Society for American Archaeology

The Ring Villages of Central Brazil: A Challenge for Amazonian Archaeology

Author(s): Irmhild Wüst and Cristiana Barreto
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 3-23
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/972208
Accessed: 19-08-2015 13:29 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/972208?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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 -
1HE RINGVILLAGESOF CENTRALBRAZIL:A CHALLENGEFOR
AMAZONIANARCHAEOLOGY

IrmhildWust and CristianaBarreto

This article offers a challenge to previous interpretationsof the ring villages of CentralBrazil. Specifically, these large villages
that were occupied by ceramic-makingagriculturalistshave been characterizedas marginaland anomalousdevelopmentsresult-
ing from late population movementstriggered by the European conquest. New data presented here show that the ring villages
have a much greater time depth. Their sudden appearance aroundA.D. 800 is explained as a local response to both regional
and externalpressures. Informationon settlementpattern variables such as village layout and size, differencesin cultural inven-
tory, and comparison of archaeological and ethnographicdata illustrate sociopolitical and demographicchanges throughtime
that have critical implicationsfor Amazonianarchaeology.

Este artigo faz uma revisao da arqueologia das aldeias anulares do Brasil Central, ocupadas por grupos ceramistas agricul-
tores a partir de ao menos 800A.D. As evidencias arqueologicas contradizemclaramentecaracteriza,coesetnograficaspre'vias
destas aldeias como desenvolvimentostardios, marginais e anomalos, que teriam crescido em tamanho e complexidade ape-
nas como uma consequencia de difusoes culturais provocadas pela coloniza,cao europe'ia.Aqui, o rapido surgimento destas
aldeias e'explicado como uma resposta local a pressoes regionais e externas.Dados de padrao de assentamentotais como mor-
fologia e tamanhode sKtios,varia,caoda cultura material, e a compara,caode dados arqueologicos com etnograficos, propor-
cianam uma primeira discussao de varios aspectos da organiza,cao demografica e sociopolftica ao longo do tempo, com
zmpllca,coescrltlcas para a arqueologla amazonlca.
. t * / . * . A -

Este artfeuloofrece un retoa las interpretacionespreviassobre las aldeas anularesde Brasil central.Espeefficamente,estas grandes
aldeas, ocupadas por grupos ceramistas-agricultores,han sido caracterizadascomo un desarrollo tardfo,marginaly anomalo
causado por la colonizacion europea.Los nuevos datos arqueologicos quepresentamosaquf demuestranque las aldeas anulares
tienenmuchomasprofundidadtemporal,originandoseen elperfodo prehispanico(alredorde 800d.C.) como una respuestalocal
a presiones internasy externas. Utilizamosdatos sobre patrones de asentamiento,las formas de las aldeas, y las diferencias en
la culturamateriala trave'sdel tiempopara ilustrarcambiossociopolfticosy demograficos,los cuales tienenimplicacionesimpor-
tantespara la arqueologfaamazonica.

In CentralBrazil, most sites from the ceramic ceramictraditions:Aratuand Uru. Ring villages of
periodarevillageswithresidentialunitsarranged other ceramictraditionsalso are known, including
in circular,elliptical,or semicircularrings.Their some ethnohistoricBororo (Wust 1990), Kayapo
layoutof one ormoreringsof houses,alwaysenclos- (Posey 1979), andUpperXingu villages (Becquelin
ing a central plaza, contrasts sharply with other 1993;Heckenberger1996;Simoes 1967).Today,the
smallerandcircularsites thathavea continuousdis- ring village layout is found among most Ge and
tributionof refuse.Archaeologically, ringvillagesare Bororogroupsof CentralBrazil.Althoughthereare
easily identified by the typical concentrationsof questionsaboutwhetherwe can establishcontinu-
ceramicmaterial,sometimesalso markedby darker ity between archaeological traditionsand ethno-
soils thatsurrounda large,empty area. graphicgroups,there is no doubt that this type of
Ring villages appearedin CentralBrazil by at village layouthas been maintainedin CentralBrazil
leastA.D. 800 andhavebeenclassifiedintotwo main forcenturiesandreflectsa particularpatternof social
Irmhild Wust * Museu Antropol6gico, Universidade Federal de Goias, Cx. Postal 131, Goiania, 74605-220, GO, Brazil.
Cristiana Barreto * Departmentof Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA, 15260.
LatinAmericanAntiquity,10(1), 1999, pp. 3-23
Copyright(C)1999 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
organization.Although each society has its own
peculiarset of institutionalarrangements,they all
sharethe traditionalvillage layout, reflectingtheir
view of the world and of themselves.They make a
sharpdistinctionbetweenthe forum,or centralcer-
emonialsphere(whichis conceptuallya maleplace),
and the houses, or the peripheral,domestic space
(which is conceptually female) (Maybury-Lewis
1979a:9).
This articlereviews archaeologicalinformation
availableon the ring villages of CentralBrazil and
contrastsit with ethnographicdata in orderto pre-
sentandinterpretsome of theirvariability.A central
argumentis thatthese settlementsrepresenta local
solutionto circumstantial,historicalfactorsin Cen-
tralBrazil,suchas suddendemographicchangesand
defenseneeds. Fromthis perspective,these villages
are neitheranomalous,marginalculturaldevelop-
ments,as arguedby some ethnographersin the past,
nor arethey derivedfrom otherareasas archaeolo-
gists often suggest.
The Ring Villages of Central Brazil:
Some Misconceived Ideas
For a long time, the ring villages of CentralBrazil
have been viewed as marginalto othertropicallow-
land cultures.More specifically,CentralBrazilian
native groupshave been persistentlycharacterized
as essentiallyhunter-gatherers, organizedintosmall,
egalitarian, seminomadic groups (Cooper 1942;
Haeckel 1952;Lowie 1949;Steward1946; Steward
and Faron1959;Wissler 1917).
Becausethe drierlandsof CentralBrazilseemed
to offer significantlylower potentialfor agriculture
thanthenutrient-rich landsof riverineAmazonia,this
area has been portrayed by ethnographers and
archaeologistsas a passivereceptacleof time-lagged
culturalinfluences (Carneiro1995; Lathrap1970;
Meggers 1972:162;Roosevelt l991a,1991c: 1624).
Accordingly,the establishmentof large,permanent
villagesandmoreelaboratesocialorganizationcould
only have occurred late in time, as an "import"
broughtto CentralBrazil throughmigrationsand
populationrearrangements promotedby the Euro-
pean conquest (Gross 1979; Steward and Faron
1959:362). Because of this depiction of Central
Braziliannative groups as a marginalculture,any
indicationof largercommunitiesand a more com-
plex social organizationwas takenas eithera para-
dox or an anomaly. Indeed, since Nimuendaju
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999
documentedtheir highly intricatesocial structures
andnumeroussocialinstitutions(Nimuendaju1939,
1942, 1946), CentralBraziliangroupsbecame the
focus of manyethnographicstudiesthatendeavored
to explain the paradoxof such social complexity
coupledwith a simple subsistencesystem and "low
levels of materialculture"(Levi-Strauss1973:263).
Despiteeffortsby theHarvardCentralBrazilpro-
ject to documentthe complexityof Ge and Bororo
socialinstitutionsandcounterthetraditionalview of
these societies as marginaland anomalous(May-
bury-Lewis1979a),a lack of historical(andprehis-
toric)dataled these scholarsto characterizeCentral
Braziliangroups as subsistingmainly on hunting,
fishing,andgathering,perfectlywell adaptedto a var-
ied and bountiful environment(Bamberger1967,
1971,1979b:302).Transforming previousparadoxes
into apparentconsistency,they emphasizednot real
ecological requirements,but such integrativeand
harmonizing social strategies as high residential
mobility and seasonaltrekkingin dispersedgroups
(Flowers 1983; Gross 1979, 1983; Maybury-Lewis
1967;Turner1979:150;Werner1983).
Following the lead of Harvard'sCentralBrazil
project,we also arguethatmarginalityandanomaly
areconceptsthatcanno longerexplainculturaldevel-
opment in the area. The archaeologicaldata pre-
sented here providea new diachronicview of ring
village emergenceand development.This new per-
spectivenotonlyclarifiespreviousethnographic puz-
zles and paradoxesbut also unmasksthe apparent
consistency suggested by the Harvardschool. We
arguethat the view of CentralBraziliangroups as
eternallysimple, seminomadichunter-gatherers is
butanethnographiccaricaturebuilton dataobtained
in situationswherecontactwithBraziliansocietyhad
alreadypromotedintense demographicreduction,
village dispersion,and territoryloss.l
A reviewof the archaeologicaldatarevealsthat,
first of all, precontactring villages were far more
numerous, populous, and diverse than the ones
describedin theethnographicliterature.Second,site
locations in diverse ecological settings show that
these settlementsshouldnot be seen exclusively as
an adaptationto the drierenvironmentsof Central
Brazil. Since agriculturewas introducedin the area
relativelyearly(apparentlyprecedingringvillages),
it cannotbe seen as the decisivefactorthatpromoted
the emergenceof these relativelylargesettlements.
Third,andmost contraryto the idea of marginality,
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL
the evidence suggests thatthese villages may have
emergedas a local solutionto particularhistorical
circumstances in Central Brazil. Specifically, it
appearsthatdemographicpressures,interactionwith
neighboringgroups,andneedsfordefensegenerated
the unique organizationaland cosmological struc-
turesstill observableamongGe- andBororo-speak-
ing groupstoday.Fourth,these settlementsseem to
have experienced increasing complexity in their
organization,both within and among villages, that
was differentfrom that recently describedfor the
riverineAmazonianchiefdoms (Porro 1994; Roo-
sevelt l991a, 1993, 1994; Whitehead1992, 1994).
Finally,the decline of some CentralBraziliansoci-
eties appearsto have startedwell before the Euro-
pean conquestandwas not necessarilycausedby it.
We believe that analyzing the ring villages of
CentralBrazil as a local developmentwithin their
own trajectory as opposed to an "import"from
moreadvancedareas-can providenew insightsfor
theoreticaldebatesandmodelsof socialevolutionin
the SouthAmericanlowlands.Such analysisshould
help unravelcurrentcontroversiesconcerninglong-
termchange and culturaldevelopmentin the Ama-
zon basin (Carneiro1995; Meggers 1992b, 1992c,
1995;Roosevelt l991a, l991b).
This articlepresentsa broad,regionalinterpreta-
tionof boththe emergenceanddevelopmentof Cen-
tralBrazilianringvillages.Aftera briefdescriptionof
the availablearchaeologicaldata,settlementpattern
variablesareexaminedto discussaspectsof socialand
politicalorganizationthroughtime and the implica-
tionsof thesevillagesforAmazonianarchaeology.
The Emergence and Continuity of
Ring Villages in Central Brazil
The emergence of ring villages seems to have
occurredsuddenlyandlate in the lengthyhistoryof
humanoccupationin CentralBrazil.We know that
generalizedhunter-gatherers fromtheItaparicalithic
traditionwere alreadypresentby ca.9,000 B.C. The
preceramicperiod is punctuatedby majortechno-
logical shiftsat around6,500 B.C., probablyreflect-
ing changesto a morehumidenvironment(Schmitz
1987:71).In the late preceramicperiod,still before
500 B.C., a settlement relocation occurred from
poorly drainedcerrado2hilltops to the richersoils
of forestecotones,indicatingthatsome kindof hor-
ticulturewas alreadyunderwaybefore the acquisi-
tion of ceramics(Wust 1992).
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
5
The first ceramics of Central Brazil appeared
around 500 B.C. and, despite great regional and
chronologicalvariability,havebeendescribedunder
one largeceramictradition,namedUna.Inthe states
of Goias andMatoGrosso,the Una traditionranges
from 500 B.C. to A.D. 1200 (Barbosaet al. 1982;
Schmitz1976-1977;Simonsenetal.1983-1984:122;
Wust1990).Unaceramicsappearalmostexclusively
in rockshelters,consisting mainly of undecorated,
small vessels with thin walls and dark(sometimes
also polished) surfacetreatments.Site locationand
meagerceramicdensities seem to indicatea fairly
nomadic settlement pattern.However, irrefutable
botanicalevidencefordomesticatedspeciesdatedat
850 B.C. (includingZea mays) is associatedwiththis
ceramictraditionin the stateof MinasGerais,indi-
cating a degreeof relianceon agriculturalproducts
(ResendeandProus1991:94).3Thisevidencerefutes
previoushypothesesthatattributed theemergenceof
largevillages in CentralBrazilto a lateintroduction
of agriculturalpractices,fosteredby postconquest
migrations.
The Una traditionnot only immediatelyprecedes
thelargeringvillagesof CentralBrazilbutalsoseems
to have temporallyoverlappedthem. Beginning at
A.D. 800, ring villages began to spread rapidly
throughoutCentralBrazil'sheartland,on theplateaus
between the Tocantins and the ParaguaiRivers.4
Meanwhile,thesmallgroupsassociatedwiththeUna
traditionseem to have remainedon the bordersof
plateausforanother400 years.Itis stillunclearto what
degreetheserelativelypristinelocalpopulationstook
partin the new social forrnationsrepresentedby the
ringvillages.Some mighthaveremainedin marginal
positionsalongthe bordersof plateaus;othersmight
havebeenincorporated intothe largeringvillages.In
anyevent,bothsettlementpatternsandculturalmate-
rials seem to indicatethat the ring villages did not
emergesolely fromthe smallgroupsof the Una tra-
dition;incomingpopulationsmayhavehadanimpor-
tantrole in the initialforrnationof ringvillages.
Furtherresearchis underwayto clanfy the key
factorsthatpromotedthe emergenceof ringvillages
in CentralBrazil (Barreto1996).Yet, given the rel-
atively sparse occupationof the landscapein pre-
ceding periods, it is clear that the appearanceof
numerouslargevillagesrepresenteda majorandsud-
den change.Thereis no evidenceof a gradualtrans-
formationfrom the previoussettlementpatterninto
the ring villages (Wust 1990).
6 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
Most explanationsfor the emergenceof ringvil-
lages depend on migratorymovementsemanating
from the Amazon basin (Gonzalez 1996a, 1996b;
Schmitz and Barbosa 1985). As knowledge about
dense and relativelycomplex Amazoniansocieties
increases(Roosevelt 1993), models of competition
overriverinelandsandpopulationpressurearecom-
patiblewithideasthatweakerandsmallerunitswere
pushedupstreamto less desirableterrafirme areas,
orevento thedrierlandsof CentralBrazil(Brochado
1984;Carneiro1995;Lathrap1970,1972).However,
two factors contradictsimplistic views of Central
Brazilian ring villages as settlements of migrant
Amazonianpopulations.First, we lack direct evi-
dencefor migrations(as confirmationof any migra-
tion model usually requires), and there is no
indicationthatpopulationpressureat the tributaries
of the Amazon prompteddemographicmovements
into CentralBrazil.Furtherresearchin the interme-
diateareasbetweentheAmazonianfloodplainsand
CentralBrazil will be crucialto evaluatethis ques-
tion.
Secondly,andperhapsevenmoreproblematicfor
those who arguefor Amazonianorigins, is the fact
thatCentralBrazilianringvillagesdisplaya verydis-
tinct patternof village organization.This distinct
pattern,in additionto language,social systems,and
mythology,has allowedscholarsto describea unique
CentralBrazilian"cosmos"and to treatthe Ge and
Bororo as a single universe (Gross 1979; Levi-
Strauss1973 [1952];Maybury-Lewis1965,1979b;
Steward1946;Turner1979). Furthermore, with the
exceptionof isolatedsimilaritieswith select Marajo
Island sites (Roosevelt l991a:37, 192), Central
BrazilianvillagesarequitedifferentfrommostAma-
zonian settlements.The latterusually displayoval-
shaped,continuousblackearthrefuseareasas a result
of a few dispersedlong houses (Correa1987;Myers
1973). In sum,if we areto considerthe ringvillages
of Central Brazil as an Amazonian import, why
would they differ so much fromAmazoniansettle-
ments?
Instead, archaeologicalevidence points to the
emergenceof ring villages as a largelylocal devel-
opment. Their rapid and sudden onset, their large
size, and the concentricring layout suggests that
otherpressuresin the areapromoteda rapidorgani-
zationof populationinto largerandmore structured
communities.These new settlementarrangements
could have ensuredboth protectionand the distrib-
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 10, No. 1,1999
ution of resourcesto largergroups.The natureof
pressurespromotingthese changesare still unclear,
buttheydo seem relatedto some in-migration,inter-
actionwithneighboringgroups(especiallyTupians),
and warfare.Both the presenceof Tupianmaterials
throughoutthe area and the defensive structures
found at sites locatedin borderingareassuch as the
UpperXingu also point in this direction.
Duringtheinitialperiodof establishment, Uruand
Araturingvillages were contemporary, butfromthe
twelfth centuryonward,the expansionof Uru set-
tlementsfromMatoGrossoeastwardsseemsto have
contributedto the collapseof Aratuvillages.The lat-
est reliabledateforanAratuvillage is A.D.1470 and
thereforepriorto theconquest(Mello 1996:268,Fig-
ure 57).
Because we lack convincingevidence of conti-
nuitybetweenthe archaeological,ethnographic,and
ethnohistoricrecords,we cannotadvocatethe sim-
plistic projectionof ceramicphasesto ethnographi-
cally knowngroupsas has been suggestedby some
scholars(Schmitz et al. 1982; for instance).Some
sites from the Uru traditionin Goiass and Upper
Xingudo continueintohistorictimes.However,there
seems to be no direct correlationbetween these
ceramictraditionsandspecificethnicgroups6,as has
been suggestedfor the Xingu areawhere different
linguisticandethnicgroupsstill obtaintheirceram-
ics throughexchangewithjust one particulargroup,
the Waura(Heckenberger1996). Furthermore,at
least some of the ethnographicallyknown native
groupshave formedonly recently,throughcomplex
processesof ethnicandculturalfusion(Urban1992;
Wust 1994).
Nature of Empirical Data
Although24 yearsof archaeologicalresearchin Cen-
tral Brazil (states of Goias, Tocantins, and Mato
Grosso; see Figure 1) has provideda considerable
amount of informationabout precolonial agricul-
turalsocieties,interpretation
of culturaldevelopment
andthe dynamicsof these societiesis still hampered
by the lack of appropriatedata. Informationabout
village plans,settlementpattern,andintersitevaria-
tion of materialcultureis particularlymeager.Fur-
thermore,large areasstill remainunsurveyed,such
as the intermediate zones between Amazonian
drainagesandthe plateausof CentralBrazilthatare
so crucialto verifyhypothesesof culturalexchange,
diffusion,andmigration.Researchhas focusedpre-
 jJ-

Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL

tA YAPO
X/CR/AJ

c s-

, -A
MATO

0 iO0 200 00 Km

* . Archaeologicalprovinces
v .... *

State frontiers
1 and 2: Systematic survey
FU%of,y%Z<Ay/t]

XAVANTE Indigenous groups (Table 3 )

Ring villages (Tables 1 and2)
Cities

Figure1. Map of CentralBrazilshowinglocationof archaeologicalring villagesand presentindigenousgroups.

dominantlyon the establishmentof chronological
sequencesand the assignmentof ceramictaditions
andphases which often areunreliabledue to a lack
of samplingstategies at both the regionaland site
level (Barbosaet al. 1982;Chmyz 1975; Mendonc,a
de Sousa 1981 Schmitzet al. 1982; Simonsenet al.
1983-1984).
Nearly 600 open-air ceramic sites are known
across the broadregion. Of these, 158 sites can be
securelyclassifiedas ringvillages,butdatesareavail-

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 1,1999

Table 1. Dates Reported for the Ring Villages of Central Brazil

Ceramic Date Laboratory

Site Traditions (uncalibrated) Number References
GO-CA-01 Aratu (Tupigurani) 895 + 90 BP SI-2195 Schmitz 1976-1977:8
GO-CA-11 Aratu 480 + 50 BP BETA-92530 Mello 1996:268
GO-CP-02 Aratu 1070 + 105 BP SI-2771 Schmitz 1976-1977:8
1140 + 90 BP SI-2770
GO-JU-04 Aratu 960 + 75 BP SI-2768 Schmitz 1976-1977:8
GO-NI-28 Uru 680 + 90 BP SI-2766 Schmitz 1976-1977:9
GO-NI-35 Uru 530 + 90 BP SI-2765 Schmitz 1976-1977:9
GO-RV-02 Aratu 980 + 110 BP GAK-7265 Andreatta1988:155
1090 + 110 BP GAK-7266
1120 + 90 PB GAK-7264
GO-RV-13 Aratu 775 + 60 BP TL-USP Andreatta1988:155
MT-SL-03 Uru (Tupiguarani) 1090 + 60 BP N-5113 Wust 1990:374,528
MT-SL-04b Uru 700 + 70 BP BETA-27426 Wust 1990:374, 529
MT-SL-11 Uru and Bororo 230 + 70 BP BETA-27427 Wust 1990:374, 528
MT-SL-29 Uru 1150 + 65 BP N- 5114 Wust 1990:374, 529
MT-SL-43 Uru 950 + 60 BP BETA-27429 Wust 1990:374
MT-SL-51 Uru 590 + 60 BP BETA-27432 Wust 1990:374, 529
MT-SL-61 Uru 780 + 70 BP BETA-31030 Wust 1990:374
MT-AX-01 UpperXingu 830 + 90 BP SI-716 Simoes 1972:30
MT-AX-02 UpperXingu 830 + 75 BP SI-713 Simoes 1972:30
MT-AX-08 UpperXingu 920 + 90 BP GIF-3308 Becquelin 1993:228
MT-FX-06 Upper Xingu 180 + 60 BP BETA-72260 Heckenberger 1996:32
360 + 70 BP BETA-81301
700 + 70 BP BETA-78979
1000 + 70 BP BETA-72261
MT-FX-07 UpperXingu 680 + 70 BP GIF-5365 Becquelin 1993:226-228
MT-FX-11 Upper Xingu 440 + 70 BP BETA-72263 Heckenberger1996:32
900 + 60 BP BETA-72262
MT-FX-12 Upper Xingu 190 + 60 BP BETA-72264 Heckenberger 1996:32
Note: Traditionslisted in parenthesisindicate intrusive ceramics

able for only 22 sites (listedin Table 1), and details
of sitemorphologyareknownforonly48 sites(listed
in Table2). Another16 villages along the Paraguai
andAraguaiaRiversdisplaya linearlayoutandmay
be relatedto thenng-villageculture,especiallythose
alongtheAraguaiaRiver(AruanaphaseandUrutra-
dition)thatappearca. A.D. 1200 (as pointedout by
Petesh[1993])7.In additionto the villages,we know
of 34 limitedactivitysites and 81 rock sheltersthat
were occupiedby these ceramicgroups.8Figures 1,
2, and3 show the locationof nng villages for which
eitherthe chronologyor detailedplans areavailable
(listed in Tables 1 and 2).
According to their geographicdistributionand
associated ceramics, the ring villages of Central
Brazilhave been assignedto two main ceramictra-
ditions,AratuandUru, which include70 percentof
all known ceramicsites between the Tocantinsand
theParaguaiRivers.WhereastheAratutraditionsup-
posedly originates from northeasternBrazil (the
heartlandof Macro-Ge),the Uru and UpperXingu
complexesarebelievedto have an Amazoniangen-
esis (Gonzalez1996a;Heckenberger1996;Schmitz
andBarbosa1985; Schmitzet al. 1982).
Aratu villages range from ca. A.D.800 tolS00
(Table 1) and occurpredominantlyalong the head-
watersand smallertributariesof the Tocantinsand
ParanaibaRivers.In additionto huntingandgather-
ing, andto a lesser degreefishing,the mainagricul-
tural productsincluded corn and perhaps several
kinds of potatoes.
The characteristicvessels of the Aratutradition
arelargeconicalcontainers(sometimesusedfor sec-
ondaryurn burial)and globularand semiglobular
potswithdirectandevertednms. Smalldoublebowls
andcastelationalso occur,butareless frequent.Dec-
orationis employedselectivelyandis restrictedto a
few small nubbins(lumps),modeled handles,sim-
ple- anddouble-lineincisionsabovetherim,andfin-
gernailimprints.Red orblack slip also is rare.Some

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL 9

Table 2. Reported Sizes of Archaeological Ring Villages of CentralBrazil.

Maximum Minimum Site Area

Ceramic Diameter Diameter (in square
Site Tradition (in meters) (in meters) meters) Reference
GO-CA-01 Aratu (Tupigurani) 16,800 Chmyz 1975:50-53
GO-CA-11 Aratu 100 80 6,283 Mello 1996: Fig. 57
GO-CA-20 Aratu sso 500 235,000 Mello 1996:Table5, Fig. 35
GO-CP-11 Aratu 270 235 49,834 Schmitz et al. 1986:83
GO-CP-12 Aratu 300 222 52,308 Schmitz et al. 1986:85
GO-CP-59 Aratu 150 150 17,761 Ribeiro, ed. 1988
GO-JU-07 Uru 180 145 20,499 Schmitz et al. 1982:142
GO-JU-16 Uru 145 115 13,097 Schmitz et al. 1982:142
GO-JU-27 Uru 460 320 115,611 Schmitz et al. 1982:142
GO-JU-35 Uru 280 160 35,186 Schmitz et al. 1982:200
GO-JU-36 Aratu (Tupiguarani) 300 150 35,343 Schmitz et al. 1982:68
GO-JU-42 Uru 190 160 23,876 Schmitz et al. 1982:200
GO-NI-24 Aratu 140 120 13,195 Schmitz et al. 1982:68
GO-NI-80 Aratu (Tupiguarani) 160 70 8,796 Robrahn 1990:50
GO-NI-83 Uru 187 187 27,465 Robrahn 1990: Fig. 8
GO-NI-100 Uru 240 200 37,699 Wust and Carvalho 1996:51
GO-PA-21 Uru 20,000 Mendon,cade Souza 1981
GO-RV-02 Aratu 360 264 74,644 Andreatta1982:11
GO-RV-06 Aratu (Uru) 400 360 113,097 Schmitz et al. 1982:68
GO-RV-13 Aratu 300 200 47,124 SPHAN 1980
GO-RV-17 Aratu 262 218 44,858 Wust 1983 Vol II:19
GO-RV-21 Aratu 217- 210 35,790 Wust 1983 Vol II:30
GO-RV-27 Aratu 389 273 83,407 Wust 1983 Vol II:44
GO-RV-31 Aratu 155 136 16,566 Wust 1983 Vol II:54
GO-RV-33 Aratu (Uru) 238 196 36,637 Wust 1983 Vol II:61
GO-RV-35 Aratu 287 240 54,098 Wust 1983 Vol II:69
GO-RV-41 Aratu 364 273 78,074 Wust 1983 Vol II:84
GO-RV-43 Aratu 567 385 171,449 Wust 1983 Vol II:89
GO-RV-46 Aratu 392 332 99,136 Wust 1983 Vol II:97
GO-RV-57 Aratu 322 259 65,501 Wust 1983 Vol II:128
GO-RV-60 Aratu 378 329 97,674 Wust 1983 Vol II:138
GO-RV-61 Aratu 560 420 184,726 Wust 1983 Vol II:143
GO-RV-62 Aratu 434 364 124,074 Wust 1983 Vol II:146
GO-RV-66 Aratu (Uru) 404 325 103,123 Wust 1983 Vol II:156
GO-RV-78 Aratu 329 263 67,958 Wust 1983 Vol II:194
MT-GA-32 Uru 160 160 20,106 Gonzalez 1996a: Appendix 2
MT-GA-46 Uru 300 200 47,124 Gonzalez 1996a: Appendix 2
MT-RN-20 Uru 310 230 59,611 Wust 1990:529
MT-RN-26 Uru 175 157 21,579 Wust 1990:529
MT-RN-32 Uru 380 320 95,504 Wust 1990:529
MT-RN-46 Uru 240 170 32,044 Wust 1990:529
MT-RN-48 Uru 310 270 65,738 Wust 1990:529
MT-SL-23 Uru 165 145 18,791 Wust 1990:529
MT-SL-24 Uru 250 210 41,233 Wust 1990:529
MT-SL-36 Uru 120 105 9,896 Wust 1990:529
MT-SL-51 Uru 110 95 8,207 Wust 1990:374, 529
MT-FX-06 Upper Xingu 1500 800 942,000 Heckenberger 1996:32
MT-FX-ll Upper Xingu 1200 800 800,700 Heckenberger1996:32
Note: Traditionsin parenthesisindicate intrusive ceramics. Site areas in bold are reportedin the literature;others were calcu-
lated according to different measurementsreported.

of the roundbases show leaf imprintsand sievelike cm to 1.5 cm at older sites, in the latersites cariape
perforations.Whereasmineraltemperis predomi- temper(ashes of a siliceous wood) is more popular
nant and ceramicwall thicknessvanes between .5 andwall thicknesscan reachup to 3 cm (Schmitzet

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 1,1999
10

16° 16'
16° 16'

\ , t 4 , , , x } - I6°30'
30'
16° N 50°00'
4 L
* Ring villoges (Tables I and 2) e S
O______ S IOKnm
O Other ring villoges
-

Figure 2. Survey area No. 1 (Central Goias)

al. 1982).Tubularclay pipes anda varietyof undec-
oratedspindle whorls also are associatedwith this
ceramictradition.
Villages of the Uru tradition(fromca. A.D. 800
to 1700, see Table 1) andthe UpperXingu ceramic
complexes(fromca. A.D. 950 untilpresent)are sit-
uatedmoreto the west, wheremaniocseems to have
been the basic staplefood, as suggestedby the pres-
ence of largegriddles.Othertypicalvessels arelarge-
neckedjars and shallow flat-bottomedbowls with
evertedandthickenedrims.Cylindricalstamps,con-
ical supports,and spindlewhorlsalso arecommon.
The most frequentclay temperis a kind of cariape
(ashes of Physocalymma Iythracea)(Wust 1975),
andwall thicknessvariesbetween 1 cm and2.5 cm.
Plasticdecorationis relativelyrareandlimitedto dif-
ferentkindsof handlesandlugs, in additionto punc-
tuated circularor elliptical incisions on the rims
(Schmitzet al. 1986;Wust andCarvalho1996).
A thirdgroupof villagesis representedin Central
Brazilby the relativelyfew sites of the polychrome
Tupiguarani ceramictradition,whichappearedin e
fourteenthcentuIy (Fensterseiferand Schmitz1975).
Unlike the ring villages, these settlementsconsist
mainlyof multifamilyresidentialunits(longhouses).
While sites of this ceramictraditionare quiteabun-

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL 11

Figure3. Surveyarea No. 2 (RioVermelho,Mato Grosso).

dantin manyregionsof Brazil(Brochado1984),they Exploring Settlement Pattern Variables:

are rare and dispersedthroughoutCentralBrazil.
Giventhe existenceof Tupiguaranisites andmateri-
als of this traditionat ring villages, it appearsthat
Tupiangroupsmusthavemaintainedsocialrelations
with the ringvillages of AratuandUrutraditions,at
least to a minimumdegree.
The interpretationspresentedin this article are
basedpredominantly on datagatheredfromtwo areas
fully surveyed in central Goias and southeastern
Mato Grosso (indicatedas 1 and 2, respectively,in
Figure 1). In these two areas,30 nng villages were
recorded with complete village plans. In central
Goias (Figure2), an areaof 30 km2included 15 of
these sites, out of a total of 67 habitation sites.
Another15 sites mentionedhere were foundin five
surveyedareasof 20 km by 15 km each in the upper
Rio Vermelhoregion of Mato Grosso (Figure 3),
where a total of 111 ceramic open-air sites were
recorded(Wust 1983, 1990).9
Implications for Reconstructing Sociopolitical
Organization
AlthoughmostCentralBrazilianvillagessharea cir-
cular communityplan, thereis considerablevaria-
tion in other aspects of the settlement pattern.
Exploratoryanalysisof thisvariationhascontributed
to ourunderstandingof how these societiesevolved
and functioned,especially when we compareand
contrastethnographicand archaeologicalsources.
The following sections brieflyreview village loca-
tion andpermanence,village layoutandculturaltra-
ditions,villagesize andpopulationestimates,village
layoutandsocialorganization,andvillagehierarchy
and social complexity.
VillageLocationandPermanence
CentralBrazil is frequentlyassociatedwith a phy-
togeographyof cerradosandopengrasslands,some-

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 : | v\v st. : v
12 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
4^t1S>_
t/; - >-->Frw=
SslorrXULc-=
+t - > - ; s}/
Figure 4. Plan of a Krah6 village (redrawn from Melatti 1986:74).
times criss-crossedby gallery forests. However,a
closer look at the vegetation shows that there are
considerableextensions of semideciduousforests
wheresoils arericherandmoister.Ourdataindicate
clearpreferencesfor theestablishmentof villages in
more vegetated and forested areas. Yet, whereas
nearly 80 percentof the Aratuvillages (thoughtto
rely on corn) are found in forestedzones, about50
percentof the Uruvillages (thoughtto rely on man-
ioc) are in cerradoor ecotone zones between cer-
radoand forest. This contrastmost likely reflects
basic differencesin staplefoods, since cornrequires
greatersoil fertilitythanmanioc.However,in theRio
Vermelhobasinin MatoGrosso,the oldestUrusites
are establishedin cerrado,whereas the later ones
show preferencefor galleryforest.This changemay
reflect the need to increaseproteinresources(corn
and fish) in response to demographicgrowth and
circumscription(Wust 1990:418-419).
Althoughrefuse at most sites does not exceed a
depthof 30 cm, indicating relativelyshortvillage
durations,a highersite densityin forestedareas(up
to 1 village per 14 km2) mightindicatea higherrate
of site relocationin this zone (Wust 1983). In gen-
eral,relocationof villagesappearsto occurovershort
distances,sometimesnot exceedingmorethan 1 km
(resultingin frequentoverlappingof sites).However,
site catchmentanalysishas shown (Wust 1983) that
even for largecommunitiesfrequentsite relocation
does not seem relatedto soil depletion(as suggested
by Meggers 1971). Instead,factorssuch as the rot-
tingof houses,frequentdeaths,internaldisputes,war-
fare,and sanitaryconditionsaremorelikely to have
promotedvillage abandonment,as suggestedin the
ethnographicliterature(Gross 1983).
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
\> ;+ - ;; E -R; <fl-w;
[Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999
t-nfF - -Er
-Xw!tta- ;s \-<>;ttta m-
00S - -- o w\- \ ; g-
Ethnographicstudiesof the Bororoindicatethat
villages with morethanone housering occurdue to
householdsplittingandinternalgrowthas daughters
marry,move out, andbuildnew housesbehindtheir
mothers'houses (Viertler1976:161). Therefore,the
presenceof two or even threehouse ringsin approx-
imately10percentof thearchaeologicalvillagesand
depthof refuseoccasionallyreaching60 cm areprob-
ableindicatorsof a longersiteduration atleasttwo
generations.
VillageLayoutand CulturalTraditions
Based on ethnographicsources,at least threediffer-
enttypes of village layoutcanbe distinguished.The
first has many relativelysmall houses arrangedat
some distancefrom each other,as documentedfor
the Kraho(Ladeira1983) (e.g., Figure4). Inthe sec-
ond type, the distancebetweenthese kinds of small
housesis muchreduced,as it is fortheXavante(Fig-
ure5); the housesoftenforma completering,as can
be observed for the Kayapo, Bororo, and some
Xavantevillages(GiaccariaandHeide 1972;Novaes
1983;Silva 1983;Vidal1983)(Figure6). A thirdpat-
terncontrastswith the firsttwo, in thata few large,
multifamily houses are closely packed together
enclosing a circulararea;this layout is common in
the UpperXingu region(Sa 1983) (Figure7). Mul-
tiple rings of houses are found only in the two first
patterns.Centralhuts (men's club houses), which
seem fairly common in the Upper Xingu villages,
appearonly occasionallyin the second patternand
neverin the first.
The archaeologicalrecordof ring villages also
revealsvariationin village layout,but of a different
nature.Houses can be arrangedin a circle, ellipse,
Wust and Barreto] RING VILLAGES IN CENTRAL BRAZIL 13

Figure 5. Plan of a Xavante village (redrawn from Mellati 1986:77).

orhorseshoeplanwithor withouta centralstructure. social divisions in the village, differencesfound in

Variationoccurs mainly in the numberof houses
(between 5 and 90), arrangedin one, two, or even
three concentricrings. In the Aratuand Uru tradi-
tions,ceramicscatters(evenon the surface)areoften
delimitedby darkersoils, stratigraphically
associated
withpits andstructuredhearthsthathavebeen inter-
pretedas housefloors (Andreatta1982;Wust 1983).
In contrast,UpperXingu residentialareasare kept
clean, andrefuseis accumulatedbehindthe houses,
forming a nearly continuousand slightly elevated
ring (Agostinho 1993; Heckenberger1996).
Because CentralBrazilian village layout often
has been interpretedas the spatialrepresentationof
boththeethnographicandarchaeologicalrecordalso
could indicatevariationin social organization.The
data gatheredso far also seem to indicateregional
differencesin suchvillage organizationpatterns,the
clearestonebeingbetweentheUpperXinguareaand
the core areaof CentralBrazil.
Village Size and PopulationEstimates
It is now clear that archaeologicalvillages in Cen-
tralBrazilcanbe surprisinglylargein size, a factthat
challenges the belief that low agriculturalproduc-
tivity and proteinavailabilityin the tropicalSouth
Americanlowlandshave placedrelativelylow ceil-

4' ) -x
bs-ruX;-SkryLS
:e. .-

r g -Zf

- 0 S

: :-D

Figure 6. Plan of a Bororo village (redrawn from Novaes 1983:58).

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
''tt1' ]'.[5}' ''
1Xli jV dt1f,,,s,liR
Figure7. Plan of an UpperXinguvillage (redrawnfrom Mellati1986:75).
ings on the maximumsize of tribalvillages (Gross
1975; Lathrap1968; Meggers 1954, but see Beck-
erman 1991; Carneiro 1961, 1983; Myers 1992).
Both site size and the numberof houses provide a
basis for initial demographicestimates.Maximum
diametersof AratuandUruringvillages rangefrom
100 m to 560 m (see Table2), with a meanof about
290 m for Aratu sites (n = 26) and 230 m for Uru
sites (n = 18).Thesedimensionscorrespondto areas
of .8 ha to 23.5 ha (see Table2); the mean for Uru
villages is 3.8 ha (n = 19) andforAratuvillages 7.2
ha (n = 27). This strongcontrastbetweenthe village
size of these two ceramictraditionsmay reflectpop-
ulation reductiondue to Europeancontact (espe-
cially in the laterUru sites) anddoes not necessarily
implypopulationlimitationdueto diffSerences in sta-
ple food and ecological settings.The same can be
said for the still fragmentarydata on house floor
dimensions that also indicate diffSerences between
these two traditions.In Aratuvillages, mean house
floor size is 106 m2;most Uruvillages houses were
smaller,around60 m2(Wust 1983, 1990).
Because we do not knowif all houseswere occu-
pied contemporaneously,demographic estimates
basedon thenumberof houses alonecanbe inflated.
Althoughit is difficultto establishcontemporaneity
in otherkinds of settlements,in ring villages most
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
. . . . . r
[Vol. 10, No. 1, 1999
} l'}! 010n\10\5N t \
/t .,. ,..\tt,* W"pH"'
houses belongingto the sameringarelikely to have
been occupied simultaneously.l°Furthermore,the
totalnumberof houses can providea tentativemax-
imum estimate.
The first demographicparametersobtainedfor
Aratusitesin CentralGoiaswerecalculatedusingthe
forrnulasof Naroll (1962) anclCasselbeny (1974).
For the smallestsite, GO-RV-31( Figure8), with a
diameterof 155m and 11 houses,themaximumesti-
matedpopulationis 145 to 242 individuals.Site GO-
RV-66(Figure9) with a maximumdiameterof 404
m, two concentricrings,and90 houses, has an esti-
matedmaximumpopulationbetween1,043and1,738
persons(Wust 1983:258-259).
Etlno llstorlcc atacontlrmt zep ausl91..ltyot sucn
large numbers.For instance,we know that a nine-
teenth-centuryApinaye villagecontained1,400peo-
ple (Nimuendaju1939). A Bororovillage from the
sameperiodthatincludedthreeconcentricringshad
a total of 140 houses (RondonandFaria1948) and
an estimatedpopulationof more than 1,000 people
(Wust 1990:110-113).
As we are dealing with an occupationalpattern
thatenduredfor nearlyone thousandyears,we have
to considerwhetherdifferencesin site size havetem-
poral slgnlficanceor slmply representresponsesto
. . .
circumstantialepisodesof villagefission andfusion.
 Sl

Wust and Barretol RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL 15

w 184m
CORREGO DA R EVOLTA

C D

E r

F r

R IE3EIR AO
SAO MANUEL 5
H 2
464m 2

I -
J

CORREGO ANONIIMO

30 Om x ,_¢

GO- RV- 31
N
0 20 40 60 80 100 m
s L | L I w

Figure8. Plan of site GO-RV-31(redrawnfromWust 1983II:156).

Relativechronologyandethnohistorical informationities thattakeplacebothin the centralpatioandout-
show a trend of village size reduction,especially side the village. However,ethnographicdatado not
duringthe contactperiod (see Table3, Wust 1983, supportthis idea of social equality.First,there are
1990).However,someprecontactsitesalso aresmall privilegedplaces along the circle. Some arerelated
(Mello 1996), especiallywhen locatedon elevated, to supernatural conceptsof life anddeathrepresented
defendablehilltops(Wust1990).Otherwarfarecon- by thepathof the sundividingthe village into north-
texts,however,seemto havepromotedlargervillages ern and southernparts(as seen amongthe Xerente,
throughthe fusion of smallercommunities,as sug- Maybury-Lewis1981). Also, the ends of the semi-
gested by the large fortified villages found in thecircles of a Bororovillage areoften occupiedby the
UpperXingu region (Heckenberger1996). chief's houses,whereceremonialpathslead outside
the village.Anotherexampleof unequalpositioning
VillageLayoutand Social Organization
of houses relatesto feastingactivitiesthatgenerally
Therehas been a tendencyto view the typicalCen- occurin frontof thecentralmen'sclubhouse;houses
tralBrazilianspatialarrangementof houses as evi- behind it are in a less privilegedposition (Viertler
dence for social equality(Gross 1979;Levi-Strauss 1989:55).
1963:138). The equidistantplacement of houses Archaeologically,it remainsto be demonstrated
alongthecircleallowseachhouse,atleastin theinner whetherthese spatialarrangements(and associated
ring,the samevisualandacousticaccess to all activ- implicationsfor prestigeand social power)also can

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 1,1999
16

Figure9. Plan of site GO-RV-66(redrawnfrom Wust 1983II:54).

be seen in the distributionof nonperishableremains.
Nonetheless,archaeologicalintrasitespatialanaly-
sis has served to question prior emphasis on the
homogeneityof refuse.A basic key for understand-
ing theinnerdynamicsof thesesocietiesis the diver-
sity of materialcultureat the site level. Forexample,
in one of theUruvillagesof RioVermelho(MT-RN-
32), variabilityof ceramicvessel typesamonghouse-
holds suggests that division of labor existed along
lines beyond age and sex. Activities relatedto the
transformationof manioc into flour and breadwas
clearlylimitedto only some of the residentialunits.
Furthermore, some exotic ceramicsweredistributed
unevenlybetweenhouses (Wust 1990)1l.In another
Uruvillage in Goias (GO-NI-100),an even stronger
difference in material culture was found across
householdunits. Only a few householdsappearto
haveproduceda surplus,andsome differentiationin
lithic productionanduse also was noted (Wustand
Carvalho1996).
VillageHierarchyandSocialComplexity
Despite some ethnographicinforrnationthatseveral
villages hadbeen subordinatedto one leader,as was
the case for the Bororoin the first half of this cen-
tury(Viertler1989), archaeologicalevidenceforthe
incipient centralizationof power or even interre-
gionalintegrationof villagesremainsweak.Site size
variation through time does not show any trend
towardsa bimodaldistributionof sefflementsize that
couldindicatestrongcentralization of power.Instead,
differencesandcontinuousgradationsin village size
seem to suggest ratherfluid and occasionalhierar-
chiesamongsitesof thesamesettlementsystem.lNhis
patternis quitedistinctfromthose found,for exam-
ple, in FormativeMesoamerica,where the central
place can exceed by more than nine times the size
of second ordersites, and by 45 times the smallest
sites (Marcus1976). Site hierarchyin CentralBrazil
is definitelyof anothernature.

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL 17

Table 3. ReportedPopulation and Village Size of EthnographicGe Speaking Groups (Upper Xingu Area Excluded)

Ethnographic Village No. of Max Min Total

Group Year Name Population Houses Diam m Diam m Area m2 Reference
Bororo 1936 Kejari 150 26 144 136 15,373 Levi-Strauss 1970:210-211
Bororo 1983 Tadarimana 55 11 110 105 9,067 Wust 1994: 326
Kayapo- 1962 Rio Caitete 164 12 85 65 4,337 Frikel 1968: 9-19, 88; Vidal
Xicrin 1977: 200
Krah6 1962 Aldeia do Posto 169 20 144 144 16,278 Melatti 1978: 32-33, 28
Krah6 1962 Pedra Branca 50 8 178 178 24,872 Melatti 1978: 32-33, 28
Krah6 1963 Boa Uniao 109 12 184 184 26,577 Melatti 1978: 32-33, 28
Krah6 1962 Abobora 58 8 184 184 26,577 Melatti 1978: 32-33, 28
Krah6 1963 Aldeia do Posto 169 20 204 204 32,669 Melatti 1978: 32-33, 28
Kre/ 1930 Gameleira do 8 50 50 1,962 Nimuendaju 1976:49
Pumkateye Rumo
Ramkokamekra1930 Aldeia do Posto 31 300 300 70,650 Nimuendaju 1976:44
Canela
Xavante prior to Lagoa 77 11 93 31 2,263 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972
Xavante priorto Sao Domingos 195 13 89 46 3,214 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972
Xavante priorto Areoes 191 20 207 45 7,312 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972
Xavante priorto Batovi 275 30 158 158 19,597 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972
Xavante 1953 Parawadzaradze 22 268 152 31,978 Giaccaria and Heide 1972:41
Xavante 1984 Pimentel Barbosa 279 23 263 160 33,033 Wust 1984
Xavante priorto Sao Marcos 798 54 278 215 46,919 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972
Xavante 1981 Sao Marcos 600 53 250 246 48,278 Sa 1983:131-142
Xavante prior to Sangradouro 367 33 305 264 63,208 Giaccaria and Heide 1972
1972

Thereis a positivecorrelationbetweensitesizeand No correlationwasfoundbetweenvillagesize and

the amount of exotic materials,at leastfor the sites of village locationin relationto the environment.Vil-
the Rio Vermelho area.These exotic materials come lage size cannotbe explainedby ecological setting
from quitedistant areas,
likethefew cautri-temperedl2 (either the richnessof resourcesor the difficultyof
sherds brought from 200 km away (Wust 1990:250). clearing). These datacontradictMyers'hypothesis,
The loose site hierarchiesrevealedby differencesin which predictsthat smaller settlementsshould be
site sizes also could reflectdifferentialparticipation located in more forested areas while largersettle-
in regionalexchangenetworksof goods,information, ments should be situatedin the cerrados,mainly
andpossiblyof people,too. Therefore,furtherinves- because of difficulties involved in forest clearing
tigationconcerningprocessesof increasingsocialcom- (Myers 1973:244). Differences in village size and
plexityinCentralBrazilhastoconsidernotonlyvillage presumed site hierarchiesalso seem unrelatedto
size andthe numberand arrangement of houses,but resourcerichness within each environmentalzone
especiaSlythe flow of informationandgoods.l3 (beit cerradoorforest),in contrastto Chernela'sdata
Anotherimportantindicatorof villagehierarchies for the Uaupes region in northwesternAmazonia
can be seen in thepresenceof a men'sclub house,as where settlementhierarchiesdirectlycorrelatewith
suggestedby Meggers(1971). The presenceof this resourceabundance(Chernela1986).
centralbuildingmay indicatemore formalrelation-
shipswithoutsiders,a clearerdivisionbetweensexes, Regional Dynamics
anda moreelaboratedrituallife.l4Archaeological vis- The archaeologicalliteraturefor CentralBrazilhas
ibilityof thisbuildingis very subtle,andonly in few systematicallyemphasized relativestabilityamong
of the Uru andAratusites has this featurebeen rec- groups,evenwhenclose interactionof differentsoci-
ognized(Wust 1983, 1990). eties hasbeen recognized.Yetwe knowof at least24

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 3

LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY lVol. 10, No. 1, 1999

18

45 --

40 - O Ethnographic
OUru
35 -
* Aratu
m

30 - -*ev-*Zoe
* bebev>L
*t
. .'.,. ::.

. ..
....

@se-> ....
,., ,:

25 - :*:e:4

e Mi
be*eb**e
.
...
.,'.,:

o/o
eve
....
20 - ag :-.

. .,.-,':::
I
L
:::-;:
:-:
**..:f
......::
*.: w
;.--
.ee:W

15 - -s
s.*:"-4
b11*s

:ss:-*.ep
;,...

,..
. :*r:X
b..,
w.s. ( : ,.
10 - *ew..^

::::::w

*P::
. ,..':,'
......
o. _
.. .

ws
ses 9

I l
:: --
...s.
5-

l
- -
*.t.bs
oe:-sw
I i.-. [
swes.
I :.-. [ *>ewr
l
::::--
e::*:
I ::,.>
s.s.s
-
u -
lI
:.'..'.N
;
-

s
*
I *:-s-:

w-::**-
@ .
o=ffi-s
-. -
l l

<1 1.1-3 s ;
3.1-5 5.1-7 7.1-9 9.1- 11.1- 13.1- 15.1- 17.1- >19
15 17 19 ha
Figure10. Comparedsize of archaeologicaland ethnographicring villages.

ring villages (i.e., 15 percentof knownsites) where Finally,althoughnot responsiblefor the decline
two ormoredistinctceramictraditionsappearto have of circularvillages, directandindirectcontactwith
co-occurred.The relationsbetween culturallydis- Europeanscaused significantchange among these
tinctsocietiesin thisregionappearto havebeenmore nativesocieties,especiallyin termsof populationand
dynamicthanpreviouslybelieved.However,a lack territory.
A comparisonof theethnographicdatawith
of bothcontextualdataand systematicregionalsur- thearchaeologicalevidencerevealsconsiderabledis-
veys in mostpartsof thisregionimpedesa betterdef- parityin village size. Nearly63 percentof all known
initionof the natureof such intergroupinteractions. ethnographicring villages (for which dimensions
Fromthe fourteenthcenturyon, CentralBrazil- havebeen published,see Table3) aresmallerthan3
ian communitiesexperiencedstrongexternalpres- ha, andnone arelargerthan7.1 ha (n = 19). In con-
sures. These forces have been identified by trast,only 35 percentof the archaeologicalring vil-
fortificationsin theUpperXinguarea(Heckenberger lages are smallerthan 3 ha, and at least 28 percent
1996),by settlementlocationsin excellentdefensive exceed 7 ha (n = 46) (Figure 10).
positions, and by the introductionof new ceramic
complexes in the area (Wust 1990). Whereas the Conclusion
societiesof theUpperXinguseemto haveresponded The complex social structureof CentralBrazilian
to this challengeby increasingregionalintegration nativesocietiescanno longerbe consideredananom-
(Heckenberger1996), otherssuch as the Aratuvil- aly, but ratherthe result of a long and continuous
lages, are thoughtto have collapsed.Theircontacts process of integration among culturally distinct
with the Uruvillages resultedin muchsmallerhabi- groups due to feuding, demographicincrease, and
tationsites, sometimeslocatedin hiddenandnarrow external pressures. The onset of such a lengthy
valleys, that replaced former large ring villages processprecedesEuropeanconquestby at least one
(Gonzalez 1996a, 1996b). thousandyears and thereforecannotbe considered

This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL
as a lateormarginaldevelopmentcausedby contact.
Instead,archaeologicaldataprovidestrongevidence
thataggregationof populationinto largecommuni-
ties withcomplexsystemsof villageorganizationand
a heavy dependenceon agricultureevolved in their
own local trajectones,respondingto a varietyof cir-
cumstances.
Emphasison local developmentshasled us to iso-
late demographicconditionsanddefensiveconcerns
as the mainfactorsshapingthe ringvillages of Cen-
tralBrazil.Theirtypicallayoutcan be explainedas
advantageous fordefense,favoringstrongerinnercon-
tol compatiblewiththeego-focusedideologystillpre-
sentamongmost CentralBraziliannativesocieties.
Theconsiderationof ringvillagesas a localdevel-
opmentdoes not imply that we can ignore interac-
tion and populationinputsfrom neighboringareas.
In fact, furtherresearchon the relationshipbetween
both inhabitantsof varzea and terra firme areasin
the northandpopulationsto the west will be essen-
tial to evaluatethe natureof externalpressuresthat
were responsible for the variety of multi-ethnic
alliances and interregionalintegrationof different
groups suggested by the diversityof the archaeo-
logical record.
These data from Central Brazil also provide
importantimplications for controversiesin Ama-
zonianarchaeology.Significantly,ourfindingsindi-
cate that large communities and a kind of social
complexity can occur in environmentsconsidered
even poorerthanbothriverineandterrafirme AITla-
zonia, contradictinghypotheses of environmental
limitationfor culturaldevelopmentin the lowlands
(as arguedby Gross 1975; Lathrap1968; Meggers
1954). The ring villages of Central Brazil offer
advantageousconditions to measure at least one
aspect of culturaldevelopment:communitysize (a
measurementoftendifficultto obtainin Amazonian
contexts, especially for terra pretasites). Some
authorshavesystematicallyinterpreted largedeposits
as theresultof repeatedreoccupations,consequently
minimizingpopulationestimatesand the degree of
social complexityreachedby Amazoniansocieties
(Meggers1992a,1995;Miller 1992;butsee DeBoer
et al.1996 for a contrastingview). If therewere such
large settlementsin CentralBrazil, why should we
deny still largeranddenseroccupationsin theAma-
zon where ecological conditionsfor humandevel-
opments are likely to have been even more
advantageous?
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
19
Inaddition,ourdatafromCentralBrazilshowthat
social complexity can emerge in ways that differ
from the classic site-hierarchymodels based on
Mesoamerican and Andean examples. Although
much remains to be done to understandboth the
developmentaltrajectoriesanddegreeof socialcom-
plexity reachedby CentralBraziliansocieties, indi-
cationsof loose (andperhapsephemeral)settlement
hierarchiesrelatedto differentregionalarrangements
and alliances suggest that increasing social com-
plexityalso cantakeplace alonga horizontaldimen-
sion andnot as much as in the classic concentration
of powerin verticalhierarchiesl5.If this idea is sup-
portedby futureresearch,it will certainlyhavemajor
implicationsformodelsof chiefdomformationin the
Amazonbasin.
Perhapsthemainlesson thatthe history(andpre-
history)of CentralBraziliansocieties teachesus is
thatethnographicknowledgecannotbe simplypro-
jected into the past. Unless a clearpatternof conti-
nuityis documented,archaeologicalculturesshould
notbe identifiedwithpresentnativegroups.Thehis-
tory of CentralBraziliansocieties remindsus that
culturaldevelopmentin the South Americanlow-
lands might have takendiversepathsand that only
the carefuldocumentationof differentdevelopmen-
tal trajectorieswill allow archaeologiststo evaluate
models derivedfromethnographicaccounts.
References Cited
Agostinho,P. da S.
1993 Testemunhosdaocupa,caopre-xinguananabaciados for-
madoresdo Xingu. In Karl von den Steinen:um se'culode
antropologiano Xingu, editedby V. PenteadoCoelho, pp.
233-288. Editorada Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo
Andreatta,M. D.
1982 Padroesdepovoamentoempre'-historia goiania:ana'lise
de sitio tipo. UnpublishedDoctoral dissertation,Departa-
mento de Ciecias Sociais, Universidadede Sao Paulo, Sao
Paulo.
1988 Projeto Anhanguera de arqueologia de Goias
(1975-1985). Revista do Museu Paulista, Nova Serie
33:143-156.
Baldus,H.
1979 A posi,caosocial da mulherentre os BororoOrientais.
InEnsaiosde etnologiabrasileira,brasilianaVol.101, edited
by H. Baldus,pp. 6s91. CompanhiaEditoraNacional,Sao
Paulo.
Bamberger,J.
1967 Environment and CulturalClassification:A Studyof the
NorthernKayapo.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Depart-
ment of Anthropology,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge.
1971 The Adequacyof KayapoEcologicalAdjustment.Pro-
ceedings of the 38th Congressof Americanists(Stuttgart-
Munich)3 373-379.
Barbosa,A. S., P. I. Schmitz,A. Stobaeus, andA. F. de Miranda
1982 ProjetoMedio-Tocantins:Monte do CaImo,GO. Fase
20 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
CeramicaPindorama.PesquisasAntropologia34: 49-92.
InstitutoAnchietanode Pesquisas,Sao Leopoldo.
Barreto,C.
1996 The Emergenceof CentralBrazilianNative Villages:
InvestigatingtheTransitionto SedentismandAgriculturein
a TraditionalBororoTerritory.Paperpresentedat the 61st
AnnualMeetingof the Society for AmericanArchaeology,
New Orleans.
Beckerman,S.
1991 Amazoniaestavarepletade gente.InAdapta,coese diver-
sidade biologica do homemnativoda Amazonia,editedby
W. Neves, pp. 143-159. Museu ParaenseEmlRioGoeldi,
Belem.
Becquelin,P.
1993 ArqueologiaXinguana.In Karl von den Steinen: um
se'culode antropologia no Xingu, edited by V. Penteado
Coelho,pp.223-232. EditoradaUniversidadede Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo.
Brochado,J. P.
1984 An EcologicalModelof the Spreadof PotteryandAgri-
culture into Eastern South America. Ph.D. dissertation,
Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Illinois. Uni-
versityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor.
Brumfiel,E.
1995 HeterarchyandtheAnalysisof ComplexSocieties:Com-
ments.InHeterarchyand theAnalysisof ComplexSocieties,
edited by R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley, and J. Levy,
pp.125-130. ArcheologicalPapersNo.6. AmericanAnthro-
pologicalAssociation,Arlington.
Carneiro,R. L.
1961 Slash-and-BurnCultivationamongthe KuikuruandIts
ImplicationsforCulturalDevelopmentin theAmazonBasin.
In The Evolutionof HorticulturalSystemsin Native South
America:Causesand Consequences:A Symposium,edited
by J. Wilbert,pp. 47-67. Antropologica,SuplementPubli-
cationsNo. 2. Caracas.
1983 The Cultivationof Manioc amongthe KuikuruIndians
of the UpperXingu. InAdaptiveResponsesof NativeAma-
zonia,editedby R .B. HamesandW.T.Vickers,pp.65-111.
AcademicPress,New York.
1995 The Historyof Ecological Interpretations of Amazonia:
Does RooseveltHave It Right?In IndigenousPeoples and
the Futureof Amazonia,editedby L. E. Sponsel,pp.45-70.
Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Casselberry,S. E.
1974 FurtherRefinementof FormulaeforDeterminatingPop-
ulationsfromFloorArea. WorldArchaeology6:117-122.
Chernella,C. G.
1986 Pesca e hierarquiza,cao tribalnoalto Uaupes. In Suma
etnologicabrasileira1, Etnobiologia,editedby B. Ribeiro,
pp.235-249. EditoraVozes, Petropolis.
Chmyz,I.
1975 Cursode apegfeifoamentoemmetodose tecnicasarque-
ologicas. Museu Antropologico,UniversidadeFederalde
Goias, Goiania.
Correa,C. G.
1987 Horticultorespre-historicosdo litoral do Para,Brasil.
Revista de Arqueologia 4(2):137-252. Museu Paraense
Emllio Goeldi, Belem.
Cooper,J. M.
1942 ArealandWemporalAspects of AboriginalSouthAmer-
icanCulture.PrimitiveMan15(1-2):1-38.
DeBoer,W. R., K. Kintigh,andA. G. Rostoker
1996 CeramicSeriationand Site Reoccupationin Lowland
SouthAmerica LatinAmericanAntiquity7:263-278.
Dias, O. F., and E. T. Carvalho
1981-1982 Discussaosobreos iniciosdaagricultura no Brasil.
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 10, No. 1,1999
Arquivosdo Museu de Historia NaturalVI-VII:191-200.
UniversidadeFederalde Minas Gerais,Belo Horizonte.
Ehrenreich,R. M., C. Crumley,andJ. E. Levy (editors)
1995Heterarchyand theAnalysisof ComplexSocieties.Arche-
ological PapersNo. 6. AmericanAnthropologicalAssocia-
tion, Arlington.
Fensterseifer,E., and P. I. Schmitz
1975 Fase Ipora.Uma fase Tupiguarani.Anua'riode Divul-
ga,caoCientgea 2:19-70. UniversidadeCatolicade Goias,
Goiania.
Flowers,N.
1983 Seasonal Factorsin Subsistence,Nutrition,and Child
Growthin a CentralBrazilianIndianCommunity.In Adap-
tiveResponsesof NativeAmazonians,editedby R. B. Hames
andW.T.Vickers,pp.357-390. AcademicPress,NewYork.
Frikel,P.
1968 OsXikrin.Equipamentoe te'cnicasde subsistencia.Pub-
lica,coesAvulsas No. 7. Museu ParaenseEmlRioGoeldi,
Belem.
Giaccaria,B., andA. Heide
1972 Xavante.Auwe Uptabi:povo autentico.EditoraDom
Bosco, Sao Paulo.
Gonzalez,E. M. R.
1996a A ocupafao ceramistapre'-colonialdo Brasil Central:
origens e desenvolvimento.UnpublishedDoctoraldisserta-
tion, Departamentode Antropologia,Universidadede Sao
Paulo,Sao Paulo.
1996b Os grupos ceramistaspre-coloniais do centro-oeste
brasileiro.Revista do Museu de Arqueologiae Etnologia
6:83-121. Universidadede Sao Paulo.
Gross,D. R.
1975 ProteinCaptureandCulturalDevelopmentin theAma-
zon Basin.AmericanAnthropologist77:526-549.
1979 A New Approachto CentralBrazilianSocial Organiza-
tion. In AnthropologicalPerspectives.Essays in Honor of
CharlesWagley,editedby M. L. MargolisandW. E. Carter,
pp.321-342. ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.
1983 Village Movementin Relationto Resourcesin Amazo-
nia.InAdaptiveResponsesof NativeAmazonians,editedby
R. B. Hames and W. T. Vickers, pp. 429450. Academic
Press,New York.
Haeckel,J.
1952 Neue BeitragesurKulturschichtung Brasiliens.Anthro-
pos 47:963-991.
Heckenberger,M. J.
1996 Warand Peace in the Shadowof Empire:Sociopolitical
Changein the UpperXinguof SoutheasternAmazonia, AD.
1400-2000. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Pittsburgh.
UniversityMicrofilms,AnnArbor.
Ladeira,M. E.
1983 Uma aldeiaTimbira.InHabita,coesindigenas,editedby
S. C. Novaes,pp.311-332. Editorada Universidadede Sao
Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Lathrap,D. W.
1968 The Hunting Economies of Tropical Forest Zone of
South America:An Attempt at HistoricalPerspective.In
Man the Hunter,edited by R. B. Lee and I. Devore, pp.
23-29. Aldine, Chicago.
1970 The UpperAmazon.Praeger,New York.
1972 AlternativeModels of PopulationMovements in the
TropicalLowlandsof SouthAmerica.In Historia, etnohis-
toriay etnologiade la selva sudamericana,editedby R.Ava-
los de MatosandR. Ravines,pp. l 3-23. Centrode Estudios
Peruanos,Lima.
Levi-Strauss,C.
1963 StructuralAnthropology. Basic, New York.
1970 Tristestropicos.EditorialUniversitaria,BuenosAires.
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL
1973 [1952] Social Structuresof Centraland EasternBrazil.
In Peoplesand Culturesof NativeSouthAmerica,editedby
D. Gross, pp. 263-274. Doubleday/TheNaturalHistory
Press,New York.
Lowie, R.
1949 Social andPoliticalOrganizationof the TropicalForest
andMarginalTribes.In Handbookof SouthAmericanIndi-
ans, The ComparatiiveEthnologyof SouthAmericanIndi-
ans, Vol. 5, edited by H. J. Steward, pp. 303-409.
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Marcus,J.
1976 The Size of the Early MesoamericanVillage. In The
EarlyMesoamericanHllage, editedby K. V. Flannery,pp.
79-90. AcademicPress,New York.
Maybury-Lewis,D.
1965 Some CrucialDistinctionsin CentralBrazilianEthnol-
ogy. Anthropos60:340-358.
1967 Akwe-ShavanteSociety.ClarendonPress, Oxford.
1979a Introduction.In Dialectical Societies. The Ge^and
Bororo of Central Brazil, edited by D. Maybury-Lewis,
pp.1-13. HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1979b Conclusion:Kinship,Ideology;andCulture.InDialec-
tical Societies.TheGe^and Bororoof CentralBrazil,edited
by D. Maybury-Lewis, pp.301-312. HarvardUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
1981 [1965] 0 selvageme o inocente.Editorada Unicamp,
Campinas.
Maybury-Lewis,D. (editor)
1979 Dialectical Societies. The Ge^and Bororo of Central
Brazil.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Meggers,B. J.
1954 Environmental Limitationson the Developmentof Cul-
ture.AmericanAnthropologist56:801-824.
1971 Amazonia:Man and Natureon a CounterfeitParadise.
Aldine, Chicago.
1972 PrehistoricAmerica. AnEcologicalPerspective.Aldine,
New York.
1992a PrehistoricPopulationDensity in the Amazon Basin.
In Disease and Demographyin the Americas,edited by J.
W. Veranoand D. H. Ubelaker,pp. 197-205. Smithsonian
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
1992b Review of "Moundbuilders of the Amazon:Geophys-
icalArchaeologyon MarajoIsland,Brazil."Journalof Field
Archaeology19:399403.
1992c Amazonia:Real or CounterfeitParadise?TheReview
of Archaeology13(2):2540.
1995 Amazoniaon the Eve of EuropeanContact:Ethnohis-
torical, Ecological, and Anthropological Perspectives.
Revistade ArqueologiaAmericana8:91-115.
Melatti,J. C.
1978 Ritos de uma tribo Timbira.Atica, Sao Paulo.
1986 [1970] Indiosdo Brasil.EditoraHucitec,EditoradaUni-
versidadede Brasl1ia,Sao Paulo.
Mello, P. J. C. (editor)
1996 Levantamentoe resgatedo patrimonioarqueologicoda
areadiretamenteafetadapela Usina HidreletricaCorumba
(GO). Relatorio final. Ms. on file, Instituto Goiano de
Pesquisas Arqueologicas, Universidade Catolica/Furnas
CentraisEletricas,S.A., Goiania.
Mendon,cade Souza,A. A.
1981 Relatorio preliminardo projeto da bacia do Parana
197$1980, Vol.II. Ms. on file, MuseuAntropologico,Uni-
versidadeFederalde Goias, Goiania.
Miller,E. T.
1992 Arqueologfa:ambiente.Desenvolvimento,arqueologia
nos empreendimentoshidrele'tricosda eletronorte,resulta-
dos preliminares.CentraisEletricasdo Norte do Brasil.
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
21
Myers,T. P.
1973 Towardthe Reconstructionof PrehistoricCommunity
Patternsin theAmazonBasin.In VariationinAnthropology,
editedby D. W. Lathrapand J. Douglas, pp. 233-250. Illi-
nois ArchaeologicalSurvey,Urbana.
1992 AgriculturalLimitationsof the Amazonin Theoryand
Practice.WorldArchaeology24:82-97.
Naroll,R.
1962 FloorAreaandSettlementPopulation.AmericanAntiq-
uity27: 587-589.
Nimuendaju,C.
1939 TheApinaye'.Anthropology SeriesNo.8. CatholicUni-
versityPress,Washington,D.C.
1942 TheSherente.FrederickWebbHodgeAnniversaryPub-
licationFund,Washington,D.C.
1946 TheEasternTimbira.Publicationsin Archaeologyand
Ethnology,Vol.41.Universityof CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
1976 A habita,caodos Timbira. In Leituras de etnologia
brasileira,editedby E. Shaden,pp.4$62. CompanhiaEdi-
toraNacional,Sao Paulo.
Novaes, S. C.
1983 As casas na organiza,caosocial do espa,coBororo. In
Habita,coesindfgenas,edited by S. C. Novaes, pp. 57-76.
Editorada Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Petesh,N.
1993 A trilogiaKaraja:sua posi,caointermediariano contin-
uum Je-Tupi.In Amazonia:etnologia e historia indfgena,
editedby E. V. de CastroandM. C. da Cunha,pp.365-384.
Nucleode HistoriaIndigenae do Indigenismo,Universidade
de Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Porro,A.
1994 Social OrganizationandPoliticalPowerin theAmazon
Floodplain.The EthnohistoricalSources.In AmazonIndi-
ans. FromPrehistoryto Present,editedby A. C. Roosevelt,
pp. 79-94. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Posey, D.
1979 Pyka-to-ti Kayapomostraaldeiade origem.Atualidade
Indfgena3(15):52-57.
Resende,E. T., andA. Prous.
1991 Os vestigios vegetais do GrandeAbrigode Santanado
Riacho.Arquivosdo Museude HistoriaNaturalXII:87-111.
UniversidadeFederalde Minas Gerais,Belo Horizonte.
Ribeiro,M. B. (editor)
1988 Relatorio Projeto Levantamentodo Potencial Aque-
ologico UHE Barrado PeixeCoias. Manuscripton file,
InstitutoGoianode PesquisasArqueologicas,Universidade
Catolicade Goias, Goiania.
Robrahn,E. M.
1990 Projetode PesquisaArqueologicadasUHEsde Serrada
Mesae CanaBrava.Relatorio1. Ms. on file, InstitutoGoiano
de PesquisasArqueologicas,UniversidadeCatolicade Goias,
Goiania.
Rogers,R. J.
1995 Tribes as Heterarchy:A Case Study from Prehistoric
SouthernUnited States.In Heterarchyand the Analysis of
ComplexSocieties,editedby R. Ehrenreich,C. Crumley,and
J. Levy, pp. 7-16. ArcheologicalPapersNo. 6. American
AnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington.
Rondon,C. M. da S., andJ. B. Faria
1948 Esbo,cogramaticale vocabula'rioda Ifnguados Bororo.
Algumaslendase notasetnogra'ficas.ConselhoNacionalde
Prote,caoaos Indios,Publica,caoNo. 77, Rio de Janeiro.
Roosevelt,A. C.
1991a Moundbuildersof theAmazon.GeophysicalArchaeol-
ogy on Marajo'Island.AcademicPress,New York.
l991b Determinismoecologico na interpreta,cao do desen-
volvimentosocial indigenadaAmazonia.In Origens,adap-
22 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
ta,coese diversidadebiolo'gicado homemnativoda Amazo-
nia, edited by W. A. Neves, pp. 103-142. Museu Paraense
Eml1ioGoeldi,Belem.
l991c Eighth MillenniumPottery from a PrehistoricShell
Middenin the BrazilianAmazon.Science 254:1621-1624.
1993 The Rise andFall of AmazonianChiefdoms.L'Homme
126/128, 33 (2-4):255-283.
1994 AmazonianAnthropology:Strategyfor a New Synthe-
sis. In Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to Present.
AnthropologicalPerspectives,edited by A. C. Roosevelt,
pp. 1-29. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Sa,C.
1983 ObseIva,coessobre a habita,caoem tres gruposindige-
nas brasileiros.In Habita,coesindfgenas, edited by S. C.
Novaes,pp.103-146. EditoradaUniversidadede Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo.
Schmitz,P. I.
1976-1977 Arqueologia de Goias. Sequencia cultural e
data,coes de C14. Anuario de Divulga,cao Cientffica
3-4: 1-19. UniversidadeCatolicade Goias, Goiania.
1987 PrehistoricHuntersand Gatherersof Brazil.Journalof
WorldPrehistory1: 53-126.
Schmitz,P. I., andA. S. Barbosa
1985 Horticultorespre'-historicosdo estado de Goias. Insti-
tutoAnchietanode Pesquisas,Sao Leopoldo.
Schmitz,P. I., I. Wust, S .M. Cope, and U. E. Thies
1982 Arqueologiado centro-sulde Goia's:umafronteira de
horticultores indfgenas no centro do Brasil. Pesquisas
AntropologiaNo.33. InstitutoAnchietano de Pesquisas,Sao
Leopoldo.
Schmitz,P. I., M. B. Ribeiro,A. S. Barbosa,M. O. Barbosa,and
A. F. Miranda
1986 Arqueologianos cerradosdo Brasil: Caiaponia.Insti-
tutoAnchietanode Pesquisas,Sao Leopoldo.
Silva, A. L. da
1983 Xavante: casa-aldeia-chao-terra-vida.In Habita,coes
indfgenas,editedby S. C. Novaes,pp.33-56. EditoradaUni-
versidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Simonsen,I., A. A. C. M. de Souza,A. de P. Oliveira,and S. M.
F. M. de Sousa
1983-1984 Sitios ceramicos da bacia do Parana-Goias.
Arquivosdo Museude HistoriaNaturalVIII-IX:121-129.
UniversidadeFederalde MinasGerais,Belo Horizonte.
Simoes, M. F.
1967 Considera,coespreliminaressobrea arqueologiado Alto
Xingu (MatoGrosso).PRONAPA,resultadospreliminares
do 1. ano, 1965- 1966. Publica,coesAvulsas 6: 129- 151.
MuseuParaenseEmllio Goeldi,Belem.
SPHAN
ca.1980 Inventario dos sKtiosarqueologicos de Goia's.
SPHAN,Pro-Memoria,Vol. IIMinisteriodaEducac, ao e Cul-
tura,Funda,caoNacional.
Steward,J. H. (editor)
1946 Handbookof SouthAmericanIndians,Vol.I. TheMar-
ginal Tribes.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Steward,J. H., andL. C. Faron
1959 Native Peoples of SouthAmerica.McGraw-Hill,New
York.
Turner,T. S.
1979 The Ge andBororoSocieties as DialecticalSystems.In
Dialectical Societies.TheGe and Bororoof CentralBrazil,
edited by D. Maybury-Lewis,pp.147-178. HarvardUni-
versityPress, Cambridge.
Urban,G.
1992 A historiada culturabrasileirasegundoas linguas nati-
vas. In Histo'riados fndios no Brasil, edited by M. C. da
Cunha,pp. 87-102. Companhiadas Letras,Sao Paulo.
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 10, No. 1,1999
Vidal,L.
1977 Mortee vidade umasociedadeindfgenabrasileira.Edi-
toraHucitec,Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
1983 O espa,cohabitadoentreos Kaiapo-Xikrin. InHabita,coes
indigenas,edited by S. C. Novaes, pp. 77-102. Editorada
Universidadede Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo.
Viertler,R. B.
1976 As aldeias Bororo.Algunsaspectos de sua organiza,cao
social. Cole,caoMuseuPaulista,SerieEtnologia,Vol.2.Uni-
versidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
1989 O estudoantropologicode aldeiasindigenasno Brasil:
estado atual de uma pesquisa entre os Bororo. De'dalo
27:47-64. Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Werner,D.
1983 Why Do the MekranotiTrek?InAdaptiveResponsesof
NativeAmazonians,editedby R. B. HamesandW. T.Vick-
ers, pp. 225-238. AcademicPress,New York.
Whitehead,N. L.
1992 TribesMakes States and States MakesTribes:Warfare
and the Creationof ColonialTribeand State in NorEeast-
ern SouthAmerica.In Warin the TribalZone. Expanding
StatesandIndigenousWarfare,editedby R. B. Fergusonand
N. L.Whitehead,pp.127-150. Schoolof AmericanResearch
Press, SantaFe.
1994 The Ancient AmerindianPolities of the Amazonnthe
Orinoco,and the AtlanticCoast.A PreliminaryAnalysis of
their Passage from Antiquityto Extinction.In Amazonian
Indians.FromPrehistoryto Present:Anthropological Per-
spectives,editedby A. C. Roosevelt,pp. 33-53. University
of ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Wissler,C.
1917 The AmericanIndian:An Introductionto the Anthro-
pology of the New World.Oxford UniversityPress, New
York.
Wust, I.
1975 A ceramicaCarajade Aruana.Anua'riode Divulga,cao
Cientifica2: 91-165. UniversidadeCatolicade Goias,Goia-
nia.
1983 Aspectos da ocupa,caopre'-colonialem uma a'reado
Mato Grosso de Goia's - tentativa de ana'lise espacial.
Unpublishedmaster'sthesis, Departamentode Antropolo-
gia, Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
1984 Field Notes. MuseuAntropologico,UniversidadeFed-
eralde Goias, Goiania.
1990 Continuidadee mudan,ca:para uma interpreta,cao dos
grupospre'-coloniaisna baciado rio Vermelho,
MatoGrosso.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Departamento de
Antropologia,Universidadede Sao Paulo,Sao Paulo.
1992 Pre-colonialSettlementStrategiesin BororoTerritory,
Brazil.In Archaeologyand Environmentin LatinAmerica,
editedby O. R. Ortiz-TroncosoandT. vanderHammen,pp.
253-258. UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,Amsterdam.
1994 TheEasternBororofromanArchaeologicalPerspective.
InAmazonianIndians.FromPrehistoryto Present:Anthro-
pological Perspectives, edited by A. C. Roosevelt, pp.
315-342. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Wust, I., and H. B. Carvalho
1996 Novas perspectivaspara o estudo dos ceramistaspre-
coloniais do Centro-oesteBrasileiro:a analise espacial do
sitio Guara 1 (GO-NI-100), Goias. Revista do Museu de
Arqueologia e Etnologia 6:47-81. Universidade de Sao
Paulo,Sao Paulo.
Notes
1. Bororo villages provide a good example of such processes.
Villages visited by Baldus in 1934 (Baldus 1979) were small
Wust and Barreto] RINGVILLAGESIN CENTRALBRAZIL
and located in extremely marginalareas for agriculture.Their
survivaldependedmainly on the natives' employmentby sur-
roundingfarms. Such a scenariocontrastsmarkedlywith their
oldervillages, locatedin galleryforestswherenutrient-richsoils
allowed the cultivationof maize (Wust 1990).
2. The termcerrado refersto the local savanna-likeenvironment
of sciub growth.
3. Evidence of the possible earlier presence of agriculturein
Minas Geraisis reportedbutrequiresfurtherconfirmation(Dias
and Carvalho1981-1982).
4. Fortwo Aratusites in the southeasternpartof Goias, thereare
two absolutedatesearlierthanA.D.500 thatstill requireconfir-
mation(Andreatta1988:155; Mello 1996:268).
5. Accordingto these authors,the Aratutraditionin the state of
Goias has been associatedwith the SouthernKayapo.
6. Nevertheless,some linear sites of Aruanaphase (Uxu tradi-
tion) can be securely associated with the ethnographically
known Karaja(Wust 1975).
7. Petesh (1993) suggests that the linearvillages of the present
Karajamay be a resultof significantchangein cosmologicaland
sociopoliticalstructureof formercircularvillages due to Tupian
influence.
8. These numbersaredrawnfromall knownarchaeologicalsites
in the states of Goias, Tocantins,Mato Grosso, and the Federal
District, compiled by Wust in the last several years for the
IPHAN(Institutodo PatrimonioHistoricoe ArtisticoNacional).
9. Sites in centralGoias were mappedbetween 1977 and 1981
(Wust 1983). Sites in the Rio Vermelhoregion were mapped
between 1982 and 1989 (Wust 1990).
10. In a situationhighly affectedby contact,the data from the
Bororo show that only two-thirdsof the houses were occupied
at the same time (Wust 1994).
This content downloaded from 143.107.3.155 on Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:29:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
23
11. Ethnographicdata from the Bororo show that internalvil-
lage hierarchiesare relatedto clan descent, expressedthrough
ules of production,use, and borrowingof specific materials
exclusive to particularclans. Severalclans also have exclusive
myths and chants that express the hierarchicalposition of the
individualwithinthe village (Viertler1976).
12. This is a particularkind of cauixf (ashes of watersponges),
a variety of Parmulabatelesi, a species found in the Paraguai
River.
13. Ethnographicaccountsof the Bororogive us an idea of the
natureof such village hierarchies.Among this group, hierar-
chies occur mainly at a religious level, throughthe power of
shamans,and is only indirectlyrelatedto the productionof sur-
plus. As only a few villages have more powerful and popular
shamans,the numberof religiousfestivitiestakingplace at these
villages increases,consequentlyalso fosteringthe redistribution
of goods and attractingtemporaryresidentsfrom othervillages
(Wust 1994).
14. The men's club house shouldnot be confusedwith the bach-
elor'shut for reclusionof youngsters.The latterconstructionalso
is sometimeslocatedin the domesticring,as reportedfor Xavante
and Kayapo-Xibim(GiaccariaandHeide 1972;Mldal1977).
15. Althoughthe term"heterarchy" has oftenbeen used in oppo-
sition to verticalhierarchy(Ehrenreichet al.1995), we expressly
avoidedits use in this context, because it can suggest the exis-
tence of unrankedsystems (Brumfiel 1995; Rogers 1995). It
does not seem applicableto this case in which at least some
degree of rankingis shown by differencesin village size and
access to exotic materials.
Received April 29, 1997; accepted August 15, 1997; revised
February2, 1998.