Nature and Culture in Prehistoric Amazonia.
Using G.I.S. to reconstruct ancient ethnogenetic processes
from archaeology, linguistics, geography, and ethnohistory.
Love Eriksen
and was immediately struck at how PERFECT this book sounded!
You see, I finished Heckenberger's work The Ecology of Power a few weeks ago, and while it provided a host of useful data and interpretations of their significance to the current understanding (or lack thereof) of the prehistoric Arawak settlements, I couldn't help but wish that there had been more information. For instance, when we were talking about the difficulty in pinning down the group of people that prompted the Arawaks to construct the defensive trenches in an earlier post, I made an off-hand lament about how nice it would have been if only Heckenberger had come across some remnants of weapons with a specific style of design, that one could have an indication of a source of aggression. Well, as if in response to my wish, Eriksen made an observation that seemed to be just as insightful: ceramics that are distinctly of the Tupian style and dating back to 1300 a.d. were recovered from ring village sites (70, 244). Now, when I first read that I was very excited--here, finally, was physical proof that there was a real Tupian presence in this area! Furthermore, Eriksen explains that the ring villages were most likely constructed defensively in response to an increased Tupian pressure. Not only were the Tupians THERE, then, but they were also making waves among other groups!
And then you know how sometimes you can just be walking along, totally fine, smooth sailing, and then BAM!, you're blindsided by a camoflauged tree trunk or something? Well that's kind of what happened to me. So the first thing that hit me was the date--1300 a.d.? That seems rather late--I thought Heckenberger's measurements had cast ditch construction around 950 a.d.? Even stranger was that Eriksen was referencing Heckenberger's work while describing the beginning of the appearance of "fortified villages" around 1250 a.d (70). Even worse, Eriksen continued to explain that the creation of these deposited Tupian ceramics "coincide[d] chronologically with the development of defensive structures in the Upper Xingu" (70).
Wait...what? They "coincide[d] chronologically?"
And things just went downhill from there. Of course I was still panicking over the date mismatches. In his presentation of the X6: Nokugu defensive ditch data, Heckenberger had listed at least 15 radiocarbon dates in a chart. It was very confusing to try and interpret. The descriptions of the provenience (i.e. area in question) were rather vague and jargon-heavy, and I will admit that maybe what is written might make sense to someone well-versed in archaeological terminology, but I don't speak that language! Perhaps I misinterpreted the data, and assigned a completely wrong date to the ditch construction? On the upside, I had already sent an email to Heckenberger last week to ensure that I was interpreting his data correctly. On the downside, he hasn't gotten back to me yet. I recall him being away at a conference in Brazil, so I'm sure his email is backlogged up the wazoo and my unfamiliar email address slipped by him (though I did try to make the subject line as eye-catching as possible--"Research with Dr. Carneiro: Chiefdoms in the UX," since he is good friends with Dr. Carneiro and he's a UX nut and all.) But this added challenge has prompted me to send a friendly reminder email! Hopefully I will hear back from him soon and this tangle can be straightened out.
Until then, however, I am hardly out of the thicket. There comes a second problem--however vague I found Heckenberger's descriptions to be, Eriksen's phrasing is even more difficult to understand. This is the sentence that caught my eye and prompted my initial euphoric reaction:
"The development of fortified villages in the upper Xingu was preceded by the construction of ring villages historically connected to Macro-Ge-speakers that started to appear in the Brazilian uplands around AD 800 as a response to the external pressure from Tupi-speakers" (70).
This could be my writing center tutor instincts kicking in (and tutors, if you're out there, let me just say that this would definitely fall in the strug sesh category), but each time I go back over the sentence, it leaves me more and more confused. First off, what does Eriksen even mean by "fortified villages" and "ring villages"? He never clearly explains them, in this sentence or anywhere at all! Since I've got defensive trenches on the brain (shocker), when I first read the sentence I assumed that "ring villages" referred to villages "ringed" by ditches. Makes sense, right? However, I discussed this with Dr. Carneiro, (without sharing my interpretation) and he took "ring villages" to mean villages whose houses and other structures themselves were physically assembled in rings. This, he explained, was a common organizational manuever, especially among groups of peoples who were undergoing rapid population expansion. But then I shared my interpretation with him, and he became confused as well!
And likewise, I assumed that when Eriksen said "fortified," he meant protected by (you guessed it) ditches. Dr. Carneiro was quick to slow me down and point out that there are a great deal of types of fortifications--walls, palisades, etc. If only Eriksen would have clarified! One shard of remains, however, in that Eriksen references a work a few sentences later in which he brings up the whole chronological synchronization of the UX defensive structures shabang--Wüst and Barreto in their 1999 "The Ring Villages of Central Brazil: A Challenge for Amazonian Archaeology." Again, I found myself looking at a definite upside: this article is available through Dickinson on JSTOR, so I can read it for myself! But the downside: I can't for the life of me access JSTOR through Dickinson right now. Maybe it's a spotty internet connection, so this source of confusion will have to wait a bit to be worked out.
In the meantime, there is plenty more for me to puzzle over. OK, now, I'm not even trying to be a grammar stickler here, but the structure of this sentence itself is actually really confusing. Let me show you:
"The development of fortified villages in the upper Xingu was preceded by the construction of ring villages historically connected to Macro-Ge-speakers that started to appear in the Brazilian uplands around AD 800 as a response to the external pressure from Tupi-speakers" (70).
OK, I've underlined the confusing part. (Note: that's almost the entire sentence. Great.)
Way 1: Is Eriksen saying that the ring villages started cropping up around 800 a.d. in the Brazilian uplands (which is a bit south of the UX. I know, counterintuitive that "Up"lands would be south, but the Xingu actually flows south to north) to defend themselves against the encroaching Tupi?
Or
"The development of fortified villages in the upper Xingu was preceded by the construction of ring villages historically connected to Macro-Ge-speakers that started to appear in the Brazilian uplands around AD 800 as a response to the external pressure from Tupi-speakers" (70).
Way 2: Is Eriksen saying that it was the group of Macro-Ge-speakers that arrived around 800 a.d. in the Brazilian uplands because the Tupi-speakers bumped them out of their previous lands?
What did the Tupi-speakers prompt in 800 a.d.--the ring village construction (Way 1) or a migration (Way 2)?
I don't know if I can possibly figure this out on my own, so I will try to contact Eriksen himself! This will be a bit more of a challenge than getting in touch with Heckenberger because there are no personal connections for me to utilize, but hopefully luck will be on our side!
Until then, unfortunately, I am hesitant to apply this potential snippet of gold to any of our evaluations of the potential suspects for the inspiration of the ditch construction.
I will also be anxiously awaiting some clarification from Heckenberger about his data, but if worse comes to worst I will poke around the AMNH to see if I can find an archaeologist who might be able to help. (Though Dr. Carneiro warned me that the root of all our troubles might be that these terms that Heckenberger has employed have subtle connotations that not all experts in the field would be familiar with. Better to go straight to the source, I suppose! But we will definitely keep a fall-back plan.)
We are temporarily halted by unclear data.
And we are stuck with a syntactical enigma.
Which sounds like a disease.
Keep your fingers crossed that something looks up soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment