Supervillage Formation in the Amazonian Terra Firme: The Case of Asenona

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The relatively small size of settlements in the terra firme2 zone of the South American tropical forest has been the subject of much study and debate (see, for example, Steward & Faron 1959; Meggers 1957, 1971; Carneiro 1960, 1961; Lathrap 1968; Leeds 1969; Gross 1975, 1983; and Roosevelt 1980). In general, the size of settlements (as well as settlement mobility and location) in the terra firme has been viewed as an adaptation to the natural environment (see Hames 1983:393-405 for a succinct review of influencing factors). Regardless of the factors considered by researchers, the primary focus of investigation has been to explain why settlements are small, generally having 50 to 150 inhabitants (Steward 1949:676, Map 19), and why settlements are moved frequently (for example, every five to twenty years) (Gross 1983:429). The limiting influences of the world's tropical rain forest environments on cultural development have also received considerable attention from researchers who now recognize that the tropical rain forest biome is not a homogeneous entity and that significant variation in its natural environmental potential is present (see Parker et al. 1983, for Amazonia). Large settlements (even cities in some locales) existed in the tropical rain forests of Africa, Southeast Asia, Mesoamerica, and South America in the precolonial period. Therefore, the limitations imposed by the tropical rain forest environment on human population concentrations have been overcome in many instances. However, even when compared to other tropical rain forest zones, the Amazonian terra firme is still regarded as exceptionally resource-poor (Meggers 1971; Sponsel 1986). This view is based partially upon ecological research in terra firme areas that has shown them to be relatively less rich in natural resources than other tropical rain forest environments. Moreover, since ethnographic data for the precolonial period are lacking, the relative scarcity of resources in the terra firme has been inferred from ethnographic analogy. Researchers have tended to accept the proposition that the precolonial situation of human societies in the terra firme was similar to that encountered among extant, relatively unacculturated, groups. Since these groups live in small, impermanent settlements with seemingly simple sociopolitical systems, it is believed that this has always been the case in the area (Roosevelt 1989:30-34). Thus, the circular reasoning is that because humans in the area have not developed larger settlements and more complex sociocultural systems, the natural environment of the terra firme must be too limited in natural resources to permit such development. The ethnocentric and evolutionary bias of such a proposition must be recognized. It is based upon the idea that humans are naturally progressive. Progress, in this case, is toward permanent and large population settlements and more complex sociocultural systems. Although much valuable ecological