-
1: Population Estimatesfor Anthropogenically Enriched Soils: (Amazonian Dark Earths)
- University Press of Colorado
- Chapter
- Additional Information
1 1 Population Estimates for Anthropogenically Enriched Soils (Amazonian Dark Earths) William I. Woods, William M. Denevan, and Lilian Rebellato HOW MANY YEARS DO YOU GET FOR COUNTERFEITING A PARADISE? Until fairly recently, there were two opposing models of the density, size, shape, and duration of Amazonian preColumbian settlements. One group of scientists believed environmental conditions in the Amazonian region inhibited the social and cultural development of its populations and posited soil exhaustion and low available protein as principal limiting factors (Gross 1975; Meggers 1954, 1971, 1991, 1995; Steward 1949a). Betty J. Meggers interpreted the archaeological data as indicative of cultural conservatism , with the present situation among native peoples serving as a model for the past (small villages, little societal complexity, subsistence patterns based on shifting cultivation and residence, and low population densities) and with mega–El Niño droughts serving as an explanation for culture change. Where the record demonstrates large archaeological sites or monumental architecture in the form of mounds, these were dismissed, respectively, as the result of recurrent small groups settling in the same place over time or intrusions of more advanced cultures that ultimately failed in a harsh Amazonian environment. The second view presented the Amazonian region as a culturalinnovationcenterwheretheoldestpottery was created and early plant domestication in South America occurred (Brochado 1984, 1989; Roosevelt 1989, 113). Donald W. Lathrap (1970, 1977) believed that in the Central Amazon region, the ecosystem and associated resource differences among the uplands (terra firme) and the floodplains (várzea) helped create social and economic differences between cultural groups that led to increased interaction and innovation. The enhanced fertility of the floodplains of whitewater rivers (e.g., the Amazon/Solimões and the Madeira) provided high agricultural productivity that promoted population growth and the creation of large settlements. The demographic pressures consequently spread human populations and associated ceramic styles, languages, and agricultural systems to different william i. woods, william m. denevan, and lilian rebellato 2 areas of South America. Lathrap also suggested that there was settlement continuity in the Central Amazon for millennia before European contact. His hypotheses have recently been reviewed, and archaeological data for the Central Amazon include ceramics associated with early radiocarbon dates and long periods of settlement stability (Neves and Petersen 2006; Neves et al. 2004; Petersen, Neves, and Heckenberger 2001). However, during the last 500 years of the pre-Columbian period, major changes in the cultural groups inhabiting the region and associated settlement-subsistence patterns occurred (Rebellato, Woods, and Neves 2009). Now, many view the Amazonian environment as a social construction and not as a culturally defining element (Balée 1989; Erickson 2006, 2008; Heckenberger, Petersen, and Neves 1999; Myers 1992; Petersen, Neves, and Woods 2005; Woods and McCann 1999). This perspective is a vision that goes beyond the dichotomy between human societies and nature; the human being is not considered a passive agent who simply reacts to stimuli (environmental determinism) (Balée 1989, 2). This shift in focus presents humans as agents who transform the landscape through the use and manipulation of resources and takes into consideration the inventive character of the human being (Balée 1989; Carneiro 1995; Denevan 1966, 2001; Erickson 2008; Heckenberger, Petersen, and Neves 1999; Woods 1995; Woods and McCann 1999). This perspective in Amazonia has put forward the genesis of fertile anthropogenic soils (discussed in the next sections) as the mark of cultural changes associated with intensive environmental management, including agriculture . The debate on the human articulation with the environment is ongoing, and the implications for pre-Colonial population numbers in Amazonia are considerable (DeBoer, Kintigh, and Rostoker 2001; Heckenberger, Petersen, and Neves 2001; Meggers 2004; Stahl 2002). Previous population estimates are presented in table 1.1. These population estimates were based on the productive capacities of the various habitats, historical accounts and mission records, retrogressive extrapolations of epidemicvectors ,ethnographicdata,andarchaeologicalinterpretations.However,faced with the increasing depth of our knowledge about the complexity of population distributions at the time of contact and knowing that we still have such questionable and scattered data sources, William M. Denevan concluded that too much variation existed in population densities within habitats “to be able to formulate meaningful average densities on the basis of a few sample densities.” He concluded that “there were large areas with fewer people, but there were also locations with many, many more,” both riverine and in the interior (Denevan 2003, 186–7). We clearly need to rethink pre-European settlement-subsistence systems and their distributions with the goal of determining their...