The Ring Villages of Central Brazil: A Challenge for Amazonian Archaeology Innhild Wust; Cristiana Barreto Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), 3-23. Stable URL htp:/Mlinks jstor-org/siisici=1045-6635% 28 199903% 29 10%3A 1%3C3%3ATRVOCB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 Latin American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/wwww jstor.org/journals/sam. html Each copy of any part of @ JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission. STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, bupswwwjstor.org/ Mon Fan 31 05:05:00 2005yrensy ‘THE RING VILLAGES OF CENTRAL BRAZIL: A CHALLENGE FOR AMAZONIAN ARCHAEOLOGY Irmhild Wist and Cristiana Barreto This article offers a challenge o previous interpretations ofthe ving villager of Cental Bra. Specialy, thew large villages that were occupied by ceramic making aricultralits have een characterized a marynal and anomalous development rev ing from late population movements triggered by the European conquest. Nes data presented here show ha he ving villages have a mack greater time depth Their sudden appearance around A.D. 890 is explained ax alocl response to oth regional ‘and external pressures. nformaton on stlement patter variables suchas village Tayoutandsze,difernces in calturaliven- tors and comparison of archaeological and ethnographic data illustrate sociopolitical and demographic changes through tine that have critical implications for Amazonian archacolog ue artigo faz wma revsdo da arqueologia das aldeias anlares do Brasil Central, ocupadas por graposceramisas agricul tores a partir de ao menos 800 A.D. As evldéneasarqueoldgcascontradizem claramentecaracterlzagbes emf prévit desta aldeias como desemvolvimentostardio, margnais¢andmalos, que teriam crescido em amanho ecompleidade ape- ras como uma consequéncla de dfudes eulturals provocadas pela colonizagdo europa. Agu, 0 ripido surgimento destar ‘aldeiaséexplicade como wna respsta local a prestde regonais externas. Dados de pad de astentamento tals como mor fologa e tamanho de sos, varia da eltura material, ea conparagao de dados argucolicor com etmogrificos, Propo ‘ianam uma primeira dicussdo de vrios axpectos da orgonisagao demogrifia e sciopolitica ao longo do tempo, Cm Implicacdescricas para a arqucolgia amasinica Esteartculafece un eto alas ierpretacones previa sobrelaaldeat amare de Brasil central. Expecicament, estas grandes ‘eldeas, ocupada por grupos ceramistas-agricultores, han sido cardterlzada come un desarrollo ano, marginal y anémalo ‘causado po a colonisacion europea. Las nuevos datos arguldgicos que presenta agu demuestnan que la aldedsanlares Finen mucho ms profundidad temporal, origindose en el pefado prehispnico (lredr de 800 d.C} como una respuett local ‘apresines inemas y euernas. Utilzamos datos sobre prone de acenamient, las formas dela aldeas,y ls eiferencas en lacutura material através del iempo para lus cambios scioplicos ¥ demogrfios,lacules tienen implicaciones impor tarues para a arqucoogta amazin. period are villages with residential unitsarranged _ other ceramic traditions also are known, including circular, elliptical, or semicircular rings. Their some ethnohistoric Bororo (Wist 1990), Kayapé layout of one or more rings ofhouses,alwaysenclos- (Posey 1979), and Upper Xingu villages (Becquelin ing a central plaza, contrasts sharply with other 1993; Heckenberger 1996; Simdes 1967). Today, the smaller and circular sites that have a continuous dis- ring village layout is found among most Gé and tribution of refuse. Archacologically.ringvllagesare Bororo groups of Central Brazil. Although there are easily identified by the typical concentrations of questions about whether we can establish continu ‘ceramic material, sometimes also marked by darker ity between archaeological traditions and ethno- soils that surround a lange, empty area ‘graphic groups, there is no doubt that this type of Ring villages appeared in Central Brazil by at village layout has been maintained in Central Brazil least A.D. 800 andhave been classified into twomain for centuries and reflects panicular pattem of social I Central Brazil, most sites from the ceramic ceramic traditions: Aratu and Uru. Ring villages of Irmhila Wast © Museu Antopolipio, Univenidade Federal de Gols, Cx Postal 131, Glin, 78605-230, GO, Bra (Cristiana Barreto # Deparment of Anthropology. University of Ptsburph, Ptsburgh, PA, 15260, Latin American Antiquity, 101), 1999, pp. 3-23, CCopyrigke © 1999 bythe Society foe American Archaeology4 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY organization. Although each society has its own peculiar set of institutional arrangements, they all share the traditional village layout, reflecting their view of the world and of themselves. They make a shatp distinction between the forum, or central cer- cemonial sphere (which is conceptually a male place), ‘and the houses, or the peripheral, domestic space (which is conceptually female) (Maybury-Lewis 1979.9), ‘This article reviews archaeological information available on the ring villages of Central Brazil and contrasts it with ethnographic data in order to pre- sent and interpret some of thei variability. A central ‘argument is that these settlements represent a local solution to circumstantial, historical factors in Cen- ‘ral Brazil, such assudden demographic changes and, defense needs. From this perspective, these villages are neither anomalous, marginal cultural develop- ‘ments, as argued by some ethnographers in the past, nor are they derived from other areas as archaeolo- sists often suggest ‘The Ring Villages of Central Brazil: ‘Some Misconceived Ideas For a long time, the rng villages of Central Brazil have been viewed as marginal to other tropical low- land cultures. More specifically, Central Brazilian native groups have been persistently characterized as essentially hunter-gatherets, organized into small, egalitarian, seminomadic groups (Cooper 1942; Haeckel 1952; Lowie 1949; Steward 1946; Steward and Faron 1959: Wissler 1917) ‘Because the drier lands of Central Brazil seemed to offer significantly lower potential for agriculture than the nutrient-rich lands of riverine Amazonia, this area has been portrayed by ethnographers and archaeologists.as.a passive receptacle oftime-lagged cultural influences (Cameiro 1995; Lathrap 1970; Meggers 1972:162; Roosevelt 1991a, 1991¢:1624). Accordingly, the establishment of large, permanent villages and more elaborate social organization could ‘only have occurred late in time, as an “import” brought to Central Brazil through migrations and population rearrangements promoted by the Euro- pean conquest (Gross 1979; Steward and Faron 1959:362). Because of this depiction of Central Brazilian native groups as a marginal culture, any indication of larger communities and a more com- plex social organization was taken as either a par dox or an anomaly. Indeed, since Nimuendajié Vol 10, No.1, 1998 documented their highly intricate social structures ‘and numerous social institutions (Nimuendaj 1939, 1942, 1946), Central Brazilian groups became the focus of many ethnographic studies that endeavored to explain the paradox of such social complexity coupled with a simple subsistence system and “low levels of material culture” (Lévi-Strauss 1973:263). Despite efforts by the Harvard Central Brazil pro- ject to document the complexity of Gé and Bororo social institutions and counter the traditional view of these societies as marginal and anomalous (May- bury-Lewis 1979a), a lack of historical (and prebis- toric) data led these scholars to characterize Central Brazilian groups as subsisting mainly on hunting, fishing, and gathering, perfectly well adapted toa var- ied and bountiful environment (Bamberger 1967, 1971, 1979b:302). Transforming previous paradoxes into apparent consistency, they emphasized not real ecological requirements, but such integrative and harmonizing social strategies as high residential mobility and seasonal trekking in dispersed groups (Flowers 1983; Gross 1979, 1983; Maybury-Lewis 1967; Tumer 1979:150; Werner 1983), Following the lead of Harvard's Central Brazil project, we also argue that marginality and anomaly are concepts tha can no longer explain cultural devel- ‘opment in the area. The archaeological data pre- sented here provide a new diachronic view of ring village emergence and development, This new per- spective notonly clarifies previous ethnographic puz- zles and paradoxes but also unmasks the apparent consistency suggested by the Harvard school, We argue that the view of Central Brazilian groups as etemally simple, seminomadic hunter-gatherers is butan ethnographic caricature builton data obtained in situations where contact with Brazilian society had already promoted intense demographic reduction, village dispersion, and territory loss. A review of the archaeological data reveals that, first of all, precontact ring villages were far more numerous, populous, and diverse than the ones described in the ethnographic literature. Second, site locations in diverse ecological settings show that these settlements should not be seen exclusively as ‘an adaptation to the drier environments of Central Brazil. Since agriculture was introduced in the area relatively early (apparently preceding ring villages), itcannot be seen as the decisive factor that promoted the emergence ofthese relatively large settlements. ‘Third, and most contrary tothe idea of marginalty,the evidence suggests that these villages may have emerged as a local Solution to particular historical circumstances in Central Brazil. Specifically, it appears that demographic pressures interaction with neighboring groups, and needs for defense generated the unique organizational and cosmological struc- tures still observable among Gé- and Bororo-speak- ing groups today. Fourth, these settlements seem to have experienced increasing complexity in their ‘organization, both within and among villages, that ‘was different from that recently described for the riverine Amazonian chiefdoms (Porro 1994; Roo- sevelt 1991a, 1993, 1994; Whitehead 1992, 1994) Finally, the decline of some Central Brazilian soci- cies appears to have started well before the Euro- pean conquest and was not necessarily caused by it We believe that analyzing the ring villages of Central Brazil as a local development within their own trajectory—as opposed to an “impor” from more advanced areas—can provide new insights for theoretical debates and models of social evolution in the South American lowlands. Such analysis should help unravel current controversies concerning long- term change and cultural development in the Ama- zon basin (Cameito 1995; Meggers 1992b, 1992c, 1995; Roosevelt 1991a, 1991b).. ‘This article presents a broad, regional interpreta- tion of both the emergence and development of Cen- tral Brazilian ring villages. After abrief description of the available archaeological data, setlement pattem variables are examined to discuss aspects of social and Political organization through time and the implica- tions ofthese villages for Amazonian archaeology. ‘The Emergence and Continuity of Ring Villages in Central Brazil ‘The emergence of ring villages seems to have ‘occurred suddenly and late in the lengthy history of ‘human occupation in Central Brazil. We know that generalized hunter-gatherers from the Itaparica lithic tradition were already present by ca. 9,000 B.C. The precetamic period is punctuated by major techno- logical shifts at around 6,500 B.C., probably reflect- ing changes to a more humid environment (Schmitz 1987271). In the late preceramic period, till before 500 B.C, a settlement relocation occurred from poorly drained cerrado hilltops to the richer soi of forest ecotones, indicating that some kind of hor- ticultre was already underway before the acquis tion of ceramics (Wist 1992). RING VILLAGES IN CENTRAL BRAZIL 5 The first ceramics of Central Brazil appeared around 500 B.C. and, despite great regional and chronological variability have been described under one large ceramic tradition, named Una. Inthe states of Goiis and Mato Grosso, the Una tradition ranges from 500 B.C. to A.D. 1200 (Barbosa et al. 1982; ‘Schmitz 1976-1977;Simonsen etal. 1983-1984:122; ‘Wist 1990). Una ceramics appear almostexclusively in rockshelters, consisting mainly of undecorated, small vessels with thin walls and dark (sometimes also polished) surface treatments. Site location and ‘meager ceramic densities seem to indicate a fairly nomadic settlement pattern. However, irrefutable botanical evidence for domesticated species dated at 850B.C. (including Zea mays) is associated with this ceramic tradition in the state of Minas Gerais, indi- cating a degree of reliance on agricultural products (Resende and Prous 1991:94). This evidence refutes previous hypotheses that attributed the emergence of Targe villages in Central Brazil toa late introduction of agricultural practices, fostered by postconquest ‘migrations. ‘The Una tradition not only immediately precedes the lage rng villages of Central Brazil but also seems to have temporally overlapped them. Beginning at A.D. 800, ring villages began to spread rapidly throughout Central Bravl's heartland, on te plateaus between the Tocantins and the Paraguai Rivers." “Meanwhile, the small groups associated withthe Una ‘radition seem to have remained on the borders of plateaus for another 400 years. Iis sill unclear to what ‘degree these relatively pristine local populations took part in the new social formations represented by the ring villages. Some might have remained in marginal positions along the borders of plateaus; others might have been incorporated into the large ring villages. In any event, both settlement patterns and cultural mate- rials seem to indicate thatthe ring villages did not emerge solely from the small groups ofthe Una tra- dition;incoming populations may have had an impor- tant role inthe initial formation of ring villages Further research is underway to clarify the key factors that promoted the emergence of ring villages in Central Brazil (Barreto 1996). Yet, given the rel- atively sparse occupation of the landscape in pre- ceding periods, itis clear that the appearance of ‘numerous large villages represented a major and sud- den change. There is no evidence ofa gradual trans- formation from the previous settlement pattern into the ring villages (Wust 1990).‘ LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Most explanations for the emergence of ring vil- lages depend on migratory movements emanating from the Amazon basin (Gonzélez.1996a, 19960; ‘Schmitz and Barbosa 1985). As knowledge about dense and relatively complex Amazonian societies teases (Roosevelt 1993), models of competition ‘over riverine lands and population pressure are com- patible with ideas that weaker and smaller units were pushed upstream to less desirable rerra firme areas, ‘oreventto the drier lands of Central Brazil (Brochado 1984; Cameiro 1995; Lathrap 1970, 1972). However, ‘wo factors contradict simplistic views of Central Brazilian ring villages as settlements of migrant Amazonian populations. First, we lack direct e dence for migrations (as confirmation of any migra- tion model usually requires), and there is no indication that population pressure at the tributaries of the Amazon prompted demographic movements into Central Brazil. Further research inthe interme- diate areas between the Amazonian floodplains and Central Brazil will be crucial to evaluate this ques- tion, Secondly, and perhaps even more problematic for those who argue for Amazonian origins, isthe fact, that Central Brazilian ring villages display a very dis- tinct pattern of village organization. This distinct pattem, in addition o language, social systems, and :mythology, has allowed scholars to describe a unique Central Brazilian “cosmos” and to treat the Gé and Bororo as a single universe (Gross 1979; Lévi- Strauss 1973 [1952]; Maybury-Lewis 1965, 1979b; Steward 1946; Tumer 1979). Furthermore, with the ‘exception of isolated similarities with select Marajé Island sites (Roosevelt 19912:37, 192), Central Brazilian villages are quite different from most Ama- zonian settlements. The later usually display oval- shaped, continuous black earth refuse areas as aresult of afew dispersed long houses (Corréa 1987; Myers 1973), Insum, if we are to consider the ring Villages ‘of Central Brazil as an Amazonian import, why would they differ so much from Amazonian setle- ments? Instead, archaeological evidence points to the emergence of ring villages as a largely local devel- ‘opment. Theit rapid and sudden onset, their large size, and the concentric ring layout suggests that other pressures in the area promoted a rapid ongani- zation of population into larger and more structured ‘communities. These new settlement arrangements ‘could have ensured both protection and the distrib- {ol 10, No.1, 1990 ution of resources to larger groups. The nature of pressures promoting these changes are still unclear, but they do seem related to some in-migt action with neighboring groups (especially Tupians), nd warfare. Both the presence of Tupian materials throughout the area and the defensive structures found at sites located in bordering areas such asthe Upper Xingu also point in this direction. During the initial period of establishment, Uruand Aratu rng villages were contemporary, but from the twelfth century onward, the expansion of Uru set tlements from Mato Grosso eastwards seems to have contributed tothe collapse of Aratu villages. The lt- estreliable date for an Aratu village is A.D. 1470 and therefore prior tothe conquest (Mello 1996:268, Fi ure 57), Because we lack convincing evidence of conti- nuity between the archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric records, we cannot advocate the sim- plistic projection of ceramic phases to ethnographi- cally known groups as has been suggested by some scholars (Schmitz et al. 1982; for instance). Some sites from the Uru tradition in Goids* and Upper Xingu do continue into historic times. However, there seems to be no direct correlation between these ceramic traditions and specific ethnic groups’, ashas been suggested for the Xingu area where different linguistic and ethnic groups still obtain their ceram- ics through exchange with just one particular group, the Waura (Heckenberger 1996). Furthermore, at least some of the ethnographically known native groups have formed only recently, through complex processes of ethnic and cultural fusion (Urban 1992; ‘Waist 1994), Nature of Empirical Data Although 24 years of archaeological research inCen- tral Brazil (states of Goids, Tocantins, and Mato Grosso; see Figure 1) has provided a considerable amount of information about precolonial agricul tural societies, interpretation of cultural development and the dynamics of these societies is still hampered. by the lack of appropriate data. Information about Village plans, setlement pattem, and interste varia- tion of materia culture is particularly meager. Fur- thermore, large areas still remain unsurveyed, such as the intermediate zones between Amazonian ‘drainages and the plateaus of Central Brazil that are so.crucial to verify hypotheses of cultural exchange, 49 113° 18 (17° «19h Figure 10. Compared size of archaeological and ethnographic ring villages. ring villages (ie, 15 percent of known sites) where twoormore distinct ceramic tations appeartohave co-occured. The relations between culturally dis- tinct societies inthis region appear to have been more «dynamic than previously believed. However, a lack ‘of both contextual data and systematic regional sur- ‘veysinmost pats ofthis region impedes better def- inition of the nature of such intergroup interaction. From the fourteenth century on, Central Brazil- {an communities experienced strong external pres- sures. These forces have been identified by fortifications inthe Upper Xingu area (Heckenberger 1996), by settlement locations in excellent defensive Positions, and by the introduction of new ceramic complexes in the area (Waist 1990). Whereas the Societies ofthe Upper Xingu seem tohave responded to this challenge by increasing regional integration (eckenberger 1996), oters such as the Arata vil- lages, are thought to have collapsed. Their contacts with the Una villages resulted in much smaller habi- tation sites, sometimes located in hidden and narrow valleys, that replaced former large ring villages (Gonzalez 1996, 19966) Finally, although not responsible for the decline of circular villages, direct and indirect contact with Europeans caused significant change among these native societies, especially in terms of population and territory. A comparison ofthe ethnographic data with the archaeological evidence reveals considerable dis- parity in village size, Nearly 63 percent of all known ethnographic ring villages (for which dimensions have been published, see Table 3) are smaller than 3 hha and none are larger than 7.1 ha (n = 19). In con- trast, only 35 percent of the archaeological ring vil lages are smaller than 3 ha, and at least 28 percent exceed 7 ha (n = 46) Figure 10) Conclusion ‘The complex social structure of Central Brazilian native societies can no longer be considered an anom- aly, but rather the result of a long and continuous process of integration among culturally distinct groups due to feuding, demographic increase, and ‘extemal pressures. The onset of such a lengthy process precedes European conquest by at least one ‘thousand years and therefore cannot be considered.Wost and Barreto} ‘as alate or marginal development caused by contact. Instead, archaeological data provide strong evidence that ageregation of population into large communi- ties with complex systems of village organization and ‘aheavy dependence on agriculture evolved in their ‘own local trajectories, responding toa variety of cir- ‘cumstances, Emphasis on local developments has led us toiso- late demographic conditions and defensive concerns as the main factors shaping the ring villages of Cen- tral Brazil, Their typical layout can be explained as advantageous for defense, favoring strongerinnercon- trol compatible withthe ego-focused ideology still pre- sent among most Cental Brazilian native societies. ‘The consideration of ring villages asa local devel- ‘opment does not imply that we can ignore interac- tion and population inputs from neighboring areas. Infact, further research on the relationship between both inhabitants of wairzea and terra firme areas in the north and populations to the west will be essen tial to evaluat the nature of external pressures that were responsible for the variety of multi-ethnic alliances and interregional integration of different ‘groups suggested by the diversity of the archaeo- logical record ‘These data from Central Brazil also provide important implications for controversies in Ama- zonian archaeology. Significantly ou findings in cate that large communities and a kind of social complexity can occur in environments considered even poorer than both riverine and terra firme Ama zonia, contradicting hypotheses of environmental limitation for cultural development in the lowlands (as argued by Gross 1975; Lathrap 1968; Meggers 1954). The ring villages of Central Brazil offer advantageous conditions to measure at least one aspect of cultural development: community size (a ‘measurement often difficult to obtain in Amazonian contexts, especially for terra preta sites). Some authors have systematically interpreted large deposits asthe result of repeated reoccupations, consequently ‘minimizing population estimates and the degree of social complexity reached by Amazonian societies (Meggers 1992a, 1995; Miller 1992; but see DeBoer etal. 1996 fora contrasting view). Ifthere were such large settlements in Central Brazil, why should we deny till larger and denser occupations inthe Ama zon where ecological conditions for human devel- ‘opments are likely to have been even more advantageous? FING VILLAGES IN CENTRAL BRAZIL. 1° Inadkltion, our data from Central Brazil show that social complexity can emerge in ways that differ from the classic site-hierarchy models based on Mesoamerican and Andean examples. Although much remains to be done to understand both the developmental trajectories and degree of social com- plexity reached by Central Brazilian societies, indi- cations of loose (an perhaps ephemeral) settlement hierarchies related to differentregional arangements and alliances suggest that increasing social com- plexity also cantake place along ahorizontal dimen- sion and not as much asin the classic concentration ‘of powerin vertical hierarchies). this ideas sup- portedby future research, it willcertanly have major implications for models of chiefdom formation the ‘Amazon basi, Perhaps the main lesson thatthe history (and pre- history) of Central Brazilian societies teaches us is ‘that ethnographic knowledge cannot be simply pro- jected into the past. Unless a clea pater of conti nuty is documented, archaeological cultures should notbe identified with present native groups. The his- tory of Central Brazilian societies reminds us that cultural development in the South American low- Jands might have taken diverse paths and that only the careful documentation of different developmen- tal trajectories will allow archaeologists to evaluate ‘models derived from ethnographic acount. References Cited Agostino, P da S 1093. Texemuno da oeupsopré-xnguana nabcia dos fo ‘madores do Xingu In Karl von den Stine: um seul de ‘anopolgia no Xingu, eited by V. Penteado Coelho, pp 253-288, Eioada Universe de Sio Paso, So Paulo Andreata, M.D. 1982. Fadides de povoamentocmpré-hsria gona anive de sto tipo, Unpublished Doctoral dsseraton, Depart tment de Cis Seis, Univemidae de Sto Paul, Sto Paulo, 1988. Projeto Anhanguera de arqueologia de Gois (1975-1985). Revista do Museu Paulista, Nove Série Suse. Bald H 1979 A posigto social da mulher ene es Borro Orient. In Ensaios de etologia rasta braiiane W101 edited ‘by H Baldas, pp. 60-91. Companhia Editors Nacional, Sto Palo, Bamberger. 1967 Emironmentand Cultural Cassie: Stat of he ‘Northern Kavaps. Unpublished PhD disenttion, Depart ‘mento Antopoogy Harvard Univesity, Cambridge, 1911 The Adequacy of Kayan Ecological Adjustment. Pro- ceedings ofthe 38h Congres of Americans (Sugar Munich) 3373-399 Barhost, A'S, PIL Schmitz, A. Stobeus, and A.F. de Miranda 1982 Projeto Medio Tocantins: Monte do Carmo, GO. Fase20 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Crimi Pindorama. Pesquisas Anropolopia 4: 49-92. Instituto Anchietno de Peagusas,Ss0 Leopold, aet,C. 10996' The Emergence of Cena Bruzlian Nate Villages: Investigating the Teansion 0 Sedentismand Agiuluein Traditional Boro Tesitary. Paper presented atthe 6st “Annual Mecting ofthe Society for American Archacology, ‘New Orleans ‘Beckerman, 8. 1991 Araninestanarepleta de get. In Adapts dive. sidadebioligca do homem natvo da Amazin, edited by ‘W. Neves pp. 143-159, Museu Praease Emilio Goel, Belém Becgulin,P 1983 Arquelogia Xinguina In Kar! vom den Stinen wo ‘culo de antopolog no Xingu, ested by V.Penteado (Cos pp.228-232-Editorada Universidade de Sto Paulo, ‘Sto Pale Brochado,I-P. 1984 An Ecological Mode ofthe Spread of Potery and Agri: ‘ule into Eastern South America, Ph.D. dissetation, Department of Anthropology, University of Minos. Uni ‘erty Microflins, Ann Arbor Brame, E 1995 Hetrachy andthe Analysis Complex Socitis:Com- ‘ent InHeterarchy and the Analyse Comples Soci, fated by R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley, and J. Levy, 9.125-130 Archeological Papers No. American Anhro- ological Assxiaton, Atington. Cams. 1961 Slsh-an-Bur Culvaton among the Kiki and Its Implications for Cultural Development inthe Amazoa Basin In The Evolution of Horculura Stems tx Nate South America: Causes and Consequences: A Symposia edited by Wilber. pp. 47-67. Antopoliic,Soplement Padi cation No.2. arcs. 1983. Th Culaton of Manioc among te Kui Indians ‘of the Upper Xingu. In Adapive Responses of Native Ama ‘ona edited by RB. Hammes nd WT Vickers, p. 65-11 ‘Academic Press, New Yok 1995 The History of Ecological lterpretations of Amazonia Doxs Roosevelt Have It Rig? In Indigenous Peoples and ‘the Futur of Amazonia eed by LE Spemsel. pp. 48-70. University of Arizona Press, Taco, casebery SE 1974 Further Refinement of Formulae for Deteritng Pop- lations from Floor Are, World Archacology 6117-122. Chemelt,c.G 1986 Pesca €hieaquizae eiblno alto Usupés. In Suma ‘emoligica brasileira | Etnobiologi, eked by B. Ribs, pp235-219 alitora Ves, Petspli hayes 1915. Cusode apeyfegoumeno om métodere tcnicacargve ‘oldpens. Museu Atroplopico, Universiade Feral de Golds, Gotti Conta, €.8. 1987 Horicultores pré-hstiicas do teal do Par, Bras, ‘evis de Arqucologia 42)137-282. Museu Paraense Eno Geld Belém Cooper IM. 12. Areal and Temporal Aspects of Aboriginal South Ame ‘can Culture: Primitive Man 15(1-2):1-38. DeBoer W.R. K.Kinigh and A.C. Rostoker 1996. Ceram Seiation and Site Recccupation in Lowland South America Lat American Amiguty 7263-278 Dias, O.F, and ET. Carlo 1981-1982 Discussdosabreos iis da agricuturano Bras Wot. 10, No. 1, 1998, Arquivos do Muse de Histra Natral VI-VILI91-200, ‘Universidad Federal de Minas Gerais, Blo Horizon [hrenrich, R. ML C. Crumley. and. E Levy (edits) 1995 Heterarchy and he Anal of Complex Soceies, Arche ‘logical Papers No 6. American Anthropological Associa ‘ion, Aino, Fenstrifer and P.1. Schmitz TOTS. Fase Iprd. Uma fase Tupiguran. Andro de Div ‘gd Centfca 219-10, Universidade Cates de Goi, Goin. Flowers. N. 1983 "Seasonal Factors in Subsistence, Nuon, and Child ‘Growth na Cental Brain Indian Community. In Adap- tive Respomesof Native Amazonian edith RB, Hares and W-T Vickers, p. 357-390 Academic Pres, New York. Poel. 1968. 0s Xin Equipamentetéeicas de subsist Pab- Ticapbes Avalos No.7. Museu Parsnse Emilio Geld, Belem, GGiccari, Band A. Heide 1972 Xawane Aue Uptaic pov automo. Editora Dom Bowco, Sio Palo, Gonziler EMR. 1996 A ocupacdo ceramistapré-olonal do Brasil Central orgense desenvolvimento, Unpublished Doctoral dserta- tin, Departamento de Antropologa, Universi de So Pai, Sto Paulo. 1996 “Os grupos ceramistasp-clonisis do cento-cete brasleto, Revista do Museu de Arqucoogiae Emologia 685-121 Unversiade de Sto Paul, Gross, DLR 1075. Protein Cape and Cultural Development inthe Ams- 200 Basi, American Anthropologist 7526-59, 1979" ANew Approach o Cental arian Soil Organiza tion In Antopolopcal Perspectives. Esse in Honor of Carles Wagiey edited by M.- Margolis and WE, Carer, pp- 321-32. Colambia University Pres, New York, 1983. Vilage Movement in Relation wo Resources in Amano- nia. InAdaprive Responses of Naive Amazonian exited by RB. Hames and W. T. Vickers, pp. 429-450, Academic Pres, New York Haeckel J 1952 ‘Neue Beivge sur Kulursehichung Bastions Antho- pos 4:963-991. Heckeaberper M.J 1996 "War and Pace in he Shadow of Epi: Sociopoliticl ‘Change inthe Upper Kina of Southeastern Amazonia, AD. 1400-2000. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pitsburg. University Mirofins, Ann Arbor Leia, ME. 1983 Unaaldcia Tibia. In Habito desindigenas,ctedby S.C.Novas pp. 311-332 Editor da Universidade de Seo Palo, Si Pato Laap, DLW. 1968" The Hunting Economies of Tropical Forest Zone of ‘South Amenca An Atempt st Historical Perspective. In ‘Man the Hlater, edited by RB. Lee and Devore, pp. 23-29. Aldine, Chicago. 1970 The Upper Amazon. Prager, New York 1972_Alerative Models of Population Movements in the ‘Tropical Lowlands of South Ameria In Historia, emo ‘ori tologade la selva sudamercana, edited by RAV losde Matos and, Ravines pp. 13-28, Cento de Esios Paruanos, Lima Le stauss 1963 Simctra Amhrapotogy. Basic, New York 1970 Tristestpcos Bdtoral Universita, Buenos Ais,Wost and Barreto} 1973 [1952] Social Sauces of Cental and Easter Brazil In Peoples and Culnres of Native South America, edited by . Gross, pp. 263-274. Doubleday/The Natral History Press, Nw York, Lowe. 1049 Social and Polieal Organization ofthe Topial Forest. nd Marginal Tbs. In Handbook of South American nd fans, The Comparative Ethology of Sow Ameriean Ind fans, Nol. 5, edited by HJ. Steward, pp. 303-408. ‘Shitsonian Inston, Washingon, D.C: Marcus. 1 1976. The Size ofthe Early Mesoamerican Village. In The arly Mesoamerican Vilage edited by KV. Faery 79100, Academie Pres, New York. ‘Maytury-Lewis,D 1965. Some Criss Disnctionsin Central Bruin Eth ‘ogy. Anhropes 6340-358, 1967” Ave ShasaneSocies, Clarendon Pres, Oxford 1919s Intadacton In Dialectical Societies, De Gand Boro of Cental Braz, edited by D. Maybury-Lewis, p.-13. Harvard Universiy Press, Cambridge. 1978 Conciuson Kinship, Keology and Cul Dial ‘ical Societies. The Gé and Borom of Central Bra eed by D. Maybury-Lewis, pp.301-312, Harvard University Press, Cantidge, 1981 (1965) 0 selvagem ¢ income, Eitra da Unica Campines Maytury-Lewis D. (dito) 1919” Dialectical Societies. The GE and Bororo of Central Brac. Harvard Univesity Pres, Cambridge, MeggersB. 1 1954” Emionmentl Limitations on the Development of Cal ‘ure. American Anthropologist S602, 1911" Amazonia: Man and Nate on a Counter Paradise. Aldine, Chicago. 1072 Prehistoric America An Ecological Perspective, Aldine, Nes York, 19928 Prehistoric Population Density inthe Amazon Basin, In Disease and Demography i the Americas, eed by ‘W. Verano at D.H. Ubeaker, pp. 197-205, Smithsonian Insiaton ress, Washington, DI 19926: Review of Mounds ofthe Amazon: Geophys: ical Archaeology on Marj sland, Brazil" Journal of Feld Archaeology 19399-403, 1992e Amani Real or Counterfeit Paradise? The Review “of Archaeology 13(2)25-40. 1985" Amazonia onthe Eve of European Contac ihnobis: torical, Ecological, and Anthropological Perspectives, eva de Arquolga Americana 891-115 Melati, J.C. 1978. Ries de wna ribo Tnbira ia, So Palo 19861970] ns d Bra aitora Hie, itr a Uni ‘versa de Bra, io Palo Malo, J.C. ete) 1096. Levantamento eresgate do pstrimini agueaigi da ‘rea dretamente aes pela Usna Hiren Corum (GO). Relatrio final. Ms, on fle, Insuto Goiano de Pesguiss Argueolgicas, Universidade Catlin Furas Cents Beis, S.A, Goitnia Mendonga de Sra A.A 1981 "Relatéio preiminar do projet ds bacia do Parand 1974-1980, VTL. Mi.on le, MoseuAnropligico, Uni ‘versie Federal de Gis, Goins, Millen ET 1993. Arqueologia: ambiente. Dexemolvinent, arqueoogia ‘ns empreendinetoshdelcosdaeletronorie, rest das preliminares. Cea Elects do Note do Bis FING VILLAGES IN CENTRAL BRAZIL, a Myers. 1973. Toward dhe Reconstruction of Prehistoric Community Pagers Amazon Basin. tn Variation in Anthypologs ceded by D.W, Lathap and J. Dovel pp. 233-250 ois Archaeological Survey Urbana. 1992 Agricultural Limitations of the Amazoa in Theory aot Practice. World Archaeology 2882-97 Natl 1962_ Floor Area an Setlement Population American Ami tty 27 587-589, NinwendajC 1939) The Apinayé Athropology Series No. 8, Cahalic Uni ‘versity Press, Washington, DC. 1942" The Sheree. Frederick Webb Hage Anniversary Pub- lication Fund, Washington, DC. 1946” The Eastern Timbira. Publications in Archaclogy and Ethnology VoL Univer of California Pres Berkley. 1976 A habitagho dos Timbira. In Letras de emologia ‘rasa, edited by E, Shader pp. 44-62. Companhia Ei tora Nacional io Paul, owes S.C TOSS) As cass na erganioagio sca do espago Boro, In “Habitaesindigenas, eed by S.C. Novas, pp. 37-16 [Editora da Univesidade de Sto Paulo, So Palo. Patsh 1093 A tlopia Kar: sua posi intermedi no comin ‘au Je Tap. In Amazin: emolgiae hit Indien tty E.V.de Casto and MC. da Cnt py. 368-368. uceo de Hist Ingen edondigenism, Universidade de Sto Pal, Sto Paulo, Porro, A. 1994 Social Organization and Political Power the Arizon Floodplain. The Ethnohisoricl Sources. In smacon Fad ans. From Prison to Preset eitedby A.C. Roosevelt, 1p. 79-94, Univesity of Arizona Press, Tason Posey D. 1970 Pykatoti—Kayapmostraaldeiadeoigem,Atalidade Indgena 405)32-57 Resende, ET and A. Pros 1991 Os vetiios veges do Grande Abrigo de Santana do Riacho. Autos do Museu de Hsia Natal XIL8-11 Universidade Federal de Minas Goals, Belo Horicont, Rite, M-B. (eto) 1988 Relatro Projeo Lerantamento do Potencial Agu ‘olipico UHE Bara do Peixe-Goiks. Maniscrpt on fie, Insitute Goiano de Pesquisas Arqueoégiss, Universidade Catia de Gos, Gon obra, EM. 1990 Proetode Pesquisa Argueoigica das UHES de Sera da ‘Mesae Cana iva Relat | Ms on fil Instituto Goano de Pesquisas Arquolgiss, Universidade Catic de Gots, Goin, Rogers, J 1998 Tiles as Hetarchy: A Case Stay from Prehistoric Souther United Stats In Heer andthe Anais of Complex Societies. eitedbyR-EhreatcchC. Crumley, and J. Levy. pp 7-16. Archeological Papers No. 6. Amescan Antzopaogieal Associaton, Arington, Rondon, C-M. ds San). B. Faia 1948 Esbogo gramaticale wocaburio da lingua dos Boor, ‘Algamas endase nots emorrificas Coaslho Nacional de Proteio aos Indios, Publicagao No 7, Rio de ano, RoosevetsA. 19914. Moundbulders ofthe Amazon. Geophysical Archaeol (24) on Maré Island. Academie Pres, New York. 1) Determinism eclipcn na iterpretgto do deen ‘volvmenm social ingen da Amazin In Origen dap2 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY tagBes diversidade boca do homem native da Ama etd by WA. Neves pp. 103-142, Muse Pasense Eni Goel, Blin, 199te- Eighth Millennium Potery from a Preitori Shell Midden in the Brvitan Amazon, Science 25816211628 1993. The Rise and Fall of Amizonian Chietoms. Homme 144128, 33 2-4).255-288 1994 "Amazonian Anthropology: Strategy fora New Sythe- ‘is. I Amacom Indians from Prehistory fo Present Anthropological Perspectives, edited by A. C. Roosevelt, 129, Univesity of Arizona Press, Tucson sac 1983. Obserages sob a habitgso em us gros indige- ras brasieios. In abitaydes indgenas, ete by 8. C- [Nowes,pp 103-146, Edtorada Univenadase de So Palo, Sto Paulo, Sehmite, Pl 1976-1977 Arqueologis de Goiss Sequéncia cultural © atagdes de CIs, Anudrio de Dieulgagdo Clentifica 3-41-19, Universidade Catlica de oid, Goitia, 1987 Prebistrie Hunters and Gatherer f Bra Journal of World Prehistory 53-126, Soha P Land AS. Barbosa 1985 Horicultorespré-hsrics do etad de Gols Insi- tuto Anchietano de Pesquisas, Sto Leopoldo, ‘Schmitz, 1,1. Wost, $M, Cop, and U.E. Thies 1982" Arguologia do cenro-a de Got: uma fontera de hhortcuiores indigenas no contro do Brasil. Pesquisas “Anopoogia No. 33 lstituteAnchietno de Psu, So Leopido ‘Schmitz, P 1, MB. Ribeiro, AS, Barbosa, MO, Barbosa and ‘AE Miranda 1985. Arqcologia nos cermados do Brasil: Coiapinia. Inst ‘ute Anchltan de Pesquisas, So Leopoldo, Sia,A Lede 1983 Navan: easaaldeia-chiotera-vida. In Hablagdes IndgenaseitedbyS.C-Noves,p. 33-56. Era aU versie de So Pal, Sto Paul Simonsen, A.A. CM. de Sours A, de P Oliver, and SM, F Mde Sousa 1983-1986 Sitios cerimicos da bacia do Parani- Goi, “Argivs do Museu de Hisdria Natural VIM-IX:121-129, Univesidae Federal de Mins Gerais, Belo Horizont Sime, MF 1967” Consideragespreiminares sobre aarqueslgia do Alo ‘Xingu (Mato Gross). PRONAPA. resides peliminares {0 T-an0, 1968-1966. Publicapes Avuisas 6129-151 Museu Pataese Emilio Goel, Belem, SPHAN ©1980 Ientrio dos sts arqueoldgicos de Golds ‘SPHAN, Pro-Memoea ol. I Minto da cage Cul- ‘ur, Fundsgo Nacional, Stewar, JH. eto) 16 ‘Handbook of Sout American Indians, The Mar sal Tribes Srathsoniantnsauion Press, Washington,DC. Steward J Hand L.C-Faron, 1959 ‘Native Peoples of South America, McGrsw-Hil, New Yar. Tuner 7, 1979 ‘The Ge and Borore Societies as Dialectical Systems, In Dialectical Societies. The Ge and Bora of Cer Bri, cited by D. Maybary-Lewis, pp-147-178. Harvard Uni ‘erty Press, Cambridge. Uta, 1998 historia da cult brasileira segundo angus nati ‘as. In Hina dos ‘adie no Bras, cited by MC. da (Cunt, pp. 87-102. Companhia das Leta, So Pai. Nol 10, No.1, 1990 Vid 1977” Monee vide dewma sociedade ingen bras, Ed tora Huctee, Universidade de Sto Paulo, So Paulo. 1983" Oespao haitadente os Kap Xn In Habiop er ‘ndigena, etd by S.C. Novas, p. 77-102. Etora da Universidade de Sto Paulo, Sto Pao Vien RB. 1916. Asaldeias Boro, Algunvaxpectos de sus organisgdo ‘social Colegio Museu Pai, Serie tologa, ol2. Uni ‘ersade de Sto Pal, Sto Paulo 1989 "O eso antopelégco de aldeasndigenss no Bras ‘estado aual de uma peaguisa enre os Boron. Dédalo 2747-64 Universite de Sbo Palo, Sto Plo, Wemes D, TOM” Why Do the Mekranoi Tek In Adaptive Responses of Nanive Arazonians edited by RB. Hames and W.. Vick fer pp. 225-288, Academic Press, New Yok Withead NL, 1992 Tides Makes Stes and States Makes ites: Warfare ‘andthe Creation of Colonial Tribe and State in Norse frm South Ameria. In War inthe Tribal Zone. Expanding ‘States and genous Warfare edited by RB, Frgason sd NL Whitehead pp 127-180 School American Research Pres, Santa Fe, 1988 "The Ancient Amerindian Poles ofthe Amazon, the ‘Orinac, andthe Alani Coast. Preliminary Analysis of ‘hei Passage fom Amity to Extinction In Amazonian Indians. From Prehistory to Present Anthropological Per spective cited by A.C Roosevel, pp. 33°53, Univesity of Arizona Press, Tucson, Wiser C 1917. The American indian Am Itrdcton tothe Anthro ‘ology ofthe New Word. Oxted University Pres, New Nok. was 1975. A cerimica Car de Asan Adri de Disulgqio ‘Cienfoa?: 91-165 Universidade Cate de Ges, Git 1983" Aspects da ocupio pré-colonia! em uma drea do ‘Mato Gros de Golds - tentatva de andse espacial Unpublished master’s thesis, Departamento de Antopolo- sla, Universidade de So Plo, So Palo. 1984 "Field Notes, Museu Antopoligico, Universidade Fe ‘ede Goi, Goin, 1990 Contnuidade e mucanga: para ua inerpretagto dos _rapasprécooniaisna hata dorioVrmetho, Mato Groso. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Departamento de Antropologa, Universidade de Sso Paulo, Ss Palo, 1902" Precolonal Sealemen!Strteies in Boro Tentry, Brazil Archacology and Enironmen in Lat America, stedby 0, Ona Troneoso and van der Harmen pp. 253-258, Unveritet van Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1994 ‘The Easter Boro froman Archeological Perspective. InAmazonan Indians. From Prehistory to Present: athe ological Perspectives, edited by A. C. Roose, pp. 315-32. Unversity of Arizona Press, Tucson, Was [and HB: Carvalho 1986 "Nous perspectvs para o estado dos ceramistas pr ‘coloiis do Cenro-ceste Bras: «ands espacial do Stio Guar | (GONT1O0), Gois. Revista do Muse de Arqueologia ¢ Emologia 6:47.81. Universidade de Si0 Pao, Sto Palo Notes 1 Boror villages provide a good example of such processes Viluges visited by Baldus in 193 (Has 1979) were salost end Barret} and locate in extremely marginal arcs for agiclee. Tei survival depended mainly onthe natives employment by sur rounding farms. Sicha senario contrasts markedly with thei ‘ler villages, oeted in alley forests where nuencrch sis allowed the clvation of maize (Wost 1990) 2-The erm cerrado les to the local svannalike envionment of seb growth. 53. Evidence ofthe possible cater presence of arcu in ‘Minas Gerais is repre ut requires fare confirmation (Dias snd Cara 1981-1982), '4 Fortwo Ara sites inthe southeast par of Goi, there re ‘wo absolute dats eave than A.D. SOD tha sil requ oar ‘maton (Andreata 1988155; Mello 1996-268). 5. Aceoding to thse autor, the Arata tain inthe state of (Gos has been associated with the Souther Kayan 6. Nevertheless, sme Hear sts of Arua phase (Ur a tion) can be securely associated with the ethaogrphicaly known Karat Wis 1995) 7. Pech (193) suguests ht the linear villages ofthe pesca ‘Karaj may bea result significant change inosmological and sciopoitial sce of former circular vilages due to Tpian fnfuence. 8. These numbers ar drawn rom all known archaeological sites ‘in the sates of Gos, Tocantins, Mato Groso, and the Feder Distt, compiled by Wis inthe last several years forthe [PHAN (Istituto do PatimdnioHistricoe Aristo Nacional) 9. Ses in ental Gos were mapped between 1977 and 1981 (Wist 1983), Sites inthe Rio Vermeto region were mapped between 1982 and 1989 (Wast 19%), 10, Ina ststion highly affected by contact, the daa from the Boro show that only twos of the houses were ooctpied atthe same time (Ws 1954), FING VILLAGES IN CENTRAL BRAZIL 2 11. Bthmographie da from the Boor show tht intra vi lage hierarchies are reared to elan descent, expresied throvgh rues of production, use, and borowing of specific materials exclusive to paricuar clans. Several clan also have exclusive ‘myths and chants that exes the hirarchcal positon of the ‘nv within the village (Vierer 1976, 12 This isa paricuar kindof cau (ashes of wae sponges, vary of Pormula bates, a species found in the Paraguai River, 13 Ethnographic accounts ofthe Boor give san ie ofthe ature of such village hicrarcies. Among this group, hie ies occur mainly ata religious level, hough the power of shamans, an is oly inde elated w the production of su pls. As only a few villages have more powerful and popular Shamans, the number of eligius fess aking place at these villages increases, consequent also fostering the redistribution of goods and atractng temporary reside from ober villages (Wise 1998) 1M. The men’ cub house shold not be confused ith the bach- o's hut for reason of youngsters. The later consttion also ‘sometimes located inthe domestic rng, a repared for Xavante and Kayap Xs (Giacaia and Hebe 1972; Vida 1979, 15, Although the term “eterarcy has often been used in oppo- sion to vercal hierarchy (renech et 195), we expesly voided its use inthis context, because ican suggest the exis tence of unranked stems Brunel 1995: Rogers 1995). I oes not seem applicable to this case i which atleast some epee of ranking is shown by diferenes in village size and aces oetoic materials, Ieceived April 29, 1997; accepted August 15, 1997, revised February 2 1988