The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies

8/13/2019 The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies

1/25

13

The Development of Prehistor ic Complex Societies:Amazonia, A Tropical Forest

Anna C. Roosevelt University of

Illinois at Chicago and Field Museum

of Natural History

ABSTRACT

Early research in Amazonia suggested the possibility that prehistoric complex societies had developed

in several regions, despite assumptions that humid tropical conditions would prevent such

developments. Under the rubric of cultural ecology, various processes have been hypothesized for the

development of these societies: invasion and subsequent devolution of groups from expanding states in

temperate regions outside Amazonia, social and ecological interactions among regions within

Amazonia, and social adaptation to local ecological variation. The hypotheses differ, but researchers

generally employed ecological determinist and functionalist assumptions of causality: from

environment to subsistence and population and thence to social adaptation. Recent thinking on

complex society has distilled the concept of heterarchy as an alternative to cultural materialist

explanations for the processes of formation and functioning of a range of complex societies. This

chapter examines the accumulated data on complex societies in two Amazonian regionsMarajo

Island at the mouth of the Amazon and the Santarem-Monte Alegre region in the Lower Amazon

inlight of the theoretical issues about the formation and functioning of complex societies worldwide.

Results of the comparison tend to accord more with heterarchical hypotheses than with the earlier

cultural ecological hypotheses. In Amazonia, non-state societies appear to have organized large, dense

populations, intensive subsistence adaptations, large systems of earthworks, production of elaborate

artworks and architecture for considerable periods of time. The more centralized and hierarchical of

these societies had developed more ritual and material culture related to conflict, and had a heavier

impact on their environments. The patterns of social development in Amazonia can still be causally

related to environmental patterns through cultural ecological theory, but the new data suggests the

need to envision a more mutualistic, variable, and complex causal nexus.


2/25

14 Anna C. Roosevelt

PARADIGMS FOR PREINDUSTRIAL SOCIAL

COMPLEXITY

Amazonia has relevance for theories of complex

societies. Theorists have related the process of socialevolution in Amazonia in different wavs to factors ofenvironment, economy, population, ritual, and socialcontext (Cameiro 1970; Lathrap 1970, 1974; Meggers1971, 1972, 1988; Meggers and Evans 1957;Roosevelt 1980) at a time when there were little or norelevant archaeological data. Data on the interaction ofsuch factors in the indigenous occupation of thisregion, therefore, can shed light on the origins andnature of complex human communities. This chapter,therefore, outlines Amazonian cultural ecoloev and

culture historv in relation to general theory of comnlexsocieties.

Early Explanations From Cultural Ecology

Explaining the rise of complex societies in y f ( \ iy

rreTrreronraannTTr"Drehistorv was one of the abiding interests of

archaeologists and social anthropologists through the1970s and 1980s. During those decades, a roughconsensus about the problem emerged within the

influential theoretical paradigm of cultural ecology(Cameiro 1970: Flannery 1972. 1976: Fried 1967:

Harris 1968.1979: Price 1984: Sahlins 1972: Sandersand Price 1968: Service 1975: Willev 1971: Wright

1986: Wright and Johnson 1975VAccording to this approach, the rise of complex

societies was a cultural adaptation by growinghuman populations to ecologically heterogeneousregions. Centralized, hierarchical organization, it wasreasoned, was the best possible wav to organizecultural svstems in such situations. Centralized

leadership ensured political stability by controllingsuccession to rule. Central planners designed and

built large-scale public works that were necessary forthe functioning of the system at several levels. Theycreated urban centers, routes for transport, andirrigation systems. Centrally organized intensiveagriculture produced food for the ever-larger

population, and redistribution of harvests evenea outsupplies within the large, heterogeneous region.Armed forces under the leadership of rulers kept the

peace in the densely populated realm and protectedthe region from hostile outsiders. Objects of fine artand monumental architecture were produced andconsumed for use as prestige goods for ruling groups

and their allies.

Heterarchical Explanations

Bv the 1990s, thinking about the nature and

origins of complex societies has changed somewhatas ideas about modem societies and natural systemshave changed. Insights into the nature of complexsocieties also have emerged from new empirical dataduring the period of rethinking. From these changes,a new general consensus has emerged in the form ofheterarchical approaches, suggesting that complex,large-scale communities could be organized byvarious nonhierarchical, noncentralized methodsimplemented in local communities, rather than

mainly in hierarchical forms imposed from the topdown (Arnold 1996; Earle 1987; Ehrenreich et al.1995; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; McIntosh, thisvolume; Paynter 1989; Price and Brown 1985;Robertshaw, this volume). Scholars writing aboutheterarchy emphasized that there were manydifferent kinds of complex societies, and variedcombinations of causes in their formation. Theevolutionary stages and typologies did not fit theempirical record either, so the theoreticians began to

retool the models and explanations. This theoreticalshift in anthropology parallels paradigm shifts insome other research fields, such as physics, in whichchaos theory allows for more accident, variation, andmultiplicity of causes in large, complex systems(Gleich 1987).

NEW DATA AVAILABLE FROM FIELDWORK

The idea that early complex cultures developed

because societies needed complex organization toensure the welfare of the population and stability ofsociety did not pan out in fieldwork. Scholars pointedout that regional-scale ecological and culturalcomplexity could be centrifugal politically and actagainst stable central rule, rather than encourage it(Paynter 1989). Uncentralized complex societies hadearlier been assumed by functionalists to be unstable

politically; they were described as cycling

endlessly (e.g., Earle 1987; Redmond, Gasson, andSpencer this volume; Wright 1984). But because of

their broader, grasPsroots base, heterarchicalformations appear to achieve more political stabilityand cultural longevity than hierarchical systems


3/25

Prehistoric Complex Societies in Amazonia 15

imposed from above by small ruling groups(Roosevelt n.d.a). The lack of a supra-regional centraladministrative hierarchy did not necessarily lead toeconomic collapse or social disorder. Research on

regional sequences also suggested that local,participatory management of resources tended to bemore stable ecologically than top-down management

bv outsiders. Evidence of resource degradation ismore common inj)eriods when hierarchical,centralized polities held sway, even when overall

population density in the polities was not muchgreater than in periods when uncentralized societieswere in charge (Allen, this volume; Pipemo andPearsall 1998; Roosevelt n.d.a). Furthermore,prehistoric polities with less centralized andhierarchical organization appeared to last much

longer in the archaeological record than thosewith strong. suDerordinate control (Roosevelt1989,1999a, n.d.a). Examples of long-lived,heterarchical societies are Northwest coast

prehistoric and historic cultures (Coupland1996), the Calusa (Marquardt 1987, 1988),Middle Woodland societies (Price and Brown1985) in North America, the cotton preceramicand initial ceramic cultures of Peru (Burger and

Salazar Burger 1980; Grieder et al. 1988;Quilter 1985; Roosevelt 1999a), pre-ChinChinese societies (Chang 1980, 1986), earlyVietnamese and Thai mound-dwelling societies(Higham 1989; Higham and Thosarat 1998),

prehistoric West African societies (McIntosh,this volume; Robertshaw, this volume), and pre-Dynastic Egypt (Hoffman 1979). Top-down,supraregional. centralized rule, in contrast, wasoften characterized bv greater ecological

disruotion and cultural instability.Examples are the North American Mississippiancultures (Smith 1978; Steponaitis 1991), Middleand Late horizon Peruvian cultures (Keatinge1988), dynastic Egypt (Trigger et al. 1983),China after the Chin unification (Chang 1986),and the Vietnam delta cultures after the HanChinese conquest (Higham 1989).

Many researchers have concluded thatmany complex societies did not operate in waysexpected by the functionalists. For example, the

documentary data on societies such as the Chimu(Moseley and Cordy-Collins 1990) and the Maya citystates (Potter and King 1995; Scheie and Freidel 1990)

showed little evidence of the regional centralizedpolitical administration, facilities, and managementthat states were assumed to have. Accumulatingethnohistoric and archaeological evidence do not show

that production of everyday food and tools wasnecessarily centralized or that these goods werenecessarily centrally collected and redistributed overlong distances in complex societies (Earle 1997;Morris and Thompson 1985; Potter and King 1995). Inaddition, the making of objects of fine art andmonumental art and architecture was not restricted tostate societies with ruling elites; such objects andstructures also were produced for consumption indomestically communities lacking a distinct,superordinate elite (Burger 1984; Burger and Salazar

Burger 1980; Grieder et al. 1988; Quilter 1985;Roosevelt 1991, 1993, 1997, 1999a; Silverman 1990).Even in the more centralized and hierarchical of thesesocieties, such as the Inca empire (Morris andThompson 1985), centralized redistribution seems tohave involved a very small subset of resources,manufactured goods, and facilities utilized by elitesand their retainers, rather than systematic collectionand redistribution of large amounts of goodsthroughout the societies. The goal and function of

redistribution of goods in these indigenous complexsocieties, thus, seem to have differed from earliertheoretical expectations. Rather than ensuringadequate food supplies for the general population,centralized redistribution seems to have been aimedmainly at underwriting the economic base and luxuryconsumption of the ruling group (Earle 1997; Helms1979; Paynter 1989). In the archaeological record,regional populations rarely improved in nutritionalstatus and general health due to the imposition of amilitaristic state administration over indigenous,

nonstate communities; rather, skeletal paleopathologyshows that local populations in nonstate complexsocieties had a better quality of life (Cohen 1985,1989;Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Cohen and Bennett 1998;Roosevelt 1984, 1999b). Presumably because of theirreliance on public opinion, non-state leaders may havecollected quantities of foodstuffs and goods to giveaway to the general population, as in the big manmodel (Sahlins 1963). Without means of coercion,apparently, the elites capacity to oppress and deprive

large numbers of people was quite limited.Another insight from recent research (Roosevelt1991, 1993, 1999a, n.d.a) is the recognition of theexistence of long-lived, indigenous complex societies


4/25


5/25


complex communities remain noncontroversialcriteria for most researchers (but see Coupland 1996for a discussion of single-community complexsocieties), but size and density criteria are not always

applied uniformly, since a priori theoreticalexpectations influence the classifications. Forexample, the lowland Maya site of Tikal had beendenied urban status initially because its residenceswere not laid out in the strict grid pattern found at thehighland center of Teotihuacan (Sanders and Price1968). Settlement survey, nevertheless, revealed the

plan of a very large urban site with a specializedcentral precinct (summarized in Ashmore 1981),Similarly some sources describe as small, temporarvvillages (Meggers 1988), prehistoric Amazoniansettlements whose tens of hectares of denselyoccupied areas (Porras 1987; Roosevelt1980,1991,1997) dwarf the approximately 10 to 20hectare areas of earlv cities of Formative

Mesoamerica (Grove 1987) and Mesopotamia(Melaart 1975). In regard to the magnitude anddesign of public works, potential evidence for socialcomplexity has not been widely recognized (Johnsonand Earle 1987; Steward and Faron 1959). Forexample, there are some lowland cultures whose sites

had greater volume of purposed earth-moundconstruction (Heckenberger 1996; Porras 1987;Roosevelt 1991, 1997) than architectural sites incentral highland Mexico often considered to representearlv state societies (Grove 1987). Complexitycriteria also have run into trouble in the assessment ofsettlement evidence for administrative hierarchies indifferent regions. For the mound systems at themouth of the Amazon, for example, one can impose athree-tier site size classification of single mounds,

small groups of three or four mounds, and largegroups of 15 to 40 mounds, but the mounds havesimilar architecture, features, and artifacts, regardlessof size. Site size hierarchies that had been accepted asindirect evidence of central administration thus mayor may not relate to the political economic functionof communities (McIntosh, this volume; Paynter1989; Robertshaw, this volume).

Better criteria for assessing and classifyingcomplexity are the specific patterns of differentiationwithin societies, rather than the mere existence ofdifferentiation. Thus, among archaeological societiesone could distinguish non-ranked sociopoliticaldifferentiation, graded socioeconomic ranking, and

major, discrete levels of stratification.In an unranked society, for example, simple

interpersonal differences would not be accompaniedby consistent qualitative differences in residential

quality, nutritional and health status, and occupation.In a society without central rule, there might belarge, community ritual or political facilities, butaccess to them would not be centralized under thecontrol of a permanent hierarchy. If, in addition, thesociety lacked subordination by force under a long-term central leader, the art and architecture would beexpected to lack images such as large, well-ornamented persons on thrones lording over groups ofnaked or poorly-dressed, abject, small, non-elite

persons. An example of such noncentralized, non-

stratified complex societies might include Peruviancotton preceramic societies (Grieder et al. 1988;Quilter 1985) or Formative Central Americansocieties (Hoopes 1987).

In a society that had graded ranking but lackedmajor, discrete, horizontal social strata and centraladministration, there might be great differences inwealth, status, and health between those at the top and

bottom of the society, but most people would haveaccess to adequate housing, ritual facilities, and

luxury goods. In such societies, there might be warcaptives or low-ranking relations who were poor andill-fed, but these would be few in number. Some

Northwest coast societies (Coupland 1996), someAmazonian societies (Nimuendaju 1949), and someClassic and Pre-Classic Maya societies, such as thosecentered at Tikal, Guatemala and Copan, Honduras(Potter and King 1995), exhibit this pattern ofdifferentiation, for example.

A society with central political administration, incontrast, would be expected to have functionally

specialized residential settlements with some sort ofcentral facility serving administrative operations. Itsarchitecture and fine art would be expected toemphasize centralization, hierarchy and force, ifanything. If there were distinct hierarchicalsocioeconomic groups, the archaeologist would findvery different qualities of life in different segments ofthe population. The osteology and burial patterns ofcertain Classic and especially Post-Classic Mayasocieties seem to show this pattern, as does Moche

society of north coast Peru (Donnan 1978; Donnanand Mackay 1978). For example, at Tikal and Altar deSacrifcios, individuals in the richest graves weretaller or had fewer nutritional and infectious bone


6/25


7/25


1947) and in the Incised and Punctate Horizoncultures of the lower Amazon (Palmatary 1960). Earlyon, archaeological sites had furnished contextualinformation for the art, revealing that the Polychrome

Horizon art came from large, discrete cemeteries inlarge artificial mounds (Derby 1879; Hartt n.d.; Netto1885), and that the Incised and Punctate art camefrom features in large garbage middens and from bell-shaped pits in structures (Nimuendaju 1949, n.d.).Excavations and surface collections also show that thelocal units of the two supraregional pottery horizonswere large, stylistic regions tens of thousands ofsquare kilometers in size (Nimuendaju 1949;Roosevelt 1991). Within such


8/25


local stylistic regions, settlements, facilities,utilitarian material culture and art objects wereclosely similar and comparable in age (Roosevelt1991), fitting the criteria for true horizon styles,

traditionally associated with the realms of complexsocieties in American archaeology (Willey 1971) andcontrasting with the much more variable patterning ofculture within indigenous regions of Amazonia duringthe 19thand 20thcenturies (e.g., da la Penha 1986).

Ethnohistoric Accounts

Another important body of evidence for theexistence of complex societies in Amazonia is thecorpus of ethnohistoric accounts. Several accounts

had been published before or at the time of culturalecologists first theoretical statements about social

evolution in Amazonia (Acuna 1891; Bettendorf1910; Medina 1934;Nimuendaju 1949; Porro 1994;Roosevelt 1991:403-431), but the information was forthe most part not integrated into their explanations(Steward and Faron 1959). What was interpretivelysignificant in the accounts were descriptions of

paramount chiefs claiming descent from deities, largesedentary populations, capital towns, artificial roadsand causeways, intensive agriculture, large-scaleorganized warfare, tribute, endogamous elites,distinct occupational groups, and elaborate rituals ofrank and stratification. The accounts are consideredreliable, since the interpretively significant details arefound in a wide range of independent accounts,including the observations made during the initialexplorations by Europeans (Medina 1934), as well asslightly later accounts by seasoned secular (deHeriarte 1964) and religious administrators(Bettendorf 1910).

REVISED EXPLANATIONS FOR AMAZONIAN

SOCIAL COMPLEXITY

When such archaeological and ethnohistoricevidence for complexity was later recognized,cultural ecologists working in Amazonia expandedtheir explanations in several directions. One researchgroup, although recognizing that complex societieshad existed in the lower Amazon and on Marajo,suggested that they were the short-lived result of aninvasion from Andean centers of civilization(Meggers 1952, 1971, 1988; Meggers and Evans1957). These researchers felt that there had never

been dense populations or urban centers in Amazonia,and that the intrusive complex societies, poorlyadapted for the tropical rainforest environment,quickly decayed into independent villages.

Another cultural ecologist developed forAmazonia a corollary of the theory of environmentalcircumscription that he had developed for explainingthe rise of civilization in arid uplands regions(Cameiro 1970). Originally, the circumscriptiontheory had specified that states would only develop inrich river floodplains tightly circumscribed bydeserts, the pattern found in the Andes and Nileregions. The development of irrigation agriculture inthe arid, but nutrient-rich, habitats was considered akey element in state formation. Supposedly- uniform

habitats with abundant rain and poor soil, like tropicalrainforests, were not expected to have indigenousstate development, even if the human populationsgrew and pressed on the available resources. Cameirosuggested, instead, that in Amazonia the difference infaunal resources between the rich-soil river floodplainand the poor upland forest would have resulted in a

process of social circumscription, leading to the

rise of complex chiefdoms without the developmentof intensive agriculture.

Alternatively, I suggested that the existence ofpoorer terra firme rainforests around the floodplainsmight retard the development of politicalcentralization serving as a refuge for homesteadersreluctant to submit to strong, top down politicalauthority (Roosevelt 1980, 1991).

RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD

RESEARCH


9/25


Figure 2.1 Map of eastern Amazon showing location of Santarem and Monte Alegre and Teso dos Bichos, Guajara, and Os Camutins

on Marajo Island, Brazil.Recent archaeological research in the Amazon

has supplied more data about prehistoric Amazoniansocieties for some regions. Geophysical andtopographic survey and stratigraphic excavation onMarajo and at Santarem/Monte Alegre (Figure 2.1)(Bevan 1989; Roosevelt 1991, 1993, 1994, n.d.b,n.d.c) and survey and excavations in the Upper Xingu(Heckenberger 1996) and in the Oriente of Ecuador(Porras 1987; Salazar 1998) have uncovered abundant

features and structures within mapped sites,


10/25


allowing interpretations of the composition andorganization of communities. Radiocarbon andthermoluminescence dating and analysis ofstratigraphy at sites on Marajo and at Santarem/

Monte Alegre have produced data on thedevelopmental sequence (Quinn et al. n.d; Roosevelt1991:100-114, 313-314; Roosevelt et al. 1991;Roosevelt et al. 1996). Archaeobotany and isotopicchemistry have provided evidence about the historyof the habitat and subsistence, and bioarchaeologyhas yielded data on human genetics and health statusduring prehistoric times in these regions (Roosevelt1989,1991:384-384,1998a, b; Roosevelt etal. 1991;Roosevelt et al. 1996). All these findings shed light

on earlier interpretations of the evolution of complexsocieties in Amazonia.

The Polychrome Horizon of Marajo Island

One region that has recently furnished some newdata is Marajo Island at the mouth of the Amazon.Overall Settlement Patterns

The field studies of the Polychrome horizoncommunities in eastern Marajo suggest that they werevery long lived settlements populated by people of

Amazonian genetic affiliation, rather than ephemeralcolonies of foreigners invading from the Andes(Roosevelt 1991:384-395). The layouts uncovered bytotal geophysical surveys and intensive test-excavation at mound sites such as Teso dos Bichosand Guajara are those of villages or towns ofnumerous large domestic structures, cemeteries, andmiddens, not just ceremonial centers empty of

population (Figure 2.2) (Roosevelt 1991:155-384).Marajoara mounds typically range from one to five

hectares and from three to ten meters high, but raremounds are much larger, such as the one-kilometer-long mound in Os Camutins mound group (Roosevelt1991:30-40, 156-160). The mounds are composed ofsuccessive earth platforms containing deep stacks ofsuperimposed domestic house floors; large, multiunit

baked clay hearth facilities; and cemetery urn


11/25


Figure 2.2 Marajoara mound group reconstruction. Os Camutins, Anajas River, Marajo Island (after Roosevelt 1991 Fig. 5.25).

Figure 2.3 Maraioara urn from Guajara, Anajas

River. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem

(after Roosevelt 1991 :Fig. 1.17F).

fields that are maintained, repaired, added to and

regularly replaced (Roosevelt 1991:155-384). Suchwithin-site patterns are those expected for sizable, long-term occupations, not for small, shifting villages andtemporary camps. Polychrome regional cultural spherescovered considerable areas, between approximately20,000 to 40,000 square kilometers. Radiocarbon datesshow that the cultures had considerable longevity, manysites were continuously occupied from shortly after thetime of Christ to about A.D.1100.

In contrast to earlier functionalist interpretations,

the archaeological record provides no evidence that thelarge, complex Polychrome horizon communitiesrepresented by these sites were administered bycentralized, hierarchical political groups. Severalhundred major mounds have been identified, of whichabout 20 have been surface- collected or test excavated(Meggers and Evans 1957; Palmatary 1950, de la Penha1986; Roosevelt 1991). Research procedures involvedexamination of all major mounds in several Marajosubregions, such as the Anajas and Lake Arari areas.

Statistically, this number of mounds is an adequatesample forjudgingthe range of variability among the about 200 mound sitesknown. Mound sites of the same subperiod differ greatly

from each other in size, but do not differ dramatically in

the kinds of objects or architecture. Mounds occur eithersingly, in small groups or in very large groups (seeFigure 2.2), but so far it has not been possible todemonstrate the existence of qualitatively distinct sitesthat might have functioned as administrative centers.

Within-site Patterns of Residences and CemeteriesThe residences and cemeteries are the only structures yetuncovered within mounds, and those mapped orexcavated at particular mounds do not differ one from

another in ways that could be interpreted as evidence ofsocial stratification. This pattern contrasts with theevidence for special residences in FormativeMesoamerican settlements of similar scale (Flannery1976). Although there may have been gradations of rankwithin regional populations, so far it is difficult to makea case for distinct, discrete strata. Our 42 stratified

random sample test excavations at the sites of Teso dosBichos (Roosevelt 1991) and Guajara (Roosevelt n.d.b)show


12/25


that houses, which have mud floors and adobehearths, contain mainly domestic ceramic wares.Occasionally a decorated funerary urn will be buriedunder the floor of a house, but the great majority are

buried closely together in the cemeteries. Thecemeteries are located near houses toward the edgesof the mounds. More than 40 separate cemeteries have

been surface collected or test excavated, and severalthat have been geophysically mapped and testexcavated are slated for broad-area excavation in thenear future (Meggers and Evans 1957; Palmatary1950; de la Penha 1986; Roosevelt 1991). Allcemeteries reported include the elaborately decorated

pottery as well as plain vessels, but there is no clearsegregation of plain and fancy pottery. In fact,decorated burial urns with their accompaniments aresometimes placed within large, plain urns. There isvariation in the number and kind of artifacts buriedwith funerary urns, but no uniquely rich burials.Highly decorated pottery is also found in unroofedareas of sites. Since this pottery includes very large,decorated, use-worn cooking and serving dishes andthe remains of special food, such as very large fishand turtles, it is considered the remains of feasting.The modeled and nainted human images in the funerary

and feasting art (Figure 2.3) do not seem overtlypolitical. They may bear potent shamanic

chocalho r

symbols, such as rattles and snakes, and there areobjects such as ceramic stools, but there are no knownimages of individuals seated on stools holding whatmight be emblems of rank or office (numerousillustrations of Marajoara art are published in

Nordenskiold 1930; Palmatary 1950; de la Penha1986:190-191; Roosevelt 1991).

Subsistence, Environment, and PopulationSubsistence, environment, and population

characteristics in Maraioara sites also differ from whatcultural ecologists expected.

Contrary to the theoreticians expectations that

complex societies are characterized bv intensiveagriculture. Polychrome horizon subsistence is not asystem of intensive, monocrop cultivation but rather isa mixed system of cultivation and foraging (Roosevelt1991:373-395). A wide range of plants were

cultivated. Maize is present, but is very rare, and thestable carbon isotopes of a sample of skeletons(N=23) have a wide range of variability, rarelyshowing the positive values associated with staple

maize cultivation (17 assays reported in


13/25


Databolses

Roosevelt 1991:384-388 and six unpublished assays).Among the plant foods, native herb seeds and treefruits have been identified (Roosevelt 1991:375379),and root crops, which are difficult to recover from

archaeological deposits, also may have beencultivated. Certain water-loving palms with nutritiousfruits were widely cultivated. The fauna in domesticrefuse (Roosevelt 1991:379-384) are mainly the

bones of small fish and small turtles, which are themost abundant creatures in the faunal biomass.T.arcrp r a r e , fannal sppn'pg nrnir in nnp.n- airnart nf sitpc aprnmnanipH hv niprpg nf larcrp.HprnratpH cprvina Hihp


14/25


Figure 2.4 Map of modern Santarem city. The prehistoric occupation lies mainly in the Aldeia and Portsections.

Polychrome regions, but most occupations are (ca. 50cm to 1 m) and much larger in area. Very large areasof dense, black garbage and structural remains occurin settlements, some of which measure several square

kilometers in area. The late prehistoric archaeologicalsite at the present city of Santarem, for example, hadan occupied area of about four square kilometers(Figure 2.4). The black soil garhape denosits nf theculture are verv numerous and extensive. They a r c , ubiquitous along the banVs of the Lower Amazon andoften extend continuously for many miles (Nimuendajun.d.' Smith 1980). My colleagues and I conductedgeophysical and topographic surveys over almost onesquare kilometer of the archaeological site atSantarem city (Bevan 1989) and excavated in tenareas to test the results of the surveys (Rooseveltn.d.c). Together the surveys and excavations suggestthat people lived in large, obtong structures equippedwith bell-shaped storage pits (Roosevelt n.d.c).Informal surface survev data acauired earlier recordother facilities in

the vicinity, such as round wells at sites and elevatedroads and causeways running between sites(Nimuendaju 1949, n.d.).

Art, Material Culture, and Social OrganizationMaterial culture was rich, and objects were often

elaborately decorated. Many of the elaboratelydecorated dishes are food-service pieces for display(Figure 2.5) and appear to have been widely availablein the community. Sherds of such pieces are found inlarge numbers of small and large sites. There are alsomusical instruments, such as bird ocarinas and femalefigurine rattles, and other ingenious, finely made ritualobjects, such as snuffing implements. The carving andgrinding of stone tools was greatly elaborated. Many

ground stone objects appear to be wood-carving toolsof varied sizes and types, such as axes, adzes, chiselsand awls. Other stone objects are semi-precious stoneornaments, such asjade frog pendants and head-bandornaments apparently depicting humans (de la Penha1986:168-169).


15/25


Figure 2.5 Decorated display vessel from Santarem city, Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (de la

Penha 1986:150).

According to the conquest records, these carvings were

considered objects of value and were traded widely andworn especially by women. There were also large stone

carvings in the shape of alter-ego figures, which have

one figure, usually an animal, crouched on the shouldersof another (Palmatary 1960). These carvings havestandardized double perforations at the base, presumablyto attach them to a support. They could be interpreted as

emblems or scepters. Of particular interest are thearchaeological lunate-blade axes from the culturalsphere of Santarem and of closely related cultures(Figure 2.6). Similar implements are identified in earlyethnographic collections from the area as war clubs (dela Penha 1986). Pierced projectile points have also been

found in some Santarem sites (Hartt n.d,). During theEuropean conquest of the Santarem area at the close ofthe reign of this culture, large war parties of as many as60 warriors per canoe were described as attacking theinvaders with lethal poisoned arrows (Medina 1934;

Nimuendaju 1949). Contact period records also suggestthat each residential community was obliged to provideable hndiedpersons for war efforts (Nimuendaju 1949).Thoueh rare, poorlv treated captive slaves wereobserved by some chroniclers (Palmatary 1960).

In the art corpus from the site of Santarem are


16/25

28

Figure 2.6 Santarm style clubs, Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi

(de la Penha 1986:182).

stable carbon isotope ratios of wood and tree fruits ofthe time show a strong dominance of canopiedtropical forest vegetation but also the possibility thatincreasing human population density in the arearesulted in some thinning and opening of the forest

(Roosevelt n.d.a). A large late prehistoric p roletrandthatch house preserved in a cave site near MonteAlegre measured more than three by eight meters. Inthe foundations were desiccated corncobs as well asa wide range of tree fruits, cultivated gourds, andvaried faunal remains. The foundations oflonghouses geophysically mapped in thearchaeological site at Santarem city measured abouteight meters long and three meters wide in the radar

profiles. The house floors and associated garbage

contain rare carbonized maize kernels and numeroustree fruits. There were also numerous small sharp flintchips that could have been used in manioc graters.The conquerors records mention both manioc and

maize as important food crops, but state that somecommunities in the area emphasized maize as astaple food (de Heriarte 1964). Maize had a ritualrole, it was mainlv consumed as beer served incommunity ceremonies (Nimuendaju 1949). Eachfamily owed a tithe of their maize crop to the

community for making the beer (Nimuendaju 1949).Faunal food was valued, and there was large-scale,

Figure 2.7 Large, hollow human image from Santarem city, Museu Paraense

Emilio Goeldi (de la Penha 1986:155).


17/25


. . cercar

intensive fishing and extensive corralling of waterturtles near settlements (Acuna 1891). As on Marajo,however, tiny fishes were the daily faunal fare,

according to the bioarchaeological finds in garbage.Turtle remains occur mostly in the ceremonialfeatures, not in the everyday garbage (Rooseveltn.d.c). Only in the remains of small, hinterlandSantarem-culture settlements, such as Cavema daPedra Pintada, is a broad spectrum of faunaencountered. Possibly around large settlements, suchas that at Santarem city, larger fauna other than riverturtles had become scarce. With only one large sitemapped and only two houses test excavated, it is not

possible to estimate population density or

distribution, but this is the area that conquest recordssuggest had a density of just under ten persons persquare kilometer (see references above in section onMarajo subsistence, environment, and population).

T tlio Cantarom orpo fiinprar\i ^icnncol urac OT/PM rnnrp

ViirrViK/ nhioliTPii th an in tVio DnKipVimtnp i'll It1. irp

nn Marajo Knrlipc uforo nrnppcc an rlrlicnr\cp^ nf Ki; nrpmotir\n nr oo/An/ion; Vvnrial in

bowls. Body processing steps described in theaccounts include smoking, burial, exhumation,

washing, and burning. The aim of thesemanipulations, according to the men who missionizedthe communities in this area in the 17th century(Bettendorf 1910), was to create ancestor relics toworship. They also stated that mummies of importantancestors were kept in special houses and broughtout, refurbished, and displayed in periodicceremonies each year; the mummified individualswere referred to as the first mother and first

father (Nimuendaju 1949).

Ethnohistoric Accounts of Social OrganizationThe early European accounts of the vicinity of

Santarem city mention warlike paramount rulers whoclaimed to be descended from gods. They alsomention a paramount female religious figure whomav have been a deified ancestor, since no one evermet her. Each sizable communitv in the area had ahead person who was elevated above a group oflesser leaders, who were themselves elevated overresidential leaders. The community leader recorded for

the community at Santarem city was a high- rankingwoman. According to the recorded anecdotes abouther, the noble group she belonged to wasendogamous (Bettendorf 1910). Mythic leadership by

women is also recorded in the myths of the

Amazons. which describe communities led by

warlike women shamans (Shoumatoff 1986:101108).According to the sources, the nobles were a

separate group from those who worked insubsistence, suggesting that there mav have beendistinct occuoational groups.

SummaryThe general picture of the Santarem society

accords better with the idea of a warlike complexchiefdom than does that of the Marajoara society.Ethnohistoric accounts, iconography, and settlement

patterns all give evidence of a moderately centralized

political hierarchy that claimed some tribute.Populations expanded rapidly during the existence ofthe society. Concurrently, food productionintensified, maize may have become more importantthan before, and domestic storage facilities weredeveloped. Despite the rarity of sites with the largehuman figures and semiprecious gems, however, allknown occupation sites have abundant sherds of thehiehlv decorated feasting-ceremonial ootterv. Interms of stratification, then, there mav have been anolitical elite over a nonulation that worked for its

subsistence and sunnlied tribute but that also seemsto have enioved access to the fine notterv art and Jcommunitv ceremonies.

Complex Societies Elsewhere in Amazonia

Scattered data from other parts of the Amazonshow that the complex societies of the Tapajos andAmazon mouths were not unique. In the UpperXingu, researchers have mapped large settlementswith multiple concentric rows of large houses with

defensive precincts (Heckenberger 1996). In theBolivian Amazon, extensive mound systems andfield earthworks have been mapped and excavated(Deneven 1966; Dougherty and Calandra 1981-1982;Erickson 1980). The Bolivian mounds, some over tenmeters high, are composed of building stages forvillages or towns. Some were occupied for very long

periods of time, beginning in the Formative period,about 1000 years ago. Some have continuousconstruction and occupation for more than two

thousand years before the European conquest. In thevolcanic Ecuadorian Amazon uplands, also, largemound systems were built and maintained between


18/25


:j_______ c.

Figure 2.8 Faldas de Sangay site map (after Porras 1987).

100 B.C. and A.D. 1000 (Athens 1989; Porras 1987,Salazar 1998). The mounds cluster in a center, Faldasde Sangay, where there is a central ceremonial precinct

with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic mound

constructions (Figure 2.8). The mounds contain a widerange of finely decorated ceramics and carved stoneobjects. The presence of hundreds of closely spaced,apparently residential mounds over an area of 12 squarekilometers indicates a relatively large population for thesociety. The occupation is associated with thedeposition of abundant maize and weed pollen innearby lakes (Pipemo 1995), and human skeletons insites of contemporary Peruvian cultures have stableisotopic patterns bone collagen patterns heavily

dominated by C-4 plants, such as maize (Roosevelt1989).

CONCLUSION

From the Amazonian data, incomplete though theyare, one can make several conclusions. Indigenous

complex societies with large, densely settledpopulations arose there in prehistoric times, contrary toenvironmental limitation theory. They developed incircumscribed riverine land as well as

in upland forest areas. We do not know much about

their history, but what is known suggests that suchsocieties have existed in several areas of the Amazonsince at least 1000 B.C. Contrary to expectations thattheir subsistence would be intensive agriculture, some

groups relied on mixed foraging and horticulture, andothers were intensive maize-staple farmers. Thematerial achievements of the societies, whether infine art or monumental construction, were substantial,in no wav less than those of complex SQC\ti5 indrier or higher-elevation areas, such as the CentralAndes. However the presence of the, great expanse offorest mav have retarded or prevented theHpyplnnmpnt of rne.rrive tvnes of romnlex goriptwkv fiinrtionincr as a rpfnop for pQrnnppi nnH actratpcnf''J _ O Kiici fXr nnnnnpntc nf* thp mlfrc nf* cnr'ipfiVc fIWil

*------- ---- r i---- ----- _ _ - -------------- - ........... _ _ ----

lot nroiiiotnrtr timpc Ami7Aniin rnmnlpYcrrip>hio

ihof mdCCUfA

onrfliii/nrVo anrl larfrA.Cpalfonrl

fin a (inn'irpntKr momtoiorl;__ __ t e a l i a a d


19/25


nl tnf Vn 11 ml n


20/25


population, intensified agriculture, increased groupwarfare, and increased human impact on the forest.

The archaeological record of Amazonia, asknown at present, tends to document a diverse group

of complex societies. Complex societies seem to havedeveloped in a wider range of environments and withmore kinds of subsistence systems than we oncethought. They also seem to have organizedthemselves in a variety of ways, including primarilyheterarchical modes of operation in some times and nlaees

and distinctlv hierarchical and centralized modes in other

times and nlaces. In Slim, the evidence from Amazoniasuggests that early cultural ecological theories weretoo narrow and monocausal to account for the

surprising variability manifested by thearchaeological societies. Environmental variationindeed seems to have been a part of the causal

process, but did not limit and determine subsistenceadaptation and social development as strictly as had

been assumed. In terms of organization, somesocieties managed to organize large, sedentary groupsof people, carry out large scale public works, andcreate abundant fine art and crafts without resortingto highly centralized and hierarchical administration.A direction for future research, therefore, would be to

investigate in detail the evidence for specificheterarchical forms of community organization inthese societies.

REFERENCES CITED

Acuna, C. de1891 Nuevo descubrimiento del gran rio de las

Amazonas. Collection deLivros que Tratan deAmerica Raros o Curiosos.Tomo 2. Madrid.

Allison, M.

1984 Paleopathology in Peruvian and Chileanpopulations. InPaleopathology at the Origins ofAgriculture.M. N. Cohen and G. A. Armelagos,eds. Pp. 515-530. New York: Academic Press.

Arnold, J. E., ed.1996 Emergent Complexity: The Evolution of

Intermediate Societies. Archaeological Series,No. 9. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

Ashmore, W., ed.1981 Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Athens, J. S.

1989 Pumpuentsa and the Pastasa phase in southeasternlowland Ecuador.Nawpa Pacha 24:1-29.

Bettendorf, J.1910 Chronica da Missao dos padres da Companhia de

Jesus no estado do Maranhao. Revista do

Instituto Geogrfico e Historico (Rio deJaneiro) 72(1).

Bevan, B. W.1989 Geophysical Surveys at Three Sites Along the

Lower Amazon River.Pitman, NJ: Geosight.

Burger, R. L.1984 The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavin deHuantar. University of California Publicationsin Anthropology, Volume 14. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Burger, R. L., and L. Salazar Burger1980 Ritual and religion at Huarikoto. Archaeology

33(6):26-32.Carneiro, R.

1970 A theory of the origin of the state. Science169:733-738.

Chang, K. C.1986 The Archaeology of Ancient China.New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Chang, K. C., ed.1980 Shang Civilization.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Cohen, M. N.1985 Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: the meaning of

social complexity. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers.T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, eds. Pp.99-119. Orlando: Academic Press.

1989Health and the Rise of Civilization.New Haven:Yale University Press.

Cohen, M. N., and G. A. Armelagos, eds.1984 Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture.

New York: Academic Press.Cohen, M. N., and S. Bennett

1998 Skeletal evidence for sex roles and genderhierarchies in prehistory. In Reader in GenderArchaeology. K. Hays-Gilpin and D. S.Whitley, eds. Pp. 297-319. London: Routledge.

Coupland, G.1996 This old house: cultural complexity and

household stability on the northern northwestcoast of North America. In EmergentComplexity: The Evolution of IntermediateSocieties. J. E. Arnold, ed. Pp. 74-90.Archaeological Series, No. 9. Ann Arbor:International Monographs in Prehistory.

Creamer, W.1996 Developing complexity in the American

Southwest: constructing a model for the RioGrande Valley. In Emergent Complexity: TheEvolution of Intermediate Societies. J. E.Arnold, ed. Pp. 91-106. Archaeological Series,No. 9. Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory.

de Heriarte, M.1964 Descripcam do Estado do Maranham, Para,

Corupa e rios das Amazonas, feito porMauricio de Heriarte, Ouvidor-geralProvedormor e Auditor, que foi peloGobernador D. Pedro deMello, no anno 1662.FaksimileAusgabe aus den MSS 5880 und

5879 der sterreichischen National-Bibliothek,Vien. Graz, Austria: Academische Druck undVerlagsansstalt.

de la Penha, G.1986 O Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi.Sao Paulo:


21/25


Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Banco SafraSA, and CNPq.

Denevan, W.1966 An Aboriginal Cultural Geography of the

Llanos de Mojos de Bolivia. Ibero-Americana,

No. 48- Berkeley: University of California.Derby, O.1879 The artificial mounds of the Island of Marajo.

American Naturalist13:224-229.Donnan, C.

1978 Moche Art of Peru.Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Institute of Archaeology.

Donnan, C., and C. J. Mackay1978 Ancient Burial Patterns of the Moche Valley.

Austin: University of Texas Press.Dougherty, B., and H. Calandra

1981-1982 Excavaciones arqueologicas en La LomaAlta de Casarabe, Llanos de Moxos,Departemento del Beni, Bolivia. Relaciones de

la Sociedad Argentina de Antropologia [N.S.]14(2):9-48.Earle, T.

1987 Chiefdoms in archaeological andethnohistorical perspective. Annual Review ofAnthropology16:279-308.

1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The PoliticalEconomy in Prehistory. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Ehrenreich, R., C. Crumley, and J. Levy, eds.1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex

Societies. Archeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association, No. 6.Arlington, VA: American Anthropological

Association.Erickson, C.

1980 Sistemas agricolas prehispanicos en los llanos deMojos.America Indigena40(4):731-755.

Evans, C., and B. J. Meggers1960Archaeological Investigations in British Guiana.

Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology177. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

1968 Archaeological Investigations on the Rio Napo,Eastern Ecuador.Smithsonian Contributions toAnthropology, No. 6. Washington D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

Feinman, G., and J. Neitzel1984 Too many types: an overview of sedentary pre-

state societies in the Americas. InArchaeological Method and Theory.Volume 7.M. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 39-102. New York:Academic Press.

Feldman, A.1985 Preceramic corporate architecture: evidence for

the development of non-egalitarian socialsystems in Peru. In Early CeremonialArchitecture in the Andes. C. B. Donnan, ed.Pp. 71-92. Washington, D.C.: DumbartonOaks.

Flannery, K. V.

1972 Cultural evolution of civilization. Annual Reviewof Ecology and Systematics3:399-426.Flannery, K. V., ed.

1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York:Academic Press.

Fried, M.1967 The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in

Political Economy.New York: Random House.Gleich, J.

1987 Chaos.New York: Viking Penguin.

Glieder, T., A. Bueno Mendoza, C. E. Smith, and R. M.Malina1988 La Galgada, Peru: A Preceramic Culture in

Transition.Austin: University of Texas Press.Grove, D. C., ed.

1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Hartt, C. F.n.d. Contribution to the Ethnology of the River of the

Amazons. Manuscript in the Peabody Museum,Harvard University.

Harnes, R. B., and W. T. Vickers, eds.1982 Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians.New

York: Academic Press.

Harris, M.1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. NewYork: Thomas Y. Crowell.

1979 Cultural Materialism. New York: RandomHouse.

Haviland, W.1967 Stature at Tikal: implications for ancient Maya

diet.American Antiquity35:316-325.Heckenberger, M.

1996 War and Peace in the Shadow ofEmpire: SocialChange in the Upper Xingu of SoutheasternAmazonia, A.D. 1400-2000.Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University ofPittsburgh.

Helms, M. W.1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power.

Austin: University of Texas Press.Higham, C.

1989 The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Higham, C., and R. Thosarat1998 Prehistoric Thailand: From Early Settlement to

Sukhothai.Bangkok: River Books.Hilbert, P. P.

1968 Archaeologische Untersuchungen am MittlerenAmazonas. Marburger Studien zurVlkerkunde, No. 1. Berline: Dietrich ReimerVerlag.

Hoffman, M.1979 Egypt Before the Pharaohs.New York: Knopf.

Hoopes, J.1987 Early Ceramics and the Origins of Village Life

in Lower Central America. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, HarvardUniversity.

Howard, G.1947Prehistoric Ceramic Styles of Lowland South

America, Their Distribution and History.Publications in Anthropology, No. 37. NewHaven: Yale University.

Johnson, A., and T. Earle

1987 The Evolution of Human Societies. Stanford:Stanford University Press.Keatinge, R., ed.

1988 Peruvian Prehistory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.


22/25


Kensinger, K. P. Rabineau, H. Tanner, S. G. Ferguson,and A. Dawson

1975 The Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Studies inAnthropology and Material Culture, Volume 1.Providence: The Haffenreffer Museum of

Anthropology, Brown University.Lathrap, D.1970 The Upper Amazon. New York: Praeger

Publishers.1974 The moist tropics, the arid lands, and the

appearance of the great art styles in the NewWorld. In Art and Environment in NativeAmerica. M. E. King and I. Traylor, eds. Pp.115-158. Special Publications of the Museum,No. 7. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

1985 Jaws: the control of power in the early nuclearAmerican ceremonial center. In EarlyCeremonial Architecture in the Andes. C. B.Donnan, ed. Pp. 241-268. Washington, D.C.:

Dumbarton Oaks.Marquardt, W. H.1987 The Calusa social formation in protohistoric

Florida. In Power Relations and StateFormation. T. C. Patterson and C. W. Gailey,ed. Pp. 98-116. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAnthropological Association.

1988 Politics and production among the Calusa ofSouth Florida. In Hunters and Gatherers I:History, Evolution, and Social Change. T.Ingold, D. Riches, and J. Woodbum, eds. Pp.161-188. Oxford: Berg.

Maybury-Lewis, D.1979 Dialectical Societies. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.Medina, E., ed.

1934 The Discovery of the Amazon According to theAccount of Friar Gaspar de Carvajal and OtherDocuments.New York: American GeographicalSociety.

Meggers, B. J.1952 The Archaeological Sequence on Marajo Island,

Brazil, with Special Reference to the MarajoaraCulture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, ColumbiaUniversity.

1971 Amazonia: Man and Nature in a CounterfeitParadise.

Chicago: Aldine.

1972 Prehistoric America. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

1988 The prehistory of Amazonia. In People of theTropical Forest.J. S. Denslow and C. Padoch,eds. Pp. 54-62. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press and Smithsonian TravelingExhibition Service.

Meggers, B. J., and C. Evans1957 Archaeological Investigations at the Mouth of

the Amazon. Bureau of American Ethnology,Bulletin 167. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

Melaart, J.

1975 The Neolithic of the Near East.London: Thamesand Hudson.Morris, C., and D. Thompson

1985 Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and itsHinterland.London: Thames and Hudson.

Moseley, M. E., and A. Cordy-Collins, eds.1990 The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and

Statecraft in Chimor. Washington, D.C.:Dumbarton Oaks.

Netto, V.

1885 Investigaes sobre a archaeologia Brazileira.Archivos do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro6:257-554.

Nimuendaju, C.U.1949 Os Tapajo.Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio

Goeldi10:93-108.n.d. A survey of Amazon archaeology. Manuscript

translated by Stig Ryden. GoteborgEthnographic Museum.

Nordenskiold, E.1930 LArcheologie du Bassin de LAmazone. Ars

Americana 1. Paris: Les Editions G. van Oest.Palmatary, H.

1950 The Pottery of Marajo Island.Transactions of

the American Philosophical Society [N.S.]39(3).1960 The Archaeology of the Lower Tapajos Valley.

Transactions of the American PhilosophicalSociety [N.S.] 50(3).

Paynter, R.1989 The archaeology of equality and inequality.

Annual Review of Anthropology18:369-399.Pipemo, D. R.

1995 Plant microfossils and their application in theNew World tropics. In Archaeology in theLowland American Tropics: Current AnalyticalMethods and Recent Applications.P. Stahl, ed.Pp. 130-153. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Pipemo, D. R., and D. M. Pearsall

1998 The Origins of Agriculture in the LowlandTropics.San Diego: Academic Press.

Potter, D., and E. King1995 A heterarchical approach to lowland Maya

socioeconomies. In Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies.R. Ehrenreich,C. Crumley, and J. Levy, eds. Pp. 17-32.Archeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association, No. 6. Arlington,VA: American Anthropological Association.

Porras, P, A.1987Investigaciones Archaeologicas a Las Faldas de

Sangay, Provincia Moroma Santiago. Quito:Artes Graficas Senal.

Porro, A.1994 Social organization and political power in the

Amazon floodplain: the ethnohistorical sources.In Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to thePresent. A. C. Roosevelt, ed. Pp. 79-94.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Price, B. J.1984 Competition, productive intensification, and

ranked society: speculations from evolutionarytheory. In Warfare, Culture, and Environment.R. B. Ferguson, ed. Pp. 209-240. Orlando:

Academic PressPrice, T. D,, and J. A. Brown, eds.1985 Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence

of Cultural Complexity. San Diego: AcademicPress.


23/25


Quilter, J.1985 Architecture and chronology at El Paraiso, Peru.

Journal of Field Archaeology12:279297.1989 Life and Death at Paloma: Society and

Mortuary Practices in a Preceramic Peruvian

Village.Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Quilter, J., B. Cjeda E., D. M. Pearsall, D. H.Sandweiss, J. G. Jones, and E. S. Wing

1991 Subsistence economy of El Paraiso, an earlyPeruvian site. Science251:277-283.

Quinn, E., A. C. Roosevelt, and B. Bevann.d. Dating the Classic Santarem pottery culture.

Manuscript in possession of author.Rathje, W.

1972 Praise the gods and pass the metates: a hypothesisof the development of lowland rainforestcivilizations in Mesoamerica. In ContemporaryArchaeology: A Guide to Theory andContributions. M. Leone, ed. Pp. 365392.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Roe, P.1983 The Cosmic Zygote: Cosmology in the Amazon

Basin.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Roosevelt, A. C.1980 Parmana: Prehistoric Maize and Manioc

Subsistence along the Amazon and Orinoco.New York: Academic Press.

1984 Summary and conclusions. In Paleopathologyat the Origins of Agriculture.M. N. Cohen andG. A. Armelagos, eds. Pp. 559-583. New York:Academic Press.

1989 Resource management in Amazonia before the

conquest: beyond ethnographic projection. InResource Management in Amazonia:Indigenous and Folk Strategies.W. Balee andD. Posey, eds. Pp. 30-62. Advances inEconomic Botany, Volume 7. New York: NewYork Botanical Garden.

1991 Moundbuilders of the Amazon: GeophysicalArchaeology on Marajo Island, Brazil. SanDiego: Academic Press.

1993 The rise and fall of the Amazon chiefdoms. L'Homme33(126-128):255-284.

1997 The Excavations at Corozal, Venezuela:Stratigraphy and Ceramic Sriation.Publications in Anthropology, No. 83. NewHaven: Yale University.

1998a Amazonian hunter-gatherers. In Advances inHistorical Ecology.W. Balee, ed. Pp. 190212.New York: Columbia University Press.

1998b Paleoindian and Archaic occupations in the

lower Amazon. InFestschrift Honoring WesleyHurt.M. Plew, ed. Pp. 165-192. Lanham, Md.:University Press of America.

1999a The maritime-highland-forest dynamic and theorigins of complex society. In History of the

Native Peoples of the Americas, South America.F. Salomon and S. Schwartz, eds. Pp. 264-349.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1999b Ancient hunter-gatherers of South America. InCambridge University Encyclopedia of Hunter-gatherers.Pp. 86-91. R. Lee and R. Daly, eds.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

n.d.a Amazonia, a dynamic human habitat. In Pre-Columbian New World Ecosystems. D. Lentz,ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Inpress.

n.d.b Preliminary Report on the Survey andExcavations at Guajara, Marajo: ReportSubmitted to the National Science Foundation.

n.d.c The Developmental Sequence at Santarem on theLower Amazon: Report and Proposal Submittedto the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Roosevelt, A. C., ed.1994 Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the

Present: Anthropological Perspectives. Tucson:University of Arizona Press.

Roosevelt, A. C., M. Lima C., C. Lopes Machado, M.Michab, N. Mercier, H. Valladas, J. Feathers, W.

Barnett, M. Imazio da Silveira, A. Henderson, J. Sliva,B.Chemoff, D. Reese, J. A. Holman, N. Toth, and K.Schick

1996 Paleoindian cave dwellers in the Amazon: thepeopling of the Americas. Science272:373384.

Roosevelt, A. C., R. Housley, I., M. Imazio da Silveira,S. Maranca, and R. Johnson

1991 Eighth millennium pottery from a prehistoricshell midden in the Brazilian Amazon. Science254:1621-1624.

Sahlins, M.1963 Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: political

types in Melanesia and Polynesia. ComparativeStudies in Society and History 5:285-303.

1972 Stone Age Economics.Chicago: Aldine.Salazar, E.

1998 De vuelta al Sangay: investigacionesarqueologicas en el alto Upano, Amazonia,Ecuatoriana. Bulletin de I Institute Franaisdes tudes Andines 27:213-240.

Sanders, W., and B. Price1968 Mesoamerica: Evolution of a Civilization.

Chicago: Aldine.

Saul, F. P.1971 The Human Skeletal Remains of Altar de

Sacrificios.Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology 63(2). Cambridge,MA.: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

Schaan, D. P.1997 A Linguagem Iconografica da Ceramic

Marajoara. Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul.

Colecao Arqueologicqa 3. Porto Alegre:Pontifica Universidade.Scheie, L., and D. Freidel

1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of theAncient Maya.New York: William Morrow.


24/25

Prehistoric Complex Societies in Amazonia

Service, E.1975 Origins of the State and Civilization: The

Process of Cultural Evolution. New York:Norton.

Shoumatoff, A.

1986 In Southern Light: Trekking Through Zaireand the Amazon. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Silverman, H.1990 The early Nasca pilgrimage center of Cahuachi

and the Nasca lines: anthropological andarchaeological perspectives. In The Lines ofNasca. A. Aveni, ed. Pp. 208-244.Philadephia: The American PhilosophicalSociety.

Smith, B., ed.1978 Missippian Settlement Patterns. Orlando:

Academic Press.Smith, N.

1980 Anthrosols and human carrying capacity inAmazonia. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers70:533-566.

Steponaitis, V.1991 Contrasting patterns of Mississippian

development. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy,and Ideology. T. Earle, ed. Pp. 193-228.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steward, J., and L. Faron1959 Native Peoples of South America. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Trigger, B., B. J. Kemp, D. OConnor, and A. B. Lloyd

1983 Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Willey, G. R.1971 An Introduction to American Archaeology.

Volume 1. South America. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wright, H. T.1984 Prestate political formations. In On the

Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays inHonor of Harry Hoijer, 1982.T. Earle, ed. Pp.41-47. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.

1986 The evolution of civilizations. In AmericanArchaeology: Past, Present, and Future.D. J.Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. SablofF, eds.Pp. 323-365. Washington, D. C.: Society forAmerican Archaeology and SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Wright, H. T., and G. Johnson1975 Population, exchange, and early state

formation in southwestern Iran. AmericanAnthropologist 77:267-289.

very large ceramic fi ures of men and women depictedwith personal details said to indicate high rank,according to conquest records (Nimuendaju 1949)(Figure 2.7). The figures have elongated, slit earlobesand elaborate painted body decoration. The women wearheadbands with carved ornaments and hold up bowls.

The men wear radial headdresses and shoulder bags andhold rattles. Such figures are rare compared to othertypes of representational ceramic obiects. At Santaremfity they w


25/25

Prehistoric Complex Societies in Amazonia

niti Hnrino excavations fnr mnstmrtinn (Palmatary 1960).So far, such figures are not known from other, smallersettlements Onthp h nf* trnnnnrciniiv ar\A

---------------------------- ------------------- ----HiQtri hi i t inn thp f c rur pc micrht K