Los arahuacos del Higüey: Análisis bibliográfico y documental de sociedades indígenas caribeñas

Abner Trujillo Marrero
Departamento de Sociología y Antropología
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, UPR RP

Recibido: 16/02/2024; Revisado: 16/05/2024; Aceptado: 17/05/2024

Abstract

This project seeks to contribute to the debate regarding the denomination of the insular Arawaks of Hispaniola as a chiefdom society. The group under consideration is the one associated with the Higüey region. Using primary ethnohistoric sources, we seek to contrast their descriptions with anthropological concepts and archaeological evidence. By these means, we seek to analyze and determine if these societies comply with the characteristics of a chiefdom society. Several limitations to be considered in future studies of this region are also noted. In conclusion, a possible answer to the absence of elite burials in Dominican pre-Columbian archaeology is given.

Keywords: chiefdoms, Hispaniola, Pre-Columbian archaeology

Resumen

Esta investigación busca aportar al debate existente sobre la denominación de los arahuacos insulares de La Española como una sociedad de jefatura. Para los efectos de esta investigación, nos limitamos a utilizar fuentes etnohistóricas primarias sobre la región este del Higüey para realizar una lectura crítica que contraponga sus descripciones con conceptos antropológicos y evidencia arqueológica. El objetivo es determinar si estos grupos cumplen con las características asociadas a una sociedad de jefatura. Se notan varias limitaciones y variables a considerar en estudios futuros sobre esta región. Para concluir, se provee una posible respuesta ante la ausencia de entierros de élite en la arqueología precolombina dominicana.

Palabras claves: cacicazgos, La Española, arqueología precolombina

Introduction

The project aims to be a cultural case study in the anthropological scope regarding XV to XVI century chiefdom societies in the Caribbean. The analysis will be built upon primary ethnohistorical sources, which consist of XVI century Castilian documents and chronicles, such as La Historia Natural y General de las Indias (1851) by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, and Relación Acerca de las Antigüedades de los Indios (2004) by Fray Ramon Pané, among others. This research does not seek to give a definitive answer to the existing debate on the existence and definition of chiefdoms. However, based on the existing information, it intends to contribute to the subject. I chose this topic because it has been under analyzed and would contribute to the region's anthropological literature. The analysis will be based on primary ethnohistorical sources and secondary sources. The recovered archaeological record is stored primarily in the Smithsonian Institute, the Ethnohistorical Museum of Florida State University, the University of Leiden, the Asociación García Arévalo, and the Museum of the Dominican Man. The comparison between ethnohistoric and archaeological data allows for a better understanding of what defines a chiefdom society. A significant factor is the regions that the Castilian chroniclers and explorers knew. In the Caribbean, Fernández de Oviedo’s, Panés’, and Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas’ chronicles, among others, are still regarded as key ethnohistorical sources on the precontact societies of Hispaniola. The combination of ethnohistory and archaeology has allowed interpretations of the location of the main political regions of precontact Hispaniola (Oliver, 2009; Vega, 1987; Wilson, 1990). The map displayed in Appendix A depicts the political boundaries and the associated caciques by 1492, allowing the geographical delimitation of the area to be studied.

Theoretical Framework and Historical Context

The definition of chiefdom in anthropology is that it is essentially a sociopolitical organization that shows greater complexity than a tribal organization but is not as developed as a state society. Chiefdom societies are found in all parts of the world, yet they retain very marked distinctions. For this reason, multiple concepts, such as circumscription and kinship, have been developed to comprehend their formation (Beliaev et al., 2001; Carneiro, 2012; Ensor, 2011; Moscoso, 2018; Saklnik, 2004; Service, 1960). Junker (2015) agrees with Earle that the generally accepted definition of "chiefdom" does not describe the concept. Even so, anthropology has gone to great lengths to identify key characteristics that they tend to share (Earle, 1987, 1989; Vargas, 1989). Among them are the scale of integration, centrality in decision-making, stratification, redistribution, prestige, and kinship ties. Chiefdoms also have two distinct tiers. The first tier refers to chiefdoms with blood ties to the rest of the polity, making them clan-oriented chiefdoms in which kinship ties determine position. The second tier is a paramount chiefdom, which essentially encompasses what tends to be considered a kingdom (Claessen, 2011). Regarding stratification, Earle (1987) comments that political differentiation and economic control are linked, expressing that for the elites vying for control of the polity, they must first separate themselves from the rest of the population in political terms as well as having a strict hold over the economies of their polities. The chief’s clan and lineage also became differentiated from the rest of the polity by their consanguinity with the chiefly figure, which in the Caribbean context is considered to have been determined by the maternal line (Franch & Galan, 1981; Keegan & Maclachlan, 1989).

Economic management in chiefdoms becomes centralized around the ruling figure, revolving around two major strategies (Earle, 1987; Junker, 2015). The first one is control over staple production as a means of exerting ownership over the land, control of the labor force, and the requirement of tribute payments. The second form of control is over the distribution of prestige goods, used as currencies to create alliances and maintain the cohesion of the polity's elite. The third form of control revolves around a chiefdom's military power; in this case, a chief must have firm control over the polity's warrior force, which is kept loyal by the prestige goods he supplies them for their loyalty. A chiefdom seldom bases its economy solely on staple or wealth finance, preferring to consider some aspects of both systems in managing the polity's economy (Junker, 2015). All these factors combine in the notable practice of redistribution, a key element in many chiefdom societies. The definition of this element is that the chief figure demands that goods be taken to his or her residence, where storehouses may be dedicated for this specific use. Once the goods are taken here, the chief figure's duty is to distribute them accordingly to the polity members. With this, the chief can maintain alliances with warrior groups and other powerful lineages.

Chiefdoms are institutionalized and hereditary offices of leadership. Only specific lineages with sociopolitical power can qualify for this office, and as such, it demands distinct ritual behaviors, clothing, and modes of conduct (Peebles & Kus, 1977; Claessen, 2014). In many cases, there are no ironclad rules of who inherits the title of chief, which makes it possible in times of political tension for a leader to inherit the office, which, under normal circumstances, would not be a candidate for succession (Oliver, 2009). Regarding their political dominance, in this model, there are two major systems (Blanton et al., 1996). The first is the network system, where “political actors try to create personal networks of dominance through the strategic distribution of portable wealth and symbolic capital” (Junker, 2015, p. 378). This model of political dominance appears to go hand in hand with a chiefdom with a wealth finance economic model. The second model is the “corporate strategy of dominance,” which “disperses power through bureaucratic institutions promoting consensus, solidarity, and collective action” (Junker, 2015, 378). Three ideological bases go hand in hand with the models of political dominance (Earle, 1987). The first one is closely related to the construction of sacred monuments and the required ceremonies to erect them. The second one is tied to wealth finance economics, the symbol of prestige that shows individual position within the polity. The last one he mentions is the symbols of warrior might, which augment the prestige and perception of the chieftain, not only as a semi-divine being but also as a combatant. This type of political organization has been universally assigned in Caribbean archaeology, given the use of chronicles. Many works have focused on identifying the geographic limits of these political organizations from the descriptions of the chroniclers and early cartographers. This has led to various interpretations and maps, such as those made by Vega (1987) (Appendix B) and Wilson's comparison (1990) of his map with others made earlier (Appendix C). These ethnohistoric sources retain multiple factors to be considered, which limits them from being infallible sources (Curet, 2006). In this case, it is necessary to critically analyze the chronicles with an inquisitive mind to extract the truth from them. In terms of previous field research in Higüey, those of Hofman et al. (2004), Samson et al. (2010), and Veloz Maggiolo et al. (1976) stand out. These have focused on sites such as El Cabo and El Atajadizo where villages have been identified. However, these have concentrated on domestic spaces and the distribution of space rather than the burials themselves. So, although these investigations are valuable for Dominican archaeology, they are not very useful for this project because of their focus.

The island of Hispaniola during the late 15th and the entirety of the 16th century suffered the arrival of the Iberians and their clashes with the indigenous Arawak. The region of Higüey was the last region subjugated by the Spanish conquerors, and as such, there are few ethnohistorical documents regarding the region. Regarding the chroniclers, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés was appointed Chronicler of the Indies, which required him to record all that he saw of the New World. His writings are heavily focused on the exploitation of the Indies and the descriptions of its indigenous populations.

He considered the natives essentially animals; he wrote what he saw of them while his memory was fresh. Ramón Pané was a friar from the Order of St. Hieronymus sent to the Indies with the order to stay with the indigenous population, write down their beliefs, and learn their language. He cohabited with a limited part of the indigenous population and conceived what they told him as truth regarding to all other communities on the island. The language he learned from the indigenous people was not spoken on the island. His writings, made by hand while traveling, are sometimes convoluted and hold no clear transitions—the only one of the many chroniclers who developed their work via participative observation.

Methodology

This combination of these data sources will be the foundation of this investigation. This project seeks to answer the following questions: What distinctive cultural features are associated with chiefdom cultures in archaeology and ethnohistory, and can these be applied to the Arawak of Higüey? The second is: Given the known data, can the Arawak of Higüey be considered a chiefdom society? A hypothesis can be constructed that features such as prestige items, settlement patterns, and burial practices that indicate social stratification and trade can be evidenced by archaeology. In contrast, the cultural contexts in which these acts occurred are evidenced via ethnohistory. This hypothesis has been tied with the Arawak of Hispaniola for decades, given the documental remains of the chronicles. A relevant factor in this discussion is that such burials remain absent in the recovered archaeological record. Above all, the project's relevance seeks to educate and further the anthropological scope by taking an interdisciplinary approach to chiefdom culture studies. For years, archaeologists and historians, due to the indiscriminate use of the chronicles, have applied generalizations to cultural practices (Curet, 2006). Even so, archaeology has strived to correct these misinterpretations through the years. What has made it difficult is that material evidence regarding the chief caste has not been discovered yet. This lack of evidence, coupled with the misinterpretations of the chronicles, gives way to deep-rooted misconceptions regarding the sociopolitical organizations of the indigenous populations. An increased and detailed understanding of the past could facilitate interest in protecting cultural and historical heritage sites already known alongside emerging ones. One of the major problems many archaeologists face is the lack of funding for conservation and field projects, which limits both to a great degree. A larger population interested in protecting the material past and stories of the Arawak can be preserved.

Findings

During this investigation, I have found that features associated with chiefdom societies align with the Arawak of Hispaniola. It can be said that the economic model of the precontact prehistoric Caribbean was one of wealth finance in the making of prestige goods and one of staple finance in its distribution (Oliver, 2009; Junker, 2015; Earle, 1987, 1989). Regarding redistribution, Oviedo comments how this occurred when a cacique (paramount chieftain) died. When one of these figures passed away, other caciques (regional chieftains) came to his funeral, where some of the deceased cacique's goods were split among them (Oviedo, 1851, Vol. 1, p. 134). He does not mention which goods were redistributed, but regarding this, Oliver comments that prestige items were probably included and were probably done with elites that had kinship ties.

Regarding the scale of integration, centrality in decision-making, and stratification, Oviedo comments that before making a significant decision, the chiefly figure discussed it with his local elites, who could voice their arguments, yet only the main chief could reach a decision. It has been theorized that some polities may have included more than one ethnic group, given that Pané comments on multiple unintelligible languages being on Hispaniola. If such a matter were present, it would strengthen the need for a central political figure to keep order. In terms of social stratification, both the chronicles and anthropology identify three tiers: cacique (sacred ruler), nitaino (clan and lineage of the sacred ruler), and naboria (commoners) (Moscoso, 1981). Both the chief figure and the commoner class are noted by Pané (2004, p. 48) who mentions them regarding a chief named Guanácobel as his servants and his favorites, all of them being kin. Regarding the concept of prestige, Oliver, using Oviedo’s comments, postulates that a chief’s power and prestige stemmed from the ability to dominate, communicate, and gain favorable outcomes from a cemi (Oviedo, 1851, Vol. 1, 125). Cemi’s refer to the animistic idols these communities possessed, made of stone, coral, wood or even textiles. They possessed genealogy and lineage being. Recently, Oliver (2009, p. 59) has redefined this concept as a “immaterial, numinous, and vital force” more in depth in his work. This ties in with Pané's mention of these entireties, for every mayor cacique housed one of the principal cemis in his territory, who could abandon them at a moment's notice if desired.

Regarding kinship, Oviedo noted multiple ways in which the inheritance of a chief occurred. He mentions that the office was passed from father to eldest son, but Oliver (2009) considers this premise a syncretism of European kinship relations. Ensor (2011) agrees with this and emphasizes that abrupt changes in economic and political systems can lead to changes in how kinship ties are determined. Ensor also argues that, due to the ideologies of the Castilians, they actively sought to alter the family organization of the insular Arawaks, as this facilitated the Spanish encomienda system and catechesis. Oviedo also noted that the more accepted method of succession for anthropologists is where the succession of the office is passed to the firstborn of the chieftain’s sister. As mentioned previously, the most accepted theory is that these groups traced their lineage by maternal descent (Keegan & Maclachan, 1981). However, given that the Arawaks had no written law of succession, this may have jointly varied from region to region over time.

At the time of this investigation, there were no excavations of burials that could be identified as a chief figure in Hispaniola. This may well stem from looting, as well as the lack of funds or interest in the region's archaeology. Several field projects have been carried out in the region to identify living spaces, symbolic elements, and even several burials; however, they have not found a burial associated with the chiefly elite (Curet & Oliver, 1998; Hofman et al., 2004; Kulstad-González, 2020; Swanson et al., 2010; Veloz Maggiolo et al., 1976). This has become the main factor for some archaeologists in challenging the universal acceptance of classifying the Chicoid and Meillacoid societies as chiefdoms.

Discussion

Having presented the findings of this research, it can be extrapolated that the ethnohistoric sources of Oviedo (1851) and Pané (2004) on the insular Arawaks of Hispaniola conform to the definitions of chiefdom societies made by Earle (1987, 1989) in terms of their ideological bases and how they maintain their power (Blanton, 1996; Junker, 2015) in terms of the political domination implemented by these societies. Even with this, Earle's premise about the symbols of warrior power goes against what is documented by ethnohistoric sources and the archaeological record. The elements that Vargas (1989) denotes as prestige, stratification, and Tribal Social Formation align with the information recovered in archaeology and ethnohistory. The theoretical elements of Claessen (2011, 2014) related to the formation of chiefdoms and the figure of the chief, together with the approaches of Peebles and Kus (1977), are some key elements to identify a chiefdom society. With his social and environmental circumscription theory, Carneiro (2012) identifies elements that allow us to understand these societies. However, given the rich natural resources in the Caribbean, circumscription did not play a central role in developing chiefdoms.

On the other hand, the theoretical synthesis of Beliavev et al. (2001) regarding cultural variety is relevant. It is possible that in Hispaniola, each political unit had its own identity because of its cultural variety; as such, it would be necessary to study each region associated with one of these political units, with specific parameters for each one. In the findings section, the characteristic elements of a chieftainship were noted, the most relevant being stratification, redistribution, kinship, centrality in decision-making, prestige, and a complex economic system. The works of Rouse (1951), paired with the chronicles of Las Casas, Oviedo, and Pané, have led authors such as Oliver (2009), Wilson (1990), Franch and Galán (1981), Keegan and Maclachlan (1989), Vega (1987), and Moscoso (1981, 2018) to consider the Arawaks of Hispaniola as cacique societies. Although their works touch on different topics, they all have the theoretical foundation that these groups are chiefdom societies. Along with this, some works focused on mortuary practices (Curet & Oliver, 1998) also support the existence of such societies. However, it should be noted that these have only been made in domestic contexts, and no burial associated with the cacique elite has been identified.

A limitation that affects the findings resides in the chronicles' failures and their wide use in Caribbean archaeology. In many cases, archaeological records and ethnohistoric sources diverge, as Curet (1996, 2003, 2006) has argued. The great variety of what constitutes a chiefdom society also proves to be a vexing problem, as argued by Skalnik (2005). Hand in hand with these arguments, Ensor (2011) argues how problematic it can be to use cultures that underwent drastic and abrupt social changes in constructing kinship models. Another limitation in this study stems from the lack of substantial ethnohistorical sources and archaeological correlates focused on the Higüey region. This limitation, however, can be overcome in future research by including documentary sources from the AGN, whose digitization is very poor. Even with this, the existing documentary information allows for approaches and contributions to the anthropology of the region, as Oliver (2009) has done.

The archaeological literature finds gaps in terms of funerary practices related to elites, as the burials excavated have been in residential spaces or simply focused on early Spanish settlements (Curet & Oliver, 1998; Hofman et al., 2004; Gonzalez, 2020), so archaeology cannot affirm that these groups were undoubtedly a chiefdom society. The caveat is that the record does show a multitude of attributes characteristic of such societies. These groups may well be chiefdoms, and the absence of these elite burials is a factor due to the lack of studies in the Higüey region. This may be because archaeologists have looked for evidence in the wrong place. Of all the studies conducted in search of burials, it should be noted that the archaeological record shows only a sliver of information. Given their territorial extent, these villages must have numbered in the thousands, and yet only a few burials have been excavated. This points to the possibility of funerary practices other than those noted in the chronicles, which may not be possible to recover through archaeology. One of them could be the exhumation of the burials, the relocation of the bones in baskets, burials in caves, and the cremation of the corpses, given that Pané and Oviedo point out these practices. Another possibility could be burials at sea since these people were expert navigators, and this practice is not out of the question. In such a case, extensive archaeological projects will have to be carried out in the region to provide a concrete answer to this question.

Conclusion

This work seeks to advance the anthropological literature of the region, but more in-depth work is needed. It has been shown that concepts are associated with chiefdom societies that can be identified with the Arawaks of Higüey. The political complexity evidenced in their redistribution systems, prestige, kinship, stratification, and economic models aligns with what the field of anthropology considers a chiefdom. In this regard, ethnohistory remains a valuable tool, but given its shortcomings, it cannot justify the claim that such a group was indeed a chiefdom society. In this case, archaeology gains the upper hand in allowing the comprehension of these human groups. Although both fields have researched the same human groups, their findings tend to clash when analyzed comparatively. Given the absence of an archaeological burial record that could be attributed to an individual of high social rank, archaeologists cannot definitively claim that this particular group was a chiefdom society. The caveat is that the record shows many attributes characteristic of said societies. These groups may well be chiefdoms, and the absence of these elite burials is only a factor due to the lack of studies in the Higüey region. This may stem from the fact that archaeologists have been searching for evidence in the wrong place. This points to the possibility of different burial practices from those noted in the chronicles, which may not be possible to recover. A possible solution to this challenge may be provided through long-term alliances made by research institutions and universities along with the Dominican government to fund and maintain extensive archaeological projects in the Higüey region.

In conclusion, given that the Arawak of Higüey checked all the definitions regarding chiefdoms, it can be stated that this was their sociopolitical organization. Nevertheless, the lack of elite burials has led some archaeologists to challenge this notion, which remains a factor against the many others supporting this claim. Given the evidence, I concur with Oliver, Keegan, Vega, Moscoso, and Wilson in that these people were indeed chiefdoms. Even so, the lack of archaeological evidence cannot be overlooked, yet it must also not act as a dealbreaker. There is still much to learn from the Arawak of Hispaniola, and to base a definite statement regarding them on a single factor is a close-minded view of a complex human group. As a closing statement, there is still much to learn, and to truly comprehend these groups, archaeologists must think outside the proverbial box.

References

Beliaev, D., Bondarenko D., & Korotayev, A. (2001). Origins and evolution of chiefdoms. Reviews in Anthropology, 30, 373–395. https://www.academia.edu/456101/Origins_and_Evolution_of_Chiefdoms

Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. R., Kowalewski, S. A., & Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology, 37(1), 1–14. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/204471?journalCode=ca

Carneiro, R. L. (2012). The Circumscription Theory: A clarification, amplification, and reformulation. Social Evolution & History, 11(2), 5–30. https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/files/seh/2012_2/005-030.pdf

Claessen, H. J. M. (2011). On chiefs and chiefdoms. Social Evolution & History, 10(1). https://www.sociostudies.org/journal/articles/140612/

Claessen, H. J. M. (2014). From incidental leaders to paramount chiefs: The evolution of socio-political organization. Social Evolution & History, 13(1), 3–41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289155178_From_incidental_leaders_to_paramount_chiefs_The_evolution_of_socio-political_organization

Curet, L. A. (1996). Ideology, chiefly power, and material culture: An example from the Greater Antilles. Latin American Antiquity, 7(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/971613

Curet, L. A., & Oliver, J. R. (1998). Mortuary practices, social development, and ideology in Precolumbian Puerto Rico. Latin American Antiquity, 9(3), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/971729

Curet, L. A. (2003). Issues on the diversity and emergence of middle-range societies of the ancient Caribbean: A critique. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021277308225

Curet, L. A. (2006). Las crónicas en la arqueología de Puerto Rico y del Caribe. Caribbean Studies, 34(1), 163–199. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=39211247006

Earle, T. (1987). Chiefdoms in archaeological and ethnohistorical perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.001431

Earle, T. (1989). The evolution of chiefdoms. Current Anthropology, 30(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1086/203717

Ensor, B. E. (2011). Kinship theory in archaeology: From critiques to the study of transformations. American Antiquity, 76(2), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.76.2.203

Fernández de Oviedo, G. F. (1851). Historia general y natural de las Indias: islas y tierra firme del mar Océano (Vol. 1). Real Academia de la Historia.

Franch, J. A., & Galán Mayo, P. L. (1981). La sociedad taina como una “jefatura.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress for the Study of the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, 501–516. Cultural Resource Solutions. https://www.dloc.com/AA00061961/00368

Hofman, C. L., Hoogland, M. L. P., & Oliver, J. R. (2004). A first reconnaissance of the archaeological sites in the Dominican Republic. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-projects/archaeology/dominican-republic

Junker, L. (2015). Chiefdoms, archaeology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 3, 386–382. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laura-Junker/publication/294799652_Chiefdoms_Archaeology_of/links/5b439c6b458515f71cb87e2b/Chiefdoms-Archaeology-of.pdf

Keegan, W. F., & Maclachlan, M. D. (1989). The evolution of avunculocal chiefdoms: A reconstruction of Taino kinship and politics. American Anthropologist, 91(3), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1989.91.3.02a00050

Kulstad-González, P. M. (2020). Hispaniola-hell or home? Decolonizing grand narratives about intercultural interactions at Concepción de la Vega (1494-1564). Sidestone Press. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/86396/9789088908514.pdf?sequence=1

Moscoso, F. (1981). Parentesco y clase en los cacicazgos tainos: el caso de los nborías. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress for the Study of the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles, 485–491. https://www.dloc.com/AA00061961/00287

Moscoso, F. (2018). Cacicazgos en el caribe y continente americano (J. Carvajal, Ed.). Ediciones Puerto.

Oliver, J. R. (2009). Caciques and cemí idols: the web spun by Taíno rulers between Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press.

Pané, F. R., & Arrom, J. J. (2004). Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios (8va. ed.). Siglo XXI.

Peebles, C. S., & Kus, S. M. (1977). Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity, 42(3), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.2307/279066

Rouse, I. (1951). Areas and periods of culture in the greater Antilles. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 7(3), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.7.3.3628603

Samson, A. V., Hoogland, M. L., & Hofman, C. L. (2010). Trayectorias de habitación: las viviendas indígenas en el yucayeque (la comunidad) de El Cabo, Higüey, República Dominicana, 800 a 1504 d.C. Boletín del Museo del Hombre Dominicano. https://www.academia.edu/439863/Alice_V_M_Samson_Menno_L_P_Hoogland_y_Corinne_L_Hofman_Trayectorias_de_habitaci%C3%B3n_las_viviendas_ind%C3%ADgenas_en_el_yucayeque_La_comunidad_de_El_Cabo_Hig%C3%BCey_Rep%C3%BAblica_Dominicana_800_a_1504_d_C_

Service, E. R. (1960). Kinship Terminology and Evolution. American Anthropologist, 62(5), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1960.62.5.02a00010

Skalník, P. (2004). Chiefdom: a universal political formation? European Journal of Anthropology, 43, 76–98. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233635098_Chiefdom_A_Universal_Political_Formation

Vargas Arenas, I. (1989). Teoría sobre el cacicazgo como modo de vida: el caso del Caribe. Boletín de Antropología Americana, 20, 19–29. https://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/0252841x/v1989i0020/19_tseccmdvecdc.xml

Vega, B. (1987). Los cacicazgos de la Hispaniola (2da ed.). Fundación Cultural Dominicana.

Veloz, M., Ortega, E., Sanoja, M., & Vargas, I. (1976). Preliminary report on archaeological investigations at El Atajadizo, Dominican Republic. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles. Guadeloupe (pp. 283–294). https://www.dloc.com/AA00061961/00157

Wilson, S. M. (1990). Hispaniola: Caribbean chiefdoms in the age of Columbus. University of Alabama Press. http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/11220974

Appendixes