; Pricey Feinman, 1995a; Wason. 1994) Sin embargo. aun las sociedades de escala mas pequena pueden tener 'jerarqufas insidiosas" (Flanangan. 1989 262) yes posible que nunca hayan existido grupos completamente igualitarios (Pricey Feinman. 1995b; Wason, I 994) 11~11~11 1 5 La pregunta central. entonces, es c6mo las jerarqufas se convierten c:lcac;caz.soeay,mb; en hereditarias y c6mo se mantienen estables.
Book Chapters by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
Autoras: Victoria Domínguez Sandoval, Josefina Vásquez Pazmiño, y María Auxiliadora Cordero.
In: ... more Autoras: Victoria Domínguez Sandoval, Josefina Vásquez Pazmiño, y María Auxiliadora Cordero.
In: De Arqueología—Hablamos las Mujeres. María Auxiliadora Cordero, editor. ULEAM—Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
Co-authored with T. L. Jones, A. C. Clarke, M.-A. Cordero, R. C. Green, G. Irwin, K. A. Klar, E.... more Co-authored with T. L. Jones, A. C. Clarke, M.-A. Cordero, R. C. Green, G. Irwin, K. A. Klar, E. A. Matisoo-Smith, D. Quiróz, J. M. Ramírez-Aliaga, A. A. Storey, and M. I. Weisler.
We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350. None of them altered the course of prehistory in these regions in the extreme ways suggested by hyperdiffusionists (i.e., they did not cause the emergence of New World civilizations); nonetheless, local populations in both Polynesia and the Americas were the recipients of new technologies and domesticates that affected their subsistence practices and lives. Cultures changed. This conclusion is not based on any single piece of evidence but rather on the totality. The possibility that Polynesians made such contacts has been discussed and debated for nearly two centuries. Both theoretical resistance to the notion of transoceanic diffusion and lingering ethnocentrism among American scholars have contributed to stubborn dismissal of this idea, especially in the United States. Previously, it was also possible to raise enough doubts about certain empirical patterns that archaeologists had in some cases justification for rejecting transoceanic contacts even in the face of archaeologically, ethnographically, and experimentally demonstrated Polynesian seafaring capabilities. Some of the early counter-arguments, however, were also convoluted and far from parsimonious. Findings from new methods and more rigorous analyses of previously cited and new evidence now make direct cultural contact the simplest possible explanation for the co-occurrence of various cultural and biological traits in Polynesia and the Americas. In our view, convergence, coincidence, and independent adaptive innovation simply do not offer credible alternative explanations for the patterns described in this volume and summarized more briefly below. The archaeological evidence also clearly shows that these patterns are not the result of transference into and through the Pacific by Europeans in postcontact times.
Papers by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
Uploads
Books by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
Durante las seis últimas décadas, las mujeres hemos sido parte importante en el campo de estudio del pasado de los pueblos originarios del actual Ecuador, a través de la disciplina de la arqueología. En la actualidad, mucho del trabajo académico y de rescate arqueológico cuenta con la participación de numerosas profesionales, sea en el campo, el laboratorio, los museos, o las aulas. Sin embargo, en el imaginario ecuatoriano, la arqueología sigue concibiéndose como una actividad principalmente masculina. De manera inconsciente o no, los hombres que se dedican al quehacer arqueológico concentran, mayormente, el poder en universidades, en la organización de reuniones profesionales y de publicaciones. Por este motivo, las mujeres somos muchas veces invisibles en esta disciplina, a nivel de la opinión pública. Es así como un grupo de arqueólogas decidimos organizar un simposio con presentaciones exclusivamente realizadas por nosotras y varias colegas, nacionales y extranjeras, con el fin de ir ganando acceso a espacios y a tener voz dentro del ámbito cultural, académico y profesional de la arqueología en el Ecuador. Este libro recoge los aportes presentados en la Provincia de Manabí, dentro del Primer Simposio de Arqueólogas del Ecuador ̶ De Arqueología ̶ Hablamos las Mujeres, realizado en julio de 2017. Presentamos al público este trabajo que pone en evidencia el rol activo e importante que cumplimos en el estudio de los pueblos originarios del Ecuador antiguo.
Book Chapters by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
In: De Arqueología—Hablamos las Mujeres. María Auxiliadora Cordero, editor. ULEAM—Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350. None of them altered the course of prehistory in these regions in the extreme ways suggested by hyperdiffusionists (i.e., they did not cause the emergence of New World civilizations); nonetheless, local populations in both Polynesia and the Americas were the recipients of new technologies and domesticates that affected their subsistence practices and lives. Cultures changed. This conclusion is not based on any single piece of evidence but rather on the totality. The possibility that Polynesians made such contacts has been discussed and debated for nearly two centuries. Both theoretical resistance to the notion of transoceanic diffusion and lingering ethnocentrism among American scholars have contributed to stubborn dismissal of this idea, especially in the United States. Previously, it was also possible to raise enough doubts about certain empirical patterns that archaeologists had in some cases justification for rejecting transoceanic contacts even in the face of archaeologically, ethnographically, and experimentally demonstrated Polynesian seafaring capabilities. Some of the early counter-arguments, however, were also convoluted and far from parsimonious. Findings from new methods and more rigorous analyses of previously cited and new evidence now make direct cultural contact the simplest possible explanation for the co-occurrence of various cultural and biological traits in Polynesia and the Americas. In our view, convergence, coincidence, and independent adaptive innovation simply do not offer credible alternative explanations for the patterns described in this volume and summarized more briefly below. The archaeological evidence also clearly shows that these patterns are not the result of transference into and through the Pacific by Europeans in postcontact times.
Papers by Maria-Auxiliadora Cordero
Durante las seis últimas décadas, las mujeres hemos sido parte importante en el campo de estudio del pasado de los pueblos originarios del actual Ecuador, a través de la disciplina de la arqueología. En la actualidad, mucho del trabajo académico y de rescate arqueológico cuenta con la participación de numerosas profesionales, sea en el campo, el laboratorio, los museos, o las aulas. Sin embargo, en el imaginario ecuatoriano, la arqueología sigue concibiéndose como una actividad principalmente masculina. De manera inconsciente o no, los hombres que se dedican al quehacer arqueológico concentran, mayormente, el poder en universidades, en la organización de reuniones profesionales y de publicaciones. Por este motivo, las mujeres somos muchas veces invisibles en esta disciplina, a nivel de la opinión pública. Es así como un grupo de arqueólogas decidimos organizar un simposio con presentaciones exclusivamente realizadas por nosotras y varias colegas, nacionales y extranjeras, con el fin de ir ganando acceso a espacios y a tener voz dentro del ámbito cultural, académico y profesional de la arqueología en el Ecuador. Este libro recoge los aportes presentados en la Provincia de Manabí, dentro del Primer Simposio de Arqueólogas del Ecuador ̶ De Arqueología ̶ Hablamos las Mujeres, realizado en julio de 2017. Presentamos al público este trabajo que pone en evidencia el rol activo e importante que cumplimos en el estudio de los pueblos originarios del Ecuador antiguo.
In: De Arqueología—Hablamos las Mujeres. María Auxiliadora Cordero, editor. ULEAM—Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
We suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for the material, linguistic, biological, mythological, nautical, chronological, and physical anthropological evidence summarized in chapters 1–13 is that Polynesians made pre-Columbian landfalls in the New World. Further, based on this evidence, we identify three likely locations of contact: southern Chile, the Gulf of Guayaquil in South America, and the Santa Barbara Channel in North America. All of these contacts we argue occurred during the late Holocene between approximately cal A.D. 700 and 1350. None of them altered the course of prehistory in these regions in the extreme ways suggested by hyperdiffusionists (i.e., they did not cause the emergence of New World civilizations); nonetheless, local populations in both Polynesia and the Americas were the recipients of new technologies and domesticates that affected their subsistence practices and lives. Cultures changed. This conclusion is not based on any single piece of evidence but rather on the totality. The possibility that Polynesians made such contacts has been discussed and debated for nearly two centuries. Both theoretical resistance to the notion of transoceanic diffusion and lingering ethnocentrism among American scholars have contributed to stubborn dismissal of this idea, especially in the United States. Previously, it was also possible to raise enough doubts about certain empirical patterns that archaeologists had in some cases justification for rejecting transoceanic contacts even in the face of archaeologically, ethnographically, and experimentally demonstrated Polynesian seafaring capabilities. Some of the early counter-arguments, however, were also convoluted and far from parsimonious. Findings from new methods and more rigorous analyses of previously cited and new evidence now make direct cultural contact the simplest possible explanation for the co-occurrence of various cultural and biological traits in Polynesia and the Americas. In our view, convergence, coincidence, and independent adaptive innovation simply do not offer credible alternative explanations for the patterns described in this volume and summarized more briefly below. The archaeological evidence also clearly shows that these patterns are not the result of transference into and through the Pacific by Europeans in postcontact times.