The long-standing questions raised above have been approached from several theoretical perspectives and interdisciplinary methodologies ever since Spinden (1916) proposed the seminal unitary theory of a Neolithic Revolution, centered in Nuclear America. Methodological advances and novel theoretical perspectives, primarily emerging from historical ecology (Balee 1989, 1998; Erickson 2003, Chapter 11 in this volume) in the last twenty-five to thirty years, coupled with an ever widening coverage of sample/data points in the huge expanse of the South American tropical lowlands, have added new interpretative dimensions to our current understanding of the complex synchronic and diachronic processes leading from food and plant procurement to agricultural food production systems in Amazonia.
Also, in recent decades, knowledge has substantially advanced on Amazonia’s complex ecology, environmental diversity, its potential for food procurement and production, and on its possibilities and limitations for sustaining and nourishing densely populated, sociopolitically complex societies (summarized in Oliver 2001). The so-called “Standard Model” initiated by Steward in 1948 (see Steward and Faron 1959) and further developed by Meggers (1954, 1971, 1996) through her theory of Environmental Determinism has been severely
Criticized (Viveiros de Castro 1998; Neves 1998, 1999). Meggers’ (1996, 2001) view of Amazonia’s cultural evolution and history as a “counterfeit paradise,” framed in terms of soil potential and sharp disparities in animal/protein concentration (varzea vs. terra firme), today is no longer accepted by the great majority of scholars (Piperno and Pearsall 1998; Denevan 2001). A good example of this is Heckenberger’s (2005) very recent total deconstruction of the archetypal “autonomous village” and “tribal” societies of the upper Xingu. The specifics on the failures of the Standard Model have been so abundantly discussed elsewhere that there is little gained by repeating them here. Stahl (2002) has produced what I believe to be the best synthetic review of these critiques, and Erickson (2003) has also succinctly reiterated these reviews from a historical ecological perspective, albeit specifically addressing the significance of the anthropogenic terra preta or Amazonian Dark Earths (hereafter, ADE).
As the evidence for the rise of agriculture is examined in the subsequent sections, some knowledge of the theories and models proposed by Lathrap (1970, 1977; see Oliver 1991) and by Denevan (1996, 2001) will significantly help readers. Lathrap’s (1977) Neolithic Revolution model rests on the evolutionary process of adaptive radiation (Lathrap 1976) and upon the principle of historical contingency (see Oliver 1991), whereas Denevan (2001) focuses on the long-term cultural history of anthropogenic (primarily agricultural) landscapes and their implications in terms of paleodemography, settlement pattern and social organizational trends.
Here I wish to reiterate just three key points made by these scholars. First, Lathrap (et al. 1985: 54) concluded that slash-and-burn agriculture (Figure 12.2) was largely
Figure 12.2. Recently slashed and burned Yabarana (Carib) swidden field in the upper Orinoco. Note the individual carrying an iron hoe, a metal tool that encourages clearing new forested patches (photo by Jose M. Cuxent 1959).
“a secondary, derived and late phenomenon within the Amazon Basin,” while Denevan (1992, 2001: 115-123) reinforced this view by noting that the clearing of new forests for cultivation, prior to the introduction of steel axes and machetes by Europeans, was not likely to have been as widespread in the past as it is today. Second, Lathrap (1970: 44) and Denevan (1996: 654-81) argued that the best piece of “real estate” for settlement location capable of sustaining dense populations in Amazonia is to be found on stretches of stable river bluffs (Figure 12.3). Settlements on river bluffs would have access to the diverse floodplain/river biotopes and to terra firme forests on older alluvial soils and, as a bonus,
Figure 12.3. View of a modern agricultural field on a terra firme bluff along the Solimoes River, near the confluence with Negro River. (photo by Eduardo Neves)
Avoid the problems of periodic high floods (Figure 12.4). Third, Lathrap (1970, 1977;
Lathrap et al. 1985) tended to view all of the bluff-varzea as a continuous zone having more or less the same potential for intensive agriculture and high population density, with terra firme inter-fluvial forest/savanna areas having low population density. In contrast,
Denevan (1996) proposed that pockets or patches of intensity and large tracts of low intensity developed in both varzea and the diverse habitats of terra firme.
Denevan (2001: 127-130, 1996) attributes such non-continuously distributed patchworks of intense agricultural/settlement developments to one or several of the following factors: the complementary rich resources of varzea-bluff locations (Figure 12.4); the uneven access to river channels and floodplains; the inefficiency of stone-axes in constantly creating new agricultural fields from mature forests; and the patchwork distribution and development of rich black and brown (ADE) soils from previous, sustained human disturbances (Figure 12.5).
The distribution of ADE is no longer limited to the bluffs adjacent to major white and black water rivers as once thought, but also found as patches of diverse sizes and shapes in savanna scrublands and in other terra firme habitats drained by clear water rivers (Lehman et al. 2004; Erickson 2003; Glasser and Woods 2004) (Figure 12.5). Thus far, there is a near-consensus that the anthropogenic black-soils were formed by long-term or persistent human occupation and not the result of farming or forest fires (whether natural or slash-and-burn; for a full review see Erickson 2003). When, where and how many of these ADE patches were first utilized as cultivation plots and to which archaeological traditions they are associated, is still unknown. It is clear that ADE patches are currently under cultivation by modern Amazonian societies; the Kayapo call such ADE plots apete and Xiguanos name them egepe, while Brazilian farmers call them terra preta do indio. The Hatahara estate, located on a bluff overlooking the Solimoes River, for example, runs an orchard/ plantation of papaya (Carica papaya) trees on ADE (Petersen et al. 2001; Neves et al.
2003). Neves (personal communication, 2000) also reports for the same area, small-scale mining and bagging of ADE to sell as top-class topsoil in the market.
Figure 12.4. Idealized cross'section of the different biotopes between main whitewater river channels, varzea and terra firme bluff. The simultaneous and/or sequential agricultural exploitation of these diverse niches can sustain denser populations, with long'term residential stability, and which favorsing bluff areas for settlement location. (adapted from Denevan 1996 by Jose Oliver)
Figure 12.5. Terra preta or Amazonian Dark Earths (ADE) is an anthropogenic soil formed by intense human occupation. These fertile soils can then be used as cultivation fields. Agutuba site, Negro-Solimoes region. (photo by Eduardo Neves)
World History
