7
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org Maney Publishing Review Author(s): Betty J. Meggers Review by: Betty J. Meggers Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 399-404 Published by: Maney Publishing Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529927 Accessed: 31-08-2015 17:29 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders, amazon

Citation preview

Page 1: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Maney Publishing

Review Author(s): Betty J. Meggers Review by: Betty J. Meggers Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 399-404Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529927Accessed: 31-08-2015 17:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

Journal of FieldArchaeology/Vol. 19, 1992 399

maps [e.g., fig. 2.2] are difficult to read when reduced to the size used here. Some publishers do not seem to un- derstand this, so it is up to the archaeologist to insist on a larger format.

I also would like to have seen more illustrations of the

pottery. Perhaps Hammond felt it unnecessary, since Pring (1977) and Kosakowsky (1987) have published the Mid- dle and Late Formative ceramics elsewhere. The result, however, is that Swasey phase sherds are shown only on

page 63, while Bladen phase rim profiles are restricted to

page 64. Theoretically, we could keep flipping back and forth between this volume and those of Pring and Kosa-

kowsky, but it is frustrating to have to do so.

Writing even a single site report is difficult, and doing it promptly is still more difficult. Hammond has not only produced two important Maya site reports, Lubaantdin and Cuello, but has done so in timely fashion.

So where does Cuello fit in the Maya political land-

scape? Hammond's position [p. 245] is that "Cuello was

throughout its history a community which was never more than marginal in the emergence of a complex society in the Maya Lowlands." Here Hammond may be unduly influenced by the difference in size and monumentality between Cuello and sites like El Mirador, Lamanai, and Tikal. With 2600 people, Cuello would have been a sub- stantial settlement in the context of what we know about the Late Formative. Furthermore, Cuello has revealed a better stratigraphic, architectural, and burial sequence from Middle to Terminal Formative times than most Maya sites have, and it has given us important new data on the transition from Middle Formative to Late Formative ranked societies. There is quite a bit of irony in all this:

Cuello, once thought of as a site with anomalously early Formative pottery, can now be considered one of our best- documented Late Formative sites.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, V 1990 "The Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya," in

Flora Clancy and Peter D. Harrison, eds., Vision and Revision in Maya Studies. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1-19.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, V, and Norman Hammond 1990 "Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize,"

American Antiquity 54: 570-584.

Coe, W. R. 1965 'Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization,"

Science 147: 1401-1419.

Kosakowsky, Laura J. 1987 Prehistoric Maya Pottery at Cuello, Belize. University ofAr-

izona Anthropological Papers 47. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

MacNeish, Richard S. 1981 Second Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological

Reconnaissance. Andover, MA: Robert S. Peabody Foun- dation, Phillips Academy.

1982 Third Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Andover, MA: Robert S. Peabody Foun- dation, Phillips Academy.

MacNeish, Richard S., S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, and Antoinette Nelken-Terner 1980 First Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological

Reconnaissance. Andover, MA: Robert S. Peabody Foun- dation, Phillips Academy.

Pring, Duncan 1977 The Preclassic Ceramics of Northern Belize. Ph.D. disser-

tation, University of London. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Shafer, Harry, and Tom R. Hester 1983 "Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize,

Central America," American Antiquity 48: 519-543.

Smith, Robert E. 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle Amer-

ican Research Institute, Tulane University, Publication 20. New Orleans, LA.

Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford 1965 Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of

the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 54. Cambridge, MA.

Zeitlin, Robert N. 1984 "A Summary Report on Three Seasons of Field Investi-

gations into the Archaic Period Prehistory of Lowland Belize," American Anthropologist 86: 358-369.

Moundbuilders of the Amazon: Geophysical Archaeology on Maraj6 Island, Brazil ANNA CURTENIUS ROOSEVELT. xxviii + 495 pages, 75

figures, 11 tables, bibliography, index. San Diego: Aca- demic Press, 1991. $89.95 clothbound. ISBN 0-12- 595348-8.

Reviewed by Betty J. Meggers, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

This book is remarkable both for its thesis that prehis- toric urban civilizations developed in the Amazon and for the polemical tone in which the argument is made. Since the polemic is directed mainly toward me, I have been advised by several colleagues not to review it on the ground that anything I say will be considered biased. I have decided to ignore this advice because Roosevelt's interpretations of the origin and character of Marajoara culture have significant implications for modern exploita-

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

400 Book Reviews

tion of the region. If Maraj6 and other parts of Amazonia once supported dense urban populations, they can do so

again. Since this conclusion contravenes both the volu- minous environmental data collected during the past two decades and the consequences of varying efforts at "de-

velopment," it is necessary to evaluate her archaeological evidence. I urge readers to make their own judgments by checking the original sources.

The Marajoara culture at the mouth of the Amazon is described as "a pristine complex society" [pp. 4, 7, 27], not only "one of the outstanding indigenous cultural achievements of the New World" [p. 29] and "one of the

major complex societies of prehistoric America" [p. 27], but "one of the great tropical chiefdoms of the world"

[pp. 119, 136], with "an enormous geographical domain that dwarfs those of some famous, old-world civilizations"

[pp. 1, 96, 436]. '"There is clear evidence that Marajoara was a socioeconomically differentiated society with a large population, highly intensive subsistence, major systems of

public works, and a complex material culture and ideol-

ogy" [p. 404]. Its ceramic art was "one of the most highly developed in the hemisphere" [p. 76] and its ceremonial

pottery "some of the most abundant and elaborate in the world" [p. 27]. The population is said to have been at least 100,000 [pp. 2, 38, 404] and may have been up to one million, with a density of 50/sq km [p. 38]. Marajoara is thus regarded as being equal to the most complex An- dean and Mesoamerican cultures. This book "offers con- crete evidence of the magnitude, complexity, and excellent

preservation of archaeological resources" supporting this assessment [p. xxvii].

Investigations were concentrated at Teso dos Bichos, an artificial mound ca. 3 ha in area and 7 m high, on the bank of the Rio Goiapf near the center of eastern Maraj6. The primary focus of fieldwork was testing the efficacy of four methods for sensing subsurface features. During 71 months between 1983 and 1985, a detailed topographic map was made in 25 cm contours; magnetic, electrical

resistivity, electromagnetic conductivity, and radar probes were conducted across the entire surface, and 32 pits and

profiles were placed where anomalies were detected. Pits were usually 1 m x 1 m and excavated in "natural" levels to a depth of ca. 1 m (the depth attained by the geophysical probes). The soil was processed by dry screening, wet

screening, and flotation. "All carbonized plant remains, charcoal, bones, hearth fragments, concretions, chips, and sherds were collected individually after being recorded in

place" [p. 234-235]. More than 100 of the stratigraphic profiles were drawn, soil color and texture were meticu-

lously recorded, and samples were taken for chemical and sedimentary analysis, archeomagnetic and thermolumines-

cent dating, and pollen and microbiological examination. Additional information, particularly on ceramics and hu- man skeletal remains, was obtained from museum and private collections. Results of geophysical survey and ex- cavations at Guajard (JO-14, Mound 1) and preliminary investigations at 15 other mounds are also incorporated.

Chapter 5 (112 pages) gives a detailed description and interpretation of each excavation. Test pits placed in 11 of the 29 magnetic anomalies revealed groups of parallel ceramic half-cylinders about 1.5 m long and 0.5 m wide, set in the floor with the open side up. Associated food remains and plain sherds identify them as stoves. The number at any location is uncertain since "all the hearth groups excavated extend well beyond the actual area of the excavations" [pp. 288, 244], but four profiles along the center of the east margin of the site revealed an "ap- parently uninterrupted stretch of contemporary hearth groups about 19 m long" [p. 286]. Twenty-one excava- tions were made in magnetically quiet locations. Eleven areas of intermediate conductivity consisted of domestic refuse, rubble, and earth floors. Five pits on the plain adjacent to the mound exposed the original ground surface ca. 1.75 m below the present one. Two areas of high conductivity contained features identified as earthworks [p. 312]. Eight of the nine radar anomalies tested were

post-Marajoara in origin [p. 321]. Chapter 6 summarizes inferences from lithic, ceramic,

plant, animal, and human remains. Although "thousands of well-provenienced prehistoric carbonized botanical and faunal specimens [are] stored as study collections in the Museu Goeldi and the American Museum of Natural His-

tory" [p. 242], only "a sample of the voluminous materials ... is being analyzed" [p. 343]. Even that sample had

barely been touched by the time the volume went to press, although fieldwork was completed in 1985. According to the author, about 600 carbonized plant remains and 2000 animal bones "have been sorted," the flotation residues "are in process of being studied" [p. 344], the biological remains "are being studied" [p. 374], the pollen study is

underway [p. 375], associations among biological, phys- ical, and cultural objects "are being studied" [p. 226], stone tools "have not yet been studied for information about their possible functions" [p. 75], and botanical stud- ies "are beginning" [p. 378]. Additional carbon-14 dates are "in process" and archeomagnetic samples from the stoves "have been sent out for analysis" [p. 344]. The ceramics have been classified, drawn, and photographed, and a "detailed osteological study has been completed on the museum skeletal material" [p. 344]. Thus, documen- tation for the conclusions comes principally from ex- cavated features, human skeletal remains, and pottery.

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 19, 1992 401

Teso dos Bichos is said to have been permanently oc-

cupied for almost a millennium by a population of ca. 1000, divided among 20-30 communal houses arranged in an oval around a small open area. The number of houses is inferred from the 29 magnetic anomalies identified as stove groups, each occupying the center of a communal house. It is stated that, among contemporary Amazonians, a nuclear family of four uses a hearth with space for two or three pots. Since each group had 6-12 individual stoves, each house would have sheltered 35-60 people, giving a site population of 700-1800, "with an average of 1000 people, based on a house population of 40 people and 25 houses" [p. 342]. This reconstruction requires that each stove was used simultaneously by a different family; that each group averaged 9 stoves and represented a sep- arate communal house; and that all houses were occupied simultaneously and continuously for several centuries. What is the evidence?

No test pit exposed an entire stove group, and the number was "estimated by the geophysicists from the size of the magnetic anomalies" [pp. 341, 211, 288]. Although each group is assumed to occupy the center of a separate communal house, an 8 m trench connecting two groups showed no discontinuity in the floor. All stove groups are

judged contemporary because they are between 0.5 and 1.5 m below the present surface, but no confirmation is provided in the form of ceramic seriation or archeomag- netic dates. The carbon-14 dates assigned to this episode of occupation (Pacoval Subphase) span four centuries.

Comparing descriptions of the stratigraphy with the profiles reveals numerous discrepancies. In figure 5.11, where all four walls of Tests 13 and 16 are shown, the corners do not match, the layers are inconsistently num- bered, and "laminations of fine clayey silty tan soil" [p. 266] said to represent floors are not depicted. The drawing of Profile 0 does not show features visible in the photograph, especially at the far right [fig. 5.15]. Al- though Test 10 was excavated by 10 cm levels because the stratigraphy was "rather vague and amorphous" [p. 293], the profiles of the four walls show well defined layers, again with corners that do not match [fig. 5.17]. An erosion profile in the vicinity of Profile A, said to show "an interrupted sequence of house floors with stoves set in them throughout the 3- or 4-m vertical extent" [p. 335], is not illustrated. The positions of the dwellings in a reconstruction of the village do not correspond with the locations of anomalies on the accompanying compos- ite map [fig. 5.25].

A careful reader will find similar difficulties in evaluating the inferences from human skeletal remains. There is no table listing the provenience, bones represented, sex, age,

pathologies, etc., of the specimens. The total number of individuals seems to be 50 [pp. 57, 384] from at least six mounds. "Only one or a few bones of each individual was collected" [p. 387], and many are represented only by the cranium. Of the 15-17 studied in detail, most were adult males. Two separately measured samples of three and five males both provided stature estimates averaging 172 cm. Some crania exhibited "bishop's mitre" deformation. Den- tal wear was severe even among juveniles, but caries were rare. Bone from 16 individuals subjected to stable isotopic analysis indicated a mixed diet, including a C-4 plant inferred to be maize [pp. 377, 387; table 6.7]. Males lacked arthritic pathologies and exhibited "extreme mus- cularity" [pp. 58, 394], suggesting "they were more in- volved in training for war than in heavy agricultural work or mound building" [pp. 58, 395, 403, 406] or perhaps indulged in "ritual wrestling and racing" [pp. 58, 407] and may have constituted a "warrior elite" [p. 407]. An alternative possibility Roosevelt does not consider is that they did a lot of paddling across flooded savanna.

The only other category of materials for which analysis has been completed is pottery. Both the type-variety and modal approaches to classification were used. "Certain functional types have been established that crosscut several contemporary decorative techniques" and "several func- tional types and subphase chronological attributes have been defined for the first time" [p. 351], but no descrip- tions are provided. Previously established types being "somewhat arbitrary," some were subdivided or lumped [p. 351]. These include Goiapi Scraped, said to be "too inclusive stylistically," although the redefinition [p. 358] is identical to the original type description (Meggers and Evans 1957: 256), and the illustration shows a greater variety of surface treatment than the latter allowed (cf. fig. 6.4, A-G and Meggers and Evans 1957: pl. 70). Other categories are variously defined by decoration, function, function + decoration, and shape. Slip, paint, and even firing are used synonymously [e.g., pp. 50, 77, 289, 357]; post-fired painting, not previously reported, is said to be common, but is neither described nor illustrated. Simi- larly, Camutins and Pacoval varieties of Joanes Painted

(consistently misspelled "Johanes"), said to be sub-phase markers, are neither defined nor illustrated. In fact, aside from a few crude drawings of selected sherds [figs. 6.3, 6.4], all the pottery specimens depicted are well known vessels from old museum collections.

Roosevelt correctly emphasizes the importance of a de- tailed ceramic chronology, but devotes only 14 pages to this topic. Half the space is consumed by six "seriation tables" showing the stratigraphic occurrences of Goiapi Scraped, Johanes [sic] Painted, and Finger Grooved modes

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

402 Book Reviews

in Test 10 and Excavation 1 [pp. 358-365]. No infor- mation is provided on associated types, although highly decorated sherds were said to be abundant. Elsewhere we are told that "placement of the majority of types, whether

highly decorated or simple, is not known," that "most of the artifact types, burials, and sites cannot yet be ade-

quately dated," and that the subphase sequence is sup- ported neither by stratigraphic superposition nor by ex-

isting carbon-14 dates [pp. 66-67]. Nevertheless, she contends 1) that functional distinctions have previously been "invariably misinterpreted" as chronological differ- ences [pp. 68, 74, 357, 368]; 2) that her sequence reverses the previous chronology [pp. 66-67, 111], and 3) that the hypothesis of an intrusive origin for the Marajoara Phase has been "inexorably defeated" by her chronological evidence [p. 96].

The cultural discontinuity between Marajoara and ear- lier groups on Maraj6 suggested to Meggers and Evans that it was intrusive, and a review of the occurrences of distinctive Marajoara traits showed them concentrated in NW South America (1957: 412-418). Although Roose- velt contends that Marajoara "arose in the lower Amazon from tropical lowland predecessors" [p. 3], most of her correlations are also with the sub-Andean region, espe- cially eastern Colombia. These include scroll and hook

designs [p. 79], slit-neck shirts [p. 82], house orientation

[p. 338], breast-milk symbolism [p. 84], male initiation rites [p. 372], geometric art linked to spirit animals

[p. 85], and shamanistic beliefs [p. 88]. It is stated that the only archaeological occurrence of similar stoves is in Formative sites in Honduras. Cranial deformation, said to be a "particularly Amazonian cultural trait" and "not par- ticularly like styles common among Andean Indians"

[p. 390], is in fact typically Andean and present among lowland groups only adjacent to the Andean area, as she notes on page 393 (and see Munizaga 1987).

The dietary reconstruction is fascinating. The bones of small fish constituted 100% of the faunal remains in most

flotation samples, and small seeds were the predominant plant residue. Remains of charred nuts and other plant parts occurred, but were not major sources of nutrients. Remains of mammals, birds, and large fish were "insig- nificant" [pp. 21, 380, 382, 405]. This evidence indicates that the Marajoara subsistence economy was "a system of seed cropping supplemented by intensive seasonal fishing and plant collecting" [e.g., pp. 2, 87, 396, 402, 405]. Unfortunately, "taxa have not been identified in most cases" [p. 405]. In particular, "none of the botanists who have examined the small archaeological seeds have been able to identify them" [p. 377]. Both seeds and fish are

seasonal resources, but no storage facilities were recog- nized, and indeed neither can be stored successfully. Sus-

taining a population of 100,000 or more for nearly a millennium on this diet would seem to require perennially repeating the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.

There is an additional problem. Roosevelt contends that intensive agriculture was made possible by the "deep, nu- trient-rich sediments" of "one of the largest expanses of

floodplain (virzea) in the Amazon" [p. 8]. Whereas the

present land owners "categorically deny any agricultural potential" [p. 25], she asserts it to be significant [pp. 10, 131, 404]. The land owners' assessment is shared by the

experts. An official document of the Instituto Brasileira de Geografia stated more than 30 years ago that on eastern

Maraj6 "the agricultural value is equal to zero" (Guerra and Valverde 1959: 209), and this judgment has been confirmed repeatedly. A detailed delimitation of the lower Amazonian virzea excludes Maraj6 (Klammer 1984; fig. 4) and the eastern part has been described as "consolidated terra firme" (Sioli 1984: 155) where "arable farming is not feasible" (Sombroek 1984: 530). A detailed analysis of agricultural potential conducted on behalf of the Bra- zilian Government by the Organization of American States

employed four categories defined by soil characteristics

(fertility, texture, depth, drainage), water excess and defi-

cit, and erosion susceptibility: I, Good; II, Average; III, Restricted, and IV, None. Only III and IV exist on the eastern half of Maraj6, and III is limited to narrow patches along the shore. The rest of the area was rated unsuitable for agriculture, producing low to very low returns even

during the first year (OEA 1974: 9-11, Map 4), The

deficiency of the soil in essential minerals, especially phos- phorus and cobalt, is reflected in nutrient-poor grasses, and in retarded growth and lowered fertility of cattle that feed upon them (OEA 1974: 68). Roosevelt, by contrast, refers to "nutrient-rich pasture" [pp. 23-24] without cit-

ing any supporting references. Roosevelt's use of data can also be evaluated by her

citations from publications by others. For example, she asserts that Meggers and Evans (1957) "reinterpreted the conclusions of earlier workers about the magnitude of sites and even published some of the site plans at a reduced

scale" [pp. 110; also 31, 165] "to make the sites appear smaller" [p. 31]. In the absence of page or figure reference, I assume she refers to Meggers' and Evans' figure 110

showing Mound 7 of the Fortaleza group, redrawn from Farabee's field notebook. I plead guilty to having included a scale in feet rather than yards, but whoever takes the trouble can confirm that the length is 600 ft, equivalent to Farabee's 200 yd (Meggers and Evans 1957: 302). For

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 19, 1992 403

Camutins, Mound 17, Farabee's field notes give 600 x 200 x 25 ft high compared to our measurements of 250 x 59 x 6.4 m high (Meggers and Evans 1957: 293), making our length greater than his. Interestingly, Roose- velt [p. 31] refers to this mound as the highest on Maraj6 and gives the height as 20 m, suggesting she may have misread Farabee's elevation as yards rather than feet. Der-

by's dimensions for Camutins, Mound 1, are 210 x 80 x 13 m high (low water), whereas ours are 255 x 30 x 9.5 m high (high water). Our rejection of Farabee's esti- mated length of 1500 ft (which we cited, Meggers and Evans 1957: 298) is a matter of scientific judgment, not intentional falsification.

Roosevelt also contends [pp. 64, 314] that we never revised our original chronology to accommodate the car- bon-14 dates obtained by Sim6es (1967) and have never referred to the dates. In fact, we have done so in at least 14 publications, five of which are in her bibliography (Meggers 1971, 1975, 1982; Meggers and Evans 1978, 1983). Moreover, she cites our 1983 article in evaluating the dates [p. 65]. She fails to mention a series of ther- moluminescent measurements that extends the antiquity of the Ananatuba Phase; supports its overlap with the

Mangueiras Phase; reveals a gap of several centuries be- tween the end of the latter and the inception of the For-

miga Phase; provides a duration for the Marajoara Phase almost identical to hers (A.c. 400-1300); and verifies the terminal position of the Arud Phase (Meggers and Danon 1988).

Roosevelt's extravagant claims obscure the genuine uniqueness of Marajoara culture and the importance of

reconstructing its origin, character, and exploitation of the local environment. Although extensive survey of the prin- cipal Amazonian tributaries during the past 15 or more years has permitted defining numerous phases and re- gional subtraditions, neither artificial mounds nor most of the Marajoara ceramic artifacts (e.g., figurines, tangas, stools) have thus far been encountered (Meggers et al. 1988). Marajoara is also unusual among phases of the Polychrome Tradition in occupying a non-virzea environ- ment. The data collected by Roosevelt have the potential to provide detailed information on subsistence, settlement, and social behavior, but this potential remains unrealized. As she repeatedly affirms, "the archaeological record must be the major source of evidence for the testing of theories about the ancient peoples of Amazonia" [pp. 99, 126]. That she has collected "unprecedented data" [p. 154] is beyond dispute. That she has an obligation to complete the analysis and present the results is equally undisputable.

The wide and rapid acceptance that has been accorded

Roosevelt's revolutionary characterization of precolum- bian cultural development in the absence of documenta- tion is remarkable and disturbing. In June 1990, Science reported that "most scholars in the field say the new evi- dence has convinced them that there were complex cul- tures in the Amazon" (Gibbons 1990: 1490). By contrast, whoever proposes a pre-Clovis date for the peopling of the Americas is required to provide exhaustive evidence, and many experts remain skeptical even after this is sup- plied (e.g., for Meadowcroft). The discrepancy is disturb-

ing because whether paleoindians arrived 12,000, 20,000, or even 50,000 years ago is a purely academic issue, whereas whether Amazonia supported dense sedentary precolumbian populations has direct relevance for modern utilization of the region. Why do we require redundant confirmation and exhaustion of all alternative explanations from proponents of pre-Clovis sites, yet accept without question allegations of the kind Roosevelt makes in spite of their obvious incompatibility with the ecological con- text and their considerable political sensitivity? Until we

adopt more uniform standards, these and other interesting problems will remain unresolved. Bringing this schizo-

phrenia to light may be Roosevelt's most important con- tribution to archaeology.

Gibbons, Ann 1990 "New View of Early Amazonia," Science 248: 1488-

1490.

Guerra, Ant6nio Teixeira, and Orlando Valverde 1959 "Tipos de solo e suas utiliza?6es agricolas," in Geografia

do Brasil, Grande Regido Norte. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, 195-219.

Klammer, G. 1984 "The Relief of the Extra-Andean Amazon Basin," in Har-

aid Sioli, ed., The Amazon. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk Pub- lishers, 47-83.

Meggers, Betty J. 1971 Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise.

Chicago: Aldine.

1975 "Application of the Biological Model of Diversification to Cultural Distributions in Tropical Lowland South America," Biotropica 7: 141-161.

1982 "Archeological and Ethnographic Evidence Compatible with the Model of Forest Fragmentation," in G. T. Prance, ed., Biologicid Diversification in the Tropics. New York, Columbia University Press, 483-496.

Meggers, Betty J., and Jacques Danon 1988 "Identification and Implications of a Hiatus in the Ar-

cheological Sequence on Maraj6 Island, Brazil," Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 78: 245-253.

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: A c Roosvelt Moundbuilders

404 Book Reviews

Meggers, Betty J., and Clifford Evans 1957 Archeological Investigations at the Mouth of the Amazon.

Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 167. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

1978 "Lowland South America and the Antilles," in J. D. Jennings, ed., Ancient Native Americans. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 543-591.

1983 "Lowland South America and the Antilles," in J. D. Jennings, ed., Ancient South Americans. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 286-335.

Meggers, Betty J., Ondemar F. Dias, Eurico Th. Miller, and Celso Perota 1988 "Implications of Archeological Distributions in Ama-

zonia," in W. R. Heyer and P. E. Vanzolini, eds., Pro- ceedings of a Workshop on Neotropical Distribution Patterns. Rio de Janeiro: Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 275- 294.

Munizaga, Juan R. 1987 "Deformaci6n craneana intencional en America," Revista

Chilena de Antropologia 6: 113-147.

OEA 1974 Marajo, um estudo para o seu desenvolvimento. Washington,

D.C.: Secretaria General da Organizagio dos Estados Americanos.

Sim6es, Mirio F. 1967 "Resultados preliminares de uma prospecfdo arqueol6-

gica na regido dos rios Goiapf e Camardi (Ilha de Maraj6). Atas do Simpdsio sobre a Biota Amazdnica 2: 207-224. Rio de Janeiro: Conselho Nacional de Pesquisas.

Sioli, Harald 1984 "The Amazon and its Main Affluents: Hydrography,

Morphology of the River Courses, and River Types," in H. Sioli, ed., TheAmazon. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk Pub- lishers, 127-165.

Sombroek, W. G. 1984 "Soils of the Amazon Region," in H. Sioli, ed., The

Amazon. Dordrecht: Dr. W. Junk Publishers, 521-535.

A History of African Archaeology PETER T. ROBERTSHAW, ed. vii + 371 pages, figures, plates, bibliography, index. London: James Currey; Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1990. $30 paperbound. ISBN 0-85255-065-0.

Reviewed by Nikolaas J. van der Merwe, Peabody Mu-

seum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Robertshaw has performed a valuable service for Afri- canist archaeologists with this volume. He persuaded 18

colleagues to join him in describing different aspects of the development of archaeology in Africa, frequently with felicitous results. Half of the chapters deal with the ar-

chaeology of different regions: the Stone Age of southern

Africa (Janette Deacon); the Iron Age of southern Africa

(Martin Hall); East Africa (Robertshaw); the later Qua- ternary of the Horn (Steven Brandt and Rodolfo Fattov-

ich); Central Africa (Pierre de Maret); anglophone West Africa (Frank Kense); francophone West Africa (Phillip de Barros); and the Maghreb (Peter Sheppard). Three elder statesmen of the profession (Desmond Clark, Thur- stan Shaw, Peter Shinnie) contributed personal memoirs, with emphasis on the influences that guided their works. Three chapters are thematic, discussing human origins and

early prehistory (John Gowlett), oral history (Peter Schmidt), and rock art (Whitney Davis). Augustin Holl, in a special political contribution, analyzes West African

archaeology from the colonial vs. nationalist perspective, while Bruce Trigger rounds out the batting order in the last chapter by placing African archaeology in world per- spective.

It is inevitable that such a collection of essays will have

many overlaps and gaps. Human origins get rather short shrift in a single chapter, the Sahara falls through a rift in the continent, and the theme of metal technology is hardly mentioned. On the whole, however, the coverage is ade-

quate and useful. A student trying to learn African ar-

chaeology would find it heavy going (although the refer- ences would lead in the right direction); this volume is

really for practitioners and their graduate students. As

such, it is of considerable interest to read an account of events in which many of the potential readers played their own parts. Where the account diverges too widely from

one's own perception of how things happened and what the important events were, it can be irritating. So be it; nobody ever believed that historical narratives are entirely accurate, especially when they are based on conference resolutions and academic publications.

Several of the contributors wrote their accounts around frameworks of successive Kuhnian paradigms, either ex-

plicitly or implicitly. This usually leads to the (uncon- scious) division of the history of archaeology into Early, Middle, and Late, with the underlying implication that these were Awful, Better, and Pretty Good. In my view, these were not paradigm shifts (a term which is rapidly being beaten to death through misuse), but a reflection

of the fact that African "archaeology" was successively practiced by amateurs, professionals from other fields who

taught themselves archaeology, and professional archae-

ologists. Paradigmatic analyses are appropriate only to the last phase, and then they are frequently confused with the different intellectual traditions of the metropolitan coun- tries that contributed archaeologists to Africa. The alter- native analysis is that of Colonial vs. Nationalist archae- ology, which is clearly the current preoccupation of the

This content downloaded from 192.188.55.60 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:29:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions