JASREP-00233; No of Pages 9
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/jasrep
Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central
Amazonian village
Gabriela Prestes-Carneiro a,b,c,⁎, Philippe Béarez a, Salvador Bailon a,
Anne Rapp Py-Daniel b,c, Eduardo Góes Neves c
a
b
c
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, « Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: sociétés, pratiques et environnements » (UMR 7209 of the CNRS). 55 rue Buffon, 75005, Paris, France
Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Programa de Antropologia e Arqueologia, Av. Mendonça Furtado, n° 2946 — Fátima, CEP 68040-470, Santarém, Pará, Brazil
Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Professor Almeida Prado, 1466 — Cidade Universitária, CEP 05508-070, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 April 2015
Received in revised form 2 October 2015
Accepted 26 October 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Ichthyoarcheology
Pre-Columbian fishing
Aquatic resources
Central Amazon
a b s t r a c t
Aquatic resources play a major role in modern Amazonian societies, however little is known about their importance in pre-Columbian economies. In this paper, we present results of the first zooarcheological study in the
Central Amazon, carried out at the Hatahara site, a large pre-Columbian settlement situated at the confluence
of the Amazon and Negro rivers. The faunal assemblage comes from archeological features belonging to the
Paredão phase occupation (750–1230 CE) and reveals that fish were the primary animal resource. The richness
of ichthyofaunal spectrum (37 taxa) recovered is the most varied continental fish spectrum described to date
in South-American archeology and shows the fishermen's profound knowledge of specific ecological niches
and fishing techniques. Amazon aquatic turtles (Podocnemis spp.) were the second most frequently exploited
aquatic resource. These data demonstrate the key role of aquatic resources in ancient Amazonia economies
and suggests that fishing could have provided long-term subsistence to large Amerindian settlements.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, fishing has a major importance in riverine economies at
the confluence of the Amazon and Negro rivers; however, little attention has been paid to past Human-Animal interactions (Smith, 1979,
1981). In the 1960s and 1970s, some scholars working in the Amazon
considered riverine animal protein consumption to be a major source
of resources for ancient indigenous populations, arguing that abundant
and accessible aquatic resources were principal correlates of regional
population growth and settlement nucleation. In spite of that, the debate never fully developed for lack of archeological fauna. For scholars
such as Carneiro (1968), Lathrap (1968) and Gross (1975), the availability of animal protein in environmental settings would either “enable” or
“limit” population growth of Amerindian societies. Therefore, the
pursuit of animal resources in the tropical forest would force groups
living in interfluvial areas to develop high mobility strategies, while
settlements situated on the bluffs of major rivers, with easier access to
aquatic resources, would show sedentary patterns (Carneiro, 1968;
Lathrap, 1968).
⁎ Corresponding author at: Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, « Archéozoologie,
Archéobotanique: sociétés, pratiques et environnements » (UMR 7209 of the CNRS). 55
rue Buffon, 75005, Paris, France.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Prestes-Carneiro), [email protected]
(P. Béarez), [email protected] (S. Bailon), [email protected] (A. Rapp
Py-Daniel), [email protected] (E.G. Neves).
Although recent advances in Amazonian archeology have brought
forth a wider interest in the understanding of ancient South American
societies (Silverman and Isbell, 2008), very few studies have focused
on specific areas such as zooarcheology. Research on this topic has
been carried out in scattered areas, such as the Amazonian coast and estuary (Imazio da Silveira, 1994; Nogueira de Queiroz and Carvalho,
2010, Roosevelt et al., 1996) and in the Llanos de Mojos, Bolivia
(Hutterer, 1997; Béarez and Prümers, 2007; von den Driesch and
Hutterer, 2012). The lack of faunal studies can be explained by the
poor preservation of bone material in tropical contexts (Stahl, 1995)
and the rarity of reference collections for Amazonian vertebrate fauna.
Representative reference collections, for both taxonomy and the developmental stages of individual species, are a prerequisite for accurate
zooarcheological analysis especially in areas with high diversity.
Recent archeological surveys and excavations conducted at the confluence of the Amazon and Negro rivers have offered a good opportunity
to evaluate and to put into perspective the role of animal resources at
large Amerindian settlements. Over 100 sites dating between 300 BCE
and 1500 CE reveal long and intensive pre-Columbian occupations,
with dense populations living in structured large settlements (Neves
et al., 2004; Neves and Petersen, 2006; Neves, 2013). Considering this
context, what kind of resources would be necessary to sustain such
dense populations? How were environments exploited? And finally,
how were the animals and their niches used? The Hatahara site, one
of the best known archeological sites of the Central Amazon region,
delivered exceptionally well preserved organic matter which allowed
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
2352-409X/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
2
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
us to carry out the first zooarcheological study in the region (Neves and
Petersen, 2006). As a result this study has highlighted the importance of
fishing in this pre-Columbian settlement.
2. The research area: the central amazon
The research area covers about 1000 km2 size at the confluence of
the Amazon River and the Negro River near the city of Manaus, in the
Central Amazon (Fig. 1). This area includes a wide floodplain (also
known as várzea) that is inundated annually. Water level oscillations
drive aquatic and terrestrial phases configuring a dynamic mosaic of
environments such as flooded forests (igapós), sandy beaches, seasonal
lakes and temporary river streams (igarapés) (Latrubesse and
Franzinelli, 2002). The Amazon River was classified by Sioli (1984) as
a white water river. It transports high amounts of sediments and organic
matter, which provides nutrients to a large group of aquatic species of
fauna and flora. This environmental setting makes the region one of
the richest ecosystems in the world in terms of biodiversity (Turner,
2001).
Although the study of human-environment interactions has recently
become a central issue in ecological and political debate in the Amazon
(Barlow et al., 2012), research on past environmental management in
the Central Amazon is still in its early stages. The first archeological surveys were undertaken in the 1950's and 1960s by Peter Hilbert and
Mário Simões, but systematic studies only started in 1995 when a multidisciplinary research program called the Central Amazon Project
(CAP) was launched (Neves, 2013). More than 100 sites were registered
at the Negro-Amazon confluence delivering dates ranging from 6000
BCE to 1500 CE (Neves et al., 2004; Neves and Petersen, 2006).
Archeological sites were identified in different settings, but the majority
of the settlements were situated in high and non-flooded areas of the
river bluffs.
Global archeological studies at the confluence area demonstrate that
evidence of intense landscape transformation and constant reoccupation of settlements dates back to the beginning of the first millennium
of the Common Era (CE). Systematic excavations associated with radiocarbon dates provided a stable chronology along with the recognition of
four major ceramic phases: Açutuba, Manacapuru, Paredão and Guarita
dating between 300 BCE and 1500 CE (Neves, 2007). A central feature
of most sites is a set of large patches of anthropic soils called Amazonian
Dark Earths (ADE), some of them combined with structured artificial
mounds and large amounts of ceramic sherds (Neves et al., 2004). At
the Lago do Limão site, an excavated feature about 6 m in diameter
and 1,2 m deep may have been used as a turtle pond (Moraes, 2006).
This pattern of settlement was well described during colonial times in
different parts of Amazonia and it might be related to the development
of more stable and sedentary societies that combined the cultivation of
domestic crops with the management of wild plants and animals
(Neves and Petersen, 2006; Neves, 2007; Moraes, 2006).
The majority of the work undertaken in the CAP project was
conducted in Hatahara (Fig. 1), which is an open-air site situated on a
bluff on the North Bank of the Solimões (Amazon) river, 20 km
upstream from the confluence with the Negro river. Excavations have
shown the presence of all four ceramic phases in the site; however, in
this study, we are particularly interested in the Paredão phase occupation, defined by Neves and Petersen (2006) as a regional complex
group of the Incised Rim Tradition dated between 750 CE to 1020 CE
Fig. 1. The Central Amazon area, the confluence of the Negro and Amazon rivers, in Neves and Petersen (2006). Map: Marcos Brito.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
3
Table 1
Radiocarbon dates obtained from Mound 1 samples associated with Paredão phase in Hatahara site.
Date code
Arch.
sample
number
Depth
Method
Type
sample
Pretreatment
14
Beta 143591
PN 549
100–110
PN 1175.5
100–110
Beta 143592
PN 589
121
Beta 178915
PN 10714
146
Radiometric
standard
AMS standard
Beta 143595
PN 1892
155
AMS standard
Beta 143598
PN 1869
180–190
AMS standard
Charred
material
Bone
collagen
Charred
material
Charred
material
Charred
material
Charred
material
Acid/alkali/acid
Beta 242439
Radiometric
standard
AMS standard
d13C
2 sigma calibration
Sample
processing
date
Published in
1250 ± 80 BP
−25.0‰
26/07/2000
Arroyo-Kalin (2008)
Collagen extraction:
with alkali
Acid/alkali/acid
980 ± 40 BP
−19.2‰
16/04/2008
Rapp Py-Daniel (2009)
920 ± 40 BP
−25.9‰
26/07/2000
Rapp Py-Daniel (2009)
Acid/alkali/acid
910 ± 40 BP
−26.8‰
09/06/2003
Acid/alkali/acid
1000 ± 40 BP
−27.2‰
Acid/alkali/acid
1110 ± 40 BP
−26.7‰
Cal CE 645 to 980
(Cal BP 1305 to 970)
Cal CE 890 to 1020
(Cal BP 1060 to 930)
Cal CE 1025 to 1220
(Cal BP 925 to 730)
Cal CE 1030 to 1250
(Cal BP 920 to 700)
Cal CE 1005 to 1175
(Cal BP 945 to 775)
Cal CE 885 to 1020
(Cal BP 1065 to 930)
Neves and Petersen
(2006)
Neves and Petersen
(2006)
Arroyo-Kalin (2008)
(Table 1). During this period, the site reached about 20 ha in size and
included dozens of artificial mounds forming ring or semi-ring
villages.
Phytoliths of maize (Zea mays), yam (Dioscorea spp.) and manioc
(Manihot sp.) recovered at Hatahara suggests the cultivation of crops
(Bozarth et al., 2009, Cascon, 2010). Several genera of palm trees
(genera Astrocaryum, Attalea, Bactris, Mauritia, Oenocarpus) may also
have been exploited. Furthermore, anthracological analyses highlight
that pioneer vegetation was associated with an intense opening up of
the forest, confirming the hypothesis of a strong anthropic management
of the vegetation at that time (Caromano, 2010).
Overall archeological data available for the Central Amazon region
during the Paredão phase, including anthropic soil dispersion, and the
changes in settlement extent and ceramic production, are all indicative
of intense landscape transformation related to population growth
(Moraes, 2006). In this paper, we are interested in how inferences
derived from the preserved archeofaunal assemblage at Hatahara compare to the evidence from larger settlements and to the more sedentary
strategies in the Central Amazon around 700 CE.
3. Materials and methods
Faunal remains were sampled from one stratum (stratum 3) and
three features from Mound 1, both contexts associated with Paredão
phase occupation of the Hatahara site. Stratum 3 is associated with a
C yr. BP
26/07/2000
26/05/2000
funerary area and lies under an artificial mound (Fig. 2). Rapp PyDaniel (2009) indicates that the mound, built with large quantities
of ceramics and clay soil, must have helped seal the stratum,
protecting the organic matter from weathering and preserving all
types of bony materials.
About 300 l of sediment, from stratum 3 (140–270 cm depth), were
sieved using 1 mm and 2 mm meshes and faunal material was also
hand collected during the excavation. Collections then were subsequently brought to the UMR 7209 “Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique:
sociétés, pratiques et environnements” and “Anatomie Comparée” laboratories at the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN-Paris,
France) for taxonomic identification, and then returned to Brazil,
where they are currently stored at the Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia
da Universidade de São Paulo (MAE-USP). Since no exhaustive osteological collections, nor systematic osteological atlas, exist for most taxa of
South-American fish and turtles, remains were assigned to a precise
taxonomic level only when diagnostic criteria were recognized with
certainty.
Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) and Number of Identified
specimens (NISP) were used in this study. MNI was calculated for
each 10 cm of artificial excavation stratification during the taxonomic
identification. In an attempt to obtain an idea of relative biomass for
fish, we also used weight estimation by comparing the archeological
element with a reference collection specimen. The burn damage,
fracturing and cutmarks were noted in order to determine how the
specimen had been processed.
Fig. 2. The Hatahara site (a) Mound 1 excavation area in 2006. In the lower left and right of the picture, different circular features can be identified. Depth: 110 cm; (b) Feature of a possible
human burial associated with faunal remains. Depth: 100–110 cm, Mound 4. Credits: Val Moraes.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
4
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Table 2 (continued)
Table 2
Vertebrate archeofauna associated with Paredão occupation.
Taxon
Common name
Total Chondrichthyes
Potamotrygonidae
Total Teleostei
Osteoglossiformes
Osteoglossidae
Arapaima sp.
Osteoglossum bicirrhosum
Clupeiformes
Clupeidae
Characiformes
Serrasalminae (Colossoma
macropomum/Piaractus
brachypomus)
Colossoma
macropomum/cf. Colossoma
macropomum
Piaractus brachypomus/cf.
Piaractus brachypomus
Characidae
Brycon sp.
Mylossoma sp./Myleus sp.
Serrasalmus sp.
Pygocentrus
sp./Serrasalmus sp.
Cynodontidae
Hydrolycus sp.
Rhaphiodon vulpinus
Erythrinidae
Hoplias sp.
Anostomidae
Prochilodontidae
Indeterminate Characiformes
Siluriformes
Doradidae
cf. Pterodoras granulosus
Oxydoras niger
Auchenipteridae
Pimelodidae
Pseudoplatystoma tigrinum
Pimelodus sp.
Phractocephalus
hemioliopterus
Callichthyidae
Loricariidae
Indeterminate Siluriformes
Synbranchiformes
Synbranchidae
Synbranchus sp.1
Synbranchus sp.2
Synbranchus spp.
Perciformes
Scianidae
Plagioscion
squamosissimus
Cichlidae
Cichla spp.
Astronotus sp.
Chrenicichla sp.
Cichlasoma sp.
Acaronia sp.
cf. Satanoperca sp.
Indeterminate Teleostei
Total Lissamphibia
Pipa sp.
Total Reptilia
Chelonii
Podocnemidae
Podocnemis sp.
cf. Podocnemis sp.
Crocodilia
Crocodylidae
Caiman cf. crocodilus
River stingray
(arraia)
Taxon
NISP
MNI
8
8
3
3
7192
280
Weight (g)
3.59
3.59
1.573.73
Bonytongue
(pirarucu/paiche)
Aruanã
145
48
561.699
10
4
2.173
Apapá, sardinhão
1
1
0.009
18
4
8.561
65
22
135.878
Tambaqui
Pirapitinga
10
4
16,464
Common name
Serpentes
Boidae
Eunectes sp.
Colubridae s.l.
Lacertilia
Teiidae
Tupinambis sp.
Gekkonidae
Total Aves
Total Mammalia
Marsupialia
Didelphidae
Rodentia
Echimyidae
Echimys cf. chrysurus
cf. Echimys sp.
cf. Proechimys sp.
Matrinxã, jatuarana
Pacu-manteiga,
pacu-galo
Piranha
Piranha
5
5
2
3
0.065
0.08
1
11
1
4
0.53
0.07
Pirandirá, cachorra
Ripa
3
6
2
1
0.025
0.098
Traira, jeju
Aracu
Jaraqui, curimatã
22
5
1
468
4
4
1
29
0.66
0.095
0.011
5.163
Thorny catfishes
Bacu liso/armado
Cuiú-cuiú
61
11
8
4
13
14
8
6
27
4
4
4
9
8
5
2
94.271
14.135
11.775
0.024
3.66
29.74
0.464
65.52
14
33
125
7
8
24
0.957
46.361
44.199
2
2
1.557
2
2
0.14
6
3
0.744
Caparari
Mandí
Redtail fish
(pirarara/guacamayo)
Tamoatá, soldado
Bodó/acari bodó
Bagre
Swamp eel
(muçum/enguia)
Swamp eel
(muçum/enguia)
Swamp eel
(muçum/enguia)
Pescada-branca
Tucunaré
Acará/curuaçú
Jacundá
Acará
Acará boca de quguiá
Acará-jurupari
Indeterminate bony
fish
Pipa, sapo-aru
Indeterminate
aquatic turtle
South American river
turtle
Caiman, alligator
Caiman (jacaretinga)
20
9
5.15
87
26
4
1
1
1
3
5976
5
15
3
1
1
1
2
5.329
10.487
0.294
0.081
0.007
0.007
0.034
548.647
2
1
1911
1419
1
42
0.05
0.046
1.928.252
1092.18
8
21
4
10
34.19
162.46
50
9
329.66
288
34
4
1
251.3
36.37
Dasyproctidae
Myoprocta sp.
Caviidae
Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris
Indeterminate Mammalia
Total sample
Indeterminate Snake
Boids
Anaconda (Sucuruju,
sucuri verde)
Indeterminate lizard
Tegu (lagarto teiú)
Gecko (lagartixa)
Indeterminate birds
Indeterminate
marsupial
Opossum (mucura)
Indeterminate
rodents
White-faced Spiny
Tree-rat
Spiny rat
(Rato-de-espinho)
Spiny rat
(Rato-de-espinho)
Acouchi
Capivara
NISP
56
1
12
MNI Weight (g)
1
6
5.798
0.01
6.5
18
2
4
1
1
28
331
1
1
1
18
1
1
133
1
5
0.25
0.72
11
1
4
1
0.08
0.1
5
3
0.02
2
1
0.01
1
1
0.03
1
1
175
9474 344
6.45
0.34
2.99
0.004
10,09
113.491
0.96
0.72
110.6
3.515.712
4. Results
A total of 9474 animal vertebrate remains were studied, Table 2 lists
the vertebrate species recovered. Six groups of vertebrate (Teleostei,
Chondrichthyes, Mammalia, Reptilia, Lissamphibia and Aves) are present with different proportions (Fig. 3). Fish dominate every index
(NISP, MNI), representing 76% of the NISP, followed by reptiles with
20% (Fig. 4). In contrast, mammals, lissamphibians and birds are
scarcely represented in the spectrum. The MNI graph shows similar
proportions. A very high diversity of fishes is observed (Fig. 4) while it
is less significant in Reptiles.
The vertebrate assemblage is numerically dominated by poorly
preserved teleostean fish elements (vertebrae, scutes, fins) that could
not be reliably identified to family or genus level. Birds remains were
so fragmented that MNI could not be inferred.
4.1. Fish
The teleostean spectrum presents a high variety of groups, with 37
taxa distributed in Osteoglossiformes (bonytongues), Clupeiformes
(pellonas), Characiformes, Perciformes, Siluriformes (catfishes) and
Synbranchiformes (swamp eels) (Fig. 4, Table 2). However, MNI estimates indicate that three groups are particularly prominent:
arapaimids (pirarucu/paiche) (48), doradids (35) and serrasalmids
(pacu) (20).
A large number of small size Characiforms were counted (38% of the
NISP), meanwhile if we consider their net weight, they correspond to
only 0.5% of the total fish body mass, while Arapaima stands for 54% of
total fish remains net weight. This indicates that, in terms of biomass,
small Characiforms may not have had the same importance as larger
fishes.
The giant bonytongue fish or pirarucu (Arapaima sp.) is decidedly
the most common fish recovered in the assemblage with 48 individuals.
It represents 23% of the MNI fish spectrum (Fig. 4). Vertebrae are the
most common element in the collection, but cranial elements are also
represented. Until now, Arapaima gigas (Schinz, in Cuvier, 1822) was
long considered to be the only valid species in the Amazon Basin;
however there is current evidence of at least 3 other species of this
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
5
Fig. 3. NISP and MNI representation of vertebrate archeofauna recovered during the Paredão occupation at Hatahara site.
genus (Stewart, 2013): Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes, in Cuvier and
Valenciennes, 1847); Arapaima leptosoma (Stewart, 2013); and
Arapaima mapae (Valenciennes, in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1847).
Unfortunately the analyzed remains did not show enough diagnostic
elements to distinguish the species.
Archeological Arapaima individuals had estimated weights ranging
from 5 kg up to 100 kg (Fig. 5). Considering a MNI of 48, we can assume
that this fish provided a considerable amount of meat. Nowadays,
Arapaima is captured during the dry season when it becomes confined
to calm waters of lakes and river streams. Since Arapaima spp. are airbreathing species, they are captured when coming to the surface to
breath, which indicates a precise knowledge of its behavior. Smith
(1981) and Murrieta (2001) report that the harpoon is currently the
frequently used capture technique.
The second most represented group of fish is the Siluriformes
(Catfishes) with 102 individuals (36% of the MNI, Fig. 4). Among catfishes,
a high diversity of species was observed ranging in size from small
Loricariidae (acari, bodó) and schooling Callichthyidae (tamoatá/soldado)
to large catfishes such as Pseudoplatystoma tigrinum and Phractocephalus
hemioliopterus, which are commonly caught in deep waters of large rivers
(Goulding, 1980). Estimated sizes of archeological specimens ranged
from the 60 g callichthyids up to the 40 kg P. hemioliopterus.
Characiformes are also well represented in the assemblage at 26%
of the MNI. Carnivorous pirañas like Pygocentrus nattereri and
Serrassalmus spp., and omnivorous pirañas like Colossoma
macropomum (tambaqui) were among the most exploited fish at
Hatahara (9% of the fish MNI). C. macropomum is the second largest
scaled-fish of the Amazon and is generally caught during the wet
season, when this fish comes to the surface to eat fallen fruit in the
flooded forests (Goulding, 1980). Perciformes such as Cichla sp.
(tucunaré) and Plagioscion squamosissimus (pescada branca), and
Synbranchiformes are not as common.
Fig. 4. Relative frequencies of MNI Teleostean fish indicating a taxon-rich spectrum.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
6
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. (a) Estimated weight of Arapaima sp. vertebrae shows the exploitation of contrasting sizes of individuals, (b) Arapaima fishing illustrated by Franz Keller in an expedition to the
Amazon and Madeira rivers (Keller, 1875).
4.1.1. Fish butchering in the field
Cut marks and fracturing were systematically observed on the
proximal part of pectoral fins of doradids catfishes (Fig. 6). Removal of
the spines might be linked to the fact that doradids contain a venomous
poison covering the fin that can induce serious infections, inflammations, cyanosis and erythema (Perrière and Goudey-Perrière, 2003;
Wright, 2009). Therefore, this type of cut may be interpreted as a procedure to prevent venomous injuries. Bone tool fragments made of
Siluriform spines were present but were not included in the present
study.
Cutting damage was also observed on the medial side of the
cleithrum of a large redtail catfish individual (P. hemioliopterus). Experimental work undertaken by Willis et al. (2008) demonstrated that this
type of mark is associated with cutting off the fish head. These two examples of butchering suggest that fish processing could have taken
place in the settlement.
4.2. Reptiles
Chelonians dominate the reptilian NISP counts (N = 1498), followed
by crocodilians (N = 322), snakes (N = 86) and lizards (N = 3). A
significant number of the Reptiles NISP corresponds to chelonian fragments (Table 2). Crocodilians and snakes are represented in the assemblage, with special attention given to the genus Eunectes, an aquatic
group that includes one of the largest snakes in the world, the green
anaconda (Eunectes murinus).
A total of 1498 fragments belonged to the Chelonii order, but only 21
among the remains were associated to the genus Podocnemis following
diagnostic elements described by Carvalho et al. (2002) and de França
and Langer (2005). The lack of anatomical criteria to distinguish different species of Podocnemis (tracajá, tartaruga-da-amazônia) has
refrained identification to the genus level. Podocnemis comprises more
than half of the reptilian assemblage by weight and consists primarily
of fragmented turtle shell.
Fig. 6. Cut marks in pectoral catfish fin.
It is interesting to point out that despite a high diversity of
chelonians currently available in the Amazonian region (Vogt, 2008),
South-American river turtles, Podocnemis spp., were the only taxa recovered in an archeological context. Podocnemis spp. are among the
largest turtles, attaining a body mass up to around 90 kg. Estimates
indicate that archeological individuals measured between 30 cm to
70 cm, excluding the juveniles and the largest adults of the known
size range of this species. This reveals that prey selection was guided
by both taxa and individual size.
4.2.1. Turtle preparation and consumption
Numerous plates of chelonians presented cut marks especially on
the plastron (hypoplastron, epiplastron and entoplastron). The pattern
of the marks revealed two different opening techniques, one by cutting
the hypoplastron – the lateral side of the plastron (Fig. 7b) – and the
other by grooving the entoplastron – the medial part of the animal.
Fig. 7a shows furrows crossing the hypoplastron anteroposteriorly. It
is also possible to observe that the furrow covers the burnt damage,
indicating that the animal was first roasted and then opened.
Carapace and plastron shells were burnt in different levels while
other post cranial elements did not present signs of burning. More
than half of the dorsal carapace elements show thermal alteration, suggesting that turtles were probably turned upside down and roasted in
their shells. Stahl and Oyuela-Caycedo (2007) and Sampson (1998) propose that this specific burning technique is good evidence for human
consumption. In Amazonian ethnographic literature, Amazonian ethnographic literature describes this particular roasting technique (Bates,
1979: 237; Werner, 1990; Smith, 1979). Podocnemis gathering is
currently controlled and regulated by environmental state regulation;
however, aquatic turtles are still widely consumed in the Amazon
region (Fachín-Terán et al., 2004).
4.2.2. Intensive aquatic turtle' consumption: hunting or storage?
Anthropic marks identified on chelonian shells revealed that aquatic
turtles were intensively consumed by the Amerindians in Hatahara.
However, provisioning methods of aquatic turtles are still unclear.
Nowadays, Podocnemidae turtles are collected especially during the
dry season, when the females approach quieter waters in proximity to
sandy beaches lakes and streams to spawn. During the raining season,
they can also be fished, but the pursuit is harder since the animals are
spread out through the flooded forests (Barboza et al., 2014).
It is also possible that turtles were kept alive in pens for later
consumption in pond type corrals. As mentioned before, one excavated
feature in the Lago do Limão site (about 15 km from Hatahara) was
interpreted to be a turtle weir (Moraes, 2006). The feature was circular
with 6 m in diameter, 1.2 m deep and surrounded by small pit holes
used to enclose the structure. Turtle corrals were described in the
Amazon region by first explorers such as Gaspar de Carvajal in 1541
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
(Medina and Valdés, 1934) and Cristobal de Acuña in 1639 (de Acuña,
1994), and by numerous naturalists such as Saint-Cricq (1875); Silva
Coutinho (1868); Bates (1979) and others.
4.3. Mammals
Mammals are underrepresented in the assemblage if we consider
the global NISP and MNI spectrum. A total of 331 remains were recovered, representative of only 3.6% of the total NISP or 5% of the MNI
(Fig. 3). Rodents account for more than half of the mammal specimens
identified. Long bones and vertebrae comprise the greater part of
elements present, however identification to family or genus was only
possible from molars or premolars. There were two size groups of
rodents, the smaller group (about 8 cm in length) of indeterminate
taxonomic family, and the larger group (about 25 to 30 cm in length)
of Echimyidae.
This larger group, also known as spiny rats, are arboreal or semiterrestrial rodents. The molar patterns described by Emmons (2005)
allowed us to identify 4 individuals as the genus Echimys. These species
currently inhabit forest environments, their diet consisting of fruits,
grains and insects. Ancient consumption of Echimyidae was documented in South America by Stahl (1995) and in Central America by Cooke
et al. (2008), but no cutmarks or anthropic selection of anatomical elements were observed by us. The presence of Echimyidae in the
archeological record can be intrusive or related to post-depositional
processes and they were not necessarily selected by humans.
5. Discussion
5.1. Fishing as a main subsistence resource
If we exclude costal settlements, fish generally represents a small
part of the global faunal spectrum usually recovered in archeological records (Cooke and Jiménez, 2008). In Hatahara it represents 76% of total
NISP and 81% of total MNI, indicating that fishing activity played a main
role in the Hatahara pre-Columbian settlement. Sixteen of the modern
28 fish families attested at the confluence area (Saint-Paul et al., 2000)
were recovered in the archeological sample.
Hatahara fisherfolk was able to catch a broad size range of fish going
from 20 g cichlids to large sized Arapaima weighing over 100 kg. Explorers and naturalists throughout the Amazon report the use of nets
and traps for small size fish while arrows and harpoons were used for
7
large fish. We cannot exclude the use of vegetal poison (known as
timbó) as a very common fishing technique that has been used in the
Amazon region (Lowie, 1963), nonetheless, fishing techniques can
vary enormously, so far archeological findings do not allow us to affirm
which one was used.
Fishing techniques are not only related to fish behavior but also to
their distribution according to the annual flooding cycle. The main
taxa recovered such as Arapaima sp., C. macropomum and Piaractus
brachypomus undertake lateral migration in accordance with changing
water levels and seasonality. During the raining season, water from
the main channel overflows and animals spread out across the flooded
forests. When water levels drop, they return to river channels,
streams and lakes, where they are confined during the dry season
(Lowe-McConnell, 1987; Goulding, 1980; Castello, 2008). Therefore,
the presence of seasonal species in the archeological record allows us
to assert that Hatahara fishers were highly adapted to the annual
flooding cycle and probably developed specialized capture techniques
according to specific fish dispersals.
The importance of fish in riverine societies has been asserted since
the first explorers passed through the Amazon river, a good example
is found in Gaspar de Carvajal in 1542:“(…) there we found so much
food, particularly fish, for of this there was found such a variety and so
plentifully that we could have loaded our brigantines up well, and this
fish the Indians had drying, to be transported into the interior to be sold”
(Medina and Valdés, 1934: 207). Similarly, many important scholars
working in the Amazon, such as Robert Carneiro (1968), Donald
Lathrap (1968) and Stephen Beckerman (1979) claimed a central role
of aquatic resources in the pre-Columbian Amazon. Lathrap (1968),
for example, asserted that the abundance of riverine resources of the
Central Amazon would ensure the development of sedentary settlements; however, at that time, archeological evidence had not yet been
collected and could neither reinforce nor reject his theory.
Fish still provide most of the meat for current riverine communities
near the confluence of the Amazon and Negro rivers. Batista et al.
(1998) revealed that the daily average fish consumption approaches
550 g per person, which exceeds the daily protein requirements of
adults. This amount of consumption is very large, even when the large
amount of fish available due to present-day fishing techniques is
considered.
Moreover research conducted by Murrieta and Dufour (2004) in a
modern riverine community at Ituqui Island (Pará State) revealed that
despite the high intake of manioc in daily food consumption, fish still
Fig. 7. (a) Archeological hypoplastrum fragment with cutmarks and traces of burning; (b) Reconstitution of archeological cuts in modern Podocnemididae specimen.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
8
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
appears as a principal source of protein and also an important source of
energy.
Therefore, taking into consideration that plant protein intake may
have had substantial input on protein resources, the zooarcheological
results presented here indicate that fish biomass supplied the animal
protein needs of the Hatahara settlement during the Paredão phase.
These results are compatible with emerging paleobotanical evidence
that shows that, despite the presence of domesticated plants in the
archeological record, the role of agriculture has been over-estimated
compared to other activities for large Amazonian pre-colonial settlements in the late first millennium of the Common Era (Neves and
Rostain, 2012; Moraes, 2013). However, an isotopic study of human
and animal bones, as well as an analysis of starch grains, are necessary
to evaluate the extent of fish and plant consumption.
The importance of the aquatic resource is a major topic to be considered since aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna dominate the assemblage
with 90% of total MNI. This predilection may be related to the importance of aquatic landscapes, in this particular region the Solimões river
becomes many kilometers wide during the long rainy seasons (about
six months). In addition, pollen data provided by Behling et al. (2001)
in the confluence of Negro and Amazon rivers shows that around
2000 BP – slightly earlier than the beginning of the Paredão phase occupation at Hatahara - the rate of typical flooded forests plants rose considerably, indicating that the rainy seasons lasted for longer periods.
A correlation between location of archeological settlements and
availability of aquatic resources in pre-Columbian Amazonia has also
been proposed by authors such as Miller (2009) and Moraes (2013).
According to Moraes (2013), archeological evidence of conflict in the
Central Amazon region around 1000 CE could be related to disputes
for access to the river and its resources.
5.2. A lack of mammals?
On one hand, we have mentioned that fish represents 76% of the
NISP and on the other hand, we have observed a low presence of
mammals, at 3.6% of the total spectrum. Through ethnographical descriptions, we know that mammals such as monkeys, pacas and tapirs,
which are currently consumed, are surprisingly absent in the
archeological record. According to Stahl (1995), taphonomic bias related to bone preservation, hunting practices and animal transport in tropical forests tend to “mask” the presence of large mammals in the
spectrum. However, the well-preserved bone material of all classes at
Hatahara demonstrates that such a bias does not predominate there.
In order to assess if the lack of mammals was consistent across all of
the archeological structures, we quantified and compared the remains
from each context and strata. However, no significant differences were
found in the proportions of taxa observed. Furthermore, all anatomical
element types were represented for rodents in the assemblage, indicating no anthropic selection of body parts (Prestes-Carneiro, 2013).
Shepard et al. (2012) proposed that population growth and long
term over-exploitation of mammals would provoke depletion of game,
reorienting groups towards fishing subsistence and resulting in the
low representation of mammals in the archeological record. However
our results alternatively indicate that mammals are poorly represented
due to the deliberate selection of fish and turtles that were abundant
in the riverine environment. These results also corroborate the
model of large settlements with a fishing economy, however more
zooarcheological and archeo-environmental studies are essential to
evaluate long-term human effects on the Central Amazon environment.
(750 to 1020 CE). The ichthyofaunal assemblage (37 taxa) represents
the most diverse fish spectrum described to date in continental SouthAmerican archeology. This reveals that Paredão fishermen had a clear
understanding of fish ecology and behavior. Despite the wide range of
the fish spectrum present, Arapaima sp., catfish and C. macropomum
dominate all zooarcheological indexes. The preference for these groups
resembles contemporary fish consumption as these taxa are currently
intensively exploited in the Central Amazon region.
Aquatic turtles were strategically selected by taxa and size and were
the second most exploited animal resource. Burn damage and cut marks
on remains of turtles and large catfish allowed us to identify butchering
techniques and preparation methods. The storage of turtles in corral
type structures has also been considered.
In conclusion, almost 90% of the species were either captured in
aquatic or semi-aquatic environments, including igapós, lakes, the
Amazon River bed, streams and sandy beaches. This demonstrates that
during this period fisherfolk were able to exploit a large range of ecological niches and highlights the importance of the location of riverine
settlements.
Therefore the zooarcheological data suggest that animal protein
availability does not seem to be a limiting factor for the installation of
larger Paredão settlements in the Central Amazon described by
Moraes (2006) and Neves and Petersen (2006). Combined with the
use of crops, the exploitation of fish (and possibly its derived products
such as dried fish and fish flower), as well as aquatic turtles, could provide year-round subsistence for large settlements.
This paper reinforces the importance of the use of intensive
sieving with small size meshes in archeological excavations as a vital
way to evaluate the role of fishing in ancient subsistence systems
(Scheel-Ybert et al., 2006). Archeologists should put into practice
zooarcheological and archaobotanical sampling strategies, to expand
our view of past Amazonian economies.
In order to construct a regional long-term understanding of animal
resources and their relation with human settlements in the Central
Amazon, zooarcheological studies should expand to neighboring sites
in interfluvial areas. Future studies should also investigate seasonality
of fishing through sclerochrological analysis. Forthcoming research
intends to go beyond basic faunal identification and profiles by investigating how these animals were captured, exploited, prepared and
manipulated.
Acknowledgments
This paper is part of the first author's master's thesis conducted
at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle in Paris, in the UMR
7209 “Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: pratiques, societés et
environnements” of the CNRS. Funding for this research was provided
by the Conseil Régional Ile-de-France graduate student fellowship
(11BRE019) and by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de
São Paulo (FAPESP) 02/02953-0 and 99/92925-7. We thank the
Brazilian Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (IPHAN)
for granting the permits for shipping the samples for analysis abroad.
Dr. Maria Nazaré Fereira da Silva, from the Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), provided assistance with mammal identification. We also thank Dr. Nigel Smith (University of Florida), for his
helpful input for this paper.
References
6. Conclusions
Taking into account the vast debate on the capacity of the ecosystem
in Ancient Amazonia, this paper provides the first primary data and reveals the important role of aquatic resources, in particular fish and
aquatic turtles, in the Hatahara settlement during the Paredão Phase
Arroyo-Kalin, M., 2008. Steps Towards an Ecology of Landscape: A Geoarchaeological
Approach to the Study of Anthropogenic Dark Earths in the Central Amazon Region,
Brasil Doctoral thesis Cambridge University.
Barboza, R.S.L., Barboza, M.S.L., Pezzut, J.C.B., 2014. “Estava pescando de malhadeira, vi na
Praia uns cascos brilhando, era luar, abeirei a terra e fui pegar”: práticas de pesca de
quelônios na várzea amazônica (Santarém-PA). Amazôn. Rev. Antropol. 5 (3),
622–653.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033
G. Prestes-Carneiro et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Barlow, J., Gardner, T.A., Lees, A.C., Parry, L., Peres, C.A., 2012. How pristine are tropical forests? An ecological perspective on the pre-Columbian human footprint in Amazonia
and implications for contemporary conservation. Biol. Conserv. 151 (1), 45–49.
Bates, H.W., 1979. Um naturalista no rio Amazonas. Companhia Editora nacional vol. 53.
Edição Itatiaia, São Paulo.
Batista, V.S., Inhamuns, A.J., Freitas, C.E.C., Freire-Brasil, D., 1998. Characterization of the
fishery in river communities in the low-solimões/high-amazon region. Fish. Manag.
Ecol. 5 (5), 419–435.
Béarez, P., Prümers, H., 2007. Prehispanic fishing at Loma Mendoza, Llanos de Moxos,
Bolivia. In: Hüster Plogmann, H. (Ed.), The Role of Fish in Ancient Time. Proceedings
of the 13th meeting of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group in October 4th–9th,
Basel/Augst 2005. Internationale Archäologie: rbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium,
Tagung,Kongress, Band 8. Verlag Marie Leidorf, pp. 3–10.
Beckerman, S., 1979. The abundance of protein in Amazonia: a reply to Gross. Am.
Anthropol. 81 (3), 533–560.
Behling, H., Keim, G., Irion, G., Junk, W., Nunes de Mello, J., 2001. Holocene environmental
changes inferred from Lago Calado in the Central Amazon Basin (Brazil). Palaeogeogr.
Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 173, 87–101.
Bozarth, S.R., Price, K., Woods, W.I., Neves, E.G., Rebellato, R., 2009. Phytoliths and terra
preta: the Hatahara site example. In: Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Steiner, C. (Eds.),
Amazonian Dark Earths: Wim Sombroek's Vision. Springer Netherlands, pp. 85–98.
Carneiro, R.L., 1968. The transition from hunting to horticulture in the Amazon Basin. In:
Cohen, Y.A. (Ed.), Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present. 2, pp. 131–144.
Caromano, C.F., 2010. Fogo no Mundo das Águas: Antacologia no Sítio Hatahara,
Amazônia Central Master Thesis Museu Nacional da Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro.
Carvalho, P., Bocquentin, J., Lapparent de Broin, F., 2002. Une nouvelle espèce de
Podocnemis (Pleurodira, Podocnemididae) provenant du Néogène de la formation
Solimões, Acre, Brésil. Geobios 35 (6), 677–686.
Cascon, L.M., 2010. Alimentação na Floresta Tropical: Um estudo de caso no sítio
Hatahara, com base em Microvestígios Botânicos Master thesis Museu Nacional da
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Castello, L., 2008. Lateral migration of Arapaima gigas in floodplains of the Amazon. Ecol.
Freshw. Fish 17 (1), 38–46.
Cooke, R.G., Jiménez, M., 2008. Pre-Columbian use of freshwater fish in the Santa Maria
biogeographical province, Panama. Quat. Int. 185, 46–58.
Cooke, R.G., Jiménez, M., Ranere, A.J., 2008. Archaeozoology, art, documents, and the life
assemblage. In: Reitz, E.J., Scarry, C.M., Scudder, S.J. (Eds.), Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, 2nd. Ed. Springer, pp. 95–121.
Cuvier, G., 1822. Das Thierreich eingetheilt nach dem Bau der Thiere als Grundlage ihrer
Naturgeschichte und der vergleichenden Anatomie. In: Schinz, H.R. (Ed.), Mit vielen
Zusätzenversehen von. Cotta, Stuttgart and Tübingen, Germany.
Cuvier, G., Valenciennes, A., 1847. Histoire naturelle des poissons. vol. 19. P. Bertrand,
Paris, p. 456.
de Acuña, C., 1994. Novo descobrimento do grande rio das Amazonas. Cristóban de Acuña,
1641. Editora Agir, Rio de Janeiro.
de França, M.A.G., Langer, M.C., 2005. A new freshwater turtle (Reptilia, Pleurodira,
Podocnemidae) from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Geodiversitas 27 (3), 391–411.
Emmons, L.H., 2005. A revision of the genera of arboreal Echimyidae (Rodentia:
Echimyidae, Echimyinae), with descriptions of two new genera. Zoology 133,
247–299.
Fachín-Terán, A., Vogt, R.C., Thorbjarnarson, J.B., 2004. Patterns of Use and Hunting of
Turtles in the Mamirauá Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas, Brazil. In:
Kirsten, et al. (Eds.), People in Nature: Wildlife Conservation in South and Central
America vol. 1. Columbia University Press, pp. 326–377.
Goulding, M., 1980. The Fishes and the Forest: Exploration in Amazonian Natural History.
University of California Press.
Gross, D.R., 1975. Protein capture and cultural development in the Amazon Basin. Am.
Anthropol. 77 (3), 526–549.
Hutterer, R., 1997. Archaeozoological remains (Vertebrata, Gastropoda) from prehispanic
sites at Pailón, Bolivia. Beitr. Allg. Vergleichenden Archäeol. 17, 325–341.
Imazio da Silveira, M., 1994. Estudo sobre as estratégias de subsistência de
caçadores-coletores pré-históricos do Sítio Gruta do Gavião, Carajás (Pará) Master Thesis Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de
São Paulo.
Keller, F., 1875. The Amazon and Madeira Rivers: Sketches and Descriptions from the
Note-book of an Explorer. Chapman and Hall.
Lathrap, D.W. 1968. The hunting economies of the tropical forest zone of South America:
an attempt at historical perspective, In : Lee, R.B., DeVore, I. (Eds.), Man the Hunter.
Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago: 23–29.
Latrubesse, E., Franzinelli, E., 2002. The Holocene alluvial plain of the middle Amazon
River, Brazil. Geomorphology 44 (3–4), 241–257.
Lowe-McConnell, R.H., 1987. Ecological Studies in Tropical Fish Communities. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p. 383.
Lowie, R.H., 1963. The tropical forest: an introduction. In: Steward, J.H. (Ed.), Handbook of
South American Indians: The Tropical Forest Tribes vol. 3. US Government Printing
Office, New York, pp. 1–56.
Medina, J.T., Valdés, G.F.O., 1934. The Discovery of the Amazon According to the Account
of Friar Gaspar de Carvajal Other Documents. American Geographical Society vol. 17.
Dover publications, New York.
Miller, E.T., 2009. A Cultura Cerâmica do Tronco Tupí no alto Ji-Paraná, Rondônia, Brasil:
Algumas Reflexões Teóricas, Hipotéticas e Conclusivas. Rev. Bras. Linguíst. Antropol.
1 (1), 35–136.
9
Moraes, C.P., 2006. A Arqueologia na Amazônia Central vista de uma perspectiva da
Região do Lago do Limão Master thesis Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da
Universidade de São Paulo.
Moraes, C.P., 2013. Amazônia ano 1000: territorialidade e conflito no tempo das chefias
regionais Doctoral thesis Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São
Paulo.
Murrieta, R.S.S., 2001. A mística do Pirarucu: pesca, ethos e paisagem em comunidades
rurais do baixo Amazonas. Horiz. Antropol. 7 (16), 113–130.
Murrieta, R.S.S., Dufour, D.L., 2004. Fish and farinha: protein and energy consumption in
Amazonian rural communities on Ituqui island, Brazil. Ecol. Food Nutr. 43 (3),
231–255.
Neves, E.G., 2007. El Formativo que nunca terminó: la larga história de la estabilidad en las
ocupaciones humanas de la Amazonía Central. Bol. Arq. PUCP 11, 117–142.
Neves, E.G., 2013. Sob os Tempos do Equinócio: Oito Mil Anos de História na Amazônia
Central (6.500 BC–1500 DC) Thesis for Professorship Museu de Arqueologia e
Etnologida da Universidade de São Paulo.
Neves, E.G., Petersen, J.B., 2006. Political economy and pre-Columbian landscape transformations in Central Amazonia. In: Balée, W., Erickson, C.L. (Eds.), Time and Complexity
in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands, pp. 279–309.
Neves, E.G., Rostain, S., 2012. Diversité linguistique et agrobiologique dans le passé
amazonien. Recherches 7, 119–136.
Neves, E.G., Petersen, J.B., Bartone, R.N., Heckenberger, M.J., 2004. The timing of Terra
Preta formation in the Central Amazon: Archaeological data from three sites. In:
Glaser, B., Woods, W.I. (Eds.), Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and
Time. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 125–134.
Nogueira de Queiroz, A.N., Carvalho, O.A., 2010. Desafios da zooarqueologia na
região amazônica: estudos de caso dos remanecentes faunísticos. In: Pereira, E.,
Guapindaia, V. (Eds.), Arqueologia Amazônica 2. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi,
Belém, pp. 937–948.
Perrière, C., Goudey-Perrière, F., 2003. Poisonous catfishes: venom apparatus, acanthotoxins
and other skin secretions. In: Fuentes, G.A. (Ed.), Catfishes. Science Pub Incorporated vol.
1, pp. 291–314.
Prestes-Carneiro, G., 2013. Un cas de subsistance par la pêche en Amazonie : le site
archéologique de Hatahara (Amazonas, Brésil) Master thesis Muséum national
d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Rapp Py-Daniel, A., 2009. Arqueologia da morte no Sítio Hatahara durante a fase Paredão
Master thesis Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São Paulo.
Roosevelt, A.C., Lima da Costa, M.L., Lopes Machado, C., Michab, M., Mercier, N., Valladas,
H., Feathers, J., Imazio da Silveira, A., Henderson, A., Silva, J., Chernoff, B., Reese, D.S.,
Holman, J.A., Toth, N., Schick, K., 1996. Paleoindian cave dwellers in the Amazon:
the peopling of the Americas. Science 272 (5260), 373–384.
Saint-Cricq, L., 1875. Travels in South America: From the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic
Ocean. Scribner, Armstrong.
Saint-Paul, U., Zuanon, J., Correa, M.A.V., García, M., Fabré, N.N., Berger, U., Junk, W.J., 2000.
Fish communities in central Amazonian white-and blackwater floodplains. Environ.
Biol. Fish 57 (3), 235–250.
Sampson, C.G., 1998. Tortoise remains from a later Stone Age rock shelter in the Upper
Karoo, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 985–1000.
Scheel-Ybert, R., Klökler, D., Gaspar, M.D., Figuti, L., 2006. Proposta de amostragem
padronizada para macro-vestígios bioarqueológicos: antracologia, arqueobotânica,
zooarqueologia. Rev. Museu Arq. Etnologia 15 (16), 139–163.
Shepard Jr., G.H., Levi, T., Neves, E.G., Peres, C.A., Yu, D.W., 2012. Hunting in ancient and
modern Amazonia: rethinking sustainability. Am. Anthropol. 114 (4), 652–667.
Silva Coutinho, J.M., 1868. Sur les tortues de L'Amazone. Bull. Soc. Impériale Zool.
Aclimatation 2, 147–166.
Silverman, H., Isbell, W., 2008. Handbook of South American Archaeology. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Sioli, H., 1984. The Amazon and its main affluents: hydrography, morphology of the river
courses, and river types. In: Sioli, H. (Ed.), The Amazon: Limnology and Landscape Ecology of a Mighty Tropical River and its Basin, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 127–165.
Smith, N.J.H., 1979. Aquatic turtles of Amazonia: an endangered resource. Biol. Conserv.
16 (3), 165–176.
Smith, N.J., 1981. Man, Fishes, and the Amazon. Columbia University Press.
Stahl, P.W., 1995. Differential preservation histories affecting the mammalian
zooarchaeological record from the forested Neotropical lowlands. Archaeology in the
Lowlands American Tropics: Current Analytical Method and Application, pp. 154–180.
Stahl, P.W., Oyuela-Caycedo, A., 2007. Early prehistoric sedentism and seasonal animal
exploitation in the Caribbean lowlands of Colombia. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26 (3),
329–349.
Stewart, D.J., 2013. Re-description of Arapaima agassizii (Valenciennes), a rare fish from
Brazil (Osteoglossomorpha: Osteoglossidae). Copeia 2013 (1), 38–51.
Turner, I.M., 2001. The Ecology of Trees in the Tropical Rain Forest. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Vogt, R.C., 2008. Tartarugas da Amazônia. INPA—Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da
Amazônia, Manaus.
von den Driesch, A., Hutterer, R., 2012. Mazamas, patos criollos y anguillas de lodo. Restos
de subsistencia del asentamiento precolombino “Loma Salvatierra”. Llanos de Mojos,
Bolivia. Z. Arch. Auβereuropäischer Kult. 4, 314–367.
Werner, D., 1990. Amazon Journey. An Anthropologist's Year Among Brazil's Mekranoti
Indians. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Willis, L.M., Eren, M.I., Rick, T.C., 2008. Does butchering fish leave cut marks? J. Archaeol.
Sci. 35 (5), 1438–1444.
Wright, J., 2009. Diversity, phylogenetic distribution and origins of venomous catfishes.
BMC Evol. Biol. 9 (1), 282.
Please cite this article as: Prestes-Carneiro, G., et al., Subsistence fishery at Hatahara (750–1230 CE), a pre-Columbian central Amazonian village,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.10.033