archeological investigations at the mouth of the amazon

V.A.,x_-tC^. \.



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN. 167. ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE MOUTH OF THE AMAZON By. BETTY. J.. MEGGERS. CLIFFORD EVANS. and. *jf^<»^^l,. lUOiy^s. \ i UNITED STATES. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON. For. sale. :. 1957. by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing 0£Bce Washington 25. D. C..

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Smithsonian Institution, of American Ethnology, Washington, D. C, June BO, 1956.. Bureau. Sm I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled "Archeological Investigations at the Mouth of the Amazon," by Betty J. Meggers and Clifford Evans, and to recommend that it be :. published as a bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology.. Very respectfully yours,. M. W. Stirling, Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution.. ^SOrt^ "». '?i"0.. Director..

Ci^o^. May this refort be one of many memorials to. WENDELL by those like us. C.. whom. BENNETT he with friendly. guidance helped along the road to anthropological careers. in.



CONTENTS PAGE. Preface Introduction Background. xx v 1. Lower Amazon Archeological Expedition. of the. 1. Itinerary. Problems and compromises. 3 6. in field technique. Organization of the report. 12. Tropical Forest Culture. 17 17. Ethnographic definition of Tropical Forest culture. 24 26. Culture traits discernible archeologically. Environmental limitations on culture The Territory op AmapX. in the Tropical Forest. 33 33 37 37 37 38 40 41 41 41. Geographical description. The Arua Phase Description of sites and excavations Site A-5— Cafezal Site. A-8— Aurora. —. A-23 Ilha da Fortaleza, Conceicao Data from other investigations Igarap6 dos Macacos Site. Rio Novo. 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 48. Jos6 Antonio Villa Calgoene. Teso da Mina Sucurijii. Lago dos Patos Cachoeirinha Agahyzal Analysis of material Ceramic history Diagnostic features of the Arua Phase. The Mazagao Phase Description of sites and excavations Site A-1 Pigacd Occupation Site. Site. — — Lauro — Pigacd Cemetery. A-2 A-3. Burial. Group. 51. 1. 56 56 57 57 58 60 60. Burial 2. Burial3 Burial 4 Burial 5 Site. A-4— Valentim Burial. 1. Burial Group 2 Burial 3. 62 V.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. VI. [bull, lez. The Territory of AmapA — Continued The Mazagao Phase. — Continued. —. Description of sites and excavations Continued Cafezal Site A-5 Ilha das Igagabas, Igarap6 do Lago Site A-6 Data from other investigations. —. —. Rio Iratapurii Sites Rio Vilanova Sites Ilha do Pard Site Rio Mazagao Sites Igarape do Urubii Sites Rio Maracd Sites Analysis of materials of the Mazagao Phase Pottery type descriptions Anauerapucu Incised. Mazagao Plain Pigacd Incised Incised. Vilanova Plain Unclassified Decorated Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Mazagao Phase. The. Arista Phase. Description of sites and excavations Site A-7— Amapd City Site Site Site. Site. A-8— Aurora A-9— Rel6gio. — Montanha da Pluma — Montanha de Aristd. A-10 A-11. Site. A-12— Cruzeiro A-13— Matapi. Site. A-14^-Macapd. Site. A-15— Vila Velha A-16— Ilhas do Campo A-18— Maica A-19— Renovado A-20— Vila Cunanf A-21— Pracuiiba. Site. Site Site Site Site Site. —. Conceigao Site A-22 Data from other investigations. Rio Oiapoque site Rio Uagd, sites Rio Aracaud sites Cunanf sites. Monte May6. sites. Ilha do Carao site. Agahyzal site Igarap^ Tartarugalzinho. 65 66 67 68 69 70 73 75 75 78. 78 79 81 83 85 87 89. Camaipi Plain Jarf Scraped. Uxy. page. sites. 92 94 94 95 95 102 103 103 104 106 107 107 108 116 118 118 119 120 121 122 122 122 123 123 123 125 125 126 128 130 131 131.

ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. MEGGERS AND BVANSJ. The Territory of AmapX The. —. —Continued. Arist6 Phase Continued Analysis of materials of the Arista Phase Pottery type descriptions Arista Plain Ariste Painted. Davi Incised Flexal Scraped. Serra Plain Serra Painted Uagd Incised Unclassified Decorated. Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Maraj6 Island Geographical description Tropical Forest Phases. The Ananatuba Phase Description of sites and excavations Site J-7— Sip6. J-8— Maguari. Site J-9 Site. — Ananatuba. J-10— Sororoco. Data from other. investigations. J-19 Site J-20 Site. Analysis of materials of the Ananatuba Phase Pottery type descriptions. Ananatuba Painted Ananatuba Plain Carmo Brushed Sip6 Incised Sororoco Plain Unclassified Decorated. Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Ananatuba Phase. The Mangueiras Phase Description of sites and excavations Site J-5— Croari Site J-7— Sipo Site. J-13— Bacurf J-16— Canivete. Site. C-3— Porto. Site. Data from other Site. page 132 132 132 135 137 140 143 145 148 150 150 150 151. Diagnostic features of the Ariste Phase Conclusions and interpretations. Site. VH. Real. investigations. J-17— Flor do Anajds. 156 158 168 168 174 174 174 174 177 177 178 179 179 179 179 179 180 181 184 185 187 188 189 189 189 193 194 194 194 198 199 200 201 203 203.

1. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. Vin. [bull,. — Continued —Continued The Mangueiras Phase — Continued. ibt. Maraj6 Island. Tropical Forest Phases. Analysis of materials of the Mangueiras Phase Pottery type descriptions Anjos Plain. Bacurf Brushed Croarf Brushed Esperanga Red Mangueiras Plain Pocoat6 Scraped Pseudo-Sip6 Incised Mangueiras Phase Variety __ Unclassified Decorated. —. Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Mangueiras Phase. The Formiga Phase Description of sites and excavations Site. J-4— Mucajd. —. Formiga Data from other excavations Site J-6. Site. J-18— Coroca. Analysis of materials of the Formiga Phase Pottery type descriptions Catarina Plain Coroca Plain Embauba Plain. FormigaPlain Mucajd Corrugated. —. Formiga Phase Variety Sauba Brushed Unclassified Decorated. Pseudo-Sip6 Incised. Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Formiga Phase. The Arua Phase Description of sites and excavations Site J-2/3— Chaves Airport. SiteJ-11— Carmo Data from other investigations Analysis of material. Ceramic history Diagnostic features of the Arua Phase Comparison and interpretation of the Tropical Forest Phases, with a method for computing village duration Characterization of the Tropical Forest Phases. The Marajoara Phase Description of sites and excavations Site. J-14— Monte Carmelo Mound 1, Guajard, Mound 2, Monte Carmelo Mound 3, Bacatal. page 203 203 203 207 207 208 210 213 215 216 217 217 217 221 222 222 222 224 226 226 227 227 227 228 230 232 234 237 238 238 239 239 239 24 242 242 242 244 245 245 245 245 245 257 259 259 259 259 278 279.

ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. MEGGERS AND EVANS]. —. Maraj6 Island Continued The Marajoara Phase Continued. —. Description of sites and excavations Site. J-15— Os Camutins Mound 1, Camutins Mound 2 Mounds Mound 4, Sacrario Mound 5, Sacacao Mound 6 Mound 7, Sao Bento Mound 8 Mound 9 Mound 10 Mound 11 Mound 12, Carmo Mound 13 Mound 14, Inajasal Mound 15 Mound 16, Tesinho Mound 17, Bel^m Mound 18, Arraial Mound 19 Mound 20. Data from other investigations BacurlAlto Cajueiros. Camutins Caratat6ua Cuieiras. Curuxys Desterro. Diamantina Fortaleza. Guajard IlhadosBichos Ilha dos Marcos Laranjeiras. Macacao Matinados. Menino Deus Monte Carmelo Nazareth Pacoval Pacoval do Cururii Pacoval dos Mello Panellas. Sanharao Santa Brigida Santa Izabel Santo Andre Serra. Tap^ra. —Continued. IX. page 279 281 286 287 288 288 288 289 289 289 289 289 289 290. 290 292 293 293 295 295 295 295 296 296 297 301 301 301 302. 302 302 306 306 307 307 308 308 308 308 309 309 315 316 317 317 317 317 318 318 318.

X. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. —. Makaj6 Island Continued The Marajoara Phase Continued. —. Data from other investigations Tesodas Iga^abas. [boll. 167. — Continued. page 318 318 319 322 323 323 324 324 324 326 328. Teso de Severino Tesodos China TesodoGentil Teso dos Gentios. Unnamed mounds Conclusions Analysis of materials of the Marajoara Phase Pottery type descriptions. Anajds Double-slipped Incised Anajds Plain Incised Anajds Red Incised Anajds White Incised Ararl Double-shpped Excised. 331. 332 336 339. Arari Plain Excised Ararl Red Excised Arari Red Excised, White-retouched. 341. 344 347 348 353 355 356 358 359 366 370. Arari White Excised Camutins Plain. Carmelo Red Goiapf Scraped. Guajard Incised Inajd Plain Joanes Painted Pacoval Incised Unclassified Decorated Ceramic and non ceramic artifacts Axes. 371. Spoons. 372 374 374 375 377 378 380. Stools. 381. Tangas. 382 384 384 385 398 404 425 425 425 427 429 430 430 430 436. Beads Earplugs Figurines. Labrets Spindle whorls. Whistles. Miscellaneous. Ceramic history Diagnostic features of the Marajoara Phase Conclusions and interpretations. The Islands of Mexiana and Caviana Geographical descriptions. Mexiana Caviana The Acauan Phase Description of sites and excavations Site. Site Site. —Jacareuba J-12— Jurupucu M-1. M-3— Acauan. ,.

MEGGERS AND BVANSJ. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. of Mexiana and Caviana The Acauan Phase Continued Data from other investigations. The Islands. —. XI. — Continued page 439 439 439 439 442 444 446 448 451 452 453 453 453 456 457 457 457 457 457 457 458 458 459 460. Analysis of materials of the Acauan Phase Pottery type descriptions Acauan Excised Carobal Incised Floripes Corrugated. Paciencia Scraped Piryzal Plain. Vergal Incised Unclassified Decorated. Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Acauan Phase. The Arua Phase Description of sites and excavations Habitation sites on Mexiana and Caviana. Mexiana. M-2. —Papa Cachorro. M-7— Aberta Caviana. C-5— Morera C-6. — Croatasal. C-7— Sao Domingo C-8— Pacajd. 461 461. C-10— Sao Bento C-13— Alta Piratuba. 463 464 464 465 465 465 481 493 493 495 499 502 509 515 * 520 520 520 520. — Limaozinho. C-14. C-15— Patahua Cemetery sites Mexiana. M-4. — Fundo das Panellas. M-5— Mulatinho Caviana. C-1 C-4. — Teso das Igagabas —Teso dos Indios. C-6— Croatasal, C-9— Frei Joao C-11. Section. — Vaquejador de. A. Sao Sebasteao. C-12— Condino Data from other Mexiana. investigations. M-6— Recreo M-8. —Limao da Fora. M-9— Chapeu. 521 521. Caviana. Campo Redondo Sao Domingo Teso da Samahuma Esperanga Teso dos Indios. -. 522 522 522 523 523.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XII. [bdll. ler. The Islands of Mexiana and Caviana — Continued. — Caviana— Continued. The Arua Phase Continued Data from other investigations Bacabal. — Continued page. I. Pesqueiro Prainha Rebordello Analysis of materials of the Arua Phase Pottery type descriptions. Aberta Incised Nazare Brushed Piratuba Plain Unclassified Decorated Pottery artifacts. Nonceramic Ceramic history. artifacts. Diagnostic features of the Arua Phase Conclusions and interpretations. The Historical Aftermath Chronology of European contact Ethnohistorical information Territory of. Amapd. Tribes Population. Culture Subsistence Settlement pattern Transportation. Manufactures Dress and ornament Social organization. Recreation Life cycle. Religion. Warfare Lore and learning. The. .. Islands Tribes Population. Culture Settlement pattern Watercraft. Manufactures Social organization. Life cycle. Warfare Ethnohistorical-archeological correlation. Implications of the Cultural Sequence at the Literature Cited Appendix (tables 1-52). Mouth. of the Amazon.. 523 524 524 524 525 525 525 525 526 532 534 534 534 538 539 556 556 566 566 566 569 569 570 571 573 573 573 574 576 576 578 578 679 579 579 581 581 581 582 582 582 582 583 583 589. 608 619.

J. .. ^I?S^^^ EVANS. ^^^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. XIII. ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES (All plates follow 1.. Views of the Rio Araguari above of. 2.. its. page 664). junction with the Rio Amaparf, Territory. Amapd.. Arua Phase stone alineraent at A-8. —Aurora. in the central part of the. Territory of Araapd. 3. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7. 8.. 9.. 10.. the southern part of the Territory of Amapd. A-9 Rel6gio and its environment in the central part of the Territory of Amapd,. Montanha da Pluma in the northern Arista Phase burial site of A-10. Mazagao Phase. sites in. —. Ariste Phase habitation site of. —. part of the Territory of Amapd. Arista Phase sites in the northern part of the Territory of Amapd. Mazagao Phase vessels from A-3 Pigacd Cemetery. Camaipf Plain vessels collected by Lima Guedes from the Rio Vilanova and now in the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi.. —. Mazagao Phase vessels collected by Lima Guedes from the Rio Vilanova and now in the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Mazagao Plain sherds showing coarse quartz temper and typical applique decoration,. 11. 12. 13.. 14. 15.. Type sherds Type sherds Type sherds Type sherds. of. Anauerapucii Incised, Mazagao Phase.. of Pigacd Incised, of. of. Uxy Uxy. Mazagao Phase.. Incised with rectilinear motifs, Incised with curvilinear motifs,. Mazagao Phase. Mazagao Phase.. Decorated pottery types of the Mazagao Phase. Decorated sherds from the Mazagao Phase. Zoomorphic burial urns of the Maracd Phase from Ilha do Pard. Anthropomorphic burial urns of the Maracd Phase, collected by Lima Guedes from the Rio Maracd and now in the Museu Paraense Emilio. 16. Unclassified 17. 18.. Goeldi. 19.. 20. 21. 22.. 23. 24.. 25.. 26.. 27.. Lid heads of Maracd Phase anthropomorphic burial urns in the collection of the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Arist6 Plain burial vessels from A-11 Montanha de Arist6. Decorated pottery types of the Arist6 Phase. Fragmentary vessels of Flexal Scraped from the Arista Phase cemetery of A-11 Montanha de Arista, Cave 2. Type sherds and a complete vessel of Serra Plain from Arista Phase sites. Vessels of Serra Painted from cemetery sites of the Arist6 Phase. Serra Painted jar from A-15 Vila Velha and a sample of the glass trade beads found inside. Pottery types from the Arista Phase. Aerial views of Marajo Island (courtesy of the United States Army Air. —. —. —. Force) 28. Aerial views of. Maraj6 Island (courtesy. of the United States. Army. Air. Force) 29. Typical 30.. environment on northern Maraj6.. Habitation. sites. of the Tropical Forest archeological. Phases on Maraj6. Island. 31. 32.. Formiga Phase sites in the campo of northern Maraj6. Marajoara Phase habitation mounds on the Igarap6 Camutins, central. Maraj 6.. JAM 1. 1958.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XIV [^33.. Marajoara Phase cemetery mounds on the Igarape Camutins,. 34.. J. 35.. Marajoara Phase cemetery mounds on the upper Rio Anajds, central Marajd. Type sherds of Ananatuba Plain showing rim variation and handle construction,. 36. 37.. central. Maraj6.. '0.--. f-. [bull. 167. Ananatuba Phase.. Type sherds of Carmo Brushed, Ananatuba Phase. Type sherds of Sip6 Incised, Design Type 1: row. of scallops,. Ananatuba. Phase. 38. Type sherds of Sip6 Incised, Design Type 2: zoned, fine cross-hatch, Ananatuba Phase. 39. Type sherds of Sip6 Incised, Ananatuba Phase. 40. Type sherds of Sip6 Incised, Design Type 5 zoned, parallel lines, Ananatuba :. 44.. Phase. Type sherds of Sip6 Incised, Ananatuba Phase, Design Types 6 and 7. Miscellaneous pottery from Ananatuba Phase sites. Type sherds of Bacurl Brushed, Mangueiras Phase. Type sherds and miniature vessel of Croari Brushed, Mangueiras Phase.. 45.. Rim. 41. 42.. 43.. sherds from vessels of Mangueiras Plain, showing rim form and occa-. sional notched or lobed decoration.. Type sherds. of Pocoat6 Scraped, Mangueiras Phase. Decorated sherds from the Mangueiras Phase. 48. Decorated pottery types of the Formiga Phase. 49. Trade sherds of the Marajoara Phase excavated at the Formiga Phase site Formiga. of J-6 (American 50. Type sherds of Anajds Double-slipped Incised, Marajoara Phase. Museum of Natural History.) 51. Vessels of Anajds Plain Incised, Marajoara Phase. (American Museum of 52. Vessels of Anajds Plain Incised, Marajoara Phase. Natural History.) 53. Type sherds and vessels of Anajds Red Incised, Marajoara Phase. (American 54. Type sherds of Anajds White Incised, Marajoara Phase. Museum of Natural History.) 55. Anajds White Incised vessels, Marajoara Phase. 56. Type sherds of Arari Double-slipped Excised, Marajoara Phase.. 46. 47.. —. 57. Arari Plain Excised vessels. 58.. 59. 60. 61.. 62. 63.. Type sherds of Ararf Plain Excised, Marajoara Phase. Type sherds of Arari Red Excised, Marajoara Phase. Arari Red Excised vessels, Marajoara Phase. Arari Red Excised vessels, Marajoara Phase. Arari Red Excised vessels, Marajoara Phase. Type sherds of Arari Red Excised, White-retouched, Marajoara Phase.. Museum of Natural History.) sherds of Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain bowls and jars from Marajoara Phase habitation mounds. 65. Rim sherds of Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain bowls and jars from Marajoara (American. 64.. Rim. Phase cemetery mounds. and Camutins Plain vessels associated with Marajoara Phase burials. 67. Vessels from Marajoara Phase cemeteries. 68. Large rim adornos from Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain Vessel Shape 4, Marajoara Phase. 69. Rim adornos from Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain Vessel Shape 4, Mara66. Inajd. joara Phase.. 01.

—. J. ^^:^.?^?^ EVANS. 70. 71.. 72.. 73. 74.. 75. 76.. 77.. 78.. 79. 80. 81.. 82.. 83. 84. 85. 86.. ^^°. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. XV. of Goiapf Scraped, Marajoara Phase. Sherds and vessels of GuajarA Incised, Marajoara Phase. Type sherds from Joanes Painted bowls with red-on-white designs, Mara(American Museum of Natural History.) joara Phase. Vessels of Joanes Painted, Marajoara Phase. Neck sherds from large Joanes Painted burial urns, Polychrome Type B red and black on white; J-15, Mound 1, surface. Vessels of Joanes Painted, Polychrome Type B; Marajoara Phase. Joanes Painted burial urn, Marajoara Phase. Two views of polychrome anthropomorphic jar L, J-14, Mound 1, cut 1; now in the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem. Type sherds of Pacoval Incised, Marajoara Phase. (American Museum of Natural History.) Pacoval Incised vessels, Marajoara Phase. Pottery figurines from Marajoara Phase cemetery sites. Miscellaneous pottery objects from Marajoara Phase cemetery sites. Pottery spoons from Marajoara Phase sites showing range in size and position of "spout." Pottery tangas from Marajoara Phase burial urns. Pottery stools and stool fragments from Marajoara Phase sites. Painted pottery stools. Small pottery vessels with large, grotesque, "wing" adornos. Sherds with incised and excised designs from Arauquin, Venezuela. (Uni-. Type sherds. versity. Museum,. Philadelphia.). with incised and excised decoration from Colombia. Decorated sherds from the Lower Amazon. Acauan Phase site of M-3 Acauan. Type sherds of Acauan Excised with rectilinear motifs, Acauan Phase. Type sherds of Acauan Excised with curvilinear motifs, Acauan Phase. Acauan Phase pottery. Type sherds of Floripes Corrugated, coarse variety, Acauan Phase. Type sherds of Floripes Corrugated, fine variety, Acauan Phase. Ornamental rims of Piryzal Plain, Acauan Phase. Decorated pottery types of the Acauan Phase. Decorated sherds from the Acauan Phase site of J-12 Jurupucii.. 87. Vessels 88. 89.. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.. 96. 97. 98. 99.. 100. 101. 102. 103.. 104.. —. —. Arua Phase habitation sites on Caviana Island. Arua Phase cemetery of M-4 Fundo das Panellas. Arua Phase cemeteries. Arua Phase sites. Type sherds of Aberta Incised, Arua Phase. Type sherds of Nazar6 Brushed, Arua Phase. Rim sherds of Piratuba Plain, Arua Phase, showing. —. typical thickening. and. folded-over treatment.. with Arua Phase burial jars. Mexiana, Arua Phase. 107. Sherds from Piratuba Plain platters or griddles with punctate decoration around the rim, Arua Phase. 108. Piratuba Plain sherds with impressed ring decoration or applique ribs, 105. Small Piratuba Plain vessels associated 106. Piratuba Plain vessels. from. M-5— Mulatinho,. Arua Phase. 109. Piratuba Plain sherds with impressed ring decoration. from. M-4— Fundo. Panellas burial jars. 110. Piratuba Plain sherds with applique decoration, Arua Phase. 111.. Fragmentary. vessels of Piratuba Plain,. 112. Miscellaneous sherds. Arua Phase.. from Arua Phase habitation. sites.. das.

— BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XVI. [bull. i67. FIGURES PAGE 1.. The. 2.. Ground plan of A-8 Aurora, a stone alinement of the Arua Phase. _ Ground plan of A-23 Ilha da Fortaleza, Conceigao, a stone alinement of the Arua Phase Ground plan of A-1 Pigacd and A-3 Pigacd Cemetery, Mazagao. 3.. 4.. 5.. Territory of Amapd, showing geographical features and location of archeological sites. — — — — Phase Ground plan of A-2 — Lauro, a habitation. the Mazagao Phase_ urn from A-3 Pigacd Cemetery, site of. —. 11.. Foot of a zoomorphic (turtle) Mazagao Phase Glass trade beads from A-3 Pigacd Cemetery, Mazagao Phase Jar C (Mazagao Plain), Burial Group 1, A-3 Pigacd Cemetery, Mazagao Phase Vessel E (Uxy Incised), Burial Group 1, A-3 Plgacd Cemetery, Mazagao Phase Stone artifacts from A-3 Pigacd. Cemetery, Mazagao Phase Glass trade beads from A-4 Valentim, Mazagao Phase. 12.. Reconstruction of jar A, Burial Group. 6.. 7. 8.. 9.. 10.. —. —. — —. —. Phase. 2,. — Valentim,. A-4. — Valentim, Mazagao Phase Burial A-4— Valentim, Mazagao. A-4. Pottery vessels from Burial. 14.. 16.. Anauerapucu Incised lid from 3, Phase Ground plan of Site A-6 Ilha das Igagabas, a habitation site of the Mazagao Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anauerapucu Incised, Mazagao. 17.. Rim. 18.. Rim. 19.. Rim. 20.. Rim. 21.. Rim. 22.. Rim. 15.. —. Phase (Appendix, table 2) profiles and vessel shapes (Appendix, table profiles. and. Camaipi. Plain,. and and. and. Mazagao Phase. vessel shapes of Pigacd Incised,. Mazagao Phase. 25. 26.. 27.. 28.. 29.. 30.. 66. 88. 6). Uxy. Incised,. Mazagao Phase (Ap90. vessel shapes of Vilanova Plain,. Mazagao Phase 93. 8). Mazagao Phase sites on the basis. (Appendix, table 24.. 65. 86. 5). vessel shapes of. (Appendix, table 23. Seriation of. 61. 63. 84. Mazagao. pendix, table 7) profiles. 54 55 59. Mazagao Phase (Ap-. Plain,. (Appendix, table profiles. 52. 82. vessel shapes of. (Appendix, table profiles. 49 50. Mazagao Phase. 3). vessel shapes of Jari Scraped,. and. 46 47. 79 of. pendix, table 4) profiles. 40. Mazagao. 13.. 3,. 34 39. of pottery type frequency. 96. 1). Trends in the popularity of common vessel shapes of the Mazagao Phase (Appendix, table 10) Stone artifacts from A-7 Amapd, Arista Phase Ground plan of A-9 Rel6gio, a habitation site of the Arista Phase. _ Worked sherd scraper from the Ariste Phase cemetery of A-11 Montanha de Arista, Cave 1 Ground plan of A-11— Montanha de Arista, Cave 2, Arista Phase Small stone chisel from A-11— Montanha de Arista, Cave 2, Arist6 Phase Pottery figurine (Ariste Plain paste) from A-11 Montanha de Arista, Cave 2, Arista Phase. —. —. 102 105 106 109 110 111. —. 112.

J. l^f?^^^^ EVANS. ^^°. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. XVH PAGE. —. 37.. Scraped Bowl (vessel E) from A-11 Montanha de Ariste, Cave 2, Arista Phase Montanha de Arista, Cave Flexal Scraped Jar (vessel G) from A-11 2, Arist6 Phase Montanha Serra Painted design on the shoulder of vessel P from A-1 1 de Ariste, Cave 2, Arist6 Phase Reconstruction of Ariste Painted vessel with anthropomorphic face from A-11 Montanha de Arista, Cave 3, Arist6 Phase Detail of the anthropomorphic face on the Arista Painted vessel shown in figure 34 Burial urn and lid of the Arist6 Phase found by Hamy (1897) on the Rio Oiapoque Profile and top view of shaft-burial at the Cunani Site, Arist6 Phase. 38.. Rim. 39.. Rim. 31. Flexal. 32.. 33.. 34.. 35.. 36.. —. —. —. and. vessel shapes of Ariste Plain, Arista. and. (Appendix, table 13) Painted sherds from A-11. of Arista. Painted,. — Montanha. Arista. 42.. Rim. 136. de Arista, Cave. 2,. 43.. Rim profiles and. 44.. Rim. 45.. Rim. and. vessel shapes of. Davl. Incised, Arist6. Phase (Ap-. pendix, table 14). and. 139 vessel shapes of Flexal Scraped,. Arista Phase. (Appendix, table 15). 141. vessel shapes of Serra Plain, Ariste. Phase (Appendix, 144. table 16) profiles. and. vessel shapes of Serra Painted, Arista. Phase (Ap-. pendix, table 17). and. profiles. 146. vessel shapes of. Uagd. Incised, Ariste. Phase (Ap-. pendix, table 18) 46. Seriation of Ariste. 149. Phase. sites. on the basis. of pottery. type frequency. (Appendix, table 11). 152. Maraj6 Island, showing major streams, vegetation pattern and the location of archeological sites. North coast. 168. showing vegetation pattern and the location of sites J-6 through J-13 49. Plan of J-7 Sipo, a habitation site of the Ananatuba Phase 50. Partially drilled sherd from J-7 Sipo, Ananatuba Phase 51. Cylindrical pottery objects from J-9 Ananatuba, Ananatuba Phase. 48.. of. Maraj6. Island,. —. 52.. Rim. —. and. profiles. vessel shapes of. —. 54.. 55.. Rim. (Appendix, table 24). and. profiles. 182. Ananatuba Phase 186. Ananatuba Phase. sites. on the basis of pottery type. frequency (Appendix, tables 21 and 22) Plan of J-5 Croari, a habitation site of the Mangueiras Phase 58. Pottery tubular pipes from Mangueiras Phase sites 59. Figurine parts from J-5 Croari, Mangueiras Phase 391329^57 2 57.. 180. 184. vessel shapes of Sip6 Incised,. (Appendix, table 25) 56. Seriation of. 174 175 176 178. Ananatuba Painted, Ananatuba. Phase (Appendix, table 24) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Ananatuba Plain and Sororoco Plain, Ananatuba Phase (Appendix, tables 23 and 26) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Carmo Brushed, Ananatuba Phase. 53.. 124. 138. Rim. 47.. 117. Phase. Arista Phase 41.. profiles. 117. 133 vessel shapes. 40. Arista. profiles. 116. Phase (Ap-. pendix, table 12) profiles. 114. 127. (After Goeldi, 1900.) profiles. 113. —. —. 190 195 197 197.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XVin. wt. [bull,. PAGE. Lab ret. —. fragment from J-5 Croari, Mangueiras Phase Bacurl, a habitation site of the Mangueiras Phase 61. Plan of J-13 Canivete, a habitation site of the Mangueiras Phase. _ 62. Plan of J-16 63. Labrets and bicouical object of pottery from C-3 Porto Real, Mangueiras Phase 64. Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anjos Plain, Mangueiras Phase 60.. (?). — —. —. (Appendix, table 29) 65.. Rim. 66.. Rim. 67.. Rim. 68.. Rim. 69.. Rim profiles and vessel. 70.. Rim. 71.. Rim. profiles. and and. Mangueiras Phase 206. vessel shapes of Croari Brushed,. Mangueiras Phase. (Appendix, table 30) profiles. and. 208. vessel shapes of. Esperanga Red, Mangueiras Phase. (Appendix, table 32) profiles. and. 202 205. vessel shapes of Bacuri Brushed,. (Appendix, table 30) profiles. 198 199 200. 209. vessel shapes of. Mangueiras Plain. jars,. Mangueiras. Phase (Appendix, table 31). 212. shapes of Mangueiras Plain bowls, Mangueiras. Phase (Appendix, table 31) profiles and vessel shapes of Pocoat6 Scraped, Mangueiras Phase. 213. (Appendix, table 32). 214. profiles. and. vessel shapes of Pseudo-Sip6 Incised,. Mangueiras. Phase Variety (Appendix, table 32) Mangueiras Phase sites on the basis of pottery type. 216. frequency (Appendix, table 28). 218. 72. Seriation of. 73. Stratigraphic evidence for the origin. by acculturation. of. Mangueiras. Plain Vessel Shape 4 (Mangueiras Phase) from the Ananatuba Phase (Appendix, tables 27 and 33). evidence for the origin by acculturation of Mangueiras Plain Vessel Shape 3 (Mangueiras Phase) from the Ananatuba Phase (Appendix, tables 27 and 33) Plan of J-4 Mucajd, a habitation site of the Formiga Phase Plan of J-6 Formiga, a habitation site of the Formiga Phase Formiga, Formiga Phase Drilled sherds from J-6 Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Catarina Plain, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 35) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Coroca Plain, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 35) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Embauba Plain, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 36) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Formiga Plain, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 37) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Mucajd Corrugated, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 38) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Pseudo-Sip6 Incised, Formiga Phase Variety (Appendix, table 38) Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Sauba Brushed, Formiga Phase (Appendix, table 38) Seriation of Formiga Phase sites on the basis of pottery type frequency (Appendix, table 34) North coast of Maraj6 Island in the vicinity of Chaves, showing the locations of J-2/3 Chaves Airport and J-4 Mucajd, Stone ax from J-2/3 Chaves Airport, a habitation site of the Arua. 220. 74. Stratigraphic. 75. 76. 77. 78.. 79.. 80.. 81.. 82.. 83.. 84.. 85.. 86.. 87.. — —. —. — —. Phase. —. 221. 223 225 226 229 231. 233. 235 236 237. 238 240 243 244.

^^^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. EVANsf^. XIX PAGE. 88.. Plan of J-14, Mounds Phase. 1, 2,. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.. 98. 99.. 100. 101.. 102.. 3,. a. mound group. of the. Marajoara 260. Mound. Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1, cut 1, vessels A, B, C, and D, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar E, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar F, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar H, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar I, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar J, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar K, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar L, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar M, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar N, Marajoara Phase J-14, Mound 1 cut 1, jar O, Marajoara Phase Plan of mounds composing J-15 Camutins, a mound group of the Marajoara Phase Plan of J-15, Mound 1, Marajoara Phase, showing the location of. 89. Burial stratigraphy of J-14, 90.. and. 1,. cut. 1,. —. excavations 103. Artifacts. Mound 1, cut 2, Marajoara Phase J-15, Mounds 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, habitation mounds. —. 109.. 110. 111. 112.. 113. 114.. 115.. 116.. 117.. 118.. 119.. 120.. 121.. 280. of. the Marajoara Phase Inajasal, a habitation mound of 105. Detailed plan of J-15, Mound 4 the Marajoara Phase, showing the location of cut 1 106. Profile of west face of cut 1, J-15, Mound 14, Marajoara Phase 107. Detailed plan of J-15, Mound 17, a Marajoara Phase cemetery, 108.. 262 264 265 266 268 269 270 272 274 276 277. 282 284. from J-15,. 104. Detailed plans of. 261. showing location of excavations of Maraj6 Island, showing the location of Marajoara Phase cemetery sites Plan of the Fortaleza Mound Group of the Marajoara Phase on the Rio Goiapi Detailed plan of Mound 7 of the Fortaleza Group showing the extent of Farabee's excavations in this Marajoara Phase cemetery site Plan of the Marajoara Phase site of Pacoval made by Lange in 1913__ Plan of the Marajoara Phase site of Pacoval made by Hilbert in 1951__ Plan of Teso dos China mound group of the Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anajds Double-slipped Incised of the Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anajds Plain Incised, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anajd,s Red Incised, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Anajds White Incised, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Ararl Double-slipped Excised and Arari Red Excised, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Ararf Plain Excised, Marajoara Phase. 287 290 291. 293. Map. Rim. and vessel shapes of Ararf Red Excised, White-retouched, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain bowls, Marajoara Phase (Appendix, tables 45 and 46). 296 303 305 312 313 321. 327 329 331. 334. 337 339. profiles. 345. 350.

XX. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. [boll. 167. PAGE 122. 123.. 124. 125. 126. 127.. Rim. and. Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain jars, Marajoara Phase (Appendix, tables 45 and 46) Less common rim profiles and vessel shapes of Camutins Plain and Inajd Plain, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Carmelo Red, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Goiapf Scraped, Marajoara Phase.. Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Guajard Incised, Marajoara Phase. _ Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Joanes Painted, Marajoara Phase profiles. vessel shapes of. (Appendix, table 47). Polychrome Type A and B, Marajoara Phase Joanes Painted, Polychrome Type C, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Pacoval Incised bowls, Marajoara Phase Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Pacoval Incised jars, Marajoara Phase Marajoara Phase miniature axes Marajoara Phase stone ax from J-14, Mound 1, cut 1 Marajoara Phase pottery ear plugs Marajoara Phase pottery labrets from J-15, Mound 1, surface. Reconstruction is based on a complete stone specimen from Panellas.. Marajoara Phase pottery spindle whorls Standardized measurements on tangas of the Marajoara Phase Marajoara Phase grooved polishing stone from j^ J-15, Mound 1,. 128. Joanes Painted, 129.. 130. 131. 132.. 133.. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138.. 140.. 141. 142.. 143.. 144.. 145. 146.. 147.. Ceramic stratigraphy of J-15, Mound 14, cut 1, showing trends in the Marajoara Phase plain wares (Appendix, table 39) Ceramic sedation of the Marajoara Phase sites of J-15, Mounds 1 and 17, and J-14, Mound 1 (Appendix, table 40) Seriation of Marajoara Phase cemetery sites based on relative frequency of Inajd Plain and Camutins Plain (Appendix, table 41) . _ Seriation of J-15 habitation mounds based on the relative frequency of Inajd Plain and Camutins Plain (Appendix, table 42) Trends in Marajoara Phase decorated types revealed by the seriation of the 4 Marajoara Phase cemetery sites of Pacoval, Fortaleza, Camutins, and Guajard (Appendix, table 43) Trends in unusual pottery artifacts and adornos of the Marajoara Phase shown by comparing the cemetery sites of Pacoval, Fortaleza, Camutins, and Guajard (Appendix, table 44) Distribution of the various archeological Phases on Maraj6 Island.. Archeological distribution of distinctive traits of the Marajoara Phase. Tassels shown as ear ornaments on Marajoara Phase anthropomorphic jars. distribution. of distinctive traits. of the. 368 373 374 375 377 379 383. 386 386. 388 390. 394. 396 406 412. 416. and. relative duration of the prehistoric cultures. on Maraj6. 422. Island. Mexiana. Island,. showing major streams, vegetation pattern and loca426. tion of archeological sites 151. Caviana Island, showing. major streams, vegetation pattern and. loca-. 428. tion of archeological sites. 153.. 367. Marajoara. Phase 149. Sequence. — Acauan, a habitation of the Acauan Phase Acauan Phase anthropomorphic or zoomorphic rim adornos on Piryzal Plain from M-3— Acauan.. 152. Plan of. 360 364 365. 416. ,. 148. Ethnographic. 150.. 352 354 355 357. 385. surface 139.. 351. M-3. site. 431. 434.

— EVANsf^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. *^°. XXI PAQB. 158.. Acauan Acauan Acauan Acauan Acauan. 159.. Rim. 1 54.. 155. 156. 157.. 435 436 437 438 438. —Jurupucu. from J-12. figurine. and. profiles. — — — —. M-3 Acauan Acauan figurine head from M-3 stone flake from M-3 Acauan pottery stamp from M-3 Acauan spindle whorl from. Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase. vessel shapes of. Acauan Excised, Acauan Phase 440. (Appendix, table 49). Acauan Phase. 160.. Rim. 161. 162.. Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Floripes Corrugated, Acauan Phase.Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Paciencia Scraped, Acauan Phase. 163.. Rim. and. profiles. vessel shapes of Carobal Incised,. (Appendix, table 49). 447. (Appendix, table 49) profiles. 166. 167. 168.. 169.. 170. 171.. 172. 173.. 174. 175.. 176. 177.. vessel. —. —. —. — —. —. —. — M-5— Mulatinho Arua Phase zoomorphic adorno from Arua Phase nephrite pendants from M-5 — Mulatinho Detail of modeling on 7 from the Arua Phase C-1 — Teso das to which belonged Igagabas and a reconstruction of the Plan of C-4— Teso dos Indies, a cemetery of the Arua Phase, jar 24,. it. showing the location of the burial jars from Arua Phase cemeteries. 180. Detailed plan of Section A, the burial area of. C-6. — Croatasal. Base shapes of Piratuba Plain jars, Arua Phase 182. Arua Phase anthropomorphic burial jar from Section. A. of. 185.. 187.. 189.. —. —. —. —. Arua Phase nephrite pendants and beads from C-9 Frei Joao Plan of C-11 Vaquejador de Sao Sebasteao, an Arua Phase cemetery. —. 466. 467 474 482 485 489 492 494. 502 504 505 506. 507 508 510. site. 190.. 462 463. 501. Arua Phase pottery figurines Arua Phase stone axes from C-9 Frei Joao Arua Phase stone artifacts from C-9 Frei Joao Arua Phase decorated sherds from C-9 Frei Joao Arua Phase zoomorphic rim adorno in the form of a bird from C-9 Frei Joao. 188.. 461. C-6. Croatasal. 186.. 460. 496 497 499 500. 181.. 184.. 459. site. 179. Reconstructed jars. 1 83.. 449 458. Site. jar. vessel. 178.. Acauan Phase. shapes of Piryzal Plain,. (Appendix, table 50) M-2 Papa Cachorro, a habitation site of the Arua Phase. _ Arari Excised vessel with adorno, a Marajoara Phase trade sherd found at the Arua Phase site M-2 Papa Cachorro Location and environmental situation of C-5 Morera and C-6 Croatasal, habitation sites of the Arua Phase Arua Phase pottery animal feet Plan of C-8 Pacajd,, a habitation site of the Arua Phase Ajua Phase stone axes Plan of M-4 Fundo das Panellas, an Arua Phase cemetery site, showing the positions of the burial jars Reconstructed burial jars from the Arua Phase site M-4 Fundo das Panellas Painted decoration on Piratuba Plain sherds from Arua Phase sites. _ Plan of M-5 Mulatinho, a cemetery site of the Arua Phase, showing the position of the burial jars and other objects Arua Phase anthropomorphic vessel 4 from M-5 Mulatinho. 164. Plan of 165.. and. 443 445. bowl associated with Burial jar 4 from the Arua Phase Vaquejador de Sao Sebasteao. Piratuba'^Plain site. C-11. —. 511.

— XXn. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. [bull. 167. PAGE 191. Tiered jar of Piratuba Plain associated with Burial jar 12. —. 192.. from the. Arua Phase site of C-11 Vaquejador de Sao Sebasteao Arua Phase pottery beads associated with burial jar 4,. 512. C-11. Vaquejador de Sao Sebasteao Arua Phase Condino, a cemetery 194. Plan of C-12. 513 514. 193. Stone axes of the. —. site of the Arua Phase, showing the location of the burial jars 195. Piratuba Plain platter from the Arua Phase site, C-12 Condino 196. Rim profiles and vessel shapes of Piratuba Plain bowls, Arua Phase (Appendix, table 52). —. 197.. Rim. profiles. and. vessel shapes of Piratuba Plain jars,. 529 530. modeled decoration from various Arua 531. sites. 200. Piratuba Plain sherds with. Phase. modeled decoration from various Arua. sites. 199. Piratuba Plain sherds with. Phase. modeled decoration from various Arua 532. sites. Arua Phase. 201. Seriation of. sites. on the basis of vessel shape frequency. of. Piratuba Plain (Appendix, table 52) 202. Designs 203.. made by. European. forts. potterj^. 636 547. stamps. and other settlements at the mouth. of the. Amazon. prior to the middle of the 18th century 204. Early. map. of the tribes inhabiting the. 560. Guiana coast published by. William Delisle in 1703 cultural sequence at the mouth of the Amazon 206. Routes of migration and diffusion in northern South America, reconstructed from the evidence of the affiliations of the archeological Phases at the mouth of the Amazon 205.. 528. Arua Phase. (Appendix, table 52) 198. Piratuba Plain sherds with. Phase. 516 518. The. 568 590. 600. TEXT TABLES A. B. C.. D.. — —. Glass beads from A-3 Pigacd Cemetery Glass beads from A-4 Valentim Glass beads from A-15— Vila Velha Relative frequency of Ananatuba Phase and Mangueiras Phase wares at J-7— Sip6. Duration F. Duration G. Duration H. Duration E.. I.. of. Ananatuba Phase. of. Mangueiras Phase. village sites. of. Wai Wai. village duration. K. Frequency of Inajd and Camutins Plain wares at Teso dos China Temporal differences in Anajd,s White Incised decoration M. Temporal differences in Arari Plain Excised decoration N. Temporal differences in Arari Red Excised decoration O. Temporal differences in Arari White Excised decoration P. Differences in wear on tanga fragments Q. Standardized measurements on tangas R. Duration of Acauan Phase village Site M-3 Acauan Mulatinho Glass beads from M-5 S. L.. —. —. 192. of village refuse. accumulation J.. 120. 253 263 254 254. village sites. Arua Phase village sites of Formiga Phase village sites Differential results of two methods of calculating rate. 51. 68. 255 257 322 336 341. 344 348 382 383 456 492.

1. ^^^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. EVANsf^. XXIH PAGE. T.. U.. —. Base type and dimensions of burial jars from C-6 Croatasal, Section A. Chronological sequence of European exploration and settlement. 50. 557. APPENDIX TABLES 1.. Frequency of pottery types. in surface collections. Mazagao Phase. rim and vessel shapes. and stratigraphic excavations. at sites of the 2.. Frequency of. 3.. Mazagao Phase. Frequency of rim and. of. vessel shapes of. Anauerapucu Incised. Camaipl Plain. in sites of the. in sites of the. Mazagao. Phase. 4.. Frequency. of. rim and vessel shapes of Jari Scraped in. sites of. the Mazagao. Phase. 5.. the. Mazagao. in sites of the. Mazagao. Incised in sites of the. Mazagao. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Mazagao Plain in. sites of. Phase. 6.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Pigacd Incised Phase.. 7.. Frequency. and. of rim. vessel shapes of. Uxy. Phase. 8.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Vilanova Plain. in sites of the. Mazagao. Phase. 9.. Reduction of the individual rim and vessel shapes of Mazagao Phase pottery types to. 10.. sites of 11.. 12.. common. vessel shapes.. Frequency of common rim and vessel shapes irrespective of pottery type the. in. Mazagao Phase.. Frequency of pottery types in sites of the Arista Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Arista Plain. in sites of the Arista. Phase. 13.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Arist6 Painted. in sites of the Arista. Phase. 14.. Frequency. of rim. and. of rim. and. vessel shapes of. Davf Incised. in sites of the Arista. Phase. 15.. Frequency. vessel shapes of Flexal Scraped in sites of the Arista. Phase.. and vessel shapes of Serra Plain in sites of the Arista Phase. and vessel shapes of Serra Painted in sites of the Arista. 17.. Frequency Frequency. 18.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Uagd Incised. 16.. of rim of rim. Phase. in sites of the Arista. Phase. 19.. Reduction of the individual rim and vessel shapes of Arista Phase pottery. 20.. Frequency of common rim and vessel shapes irrespective of pottery type in. 21.. Frequency of pottery types in stratigraphic excavations at site J-7 of the Ananatuba Phase. Frequency of pottery types in stratigraphic excavations at sites J-8, J-9, and J-10 of the Ananatuba Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Ananatuba Plain in sites of the Ananatuba Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Ananatuba Painted and Carmo Brushed in sites of the Ananatuba Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Sip6 Incised in sites of the Ananatuba. types to sites of. 22.. 23.. 24.. 25.. Phase.. common. vessel shapes.. the Ariste Phase..

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XXIV 26.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Sororoco Plain in. [bull, le?. sites of. the Ananatuba. Phase.. Frequency of 3 jar shapes in Ananatuba Phase plain wares that influenced the pottery of the Mangueiras Phase. 28. Frequency of pottery types in surface collections and stratigraphic excavations at sites of the Mangueiras Phase. 29. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Anjos Plain in sites of the Mangueiras 27.. Phase. 30.. 31.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Bacurl Brushed and Croarf Brushed in sites of the Mangueiras Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Mangueiras Plain in sites of the Mangueiras Phase.. 36.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Esperanga Red, Pocoat6 Scraped and Pseudo-Sip6 Incised in sites of the Mangueiras Phase. Frequency of 3 jar shapes in Mangueiras Phase plain wares showing influence from the Ananatuba Phase. Frequency of pottery types in surface collections and stratigraphic excavations at sites of the Formiga Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Catarina Plain and Coroca Plain in sites of the Formiga Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Embauba Plain in sites of the Formiga. 37.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Formiga Plain in. 32.. 33.. 34.. 35.. Phase. sites of. the Formiga. Phase. 38.. 39.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Mucajd Corrugated, Pseudo-Sip6 Incised and Sauba Brushed in sites of the Formiga Phase. Frequency of pottery types in J-15, Mound 14, Cut 1, a habitation site of the. Maraj oar a. Phase.. 40.. Frequency of pottery types in stratigraphic excavations at J-14, Mound 1, J-15, Mound 1, and J-15, Mound 17, cemetery sites of the Marajoara. 41.. Adjusted frequency of plain pottery types from 17 Marajoara Phase cemetery. Phase.. 45.. mounds. Frequency of the pottery types in surface collections from J-15 habitation mounds, Marajoara Phase. Frequency of decorated pottery types at 4 Marajoara Phase cemetery mounds. Frequency of unusual pottery artifacts and adornos at 4 Marajoara Phase cemetery sites. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Camutins Plain in sites of the Mara-. 46.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Inajd Plain in. 42.. 43. 44.. joara Phase. sites of. the Marajoara. Phase. 47.. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Joanes Painted in. sites of. the Mara-. joara Phase. 48.. collections and stratigraphic excavaAcauan Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Acauan Excised, Carobal Incised and Paciencia Scraped of the Acauan Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Piryzal Plain of the Acauan Phase. Frequency of pottery types at sites of the Arua Phase. Frequency of rim and vessel shapes of Piratuba Plain in sites of the Arua. Frequency of pottery types in surface tions at site. 49.. 60. 51,. 52.. Phase.. M-3. of the.

PREFACE Any field. project undertaken in the interior of a country. away from. the settled metropolitan centers of the world depends so heavily on. personal contacts, friendliness, hospitality, and cooperation for its it is impossible to single out each individual. successful completion that. to. whom. special. mention. is. due.. However, there are a number. of. people whose contributions were instrumental in making our work possible, and we wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to them for their generous assistance and cooperation. For his enthusiastic interest in, and active support of our proposal to do archeological research at the mouth of the Amazon, we are particularly indebted to Dr. William Duncan Strong, Loubat professor of anthropology and at that time chairman of the Department of Anthropology of Columbia University. It is no exaggeration to that without his aid, our plans would never have been realized. say Dr. Charles Wagley and Dr. Julian H. Steward, also of the Columbia faculty, aided us in details of the planning and together with Dr.. Strong read and criticized the portions of this report that were submitted as doctoral dissertations to Columbia University. We are indebted to Dr. Wendell C. Bennett for both encouragement and advice when our plans were in a formative stage, and for friendly and continuing interest in our work and its results. We deeply regret that he never saw the completed monograph, but hope that in dedicating it to him we are able to convey an impression of what his friendly guidance meant to those of us who never had the privilege of being his students. For showing an interest in supporting the first intensive archeological field work in the Amazon Valley we wish to record our gratitude to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc. (at that time called The Viking Fund, Inc.) and to the William Bayard Cutting Traveling Fellowship Fund of. Columbia University.. The successful launching of the expedition in Brazil was due to the cooperation of Sra. Heloisa Alberto Torres, then director of the Museu Nacional in Rio de Janeiro,. who. offered us permission to work under For her scientific and oflEicial assistance as well as her friendly interest, aid, and advice from the beginning to the end of the trip, we offer om- warmest thanks. Sra. Maria Alberto Torres was also extremely helpful in guiding us through the intricacies of ofiicial details in a foreign country. Dr. and Mrs. Charles Wagley,. the auspices of that. museum.. XXV.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XXVI. [boll,. m. who preceded us to Rio de Janeiro and Belem, did a great deal to pave the way for our reception. In Belem, we are particularly obligated to Sr. Machado Coelho, at that time director of the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, for his cooperation and for placing at our disposal a house on the museum grounds in which we lived while classifying and analyzing our excavated materials; to Sr. Frederico Barata, who not only allowed us to examine but was ready to aid us in any other way that was within his capacity; to Sr. Eurico deMelo Cardoso Fernandes, whose interest in anthropology was primarily responsible for our being invited to work in the Territory of Amapa; to Sr. Jose Ambrosio de Miranda Pombo, who was instrumental in obtaining permission for us to work on the Island of Mexiana and in the Municipio of Chaves, Maraj6 Island; to Jose F. Cottim, who his collection of archeological specimens. volunteered his services as our interpreter in official situations before our laiowledge of Portuguese was adequate; to Benjamin Pinto y Sousa, who patiently washed and numbered all our sherds and performed numerous other indispensable services both on Caviana and in. Belem; to Dr. Caspar Cesar de Andrade, director of the Servigo Especial de Saiide Publica in Belem, and his staff for certain medical supplies and advice to Dr. Acylino de Leao, delegate to the Conselho de Fiscalizagao de Expedigoes Artisticas e Cientificas, for his understanding and cooperation in official matters regarding the archeological collections to Sr. Fritz Ackermann and Sr. Felisberto de Camargo for permitting us to study their private archeological collections. At ;. ;. Belem we spent many enjoyable hours in homes of Mr. and Mrs. George T. Colman, Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Pickerell, Mr. and Mrs. M. L. Albuquerque, and Sr. and Sra. Philippe Farah. Their hospitality did much to make our months in Belem. various intervals while in the. pleasant memories.. While in the Territory of Amap^ we became indebted foremost to Governor Janary Gentil Nunes, who, because of his interest in the Territory of Amapa and his eagerness to develop all its potentialities, gave us overwhelming cooperation and placed at our disposal everything from motorboats to airplanes, maps, and workmen in order to expedite our research before the rainy season reached its height. to him, we were able to accomplish here in 1 month almost as. Thanks. much as we had been able to do in 4 months on the islands. Sr. Newton Wilson Cardoso, director of the newly formed Museu Territorial, acall our trips here to learn the technique of archeologisurvey and excavation.^^ He '-proved 'so apt a pupil that we were able to include in our archeological analysis of the region addiWe wish to tional sites and materials he later collected by himself. thank Sr. Fritz Ackermann, for making available to us the information. companied us on cal field.

^^^. EVANsf^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. XXVII. he had recorded about archeological sites during geological surveys. For their friendliness, cooperation, and hospitality while we were in the Territory of Amapa, we are also indebted to Sr. and Sra. Janary Gentil Nunes, Sr. and Sra. Jose Ferreira Teixeira, Sr. Raul Montero Valdez, Sr. Benedito Jose Carneiro de Amorim, Sr. Hermogenes da Lima Filho, Sr. Atahualpa Maranhao, and Prof. Jose Tostes.. The. carrying out of extensive archeological survey in north Brazil. by land owners to trespass, excavate and in many cases also to use the ranch house for headquarters. For granting their permission to work on their property, for placing at oiu- disposal the facilities of the fazendas, and for assistance in numerous other ways, we wish to thank the following persons: On Maraj6 Island Sr. and Sra. Dionysio Bentes de Carvalho, Sr. Rodolfo Chermont, Sr., Sr. Rodolfo Chermont, Jr., Sr. Armando Teixeira, Sr. Lauro de Miranda Lobato, Sr. Raul Bittencourt, Capt. Am^ncio Antonio dos Santos, Sr. Raimundo Brito, Sr. Noe Xavier de Andrade, Sr. Fernando Teixeira; on Mexiana Island the members of the Mexiana Cooperativa, especially Sr. Edgar Guama whose scientific interests permitted us to enjoy many evenings of pleasant conversation and whose cooperation was absolutely overwhelming, and Sra. Lelio Lobato for her friendly hospitality while at the main fazenda house; on Caviana Island Sr. Dionysio Bentes de Carvalho, Coronel Lusignan Dias, Dr. Claudio Dias, Dr. Armando Morelli, Sr. Mario Lobato, Sr. Angelino Lobato, Sr. Antero da Silva Melo Filho, Sr. Benjamin Pinto e Sousa, Sr. and Sra. Tiburcio da Silva Melo, Sr, Nadir Pinto e Sousa, Sr. and Sra. Manoel Alves da Silva. involves the granting of permission. —. —. —. The most extensive archeological investigations in the Amazon area are those made by Nimuendajii during the 1920's under the auspices of the Ethnographical Museum, Goteborg, Sweden. The unpubhshed notes have been edited by Stig Ryden, supplemented with detailed descriptions of the specimens in Goteborg Museum collections.. Ryden has generously made MS.) and photographs. available to us this manuscript (Ryden,. and has granted permission to quote passages in this report. His cooperation has added considerable comparative information to the sections on Maraj6, Caviana, and the Territory of Amapd. It is a pleasure to acknowledge our indebtedness to him. In the technical analysis of certain specimens, we wish to thank of the plates,. the following scientists for their cooperation, information, and expert opinions: Marshall T. Newman, Division of Physical Anthropology, United States National Museum, for the study of extremely fragmentary human bone material; Doris M. Cochi-an, Division of Reptiles and Amphibians, United States National Museum, for identification of reptile bones; Junius B. Bird, Department of Anthropology,.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. XXVin. [bull, ler. American Museum of Natural History, for comments on clay fragments with cord impressions; Arthm* Woodward, Glenn A. Black, and Kenneth Kidd for analysis of the glass trade beads. There are two people whose exceptional contribution to the success of our work requires special acknowledgement. Mr. George T. Colman, United States Consul at Belem, helped us immeasurably by seeing om' equipment through the customs and acting as intermediary in similar official situations at no little saving to us in time and mental anguish. The interest he and Mrs. Colman showed in us and om- work typical of their enthusiasm for. all things pertaining to the culture Peter Paul Hilbert, ethnologist of the Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi in Belem, accompanied us on our second trip to Maraj6 Island, took his indoctrination into jQeld archeology with aplomb, and has since returned to the Island and done further work. His generosity in putting his data at our disposal is evident in the frequency with which he has been quoted in the Marajo section of this is. and people. report,. to. him. and. of Brazil.. it is. difficult to. express accurately the extent of our debt. for this contribution.. Finally, we would like to record our warm thanks to the caboclos who were our guides, our workmen, our companions, and frequently our hosts. They and their fellow Brazilians in all walks of life made our. stay in Brazil so pleasant, as well as scientifically rewarding, that are eager to return.. The. third. and fourth sections. of this report. we. formed the nuclei of Colum-. dissertations submitted to the Faculty of Political Science of. bia University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the de-. gree. of. doctor. of. philosophy.. Clifford. Evans presented. "The. Archeology of the Territory of Amapd, Brazil (Brazilian Guiana)" in March 1950, and Betty J. Meggers presented "The Archeological Sequence on Maraj6 Island, Brazil" in February 1952. Now, both of these sections have been reorganized and partly rewritten for inclusion in the final monograph, and all statements, conclusions, and interpretations included herein supersede any previously made which. may. slightly differ.. B.. J.. C. E. Division of Archeology, United States National. Museum,. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C, May 21, 1964. M..

ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE. MOUTH OF THE AMAZON By Betty. J.. Meggers and Clifford Evans. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF THE LOWER AMAZON ARCHEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION Prior to the introduction of extensive survey and stratigraphic excavation by trained archeologists, the interpretation of the archeology of an area must be based on the more elaborate and decorative. way into museums and on vague comments recorded by travelers in pursuit of adventure or by scientists after other kinds of information. This situation applied to the mouth of the Amazon prior to 1948. In the 19th century, Marajo Island in particular exerted a great fascination on numerous scientists The Marajoara mounds were first recorded in the as well as laymen. 18th century by an anonymous visitor who was impressed by the weU-made vessels they contained. When the Amazon was undergoing pieces of pottery that have found their. exploration during the latter part of the 19th century botanists, general naturalists,. and laymen, these. by. geologists,. were frequently visited and examined. Among those who wrote detailed accounts of their activities and impressions are Jose Vieira Couto de Magalhaes, Domingo Soares Ferreira Penna, Joseph B. Steere, Orville A, Derby, Charles F. Hartt, and Ladislau Netto. In 1895 and 1896 Emilio Goeldi and Aureliano Lima Guedes conducted survey and excavation in the Territory of. Amapa and. Cunani and Maraca.. Most. sites. now well-loiown sites at men made collections of the more. reported the. of these. elaborate types of pottery and these were sent to. America and. museums. in. North. Brazil.. In the early decades of the 20th century, the mounds of Maraj6 continued to be visited and excavated. Those who conducted the. most extensive explorations represented two new categories of proLange who dug in Pacoval in 1913 and Desmond Holdridge who examined several mounds east of Lago Ai-ari in 1930; and anthropologists, including W. C. Farabee who made extensive excavations in 1914 at Fortaleza and in 1916 at fessional allegiance: JournaHsts, like Algot.

2. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. [bull. 167. the Camutins, Curt Nimuendajii who tested sites in the Cabo Maguari area in 1922, Heloisa Alberto Torres who visited Pacoval do Cururu. and Antonio Mordini who excavated at Teso dos Gentios in 1926 and Panellas in 1928. It is unfortunate that none of these individuals has written a detailed account of his findings except Lange Farabee left (1914), whose excavation technique is unreliable. detailed field notes on some of his work, but they are largely rendered However, he deuseless by the loss of the pottery identifications. large collection of complete vessels and sample of sherds a a posited Thus, in spite of a at the University Museum in Philadelphia. long sequence of articles and numerous visits of inspection and even excavation, the descriptions of Marajoara Phase remains are so incomplete and indefinite that they serve more to tantalize than to inform. Our interest in the archeological situation at the mouth of the Amazon dates from 1943, when Meggers began an analysis and interpretation of a small collection from Marajo Island made in 1871 by J. B. Steere, and deposited at the University Museums in Ann Arbor, Mich. (Meggers, 1947). This study revealed the meagerness and indefiniteness of the information on the Marajoara Phase sites and their contents, in spite of the relatively voluminous literature, and indicated that no reliable conclusions could be drawn without stratigraphic excavation. This conclusion was strengthened after a detailed examination was made of the larger and more representative Lange collection from Pacoval at the American Aluseum of Natural History in New York. A classification of the sherds by surface treatment (plain, slipped, double slipped) and decoration (incision, excision, painting) revealed a variety of types, some simple and others complex. The probable selectivity of the collection, coupled with. in 1930,. Lange's method of excavation (p. 312), indicated any efforts to deduce temporal significance from the differences in decorative styles would be purely speculative. The further the study of these museum collections proceeded, the more obvious became the need for scientific fieldwork as a basis for the interpretation of the archeological remains. mouth of the AmazonWith all these factors in mind the authors, then graduate students in the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University, drafted a program for Lower Amazon archeological exploration. The research problems were discussed in detail with Drs. Wm. Duncan Strong, Julian H. Steward, Charles Wagley, Wendell C. Bennett, and Gordon. at the. K. Willey, and the interest with which these individuals received the project led to correspondence with ofliicials in Brazil to investigate the possibility of their cooperation. Although the details were not. completed by correspondence, sufficient encouragement was received from Dr. Heloisa Alberto Torres, then director of the Museu fully.

^^^ EVA^Nsf^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. 3. Nacional in Eio de Janeiro, Brazil, to warrant proceeding with a formal application for research funds and with preparations for the Through the generosity of the Wenner-Gren Foundation expedition. for Anthropological Research, Inc. (at that time known as The Viking Fund, Inc.) of New York a joint research grant was obtained for a year of "Archaeological Study in the Lower Amazon, Brazil" from July 1, 1948 to July 1, 1949. Dr. Wm. Duncan Strong, then Chairman of the Department of Anthropology of Columbia University presented the research project to the authorities of the University with the result that further financial assistance was received in the form of a Wniiam Bayard Cutting Traveling Fellowship. Through Dr. Strong's cooperation we were permitted to work as representatives of the Department of Anthropology of Columbia University, an arrangement which aided our work immensely and facilitated our relations with Brazilian authorities. Beyond the procedures followed above to guarantee the financial and scientific support of the project, a number of difficulties in planning were encountered. In spite of the fact that we talked to several people who had spent considerable time in the tropical forest regions of South America, no one was able to ofi'er any concrete advice on such specific things as field equipment needs, or on the problems and possibilities of labor, transportation, etc., beyond the hmits of the main course of the Amazon or its major tributaries. Relying on Evans' prior experience in Peru, we consequently sent down many items that had seemed to be necessary field equipment, but which later proved completely useless or impractical in the lowland tropics and were shipped back to a central base at the first opportunity.. ITINERARY. We. left. Miami,. Janeiro to complete. Fla.,. on July. official. 1,. 1948, flying directly to Rio de. negotiations with the Brazilian authorities.. Our arrival was preceded by that of Dr. and Mrs. Charles Wagley who had come to Brazil under UNESCO auspices to conduct research for the International Hylean Amazon Institute (Wagley, 1953). Not only did the Wagleys pave our way in Rio de Janeiro, but they preceded us to Belem, Para, where their announcement of our arrival made om* reception more cordial than it otherwise would have been. In Rio de Janeiro, Dr. Heloisa Alberto Torres, director of the Museu Nacional, offered us her complete scientific cooperation and allowed us to work under the auspices of the museum. In addition, her friendly aid, hospitality, and assistance expedited the acquisition of the necessary official papers with the result that on July 17 we flew north to Belem, the capital of the State of Para and the gateway to the Amazon. In spite of a handful of letters of introduction pro-.

4. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. [bull, lei. vided by Dr. Torres, the contacts the Wagleys had made for us, and the cooperation of Dr. Machado Coelho, director of the Museu Goeldi, we were delayed for 6 weeks in town by problems surrounding the negotiation with officials and landowners for permission to undertake archeological investigations on their property. Since Brazilian federal law regarding antiquities or subsurface rights does not automatically grant permission to trespass nor does it actually protect the archeological sites, our itinerary was controlled by the willingness of the owners to cooperate and their preference as to when we should visit their property.. A workable schedule was finally achieved and we left Belem August 20, 1948, by wood- burning steamer through the inland route to Chaves on the north coast of the Island of Maraj6. Chaves served as our first base of operations, from which excavations were conducted at Sites J-1 through J-5. On September 2, we moved eastward to Fazenda Santa Catarina, where a new base was established. From there and the various outstations of the Fazenda we worked imtil September 23, covering Sites J-6 through J-12. Since the owner-manager of Mexiana Island had requested that our visit coincide with his presence on the Island, we left Maraj6 Island at this time and established a new base of operations at Fazenda Nazar6 on Mexiana. Sites M-1 through M-7 were studied while on Mexiana Island from September 24 to October 22 w^hen we moved to Caviana Island. A base of operations was estabhshed at Fazenda Sao Joao da Caridade and Sites C-1 through C-15 were excavated between October 22 and December 14. During this period w^e returned on November 19 to Chaves in order to examine further Site J-4. Before going back to Caviana Island on November 23 we went along the north coast of Maraj6 toward the east to examine Site J-1 3. Our baggage had become of some considerable size by this time, even though the Maraj<5 sherds had been shipped back to Belem earlier, and since we were unable to arrange successfully for direct transportation from Caviana to Macap^ in the Territory of Amapd, we hired a sailboat to all the specimens into Bel6m by way of the coastal route while we returned to Bel6m via the inland steamer which was to stop in Chaves. bring. on December 18 on its monthly trip. Ai'riving in Belem on December 21, we made our headquarters in a house provided on the grounds of the Museu Paraense EmUio Goeldi, which was to serve not only as our living quarters but as an excellent laboratory space for storing and studying the numerous archeological specimens. After the baggage arrived from the islands, along with a general handyman and assistant, Benjamin Pinto e Sousa, the work was laid out in the laboratory so that he could wash and number all the specimens collected so far.

^ND. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. ^yf^s]^. we returned. while. to the field for another. month. 5. before the rainy. season began.. On January. 2,. we flew from Belem to Macapa, the capital of Amapa, where we had been invited to underinvestigations by the Governor, Janary Gentil. 1949,. the Federal Territory of. take archeological. Through. Nunes, facilities,. his magnificent cooperation all the. governmental. including m.otor launches, trucks, airplanes, maps, archival. and obscure reference books were put at our disposal so that our work in the Territory of Amapa would be facilitated as much as We were accompanied on all possible in the limited time available. our trips by Sr. Newton Wilson Cardoso, director of the newly form.ed Museu Territorial. As a result of some specimens brought back by a geologist, Fritz Ackermann, from the Rio Pigaca, we began with a survey of the Rio Vilanova and its tributaries. This resulted in data on Sites A-1 through A-6 and A-13. From January 15 to 21, we explored the Rio Araguari-Amapari without finding any sites. On January 22 we flew to Amap4 and worked at Sites A-7 through A-12 until January 30, when we returned to Macapa. The remaining few Macapa were spent getting on Site A-14 and in days in in data photographing and taking notes on the various specimens that Sr. Cardoso had in his custody in the Museu Territorial. On February 4 we returned to Belem by air and immediately moved into our houselaboratory on the Museu Goeldi grounds. The rainy season was now at its height and m^any of the specimen bags and labels showed such severe effects of mildew that some of the identifications were almost illegible. We began to work immediately on the classification of the pottery while Sr. Benjamin Pinto e Sousa continued to wash and number the rest of the sherds. In addition to analyzing all our own sherd material and photographing all the complete specimens and representative samples of the pottery records,. types,. mens. we. also classified, described,. Museu. and photographed. all. the speci-. Goeldi which had any sort of provenience data, as well as some specimens in the private collections of Sr. Frederico Barata and Sr. Fritz Ackermann. This work continued until May 5, when, although the rainy season lasted somewhat longer than was normal, we left for a final trip to the interior of Maraj6 Island to collect data on the elaborate Marajoara Phase burial mound complex. On May 6, accompanied by Peter Paul Hilbert, the ethnologist of the Aluseu Goeldi, we sailed from Belem to the center of Maraj6 Island, making our headquarters at Fazenda Campo Limpo near the upper Rio Anajds. Sites J-14, J-lo (with 17 artificial mxounds), and J-16 were excavated in the area and we returned to Belem on May 23. The remaining time in Belem was spent in completing the analysis of the previously excavated materials as well as the nev/ly acquired in the. 391329—57. 3.

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY. 6. [bdll. 167. specimens from the Marajoara mound^cultures.". On June 23 we flew to Macapd for the day to deliver a talk on the results of our work in the Territory of Amapd. While there we found that Sr. Newton Wilson Cardoso had visited several more sites since working with us and had proved himself an apt pupil by taking accurate notes and keeping materials by site, as well as making some stratigraphic excavations. He kindly allowed us to take this material back to Belem. and study. week The last or so in Belem was somewhat hectic. Not only did we have to pack our equipment, but the final details of the study of all the materials excavated had to be completed and a division had to be for classification. made into type collections to be left at the Museu Goeldi in Belem, the Museu Territorial in Macapd, the Museu Nacional in Rio de and smaller samples. to be exported for distribution to museUnited States.^ On July 1, we flew from Belem to Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, where for several days we visited the caves of the Lagoa Santa region with Mr. H. V. Walter and Sr. Josephat Paula Penna (Evans, 1950). On July 4 we continued to Rio de Janeiro to close our ofiicial business with the Museu Nacional and to report to Dr. Heloisa Alberto Torres the progress of our year's fieldwork in the Amazon. After paying respects to the many friends we had made in both Rio de Janeu'o and in the north, we left Brazil by air arriving in New York on July 14, 1949.. Janeiro,. ums. in the. PROBLEMS AND COMPROMISES IN FIELD TECHNIQUE Archeology in the tropical forest of South America presents, in many diflSculties that are not encountered in the more arid or more accessible parts of the New World. Manuals of field procedure and precision methods of excavation technique frequently cannot be followed, and the field situation must be met with an understanding of what is pertinent and what is unprofitable in order to gain the maximum of information in the shortest possible time. Othermse, one could easily spend a full year in the field and have very little to show for it. This we learned, however, only by experience. For the benefit of those who may follow us, we will outline briefly some of the major problems and compromises. Evans, who had recently returned from 9 months of fieldwork on the coast of Peru, superintended the assembling of the field equipment. We included all those items that had been essential or helpful in that work, and some of these proved to be even more important in the tropical environment, particularly specimen bags of unbleached muslin, addition to the usual problems,. >. These type. Museum. have been deposited at the United States National Museum, the University American Museum of Natural History, the Peabody Museum of Yale UniAnthropology at the University of Michigan, and the Museum of Anthropology of. collections. in Philadelphia, the. versity, the. Museum of. the University of California..

^^^ Ev^ANsf^. ARCHEOLOGY AT MOUTH OF AMAZON. 7. and duplicate sets of field notes. In the hope that aerial photographs might reveal the location of the Marajoara mounds as they do ruins on the coast of Peru, we secured permission to examine those taken of Maraj6 Island by the United States Air Force, going to some difficulty since they were still classified as "confidential." The results were highly disappointing because the forest growth obliterated Later, all but the most abrupt and extreme alterations in the terrain. after experience on the ground and in low elevation flights over the savanna and jungle, we became fuUy convinced that aerial photography has nothing to offer as a means of locating archeological sites However, we derived one important benefit in the Amazon area. from the aerial survey of the Amazon. As a result of this work, the Aeronautical Chart Service of the United States Army Air Force has been able to revise and correct its World Aeronautical Charts to such a degree of accuracy that when on the ground we could follow each bend and curve of all but the smallest streams. From the standpoint of a more useful scale for groundwork, the Aeronautical Chart Service made available the Preliminary Work Sheets, Scale 1:500,000, from which the final copies of the World Aeronautical Charts, Scale 1 :1, 000,000, are made. Not only did these maps save us considerable time and trouble, but they gave a degree of accuracy to the site localinen tags,. tions and the geographical features of the area that otherwise could not have been attained. In addition to these excellent maps, we took along surveying equipment, such as a plane table and tripod, alidade, and stadia rod, on the assumption these materials would be useful in the mapping of each archeological site. Two weeks in the field demonstrated that not only it was impossible to carry around this equipment, but also it was completely nonfunctional for several reasons: (1) Generally, the sites were not large enough or with enough surface features to warrant the use of the alidade and plane table; (2) to sight a line through vegetation required a cutting operation that was not economically feasible or practical; (3) a sufficiently accurate map could be obtained with greater ease and in less time with grid paper, a compass, a tape, and a hand level. In other words, we made a compromise in technique here because if we had not done so we would have had to sacrifice results in terms of the number of sites we could examine and we are convinced that a site map so derived would show no more pertinent information than is now available on our various plans. Field technique must be adaptable to the situation so that the most scientific data can be obtained under the peculiar local circumstances. To demonstrate the point, it is pertinent to mention why we used the. system of sinking several smaU strata. cuts, generally 1.5. by. 1.5 meters,. into various sections of the site instead of digging a long trench or a.