Of Lost Civilizations and Primitive Tribes, Amazonia

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

Society for American Archaeology

Of Lost Civilizations and Primitive Tribes, Amazonia: Reply to Meggers Author(s): Michael J. Heckenberger, James B. Petersen and Eduardo Ges Neves Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 328-333Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971637Accessed: 27-05-2015 20:09 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/971637?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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

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

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Wed, 27 May 2015 20:09:50 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Meggers's critique of views presented by DeBoer et al. (1996), Wust and Barreto (1999), and Heckenberger et al. (1999) in Latin American Antiquity misrepresents these authors and others. Her criticisms, largely directed at the present authors, obfus- cate fundamental points raised regarding the nature and variability of cultural formations and economic patterns in Amazo- nia. By conflating indigenous resource management systems, which we discuss, with mechanized development strategies of the modern world, she creates an unnecessarily polemical atmosphere for debate.

La crEtica de Meggers sobre los puntos de vista presentados por DeBoer et al. (1996), Wust and Barreto (1999) y Heckenberger et al. (1999) en Latin American Antiquity, dirigida principalmente a e'stos autores, confunde asuntos fundamentales hechos en lo que se trata de la naturaleza y variabilidad de las formaciones culturales y los modelos economicos de la Amazon fa. Al entremezolar nuestro tratamiento de los sistemas indfgenas del manejo de los recursos con las estrategias de desarrollo mecanizadas del mundo moderno ella da lugar a una atmosfera pole'mica, innecesaria, para el debate.

Michael J. Heckenberger * Department of Anthropology, Turlington Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 James B. Petersen * Department of Anthropology, Williams Hall, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 Eduardo Goes Neves * Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Avenida Prof. Almeida Prado, No. 1466, Sao Paulo 05508-900, Brazil

Latin American Antiquity, 12(3), 2001, pp. 328-333 CopyrightC) 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

There is little novelty in Meggers's commen- taly, The Continuing Quest for El Dorado: Round Two. Her comments largely reiterate

earlier views without providing further empirical justification. The tone of her critique, however, demands response. We commend Meggers for recognizing the grave implications of unrestrained development in the Amazon and for noting the potential relevance of archaeology for constucting deeper understand- ings of ecological and cultural variation in this vast region. Evaluating cultural variability and its signif- icance to diverse interest groups involves issues not nearly as simple and straightforward as she seems to believe. To address these issues, a productive dialogue between varied perspectives and in-depth inter- disciplinary research strategies must be developed. We agree with Meggers that "reconstructions of prehistoric population density and cultural complexity must be based on the most accurate scientific evidence we can obtain," but sharply disagree with her on what that evidence is and how it ought to be obtained and presented.

Before proceeding, we reassert our main points. We conclude that "fully sedentary and relatively large populations emerged in a variety of Amazonian settings prehistorically, not necessarily correlated with the distribution of one or another narrowly defined ecological variable (e.g., high fertility soils)" (Heck- enberger et al. 1999:352). To clarify, relatively large and sedentary refers to settlements numbering into the low thousands, occupied over generations, and articulated in regional systems of other large and smaller communities that potentially numbered in the tens of thousands. Thus, we felt that "[t]he varzea/terra firme dichotomy (or varzea model [for riverine chiefdoms]) and the standard model from ethnography (i.e., the tropical forest culture) . . . perpetuate images of homogeneity where it has not been demonstrated and undoubtedly grossly oversimplify Precolumbian patterns" (Heckenberger et al. 1999: 371). We did not suggest that there are no environmental constraints in the Amazon, particularly in the face of modern development strategies. Instead, we argue that there is far greater variability, both in eco-

328

OF LOST CIVILIZATIONS AND PRIMl l lVE TRIBES, AMAZONIA: REPLY TO MEGGERS

Michael J. Heckenberger, James B. Petersen, and Eduardo Goes Neves


COMMENTS 329

logical and cultural terms, than commonly recognized.

Reconstructing Ancient Amazonian Lifeways: Contrasting Approaches

The nature of past Amazonian social formations is, in large part, an archaeological question. The long- standing and well-articulated views of Meggers and her Brazilian colleagues, pioneers in the development of regional archaeology, are therefore particularly important. But, we disagree with the assertion that "three decades of survey of the Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueologicas na Bacia Amazonica [PRONOPABA]" document that "surviving indigenous groups perpetuate settlement and social behav- ior adopted at least 2000 years ago." We believe there is solid evidence for dramatic cultural change over the past two millennia and substantial prehistoric cultural variability, including the presence of "chiefdoms" or "kingdoms." Most researchers currently working in Amazonia share these views (including DeBoer et al. 1996, and Wust and Barreto 1999; see also Neves 1999; Roosevelt 1999; Viveiros de Cas- tro 1996; Whitehead 1996).

Meggers's portrayal of the PRONAPABA as a cohesive, long-term enterprise, involving in-depth, regional-level studies is misleading, since much of it actually involved only brief episodes of fieldwork at small samples of sites encountered along vast stretches of major rivers. Furthermore, its primary protagonist, Mario Simoes (Brazilian head of the PRONAPABA at the Museu Paraense Eml1io Goeldi, MPEG), passed away in the mid-1980s, and the effort languished afterwards. 1 This is not intended as a crit- icism of PRONAPABA investigations, the first of their kind in much of Amazonia, but we emphasize that they were designed to discern archaeological patterns at the broadest regional levels. They are not what we had in mind as "detailed archaeological field studies and research methodologies designed to identify regional-level settlement patterns," which we suggested are generally lacking in Amazonia (Heckenberger et al. 1999 354).2 In our own research, in the central Amazon and Upper Xingu, ongoing surveys have identified numerous additional sites in areas studied by the PRONAPABA and document substantial regional variability in the setting, size, and composition of settlements (Heckenberger et al. 1999: Figure 2).3

Furthermore, we do not "dispute the validity of the data collected . . . by participants of the PRON-

APABA." Quite simply, we don't know what these data are in most cases. "Continuing revision of earlier seriations" may justify "failure to publish more PRONAPABA data," as Meggers suggests, but primary data, including site descriptions, maps, surface distributions, excavation results, stratigraphy, asso- ciations, and basic ceramic attributes, remain largely unreported.4 Site-level studies, such as those at the Santa Rosa site (AM-MA-9), which Meggers pre- sents as a model example of very general patterns in Amazonia, must be considered preliminary. Santa Rosa, located in the middle Rio Negro basin, was briefly studied over a few days in 1969 and again in 1982 (Simoes 1970,1983). These brief investigations have generated at least five published seriations, including that critiqued by DeBoer et al. (1996; see also Meggers 1991; Simoes 1974; Simoes and KaLk- man 1987). Such discordance may, in part, be explained by mechanical mixing within the partially (at least) disturbed deposits of Santa Rosa (Simoes 1970, 1974:179), but it surely casts doubt on the validity of any one interpretation.5

Careful evaluation of Meggers's seriations, including the integrity of contexts, scale of investigations, and disparity of interpretations, is important since her reconstructions of past sefflement and social behaviors, and, by a great leap, evaluation of the "right" way to use the Amazon today, depends so much on them (see DeBoer et al. 1996). Meggers's detachment from recent field research, not having worked in the region herself since the 1950s, per- haps underlies her continued belief that "[p]ottery is the only widespread and abundant source of archaeological evidence throughout most of tropical low- land South America" and that, therefore, "seriated sequences provide more precise chronologies than radiocarbon dates." Combined with other sources of information, which are, in fact, widely represented in Amazonian sites, seriation is a useful tool, but in regions as large and poorly known as the Amazon it should be used cautiously and, as DeBoer et al. (1996) suggest, is unlikely to reveal the minute (ethnographic-like) detail of settlement and social patterns Meggers expects.

Settled Life and Village Structural Elaboration Surely Meggers overstates her case in saying that "abbreviated pottery type descriptions and preliminary seriated sequences from several widely separated regions . . . contain far more ecological and archaeological data than have been provided by


330 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001]

Heckenberger et al. or by Wust and Barreto." This is simply untrue and confuses general interpretations (pottery types and seriations) from a broad region with specific evidence (e.g., artifact distributions, radiocarbon dates, stratigraphy, soil chemistry, ceramic attributes, etc.) from surveys and site-level investigations in discrete regions.

Ac,utuba and the Upper Xingu sites, discussed in Heckenberger et al. ( 1999), all document major structural elaboration, including large earthen mounds, extensive excavated ditches, and major cleared pub- lic areas (roads and plazas).6 Furthermore, the inte- grated site plans at these sites, documented by the layout of earthworks and the correlations between them and distributions of artifacts and anthropic soils ("terra preta"), document the contemporaneity of most late-prehistoric deposits (i.e., at least at the time of abandonment) across the surface of the sites. This degree of landscape alteration, including substantial alteration of archaeological sediments considered typical of intensive occupation and agriculture (Petersen et al. 2001; Woods and McCann 1999), is common among fairly large communities of settled agriculturalists. Contrary to what Meggers suggests, we do not say that small, mobile, or egalitarian groups are incapable of constructing significant monuments, but simply that they are less likely to do so than settled populations, particularly those with some form of social hierarchy.

In the case of Ac,utuba, Meggers questions its uniqueness in a regional context, but we emphasize that it is the only major plaza site of Guarita age (ca. A.D. 90F1S00, or later) of numerous sites thus far located in our ongoing surveys.8 Even if Ac,utuba was regularly abandoned prior to Guarita times, the inten- sity of use, clearly shown in artifact frequencies and sediment composition, the scale of structural elaboration, and the plaza-centric configuration after c. A.D. 1000, make it highly unlikely that the site was typically abandoned, in favor of some structurally equivalent site elsewhere, after this time. In other words, the variability suggests a pattern rather different than that proposed by Meggers and one that accords well with local ethnohistoric accounts, prior to the period of extensive slaving and disease-related depopulation (after ca. 160F1650).

Ethnographic Analogs or Archetypes? Meggers seems to accuse the authors "of prejudging surviving groups as decimated and decultured rem- nants," suggesting that instead "we can identify the

extent to which they have preserved their Pre- columbian heritage." This assertion is ironic since the best way to understand this heritage, most would likely agree, is through relatively in-depth involve- ment in ethnographic and archaeological contexts, that is the type of "immersion" typified by the authors she critiques (e.g., Heckenberger 1996; Neves 1998; Wust 1990). In the Upper Xingu, specifically, Meg- gers is not justified in claiming that "[n]either citations nor tangible evidence are provided for 'heavy dependence on agriculture' ... nor is its feasibility documented by ecological or ethnographic observa- tions." One might at least note the citation to Man- ioc Agriculture and Sedentism in Amazonia: The UpperXingu Example (Heckenberger 1998), where the argument is more fully laid out. Most ethnogra- phers who have worked in the region, in fact, have noted the sedentary lifeways and productivity of Xin- guano agricultural economies, from the time they were first studied (e.g., Carneiro 1983; Galvao 1953; Oberg 1953). Xinguanos are indeed notable among Amazonian economies insofar as they depend so heavily on one staple crop (manioc)-stored in the ground as tubers and sometimes in household silos of 100s, even 1,000s of kilos (also storing produced piqui fruit sub-aqueously in basketry "tubes"). But, to clarify our position, we do not propose the Xin- guanos ever clear-cut large tracts of forest in a man- ner similar to present-day cattle ranchers, soy-bean farmers, lumber companies, or the like, but instead practiced a pattern of long-term crop rotation of diverse tended plants within a relatively fixed area (and still do) rather different (i.e., more intensive) than the extensive slash-burn-and-abandon pattern that Meggers (1996) suggests.

Meggers's optimism that her general models provide a solid basis to address specific cases, e.g., the Upper Xingu, is based on her belief that broad conditions and processes (uniform causes), in this case the behemoth of Amazonian environment, so directly affect final outcomes that specific history is, quite simply, irrelevant. Her ethnographic analogs from across Amazonia and beyond are selected without any precise historical or behavioral justification. But, one might ask why Australian aborigines, the Mapuche, or even the Jivaro are better analogs for the Xinguano past than the present-day Xinguanos themselves, who today are sedentary, have fairly intensive economies, and have institutional forms of social hierarchy within their regional social system. Did these other groups live around central plazas?


COMMENTS 331

Did they build earthworks (up to four meters deep, 10 m across, and 2 km in length) and related above- ground features around villages? Did they articulate these with major causeways (some over 20 m wide, 100s of meters long, and with "curbs" up to two meters high)? Did these articulate with highly constructed agricultural landscapes, as documented on the ground and in aerial photographs and satellite imagery? Regardless, if we cast our analogical net so widely, to the Andes or Old World, for instance, our original contention stands: "[s]tructural elaboration of a village to this degree is exactly what would be expected of large, fully sedentary populations, but seems less typical of small, semi-sedentary groups" (Heckenbergeret al.1999:369). We need not belaborthe pointhere (see Heckenberger 1996,1998, 1999,2000), but suffice it to say that the Xinguanos never fit the "standard model," as proposed by Meg- gers, even when they reached their demographic nadir in the 1950s40s.

The View from Afar Meggers appears to represent the "voice of author- ity" when she states that: "If local subsistence resources sustained dense sedentary populations in the past, then biologists, ecologists, climatologists, agronomists, and other experts are wrong in their assessment of the environment." Some may believe that the very notion of prehistoric complex societies inAmazonia is untenable, a "lingering myth of Ama- zonian empires" (Foresta 1991:265, cited in Meg- gers, this volume), but there is far less consensus than Meggers implies. In fact, "natural" scientists often neglect humans and human-induced changes of "nature," seeing the Amazon as something relatively pristine, a view no longer tenable by any measure (Balee 1989; Denevan 1992). Other"experts," equally informed as those Meggers cites (in fact some of the same people), have suggested that "Ama- zonia has the potential to be a major agricultural zone, while still maintaining a broad range of habi- tats for native flora and wildlife," and, in fact, argue that extensive land-use has more deleterious impacts than more intensive utilization of select areas, based on traditional resource management strategies (e.g., Anderson 1990; Sanchez et al. 1982; Smith et al. 1995:251; see Mann 2000 for a brief overview).

Some areas do present significant constraints for large population aggregates, as we readily admit (Heckenberger et al.1999: 372; see also Neves 1998),

but this does not preclude dramatically different ecological parameters and opportunities for human use in other settings, especially along resource rich rivers. The consensus, if we can speak of one, is that, contrary to what Meggers implies: (1) many "surviving indigenous groups are under-exploiting their habi- tats," since Amazonia was not insulated from the staggering population losses that occurred across the Americas after 1492 (cf. Meggers 1992); and (2) sometimes "modern efforts to intensify agricultural productivity are incompetent," in large part because they fail to employ resource management strategies tailored to the specific conditions of one or another part of the neo-tropics (citations from Meggers, this volume, authors' emphasis). Our position does not imply that "developers are entitled to operate without constraint," but instead that only systematic study of alternative resource management strategies, which may well be staunchly "conservationist" in certain cases, will provide clues about what are and what are not appropriate ways of approaching Amazon- ian development.

A detached "view from afar" is useful to synthe- size materials over large sweeps of time and space and it certainly aids in the recognition of broad pat- terning, sometimes hidden from fieldworkers mired in the day-to-day operation of actual fieldwork. Nev- ertheless, we might be suspicious of such a view when it so clearly conflicts with that espoused by most on-the-ground researchers, which in this case it does.

A Phoenix from the Ashes? The accusation that the authors, collectively, raise a phoenix from the ashes, the European myth of E1 Dorado, and, in so doing, have unwittingly (or worse) aided in unshackling the beast of unrestrained exploitation upon the Amazon, is not only unflatter- ing but out of stride with regional anthropology. Pugilistic debate is not uncommon in Amazonian archaeology, but the suggestion that we provide "sup- port for the unconstrained deforestation of the region" is excessive. Regional specialists have long agreed that there were pastAmazonian societies significantly larger than anything reported over the past 10s200 years (seeCarneiro 1970; Lathrap 1970; Levi-Strauss 1973; Meggers 1996). This does not mean that there were no small, impermanent, egalitarian, and politi- cally autonomous villages in late prehistoric times. Nor do we suggest that there are no environmental


LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001] 332

New York. Balee, William

1989 The Culture of Amazonian Forests. In Resource Man- agementinAmazonia: Folkand Indigenous Strategies, edited by Darrell A. Posey and William Balee, pp. 1-21 . Advances in Economic Botany No. 7. New York Botanical Garden, New York.

Carneiro, Robert. L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science

169:733-738. 1983 The Cultivation of Manioc among the Kuikuru of the

Upper Xingu. In Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians, edited by Raymond B. Haines and William T. Vickers, pp. 65-111 . Academic Press, New York.

DeBoer, Warren. R., Keith Kintigh, and Arthur Rostoker 1996 Ceramic Seriation and Settlement Reoccupation in Low-

land South America. Latin American Antiquity 7:263-278. Denevan, William M.

1992 The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82:369-385.

Galvao, Eduardo 1953 Cultura e sistema de parentesco das tribos do alto rio

Xingu. Boletim do Museu Nacional, Antropologia, n.s., 14: 1-56.

Heckenberger, Michael J. 1996 War and Peace in the Shadow of Empire: Sociopoliti-

cal Change in the Upper Xingu of Southeastern Amazonia, A.D. 1400-2000. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1998 Manioc Agriculture and Sedentism in Amazonia: The Upper Xingu Example. Antiquity 72:633 648.

1999 O enigma das grandes cidades: corpo privado e estado em Amazania. In A outra margem do ocidente (Brasil 500 anos: experiencia e destino, vol. 2), edited byAdauto Novaes, pp. 125-152. Companhia das Letras, Sao Paulo.

2000 Estrutura, historia, e transforma,cao: a cultura xinguano na longue dure'e (1000 a 2000 d.C.). In Os povos do alto Xingu: historia e cultura, edited by Bruna Franchetto and Michael J. Heckenberger, pp. 2142. Editora da Universi- dade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, and Eduardo G6es Neves

1999 Village Size and Permanence in Amazonia: Two Archae- ological Examples from Brazil. Latin American Antiquity 10:353-376.

Lathrap, Donald W. 1970 The UpperAmazon. Praeger, New York.

Levi-Strauss, Claude 1973 From Honey to Ashes: Introduction to a Science of

Mythology, vol. 3 (translated by J. Weightman and D. Weight- man). Harper and Row, New York.

Mann, Charles 2000 The Good Earth: Did People Improve the Amazon

Basin? Science 287:788. Meggers, Betty J.

1991 Cultural Evolution inAmazonia. In Profiles in Cultural Evolution, edited by A. Terry Rambo and Kathleen Gillo- gly, pp. 091-216. Anthropological Papers 85. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1992 Prehistoric Population Density in theAmazon Basin. In Disease and Demography in the Americas, edited by John W. Verano and Douglas H. Ubelaker, pp. 197-205. Smith- sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1996 Amazonia: Man and Culture in a CounterfeitParadise, 2nd Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Miller, Eurico T.

limits to economic development in the Amazon region. Surely we do not suggestthatprehistoric agricultural economies were anything like the present- day non-indigenous systems that are sometimes implemented there.

The one myth that needs to be put to rest, in light of recent work on all fronts, is that Amazonia con- stitutes a discrete, bounded area with common ecological and cultural patterns. It is unwise to ignore the immense biodiversity recognized in recent decades and the cultural variability and alternative resource management strategies, including highly productive economies, that most specialists agree characterized the region in the past. To do otherwise risks promoting a hollow protectionism that will surely have little impact on policy-makers or developers. Thus, while we must avoid an "archaeological perversion" that, in positing the widespread presence of prehistoric chiefdoms, severs contem- porary people from their unique histories (Viveiros de Castro 1996), we can no longer assume that the massive forces of European colonialism well documented elsewhere (e.g., depopulation, culture change, and ethnogenesis) somehow bypassed the Amazon.

In sum, we should not expect to find "lost civilizations" (i.e., regional hierarchical social formations) or "primitive tribes" (small, egalitarian villages) in one or another portion of Amazonia. Both were likely present in some parts of the region in 1492. Few specialists share Meggers's optimism that we have the requisite data to generally evaluate the variability of Precolumbian social and economic formations. Understanding the past is a complex process, involving myriad perspectives and diverse analytical problems, archaeological and otherwise, which will not be resolved through appeal to estab- lished (but typically untested) orthodoxy, much less through hyperbole or allusion to out-dated myths and shopworn cliches. As our understanding improves over time, we are optimistic that the type of constructive dialogue and archaeological know- ledge that can truly impact views on such things as economic development, long-term sustainability, bio-diversity, and indigenous rights will become available.

References Cited Anderson, Anthony. B. (editor)

lsso Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustain- able Use of the Amazon Forest. Columbia University Press,


Wust, Lrmhild 1990 Continuidade e mudan,ca: para uma interpreta,cao dos

grupos ceramistas da bacia do Rio Vermelho. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo.

Wust, Irmhild, and Cristiana Barreto 1999 The Ring Villages of Central Brazil: A Challenge for

Amazonian Archaeology. Latin American Archaeology 10:3-23.

Notes 1. The Setor de Arqueologia of the MPEG has flourished in

the 1990s, but not through the influence of the PRONAPABA. 2. More recent investigations by PRONAPABA participants,

for instance investigations related to hydroelectric dam con- struction by Miller (1992), are more comprehensive, but like- wise largely unpublished.

3. This includes the large (30-50 ha) occupation sites, like Agutuba and the Upper Xingu sites, and a prehistoric cemetery of several hundred urns recently discovered (and destroyed) in our study area near Manaus.

4. Perusal of field reports by many PRONAPABA projects in the archives of the MPEG, indicate that many such data are in fact lacking or were only minimally recorded for numerous, if not the majority, of the sites identified.

5. Meggers states that "[i]n the initial seriation constructed by Simoes . . . the Pajura and Apuau phases were combined (Simoes and Kalkman 1987, Figure 3)," but, in fact, Simoes originally separated Apuau from Pajura and only later rejected the separation: "another stratigraphic cut (cut 3) [was conducted] to try to resolve problems of stratigraphy [at Santa Rosa] and the inclusion in the Apuau Phase of material tem- pered with sponge-spicule, then considered (Simoes 1974) as an independent phase (Pajura Phase)" (Simoes 1983:2, authors' translation).

6. Elevated "curbs" alongside causeways were areas of refuse accumulation and, thus, surface collection units that over- lap these ridges often produce large quantities of ceramics, which may appear on the small-scale maps as lying within roads. At the site of Kuhikugu, road 2 was abandoned prehistorically and re-occupation of portions of the site (including road 5 and the central plaza and adjacent areas of all roads), after the site was abandoned c. 165>1850, by later Xinguano villages (c. 1 86s1960) resulted in considerable accumulations of relatively recent surface ceramics in these areas.

7. Suggesting that these villages represent "vacant" centers, as Meggers seems to do, is incorrect, although such supra-local integration may occur in some areas.

8. The plaza configuration of A,cutaba was apparently in place by c. A. D. 1 or earlier, but this remains to be demonstated. Research conducted under the principal direction of Eduardo Neves in 1999 revealed the circular plaza village of Osvaldo (dat- ing to as early as the late first millennium B.C.), large artificial mounds at other sites in the study area, and even more structural elaboration of the A,cutuba site than previously recognized.

Submitted March 5, 2001; accepted March 11, 2001; revised March 21, 2001

COMMENTS 333

1992 Archaeology in the Hydroelectric Projects of Elec- tronorte: Preliminary Results. Electronorte, Brasilia.

Neves, Edllardo Goes 1998 Paths through DarkWaters: Archaeology as Indigenous

History in the Upper Rio Negro, Northwest Amazon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana Univer- sity, Bloomington.

1999 Changing Perspectives in Amazonian Archaeology. In Archaeology in Latin America, edited by Gustavo G. Poli- tis and Benjamin Alberti, pp.21S243. Routledge, London.

Oberg, Kalervo 1953 Indian Tribes of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Institute of Social

Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Publication 15, Washington, D.C.

Petersen, James B., Eduardo Goes Neves, and Michael J. Heck- enberger

2001 Gift from the Past: Terra Preta and Prehistoric Amerindian Occupation inAmazonia. In The UnknownAma- zon, edited by Colin McEwan, Cristiana Barreto, and Eduardo G. Neves. British Museum Press, London, in press.

Roosevelt, Anna C. 1999 The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies:

Amazonia, A Tropical Forest. In Complex Societies in the Ancient Tropical World, edited by Elisabeth A. Bacus and Lisa J. Lucero, pp. 13-34. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 9. Arlington, VA.

Sanchez, Pedro A., Dale E. Bandy, Jorge H. Villachica, and John J. Nicholaides

1982 AmazonBasin Soils: ManagementforContinuous Crop Production. Science 216:598403.

Simoes, Mario F. 1970 Pesquisas arqueologicas no baixo Rio Negro (Projeto

Rio Negro). Manuscript on file, Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem.

1974 Contribui,cao a arqueologia dos arredores do baixo Rio Negro, Amazonas. Publica,coesAvulsas 26: 165-188. Museu Paraense Eml1io Goeldi, Belem.

1983 Pesquisas arqueologicas no alto Rio Negro (AM): relatorio sucinto. Manuscript on file, Museu Paraense Eml1io Goeldi, Belem.

Simoes, Mario F., and Ana Lucia M. KaLkman 1987 Pesquisas arqueologicas no medio Rio Negro. Revista

de Arqueologia 4:83-115. Smith, Nigel J. H., Emanuel A. S. Serrao, Paulo de T. Alvim, and

Italo C. Falesi 1995 Amazonia: Resiliency and Dynamism of the Land and

Its People. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Steward, Julian H. (editor)

1948 The Tropical Forest Tribes. Handbook of South Amer- ican Indians, vol. 3. Bulletin No. 143, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1996 Images of Nature and Society inAmazonian Ethnology.

Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 179-200. Whitehead, Neil L.

1996 Amazonian Archaeology: Searching for Paradise? A Review of Recent Literature and Fieldwork. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:241-264.

Woods, William I., and Joseph M. McCann 1999 The Anthropogenic Origin and Persistence of Ama-

zonian Dark Earths. Yearbook, Conference of Latin Ameri- can Geographers 25:7-14.


Article Contentsp. 328p. 329p. 330p. 331p. 332p. 333

Issue Table of ContentsLatin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 231-352Front Matter [pp. 256-256]Erratum: Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern MesoAmericaLas estructuras tumulares (cerritos) del litoral atlantico uruguayo [pp. 231-255]Household and Family at Moche, Peru: An Analysis of Building and Residence Patterns in a Prehispanic Urban Center [pp. 257-273]ReportsExpedient Shell Tools from the Northern West Indies [pp. 274-290]Presencia de maylicas panameas en el mundo colonial: algunas consideraciones acerca de su distribucin y cronologa [pp. 291-303]

CommentsThe Continuing Quest for El Dorado: Round Two [pp. 304-325]In Quest of Prehistoric Amazonia [pp. 326-327]Of Lost Civilizations and Primitive Tribes, Amazonia: Reply to Meggers [pp. 328-333]

Reviews and Book NotesBook Review EssaysReview: Teotihuacan and the Development of Postclassic Mesoamerica [pp. 334-336]

ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 337-338]Review: untitled [pp. 338-339]Review: untitled [pp. 339-340]Review: untitled [pp. 340-341]Review: untitled [pp. 341-342]Review: untitled [pp. 342-343]Review: untitled [pp. 343-345]Review: untitled [pp. 345-346]Review: untitled [pp. 347-348]Review: untitled [pp. 348-350]Review: untitled [pp. 350-351]

Back Matter [pp. 352-352]

Documents

Of Lost Civilizations and Primitive Tribes, Amazonia