Amazonian Archaeology

Author(s): Michael Heckenberger and Eduardo Ges Neves

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38 (2009), pp. 251-266
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20622652
Accessed: 27-05-2015 20:05 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20622652?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Amazonian

Archaeology

Michael Heckenberger1

and Eduardo Goes Neves2

'Department ofAnthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32605;

email: [email protected]
2Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de S?o Paulo, Sao Paulo,
Brazil 05508-900; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009. 38:251-66

First published online as a Review inAdvance on
June 23,2009

Key Words
indigenous

Abstract

This article's doi:

Amazonian

Copyright ? 2009 by Annual Reviews.

All rights reserved
0084-65 70/09/1021 -02 51$20.00

history,

anthropogenic

premodern

landscapes,

complex societies,political ecology

The Annual Review ofAnthropologyisonline at

anthro.annualreviews.org
10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164310

culture

particularly
Like

in recent
has made major
advances
archaeology
in
human
environmental
understanding
coupled

other

forest regions, prehistoric

social
tropical
as small-scale,
communities
long portrayed
dispersed
tle in organization
from recent
societies
indigenous

decades,
systems.

formations

were

that differed
and had

lit

negligi

ble impactson the essentiallypristine forest.Archaeology documents

to other world
re
similarities
showing
of
and
domestication,
gions, presents
early foraging
pathways
resource
as
semi-intensive
and domesticated
management,
landscapes
sociated with diverse small- and medium-sized
societies.
Late
complex
substantial

variation

that, while

novel

prehistoric regional polities were articulated in broad regional polit

ical economies,

which

collapsed

in the aftermath

of European

con

tact.Field methods have also changed dramatically through in-depth

local and regional
tural collaborations,

studies,

interdisciplinary

approaches,

with

and multicul

notably
indigenous
peoples.
Contemporary
of scale, perspective,
and agency,
includ
questions
highlights
concerns
for
cultural
ing
representation,
public archaeology,
indigenous
and conservation
of the region's remarkable
cultural and eco
heritage,
research

logical

resources.

257

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INTRODUCTION
Archaeology in the Amazon River basin has
the way

changed

and

anthropologists

scientists view the world's

forest. Recent

studies

natural

largest tropical
scientific

challenge

and

popular stereotypesof ecological and cultural

uniformity,notably of small, dispersed human

settlements living in virgin tropical forest

These

wilderness.

reveal

studies

dynamic

change and variability, including complex so

cial formations

and

transformations

large-scale

of the natural environment. The paradigm

shiftfrom ecological equilibrium and cultural
stasis to diversityand change highlights social
dynamics and the role ofhuman agency in long
term

in coupled

change

Amazonian
several

past

the

past
not

synergy?if
on

focused

on present

environments

systems.

over

studies

and perspectives
and

natural

promotes

synthesis?between
tions

human

anthropology

decades

social

(Carneiro

the

forma

da Cunha

1992,Descola & Taylor 1993,Roosevelt 1994,

Sponsel 1995,Viveiros de Castro 1996). Build
ingon the region'sprodigious ethnographic tra
dition, notablyNorth American cultural ecol
ogy and Franco-Brazilian
encourages

ethnography
dress

structuralism,
approaches
scale

and spatial

temporal

studies

In-depth

recent
that

ad

and change,

in

cluding indigenous histories and perspectives

(Fausto & Heckenberger 2007, Whitehead
2003). In tropical forestsit is difficultto ignore

of

the Amazonian

past

are beginning to strike a balance with the

archaeology of the Andes, as reflected in the
recentHandbook ofSouthAmericanArchaeology
(Silverman & Isbell 2008). Interests have
changed in stride with broader changes in
archaeology, including shifts from descrip
tion and culture history to explanation and
culture

and, more

process

recently,

questions

of perspective and voice, including the hy

brid interestsof Latin American archaeology
(Barreto 1998,Funari 2001,Oyuela-Caycedo &

Raymond 1998,Politis & Alberti 1999) and col

laborationwith indigenous peoples (Colwell
Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2007, Green et al.

2003, Heckenberger 2003). Archaeology sug

gests broad similaritieswith otherworld areas,
particularly in theAmericas and other tropical
forest
ness

but

regions

of Amazonian

also

the unique

emphasizes

societies

and

environments

(Fausto 2000,McEwan et al. 2001,Neves 2006,

Stahl 1995).This review focuses on recentfield
research, particularly along the Amazon and
southernborderlands of theBrazilian Amazon,
to highlight the deep history and temporality
of the Amazon's

indigenous

people

(see,

e.g.,

Gasson 2003, Lathrap 1970, Myers 2004,

Prous 1991,Rostain 2008b, for adjacent areas).

AMAZONIA: A BRIEF HISTORY

The Amazon River basin, coveringnearly seven

million
square kilometers, is by far the largest
ecological anthropology highlights symbolic,
on
Earth, well over twice the size of the next
historical, and sociopolitical dimensions and di
&
largestbasin, theCongo. Itsmonthly discharge
versity in human ecological systems (Balee
the

natural

but

environment,

contemporary

Erickson 2006, Biersack 1999).Today, regional

specialists

agree

that humans

and environments

act recursively,rather than directionally (i.e.,

one simply causing change in the other), not
ing that pre-Columbian and historical soci
etiesmade major impacts on plant and animal
communities, hydrology, and soils. Likewise,

human

groups

underwent

dramatic

transforma

tions, includingvaried pre-Columbian trajecto

ries of sociohistorical change and the political
ecology of colonialism and modern globaliza
tion (Cleary 2001,Hecht 2009).

252

far exceeds that of theMississippi River (the

third largest basin) in a year. Over this vast

area

there

is tremendous

variation

in forest

and river ecologies, but three forest regimes

dominate throughouttheHolocene (Colinvaux
et al. 2000): closed broadleaf evergreen forests
of the Amazon

River

and western

tributaries

[<150 meters above sea level (masl)]; more

open broadleaf evergreen forests in adjacent
uplands (150-250 masl); and complex contact
zones

in borderland

areas,

such as the Andes

and

theGuiana and Brazilian plateaus (>250 masl).

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are likewise

Rivers

highly variable,

but are com

monly divided into white (Andean-derived),

black

and clear-water

(northwestern),

river sys

tems (Meggers 1996,Moran 1993). Culture

history includes varied early forager occupa
tions, mid-Holocene
and

ticulturalists,

and hor

settled

foragers
late Holocene

the

emer

gence of settled, agricultural societies. In late

times,

pre-Columbian

to medium-sized

small-

polities living in complex constructed land

scapes occupied theAmazon River bottoms and
several

areas

other

slash-and-burn

semi-intensive

agricul

strategies

the Late Holocene

during

(Denevan 2001, Lathrap

1977, Oliver 2008). Of thewide inventoryof

domesticated
root

crops,
were

culture

and

semidomesticated

critical

plants,
arbori

and

manioc,

particularly

of Amazonian

elements

agricultural systems, although some systems

relied heavily on maize (Lathrap et al. 1985,
Perry 2005, Roosevelt 1980). These findings
generally supportSauer's (1952) prediction that
domestication

2001).

(Denevan

extensive

developed
ture
and

and agricultural

in

development

tropical regions differin importantways from

classicNeolithic settingsand cereal crop agri
culture, including complex systemsofwetland

Early Occupations

Early (~ 11,000 to 8500 b.p.) occupations management and fish farming (Erickson 2000,
included diverse tropical forest foraging Schaan 2004). Further complicating conven
In the central
societies.
and
lower Amazon,
tionalmodels of food production, numerous

bifacial (stemmed) projectile points have been

identified(Costa 2009,Neves & Petersen 2006,
Roosevelt et al. 1996), associated with devel
oped rock art traditions in the lowerAmazon
(Pereira 2004). Other early occupations are

non-

or

semidomesticated

are

plants

actively

managed or cultivated in Amazonia, notably

palms (Goulding & Smith 2007,Morcote-Rios
& Bernal 2001, Smith 2007). Peach palm

(Bactrisgasipaes) is the only domesticated palm,

described for severalupland areas (Barse 1990, but numerous species, such as buriti (Mauritia
1994, Meggers & Miller 2003, flexuosa), agaf (Euterpe oleracea), and others,
Magalh?es
were
to intense management
Miller 1992, Mora 2003, Prous & Fogaca
(Clement
subject
1999).Mid-Holocene (-7500-3500 b.p.) shell
2006). Diverse agricultural strategies were
fishforagersin the lowerAmazon and along the
Adantic coastwith early ceramics (6000 b.p. or
before) have been described,with broad affini
tieswith preagriculturalshellmounds ineastern
coastal South America (Bandeira 2008, Gaspar
et al. 2008, Roosevelt et al. 1991, Rostain

2008b). Early evidence from coastal Peru,

Northern

manioc,

and Panama

Colombia,

domesticated

Amazonian

species,

and mid-Holocene

documents
including
no

innovations,

tablyhouse gardens (Castillo & Aceituno 2006,

Oliver 2008, Piperno et al. 2000, Piperno &
Pearsall 1998,Raymond 2008).Mid-Holocene
horticultural societies have been identified in
theupperMadeira

region (Miller 1999).

Late Holocene
Domestication
and Agriculture
In

Amazonia,

underwent

house

significant

garden
changes

coupled with systems of faunal exploitation

that included a varietyofmanaged species, such
as birds

ducks,

(Muscovy

parrots

and macaws,

and others), fish, and other aquatic species,

including the giantAmazon river turtle (up to
80 cm) and manatee,

or sea cow.

Many

managed

plants and animals are difficultto distinguish

morphologically from wild varieties, but
detailed

archaeobotanical,

zooarchaeological,

and genetic studies are rare (Clement 1999,

Mora 2003,Morcote-Rios 2008, Perry 2005).
Change is commonly manifest in broad
transformation

of habitats,

rather

than

focus

on specific domesticated plants and animals.

The "domestication of landscape" refersto the
"conscious process bywhich human manipula
tion of the landscape results in changes in land

scape ecology and thedemographics of itsplant

and
horticulture

as some

groups

animal

scape more

populations,
productive

resulting
and

congenial

in a

land

for hu

mans" (Clement 1999, p. 190).Human impacts

www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on the natural
term

environment
of

occupations

resulted

select

from

long
in some

settings,

cases initiatedby semisedentary early tomid

societies.

Holocene

intensification

Agricultural

typicallyrefers to large-scale technological ad

as

such

vances,

man

and wedand

domesticated

of Amazonian

were

landscapes

and

dark

management

obvious

northeast

earth or terra

marks

strategies,
or

which

"footprints"

de

tectable (like crop-marks) in orbital imagery

(Erickson 2000,Heckenberger et al. 2003).

large

portant

process

collectively

in Holocene

the most
human

im

history"

(p. 597). The farming/languagedispersal hy

pothesis argues that early agriculturalists ex
panded rapidly owing to the adaptive advan
tage

over

existing

foragers

and horticulturalists

(Bellwood 2004). Amazonia has played a small

role in thesediscussions, but thewidespread and
sev
fairlyearly (2500-2000 b.p.) dispersal of
eral language families,notably Arawak, Tupi
Guarani, and Carib, has long been recognized
(Brochado 1984, Dixon & Aihkenvald 1999,
Hill & Santos-Granero 2002, Lathrap 1970,
Noelli 2008). Speakers of the threefamiliesdis
persed widely across the tropical lowlands, in

cluding eastern coastal South America and the

Caribbean.

Linguistic diversity is a notable feature of

Amazonia, but no single language familydom
inates the region, as is true of Europe (Indo
European),

sub-Saharan

Africa

(Niger-Congo),

or the Pacific (Austronesian). Likewise, no

254

as was

true of several

of resource

episodes

management

systems,includingsettledriverine(Arawak) and
more mobile upland (Tupi-Guarani and Carib)
strategies,

as well

as climate

change

and changes

in agricultural lifestyles in the mid to late

Holocene. Although still poorly understood,
agricultural

were more

expansions

complicated

than posited by a wave of advancemodel, such

as Lathrap's (1970) "cardiacmodel," or unified
processes of site or traitdiffusion,but instead
involved

and

complex

variable

of

processes

change, broadly oriented to river and upland

ecologies, and resulted in cultural pluralism
(Carneiro 1995,Hornborg 2005, Zucchi 2002).
cause

or

consequence,

are

technoeconomics

In a worldwide review,Diamond & Bellwood

(2003) suggest that dispersals of early agricul
"constitute

scale,

tied to early variability

Whether

Language, Agriculture,
and Regional Development

turalists

was

formation

strong enough to expand itspolitical influence

of Andean prehistory.Changes appear to be

preta (Glaser & Woods 2004, Lehmann et al.

2003,Woods et al. 2009), and complex for
leave

diversity
the area.

on

of southwestern

est and wedand

in

but

ernAmazonia (Erickson 2008, Rostain 2008a),

often

sociopolitical

the

and

critical (Denevan 2001). Late Holocene land

scaping involvedraisedmounds forcrops inwet

management

for

prevailed

strategies

agriculture

areas

systems
no
Furthermore,

irrigation,

semi-intensive

savanna

that

crop

and

forest

in broad

of

as manioc

extractive

terracing

in the Amazon

agement

such

system,
agricultural
was
accountable
cultivation,
single

correlated

in

changes
with

impor

tant changes in sociopolitical organization,

notably emerging social hierarchy and regional
integration,

as was

true

in the

other

major

tropical linguistic diaspora. Carneiro's (1970)

observation

bears

scrutiny

in the general

sense

that inbroad forested landscapes, societies tend

to

areas,
tightly circumscribed
ramify, whereas
seem to
river valleys,
such as coastal Peruvian
more
promote
rapid and
rigid stratification.
of
b.p., early expressions
By ^2500-1500

sociopolitical complexity, in terms of local

landscape

domestication,

monumentality,

and

integrationin regional social systems,appeared

in severalparts of theAmazon, during a regional

formative period (Arroyo-Kalin 2008, Neves

2006). These small-scale regional politieswere
roughly comparable with other formativecul
turesof theAmericas, in termsof technological
innovations,

such

as

ceramics,

agriculture,

and settled villages or towns (Raymond 2008,

Zeidler 2008). Multiethnic societies, regional
sociopolitical systems, and interregional in
teraction

underscore

the diverse

pathways

of

social complexity in the region. In thiscontext,

politically independent, permanent villages

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

may have periodically joined into larger, Lathrap (1970, Lathrap et al. 1985,Myers 2004,
for instance
Oliver 1991) and Roosevelt (1980, 1991) in the
around
confederations,
regional
In other
Middle
Orinoco and lowerAmazon developed
leaders
and
warfare.
cases,
singular
more

centralized

and hierarchical

so

regional

cietieswere integratedthrough ritual and elite

exchange, although theymaintained diverse
strategies of political power, as known from
several areas during the final millennium of
prehistory.

more

regional

sequences

2001). Two broad ceramic traditionsarewidely

recognized with substantial regional variation:
the Amazonian

LANDSCAPE AND POLITY,

of

studies

in-depth

and spatial distributions,which laid the foun

dation for detailed regional surveyand studies
of intrasitevariability, including in upland ar
eas (e.g.,Balee & Erickson 2006,McEwan et al.

or Incised-Rim

Barrancoid

Tra

dition,~500 b.c.e. (2500 b.p.) to 900 c.e. and the

500-1500 C.E.
Amazonian Polychrome Tradition, widespread
by 1000-1250 c.e. (Lima 2008). Several sub
By the 1970s, it was clear that Amazon
River polities depended on fairly intensive traditions, such as the earlyMarajoara style,
resources
and diver
combine elements of modeled, incised-line,
of aquatic
exploitation
sified cultivation, based on early eyewitness and bichrome decoration, typicalofAmazonian
accounts

from

centuries.

the

and

sixteenth

Accounts

report

Barrancoid, and the painted pottery of the

seventeenth

large,

densely

settled populations, which were decimated by

the early violence of colonialism (Porro 1996;
Whitehead
1994, 2003). Settled populations
commonly
common

concentrated
in other

along major
areas. Where

world

rivers,

as

propi

tious ecological conditions prevailed,notably in

rich soils and aquatic resources, culturalgroups
developed into dense, regionally organized so
cieties by lateprehistorictimes (Carneiro 2007,
Denevan 1996, Lathrap et al. 1985, Myers
1992, Roosevelt 1980).However, theAmazon
River bottoms are a smallfraction (<5%) of the
basin, which

is criss-crossed

tributaries.Owing
many

upland

areas

by

numerous

large

to their difficult access,

remain

terra

incognita,

although this panorama is changing, particu

larly as "salvage archaeology" is developed in
remote parts of the region (Miller 1992).

southeast

Amazon

Floodplain

Polities

Early archaeological surveyswere conducted

primarilyalong theAmazon andwere laterex
panded to severalmajor tributaries,aimed pri

marily to identifybroad regional ceramic tradi

tions and local phases (Evans & Meggers 1968,
Hilbert 1955,Meggers & Evans 1957, Sim?es
& Kalkman 1987, Sim?es & Lopes 1987).
Research in theUpper Amazon initiated by

sug

Marajoara mound-building societies flour

ished from~400 to 1300 c.e. in thewooded

savannas

and gallery

forests of eastern Maraj?,

the large fluvial island in the Amazon estu

ary. Emerging from earlier ceramic groups,
for numerous

is notable

Marajoara
medium-sized

domestic

mounds

to

small-

and major

cer

emonial and elite residentialmounds (Meggers

& Evans 1957; Roosevelt 1991; Schaan 2004;
Sim?es 1969, 1981). In theAnajas River head
waters, Schaan (2004) describes a small polity,
perhaps numbering in the thousands,which in
tegrated
around

dozens
large

of domestic
ceremonial

mounds
mounds.

organized
The

large

ceremonialCamutins and Beiernmounds (up to

12meters high and 2.5 ha) indicate large-scale
construction,

Amazon

tradition,

Tupiguarani

gesting cultural pluralism or "ethnogenesis"

(Barreto 2009, Brochado 1989,Neves 2006).

apparently

early, ~400-600

c.e.,

and highlight the difference between small

tomedium-sized domestic mounds and larger
mounds, distinguished by major public ritual
and elite urn-burials.

Camutins/Belem

mounds

are centrally located between other mound

groups, more or less equidistant (~8 km) to
the southeast (Monte Carmelo), northwest

(Pequaquara), and northeast (upper Camutins

stream),which may have defined the territory
of the regional polity,with smaller intervening
www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

domestic

mounds

Shared

waterways.

along

styles of prestige goods, notably burial urns,

suggest subregional identitiesacross the island
and

reflect

clearly

tions,
as

as

such

true

of other

social

important

gender
urn

and

social

cemetery

distinc

the sixteenth

hierarchy,
in

complexes

the region (Guapindaia 2008b, Schaan 2004).

communities were supported by a
Maraj?
resource

diverse

base

and

on

focus

managed

riverproducts, such as fish and palm farming

(Meggers 2003, Roosevelt 1991, Schaan 2008).
construction apparendy declined after

Mound
?1300

ceramic

but Marajoara

c.e.,

styles

continue into the dynamic and plural social

of

landscapes

the

sixteenth

and

seventeenth

centuries (Schaan 2004).

In-depth

at the con

research

archaeological

fluence of the Solim?es and Negro rivers

(Manaus) has identifiedmore than 100 archae

ological sites, providing the clearest picture

to date of late Holocene occupations along
theAmazon (Arroyo-Kalin 2008, Lima 2008,
Neves 2008, Neves & Petersen 2006). Major
ceramic

two

include

complexes

of the Incised-Rim Tradition,

(300

b.c.e.

(400

c.e.

to 900

(700

c.e.

to

to 400

c.e.)
c.e.),

1200

early variants

the Agutuba

and Manacapuru

c.e.),

local

and

phases

Pared?o

phase

regional

variant

of theAmazonian PolychromeTradition, called

Guarita

c.e.

(900

to contact).

The

spaced roughly 30-50 km apart,which served

as the sociopolitical and ritual centers of small
regional polities, such as those described in

chronol

and

centuries.

seventeenth

Core

residential areas overlooking theNegro and

Solim?es riverswere surrounded by peripheral
areas of lightertrafficand nonresidential areas

of anthropogenic dark earth for agricultural

production (Petersen et al. 2001, Neves et al.
2003). In the centuries before 1492, major
centers

were

structurally

elaborated

for ritual

consumption, including prestige goods, such

as elaborate

elite-ware

ceramics.

At Agutuba,

the central area is defined by a broad sunken

amphitheater-likeplaza (400-100 m), flanked

by a series of habitationmounds with subfloor
and adjacent burials, as well as ramps, ditches,
and managed

wetlands.

transforma

Landscape

tions and available radiocarbon dates inmajor

centers
these

suggest
centers

long continuous

and stable,

of

occupation

sedentary

populations,

perhaps numbering in the low thousands by

-1000 c.e. (Neves & Petersen 2006).
Early chronicles from the floodplains de
scribe populous territorial polities with re
gional
with

overlords,
large-scale

noeconomies,

major
roads
rich

settlements
and

artistic

or

towns

productive

tech

and

tradi

ritual

tions, and organized martial forces (Porro

1996). Among these, the polity that domi
nated the lowerTapaj?s River was perhaps the

ogy shows overlapping andmixed occupations,

which suggests extensive interactionand ethnic largest (Nimuendaju 1952). The Santarem or
diversity (Lima 2008). Despite ceramic differ Tapajonica archaeological culture is renowned
ences,

sites

share

a circular

or horseshoe

lay

period from 600 to 1200 c.e. ap

a peak in regional population, but
to
mark
pears
out. The

Pared?o

ceramics

coincident

with

after ?1200

disappear
an

apparent

increase

c.e.,
in con

flict as reflected in defensive ditches con

structed at Agutuba and Lago Grande at
-1100 c.e. (Moraes 2007,Neves 2008).
In late prehistory, fairly large regional
populations lived in dispersed small settle
ments (<10 ha) and larger residential and
ceremonial centers (>30 ha), such as the sites
of Agutuba

and Hatahara,

and

others

within the limits of the modern

Manacapuru

Heckenberger

and Manaus.

Large

located

cities of

centers

were

for

its ornate

ceramics

associated

with

the

"Incised Punctate" regional tradition (Gomes

with the coeval
2005, 2008). It shares affinities
Amazonian Polychrome Tradition and, par

ticularly,the Arauquinoid ceramic complexes

of the Orinoco and Guianas, which suggests
that Carib-speaking peoples expanded into
the middle-lower Amazon between 500 and
1000 c.e. (Lathrap 1970, Zucchi 1985). The

town at Santarem
is composed
of
large capital
a core area with dense
deposits
archaeological

(?100 ha) within a broader settled landscape

up to 25 km, which rivalsmany major cen
ters in theAmericas (e.g.,Cahokia, Chan Chan)
(Gomes 2008, Roosevelt 1999).The politywas

Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

supported by intensivefloodplain and upland

agriculture,includingboth occupation sitedark
earth

and nonoccupational

(terra preta)

agricul

turalsoils (terramulata) (Denevan 2001,Woods

& McCann
1999). The study of Amazonian
dark

earths,

search

recent re
of significant
of
has
critical
range
settings,

the focus

in a wide

implicationsnot only forculturaldevelopment,

particularlyrelated to the enrichmentof infer
tile soils, but also for sustainable development
strategies (Glaser & Woods 2004, Lehmann
et al. 2003, Petersen et al. 2001,Woods et al.
2009).

and eastern

central Brazil

Bolivia.

Cultural

vari

ation across the region highlights the interplay

of

and reticulate

phylogenetic

processes,

as well

as ecological diversity,as earlyArawak-speaking

settled agriculturalistsdeveloped into distinc

tive ethnicallyplural societies, as seen in other
areas

of the lowlands

(Hill

&

Santos-Granero

2002,Hornborg 2005).

Archaeological complexes associated with

these multiethnic groups, notably mounds,

roads,

and

agricultural

are well

earthworks,

known from the Llanos deMojos. Erickson's

(e.g., 2000, 2006, 2008) recentwork has re

Floodplain archaeology and ethnohistory vealed the remarkable scale and integration
in broad
domes
earthworks
suggest complementaritybetween densely and of agricultural
sparsely settled stretches of the main rivers, ticated landscapes, including causeways, fish
including buffer-zones, and with hinterland weirs and ponds, forest islands (ancient settle
zones (DeBoer 1981, Denevan 1996, Porro ments), raised fields, and diverse other archaeo

1996). In the Parau? area, 80 km upstream

from the Santarem site,Gomes (2005) found
little evidence of influence by the Santarem
polity.Likewise, regional surveyin theTrombe

tasRiver (Konduri ceramic tradition) indicates

fairly small and shallow deposits (Guapindaia
2008a, Kern et al. 2003). Throughout the re

logical

landscape

features. These

complexes

can

be subdivided into an eastern group of ring

walled villages,major causeways, and wetland
fish-farming
landscapes

complexes
(Baures)

and

in forest
a western

and

savanna

group,

in

cludingmounds and raised fields, in the cen

tral llanos, which provide detailed examples

gion, the largestcenterswere generallynot that of urban-scale production landscapes (see also
large (<50 ha), and cycling between periods Denevan 2001,Walker 2004). Excavations of
area have
re
in the Upper
of greater and lesser political centralization is mounds
Mamore
a
in
the
Central
with
notable
vealed
that
the
Amazon,
apparent
complex sequence indicating
area has been occupied by differentgroups in
in site locations
fluctuations
and population
It remains unclear whether
densities.
Santarem
thepast (Calandra & Salceda 2004, Erickson &
was
or represents
a
centralized
Balee
2006, Pr?mers 2004,Walker 2008). The
large,
polity
smaller integrated polities within a regional plural ethnic landscape of eastern Bolivia and
peer-polity,

as seems

ary, central Amazon,

Southern
The

broad

to be the case
and southern

Borderlands
transitional

in the estu
borderlands.

blood" peoples (Block 1992,Gow 1996).

Early accounts (1600-1750) from eastern

Polities

forests between

areas
the develop
adjacent
strongly influenced
or other
ment of "mission"
"mixed
postcontact

the cen

tralBrazilian plateau (>300 masl) and the ever

green Amazon forests extend from the upper
Tocantins (east) to the upperMadeira (west)
rivers.A century ago, Max Schmidt (1917)
noted that southernArawak groups dominated

forestedheadwater basins of themajor southern

tributaries,surroundedbymore mobile groups

in the rolling upland topography and open

wooded savanna and gallery forest landscape of

Bolivia describe diverse large, densely settled

populations, with complicated settlement and

agriculturalworks, and regional sociopolitical

organization (Denevan 1966,Metraux 1942).
Along the eastern Bolivian-Brazil border

(Guapore), ethnohistorydocuments palisaded

ring villages (Block 1992, Erickson 2000).
Farther east in central Brazil, Campos (1862,
pp. 443-44) describes a networked settlement
pattern in the 1720s,which included densely
settled

plaza

communities,

well-maintained

www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

roads,

idol-priest

ritual

plaza

chiefdoms"

of the "theocratic

(Steward &

Amazon
autonomous

complex

("temple

characteristic

considered

complex")

of the southern

Faron

1959). More
are

settlements

ring village

also

widely known from central Brazil (W?st &

Barreto 1999).
In

southwestern

an

Amazonia,

area

also

dominated by Arawak-speaking people histor

ically,major geoglyphs in the upper Purus
River region of Brazil and adjacent portions of
and Bolivia

Peru

another

reveal

of re

complex

latedmonumental sites (P?rssinen& Korpisaari

2003, Schaan et al. 2007).The well-planned and
laterally

extensive

earthworks,

including

mas

sive circular and square ditches (up to 7m deep)

and long linearprocessionals (up to 50m wide
and nearly 1 km in length), suggest sociopo
litical integrationbased on broadly shared rit
ual

interaction

numerous

among

sites

(~150,

which is estimated as 10%;Mann 2008). Link

ages between sites isnot yet described, but it is
clear

are similar

orientations

that basic

and were

conceived as related elements of a regional built

served

as ceremonial

central

environment

and

places within
In eastern

regional

social

portions

of the southern

preserves

a sequence

border

of occupations

from

early agricultural groups (Arawak),who col

onized

the basin

by

500-800

c.e.

settlements

Settlement

(ditches).

hier

archies were defined by an exemplary center

and fourmajor satellitesand smallerperipheral
settlements

plaza
of ?250

within

and hamlets

or more.

km2

part of a regional

territories

two clusters

The

were

confederation

peer-polity?a

of culturallyrelated territorialpolities extend

ing across an area >20,000 km2 and likelynum

bering well into the tens of thousands.Across

the region, land use was fairly intensive,with
and countryside

settlements

features

(fields, or

chards,wedands) rigidlyplanned and defined,

including dark earth farmingplots within the
patchy agricultural landscape.
The domesticated landscapes of theUpper
Xingu basin provide a particularly striking
example of the self-organized built environ

ments

of

the

southern

Descen

borderlands.

dent Xinguano populations, well described

since the 1880s, continue to practice basic
cultural
times,

in

notably

from prehistoric

documented

patterns

terms

of

technoeconomy,

house and village spatialorganization, and gen

eral settlement locations (Fausto et al. 2008,
Heckenberger 2005). Agricultural landscapes,

systems.

lands region, theheadwater basin of theXingu

River

margins of roads and plazas (curbs) and around

major

or

earlier,

in the past

and

today,

included

areas

broad

under cultivation in primary staple crops of

manioc (Manihot esculentaspp.) and pequi fruit
(Caryocarsp.), large tractsof sape grass (Imper
ata

sp.) for thatch,

diverse

palms

and other

sec

to contemporaryXinguano peoples (Hecken

forest, as
secondary
ondary crops, and managed
areas (Carneiro 1983).
as
berger 2005; Heckenberger et al. 2003, 2008). well managed wedand
from
isolated
In one study area (~1200 km2), correspond
early colonial activi
Although
were
not insulatedfrom
to
the
Kuikuro
lands
of
the
traditional
ties,
Xinguano peoples
ing
two
of
effects
the
residential
dozen
catastrophic
earlycolonialism, no
(Xinguano) community,
most or all ofwhich
disease
decimated
that
siteshave been identified,
populations across
tably
and land-use
were occupied in lateprehistoric to earlyproto
the Amazon.
settlement
Xinguano
c.e.
of
the
Late
^1250-1650
historic
times,
post-1492
provides graphic testimony
prehis
toric settlements

were

integrated

in two ranked

clusters,which represent small, territorialpoli

ties. In clusters, largewalled towns (25-50 ha),
estimated to number more than 1000 in some
cases, and smaller nonwalled villages were
linked by an extensive road system.Road and
settlementnodes, marked by large ceremonial
plazas

surrounded

by residential

areas,

are ar

chaeologically visible as linearearthworksat the

population collapse, with regional populations

reduced to nearly 500 by the 1950s, and docu
ments the extensive landscape fallowingthatoc
curred

across

the southern

CONCLUDING
The

archaeology

borderland

regions.

REMARKS
of the Amazon,

an area

than Europe, is still poorly known?the

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

larger

least

known

of the "least

region

known

notably the absence of harbingers of classic

such

civilizations,

as

stone

writ

architecture,

ing, grain surplus, and domesticated ungu

lates. Archaeology

novel

reveals

variation

and

dynamic indigenous histories, including al

ternative

to domestication,

pathways

settled

life,and social complexity.Recent studies into

the deep history of the region, like other

tropical forest regions worldwide, challenge

stereotypesof small-scale, dispersed villages?
primitive tribes?in a largely pristine forest.
studies raise the possibility that the av
erageAmazonian person in 1492 did not live in

These

an isolated,

autonomous

village,

but

instead was

part of a regional polity or articulatedwith one

inbroad regional social networks thatextended
across

the region.

These findingssuggestremarkable sociocul

turaldiversity,although it seems likelythatno
large bureaucratic

state or

macrore

integrated

gional political entityor empire ever developed

in the area.

context

In the comparative

of other

tropical forest regions or complex social for

in the Americas,

mations

Amazonian

complex

societies do not seem out of place (Mclntosh

1999, Pauketat 2007). In general terms, the
forest

were

of the Amazon

polities

fuse and

less centralized

nomic,

sociopolitical,
than areas with more

more

dif

in terms of technoeco
and

symbolic

circumscribed

resources
resources,

such as the desert river valleys of the Peru

vian coastal region (Carneiro 1970).As theme

dieval historian Jacques Le Goff (1964) once

noted of Europe's forest civilizations, they are
like the "photographicnegative" of classic "oa
sis"

civilizations.

Nonetheless,

the settled

ter

ritorialpolities thatdominated various areas in

late prehistoric

times constructed

elaborate

do

mesticated landscapes, linking importantcen

ters in regional peer polities and perhapsmore
centralized

tributary

systems,

As

continent"

(Lyon 1974)?but recent advances in archaeol

ogy have dramaticallychanged theway scholars
view the region. In world historical schemes,
Amazonia was long appraised bywhat it lacked,

as

suggested

along portions of theAmazon River (Roosevelt

1999).

well

documented

re

more

among

cent social formations, the primary capital in

Amazonian

was

economies

political

sociopo

litical and symbolic, in the sense that surplus

andwealth orbited around human bodies, con
structed

through

ritual

social

and

interaction,

ratherthan theotherway around. In diffuseand

oftenmulticentric regional systems small and
large settlementswere integratedthroughma

jorpublic ritual,notably including elitemortu

aryrituals (Chaumeil 2007,Guapindaia 2008b).
Ritual performance inhighly structuredpublic
ceremonial

spaces

and material

culture,

notably

prestige goods and bodily adornment,were pri

mary

mechanisms

of social

communication?

a symbolic language?within multiethnic and,

in some

cases,

regional

multilingual

sociopo

litical systems (Barreto 2009, Lathrap 1985).

The

fine-ware

ceramics

chrome Tradition

of the Amazonian

are the most

obvious

Poly
expres

sion of such broad prestige goods economies,

spread throughouttheAmazon floodplains,but
these

economies

also

included

numerous

other

wealth items, such as shell, stone, and perish

able wood, basketry,and feathervaluables and
other commodities (McEwan et al. 2001).

Communication and integrationin regional

systems of interactiondid not create cultural
homogeneity but produced remarkable diver
sity and pluralism. Against the backdrop of
diversity,the distinctionbetween riverand up
land regimesof dwellingwas critical to local and
broader

regional

patterns

of social

interaction,

as witnessed in archaeological distributions

and "sedimented" in the languages,bodies, and
built

environments?the

cultural

memory?of

living descendent peoples. The sociocultural

integrity of descendent peoples, following

traditional lifestylesingenerallynonindustrial

ized landscapes,provides richopportunities for

ethnoarchaeological

research

into

indigenous

history and archaeological formationprocesses

(e.g., DeBoer et al. 1996, Politis 2007, Roe
1982, Silva 2008). Research with descen
dent populations also highlights questions
of multicultural collaboration and dialogue

(Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2007,

Green et al. 2003, Schmidt& Patterson 1996).
www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The
has

to contemporary

relevance

great

variation

of sociohistorical

recognition

debates

on biodiversity,which reflectsdramatic prehis

toric influenceand complex post-1492 histories
across the region (Cleary 2001, Denevan 1992,
Erickson 2008, Stahl 1996). Long-term and, in
some

semi-intensive

cases,

resource

impacts

the natural

environment.

The

populations

variety

of

areas.

fo

The

cus shiftsfrom human societies adapting to

to humans

environment

the natural

partici

in

resulted

colonialism

of European

the fallowing of the region's tropical forests,

which were then affectedby colonial extrac
tive economies, such as theRubber Boom, and
twentieth-centurydevelopment (Balee 2006,
Hecht 2009).
land
that the region's forested
in no way diminishes
pristine
on
in debates
conservation

Discovering
are not
scapes
their

relevance
sustainable

and

in the Amazon,

development

the poster child of global environmentalism.

it does complicate things and
However,
makes

archaeology?the

means

primary

to

understand change in coupled natural human

systems

over

long timescales?not

only

more

interestingand contested but alsomore central

in

The

contemporary

debates

on

the

Amazon.

legacy of cultural landscapes, including

contemporary
to discussions

offers important
practices,
of resource management

future (Willis et al. 2007). This

DISCLOSURE

cultural

clues
in the

is true par

and

the need

barrier

to deforestation

(Nepstad

draw attention
memory,
ecological
and
for memory
conservation

culturalproperty rightsalongside conservation

resources

natural

2006,

(Nazarea

Posey

2002, Posey& Balee 1989).

Much has changed in recent decades re
garding how scholars view theworld's largest

tropical forest, including the antiquity and di

versity of human occupations and how they
also

environment.

the natural

transformed
has

pating as active agents of change, both be

fore and after European contact (Balee &
Erickson 2006). The decimation of regional
polities and native world systems in the early
centuries

are a critical

of

do

mestication of nature began early, and over

time human groups became increasinglyteth
ered to certain places, which by late prehis
toric times includedmajor centers and dense
in

constitute

areas, which

indigenous

et al. 2005). In these areas, indigenous and folk

knowledge systems,including diverse formsof
to

manage

ment strategieshad widespread and dramatic

on

in

ticularly

more than 20% of the Brazilian Amazon and

in

changed

archaeological

Much
prac

tice, notably increasingly interdisciplinaryap

proaches,

nologies

perspectives,

regional
and

excavations,
(e.g.,

fine-grained
of new tech

the application

and
applications
occur within
changes

remote-sensing
These

geo-archaeology).

the context of broader changes in scientificre

search, notably the shiftfrom science as de
tached, objective observation tomultivocal and

multiscalar

contexts

of research

applications,

including engagementwith local communities

and

attention

to

and

regional

global

concerns

(Latour 2004). In thisworld of research, ar

chaeology plays an importantrole, particularly
in understanding
centennialin human-natural
change
are vital to debates
regarding
scale

and millennial
systems, which
sus
conservation,

tainable development, and human rights in an

era

of unprecedented

change

across

the

re

en
gion. For practitioners of archaeology this
more
tails getting dirty,digging
deeply into

theAmazonian past, and learning to read the

varied traces of the deep past. One thing is
certain: It is an exciting, challenging, and im
portant time to be engaged with Amazonian
archaeologies.

STATEMENT

authors are not aware of any affiliations,

memberships, funding,or financialholdings that
as
affectingthe objectivityof this review.
might be perceived

The

260

Heckenberger

Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LITERATURE CITED
a
an
to the study ofanthropogenic
ecology of landscape: geoarchaeological approach
Arroyo-Kalin M. 2008. Steps towards
dark earths in theCentral Amazon region, Brazil. PhD thesis, Cambridge Univ., 232 pp.
2006. The research program of historical ecology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:75-98
Balee W.
Balee W,

eds. 2006. Time and Complexity inHistorical Ecology: Studies from theNeotropical Lowlands.
Univ. Press

Erickson CL,

New

York: Columbia

Bandeira A. 2008. Ocupaq?es humanas pre-historicas no litoralmaranhense: um estudo arqueologico sobre o sambaqui
Masters
do Bacanga na ilha de S?o Luis?Maranh?o.
thesis, Mus. Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo,
316 pp.
a Brazilian perspective.
Antiquity 72(277):573?81
archaeology from
mtsticos de reproduq?o social: arte e estilo na cer?mica funer?ria da Amazonia
Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 332 pp.

Barreto C.

1998. Brazilian

Barreto C.

2009. Meios

thesis,Mus.

antiga. PhD

in the Orinoco River Valley. Science 250:1388-90

1990. Preceramic occupations
P. 2004. The First Farmers: The Origins ofAgricultural Societies. London: Wiley-Blackwell
Biersack A. 1999. The new ecological anthropologies. Am. Anthropol. 10:1?22
Barse W.

Bellwood

Block D.

1992. Mission
1660-1880.

Moxos,

Culture on theUpper Amazon: Native

Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press

JP. 1989. A Expans?o

Brochado

Tradition, Jesuit Enterprise and Secular Authority in

dos tupi e da cer?mica da Tradic?o

Policromica

Amazonica.

Dedalo

9(17/18):41

47
JP. 1984. An ecological model of the spread ofpottery and agriculture intoEastern South America.
thesis, Univ. 111., 507 pp.

Brochado

Calandra

Salceda

H,

SA.

2004.

Bolivian

Amazonia:

Acta Amazonica

of the llanos de Mojos.

archaeology

PhD

34(2):155-63
Pires de Campos do gentio que h? na derrota
Rev. Trimestral Inst. Historico, Geogrdfico, Etnogrdfico

o
Campos AP. 1862 (1720). Breve notacia que da Capit?o
e seu reconcavo.
da viagem das minas de Cuyab?
Brasileiro 5:437^r9

Antonio

1970. A theory of the origin of the state. Science 169:733-38

1983. The cultivation of manioc
Indians of the Upper Xingu. In Adaptive
among the Kuikuro
ed. RB Harnes, WT
Vickers, pp. 65-111. New York: Academic
Responses inNative Amazonians,
Carneiro RL. 1995. The history of ecological
interpretations inAmazonia: Does Roosevelt have it right? See
Carneiro

RL.

Carneiro

RL.

Sponsel 1995, pp. 45-65

Carneiro RL. 2007. A base ecol?gica dos cacicados amazonicos. Rev. Soc. Arqueol. Bras. 20:117-54
Carneiro da Cunha M, ed. 1992. Historia dos Indios no Brasil. S?o Paulo: Companhia
da Letras
Castillo
Chaumeil

en el valle

el bosque cultivado: un proceso milenario

J. 2006. El bosque domesticado,
en el noroccidente Colombiano.
Lot. Am. Antiquity 17(4):561-79

N, Aceituno

del rio Porce

medio

JP. 2007. Bones,

flutes, and the dead: memory

2007, pp. 243-83

Heckenberger
an environmental
D.
2001.
Towards
Cleary

and funerary treatments inAmazonia.

history of the Amazon:

See Fausto &

from prehistory to the nineteenth

century.

Lat. Am. Res. Rev. 36(2):65-96

Clement

C.

1999.

1492 and the loss of crop genetic

resources:

I. Crop

biogeography

at contact. Econ. Bot.

53(2):203-16
Clement

C.

2006. Fruit

trees and the transition to food production

in the Amazon.

See Balee & Erickson

2006, pp. 165-85

Colinvaux

P, Oliveira

P, Bush M.

2000. Amazonian

the failure of aridity and refuge hypotheses.

C, Ferguson TJ.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh
Communities. Lanham, MD:
Altamira

and neotropical plant communities

Quat. Sei. Rev. 19:141^-9

2007. Collaboration

in Archaeological

on

glacial

time-scales:

Practice: Engaging

Descendant

em busca
F. 2009.
dospre-ceramistas nos areais da Amazonia
Arqueologia das campinaranas do baixo rioNegro:
central. PhD thesis,Mus. Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 189 pp.
an ethnohistorical
1981. Buffer zones in the cultural ecology of aboriginal Amazonia:
DeBoer W.
approach.
Costa

Am.Antiquity
46(2):364-77

www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

261

Kintigh K, Rostoker A.

DeBoer W,

1996. Ceramic

inAmazonia.

seriation and settlement occupation

Antiquity7(3):263-78
W.

Denevan

1966. The Aboriginal

Cultural Geography

of the Llanos deMojos

Lat. Am.

Berkeley: Univ.

ofBolivia.

Calif.

Press
Denevan W.

1992. The

pristine myth:

the landscape of the Americas

in 1492. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geog. 82(3):369

85
1996. A bluffmodel of riverine settlement inAmazonia. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geog. 86(4):654-81
2001. Cultivated Landscapes ofNative Amazonia and theAndes. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Descola
P, Taylor AC, eds. 1993. La Remontee de VAmazonie: Anthropologie etHistoire des Societes Amazoniennes.
Spec. Ed. VHomme, Vols. 26/28
W.

Denevan

Denevan W.

P. 2003. Farmers

J, Bellwood

Diamond
Dixon

R, Aihkenvald

Erickson

CL.

Erickson

CL.

the first expansions. Science 300:597-603

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

and their languages:

1999. The Amazonian

A.

Languages.
2000. An artificial landscape-scale
fishery in the Bolivian Amazon. Nature 408:190-93
See Balee & Erickson
2006. The
domesticated
landscapes of the Bolivian Amazon.

2006,

pp. 235-78
Erickson

the historical

2008. Amazonia:

CL.

2008, pp.157-83
CL, Balee W.

Erickson

2006. The

historical

2006,pp. 187-233
Evans CE, Meggers
Inst. Press

BJ. 1968. Archaeological

ecology

of a domesticated

a
ecology of complex
Investigations

See Silverman &

landscape.

landscape

in Bolivia.

Isbell

See Balee & Erickson

on theRio Napo, Ecuador. Washington,

DC:

Smithson.

2000. Os Indios antes do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar

toward a
2008. Ritual language and historical reconstruction:
M.
C, Franchetto B, Heckenberger
account ofUpper Xingu Society. In Lessonsfrom Documented
and
archaeological
linguistic, ethnographical,
DS Rood, A Dwyer, pp. 129-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Endangered Languages, ed. KD Harrison,
in Indigenous Amazonia: Anthropological Perspectives.
Fausto C, Heckenberger
M, eds. 2007. Time andMemory
Gainesville: Univ. Press Fla.

Fausto

C.

Fausto

Funari P. 2001. Public archaeology from a Latin American perspective. Public Archaeol. 1:239-43
societies of coastal Brazil.
DeBlassis
P, Fish SK, Fish PR. 2008. Sambaqui
(shell mound)
Gaspar MD,
Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 319-35
the archaeology of Orinoco River Basin. J. World Prehist. 16(3):237?311
G?sson R. 2003. Orinoquia:

See

eds. 2004. Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and Time. New York: Springer
WI,
2005. Andlise dospadr?es de organizaq?o comunit?ria no Baixo Tapaj?s: o desenvolvimento do Formativo
na area de Santarem. PhD thesis,Mus. Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 325 pp.
Amazonia. Rev. Arqueol. Am. 25:187-223
2008. The diversity of social formations in Pre-Colonial
Gomes DC.

Glaser

B,Woods

Gomes

DC.

Smith N. 2007. Palms: Sentinels ofAmazonian Conservation. St. Louis: Mo. Bot. Garden Press
GouldingM,
Gow P. 1996. OfMixed Blood: Kinship and History in thePeruvian Amazon. Oxford: Clarendon
science. J. Soc. Archaeol.
and archaeological
Green LF, Green D, Neves EG. 2003. Indigenous knowledge

3(3):366-98
2008a. Alem da margem do rio?a
ocupaq?o Konduri
thesis,Mus. Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 194 pp.

Guapindaia

V.

Guapindaia

V. 2008b. Prehistoric

& Isbell2008,pp. 1005-26

Hecht

S. 2009. Amazon
Press.

funeral practices

Odyssey: Euclides da Cunha

in the Brazilian

ePoco na

Amazon:

PA. PhD
regi?o de Porto Trombetas,
theMarac?

and the Scramble for Amazonia.

urns. See Silverman

Chicago:

Univ.

Chicago

In press

as indigenous advocacy inAmazonia. Pract. Anthropol. 26(3):34-38

2003. Archaeology
and Personhood in the Southern Amazon,
2005.
The
MJ.
Ecology of Power: Culture, Place,
Heckenberger
1000-2000. New York: Roudedge

Heckenberger

MJ.

MJ, Kuikuro A, Kuikuro UT, Russell

Heckenberger
forest or cultural parkland? Science 301:1710-14
Heckenberger

MJ,

anthropogenic
262

Russell

et al. 2003. Amazonia

C, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ, et al. 2008.

and the future of the Amazon. Science 321:1214?17

JC, Fausto

landscapes,

JC, Schmidt M,

Pre-Columbian

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AD

1492: pristine
urbanism,

PP. 1955. Arch?ologische Untersuchungen amMittlern Amazonas. Berlin: Dieter Reimer Verlag
F, eds. 2002. Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Group and Culture
J, Santos-Granero
St. Louis: Univ. III. Press
Area inAmazonia.

Hilbert
Hill

A. 2005. Ethnogenesis,
regional interaction, and ecology
Hornborg
temic perspective. Curr. Anthropol. 46(4):589-620
Kern DC, D'Aquino
G, Rodrigues TE, Frazdo FJL, Sombroek W,
Dark

in the Brazilian Amazon.

Earths

See Lehmann

in prehistoric Amazonia:

towards a sys

et al. 2003. Distribution

of Amazonian

et al. 2003, pp. 51-76

and Hudson
1970. The Upper Amazon. London: Thames
1977. Our mother the cayman, our father the gourd: Spinden revisited or a unitary model for
In Origins ofAgriculture, ed. C Reed, pp. 713-51. The
the emergence of agriculture in theNew World.

Lathrap DW.
Lathrap DW.

Hague: Mouton
American ceremonial center. In Early
1985. Jaws: the control of power in the early Nuclear
Lathrap DW.
DC: Dumbarton
Oaks
Ceremonial Architecture in theAndes, ed. CB Donnan,
pp. 241-67. Washington,
art
waves
at
roots
the
three
The
of
Mester
AM.
1985.
A,
Shipibo
style:
Lathrap DW, Gebhart-Sayer
or there were

Imiriacocha,

before the Incas.J- Lot. Am. Lore 11 (1):31?119

to
Bring theSciences intoDemocracy. Cambridge,

"Incas"

MA:

Nature: How
B. 2004. The Politics of
Press

Latour

de VOccidentMedieval.

Le Goff J. 1964. Le Civilization

J,Kern DC,

Lehmann

Dordrecht:

Glaser

B,Woods

WI.

Harvard

Univ.

Paris: B. Arthaud

2003. Amazonian

Dark Earths: Origins, Properties andManagement.

Kluwer

2008. Historia das caretas: a Tradic?o Borda Incisa na Amazona Central. PhD thesis, Mus. Arqueol.
Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 538 pp.
Lyon P, ed. 1974. Native South America: Ethnology of theLeast Known Continent. Boston: Little Brown
M.
1994. Arqueologia de Carajds: A Presenqa Pre-Hist?rica do Homen na Amazonia. Rio de Janeiro:
Magalh?es
Lima HP.

do Vale do Rio Doce

Companhia
C. 2008. Ancient earthmovers of the Amazon.

Mann

McEwan

C, Neves

Br.Mus.

London:

Barreto C,

EG,

Science 321:1148-51

eds. 2001. The Unknown Amazon:

inAncient Brazil.

Culture and Nature

Press

S, ed. 1999. Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways toComplexity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

DC:
and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise. Washington,
BJ. 1996. Amazonia: Man

Mclntosh
Meggers
Press

Univ.

Press

Smithson.

Inst.

sources of Amazonian
BJ. 2003. Natural versus anthropogenic
biodiversity: the continuing quest for
Meggers
InHow Landscapes Change, ed. GA Bradshaw, PAMarquet,
El Dorado.
pp. 89-107. Berlin: Springer
DC:
1957. Archaeological Investigations at theMouth
BJ, Evans CE.
Meggers
of theAmazon. Washington,
Smithson.

Inst. Press

ET. 2003. Hunters-gatherers

inAmazonia during the Pleistocene-Holocene
transition. In
theCanopy: The Archaeology ofTropical Rain Forests, ed. JMercader,
pp. 291-316. New Brunswick:
Rutgers Univ. Press
BJ,Miller

Meggers
Under
Metraux

A.

1942. The Native

Tribes ofEastern Bolivia and Western Matto

Grosso. Washington,

DC:

Smithson.

Inst. BAE
ET.

Miller

1992. Arqueologia

nos

Empreendimentos Hidroeletricos da Eletronorte: Resultados Preliminares. Brasilia:

Eletronorte
Miller

ET.

1999. A Limitac?o

como barreira ? transposic?o do period formativo no Brasil. Tecnolo

e formac?o de aldeias no sudoeste da Amazonia.
In Formativo Sudamericano:

ambiental

de alimentos

gia, produc?o
a Albert Rex Gonzalez

Homenaje

ABYA-YALA

y Betty J. Meggers,

ed. P Ledergerber-Crespo,

pp.

331-39.

Quito:

Ed.

and Environmental
S. 2003. Early Inhabitants of theAmazonian Tropical Rain Forest: A Study ofHuman
Dynamics. Pittsburgh: Lat. Am. Archaeol. Publ.
Moraes
C. 2007. Arqueologia na Amazonia Central vista de uma perspectiva da regi?o do Lago do Lirnao. Masters
thesis,Mus. Arqueol. Etnolog., Univ. S?o Paulo, 196 pp.
Mora

Moran

E.

1993. Through Amazonian

Eyes: The Human

Ecology ofAmazonian

Populations.

Iowa City:

Iowa Univ.

Press

www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

263

G. 2008. Antiguos Habitantes

Columbia?Brasil.
Amazonas?Putumayo,
Morcote-Rios
G, Bernal R. 2001. Remains
Morcote-Rios

en Rios de
en el
Aguas Negras: Ecosistemas y Cultivos
Interfluvio
Bogota: Univ. Nac. Colombia
a
of palms (Palmae) at archaeological
sites in the New World:

review. Bot. Rev. 67(3):309-50

in theory and practice. World Archaeol. 24(1):82?97
limitations of the Amazon
Myers T. 1992. Agricultural
See Glaser & Woods
2004, pp. 67-94
Myers T. 2004. Dark Earth in theUpper Amazon.
Nazarea V. 2006. Local knowledge and memory in biodiversity conservation. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:317-3 5
et al. 2005. Inhibition of Amazon
deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous
Nepstad D, Swartzman S,
lands. Conserv. Biol. 20(l):65-73
2006. A Arqueologia da Amazonia. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar
2008. Ecology, ceramic chronology and distributions, long-term history, and political
the Amazonian
floodplain. See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 359-79

Neves

EG.

EG.

Neves
Neves

JB. 2006. Political economy and Pre-Columbian

See Balee & Erickson 2006, pp. 279-309

Petersen

EG,

Amazonia.

EG, Petersen JB, Bartone RN, Silva CA. 2003. Historical

et al. 2003, pp. 29-50
See Lehmann

Neves

landscape

and socio-cultural

transformations

in

change
in Central

origins of Amazonian

Dark

Earths.

Bol. Mus. Para. Em?io Goeldi 10:93-106

C. 1952. Os Tapaj?.
Nimuendaju
Noelli F. 2008. The Tupi expansion. See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 659-70
to New World
and contributions
Oliver J. 1991. Donald
Lathrap:
approaches
75/76:5-60

archaeology.

Antropologica

See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 185-216

J. 2008. The archaeology of agriculture in ancient Amazonia.
A, Raymond S, eds. 1998. Recent Advances in theArchaeology of theNorth Andes. Los Angeles:
Oyuela-Caycedo
Inst. Archaeol., Univ. Calif.
Oliver

Korpisaari A, eds. 2003. Western Amazonia: Amazonia Ocidental: Multi-Disciplinary

Ancient Expansionistic Movements, Fortifications, and Sedentary Life. Publ. 14.Helsinki: Renvall
Altamira
Pauketat T. 2007. Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Lanham, MD:
P?rssinen M,

Pereira E. 2004. Arte Rupestre na Amazonia: Par?. S?o Paulo: UNESP

the traditional interpretation of "manioc"
Perry L. 2005. Reassessing
Latin Am. Antiquity 16(4):409-26
Venezuela.

artifacts in the Orinoco

on

Studies
Inst.

Valley

of

MJ. 2001. Gift from the past: terra preta and prehistoric Amerindian
JB, Neves EG, Heckenberger
et al. 2001, pp. 86-105
inAmazonia.
See McEwan
occupation
1998. The Origins ofAgriculture in theLowland Neotropics. San Diego: Academic
Piperno DR, Pearsall DM.
P. 2000. Starch grains reveal early root crop horticulture in the Panamanian
Piperno DR, Ranere AJ, Hansell
Nature
407:894-97
forest.
tropical
Petersen

PoKtis G.

an
Creek, CA: Left Coast
Ethnoarchaeology of Amazonian People. Walnut
1999. Archaeology in Latin America. London: Routledge
1996. Os Povos das Aguas. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes
2007. Nukak:

PoKtis G, Alberti B.
Porro A.
Posey DA.
Posey DA,
Econ.

2002. Kayapo Ethnoecology and Conservation. London: Roudedge

inAmazonia:
1989. Resource Management
Balee W.
Indigenous and Folk Strategies. New

York: Adv.

Bot. 7

1991. Arqueologia Brasileira. Brasilia: Univ. Bras.

of Pleistocene-Holocene
Prous A, Fogaca E. 1999. Archaeology
Pr?mers H. 2004. H?gel umgeben von "sch?nen Monstern":
Prous A.

boundary

in Brazil. Quat.

Int. 53/54:21-41

in der Loma Mendoza

ausgrabungen
Band 10. Bonn: KAVA
in Vergessene Welten, pp. 47-78. AVA-Forschungen
S. 2008. The process of sedentism in northwestern South America. See Silverman &

(Bolivien).

In Expeditionen
Raymond

Isbell 2008,

pp.79-90
Roe P. 1982. The Cosmic Zygote: Cosmology in theAmazon Basin. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Subsistence along theAmazon and Orinoco. New
and Manioc
1980. Parmana: Prehistoric Maize
Roosevelt AC.
York: Academic
Roosevelt

AC.

1991.Moundbuilders

Roosevelt

AC.

1994. Amazonian

in
Island. San Diego: Academic
oftheAmazon: Geophysical Archaeology Marajo
Indians from Prehistory to thePresent: Anthropological Perspectives. Tuscon: Univ.

Ariz. Press

264

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AC. 1999. The development of prehistoric complex societies: Amazonia,

a
tropical forest. In Complex
Polities of theAncient Tropical World, ed. EA Bacus, LJ Lucero, pp. 13-3 3.Washington,
DC: Am. Anthropol.
Assoc.

Roosevelt

Roosevelt

Imazio M, Maranca

AC,

Brazilian Amazon.
Roosevelt

AC, Lima

pottery from a shell mound

1991. Eighth millennium

in the

da Costa M,

C, Michab M, Mercier N, et al. 1996. Paleoindian

Lopes Machado
the peopling of the Americas. Science 272:373-84
earthworks on the French Guiana
Coast.
See Silverman & Isbell
Agricultural

cave

in the Amazon:

dwellers
Rostain

S, Johnson R.

Science 254:1621-24

S. 2008a.

2008,

pp. 217-33
an overview. See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 279-302
of the Guianas:
Archaeology
1952. Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. New York: Am.
Soc.
Geog.
Schaan DR
2004. The Camutins chiefdorn: rise and development of complex societies on
Island, Brazilian
Marajo
Amazon. PhD thesis, Univ. Pittsburgh, 338 pp.
S. 2008b. The

Rostain

Sauer C.

2008. The non-agricultural

chiefdoms ofMarajo.
See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 339-57
Ranzi A, P?rssinen M, eds. 2007.
Arqueologia da Amazonia Ocidental: Os Geoglifos do Acre. Beiern:
Ed. Univ. Fed. Para

Schaan DP.

Schaan DP,

1917. Die Aruaken: Ein Beitrag zum Problem de

Kulturverbrietung. Leipzig: Veit
1996. Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History
Western Settings. Santa Fe: SAR Press

Schmidt M.

Schmidt P, Patterson T.

inNon

Silva FA. 2008. Ceramic

technology of the Asurini do Xingu, Brazil: an ethnoarchaeological

study of artifact
variability. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 15:217-65
Silverman H, Isbell W.
2008. Handbook ofSouth American
Archaeology. New York: Springer
Sim?es M.
1969. The Castanheira
site: new evidence for the antiquity and
history of the Ananatuba
phase.

Am.Antiquity34(4):402-10

Sim?es M.

1981. Coletores-pescadores

ceramistas

do litoral do Salgado

(Para). Bol. Mus.

Para. Em?io

Goeldi

78:1-31
A.

Sim?es M, Kalkman

1987. Pesquisas

116

Sim?es M,

Lopes

D.

4(1): 117-34
Smith N.

no medio

arqueol?gicas

1987. Pesquisas

arqueol?gicas

Rio Negro

no Baixo/Medio

Rev. Arqueol.

(Amazonas).

Rio Madeira

(Amazonas).

4(1):83

Rev. Arqueol.

2007. Amazon

River Fruits: Flavors for Conservation. St. Louis: Mo. Bot. Garden Press
1995.
Sponsel
Indigenous People and theFuture of theAmazon: An Ecological Anthropology of an Endangered
World. Tuscon: Univ. Ariz. Press
L.

Stahl P. 1995. Archaeology in theAmerican Tropics: Current

Analytical Methods
Univ. Cambridge
Press
Stahl P. 1996. Holocene

biodiversity:

an

archaeological

and Applications.

perspective from the Americas.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

25:105-26
Steward JH, Faron L.
Versteeg

1959. Native

A. 2008. Barrancoid

Peoples ofSouth America. New

and Arauquinoid mound builders

UK:

Cambridge,

York: McGraw-Hill
in coastal Suriname.

See Silverman &

Isbell

2008, pp. 303-18

Viveiros

1996. Images of nature and

society in Amazonia. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:179-200
llanos de Mojos.
See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 937-38
Walker
J. 2008. Agricultural Change in theBolivian Amazon. Pittsburgh: Latin Am. Archaeol. Publ.
NL.
Whitehead
1994. The
ancient Amerindian
and the Adantic coast: a
polities of the Amazon, Orinoco,
Walker

de Castro

EB.

J. 2004. The

preliminary analysis of their passage from antiquity to extinction. See Roosevelt

Whitehead
ed. 2003. Histories and Historicities inAmazonia. Lincoln: Univ. Neb.
NL,
Willis

KJ, Gillson L, Knapp S, eds. 2007. Biodiversity

future. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362:167-333

Woods

WI, McCann
J. 1999. The
Conf. hat. Am. Geog. 25:7-14
Woods WI, Texeira WG,
Lehman
Earths: Wim

anthropogenic

hotspots

origin and persistence

J, Steiner C, WinklerPrins

Sombroeks Vision. New

York:

through time: using

1994, pp. 33-53

Press
the past to manage

of Amazonian

A, Rebellato

Dark

Earths.

L, eds. 2009. Amazonian

the

Yearb.
Dark

Springer
www.annualreviews.org Amazonian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

265

W?st

I, Barreto C.

1999. The

Antiquity10(1):1-23

ring villages of central Brazil:

challenge

forAmazonian

archaeology.

Lat. Am.

formative. See Silverman & Isbell 2008, pp. 459-88

JA. 2008. The Ecuadorian
A. 1985. Evidencias
sobre grupos de posible lengua Carib. Antropologica 63/64:23-44
arqueol?gicas
Zucchi A. 2002. Anew model for northern Arawakan expansion. See Hill & Santos-Granero
2002, pp. 199-222
Zeidler
Zucchi

266

Heckenberger Neves

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:05:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions