Agricultural productivity and Amazonian settlementThe nature of Pre-Columbian agricultural systems i...

1. Manioc agriculture and sedentism in Amazonia: the Upper
Xingu example.
Agricultural productivity and Amazonian settlement
The nature of Pre-Columbian agricultural systems in Amazonia has
stimulated considerable debate, specifically: can one or another
cultigen - maize or manioc - provide a stable agricultural base for
sedentism and population growth (e.g. Cameiro 1961; 1986; Gross 1975;
Meggers 1996; Roosevelt 1980)? Certain ecological factors are generally
seen to limit production and intensification of those subsistence
resources that can support sedentary or densely distributed populations.
Low agricultural productivity, characteristic of many Amazonian soils,
and the generally low density and patchy distribution of terrestrial
game are commonly cited as limiting factors (Gross 1975; 1983; Johnson
1982; Meggers 1954; 1996; Ross 1978; Sponsel 1989). It has become
accepted that the highly restricted varzea regions, primarily the
floodplain settings of the major 'white-water' rivers (the
Amazon and its Andean-derived tributaries), did not impose these
environmental constraints on demographic or economic growth due to their
fertile soils and higher concentrations of rich aquatic resources (e.g.
Brochado 1984; 1989; Cameiro 1986; 1995; Denevan 1996; Lathrap 1968;
1970; 1987; Lathrap et al. 1985; Meggers 1996; Moran 1993; Roosevelt
1980; 1989; 1994).
In areas away from the varzea, the broadly-defined terra firme, the
model of environmental limitation still has wide currency: '[u]nder

2. extensive management systems, the increased labour time cost of
subsistence production provides a strong incentive for groups to keep
their settlement density low and move about frequently (520 year
intervals)' (Gross 1983: 429). Many scholars, in fact, feel the
incentive was so great as effectively to have prevented the development
of large, permanent villages in upland areas characterized by
low-fertility soils (e.g. Brochado 1989; Brochado & Lathrap 1982;
Gross 1975; Meggets 1996; Roosevelt 1980; 1991; 1994). Certainly local
ecology differentially constrains cultural development in Amazonia, but
we adequately understand neither the parameters of ecological
variability nor of cultural adjustments to it. The limits imposed on
human populations by Amazonian nutrient cycles turn out to be
substantially higher than analysis of contemporary societies might lead
us to believe (e.g. Balee 1989; 1995; Beckerman 1979; Denevan 1992;
Dufour 1994; 1995); manioc agriculture, even on low-fertility soils
(utisols/oxisols), when combined with ample aquatic resources can
provide a stable economic foundation for densely settled, fixed
populations (see, especially, Cameiro 1957; 1961; 1986; 1995; Denevan
1996; Lathrap et al. 1985).
Heated debate continues over the subsistence base of Amazonian
societies, particularly with respect to:
* the staple crops of the densely populated varzea societies
[manioc, maize, or some similar seed-crop) and
* whether large, sedentary societies could develop elsewhere in the

3. region; if so, did this also depend on staple foods other than manioc?
Debate is deadlocked because reconstruction of prehistoric diet
remains largely speculative; most models are derived not from detailed
analysis of an actual prehistoric pattern, but instead projected from
ethnographic and human ecological patterns of contemporary groups. Those
few studies which use archaeological data are often preliminary and
depend almost exclusively on one or a few well-documented examples.
Expanding interpretations from specific archaeological examples to broad
regional patterns therefore depends on gross, and often unwarranted,
generalizations regarding contemporary populations.
In the present discussion, ethnographic and archaeological evidence
are reviewed which demonstrate:
* large, densely populated, and fully sedentary populations did
exist in one non-varzea setting (the Upper Xingu) prehistorically;
* these populations relied primarily on bitter manioc and fish, as
do their ethnographically known descendants; and
* increased productivity of these staple foods using an existing
technology, and not technological innovation, provided the economic
foundation for populous, sedentary social formations.
The Upper Xingu (Mate Grosso, Brazil), one of the southernmost

4. extensions of the hyleian forests of Amazonia, is presently home to
diverse cultural groups, speaking Arawak, Carib, Tupian, and other
languages. Most Upper Xingu communities are part of a distinctive
Xinguano regional cultural pattern, established in the region over a
thousand years ago. Since initial recorded contacts in the late 1800s,
the Xinguanos have been extensively studied ethnographically. Most
important, for the present discussion, are Robert Carneiro's (e.g.
1957; 1961; 1983) studies of Xinguano (Kuikuru) settlement patterns and
subsistence, particularly manioc agriculture; these studies were the
first to challenge the environmental limitations theory by empirically
refuting the assumption of low agricultural productivity for Amazonian
soils. Carneire (1983: 103) concludes that in the past:
The Kuikuru and their neighbors probably had bigger villages,
stronger chiefs, mobilized labor on a larger scale, and perhaps even had
social classes. If manioc cultivation did not create this culture, it at
least provided the economic foundation on which it could be reared.
Carneiro's ethnographic interpretations have met with mixed
feelings (see Descola 1996; Gross 1975; Roosevelt 1980), but there is no
a priori ecological reason to doubt them (Beckerman 1979: 535).
Preliminary archaeological investigations conducted in the 1950s by
Carneire and Gertrude Dole (1961-2) documented earthworks in the Upper
Xingu clearly related to large, settled villages; due to
misinterpretation of these as natural features by several professional
archaeologists who later worked in the region (Knoip 1969; Simoes 1967),
the significance of the sites has seldom been considered in critiques of

5. Carneiro's reconstructions. New archaeological evidence, based on
recent investigations by the author (summarized in Heckenberger 1996),
supports and elaborates Carneiro's conclusions regarding village
size and the productivity of Xinguano subsistence patterns, especially
manioc agriculture.
Villages and village life in diachronic perspective
The cultural sequence in the Upper Xingu, as presently known, extends
from c. AD 900 until the present. Within this sequence, cultural
continuity is demonstrable based on conservatism within three
fundamental, and archaeologically visible, aspects of Xinguano culture:
* ceramic technology;
* village spatial organization; and
* settlement location within the Upper Xingu basin.(1)
The earliest occupations (c. AD 900-1500) apparently relate to
colonization of the Upper Xingu by Arawakan groups from the west; they
represent the ancestral foundation of contemporary Xinguano culture.
Over the past 500 or more years, various distinctive groups moved into
the basin; many came to share this basic Xinguano cultural pattern
(Heckenberger 1996; 1997). Beyond demonstration of cultural continuity,
these resilient features of regional cultural patterns provide the basis

6. to reconstruct changes in regional demography, economic organization,
and the scale and productivity of agriculture. Continuity in local
ceramic industries and land-use patterns demonstrate that the basic
economic orientation, based primarily on terra firme agriculture and
exploitation of diverse aquatic resources, characterized communities
throughout the sequence. Dramatic changes have occurred during the c.
1000-year Xinguano occupation, most obvious when we consider the size
and regional distribution of contemporaneous settlements.
Contemporary villages are formed by a ring of houses around a large
circular plaza. Plazas range from roughly 100 to 250 m in diameter;
typically between 50 and 350 people occupy a village. Plaza villages are
situated in selected areas which provide access to diverse ecological
settings, notably the upland forests and major waterways (and associated
bottomland); these favoured locations become focal points for long-term
permanent occupations [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. Thus, the
ideal Xinguano settlement pattern involves permanent occupation and
long-term transformation of these 'choice' areas, in an ideal
of sedentism that permeates every aspect of village life. Unlike many
Amazonian societies, particularly those which emphasize mobility
(seasonal or permanent) and hunting, Xinguanos prefer a large,
well-maintained and permanent ('beautiful') village, depend on
the continued exploitation of diverse habitats around these villages,
and delight in the camaraderie and sociability provided by stable and
well-developed patterns of trade and interaction. Settled village life
not only reflects itself in village spatial organization, subsistence

7. economics and socio-political relations, but also permeates ritual life,
with pronounced intra- and inter-village ceremonialism, and the
personalities of villages.
The picture provided from archaeology demonstrates that in the past
Xinguanos were also sedentary manioc farmers and fisher-people; and it
documents that their settled tropical-forest life-way was not held in
demographic (or evolutionary) stasis by ecological limitations. Manioc
agriculture, in combination with the rich aquatic resources of the Upper
Xingu, provided the economic foundation for substantially larger village
populations and regional population aggregates, as Carneiro predicted.
Archaeological investigations conducted by the author at various sites
in the Upper Xingu basin were concentrated in the territory (some 625
sq. km) currently occupied by one contemporary Kuikuru (Carib-speaking
Xinguano) village. The Kuikuru - or Carib groups ancestral to the
contemporary Kuikuru - have occupied villages in one or another part of
this territory for at least the past c. 500 years. Considerable
fieldwork was conducted at two sites in Kuikuru territory, Nokugu
(MT-FX-06) and Kuhikugu (MT-FX-11)(2) [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 2
OMITTED].
The obvious difference between contemporary villages and prehistoric
sites is scale: prehistoric villages are immense by comparison.
Contemporary Xinguano villages are commonly situated within or adjacent
to ancient settlements. Some 2.5 km west of the present-day Kuikuru
village - the largest historically-known Xinguano village in area V,
roughly 275 m in diameter, and in population some 320 people - lies the

8. prehistoric site of Nokugu. At Nokugu, a vast area of over 40 ha and
extending over a kilometre along the Anahuku (Buriti) River is covered
by archaeological remains [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED]. At first
glance, one would think that the archaeological distributions resulted
from the type of clustered occupations typical of contemporary
settlement patterns. Upon thorough exploration, one sees that the entire
site area of Nokugu is covered by ceramic sherds and by various
artificial earthen constructions. Systematic mapping of these features,
made possible by opening parallel linear corridors (5 m wide) through a
wide array of vegetation, reveals that the earthworks articulate into an
elaborate structural plan. A similar pattern can be reconstructed for
the even larger site of Kuhikugu (some 50 ha in area], where the Kuikuru
lived from the mid 1800s until 1961(3) [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 4
OMITTED], and at several other sites in the Kuikuru study area
(MT-FX-13, 17, 18, and - perhaps - others).
Mapped in their full extent, the substantial earthworks, apparently
constructed more or less contemporaneously across the region in the 14th
century, provide a ready plan for archaeologists of late prehistoric
settlement organization. Their intentional construction according to an
integrated architectural plan is unmistakable. More structurally
elaborated than in contemporary villages, this plan nonetheless reflects
the same underlying concentric model of spatial organization; domestic
areas gravitate toward a central plaza(s) with spoke-like radial
causeways. Late prehistoric communities, unlike their ethnographic
descendants, constructed huge barriers around their settlements. At

9. Nokugu and Kuhikugu, and other sites in the Upper Xingu,(4) the most
prominent earthworks are large, semicircular ditches at the outer margin
of the domestic occupation area and, at Nokugu, also within the village
area. These ditches reach a depth of 3-4 m, including the ridge of
excavation overburden heaped on the inside berm; the village peripheral
ditches often extend over 2 km. Linear ridges, roughly 0.5-2 m high, at
the edges of central plazas and intra-village causeways also are
prominent features in the integrated architectural plan. A primary
function of this plan was almost certainly defence, although these
features undoubtedly had important aesthetic, symbolic and, perhaps,
economic functions.
The layout of prehistoric villages or the earthworks themselves is of
less interest here than what they say about village size and permanence.
The scale of the earthworks shows that the communities which built them
had every intention of staying put; whether or not the villages had been
abandoned and reoccupied during the centuries preceding earthwork construction (c. AD 900-1000
to AD 1400). Peripheral ditches define the
boundaries of these ancient villages since virtually all cultural
remains (e.g. ceramics) are confined within the ditches. The
distribution of domestic ceramics throughout areas within the peripheral
ditch(es) demonstrates that these roughly define the boundaries of
residential occupation, although occupation was apparently denser in
areas closer to the central plazas. The lack of anthropogenic 'black earth' (terra preta) or subsurface
ceramics in most
areas closer to the peripheral ditch(es) indicates that these areas were
occupied late in time, suggesting population nucleation concomitant with

10. ditch construction.
Although we cannot estimate village populations precisely, the
physical scale of the sites and their associated earthworks indicates
substantially larger populations than in historically known villages.
The contemporary Kuikuru village, about 0.06 sq. km or 6.0 ha, is about
one-eighth the size of the average of Nokugu and Kuhikugu, 0.45 sq.km;
the village had a population of about 320 in 1994. This figure
multiplied by eight would give a population estimate of about 2500
people. The within-village Kuikuru population density of about 53
persons per hectare multiplied by the Nokugu-Kuhikugu average of 45 ha
gives a similar figure, 2385 people (see Agostinho 1993:277 for even
higher estimates).
These estimates of village population based strictly on village area
are conjectural. Nonetheless, we can conclude that late prehistoric
villages, more than 10 times the area of most historically-known
villages, had higher populations; particularly considering that the
plaza constitutes well over half of the entire village area in the
Kuikuru village (roughly 5 ha) and considerably less in late prehistoric
villages. The substantial earthworks, and the aboveground structures
(e.g. palisades, fences, bridges, traps) which likely accompanied them,
would have demanded a large labour force, likely much larger than could
be mounted today. I would guess that village population at sites like
Nokugu, Kuhikugu and others likely exceeded 1000-1500 people, and may
have ranged considerably higher.

11. Xinguano subsistence economy
Clearly village and regional populations were substantially higher in
late prehistoric times. Likewise, it is clear that these populations
were fully sedentary. The question remains, how did these large
population aggregates support themselves? Contemporary populations
combine manioc farming in terrafirme areas with aquatic food foraging,
and there is compelling reason to believe that prehistoric populations
depended on the same staple foods. Contemporary Xinguano subsistence
patterns, like most ethnographic Amazonian populations, show a great
diversity in the foraged and produced resources; nevertheless, bitter
manioc and fish together constitute 90-95% of the diet (Carneiro 1994).
Subsistence practices
Cultivated plants make up some 85% of the Xinguano diet, the vast
majority from some 46 varieties of bitter manioc (Manihot esculenta sp.)
(Carneiro 1983; 1994: 207). Numerous other domesticates, including maize
(Zea mays), sweet potatoes (Ipomoea bataras), hot peppers (Capsicum sp.), pineapple (Ananas
comosus), squash (Cucerbita maxima), peanuts
(Arachis hypogaea), banana (Musa paradisiaca) and recently introduced
non-native cultigens, are grown. Among non-food domesticates, Xinguanos
cultivate gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), cotton (Gossypium barbadense),
tobacco (Nicotiana sp.), and uructi (Bixa orellana). Palm fruits,
including buriti (Mauritia flexuosa) and macatiba (Acrocomia
sclerocarpa), as well as piqui (Caryocar brasiliense) and other fruits,

12. e.g. goiriba (Psidium guajava), caju (Anacardium occidentale) and
mangaba (Hancornia speciosa), are also consumed (Carneiro 1978). Some,
notably piqui and macauba, are considered 'semi-domesticates'
since they occur in areas of past habitation sites, but do not generally
occur naturally. Salt is manufactured from the ashes of water hyacinth
(aguape) and from burned tree termite nests.
Buriti palm, which grows in low-ground wet areas, is of primary
importance not only for its fruits; its leaves and stalks are used for
myriad purposes (e.g. cordage, mats, seats, skirts, internal house
walls, occasionally house thatch). Sape grass (Imperata sp.), a
colonizer of disturbed ground, is also of singular importance as house
thatch. The house frame is constructed using select forest trees
(Carneiro 1978). Innumerable other wild plants are used for industrial
purposes, medicines and other purposes.
Second to agriculture in terms of subsistence activities and dietary
importance is fishing. Fish, including over 50 exploited species,
provide about 10-15% of the diet, the primary source of animal protein
(see Camelto 1957; 1994: 207). Traditional Xinguano technology, which
includes various traps, weirs, nets, poison, bow and arrow, and lances,
can exploit virtually all the diverse fishing areas - small streams and
rivers, major rivers, and standing bodies of water ranging from small
'mud-holes' to expansive and deep lakes (Basso 1973: 37-9;
Carneiro 1957: 126-31). In recent times, hook-and-line fishing, a
western introduction, has become important.

13. Other forms of animal protein include: wasp larvae, sauva ants,
several species of grasshoppers (sometimes taken in large quantities),
turtles (Podocnesis sp.) and their eggs, one type of monkey (Cebus sp.)
and several species of birds, including jacu (guan) and curassow
(Cracidae), and one or two smaller species. Monkeys and birds are
especially sought during times when dietary restrictions preclude the
consumption of fish (see Carneiro 1957: 116-25).
By and large, Xinguanos (especially Carib and Arawak groups) have
strong restrictions against the consumption of 'red' meat from
the abundant terrestrial animals (including tapir, peccary, deer, sloth,
paca, capyvara, coati, agouti, armadillo, tortoise) (Basso 1973;
Carneiro 1957; Carvalho 1951; Gregor 1977). Restrictions also apply to
some aquatic animals, notably cayman and very large fish. Dietary
restrictions (taboos) vary slightly from village to village depending on
location and, especially, ethnic group.
Manioc processing and ceramic continuity
Manioc is processed and cooked through a sophisticated process that
is, by and large, unique to the Upper Xingu. In brief summary, manioc
processing proceeds through the following general steps:
* tubers are collected from gardens and brought to the village;

14. * tubers are peeled (traditionally using a shell);
* peeled tubers are grated using a wooden grater (inagi);
* grated pulp is rinsed through a mat strainer (tuafi) over a large
vessel separating the pulp into a fine fraction (which passes through
the strainer) and a heavy fraction (which does not pass through the
strainer and is removed and dried as a clump called timbuku);
* the water from the straining is removed and boiled for several
hours to remove toxins and produce a thick beverage called kuigiko.
* the fine fraction is removed in sections and dried;
* the dried sections are ground into flour (kuiginu); timbuku is
also sometimes ground into flour but only if the kuiginu runs out.
(For detailed descriptions of manioc processing see Carneiro 1983:
96-9; Dole 1978.)
Manioc processing, technically sophisticated and standardized, is
functionally linked to a very specific set of utensils and cookware.
Contemporary Xinguano communities recognize three primary ceramic forms
which, although historically manufactured almost entirely by the
Arawakan-speaking Waura, are found in every household throughout the
Upper Xingu. The forms include:

15. * large to medium, flaring-rim vessels (averaging 45-70 cm in mouth
diameter), which are used to process and cook manioc [ILLUSTRATION FOR
FIGURE 5 OMITTED];
* medium to small, everted- or direct-rim cooking vessels
(averaging 20-45 cm in mouth diameter), which are used primarily to cook
fish; and
* flat or shallow griddles (averaging 35-55 cm in mouth diameter).
Native communities likewise recognize these as the primary ceramic
forms. The Kuikuru (Carib-speaking Xinguano) classify these three
principal forms as ahukugu, atangi and alato; the Waura likewise
recognize these primary forms, called kamalupi, makula and heshe,
respectively. Size and rim form are the primary characteristics the
Kuikuru use to distinguish between ah ukugu and atangi forms. These
forms have specific functions in contemporary villages, namely
processing and cooking of manioc (ahukugu and alato) and fish (atangi),
although any ceramic vessel can serve a variety of ancillary functions;
of note, ahukugu forms are also used to cook piqui fruits during
harvesting season (late October through early December), and a variant
was traditionally used to carry and store water (see Galvao 1953: 49).
These 'core' elements of the Xinguano ceramic industry are
virtually identical in prehistoric and in contemporary ceramic
assemblages; the primary ethnographic forms correspond exactly to the

16. principal forms in prehistoric assemblages, notably including:
* the large to medium cooking pots, identical to ahukugu forms
(designated here as Type 1A) [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 6 OMITTED];
* the medium to small (atangi-like) cooking pots, with everted
(Type 1B) and direct (Type 1C) rims; and
* manioc griddles.
Of all vessels identified from the prehistoric ceramic assemblage (n
= 688 forms), Type I vessels dominate with 584 forms, 85%. Of the Type 1
forms, the 363 Type 1A vessels constitute 62% (53% of the total
inventory of typed vessels; with 209 definite forms from Mt-Fx-06 and
154 forms from Mt-Fx-11), and the 206 Type lB and 1C vessels 35% (30% of
the total inventory; with 136 forms from Mt-Fx-06 and 70 forms from
Mt-Fx-11). Griddles constitute about 6% of the total assemblage, and
roughly 8% of the total number of typed vessels correspond to forms
other than ah ukugu, atangi or alato forms. Continuity with contemporary
ceramic industries can be demonstrated also in ceramic manufacture:
paddle/anvil (slab/clump) manufacturing technique, the preponderance of
cauixi temper (sometimes mixed with other inclusions, including burned
tree bark (caraipe), grog, charcoal and grit], techniques of surface
treatment (exterior red slip, interior black pigment), burnishing and
smoothing, and decoration (rim incising, punctuation and rim adorno
applique). Small quartz burnishing stones and clay manufacture

17. 'clumps' recovered in excavated prehistoric deposits likewise
resemble modern examples and provide further evidence of ceramic
continuity.
We can assume that the economic functions related to these ceramics
correspond to similar functions in prehistoric communities and, like
form, manufacture and decoration, ceramic use-wear patterns on Type 1A
ceramic vessels correlate well between the prehistoric and the
contemporary ceramic assemblages. The two most informative wear patterns
are:
* significant erosion on the inside rim and vessel interior, likely
due to the processing or cooking of bitter manioc notable for its acidic
toxins; and,
* wide notches worn into the rim lips of large ahukugu forms
resulting from the cross-bars placed over the pots to process manioc.
Functional continuity, obvious in the manioc-processing ceramics
(ahukugu or Type 1A forms and griddles), can also be suggested for the
fish-processing ceramics (atangi or Type lB and 1C forms). Although the
introduction of aluminium and plastic vessels has resulted in the
near-total replacement of ceramics for water-carrying, storage and some
food-processing activities, cooking of manioc and fish continues to be
conducted almost exclusively in ceramic vessels due to their functional
superiority.

18. Sufficient archaeological data demonstrates that bitter manioc was
the staple food of prehistoric Xinguanos by three lines of evidence.
There is demonstrable continuity in ceramic ware associated with manioc
processing. Except for seasonal piqui and infrequent sweet potato
processing, plant products are generally not processed or cooked in
ceramic vessels; although maize fiat cakes are rarely cooked on
griddles, for example, maize is roasted over an open fire and ground
into flour in large wooden mortars. Secondly, as widely recognized (see
Roosevelt 1980:79-93 for a summary), the generally low fertility of
unaltered Amazonian upland soils (e.g. oxisols/utisols) makes them
unsuitable for the cultivation of many crops (notably maize and other
seed crops). Finally, the use of terra firme (non-inundated) forest
settings near prehistoric sites, provides the means to evaluate
prehistoric manioc agriculture.
The limits of Xinguano subsistence productivity
Xinguano communities, like most Amerindian peoples, exist in
intricate anthropogenic landscapes formed in the natural environment by
the long-term occupation of specific ecological settings (Posey &
Balee 1989). Settlements are, and have been in the past, located at the
interface of terra firme forest (providing flat, dry forest land for
manioc gardens) with rivers, lakes and even small streams (providing

19. areas for fishing, fresh water and
transportation). As localized areas
experience concentrated long-term occupations,
the already mosaic
regional ecology becomes even more patchy;
specific locales - chosen
because they meet select hydrological,
topographic and vegetational
criteria and are therefore naturally good habitation locations - become
even more attractive for human habitation. Pronounced anthropogenic
alternation of the environment concentrates both natural and symbolic
resources in these special places (Heckenberger 1998). Over time,
intimate familiarity with these concentrated resources induces
continually greater commitment to place. This pronounced commitment to
and alteration of specific places relates to a general Xinguano ethos of
sedentism characteristic of both past and present communities (described
above), but prehistoric villages were much larger, more permanent and
elaborated, and transformed local ecology far more than contemporary
villages. This raises important historical questions, most notably for
the present discussion: what are the productive limits of a subsistence
technology based on manioc farming and fishing?
Late prehistoric settlements being substantially larger than
contemporary villages -and more numerous - necessitates that overall
production must have been considerably higher. This does not
necessitate, however, that individual families produced more than
present-day Xinguanos, that production was more communally based, or

20. that the primary subsistence technology was radically different.
Economic intensification involved increased productivity of the primary
food sources, manioc and fish, rather than innovations in technology or
the introduction of exotic cultigens. Increased agricultural
productivity could have been achieved either by more extensive (more
gardens) or more intensive farming (greater productivity per unit area).
Likewise, aquatic foraging could have been practised more extensively or
more intensively through management systems (e.g. turtle pens). Overall
increases in productivity quite likely involved all of the above to some
degree, as well as greater reliance on resources other than manioc or
aquatic fauna.
Carneiro (e.g. 1957; 1961; 1983) has shown how agricultural
productivity within a domestic mode of production similar to today could
be increased far beyond historically-known levels - more extensive
agriculture. He also provides ethnographic documentation that manioc is,
in fact, produced, processed and stored in great quantities during the
dry season (Carneiro 1983). Contemporary manioc gardens (kwigi anda) are
opened in areas of primary or secondary forests, used for 2-5 years,
after which the plot usually stands fallow for about 10-30 years. Manioc
gardens are well tended during their use, and often substantial
barricades are constructed to keep peccaries out. Fallow periods do not
represent complete abandonment, but alteration with a long-term cycle.
Gardens are often managed through continued reburning to produce sape
grass for house thatch, or as groves of piqui trees, planted while the
plot is still producing manioc. Gardens not managed after abandonment

21. quickly return to scrub forest (after 10-30 years) and high forest
(50-70) years; it is these secondary forest stands, and not primary
forest, which are usually cleared for new gardens, only rarely being
opened in 'primary' or 'virgin' forest (itsuni)
(Carneiro 1983). So, Upper Xingu communities do not abandon their
gardens at all, although the crops (domesticated or not) planted or
managed in them change over time in a long-term pattern of cyclical
rotation.
Long-term alteration of local vegetation, clearly documented in
aerial photographs, demonstrates that agricultural areas around
prehistoric villages were far more extensive than those associated with
contemporary villages [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURES 7 & 8 OMITTED]. It
is also clear that these areas were used much more intensively than
today, as well. Forest alteration related to historic occupations has a
low impact on local forest cover and more closely corresponds to the
general Amazonian (ethnographic) model of extensive swidden agriculture
- discrete clearings in the forest that, as Carneiro (1983) noted,
return to high forest in less than a century. In contrast, the
prehistoric agricultural areas, like the prehistoric village areas
themselves, have still not returned to high forest after centuries of
disuse and show a patchy or mosaic regrowth. Although difficult to
evaluate precisely, prehistoric manioc farmers undoubtedly used their
garden areas far more intensively than the pattern of short-cropping
followed by long fallows or abandonment characteristic today (see also
Denevan 1992).

22. In a subsistence economy based on manioc and fish, what was the
nutritional status of the Upper Xingu diet? As suggested by Dufour
(1995: 160), manioc 'may not be quite so poor a source of protein
and minerals as we have assumed, but as is true of other staple foods
its nutritional value is a function of processing'. In the Upper
Xingu, as in most areas of Amazonia, the processing techniques that
remove the toxic properties of bitter manioc provide a wide range of
edible substances each with distinctive nutrient characteristics
(Carneire 1983; Dole 1978). Fine-grained manioc flour (kuiginho)
produced by contemporary Xinguanos is more highly processed even than
that produced by most other Amazonian groups; it undoubtedly has a
nutritional status rather different from the unprocessed raw, cooked or
fermented sweet manioc from which most studies of the nutritional status
of manioc are derived (Dufour 1994; 1995]. Nonetheless, manioc products
do not in and of themselves provide a balanced diet and we must consider
the ability to increase harvesting of primary subsistence resources
other tha manioc. The contemporary Xinguano diet, based on manioc and
fish, maintains good health among communities numbering in the hundreds
(Dufour 1994: 164-5; Fagundes-Neto et al. 1981), but could it be
maintained among village populations numbering in the low thousands
given a technology and dietary profile like that of contemporary
Xinguanos?
With respect to the cultivation of secondary crops other than manioc,
another aspect of agricultural systems should be addressed: the house
garden (see Denevan 1992; Lathrap 1997). House-midden 'black

23. earth' deposits within villages are only minimally used by
contemporary Xinguanos for house gardens. These deposits, due to their
high fertility, support a wide variety of subsidiary crops, many of
which do not grow well in unaltered terrafirme soils (e.g. maize). In
the Kuikuru village, some backyard house middens are only minimally
cultivated, others are mono-cropped, but most are planted with varied
food and other plants (e.g. gourds and tobacco). In prehistoric
settlements, rich 'black earth' soils, which are far more
extensive than in contemporary villages and also include large
contiguous blocks associated with the road and plaza marginal mounds
(formed in part by repeated dumping of domestic refuse), may have been
cultivated even more systematically and intensively by families or
larger social groups.
In contemporary villages, the primary protein source is fish,
supplemented by turtles, turtle eggs, insects (ants, grasshoppers, wasp
larvae), birds and diverse plant products (notably palm, piqui and other
fruits). The relative quantities of Type lB and 1C ceramic vessels
(fish-cooking pots) demonstrates that fish were a primary food source
prehistorically as they are today. Many aquatic resources could be
harvested at levels far surpassing contemporary levels using a
technology essentially identical to those of the present-day Xinguanos.
Communal fishing with weirs and traps, provides the means to harvest
substantial quantities of fish. Primary traps, utu and itaka, are placed
in weirs using a stick or pole frame with palm leaf thatch placed
between the wooden braces below the water-line. The largest Kuikuru

24. weir, cutting off the Anahuku River at Ahanitahugu, was a tall (3-6 m)
community-built weir several hundred metres in length and containing
over 40 conical itaka traps. During high-water fish runs, hundreds of
kilogrammes of fish could be harvested in a single day; swimmers would
also occasionally drive fish downstream into the traps. Smaller, squat
weirs with one or a few itaka or utu traps were constructed by
individuals or a related group of men for private use. Weirs are also
placed across standing bodies of water to facilitate fishing with poison
(inte) or with a plunge basket-trap (kundu). Several hundred kilogrammes
of fish were captured for one ceremonial payment from the shallow waters
(less than i metre) at Hialugihiti using the kundu dunk traps. Prominent
men also organize fishing expeditions by a large group of related men,
typically netting hundreds of kilogrammes of fish and normally carried
out today using commercial nets. Little attention has been paid to
issues of increasing productivity of aquatic resources in native
Amazonian economies, especially in broadly-defined terrafirme areas (cf.
Garson 1980; Limp & Reidhead 1979); the Upper Xingu case
demonstrates the vast potential of these resources (Carneire 1986).
Fishing productivity varies seasonally, but alternative nutrient
sources can also be used or produced at much higher levels than is
ethnographically known (see Beckerman 1979; Carneire 1957). Native
cultivated plants other than manioc - maize, piqui, sweet potato,
peanuts, peppers, among others - can also be collected in large
quantities; like manioc, many are storable for long periods. Piqui is
harvested in great quantity and stored as pulp under water. Carneire

25. (pers. comm., 1994), for instance, witnessed over 11,000 piqui fruits
collected by the Kuikuru in preparation for an egitse ceremony the
following year. Other seasonally available foods include several
varieties of palm fruits (available in different seasons), mangaba,
turtles (sometimes kept in pens or tethered with a string through the
carapace) and turtle eggs, as well as insects/larvae. In sum, we can
conclude that in the Upper Xingu, processed bitter manioc and fish,
supplemented with diverse wild plant and animal foods, prehistorically
provided a secure nutritional base for large, sedentary regional
populations.
Discussion
For better or worse, prominent debates in Amazonian archaeology, or
more broadly, in the study of Amazonian cultural development, revolve
around the potential of one or another agricultural economy for
sedentism and population growth (Carneire 1995). As it is acknowledged
that large, sedentary societies existed along the Amazon (the varzea) in
late prehistoric and early historic times (and likely long before),
recent debate has focused on differences, particularly the differential
productivity of soils and aquatic resources, between this area and the
rest of Amazonia. Comparisons are often flawed, however, insofar as they
ignore prehistory and context and tend uncritically to compare ancient
occupations of the varzea with contemporary upland occupations. Yet
there are no comprehensive early ethnohistorical or archaeological
studies which document that regional settlement patterns were roughly

26. similar to present-day patterns, from anywhere in the Amazonian uplands.
Even in those few areas where well-documented sequences of cultural
development can be reconstructed, the dietary base is uncertain.
Significant archaeological evidence exists: manioc-based systems can be
inferred from analysis of lithic artefacts, graterboard chips, and
ceramic griddles (cf. DeBoer 1975); Roosevelt's (1980, 1991, 1994)
arguments for maize or other seed-crop agricultural systems in the
varzea are based on analysis of macro-botanical remains and on human
bone chemistry. But precise reconstructions of prehistoric diet are
hampered by severe problems of taphonomy, recovery and sampling. In the
Upper Xingu, for example, manioc, which is largely processed outside
houses and unburned refuse heaped on backyard trash middens, would be
archaeologically detectable through microbotanical or soil chemical
analyses (rarely employed in the tropical lowlands), but would likely be
largely absent from macrobotanical samples; conversely, maize (a minor
crop) would be obvious in macrobotanical analyses since ample carbonized
remains are likely produced when maize is roasted in indoor firehearths.
Carneiro's discussions of Xinguano cultivation practices provide
one of the most detailed treatments of agricultural potential in
Amazonia (e.g. 1961; 1983). He showed how manioc production in the Upper
Xingu, using a technology essentially identical to that of contemporary
communities, could sustain large (up to 2000 according to him) sedentary
populations, but it remained to be demonstrated that it did.
Archaeological evidence, now available and summarized here, generally

27. substantiates Carneiro's conclusions; it refutes general models
which minimalize the potential of upland areas for intensive agriculture
(e.g. Gross 1975; Meggers 1996; Ross 1978) or that suggest intensive
agricultural systems and dense, sedentary social formations in upland
settings were narrowly restricted to areas of high-fertility soils (e.g.
Roosevelt 1991; 1994a). It also supports the general observation, often
overlooked in discussions of protein limitations in Amazonia, that where
aquatic resources abound, fishing and other forms of aquatic foraging
generally take economic precedence over terrestrial hunting (Beckerman
1994; Carneiro 1986; Lathrap et al. 1985).
In the Upper Xingu, demonstrated continuity in cultural and material
life provides the means to evaluate long-term trends through controlled
historical comparison (rather than broad general, and often uncritical,
correlations or analogies). What is clear from such comparisons is that
local populations were not held in demographic stasis by any broadly
defined ecological determinant (e.g. soil infertility or protein
limitation) or technological deficiency. In fact, although it seems
reasonable that such an ecological imperative may have characterized
some regions of Amazonia prehistorically, this remains adequately to be
demonstrated archaeologically for any area of Amazonia. Likewise, the
present findings do not refute models that propose fundamental
transformations in subsistence economies as the primary catalyst of
prehistoric cultural change (e.g. a purported shift in some varzea
economies from root-crop to seed-crop agricultural systems; Roosevelt
1980; 1991; 1994). But they do cast serious doubt on the generality of

28. these models. Cultural change in the Upper Xingu, at any rate, is not
closely correlated with such transformations, but instead relates to the
consequences of other social, political or ideological factors. The
Xinguano subsistence economy remained essentially the same through
periods of profound change in village and regional demography and
socio-political relations; in fact, in historical perspective, Xinguano
techno-economics, particularly settlement patterns and the manioc
farming/fishing subsistence economy, turn out to be surprisingly
flexible, in terms of scale and productivity, but extremely resistant to
overall transformational change.
Research in the Upper Xingu underscores the diversity of resource
management and settlement strategies among pre-columbian (and
contemporary) Amazonian populations. A serious problem with
archaeological reconstructions (and those from ethnology and human
ecology) in the region stems from uncritical and generally unwarranted
generalizations regarding upland ecologies and human interaction with
them. The terra firme regions represent a tremendous range of
geophysical, hydrological and biotic diversity, so variable regionally
that it is questionable whether terra firme (or varzea for that matter)
actually refers to any definable set of ecological characteristics
(Denevan 1984; Moran 1991; 1995). Perhaps, as Carneiro (1994: 64)
suggests, the Upper Xingu represents 'something of a "Halfway
house" between the varzea habitats of the lower Amazon and the
terra firme habitats of the interfluves', but there is no reason to
see the Upper Xingu as an extraordinary, singular case - i.e. the

29. conditions for intensified production of manioc and aquatic resource
capture (and hence the potential for large, sedentary populations) apply
to other upland areas as well. Therefore, the distinction between varzea
and terra firme is a gross oversimplification, particularly insofar as
it is seen directly to reflect differential potential for agricultural
intensification, population growth or other related factors typically
viewed as key determinants of cultural evolution.
In short, the empirical evidence necessary for archaeological
reconstruction of generalized cultural patterns, such as the notion of a
'tropical forest culture', whether it defines riverine patterns (e.g. Lathrap 1977), those of upland
areas (e.g. Roosevelt
1980; 1991), or both (e.g. Meggers 1996], simply does not exist.
Regional anthropological debate is therefore better served by moving
beyond overly general cultural models (i.e. prime mover or prime
inhibitor models) and oversimplified generalizations to the development
of in-depth studies of specific regions and regional social systems, in
as much cultural and historical detail as possible, providing the basis
for more penetrating and illuminating comparisons in the future.
Acknowledgements. Primary funding for the Upper Xingu research was
generously provided by the National Science Foundation, Washington
(grant no. DBS-9214806) and the Social Science Research Council, New
York. My special thanks to Afukaka Kuikuru and his family, the Kuikuru
community, Aritana Yawalipiti, Robert Carneiro, Bruna Franchetto, Sandra
Wellington, James Richardson III and James Petersen.

30. 1 The Upper Xingu basin can be generally characterized as a peneplain surrounded by
topographically higher areas and is largely confined to
the broad area (some 40,000 sq. km) where the principal headwater tributaries converge to form the
Xingu River proper.
2 Site designations correspond to the nationwide Brazilian site
registration system based on state, in this case Mato Grosso (MT), and
region (here referring to headwaters (formadores) of the Xingu River
(FX).
3 The Kuikuru moved to the village of Ahanitahagu, adjacent to
Nokugu, to be included in the confines of the Xingu Indigenous Park
which was established in 1961. They moved to their present location
adjacent to Lake Ipatse, several kilometres east of Nokugu, in 1971.
4 Ditches and other works described here are known from at least 15
sites in the Upper Xingu (Heckenberger 1996: 76).
References
AGOSTINHO DA SILVA, P. 1993. Testemunhos da ocupacao ore-Xinguana na
bacia dos formadores do Xingu, in V.P. Coelho (ed.), Karl van den
Steinen: Um Seculo de Antropologia no Xingu: 223-87. Sao Paulo: Editera
da Universidade de Sao Paulo.
BALEE, W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. in Posey &
Balee (ed.): 1-21.

31. 1995. Historical ecology in Amazonia, in Spansel (ed.): 97-110.
BASSO, E.B. 1973. The Kalapalo Indians of central Brazil. New York
(NY): Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
BECKERMAN, S. 1979. The abundance of protein in Amazonia: a reply to
Gross, American Anthropologist 81: 533-60.
1994. Hunting and fishing in Amazonia: hold the answers, what are the
questions?, in Roosevelt (ed.): 177-200.
BROCHADO, J.P. 1984. An ecological model of the spread of pottery and
agriculture into eastern South America. PhD. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
1989. A Expansao dos Tupie da Ceramica da
Tradicao Policromica
Amazonica, Dedalo 27: 65-82.
BROCHADO, J.P. & D.W. LATHRAP. 1982. Amazonia. Unpublished MS.
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
CARNEIRO, R.L. 1957. Subsistence and social structure: an ecological
study of the Kuikuru Indians. Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ann Arbor (MI): University Microfilms.

32. 1961. Slash-and-burn cultivation among the Kuikuru and its
implications for cultural development in the Amazon Basin, in J. Wilbert
(ed.), The evolution of horticultural systems in native South America:
causes and consequences, a symposium: 47-67. Caracas: Sociedad de
Ciencias Naturales La Salle. Antropologica, Supplement Publication 2.
1978. The knowledge and use of rain forest trees by the Kuikuru
Indians of central Brazil, in Ford 1978: 201-16.
1983. The cultivation of manioc among the Kuikuru Indians of the
Upper Xingu, in Hames & Vickers 1983: 65-111.
1986. The ecological basis of Amazonian chiefdams. Unpublished ms.
1994. Kuikuru, in J. Wilbert (ed.), Encyclopedia of world cultures 7:
South America, 206-9. Boston (MA): G.K. Hall.
1995. The history of ecological interpretations of Amazonia: does
Roosevelt have it right?, in Sponsel (ed.): 45-65.
CARVALHO, J.C.M. 1951. Relacoes entre os Indies do Xingu e a fauna
regional. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional. Publicacoes Avulsas.
DEBOER, W. 1975. The archaeological evidence for manioc cultivation:
a cautionary note, American Antiquity 40(4): 419-33.

33. DENEVAN, W. 1984. Ecological heterogeneity and horizontal zonation of
agriculture in the Amazon floodplain, in M. Schmink & C. Wood,
Floodplain expansion in Amazonia: 311-36. Gainsville (FL): University of
Florida Press.
1992. Stone vs metal axes: the ambiguity of shifting cultivation in
prehistoric Amazonia, Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society
20(1-2): 153-65.
1996. A bluff model of riverine settlement in prehistoric Amazonia,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86(4): 654-81.
DESCOLA, P. 1994. In the society of nature: a native ecology in
Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOLE, G.E. 1961-2. A preliminary consideration of the prehistory of
the Upper Xingu basin, Bevista do Museu Paulista. (NS)13: 399-423.
1978. The rise of manioc among the Kuikuru: some interpretations, in
Ford 1978: 217-47.
DUFOUR, D.L. 1994. Diet and nutritional status of Amazonian peoples,
in A. Roosevelt (ed.), Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to the Present:
Anthropological Perspectives, 151-76. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
1995. A closer look at the nutritional implications of bitter cassava use, in L.E. Spansel (ed.),

34. Indigenous peoples and the future of
Amazonia: an ecological anthropology of an endangered world: 149-65.
Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
FAGUNDES NETO, U., et al. 1981. Observation of the Alto Xingu Indians
(central Brazil) with special reference to nutritional evaluation in
children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34: 2229-35.
FORD, R.I. (ed.). 1978. The nature and status of ethnobotany. Ann
Arbor (MI): Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Anthropological Papers 67.
GALVAO, E. 1953. Cultura e sistema de parentesco das tribes do Alto
Xingu, Boletim do Museu National (Antropologia) (NS) 14: 1-56.
GARSON, A.G. 1980. Comment upon the economic potential of fish
utilization in riverine environments and potential archaeological
biases, American Antiquity 45(3): 562-7.
GREGOR, T. 1977. Mehinaku: the drama of daily life in a Brazilian In
dian village. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
GROSS, D. 1975. Protein capture and cultural development in the
Amazon Basin, American Anthropologist 77(3): 526-49.
1983. Village movement in relation to resources in Amazonia, in Hames

35. & Vickers 1983: 429-49.
HAMES, R. & W. VICKERS (ed.). 1983. Adaptive responses of native
Amazonians. New York (NY): Academic Press.
HECKENBERGER, M.J. 1996. War and peace in the shadow of empire:
sociopolitical change in the Upper Xingu of southeastern Amazonia, ca.
AD 1400-2000. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. Ann Arbor
(MI): University Microfilms International.
1997. A periferia meridional da Amazonia: cultura e desenvolvimento
cultural na fronteira entre Brasfi e a bacia amazemica. Paper presented
at the 9th annual meeting of the Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira,
Rio de Janeiro, September 1997.
1998. Revisionism in Amazonian ecological anthropology: the ancient
cultural landscapes of the southern Amazon. Unpublished manuscript.
JOHNSON, A. 1982. Reductionism in cultural ecology: the Amazon case,
Current Anthropology 23 (4): 413-28.
KNEIP, L.M. 1969. Relaterio sabre as valetas do Porque Nacional do
Xingu. Estado de Mate Crosse. Rio de Janeiro. UFRJ-Museu Nacional.
LATHRAP, D.W. 1968. The 'hunting' economies of the tropical
forest zone of South America: an attempt at historical perspective, in

36. R.B. Lee & I Devore (ed.). Man the hunter: 23-9. Chicago (IL):
Aldine.
1970. The Upper Amazon. New York (NY]: Praeger.
1977.Our father the cayman, our mother the gourd: Spinden revisited,
or a unitary model for the emergence of agriculture in the New World, in
C.A. Reed (ed.), Origins of agriculture: 713-51. The Hague: Mouton.
LATHRAP, D.W., A. GEBHART-SAYER & A.M. MESTER. 1985. The roots of
the Shipibo art style: three waves on Imariacocha or there were
'Incas' before the Incas, Journal of Latin American Lore
11(1): 31-119.
LIMP, W.F. & V.A. REIDHEAD. 1979. An economic evaluation of the
potential of fish utilization in riverine environments, American
Antiquity 44(1): 70-8.
MEGGERS, B.J. 1954. Environmental limitation on the development of
culture, American Anthropologist 56: 801-24.
1996. Amazonia: man and culture in a counterfeit paradise, Revised
edition. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.
MORAN, E.F. 1991. O estudo da adaptacao humana em ecossistemas

37. amazonicas, in W.A. Neves (ed.), Origens, adaptacoes e diversidade
biologica do homen nativo da AmazOnia: 161-78. Belem: Museum Paraense
Emilio Goeldi.
1993. Through Amazon eyes: the human ecology of Amazonian
populations. Iowa City (ID): University of Iowa Press.
1995. Disaggregating Amazonia: a strategy for understanding
biological and cultural diversity, in Spansel 1995: 72-95.
POSEY, D.A. & W. BALEE (ed.). 1989. Resource management in
Amazonia; folk and indigenous strategies. New York (NY]: New York
Botanical Society. Advances in Economic Botany 7.
ROOSEVELT, A.C. 1980. Parmona: prehistoric maize and manioc
subsistence along the Amazon and Orinoco. New York (NY): Academic Press.
1989. Resource management in Amazonia before the Conquest: beyond
ethnographic projection, in Posey & Balee (ed.): 30-62.
1991. Moundbuilders of the Amazon: geophysical archaeology on Marajo
Island, Brazil. New York (NY): Academic Press.
1994a. Amazonian anthropology: strategy for a new synthesis, in
Roosevelt 1994b: 1-29.

38. 1994b. (Ed.), Amazonian Indians .from prehistory to the present:
anthropological perspectives. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
ROSS, E.B. 1978. Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy: the
adaptation to animals in Amazon cultural ecology, Current Anthropology
19(1 1-36.
SIMOES. M.F. 1967. Consideracoes preliminares sabre a arqueologia do
Alto Xingu, in Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueologicas: resultados
preliminares do primeire one. 1965-1966. Belem, Museu Paraense Emilio
Goeldi, vol. 6: 129-144.
SPONSEL, L.E. 1989. Farming and foraging: a necessary complementarity
in Amazonia?, in S. Kent (ed.), Farmers as hunters: the implications of
sedentism: 37-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Ed.). 1995. Indigenous peoples and the future of Amazonia: an
ecological anthropology of an endangered world. Tucson (AZ): University
of Arizona Press.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manioc%2Bagriculture%2Band%2Bsedentism%2Bin%2BAmazonia%2
53A%2Bthe%2BUpper%2BXingu%2Bexample.-a021221494