What we're doing today is evaluating the suspects behind the motivation for the construction of the defensive structures. Heckenberger devotes a decent portion of one of his interpretive chapters to discussing this issue of "Who," but ultimately asserts that this is the wrong question (137)--that instead of focusing on the question "What caused it?" we should be looking at the scale and nature of the warfare. And I agree that these latter two details are important to consider when trying to reconstruct a prehistoric people's lifestyle; however, I also believe that understanding the drive behind the warfare would be enlightening. What were the social dynamics like back then? What made the groups tick, you know? Plus, I feel that if someone is going to assert that some strategy is a defensive maneuver, one would have to also determine from whom this group needs protection. Otherwise, if no threat is established, "defense" seems like a pretty silly reason to do something, doesn't it?
But speaking of social dynamics reminds me of another area of concern. Heckenberger has spent an extensive period of time conducting fieldwork with the contemporary Kuikuru tribe, and as such has had a remarkable opportunity to develop an understanding of the group's social tendencies as well as to utilize the group members' historical accounts to reconstruct past social climates. This has led him to group the Kuikuru as part of a long-standing peaceful culture, and the lack of the Kuikuru's record of hostile feuds fits well with what he characterizes as the Xinguano lifestyle, which is governed by an inclination to accommodate and incorporate peacefully any outsiders. This welcoming process then triggers the "Xinguanification" of the newcomers, who eventually abandon their previous habits in favor of the Xinguano ones, spreading the tolerance. Indeed, he furthers, the Upper Xingu (UX) region can be thought of as a safe-haven, a “refuge” (147). However, while this harmonious image might hold true for the part of history that is encompassed by the contemporary Kuikuru recollection, remember that this is really just a sliver of the UX history! How reliable is this source for prehistoric information? If the Kuikuru can't explain how the ditches were built (aside from their legend), would it really be fair to expect them to be able to provide details as to why they were constructed?
Thus, as we conduct this investigation, if nothing else we must keep in mind that the current status quo (or even that recorded in the more recent Kuikuru memory) does not necessarily provide an accurate representation of the prehistoric social relations. With that said, let us begin!
I'm going to preface this investigation by saying that Heckenberger himself has yet to uncover any sort of concrete evidence that can point to a definite culprit. Ideally one would come across something like remnants of weapons fashioned in the unique style of a neighboring tribe, but unearthed within the boundaries of one the Arawak settlements (though this could suggest trade). But alas, no such objects have been found, be it that they are still waiting discovery or that no such battle residual had been left behind. Or perhaps the groups could have been kind enough to leave behind a written declaration of war. But alas, no form of written communication is known to have existed. Even oral history is less than helpful--much of the contemporary Kuikuru knowledge only spans back several centuries, and the only conflict that stands out are the attacks received at the hands of the Tupian-Gê tribes. The way we'll go about evaluating potential candidates is by taking a look at the major "suspicious" parties currently inhabiting the (UX).
This Tupian-Gê conflict that we mentioned the contemporary Kuikuru recall may seem like a strong piece of evidence implicating the Tupian-Gê tribes as the aggressors. However, we must keep in mind that in the grand scheme of the UX occupation, (stretching back to around 900 a.d., remember?) this is a relatively recent hostility. Who knows what relations were like a millennium ago? I mean, take a look at the relations among countries today: In some cases, it hasn't even taken a century for countries who were once at war with each other to develop alliances or friendships. Yet, of course, there are other countries who have been battling each other bitterly for centuries. That is why, while the Tupian-Gê tensions may exist only in recent memories, we will not discount them as potentially having even deeper roots. So we have our first suspect:
Suspect 1: Tupian-Gê tribes
Next up, we have the Carib tribes. These are the Kuikuru group's ancestors!
Suspect 2: Carib tribes
Even though the Europeans no longer have as overbearing a physical presence in South America as they once did, the results of their "interactions" (to put it politely) with the indigenous peoples had such a profound and devastating cultural impact that it's almost as if they never left.
Suspect 3: Portuguese explorers
They lurk in the shadows. They study their targets' behaviors to pinpoint the moment of least resistance. They strike without mercy. They are...WILD INDIANS! While the Tupian-Gê conflict is the only major source of tension that stands out in the collective Kuikuru memory, they did cite persisting (though sporadic), plaguing skirmishes launched by the wild indians that roamed the UX. Were the trenches a remedy to which the ancient groups found it necessary to turn for relief from these sieges?
Suspect 4: Wild Indians (ngikogo)
And finally, because no family is perfect, we must consider the fact that the early settlements did not always interact as harmoniously with each other as recent Kuikuru memory might suggest.
Suspect 5: Themselves?
Now that we've identified the potential culprits, let's evaluate the viability of each! I'm going to start with those who have the least evidence going for them, and can therefore be relatively securely eliminated.
We'll start with #2.
Suspect 2: Carib tribes
This is the group of people who originated east of the
(Remember Heckenberger's map on page 70. I've traced the Culuene in blue. The purple-shaded area to the right (i.e. to the east) are the areas of archaeologically known Carib settlements. They adopted a unique architecture style characterized by circular houses called the Eastern Complex making it relatively easy to pick out Carib settlements.)
But we run into some problems when we try to line up the timeline that we put together regarding the ditch construction and that explained by Heckenberger on page 71. Here he indicates that the first known Carib settlements date back to around 1250 a.d. at the earliest, and their migration to the west side of the Culuene occurred around 1750 a.d. Then we look at the date range from Heckenberger's analysis of the ditch constructions at X6: Nokugu-- 950 a.d. - 1210 a.d.
Hm. One could argue in favor of the later years of the date range and hypothesize that perhaps the Arawaks were the true inspiration for the Boy Scout "Be prepared" motto, and that at X6: Nokugu they chose to dig deep trenches just in case some invasive tribe decided to make a move down the road. But 8 centuries down the road is a little much, don't you think? Another smoking gun is uncovered when Heckenberger explains: "earthwork constructions and maintenance had apparently ceased by at least the mid-1600s" due to break-outs of disease, and consequent population (163, emphasis mine).
Of course, a band of adventurous Carib delinquents could very well have crossed the Culuene R sporadically to wreak havoc before the official migration in the late 1700s. However, logic argues against engaging in such a labor-intensive project in response to what would likely have been infrequent assaults.
Plus, let's consider the geographic spread of the sites exhibiting peripheral ditches (PDs).
For one, we have X17: Hatsikugi. Now, if the Caribs were indeed the ditch-inspiring threat, it would make perfect sense that this settlement that is located so close to the known Carib occupations would merit some sort of defensive structure.
However, on the opposite end of the spectrum we have X11: Kuhikugu. It seems very unlikely that this site, almost 30 km from the nearest known Carib settlement, would have undertaken such extensive construction in response to the distant Caribs, especially if the threat was not consistent.
OK, so since there was quite a few details covered, let's recap the evidence that we have pertaining to suspect #2.
Review: Suspect 2: Carib tribes
- Mismatched timing: The ditches in one site (X6: Nokugu) were constructed between 950 and 1210 a.d. The Caribs lived east of the Culuene R between 1250 and 1750 a.d.
- Discouraging distance: X11: Kuhikugu features PDs, but is located almost 30 kilometers from the closest known Carib settlement.
Suspect 3: Portuguese explorers
Our process for evaluating the explorers can follow a similar line as that used to help clear the Caribs: timing. It is indisputable that before 1492, no European explorers had even been to the
OK, next!Suspect 4: Wild Indians (ngikogo)
While some indigenous peoples of the UX gradually adopted a sedentary lifestyle and began building up communities, other groups remained more individualized and mobile. These wild indians (or, as they are locally called, ngikogo) roam the region, and according to the Kuikuru they are known to be belligerent. Additionally, this belligerence appears to have been habitual—as far back as the collective Kuikuru memory spans, the ngikogo have pestered the more settled tribes. In fact, Heckenberger cites ngikogo attacks (in addition to pressures from Portuguese explorers) as part of the catalyst driving the Carib migration in 1750 a.d. (154). Though we cannot know for sure whether the ngikogo plagued the groups inhabiting the UX when they first settled the area, perhaps these skirmishes are a continuation of a centuries-old tendency. However, there is no doubt that if there were ngikogo-led sieges, the attacks would be more blitzkrieg than operational. Though perhaps resulting in real damage, these sieges would be infrequent and of minimal threat to the overall security of the settlements. With that in mind, we must ask ourselves the same question we asked when we were evaluating whether the ditches were used to fend off the ravenous peccaries: Would the Arawaks really go to such lengths, constructing elaborate, labor-intensive defense structures to protect against such sporadic attacks? It is doubtful. And because these ditches did require so much effort, this makes the ngikogo unlikely suspects (though they are less out-of-the-question than the others discussed so far).
So, we've eliminated 3/5 of our suspects--the Caribs, the Portuguese explorers, and the Wild Indians. The situations surrounding the remaining two suspects--the Tupian-Gê tribes and the Arawak communities themselves--are a little more complex, so we'll devote Friday's post entirely to investigating those two!
Until then!
