Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia Using G.I.S. To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia Using G.I.S. to reconstruct ancient ethnogenetic processes from archaeology, linguistics, geography, and ethnohistory Eriksen, Love 2011 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Eriksen, L. (2011). Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia: Using G.I.S. to reconstruct ancient ethnogenetic processes from archaeology, linguistics, geography, and ethnohistory. Human Ecology Division, Lund University. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia Using G.I.S. to reconstruct ancient ethnogenetic processes from archaeology, linguistics, geography, and ethnohistory Love Eriksen Copyright © Love Eriksen Illustration on rear cover by Kristina Anshelm Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Human Geography Human Ecology Division ISBN 978-91-7473-113-2 ISSN 1403-5022 Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University Lund 2011 ii Till Morfar Hans Hansson 1928-2009 iii 2008:1148; Saunaluoma 2010:106). These dates reflect two different periods of construction, possibly associated with two cultural complexes: the first one associated with the expansion of the Arawak regional exchange system across Amazonia, and the second one with the general increase of defensive fortifications precipitated by the expansion of Tupi-speakers in late prehistory. Other ceramic phases of the Acre area include the Acuriá, Japiim, Jacamim, and Muru phases of the upper Jurúa River (Simões 1983), none of which we know much about. Also discovered in this region are the Ituxi phase of the middle Purús and the Jacuru phase of the upper Purús (Perota 1979, qtd. in Kern et al. 2003:56; Simões 1983). On the upper Purús River is also the Quinari tradition, composed of the Iquiri, Xapuri, Iaco, and Quinari phases (Dias 2006; qtd. in Saunaluoma 2010:102). Apart from the fact that the Quinari tradition shares some features with the Barrancoid and Amazonian Polychrome traditions, such as the use of caraipé32 temper and anthropomorphic vessel shapes, these ceramic complexes are too unknown to serve as the basis for wider conclusions concerning general cultural development in the area. 2.3 Historical linguistics At the time of contact, the area in western Amazonia with the highest linguistic diversity was the northwest corner of the region. Geographically delimited by the upper Amazon, the Napo River, and the Andean mountain chain, this area hosted a number of linguistic isolates such as Waorani, Muniche, Candoshi-Shapra, Tabancal, Urarina, Taushiro, and Paéz. Small families such as Hibito-Cholon and Cahuapanan contribute to the diversity (fig. 2.3.1). The only Chibchan language of the region, Cofán, is found in the extreme northwestern corner, in the upper Napo area. Further down the Napo, speakers of Western Tucanoan languages such as Siona, Macaguaje, and Orejón inhabited the area between the Napo and Putumayo Rivers. These languages are related to the Eastern Tucanoan languages of the northwest Amazon and were at some point separated from these by the large block of Witoto-speakers north of the Putumayo River. Further downstream, along the southern side of the Putumayo, were speakers of the Peba-Yagua family and in the area between the lower Putumayo and the upper Amazon lived speakers of the isolated Ticuna language. The main Amazon River was at time of contact dominated by Tupi-speakers all the way from the lower Amazon up to the lower Ucayali, where Panoan languages begin to dominate. At the time of European arrival, the Tupian languages dominated the Amazon River for a distance of over 2000 km, with a number of different languages and dialects spoken. Starting from the 32As noted by Carneiro (1974a), the spelling of the name of this tempering material manufactured from tree-bark-ash has (wrongly) been standardized as cariapé. The correct spelling is caraipé. 32 easternmost part of western Amazonia, the largest Tupi-speaking groups on the southern shore of the main river were the Yurimagua, Ibonama, Cocama, Omagua, and Cocamilla. Finds of pottery of the Amazonian Polychrome tradition indicate that Tupi-speakers also exerted influence along the Napo River. Due to the rapid extinction of most of these groups, the internal structure of this Tupi-speaking cluster is poorly known.33 Most linguistic studies recognize a maximum of three Tupian languages in this area: Omagua, Cocama, and Cocamilla (the latter two often grouped together as Cocama-Cocamilla) (see e.g. Campbell 1997:200; Jensen 1999:131; Lewis 2009). Linguistic studies have now exposed the relation between Cocama and Omagua as a non-genetic relationship, which means that these languages are not derived from a single ancestor language (Cabral 1995; Michael n.d.:7f). Prior to this discovery, Cocama and Omagua were considered products of an upriver migration of the Tupinambá, whose language would have diversified into Cocama and Omagua. Now that this account is no longer considered accurate, Epps (2009:599) has suggested that that Cocama and Omagua represent two different language shifts from Arawak languages to Nheengatú, the Tupinambá-based lingua franca still spoken in the northwest Amazon. As much data from these languages is lacking, a clear solution to the problem of the relationship between Cocama, Omagua, and the Tupian language family does not seem likely. However, the fact that from the mouth of the Purús to the Peruvian border, the Tupi-speakers along the main Amazon had Arawak-speaking neighbours immediately to their north may suggest that Arawaks once populated the main river (see fig. 2.3.1). Also, the case of the Waraikú, the only undisputable Arawak language between the upper Purús and the Amazon, suggests a refugee population surrounded on all sides by Pano- and Katukina-speakers. Returning to the linguistic composition of western Amazonia at the time of contact, the area between the Amazon, Marañon, and Napo Rivers was, as mentioned above, characterized by a large number of language isolates and small families. Two small to medium-sized families, Jivaroan34 and Zaparoan was also present in this area, exhibiting vertical control over the ecological zones along the eastern Andean slopes and the trade routes running through this territory. 33 Several factors contributed to the rapid reduction of Tupi-speaking societies of the upper Amazon: their strategic location along the main river exposed them to European-introduced diseases, slave raids, and military expeditions. Moreover, as these Tupian societies were already militarized before European conquest, having expanded rapidly in the centuries before contact and being used to conquering powerful enemies, they frequently chose to respond to European penetration into Amazonia with military force, which proved fatal to all indigenous groups attempting this strategy. 34 The upland Jivaroans were heavily Incanized, while the lowland groups were less so (Adelaar with Muysken 2004:418). 33 34 Figure 2.3.1. Ethno-linguistic groups of western Amazonia at the time of contact. The Tupi-speaking groups were in almost total control of the main river up to the lower Ucayali area, but between the mouth of the Napo and Marañon Rivers, their dominance seems to have been broken by a group of Witoto-speaking Ocaina (fig. 2.3.1). The presence of the Ocaina along this part of the Amazon, however, may simply reflect the post-Tupian situation in the area. The Ocaina were also present north of the Putumayo River, neighboring the Andoke (a linguistic isolate). This may indicate that the Ocaina of the upper Amazon split off from the main block of Witoto-speakers and expanded south into western Amazonia, either following the general upheavals in the area during late prehistory due to the Tupian expansion, or during the early days of colonization when the power of the Omagua, Cocama, and Cocamilla was beginning to decline. In the area around the Huallaga River, between the Marañon and Ucayali Rivers, a number of isolated or unclassified languages dominate the linguistic map. Here we find the unclassified Aguano, Muniche, Moyopampa, Chachapoya, and Payanso, as well as the small Cahuapanan and Hibito-Cholón families (fig. 2.3.1). Here also lived the Chamicuro, an Arawak-speaking group close to the lower Ucayali, most likely the remains of a more extensive Arawak cluster that once inhabited the upper Amazon. Taylor (1999:198) mentions that the upper Huallaga in pre-Inca times was inhabited by Arawak groups related to the Yanesha. These groups were probably also related to the Chamicuro,35 who at the time of contact occupied the area between the lower Huallaga and the lower Ucayali. The linguistic affinity between Chamicuro and Yanesha (Adelaar with Muysken 2004:423; Campbell 1997:181) is not surprising, considering that they are situated at opposite ends of the same, major transport route. Other scattered Arawak-speaking groups of western Amazonia at the time of contact include the Waraikú south of the Amazon River, separated from the immediate river by the Omagua (Campbell 1997:181); the Marawá,36 in a position similar to that of the Waraikú further east; the Cuniba (Kuniba)37 on the middle Jurua River; and the Curia (Kuria) in the southeastern corner of the northern Panoan cluster (fig.