anna c roosevelt the development of prehistoric complex societies in amzonia

The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies:Amazonia, A Tropical Forest

Anna C. RooseveltUniversity of Illinois at Chicago and

Field Museum of Natural History

ABSTRACT

Early research in Amazonia suggested the possibility that prehistoric complex societies had developedin 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 ofthese societies: invasion and subsequent devolution of groups from expanding states in temperateregions outside Amazonia, social and ecological interactions among regions within Amazonia, andsocial adaptation to local ecological variation. The hypotheses differ, but researchers generally employedecological determinist and functionalist assumptions of causality: from environment to subsistenceand population and thence to social adaptation. Recent thinking on complex society has distilled theconcept of heterarchy as an alternative to cultural materialist explanations for the processes of formationand functioning of a range of complex societies. This chapter examines the accumulated data oncomplex societies in two Amazonian regions—Marajo Island at the mouth of the Amazon and theSantarem-Monte Alegre region in the Lower Amazon—in light of the theoretical issues about theformation and functioning of complex societies worldwide. Results of the comparison tend to accordmore 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 periodsof time. The more centralized and hierarchical of these societies had developed more ritual and materialculture related to conflict, and had a heavier impact on their environments. The patterns of socialdevelopment in Amazonia can still be causally related to environmental patterns through culturalecological theory, but the new data suggests the need to envision a more mutualistic, variable, andcomplex causal nexus.

PARADIGMS FOR PREEVDUSTRIALSOCIAL COMPLEXITY

Amazonia has relevance for theories of complexsocieties. Theorists have related the process of socialevolution in Amazonia in different ways to factorsof environment, economy, population, ritual, andsocial context (Carneiro 1970; Lathrap 1970, 1974;Meggers 1971, 1972, 1988; Meggers and Evans

1957; Roosevelt 1980) at a time when there werelittle or no relevant archaeological data. Data on theinteraction of such factors in the indigenousoccupation of this region, therefore, can shed lighton the origins and nature of complex humancommunities. This chapter, therefore, outlinesAmazonian cultural ecology and culture history inrelation to general theory of complex societies.

13

14 Anna C. Roosevelt

Early Explanations FromCultural Ecology

Explaining the rise of complex societies inprehistory was one of the abiding interests ofarchaeologists and social anthropologists through the1970s and 1980s. During those decades, a roughconsensus about the problem emerged within theinfluential theoretical paradigm of cultural ecology(Cameiro 1970; Flannery 1972, 1976; Fried 1967;Harris 1968,1979; Price 1984; Sahlins 1972; Sandersand Price 1968; Service 1975; Willey 1971; Wright1986; Wright and Johnson 1975).

According to this approach, the rise of complexsocieties was a cultural adaptation by growing humanpopulations to ecologically heterogeneous regions.Centralized, hierarchical organization, it wasreasoned, was the best possible way to organizecultural systems in such situations. Centralizedleadership ensured political stability by controllingsuccession to rule. Central planners designed andbuilt large-scale public works that were necessaryfor the functioning of the system at several levels.They created urban centers, routes for transport, andirrigation systems. Centrally organized intensiveagriculture produced food for the ever-largerpopulation, and redistribution of harvests evened outsupplies within the large, heterogeneous region.Armed forces under the leadership of rulers kept thepeace 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 groupsand their allies.

Heterarchical Explanations

By the 1990s, thinking about the nature andorigins 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 thanmainly in hierarchical forms imposed from the top

down (Arnold 1996; Earle 1987; Ehrenreich et al.1995; Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Mclntosh, thisvolume; Paynter 1989; Price and Brown 1985;Robertshaw, this volume). Scholars writing aboutheterarchy emphasized that there were many differentkinds of complex societies, and varied combinationsof causes in their formation. The evolutionary stagesand typologies did not fit the empirical record either,so the theoreticians began to retool the models andexplanations. This theoretical shift in anthropologyparallels paradigm shifts in some other researchfields, such as physics, in which chaos theory allowsfor more accident, variation, and multiplicity ofcauses in large, complex systems (Gleich 1987).

NEW DATA AVAILABLE FROMFIELDWORK

The idea that early complex cultures developedbecause 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 unstablepolitically; they were described as "cycling"endlessly (e.g., Earle 1987; Redmond, Gasson, andSpencer this volume; Wright 1984). But because oftheir broader, grassroots base, heterarchicalformations appear to achieve more political stabilityand cultural longevity than hierarchical systemsimposed from above by small ruling groups(Roosevelt n.d.a). The lack of a supra-regionalcentral administrative hierarchy did not necessarilylead to economic collapse or social disorder.Research on regional sequences also suggested thatlocal, participatory management of resources tendedto be more stable ecologically than top-downmanagement by outsiders. Evidence of resourcedegradation is more common in periods whenhierarchical, centralized polities held sway, evenwhen overall population density in the polities wasnot much greater than in periods when uncentralizedsocieties were in charge (Allen, this volume; Pipernoand Pearsall 1998; Roosevelt n.d.a). Furthermore,prehistoric polities with less centralized andhierarchical organization appeared to last much

Prehistoric Complex Societies in Amazonia 15

longer in the archaeological record than those with such as the Inca empire (Morris and Thompson 1985),strong, superordinate control (Roosevelt 1989,1999a, centralized redistribution seems to have involved an.d.a). Examples of long-lived, heterarchical very small subset of resources, manufactured goods,societies are Northwest coast prehistoric and historic and facilities utilized by elites and their retainers,cultures (Coupland 1996), the Calusa (Marquardt rather than systematic collection and redistribution1987, 1988), Middle Woodland societies (Price and of large amounts of goods throughout the societies.Brown 1985) in North America, the cotton The goal and function of redistribution of goods inpreceramic and initial ceramic cultures of Peru these indigenous complex societies, thus, seem to(Burger and Salazar Burger 1980; Griederetal. 1988; have differed from earlier theoretical expectations.Quilter 1985; Roosevelt 1999a), pre-Chin Chinese Rather than ensuring adequate food supplies for thesocieties (Chang 1980, 1986), early Vietnamese and general population, centralized redistribution seemsThai mound-dwelling societies (Higham 1989; to have been aimed mainly at underwriting theHigham and Thosarat 1998), prehistoric West African economic base and luxury consumption of the rulingsocieties (Mclntosh, this volume; Robertshaw, this group (Earle 1997; Helms 1979; Paynter 1989). Involume), and pre-Dynastic Egypt (Hoffman 1979). the archaeological record, regional populations rarelyTop-down, supraregional, centralized rule, in improved in nutritional status and general health duecontrast, was often characterized by greater to the imposition of a militaristic state administrationecological disruption and cultural instability, over indigenous, nonstate communities; rather,Examples are the North American Mississippian skeletal paleopathology shows that local populationscultures (Smith 1978; Steponaitis 1991), Middle and in nonstate complex societies had a better quality ofLate horizon Peruvian cultures (Keatinge 1988), life (Cohen 1985,1989; Cohen and Armelagos 1984;dynastic Egypt (Trigger et al. 1983), China after the Cohen and Bennett 1998; Roosevelt 1984, 1999b).Chin unification (Chang 1986), and the Vietnam delta Presumably because of their reliance on publiccultures after the Han Chinese conquest (Higham opinion, non-state leaders may have collected1989). quantities of foodstuffs and goods to give away to

Many researchers have concluded that many the general population, as in the "big man" modelcomplex societies did not operate in ways expected (Sahlins 1963). Without means of coercion,by the functionalists. For example, the documentary apparently, the elite's capacity to oppress and deprivedata on societies such as the Chimu (Moseley and large numbers of people was quite limited.Cordy-Collins 1990) and the Maya city states (Potter Another insight from recent research (Rooseveltand King 1995; Schele and Freidel 1990) showed 1991, 1993, 1999a, n.d.a) is the recognition of thelittle evidence of the regional centralized political existence of long-lived, indigenous complex societiesadministration, facilities, and management that states with monumental public works and elaborate finewere assumed to have. Accumulating ethnohistoric art in environments, such as tropical forests, that lackand archaeological evidence do not show that the substantial regional heterogeneity andproduction of everyday food and tools was circumscription that the cultural materialistsnecessarily centralized or that these goods were identified as the habitat of state formation (Sandersnecessarily centrally collected and redistributed over and Price 1968). Examples are: the Maya (Lucero,long distances in complex societies (Earle 1997; this volume; Potter and King 1995); Khmer "city-Morris and Thompson 1985; Potter and King 1995). states" (Higham 1989); the terra firme AmazonianIn addition, the making of objects of fine art and mound cultures, such as Faldas de Sangay, of themonumental art and architecture was not restricted Ecuadorian Oriente (Porras 1987); and Marajoara into state societies with ruling elites; such objects and the deltaic floodplain at the mouth of the Brazilianstructures also were produced for consumption in Amazon (Roosevelt 1991; Schaan 1997).many communities lacking a distinct, superordinate Representatives of earlier views of complex societieselite (Burger 1984; Burger and Salazar Burger 1980; had suggested that even apparently homogeneousGrieder et al. 1988; Quilter 1985; Roosevelt 1991, rainforests might be heterogeneous in distribution of1993, 1997, 1999a; Silverman 1990). Even in the key resources such as salt and rock for grindstonesmore centralized and hierarchical of these societies, (e.g., Rathje 1972). This issue of the role of resource


distribution on social organization has been debated, makes a society complex, since some earlier definingbut recent research has not shown that such resources traits in functionalist cultural ecological theory arewere under central political control, as envisioned in linked to debatable views of causality. Thus,the theory, although the elite may have exploited assessing complexity from the magnitude of publicpeople's attraction to such resources (e.g., Lucero, work systems, a common functionalist methodologythis volume; Potter and King 1995). Thus, Maya (e.g., Sanders and Price 1968), becomes problematichieroglyphs (Schele and Freidel 1990) do not record if centralized organization is only one of many waysany such systems of administration. Nor are the high to execute such projects. Furthermore, ifoffices recorded in ethnohistoric documents on socioeconomic strata can exist independently ofcoastal Peruvian societies linked to regional central rule, then evidence for such strata are notadministration of such resources. Rather, they refer sufficient evidence for central rule (Roosevelt 1991).to duties in the household, ritual activities, and Some independent source of data on politicalpersonal grooming of the ruler (Moseley and Cordy- organization would have to be sought. Similarly,Collins 1990). Ownership of resources in these cases complexity had sometimes been claimed for sitesappear to belong to local communities, not to the merely on the presence of monumental ritualcentral ruler. Nevertheless, there are differences in facilities, based on the assumption that suchthe development and organization of social complexes would be controlled by rulers (e.g.,complexity in heterogeneous habitats versus more Feldman 1985; Lathrap 1985). But nowadays, it isuniform habitats in that populations in circumscribed recognized that such ritual facilities may or may notresource zones generally seem more prone to be under central control (Creamer 1996; Quilter 1985;conquest and rule by paramounts than populations Roosevelt 1999a; Silverman 1990). Another criterionin resource areas lacking circumscription (Carneiro used as an index of political and social complexity1970; Feinman andNeitzel 1984; Roosevelt 1999a). had been the existence of fine art, especially large

Finally, complex society theorists also have now scale, anthropomorphic art (Meggers and Evansbroadened the range of subsistence economies that 1957). But here also, the empirical record ofcould be the basis for hierarchical regional societies, archaeology has raised questions. It has shown thatHunting and gathering as well as shifting horticulture people in societies without hierarchical centralcan be seen to have supported the development of administrations commonly created large-scale fineorganizational complexity in several parts of the art (Ehrenreich et al. 1995;Griederetal. 1988; Quilterworld (Coupland 1996; Marquardt 1987,1988; Price 1985; Quilter et al. 1991; Roosevelt 1991, 1993,and Brown 1985; Roosevelt 1999b). Intensive 1999a).agriculture, where practiced, seems to have been a The large areal extent and population densitypolitical economic strategy resorted to by existing of complex communities remain noncontroversialelites, rather than an adaptation to population growth criteria for most researchers (but see Coupland 1996and a stimulus to initial development of complexity for a discussion of single-community complex(Earle 1997). societies), but size and density criteria are not always

applied uniformly, since a priori theoreticalRECONCILING THE THEORY AND DATA expectations influence the classifications. For

ON COMPLEX SOCIETIES example, the lowland Maya site of Tikal had beendenied urban status initially because its residences

Theoretical formulations are abstractions, and, w e r e n o t laid out in the strict grid pattern found atif pursued and refined purely by logical criteria, can the highland center of Teotihuacan (Sanders andget quite far away from the particular human groups p r i c e 1968). Settlement survey, nevertheless,whose behavior is being explained. The contrasts revealed the plan of a very large urban site with athat human societies in particular times and places specialized central precinct (summarized in Ashmorepresent to general theories should be incentives to 1981), Similarly, some sources describe as small,rethink the theories. In sorting out the data from actual temporary villages (Meggers 1988), prehistoricarchaeological and historical complex societies for Amazonian settlements whose tens of hectares oftheoretical insights, one task is to redefine what densely occupied areas (Porras 1987; Roosevelt 1980,

Prehistoric Complex Societies in Amazonia . 17

1991,1997) dwarf the approximately 10 to 20 hectare Quilter 1985) or Formative Central Americanareas of early "cities" of Formative Mesoamerica societies (Hoopes 1987).(Grove 1987) and Mesopotamia (Melaart 1975). In In a society that had graded ranking but lackedregard to the magnitude and design of public works, major, discrete, horizontal social strata and centralpotential evidence for social complexity has not been administration, there might be great differences inwidely recognized (Johnson and Earle 1987; Steward wealth, status, and health between those at the topand Faron 1959). For example, there are some and bottom of the society, but most people wouldlowland cultures whose sites had greater volume of have access to adequate housing, ritual facilities, andpurposeful earth-mound construction (Heckenberger luxury goods. In such societies, there might be war1996; Porras 1987; Roosevelt 1991, 1997) than captives or low-ranking relations who were poor andarchitectural sites in central highland Mexico often ill-fed, but these would be few in number. Someconsidered to represent early state societies (Grove Northwest coast societies (Coupland 1996), some1987). Complexity criteria also have run into trouble Amazonian societies (Nimuendaju 1949), and somein the assessment of settlement evidence for Classic and Pre-Classic Maya societies, such as thoseadministrative hierarchies in different regions. For centered at Tikal, Guatemala and Copan, Hondurasthe mound systems at the mouth of the Amazon, for (Potter and King 1995), exhibit this pattern ofexample, one can impose a three-tier site size differentiation, for example,classification of single mounds, small groups of three A society with central political administration,or four mounds, and large groups of 15 to 40 mounds, in contrast, would be expected to have functionallybut the mounds have similar architecture, features, specialized residential settlements with some sort ofand artifacts, regardless of size. Site size hierarchies central facility serving administrative operations. Itsthat had been accepted as indirect evidence of central architecture and fine art would be expected toadministration thus may or may not relate to the emphasize centralization, hierarchy and force, ifpolitical economic function of communities anything. If there were distinct hierarchical(Mclntosh, this volume; Paynter 1989; Robertshaw, socioeconomic groups, the archaeologist would findthis volume). very different qualities of life in different segments

Better criteria for assessing and classifying of the population. The osteology and burial patternscomplexity are the specific patterns of differentiation of certain Classic and especially Post-Classic Mayawithin societies, rather than the mere existence of societies seem to show this pattern, as does Mochedifferentiation. Thus, among archaeological societies society of north coast Peru (Donnan 1978; Donnanone could distinguish non-ranked sociopolitical and Mackay 1978). For example, at Tikal and Altardifferentiation, graded socioeconomic ranking, and de Sacrificios, individuals in the richest graves weremajor, discrete levels of stratification. taller or had fewer nutritional and infectious bone

In an unranked society, for example, simple pathologies than the people in poorer gravesinterpersonal differences would not be accompanied (Haviland 1967; Saul 1972). In Moche sites, theby consistent qualitative differences in residential skeletons in graves identified as elite by culturalquality, nutritional and health status, and occupation, criteria were taller and had fewer pathologies than

In a society without central rule, there might be individuals in the numerous graves classifiedlarge, community ritual or political facilities, but culturally as non-elite (Allison 1984).access to them would not be centralized under thecontrol of a permanent hierarchy. If, in addition, the PROBLEM-ORIENTED DATA ONsociety lacked subordination by force under a long- COMPLEX SOCIETIES IN AMAZONIAterm central leader, the art and architecture would beexpected to lack images such as large, well- Evidence from Amazonia has relevance to theornamented persons on thrones lording over groups theories of social complexity discussed in theof naked or poorly-dressed, abject, small, non-elite previous sections of this article in several specificpersons. An example of such noncentralized, non- ways. It sheds light on the relationship betweenstratified complex societies might include Peruvian environmental patterns and the patterns of socialcotton preceramic societies (Grieder et al. 1988; complexity. It also gives evidence of variation in


the relationship between subsistence, population, andsocial organization. Another illuminating facet ofAmazonia's culture history is the evidence it givesof the varying political relationship of fine art andmonumental public works.

In the early days of American archaeology,Amazonia was thought to lack complex prehistoricsocieties, due to isolation from Andean centers ofstate formation and to its rainforest environment,which was thought to prevent intensive agricultureand population aggregation. The theoreticalbackground for this early interpretation was thecultural ecology of Julian Steward (Steward andFaron 1959), and it flourished briefly during a datavacuum when there were few generally availablepublished sources on Amazonian archaeology andethnohistory. The view was encouraged by theobservation that modern Amazonian societiesapparently lacked the traits characteristic ofcomplexity. Following the general Radcliffe-Brownapproach, it was often tacitly assumed by socialanthropologists that the ethnographic societies thatthey studied would not be significantly different fromprehistoric societies, as they were both adapted tothe same environment (Maybury-Lewis 1979). Atthe time, the culture-busting effects of Europeanconquest (Porro 1994; Roosevelt 1994) wereunsuspected by many anthropologists. Amazoniananthropologists, educated before the extensiveapplication of radiocarbon dating to archaeology,tended to envision short, simple prehistoricoccupations (Evans and Meggers 1960; Meggers1952). Even later evolutionary anthropologists tendto conceive of modern Amazonian societies asrepresenting a primitive stage in human evolution(Johnson and Earle 1987), although these recentAmazonian cultures came into being after thedislocation, decimation and forced acculturation thatAmazonians underwent in the European conquestperiod, and are very different from the late prehistoricsocieties that came before them (Heckenberger 1996;Roosevelt 1993, 1994).

Most ethnographic accounts have depictedAmazonian Indians as living in small, independentvillages lacking stratification and supra-communitypolitical integration (Hames and Vickers 1983;Meggers 1971). The accounts suggest that thetropical forest environment seems to disperse peoplein the food quest. Amazonian Indians usually practice

shifting root horticulture and foraging, not intensivemonocrop agriculture. Most art and architecture areof perishable materials. Permanent monumentalarchitecture and art are not in evidence, and humanimages are relatively rare. Most art representsgeometric images or the animals of the forest andriver habitat, their body parts or markings. There isno obvious political art, such as images of rulers onseats or rulers' emblems, and items such as decoratedor representational stools, which are ruler's symbolsin some parts of the world, are not limited to the useof headmen: elders, children and women goingthrough certain rituals also customarily sit on thestools (Kensinger et al. 1975; Roe 1982).

Prehistoric Art

The first archaeological evidence available forthe existence of prehistoric complex societies inAmazonia consisted of images from prehistoric art,whose subject matter differed greatly from themodern images. The prehistoric images had appearedin publications since the 19th century, but only rarelyin publications in English (Howard 1947;Nordenskiold 1930). Early theorists of the evolutionof complex society, such as Julian Steward (Stewardand Faron 1959), did not refer extensively toAmazonian sources in foreign languages. By the1970s, however, such images had been more widelypublished in English-language sources. The imagesincluded large statues of men or women seated onstools wearing emblems of rank in the PolychromeHorizon culture of the upper Amazon in Ecuador(Evans and Meggers 1968), Peru (Lathrap 1970), andthe middle Amazon in Brazil (Hilbert 1968; Howard1947) and in the Incised and Punctate Horizoncultures of the lower Amazon (Palmatary 1960).Early on, archaeological sites had furnishedcontextual information for the art, revealing that thePolychrome Horizon art came from large, discretecemeteries in large artificial mounds (Derby 1879;Hartt n.d.; Netto 1885), and that the Incised andPunctate art came from features in large garbagemiddens and from bell-shaped pits in structures(Nimuendaju 1949, n.d.). Excavations and surfacecollections also show that the local units of the twosupraregional pottery horizons were large, stylisticregions tens of thousands of square kilometers in size(Nimuendaju 1949; Roosevelt 1991). Within such


local stylistic regions, settlements, facilities, (Meggers 1952, 1971, 1988; Meggers and Evansutilitarian material culture and art objects were 1957). These researchers felt that there had neverclosely similar and comparable in age (Roosevelt been dense populations or urban centers in Amazonia,1991), fitting the criteria for true horizon styles, and that the intrusive complex societies, poorlytraditionally associated with the realms of complex adapted for the tropical rainforest environment,societies in American archaeology (Willey 1971) and quickly decayed into independent villages,contrasting with the much more variable patterning Another cultural ecologist developed forof culture within indigenous regions of Amazonia Amazonia a corollary of the theory of environmentalduring the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g., da la Penha circumscription that he had developed for explaining1986). the rise of civilization in arid uplands regions

(Carneiro 1970). Originally, the circumscriptionEthnohistoric Accounts theory had specified that states would only develop

in rich river floodplains tightly circumscribed byAnother important body of evidence for the deserts, the pattern found in the Andes and Nile

existence of complex societies in Amazonia is the regions. The development of irrigation agriculturecorpus of ethnohistoric accounts. Several accounts j n m e arid, but nutrient-rich, habitats was consideredhad been published before or at the time of cultural a k e v element in state formation. Supposedly-ecologists' first theoretical statements about social uniform habitats with abundant rain and poor soil,evolution in Amazonia (Acuna 1891; Bettendorf like tropical rainforests, were not expected to have1910; Medina 1934; Nimuendaju 1949; Porro 1994; indigenous state development, even if the humanRoosevelt 1991:403-431), but the information was populations grew and pressed on the availablefor the most part not integrated into their explanations resources. Carneiro suggested, instead, that in(Steward and Faron 1959). What was interpretively Amazonia the difference in faunal resources betweensignificant in the accounts were descriptions of the rich-soil river floodplain and the poor uplandparamount chiefs claiming descent from deities, large forest w o u id have resulted in a process of "socialsedentary populations, capital towns, artificial roads circumscription," leading to the rise of complexand causeways, intensive agriculture, large-scale chiefdoms without the development of intensiveorganized warfare, tribute, endogamous elites, agriculture.distinct occupational groups, and elaborate rituals of Alternatively, I suggested that the existence ofrank and stratification. The accounts are considered poorer terra firme rainforests around the floodplainsreliable, since the interpretively significant details might retard the development of politicalare found in a wide range of independent accounts, centralization and hierarchical social stratification byincluding the observations made during the initial serving as a refuge for homesteaders reluctant toexplorations by Europeans (Medina 1934), as well submit to strong, top down political authorityas slightly later accounts by seasoned secular (de (Roosevelt 1980, 1991).Heriarte 1964) and religious administrators(Bettendorf 1910). RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD

RESEARCHREVISED EXPLANATIONS FOR

AMAZONIAN SOCIAL COMPLEXITY Recent archaeological research in the Amazonhas supplied more data about prehistoric Amazonian

When such archaeological and ethnohistoric societies for some regions. Geophysical andevidence for complexity was later recognized, topographic survey and stratigraphic excavation oncultural ecologists working in Amazonia expanded Marajo and at Santarem/Monte Alegre (Figure 2.1)their explanations in several directions. One research (Bevan 1989; Roosevelt 1991, 1993, 1994 nd.bgroup, although recognizing that complex societies n d c) md s u r v e y ^ d excavations in the Upper Xinguhad existed in the lower Amazon and on Marajo, (Heckenberger 1996) and in the Oriente of Ecuadorsuggested that they were the short-lived result of an (P orras 1987; Salazar 1998) have uncoveredinvasion from Andean centers of civilization abundant features and structures within mapped sites,


Figure 2.1 Map of eastern Amazon showing location of Santarem and Monte Alegre and Teso dos Bichos, Guajara, andOs Camutins on Marajo Island, Brazil.

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 lighton 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 PatternsThe field studies of the Polychrome horizon

communities in eastern Marajo suggest that they werevery long lived settlements populated by people ofAmazonian genetic affiliation, rather than ephemeralcolonies of foreigners invading from the Andes(Roosevelt 1991:384-395). The layouts uncoveredby total 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 ofpopulation (Figure 2.2) (Roosevelt 1991:155-384).Marajoara mounds typically range from one to fivehectares 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 composedof successive earth platforms containing deep stacksof superimposed domestic house floors; large, multi-unit baked clay hearth facilities; and cemetery urn


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

fields that are maintained, repaired, added to and the range of variability among the about 200 moundregularly replaced (Roosevelt 1991:155-384). Such sites known. Mound sites of the same subperiod differwithin-site patterns are those expected for sizable, greatly from each other in size, but do not differlong-term occupations, not for small, shifting villages dramatically in the kinds of objects or architecture,and temporary camps. Polychrome regional cultural Mounds occur either singly, in small groups or inspheres covered considerable areas, between very large groups (see Figure 2.2), but so far it hasapproximately 20,000 to 40,000 square kilometers.Radiocarbon dates show that the cultures hadconsiderable longevity, many sites were continuouslyoccupied from shortly after the time of Christ to aboutA.D.1100.

In contrast to earlier functionalistinterpretations, the archaeological record provides noevidence that the large, complex Polychrome horizoncommunities represented by these sites wereadministered by centralized, hierarchical politicalgroups. Several hundred major mounds have beenidentified, of which about 20 have been surface-collected or test excavated (Meggers and Evans 1957;

not been possible to demonstrate the existence ofqualitatively distinct sites that might have functionedas administrative centers.

Within-site Patterns of Residences and CemeteriesThe residences and cemeteries are the only

structures yet uncovered within mounds, and thosemapped or excavated at particular mounds do notdiffer one from another in ways that could beinterpreted as evidence of social stratification. Thispattern contrasts with the evidence for specialresidences in Formative Mesoamerican settlementsof similar scale (Flannery 1976). Although there

Palmatary 1950, de la Penha 1986; Roosevelt 1991). may have been gradations of rank within regionalResearch procedures involved examination of all populations, so far it is difficult to make a case formajor mounds in several Marajo subregions, such as distinct, discrete strata. Our 42 stratified randomthe Anajas and Lake Arari areas. Statistically, this sample test excavations at the sites of Teso dos Bichosnumber of mounds is an adequate sample for judging (Roosevelt 1991) and Guajara (Roosevelt n.d.b) show


Figure 2.3 Marajoara urn from Guajara, Anajas River. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem (after Roosevelt1991:Fig.l.l7F).

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 areburied closely together in the cemeteries. Thecemeteries are located near houses toward the edgesof the mounds. More than 40 separate cemeterieshave been surface collected or test excavated, andseveral that 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 decoratedpottery 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 painted human images in the

funerary and feasting art (Figure 2.3) do not seemovertly political. They may bear potent shamanicsymbols, 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 inNordenskiold 1930; Palmatary 1950; de la Penha1986:190-191; Roosevelt 1991).

Subsistence, Environment, and PopulationSubsistence, environment, and population

characteristics in Marajoara sites also differ fromwhat cultural ecologists expected.

Contrary to the theoreticians' expectations thatcomplex societies are characterized by intensiveagriculture, Polychrome horizon subsistence is not asystem of intensive, monocrop cultivation but ratheris a mixed system of cultivation and foraging(Roosevelt 1991:373-395). A wide range of plantswere cultivated. Maize is present, but is very rare,and the stable carbon isotopes of a sample ofskeletons (N=23) have a wide range of variability,rarely showing the positive values associated withstaple maize cultivation (17 assays reported in


Roosevelt 1991:384-388 and six unpublished assays).Among the plant foods, native herb seeds and treefruits have been identified (Roosevelt 1991:375-379), and root crops, which are difficult to recoverfrom archaeological deposits, also may have beencultivated. Certain water-loving palms withnutritious fruits were widely cultivated. The faunain domestic refuse (Roosevelt 1991:379-384) aremainly the bones of small fish and small turtles,which are the most abundant creatures in the faunalbiomass. Large, rare faunal species occur in open-air parts of sites, accompanied by pieces of large,decorated serving dishes that are ceremoniallydisposed of by "killing." These species and thedishes are interpreted as feasting refuse, since theyare not in secluded, exclusive contexts that elitesmight control but are out in the open in the midst ofhouses. The biological remains and stable isotopeanalyses show a seasonally flooding tropical biomethat was more densely wooded and less seasonal thantoday (Roosevelt n.d.a). The tropical forest andfloodplain environment appears to have suppliedplentiful food for communities, for there is littleskeletal evidence for chronic nutritional stress orsevere disease. Most people have gum infections,and a few have cribra orbitalia, an anemic pathologyassociated with intestinal parasites, but no skeletonshave pathologies associated with severe anemia, andinfectious lesions are very rare (Roosevelt 1991:388-395). These patterns in the osteology are consistentwith the lifestyle of a large, relatively sedentarypopulation that does not have discrete socioeconomicstrata. The number of mound sites, of houses permound platform level (reduced to account for non-contemporary houses) and of hearths per house inexcavated sites suggest a regional population of morethan 100,000 and a density of about seven personsper square kilometer, comparable to mainstreamAmazonian ethnohistoric accounts of populationdensities (Roosevelt 1991:38-39,341-342,404-405).Such a population would be expected to have requiredthe sort of investment in long-term garden plantingsand intensive fishing that the archaeologicalsubsistence remains indicate.

SummaryThe general picture from the Marajoara cultural

remains, then, is of populous, wealthy, but apparentlyuncentralized, societies. Their populations lived in

sometimes sizable, long-term communities atoplarge-scale earth constructions, taking sustenancefrom fish, horticultural crops, and orchards. Theycreated highly elaborate and often monumental art,and craft objects that were available to all residentialgroups, although in somewhat different quality andquantity. Such differences are more consonant withgraded ranking than with socioeconomicstratification.

The Santarem Culture

The only other area in the mainstream of theLower Amazon that has a range of data with whichto evaluate the nature of indigenous complex societiesis Santarem/Monte Alegre at the mouth of the Tapajosriver in Brazil (see Figure 2.1). The late prehistoricculture here is known for its elaborate modeled-incised and painted pottery, which belongs to the so-called Incised and Punctate horizon (Palmatary 1960;de la Penha 1986). Closely related to the Santaremculture is the poorly known Konduri culture, whosesphere of influence adjoins that of the Santaremculture to the north and west (Palmatary 1960). Weknow about the Santarem culture from a variety ofsources: the material culture, the archaeological sites,and the contact period records of the area. About 25radiocarbon dates from Santarem and a few othersites indicate a beginning for the culture soon afterA.D. 500, a florescence in the 14th and early 15th

centuries, and a demise during European conquestand missionization between the mid-15th and early16th centuries. The stratigraphy, pottery and datesfrom test excavations at Santarem indicate that thebest known, so-called classic ceramic phase of theculture is pre-, not post-contact, between A.D. 1300and 1440 (Quinn et al. n.d). (Age estimates for therelevant radiocarbon dates, WK-6832 to WK-6846,are essentially the same whether calibrated or not.)Our picture of the society, therefore, mayinadvertently combine details that were accurate onlyfor certain periods, not the whole time span of theculture.

Settlement PatternsThe settlement pattern of the Santarem culture

differs somewhat from the Marajoara culture at themouth of the Amazon. The Santarem regionalcultural sphere is about the same size as the local


Polychrome regions, but most occupations areshallower (ca. 50 cm to 1 m) and much larger in area.Very large areas of dense, black garbage andstructural remains occur in settlements, some ofwhich measure several square kilometers in area. Thelate prehistoric archaeological site at the present cityof Santarem, for example, had an occupied area ofabout four square kilometers (Figure 2.4). The blacksoil garbage deposits of the culture are very numerousand extensive. They are ubiquitous along the banksof the Lower Amazon and often extend continuouslyfor many miles (Nimuendaju n.d.; Smith 1980). Mycolleagues and I conducted geophysical andtopographic surveys over almost one squarekilometer of the archaeological site at Santarem city(Bevan 1989) and excavated in ten areas to test theresults of the surveys (Roosevelt n.d.c). Togetherthe surveys and excavations suggest that people livedin large, oblong structures equipped with bell-shapedstorage pits (Roosevelt n.d.c). Informal surfacesurvey data acquired earlier record other 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 foundin large numbers of small and large sites. There arealso musical instruments, such as bird ocarinas andfemale figurine rattles, and other ingenious, finelymade ritual objects, such as snuffing implements. Thecarving and grinding of stone tools was greatlyelaborated. Many ground stone objects appear to bewood-carving tools of varied sizes and types, suchas axes, adzes, chisels and awls. Other stone objectsare semi-precious stone ornaments, such as jade frogpendants and head-band ornaments apparentlydepicting humans (de la Penha 1986:168-169).

i iJy\ •:••

J : -

•

. -

ttrti' ' '

•

• - • • - ' r

:6jS|

/ •• ; „

laxZONA URBANACIDADE DE SANiaREM—F»

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


Figure 2.5 Decorated display vessel from Santarem city, Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi(de la Penha 1986:150).

According to the conquest records, these carvingswere considered objects of value and were tradedwidely and worn especially by women. There werealso large stone carvings in the shape of "alter-egofigures," which have one figure, usually an animal,crouched on the shoulders of another (Palmatary1960). These carvings have standardized doubleperforations at the base, presumably to attach themto a support. They could be interpreted as emblemsor 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 inearly ethnographic collections from the area as warclubs (de la Penha 1986). Pierced projectile pointshave also been found in some Santarem sites (Harttn.d.). During the European conquest of the Santaremarea at the close of the reign of this culture, large warparties of as many as 60 warriors per canoe weredescribed as attacking the invaders with lethalpoisoned arrows (Medina 1934; Nimuendaju 1949).Contact period records also suggest that eachresidential community was obliged to provide ablebodied persons for war efforts (Nimuendaju 1949).Though rare, poorly treated captive slaves were

observed by some chroniclers (Palmatary 1960).In the art corpus from the site of Santarem are

very large ceramic figures of men and womendepicted with personal details said to indicate highrank, according to conquest records (Nimuendaju1949) (Figure 2.7). The figures have elongated, slitearlobes and elaborate painted body decoration. Thewomen wear headbands with carved ornaments andhold up bowls. The men wear radial headdressesand shoulder bags and hold rattles. Such figures arerare compared to other types of representationalceramic objects. At Santarem city they were foundbroken but complete in bell-shaped pits duringexcavations for construction (Palmatary 1960). Sofar, such figures are not known from other, smallersettlements. On the basis of their iconography anddistribution, the figures might be interpreted asevidence of political or ritual centralization andhierarchy.

Subsistence and EnvironmentOnly a few sites of the classic Santarem culture

have been excavated with archaeobotanical recoverytechniques, so we do not have comprehensiveknowledge of subsistence. The plant remains and


Figure 2.6 Santarem style clubs, Museu Paraense EmilioGoeldi (de la Penha 1986:182).

stable carbon isotope ratios of wood and tree fruitsof the 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 pole andthatch house preserved in a cave site near MonteAlegre measured more than three by eight meters.In the foundations were desiccated corncobs as wellas a 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 radarprofiles. The house floors and associated garbagecontain rare carbonized maize kernels and numeroustree fruits. There were also numerous small sharpflint chips that could have been used in maniocgraters. The conquerors' records mention bothmanioc and maize as important food crops, but statethat some communities in the area emphasized maizeas a staple food (de Heriarte 1964). Maize had a ritualrole; it was mainly consumed as beer served inlommunity ceremonies (Nimuendaju 1949). Eachfamily owed a "tithe" of their maize crop to thecommunity 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 ParaenseEmilio Goeldi (de la Penha 1986:155).


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 Caverna 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 notpossible to estimate population density ordistribution, 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).

In the Santarem area, funerary disposal was evenmore highly ritualized than in the Polychrome cultureon Marajo. Most bodies were highly processed anddisposed of by cremation or secondary burial inbowls. 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 whomay have been a deified ancestor, since no one evermet her. Each sizable community in the area had ahead person who was elevated above a group of lesserleaders, who were themselves elevated overresidential leaders. The community leader recordedfor the community at Santarem city was a high-ranking woman. According to the recorded anecdotesabout her, the noble group she belonged to wasendogamous (Bettendorf 1910). Mythic leadership

by women is also recorded in the "myths of theAmazons," which describe communities led bywarlike women shamans (Shoumatoff 1986:101-108). According to the sources, the "nobles" were aseparate group from those who worked insubsistence, suggesting that there may have beendistinct occupational 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 settlementpatterns all give evidence of a moderately centralizedpolitical hierarchy that claimed some tribute.Populations expanded rapidly during the existenceof the 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 thehighly decorated feasting-ceremonial pottery. Interms of stratification, then, there may have been apolitical elite over a population that worked for itssubsistence and supplied tribute but that also seemsto have enjoyed access to the fine pottery art andcommunity 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 withdefensive precincts (Heckenberger 1996). In theBolivian Amazon, extensive mound systems and fieldearthworks have been mapped and excavated(Deneven 1966; Dougherty and Calandra 1981-1982;Erickson 1980). The Bolivian mounds, some overten meters high, are composed of building stages forvillages or towns. Some were occupied for very longperiods of time, beginning in the Formative period,about 1000 years ago. Some have continuousconstruction and occupation for more than twothousand years before the European conquest. In thevolcanic Ecuadorian Amazon uplands, also, largemound systems were built and maintained between


lOOB.C.and A.D. 1000(Athens 1989;Ponas 1987,Salazar 1998). The mounds cluster in a center, Faldasde Sangay, where there is a central ceremonialprecinct with anthropomorphic and zoomorphicmound constructions (Figure 2.8). The moundscontain a wide range of finely decorated ceramicsand carved stone objects. The presence of hundredsof closely spaced, apparently residential mounds overan area of 12 square kilometers indicates a relativelylarge population for the society. The occupation isassociated with the deposition of abundant maize andweed pollen in nearby lakes (Piperno 1995), andhuman skeletons in sites of contemporary Peruviancultures have stable isotopic patterns bone collagenpatterns heavily dominated by C-4 plants, such asmaize (Roosevelt 1989).

CONCLUSION

From the Amazonian data, incomplete thoughthey are, one can make several conclusions.Indigenous complex societies with large, denselysettled populations arose there in prehistoric times,contrary to environmental limitation theory. Theydeveloped in circumscribed riverine land as well as

in upland forest areas. We do not know much abouttheir history, but what is known suggests that suchsocieties have existed in several areas of the Amazonsince at least 1000 B.C. Contrary to expectationsthat their subsistence would be intensive agriculture,some groups relied on mixed foraging andhorticulture, and others were intensive maize-staplefarmers. The material achievements of the societies,whether in fine art or monumental construction, weresubstantial, in no way less than those of complexsocieties in drier or higher-elevation areas, such asthe Central Andes. However, the presence of the greatexpanse of forest may have retarded or prevented thedevelopment of coercive types of complex societyby functioning as a refuge for escapees and a strategicbase for opponents of the rulers of societies. Untillate prehistoric times, Amazonian complex societiesthat produced massive earthworks and large-scale andelaborate fine artworks apparently maintainednoncentralized and nonstratified organization,contrary to functionalist expectations. Probableevidence for central rule and the existence of adiscrete noble group is confined to the period justbefore the European conquest, a time when there isevidence for increased aggregation of human

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


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 groupof complex societies. Complex societies seem tohave developed in a wider range of environmentsand with more kinds of subsistence systems than weonce thought. They also seem to have organizedthemselves in a variety of ways, including primarilyheterarchical modes of operation in some times andplaces, and distinctly hierarchical and centralizedmodes in other times and places. In sum, the evidencefrom Amazonia suggests that early cultural ecologicaltheories were too narrow and monocausal to accountfor the surprising variability manifested by thearchaeological societies. Environmental variationindeed seems to have been a part of the causalprocess, but did not limit and determine subsistenceadaptation and social development as strictly as hadbeen 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 beto 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 de Livros que Tratan deAmerica Raws o Curiosos. Tomo 2. Madrid.

Allison, M.1984 Paleopathology in Peruvian and Chilean

populations. In Paleopathology at the Originsof Agriculture. 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 Monographsin Prehistory.

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

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

1989 Pumpuentsa and the Pastasa phase insoutheastern lowland Ecuador. Nawpa Pacha24:1-29.

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

de Jesus no estado do Maranhao. Revista doInstituto Geografico 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: YaleUniversity Press.

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.

1989 Health and the Rise of Civilization. NewHaven: 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 Monographsin Prehistory,

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.Faksimile—Ausgabe aus den MSS 5880 und


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

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

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 Naturalist 13:224-229.Donnan, C.

1978 Moche Art of Peru. Los Angeles: Universityof California, 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 LaLoma Alta de Casarabe, Llanos de Moxos,Departemento del Beni, Bolivia. Relaciones dela Sociedad Argentina de Antropologia [N.S.]14(2):9-48.

Earle, T.1987 Chiefdoms in archaeological and

ethnohistorical perspective. Annual Review ofAnthropology 16:279-308.

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 AnthropologicalAssociation.

Erickson, C.1980 Sistemas agricolas prehispanicos en los llanos

de Mojos. America Indigena 40(4):731-755.Evans, C, and B. J. Meggers

1960 Archaeological Investigations in BritishGuiana. Bulletin of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology 177. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

1968 Archaeological Investigations on the Rio Napo,Eastern Ecuador. Smithsonian Contributionsto Anthropology, 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

Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.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: RandomHouse.

Gleich, J.1987 Chaos. New York: Viking Penguin.

Grieder, T., A. Bueno Mendoza, C. E. Smith, and R. M.Malina

1988 La Galgada, Peru: A Preceramic Culture inTransition. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Grove, D. C, ed.1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University of

Texas Press.Hartt, C. F.

n.d. Contribution to the Ethnology of the River ofthe Amazons. Manuscript in the PeabodyMuseum, Harvard University.

Hames, 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. New York:Thomas Y. Crowell.

1979 Cultural Materialism. New York: RandomHouse.

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

diet. American Antiquity 35:316-325.Heckenberger, M.

1996 War and Peace in the Shadow of Empire: 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 zurVolkerkunde, 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.1947 Prehistoric Ceramic Styles of Lowland South


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

Johnson, A., and T. Earle1987 The Evolution of Human Societies. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.Keatinge, R., ed.

1988 Peruvian Prehistory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

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 ofAnthropology, 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. Woodburn, 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 andOther Documents. New York: AmericanGeographical Society.

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

Island, Brazil, with Special Reference to theMarajoara Culture. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Columbia University.

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:

Thames and 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 Investigacoes 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

Goeldi 10:93-108.n.d. A survey of Amazon archaeology. Manuscript

translated by Stig Ryden. GoteborgEthnographic Museum.

Nordenskiold, E.1930 L'Archeologie du Bassin de L'Amazone. Ars

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

1950 The Pottery of Marajo Island. Transactions ofthe 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 Anthropology 18:369-399.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: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pipemo, D. R., and D. M. Pearsall1998 The Origins of Agriculture in the Lowland

Tropics. San Diego: Academic Press.Potter, D., and E. King

1995 A heterarchical approach to lowland Mayasocioeconomies. 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.1987 Investigaciones 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 ethnohistoricalsources. In Amazonian Indians from Prehistoryto the Present. 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 Press

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

of Cultural Complexity. San Diego: AcademicPress.

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

Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:279-297.

1989 Life and Death at Paloma: Society andMortuary Practices in a Preceramic PeruvianVillage. 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. Science 251:277-283.

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: ahypothesis of the development of lowlandrainforest civilizations in Mesoamerica. InContemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theoryand Contributions. M. Leone, ed. Pp. 365-392. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.

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. Cohenand G. A. Armelagos, eds. Pp. 559-583. NewYork: Academic Press.

1989 Resource management in Amazonia before theconquest: beyond ethnographic projection. InResource Management in Amazonia:Indigenous and Folk Strategies. W. BaleeandD. 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'Homme 33(126-128):255-284.

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

1998a Amazonian hunter-gatherers. In Advances inHistorical Ecology. W. Balee, ed. Pp. 190-212. New York: Columbia University Press.

1998b Paleoindian and Archaic occupations in thelower Amazon. In Festschrift 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 theNative 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 onthe Lower Amazon: Report and ProposalSubmitted to the National Endowment for theHumanities.

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. Science 272:373-384.

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.Comparative Studies in Society and History5:285-303.

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

1998 De vuelta al Sangay: investigacionesarqueologicas en el alto Upano, Amazonia,Ecuatoriana. Bulletin de I 'Institute Francais destitudes Andines 21:213-240.

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.

Schele, L., and D. Freidel1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the

Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.Service, E.

1975 Origins of the State and Civilization: TheProcess of Cultural Evolution. New York:Norton.

Shoumatoff, A.1986 In Southern Light: Trekking Through Zaire and

the Amazon. New York: Simon and Schuster.Silverman, H.

1990 The early Nasca pilgrimage center of Cahuachiand the Nasca lines: anthropological andarchaeological perspectives. In The Lines ofNasca. A. Aveni, ed. Pp. 208-244. Philadephia:The American Philosophical Society.

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

Academic Press.Smith, N.

1980 Anthrosols and human carrying capacity inAmazonia. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 70:533-566.

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. O'Connor, 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. American Anthropologist77:267-289.