The Tupi: explaining origin and expansions in terms of archaeology and of historical linguistics.
Noelli, Francisco Silva
Interest in explaining scientifically the enormous territorial
expansion of the Tupi has been an issue since 1838, now with a
consensus: a common centre of origin existed, from which the Tupi fanned
out, differentiating through distinct historic and cultural processes
whilst keeping several common cultural features. But there is no
consensus as to where the centre was located and where passed the routes
of expansion.
Scholars have often asserted this hypothesis, but contributed very
little scientific proof. Since 1960, archaeological (site location,
radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dating) and linguistic data
(giottochronology, relationships among languages) have been brought to
the scene. In this article, I also intend to show:
* Enough elements now link prehistoric to historic Tupian groups,
setting the ground for understanding origins, continuities, changes
and/or extinction;
* Chronology can now be based on archaeological and linguistic
evidence rather than on Martius', Metraux's and other
speculations, which distort prehistoric events.
In his study of the Indo-European question (1987), Renfrew concluded
that linguists and archaeologists had for a long time used
archaeological and linguistic results acritically; it was time for
methodologies integrating both approaches. The same is true of research
on the Tupi. Underlying the debate are two hypotheses:
* material differentiations followed linguistic derivations;
* material and technological differentiations did not occur in
isolation, but stemmed from culturally chained phenomena.
Between 1838 and 1946, the hypotheses were developed with historical
and ethnographic data, and influenced by theories ranging from
degenerationism to racial and geographic determinism to evolutionism.
Most were based on the historic location of known Tupian peoples.
From 1946 to the present, with the publication of the Handbook of
South American Indians, archaeological information was interpreted in
frameworks of ecological determinism and diffusionism. During the same
period, historical linguistic methods were introduced (Dyen 1956;
Rodrigues 1963; 1986; Swadesh 1971; Ehret 1976; Camurn, Jr 1979a;
1979b), especially to identify the relationships among kin languages.
The Tupi
The word Tupi is used to denominate a linguistic stock that
encompasses approximately 41 languages which spread, several millennia
ago, throughout eastern South America (Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay,
Argentina and Uruguay). Tupi is also used to refer to the speakers of
these languages. Of those 41 languages, the two most frequently
mentioned since the arrival of Europeans have been Guarani and
Tupinamba.(1)
Migration or expansion?
Terminology used for population shifts of the Tupi has regarded these
simply as migrations (see Anthony (1990) for general principles in
studying migrations). Etymologically, the term migration means a moving
from one place to another, a leaving of the original region. This term
is appropriate for the movement the Tupi undertook when pressed by other
peoples, for instance the migrations after 1500 - regarded as escape
movements from Europeans (Metraux 1927).
The term 'migration' does not cover adequately those Tupian
peoples who moved in other ways, possibly for other reasons -
demographic growth, the breaking-up of villages, forestry management,
etc. According to archaeological studies, the Tupi held possession of
their domains for long periods, expanding to new territories without
abandoning old ones (Brochado 1984; Scatamacchia 1990; Noelli 1993b).
Studies in ethnobiology and Native South American history demonstrate
that territories under the domain of some Tupian peoples were slowly
conquered, managed and tapped for a long time in an important aspect to
expansion (Noelli 1993a; 1993b). The better term for these population
shifts is expansion, meaning distention and spreading, a conquering of
new regions without abandoning previous ones.
Martius and Metraux: defining the Tupi issue
In a lecture delivered in 1838 about 'The past and future of
American humanity', Karl F. Ph. von Martius (1867 I: 1-42)
proposed, for the first time, the hypothesis of a centre of origin for
the Tupi; he located it between Paraguay and the south of Bolivia, the
region he considered the probable gateway through which peoples from the
Andes headed to the east of South America. Martius believed the
expansion was recent, shortly prior to the arrival of the Europeans
(before 1500), with higher cultures preceding tribal ones. Seeing Native
American peoples as having gone through a continuing decadence, he
deduced that several languages derived from a few original ones, by a
disorganized mixture of different peoples resulting in new languages and
dialects. (This argument was repeated in his thesis 'How the
history of Brazil should be written': Martius 1845.)
In 1839, following Martius and using linguistic and physical
criteria, as well as the geographical location of Tupian speakers,
Alcides D'Orbigny suggested a region between Paraguay and Brazil as
the Tupi's 'primitive homeland' ([1839] 1944: 37, 368).
He called all the Tupi 'Brasilio-Guarani' or simply
'Guarani'.
In 1886, Karl von den Steinen (1886: 353) proposed that the sources
of the Xingu river were situated in the region 'where the
geographical central radiation point of the Tupi is probably
located'. Von den Steinen (1886: 323) coined the term
'Tupi-Guarani', we can infer to eliminate confusion at a time
when the Tupi were called interchangeably 'Tupi' or
'Guarani' (discussion in Edelweiss 1947).
Paul Ehrenreich (1891), member of von den Steinen's second
expedition to the Xingu in 1887, used linguistic and ethnographic
arguments more explicit than those of his predecessors in claiming,
'all the evidence indicate that we should look for their point of
exodus where these tribes are more tightly concentrated, that is, in
Paraguay and its surroundings'. He understood that the
'widespread distribution of these peoples, as we can see in a map,
is explained by the radiation from a centre' (Ehrenreich 1891).(2)
In Ehrenreich one sees both Martius and D'Orbigny's suggested
locations of an origin, and von den Steinen's central radiation.
These four scientists provided the foundations for other researchers.
Wilhelm Schmidt (1913), a creator of the Kulturkreise theory, and the
one who first applied it to South America, compared several cultural
aspects among the Tupi and between these and the peoples belonging to
other cultural groups to locate a Tupi centre of origin in the sources
of the Amazon. Other authors suggested other locations: Afonso A. de
Freitas (1914), the region between the sources of the Madeira river,
Lake Titicaca, Beni and Araguaia rivers (critique in Baldus 1954:
251-2); Rodolfo Garcia (1922, based on Ehrenreich), the region between
the Paraguay and Parana river basins; Fritz Krause (1925), the area of
the Omagua and Kokama, between the Napo and Jurua rivers.
Of all these researchers, Alfred Metraux (1927; 1928; 1948a; 1948b)
was the first to justify this hypothesis with systematically organized
and compared elements. He was also the most quoted and the one whose
hypotheses about the centre of origin and expansion routes were least
contested (critiques in Brochado 1984: 331 - 4; Laraia 1986: 22). In a
remarkable immunity, his proposals about prehistoric
'migrations', made obsolete by archaeology, are still alive
(Laraia 1988; Brandao 1990; Fausto 1992; Santos 1992; Porto 1992: 74-6).
Although his first exhaustive work dealt with the historical Tupian
migrations(3) (Metraux 1927), it was in studying this group's
material culture that Metrauz (1928) advanced his hypothesis about the
centre of origin. Inspired by Nordenskjold and Schmidt's
comparative methods, Metraux compared material and technological
elements geographically, deducing that the centre of origin was located
close enough to Amazonia because the Tupi showed northern and Amazonian
influences (Metraux 1928: 310). Metraux thought it unlikely that the
'primitive Tupian motherland' was located on the northern
banks of the Amazon river; it should be somewhere in the Tapajos or
Xingu river basins. He concluded (Metraux 1928: 312):
No important prehistoric Tupi-Guarani tribe was settled on the left
banks of the Amazon river and the occupation of its [Brazilian] coast
took place at a later period, thus forcing us to place the dispersion
centre of the tribes of this race within the area bound in the north by
the Amazon river, in the south by the Paraguay river, in the east by the
Tocantins and in the west by the Madeira river.
Branislava Susnik (1975: 57), after an ethnological review as
extensive as Metraux's, suggested the Colombian plains as the
centre, with expansion driven by four factors: demographic growth, with
the original nuclei breaking up; need for new croplands; peripheral
pressure by non-Tupian groups; and collective abandonment of
ecologically unsuitable areas.
Linguistic approaches
Linguists also based their hypotheses on Martius, von den Steinen and
Ehrenreich.
Moises Bertoni (1916; 1922) suggested a single language,
Carib-Guarani, dominating Central and South America. Calling the Tupian
stock 'Guarani', this author favoured an Asian origin for the
Tupi, who had come to the Americas culturally formed. Bertoni (1922:
298), reproducing Max Uhle, saw the Tupi as directly influenced by the
high Mexican and Central-American cultures. After comparing several
languages, Paul Rivet (1924), influenced by Martius and Ehrenreich, set
the centre of origin between the Paraguay and Parana rivers, at the
latitude of Paraguay (endorsed by Stella 1928; Guerios 1935; Rodrigues
1945; Mason 1950). Aryon Rodrigues (1964: 103), using the
lexico-statistic method and the notion that a concentration of language
families suggested the centre of a protolanguage, placed it in the
Guapore river region. Other linguists proposed different centres of
origin: Loukotka (1929: map; 1935; 1950), between the Juruena and the
Arinos rivers; Childe (1940), the sources of the Xingu and the Upper
Araguaia; Migliazza (1982), between the Ji-Parana and the Aripuana,
tributaries of the Madeira; Urban (1992), for the Tupian stock between
the Madeira and the Xingu, closer to the sources than to the valleys,
for the Tupi-Guarani family between the Madeira and the Xingu. Magalhaes
(1993) merged Loukotka's proposals with Meggers's expansion
routes (see below).
Archaeological approaches
A third group hypothesizing the centre of origin are the
archaeologists.
A first stage of archaeological research compared pottery, attempting
to verify the relationship of Tupinamba and Guarani pottery to that of
Amazonia (Netto 1885; Torres 1911; 1934; Linne 1925; Costa 1934; Howard
1947; 1948; Willey 1949). In 1934, Angyone Costa (1934: map VI) set the
centre of origin in central Mato Grosso. Martius and Metraux's
covert influences were noticeable (Lothrop 1932; Willey 1949), mainly in
hypotheses of a later dispersion and a ceof ntre located in the middle
Parana.
The archaeological issue was highlighted during the 1960s when
PRONAPA(4) accumulated data for the development of a 'cultural
sequence and for recognizing the directions of the influences, migration
and diffusion' (Evans 1967: 9). From previous research premisses(5)
(Meggers 1951; 1954; 1957; 1963; Meggers & Evans 1957; Silva &
Meggers 1963), the programme anticipated the invention of pottery
outside Amazonia, where a cultural decadence was caused by adverse
environmental conditions of the tropical rain forest and a recent Tupian
diffusion. A similarity with Martius' proposals was evident. During
the five years of PRONAPA, three general syntheses (Brochado et al.
1969; PRONAPA 1970; Meggers 1985) were drawn, and two concerning the
'Tupiguarani' tradition (Brochado 1973; Meggers & Evans
1973).
The 'pronapians' suggested the abandonment of old
ethnographic denominations for archaeological remains (Guarani &
Tupinamba), proposing (Brochado et al. 1969: 10; PRONAPA 1970: 12):
After consideration of possible alternatives, it was decided to
retain the label 'Tupiguarani' (but to be written as a single
word) for this widely disseminated late ceramic tradition, in spite of
its linguistic connotations; the term is well established in the
literature, and ethnohistoric information substantiates the correlation
of the protohistoric and early historic archaeological remains with
speakers of Tupi and Guarani languages along most of the Brazilian
Coast.
The concept of a 'Tupiguarani' tradition, based on Willey
& Phillips' proposal (1958: 22), was defined
('Terminologia' 1969: 8; 1976: 146) as:
A cultural tradition characterized principally by polychomatic
pottery (red and/or black on white and/or red slip), corrugated and
brushed, secondary burials in urns, polished stone axes and the use of
tembetas [lip plugs].
By this PRONAPA approach, the use of historic and linguistic
information was to be abandoned in favour of the archaeological. Yet the
'pronapians' used models to deal with prehistoric events that
were established by Martius and others without archaeological data. An
oblivion for the identity and material culture differences recognizable
among the Tupi started among archaeologists, who framed, in a single
category, peoples historically known for their similarities as well as
for their differences and oppositions.
This 'pronapian' proposal depended on the similarity in
surface treatment of pottery by several Tupian peoples, including those
thousands of kilometres away. So the analysis of paste composition was
privileged over the relationship between the shape and the use of pots,
described in profusion in the first-contact chronicles and dictionaries
of the 16th and 17th centuries. By considering the whole relationship,
with shape and function, the similarities and differences among the
Tupian pottery can be clarified, whereas the paste is a limited marker,
depending on the pottery-maker's choice or on the geological
singularities of their region.
Meggers (1972: 129), using PRONAPA's results and her own
proposals (Meggers 1963), defined the foot of the Andes, in Bolivia, as
the origin. The following year, with Clifford Evans, and based on
Metraux (1927) and Rodrigues (1958), she shifted the Tupian
'homeland' to the Amazonian plain, east of the Madeira river
(border between Brazil and Bolivia), largest concentration of Tupian
linguistic families (Meggers & Evans 1973: 57; reiterated in Meggers
1975; 1976; 1982; Meggers & Evans 1978: [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURES 7,
8 OMITTED]; Meggers et al. 1988: [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5 OMITTED].).
Among archaeologists, Meggers was followed by Pedro I. Schmitz (1985:
map 1; 1991: map 1), who based his works linguistically on Migliazza
(1982).
Brochado (1973) located the sites geographically, interpreting 55
PRONAPA radiocarbon and 7 thermoluminiscence dates from the Paranapanema
Project in Sao Paulo to admit Metraux's suggested centre of origin.
Donald Lathrap opposed Meggers's hypothesis, postulating that
pottery in South America was invented in Amazonia: the proto-Tupian
centre of origin was the confluence of the Madeira and Amazon rivers. He
also suggested that the proto-Tupi, pressed by the Arawak, went up the
Madeira and its eastern tributaries as far as the Serra dos Parecis,
where derivations took place that culminated in the linguistic families
of the Tupian stock (Lathrap 1970: 75-8). His hypotheses were influenced
by Metraux, whom he did not quote, and by, explicitly, Rodrigues (1958).
Brochado (1984), abandoning the assumptions he had used in PRONAPA,
adopted and expanded Lathrap's hypotheses.
More recently, Ondemar Dias (1993) after reviewing Brochado's
(1984) and Schmitz's work, and based only on information from
non-Amazonian areas, situated a Tupian centre in southeastern Brazil,
between the Paranapanema and the Guaratiba rivers.
Claristella Santos (1991; 1992), discussing the approaches that
synthesize and relate linguistic and archaeological results (exclusively
PRONAPA's), considers that at the time suggested by Rodrigues
(1964) for the origin of the Tupian stock - 5000 b.p. - these peoples
did not have pottery, being hunter-gatherers; so there is no unity
between the linguistic and archaeological data, no historic-cultural
unity at the time of the 'fundamental economic shift that took
place in the cultural system of the Tupian protolanguage' (Santos
1992: 112). The pottery, its attributes and the analytical methods
applied were not enough to outline elements relating them to Tupian
stock.
Routes of expansion: the quest for the Tupian paths
The geographical detection of prehistoric routes depends on relating
the location of archaeological sites to their dates. The historical
migrations studied by Metraux (1927), on which most researchers depend,
represent movements to escape European pressure (see also Fernandes
1963: 25-58). Scholars have postulated routes of expansion for which
there was no proof. And recent researchers have neither taken into
account the archaeological studies now available, nor recognized
advances of the last 30 years. The proposition takes two forms,
expansion in a south-north direction, and a radial expansion.
Martius (1867 I: 7-10) postulated that the Tupian route from Paraguay
went first southwards and then towards the north of Brazil:
'probably from the region between the Uruguay and the Parana
[rivers], reaching the coast of Bahia, Pernambuco and the Amazon
jungle'. Martius - never quoted by the professional archeologists
of the last 38 years - appears implicitly in Meggers & Evans (1957),
and in their followers. It was only Costa (1934: map VI) who cited
Martius in following him.
D'Orbigny, after Martius, suggested a portion of the Tupi had
moved into the Buenos Aires region, from an area located between
Paraguay and Brazil; later, another portion went to the Andes
(Chiriguanos). Finally, without linking the suggestions, (D'Orbigny
(1944:37 concluded/only the Guarani,(6) if we consider that their origin
is the Tropic of Capricorn, migrated from the south to the north'.
Ehrenreich (1891), observing the geographical situation of the
historic Tupi, proposed the 'radial dispersion' had occurred
in successive waves, to the north, east and south. Following Martius, he
had those from the south as moving to the north along the Atlantic
coast.
Metraux (1928: 310-11), for the Guarani and Tupinamba, merged the
models of radial expansion and of south-north expansion along the
Atlantic coast.
From site location and radiocarbon dates, Brochado (1973) detailed a
'migration' schema for the PRONAPA regions, on the lines
proposed by Metraux, with the 'Tupiguarani' expansion
occurring in two 'migratory waves', one prehistoric and one
after the European arrival. The first wave was represented by the
Pintada Subtradition, the second by the Corrugated Subtradition. After
European contact, the Corrugated Subtradition transformed into the
Brushed Subtradition, another subtradition characterized in its ceramic
expression by the predominance of a certain surface finish
('Terminologia' 1969: 7; 1976: 143). Afterwards, in his thesis
(1984: 69-77) and at several scientific congresses, Brochado refuted
completely the existence of these subtraditions: it had all resulted
from confusion created by the indiscriminate mixture of Guarani and
Tupinamba pottery (see also: Brochado et al. 1990; Brochado &
Monticelli 1994; La Salvia & Brochado 1989).
Lathrap (1970: 75-8, [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5 OMITTED]),
amalgamating archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic data
(principally archaeological data), based a radial expansion on Tupi
geographical distribution. This rather synthetic and deductive model
influenced proposals outside the mainstream schema among researchers,
inaugurating a political polarization of the discussion about the origin
of pottery and agriculture inside and outside Amazonia. His field
methodology, not very different from that of the 'pronapians',
was driven by different theoretical conceptions.
Meggers & Evans (1973), from an origin east of the Madeira river,
suggested expansion towards the south of Brazil and then to the north
(Meggets 1972: 129; 1975; 1976; 1982; Meggers & Evans 1973; 1978:
[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURES 7-8 OMITTED]; Meggers et al. 1988:
[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5 OMITTED]), without mentioning the full
comparative archaeological analysis concerning the Tupi; instead, the
stratigraphical sequences of the middle-lower Amazon were privileged and
those outside Amazonia excluded. Although assuming an 'incapacity
of lexico-statistical methods to reveal earlier locations of speakers of
akin languages', Meggers & Evans (1976: 60) based arguments
about Tupi expansion on historical linguistics and on the historical
information analysed by Metraux (1927).
Following Lathrap, Brochado (1984: 28-39) matched internal divisions
of the Tupian stock, from Proto-Tupi to historic languages and dialects,
to the model of evolution and differentiation of Amazonian pottery
(Lathrap 1970; Brochado & Lathrap 1980). After observing the
Proto-Tupi divisions proposed by Rodrigues (1964) and Lemle (1971), he
verified the correspondences, considering that material and linguistic
differentiations must have been concomitant. Later, Brochado has seen
the need to expand regional investigations and the multidisciplinary
links that ensure consistent results for each Tupian group (pets. comm.
1993).
By Brochado's (1984; 1989) hypothesis, the Proto-Tupi resulted
when the makers of the Guarita Tradition pottery (of the Polychromatic Amazonian Tradition) split, somewhere in central Amazonia. based on
historical linguistic assumptions, he considered the differentiation of
languages and of pottery to have resulted from the spatial-temporal
splitting of the Proto-Tupi, caused by continuous demographic growth in
the heart of Amazonia. This division links the Guarani to the pottery of
western Amazonia, and the Tupinamba to that of eastern Amazonia. The
expansion is seen as having two periods, a first alongside the principal
rivers, a second colonizing the smaller tributaries.
In the case of the Guarani, colonizations followed a north-south
direction, from Amazonia to the mouth of the River Plate, through the
courses of the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay rivers; there are sites from
Corumba (Peixoto 1995) to Buenos Aires. To the east, the Tupinamba,
leaving the mouth of the Amazon, followed the coastline as far as Sio
Paulo, moving up the Atlantic rivers into the hinterlands.
Brochado (Brochado & Lathrap 1980; Brochado 1984) concluded that
the Guarani pottery in the Guarita tradition lost decorative techniques-
modelling, excision and incision in fine and long lines - during the
southward expansions outside Amazonia, through the Madeira and Guapore
rivers. Bowls with everted and thickened rims disappear; labial and
medial flanges replace decoration of the Guarita tradition. New,
cone-shaped pans and jars resulted from contact with pottery-makers from
eastern Bolivia and Peru. This characteristic Guarani pottery - both
archaeological and historical - has a complex or inflected contour,
developed waist and/or horizontal segmentation; corrugated or painted,
it is utilized secondarily as burial urns.
There is no archaeological record for the Tupi of the Lower Amazon.
From their centre of origin, Brochado proposed, the Tupinamba shifted
eastwards through the middle course of the river and, leaving its mouth,
moved southwards to colonize the coastline as far as the Tropic of
Capricorn. Some constituent features of Tupinamba pottery are found in
the Lower Amazon and in the Marajoara style: most of the open pots,
including those with oval and quadrangular mouths, and the polychromatic
paint concentrated on the everted and thickened rims (features not
occurring in the Madeira-Guapore and Parant-Paraguay basins). This
pottery does not include most of the closed shapes, principally
anthropomorphic, nor the incision, excision and modelling techniques.
From comparisons between the Tupinamba and Marajoara pottery and the
indication that the Tupinambt had occupied the Lower Amazon, we suggest
that Marajoara pottery may derive from the Tupinambt's (Brochado
& Noelli n.d.).
Comparing shape and decoration, Brochado (1984) demonstrated that the
Tupinamba pottery could not have evolved and unfolded outside Amazonia,
next to Paraguay, as was proposed last century. Nor was it dispersed
firstly southwards and then to the north of Brazil, as suggested by
Meggets: there is no material evidence of a sequence outside Amazonia,
in eastern South America.
Linguistic relations published after 1984 (Rodrigues 1984-5; 1986)
make it unlikely that the Tupinambt colonized the Brazilian coast and
hinterlands from Paraguay to the south of Brazil and then moved towards
northeastern/northern Brazil. Considered the most ancient language of
the Tupi-Guarani family (Jensen 1989: 13), the Tupinambt could not have
derived from the Guarani, the only Tupian-speaking pottery-makers south
of Silo Paulo. Relations between Tupinambt and Koktma may explain and
confirm the origin of the Tupinambt, if it can be determined whether the
Kokama belongs to Tupian stock or is a Tupian language adopted by a
non-Tupian people. Kokama and Tupinamba share characteristics absent
from languages of the Tupi-Guarani family south of the Amazon river, in
the Madeira-Tapajos, Tocantins-Araguaia and Xingu regions. This
strengthens Brochado's hypothesis: the Tupinambt expansion,
starting in the Lower Amazon, followed the Atlantic coastline
southwards.
If Tupinamba pottery derives from the Guarani's, moving beyond
the Paranapanema in a south-to-north diffusion, it changed drastically
to include shapes and surface-finish techniques absent from southern
Brazil. How did this occur, if constituent elements of the Tupinambt
pottery originated exclusively in Amazonia?
Eliminating the fuzzy 'pronapian' concept of
'Tupiguarani', Brochado (1984) resorted to an old notion in
calling this a 'Guarani Subtradition' and suggesting
'Tupinambt Subtradition' for the Tupinambt of the Brazilian
coast, as well as for the other Tupi (non-Tupinamba) previously called
'Tupiguarani'. Since 1984 Brochado has proposed a
'Tupinamba Subtradition' exclusively for Tupinamba speakers,
to differentiate them from the other Tupi groups. He also extends the
concept of subtradition to the Asurini, Kokama, Tapirape, Munduruku, and
so forth. Those peoples not using pottery should be judiciously studied:
did they never produce it or was there a loss? Brochado (pers. comm.
1990) believes it important to have a model based on up-to-date
information about the Tupi; the traditional model, primarily supported
by historical data, was conceived before the archaeological and
linguistic evidence came to light.
Greg Urban's (1992: 92-3) expansion hypothesis, based on
Rodrisues's and Lemle's studies, connects linguistic
derivation more explicitly to geographical expansion. Using exclusively
linguistic data, Urban divides the expansions into two successive
stages, in terms of distance from the origin, according to the Rodrigues
(1964) chronology.
The first stage, 3000-5000 years ago, corresponds to the early
division and expansion of the Tupian stock (which Urban calls
Macro-Tupi) in the centre-western region of Brazil, between the Madeira
and the Xingu rivers, as far as the Amazon river, with more
concentration and diversity in Rondonia. The second stage, no longer
associated to with the early Tupi expansion, corresponds to the
geographical expansion of the Tupi-Guarani family, divided into three
consecutive phases. This stage, Urban considers, occurred 2000-3000
years ago (Rodrigues 1958; 1964); he also suggests part of the expansion
is probably very recent.
Arguing that the Tupi-Guarani family started its expansion
'somewhere between the Madeira and the Xingu rivers', Urban
suggested that the first derivation must have occurred towards the
Amazon river, through the Kokama and the Omagua, who shifted to the
Amazon river. 'About the same time', the Guaiaki moved
southwards, reaching Paraguay, while the Siriono moved southwestwards,
as far as Bolivia. This movement was followed by Pauserna and Kawahib
(Parintintin) speakers westwards; the Kayabi and Kamayura alongside the
Xingu; the Xeta towards the south of Brazil; the Tapirape, Tenetehara
and, perhaps, Wayampi moving as far as Guyana, into a region close to
the mouth of the Amazon (Urban 1992: 92).
The third phase took place around AD 1000, with the expansion of
Chiriguano and Guarayo speakers to Bolivia, the Tapiete and Guarani to
Paraguay, the 'Kaingwa' to the region between Paraguay,
Argentina and Brazil. Finally, the Tupinamba, Tupiniquin and Potiguara
settled down on the Brazilian coast. They were originally speakers of a
same language, called 'Tupiguarani, not to be mistaken with the
family which is much wider' (Urban 1992: 92).
By stating that there had been a language called Tupi-guarani, Urban
revives a nomenclature resolved in the late 1940s, since when
Tupi-guarani has referred to a linguistic family, rather than a language
(Edelweiss 1947: 39: Loukotka 1950; Rodrigues 1945; 1950; 1984-5). It is
more appropriate to talk of a 'proto'-Tupi-guarani, the
language from which originated current languages of the Tupi-guarani
family?
In the light of older radiocarbon dates, a derivation at about 1000
AD is incorrect. The Tupinambg and the Guarani were already occupying
most of their historically known territories at least 2000 years ago.
The Wayampi arrived in Guyana in the 17th century, much later than Urban
suggests, migrating from the Xingu when pushed by Luso-Brazilian slave
hunters (Gallois 1986: 77-85].
The chronology of Tupian expansions
Two approaches to dating are available: absolute through radiocarbon
and thermoluminescence); relative through pottery series and
giottochronology. The pottery series are not depended on here, because
they do not provide accurate datings.
By the glottochronological datings of Rodrigues (1958; 1964),
Proto-Tupi, the language in which originated the components of the
Tupian stock, was formed around 5000 years ago, and the Tupi-guarani
family some 2500 years later. And dates also show that the Guarani
inhabited Parang and Rio Grande do Sul at least 2000 years ago and that
the Tupinama were in Piaui Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro as early as 1800
years ago. Although published in the early 1970s, these absolute dates
have not been considered by linguists in their analyses, or in their
reproduction of Rodrigues' datings (Migliazza 1982; Greenberg 1987;
1992].
Several radiocarbon and thermoluminescent dates later than AD I are
published for sites in the Amazon and Parang-Paraguay basins, Rio Grande
do Sul, Atlantic coast, and coastal rivers (Brochado 1973; 1984;
Brochado & Lathrap 1980; Scatamacchia 1990). These are much older
than was imagined by ethnographers since Martius, who envisaged a quick
expansion, close to the arrival of Europeans, with the cultural
uniformity of the Tupi materializing just before the breaking-up of
Tupian groups towards the 16th century.
Although few compared to the number of sites, and unequally
distributed in the regions occupied by the Tupi, these radiocarbon dates
show that the expansion and differentiation of some peoples was not
recent. They provide cause to place the expansion of the Tupiguarani
family at much earlier than 2500 years ago.
Three regions provide datings close to AD 1: Santa Maria, RS, about
AD 150; Ivai river, PR, about AD 100; lower Tiete-SP, about AD 232; Sao
Raimundo Nonato-PI, about AD 260; coast of Rio de Janeiro, about AD 300.
Some of these datings are isolated; others are part of sequences which
reach historic times. In regions far from the proposed centres of origin
- deep southern Brazil, the northeast, coastal Rio de Janeiro - the
dates attest to the antiquity of the expansions, and can be related to
linguistic derivations. The few dates available for Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay, and Bolivia are all later than the 10th century (Brochado
1984). In Peru and in neighbouring Brazilian regions, the pottery
associated with the Kokama, Omagua, and Kokamiya still needs study in
detail (Lathrap 1970; Myers 1990).
Other regions also yield dates close to the oldest: in the Mogi-guacu
river, about AD 400; coast of Rio de Janeiro, about AD 440; Santa
Maria-RS, about AD 475; middle Ivai-PR, about 460 AD and about AD 70;
lower Tiete-SP, about AD 578, which may prove coexistence with the
oldest dates. Dates closer to the present occur in several parts of
eastern South America. On the southeastern and northeastern coast of
Brazil we have: lower Tiete-SP, about AD 668; Curimatau-RN, about AD
800; coast of Rio de Janeiro, about AD 870; Cricare-ES, about AD 895;
Guaratiba-RJ, about AD 980.
So the Tupian peoples were already spread over Brazil as early as
2000 years ago, in regions very distant from one another and from the
proposed centres of origin, rendering obsolete Martius' account
(repeated by many scholars) of a quick Tupian expansion shortly before
the European arrival.
Many more archaeological studies have been conducted and dates
obtained in southern Brazil than in Amazonia and other regions (data
partially published: Brochado & Lathrap 1980; Brochado 1984;
Scatamacchia 1981; 1991). The most recent research in Amazonia is
yielding dates that reveal even earlier cultural phenomena - pottery,
agriculture, chiefdoms - and demonstrate that some common Tupian
elements are yet older.
Conclusions
Paraphrasing Manuela Carneiro da Cunha (1992: 11), we may say that we
already know 'the extent of what we don't know'
concerning Brazilian Native American (pre-)history.
Martius' hypothesis of 1838 has often been used by authors who
provide neither archaeological nor historic linguistic evidence. Until
the late 1950s it depended on historical evidence from the time of the
European arrival onwards, and on linguistic evidence which did not
verify derivations between languages. In this reality, it is
understandable that most researchers of Tupian peoples suggested a late
expansion at a period close to the 16th century. The dates now show that
at least the Guarani and the Tupinamba were already settled in their
historically known territories as early as 2000 years ago.
The corpus of all archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic
information about the Tupi presents no evidence of a centre of origin
outside South America, or in the 'Highlands', or below
Parallel 16 [degrees] South.
In the 'Lowlands', where occupation sequences are known,
confronting the archaeological publications will rule out Paraguay,
southern Bolivia, Mato Grosso do Sul, Goias, southern, southeastern and
northeastern Brazil as a centre of origin. In the upper and main course
of the Xingu, in the Araguaia and in the upper and main course of the
Tocantins, according to PRONAPABA's first investigations (Meggets
et al. 1988: 288), no archaeological evidence identifies an origin
there; stratigraphical sequences instead provide clear evidence that the
Tupian pottery did not evolve from previous pottery [ILLUSTRATION FOR
FIGURE 1 OMITTED].
On the other hand, the Tupian archaeological evidence presents
elements closely linked to the stratigraphical sequences of Central
Amazonia [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED], especially with those
classified in the Polychromatic Amazonian Tradition (Brochado 1984: 308;
also Lathrap 1970; Brochado & Lathrap 1980; Roosevelt 1991a; 1991b:
98-125). Parallel to this, the linguistic data show the greatest
concentration of families and Tupian languages south of the Amazon
(Rodrigues 1964; 1986; Urban 1992), and traces of a very ancient
linguistic connexion between the Proto-Tupian and Proto-Karib languages
(Rodrigues 1985: 393-400). The largest concentration of Karib languages
north of the Equator also may contribute to placing the origin of the
Proto-Tupi in Amazonia (archaeological information about the Karib in
Rouse 1986).
Within the huge Amazon region, a space in which the centre of origin
of the Tupi may be located is bounded: on the north by the right bank of
the middle and lower Amazon; on the east by the Tocantins; on the west
by the basins of the Madeira and lower - middle Guapore; on the south,
by a line running from the middle Guapore (Parallel 12 [degrees] 30
[minutes]) as far as the Tocantins, close to the mouth of the Araguaia.
These generic boundaries circumscribe a probable centre of origin
somewhere within them.
The centre of origin may be in that region's western portion.
The linguistic consensus sets it there, in the largest concentration of
families (principally close to the Madeira-Guapore basin). The best
archaeological model - complex, updated, complete, organizing more
evidence - is Lathrap's and Brochado's, which points to the
region by the confluence of the Madeira and Amazon rivers [ILLUSTRATION
FOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED]. If Lathrap's hypothesis of the Proto-Tupi
being pushed towards the south is right, an explanation follows as to
why the centre of origin of pottery is far from the region where the
linguistic families of the Tupi stock were formed.
Clarification of the expansion routes from that centre of origin
depends on the relationship between archaeological remains and
linguistic evidence for all the Tupi. It is very likely that a
differentiation in pottery corresponds to each linguistic derivation, as
happens between the Guarani and Tupinamba (Brochado 1984; Scatamacchia
1981; 1991), without losing the general features of what the
'pronapians' call 'Tupiguarani' pottery.
Historical information, especially after the profound demographic and
cultural changes that took place after the arrival of the Europeans,
cannot determine the expansion routes clearly. Menendez's (1981-2),
Gallois' (1986) and Porro's (1992) studies demonstrate how the
European presence changed territoriality in the Amazon region,
influencing the mobility and spatial reallocation of several peoples;
they also show the extinction of probable Tupi-speaking peoples.
Historic research, as well as archaeological studies with a regional
perspective, may also come to demonstrate changes in the spatial
distribution of prehistoric peoples, explaining expansion and, whenever
applicable, collapse.
Of the 41 Tupi peoples historically and archaeologically known, the
most complete data are restricted only to 2, with much unknown about the
material inventory of the other prehistoric peoples. We can make
statements about the Guarani and Tupinamba based on empirical data, but
no definitive evidence links other Tupi peoples to their prehistoric
ancestors or determines the routes that took them to their historically
known territories?
Of current models, Brochado's (1984) is the most complete; the
only one that maps the regions where the cultural development of the
Tupi was unlikely to occur, it thus delimits the most likely spaces in
which expansion outside the Amazon region started. This model focuses on
the Guarani and Tupinamba expansions, without encompassing the other 39
Tupi peoples [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3 OMITTED].
The Tupinamba expanded from the lower Amazon, passing through its
mouth towards the Brazilian coastline, from north to south as far as the
Tropic of Capricorn. Parallel to this, other groups penetrated the
interior, going upstream within the basins that flow into the Atlantic.
There is no evidence in all the historically and archaeologically known
Tupinamba territory of a relationship between the Tupinamba strata and
those below; which proves that the Tupinamba pottery did not develop
outside the Amazonia.
The lack of systematic archaeological research between Rio Grande do
Norte and Maranhao has led scholars to find support exclusively from the
historical information systematized by Metraux (1927: 2-16) and
Fernandes (1963: 33-57), of the flights of the Tupinamba towards
Maranhao and Amazonas. Neither reports by 16th-century chroniclers such
as Cardim (1939: 179) and Soares de Sousa (1987: 299-300) about the
memory of territorial conquest by the ancestors of the Tupinamba, nor
Abbeville's reports (1975: 208-9) about the flights caused by the
Portuguese are pertinent to the prehistoric expansion.
Information about the Guarani is not so problematic.Archaeologically,
except for the frontier with other Tupi groups, in all the Guarani
territory studied, south of Parallel 17 [degrees], there is no direct
connection to evidence of earlier occupations. Linguistically, the
Guarani language is closer to the Tupi-Guarani family spoken in southern
Bolivia, Paraguay and southern Brazil (except the Tupinamba). Most of
these languages do not derive from the Guarani, which makes unlikely a
south-north expansion. A region to be studied in detail stretches north
of Parallel 17 [degrees], the Guapore and the western border of the
Pantanal, in Bolivia.
Physical anthropological data, still to be incorporated into the
issue, offers information to reconstruct parental populations and to
help understand diversification, health/disease patterns, and ways of
life (Salzano 1992). Some recent studies point to great genetic
distances between Tupi groups in Amazonia and to the action of
dispersive factors among them, which may indicate assimilated members of
other populations (Salzano & Callegari-Jacques 1991). These studies
can be conducted on skeletons of the same archaeological site, at the
local level, or regionally.
The rhythm of the expansions did not develop in a void or isolated
from other peoples. No studies deal with this issue. The Martius model
lingers on in the argument that expansions were fast without considering
the everyday life of the Tupi associated with the expansive processes.
In research on Guarani subsistence practices (Noelli 1993b), to which
I applied a broader integration between archaeological, linguistic,
historical, ethnographic, ethnobiological and ecological data, I was
able to conclude that the Tupi were highly sedentary. A consequence of
the territorial expansion must have been demographic growth and the
breaking-up of villages. Expansion must have been resisted by the
peoples whose lands were claimed, in turn implying interethnic
relationships, bellicose and friendly.
In parallel, the management of crops and plant-gathering influenced
directly the rhythm of expansion. The Tupi transported their plants,
introducing them to all the regions they settled; they also took up new
vegetables. These processes required investment in research time and in
preparing the environment, in transforming the primary forest into known
and productive areas (BaiZe 1994). The phenological cycle of plants is
another factor in the rhythm of expansions.
As a village could not occupy new lands without their prior
preparation, it could not move into far-away territory. The expansion
must have taken place not by leaps, but through the slow and continues
annexation of lands immediately adjacent to the occupied territories, as
ethnobiological studies of tropical and subtropical peoples have been
demonstrating.
The key issue that allows us to understand the variables conditioning
the expansions is related to territoriality, with its social units
marked by consanguineous relations and alliances, tekoha in Guarani
(Noelli 1993b; Melia 1986). The corresponding Tupinamba term is tecoaba
(VLB: 127); research on other Tupi groups is still open.
Tekoha is the territory that corresponds to a village, with its
hunting and fishing grounds, its crops, its natural resources for
gathering and raw-materials, delimited by geographical elements and
predominantly tapped by the group occupying these lands. Under normal
conditions, dwellings would change within the managed lands of a tekoha.
The formation of a new tekoha depended on the division of an original
village, rather than its abandonment.
Archaeology and linguistics provide some evidence that these peoples
remained in the same place, from which they slowly broke up. Several
Guarani lands show a continous occupation for over 1500 years, and
Tupian lands for over 1000 years, in a permanence which may indicate a
slower rhythm of movement. If Aryon Rodrigues' estimates are
correct, several Tupian peoples have lived for at least 5000 years in
the Guapore basin and adjacent regions.
Acknowledgements. Translation by Amilcar Mello D'Avila, Drawings
by Carlos Cesar Reis de Oliveira.
1 The term Tupi has been used wrongly to designate just the Tupinamba
language. In many archaeological publications, all 40 non-Guarani are
grouped as if they were a single people called 'Tupi',
overlooking their differentiations (see list of languages in Montserrat
1994: 98). The expression Tupi-Guarani, which defines one of the seven
linguistic families of the Tupian stock, has also been wrongly used to
designate a language.
2 Nimuendaju's map (1981) shows the historic location of the
Tupi.
3 The Tupian Stock had not been linguistically defined in 1927-8;
Metraux called it 'Tupi-guarani'.
4 Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueologicas (National Programme of
Archaeology Research). 1965-1970. Continued in the Legal Brazilian
Amazonia since 1977 as PRONAPABA, Programa Nacional de Pesquisas
Arqueologicas da Bacia Amazonica (cf. general analysis in: Brothado
1984; Alves 1991; Noelli 1993b).
5 Now outdated (Moran 1990; Roosevelt 1991a; 1991b; 1992).
6 D'Orbigny called almost all Tupian peoples
'Guarani'.
7 'Kaingwa' is not a language, but an expression -
'those from the woods' - used to refer to Guarani speakers not
integrated to the Jesuit Reducciones, or to colonial societies (Melia et
al. 1987: 362).
8 Collections of Tupian ethographic pottery, such as the one studied
by Lima (1987), have not been systematically compared with
archaeological collections yet.
References
ABBEVlLLE, C. 1975, Historia da missao dos padres capuchinhos na ilha
do Maranhao e terras circunvizinhas. Sao Paulo: Itatiaia/EDUSP.
ALVES, C. 1991. A ceramica pre-historica no Brasil: Avaliacao e
Proposta, Clio (serie arqueological) (Recife) 1(7): 9-88.
ANTHONY, D.W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby and the
bathwater, American Anthropologist 92: 895-914.
BALDUS, H. 1954. Bibliografia critica da etnologia brasileira. Sao
Paulo: Comissao do IV Centenario da Cidade Silo Paulo.
BALE, W. 1994. Footprints of the forest: Ka'apor ethnobotany -
the historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people, New
York (NY): Columbia University Press.
BERTONI, M.S. 1916. Influencia de la lengua Guarani en Sud-America y
Antillas, Anales Cientificos Paraguayos (serie II) (Asuncion) 1: 1-120.
1922. La Civilizacion Guarani, parte I. Puerto Bertoni: Ex Sylvis.
BRANDAO, C.R. 1990. Os Guarani: indies do sul, religiao, resistencia
e adaptacao Estudos Avancados (Sao Paulo) 4(10): 53-90.
BROCHADO, J.P. 1973. Migraciones que difundieron la tradicion
alfarera Tupiguarani, Relaciones (Buenos Aires) 7: 7-39.
1984. An ecological model of the spread of pottery and agriculture
into eastern South America. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1989. A expansao dos Tupi e da ceramica da tradicao policromica
amazonica, Dedalo (Sao Paulo) 27: 65-82.
1991. Um modelo de difusao da ceramica e da agricultura no leste da
America do Sul, in Anais do I Simposio de Pre-historia do Nordeste
Brasileiro, Clio [serie arqueologica) (Recife) 4: 85-8.
BROCHADO, J.P. et al. 1969. Arqueologia Brasileira em 1968. Belem:
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi.
BROCHADO, J.P. & D. LATHRAP. 1980. Amazonia. ??details?(datil.).
BROCHADO, J.P., & G. MONTICELLI. 1994. Regras praticas na
reconstrucao grafica da ceramica Guarani par comparacao cam vasilhas
inteiras, Estudos Ibero-Americanos (Porto Alegre) 20(2): 107-18.
BROCHADO, J.P., G. MONTICELLI & E. NEUMANN. 1990. Analogia
etnografica na reconstrucao grafica das vasilhas Guarani arqueologicas
Veritas (Porto Alegre) 35(140): 727-43.
BROCHADO, J.P. & F.S. NOELLI. N.d. Relacoes entre as ceramicas
Marajoara e Tupinamba. Unpublished manuscript.
CAMARA, J.M., Jr. 1979a. Introducao as linguas indigenas brasileiras.
Rio de Janeiro: Ao Livro Tecnico.
1979b. Principios de linguistica geral. 6th edition. Rio de Janeiro:
Padrao.
CARDIM, F. 1939. Tratado da terra e gente do Brasil. Sao Paulo: Cia
Editora Nacional.
CHILDE, A. 1940. Etude philologique sur les noms du 'chien'
de l'antiquite Jusqu'a nos jours, Arquivos do Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro) 39: 5-498.
COSTA, A. 1934. Introducao a arqueologia brasileira. Sao Paulo: Cia
Editora Nacional.
CUNHA, M.C. (ed.). 1992a. Historia dos indios no Brasil. Sao Paulo:
FAPESP/SMC/Cia das Letras.
1992b. Introducao a uma historia indigena in Cunha (ed.): 9-24.
DIAS, O. 1994-5. Consideracoes a respeito dos modelos de difusao da
ceramica Tupiguarani no Brasil: texto apresentado na IX Reuniao
Cientifica da Sociedade de Arqueologia Brasileira, 1993, Revista de
Arqueologia (Sao Paulo) 8(2): 113-32.
D'OBRIGNY, A. 1944. El hombre americana considerado en sus
aspectos fisiologicos y morales. Buenos Aires: Editorial Futuro.
DYEN, I. 1956. Language distribution and migration theory, Language
32: 611-26.
EEDELWEISS, F. 1947. Tupis e Guaranis, estudos de etnonimia e
linguistica. Salvador: Museu do Estado da Bahia.
EHRENREICH, P. 1891. Die Einteilung und Verbreitung der Volkerstamme
Brasiliens nach dem gegenwartigen Stande unsrer Kenntnisse, Patermanns
Mitteilungen 37: 81-91, 114-24.
EHRET, C. 1976. Linguistic evidence and its correlations with
archaeology, World Archaeology 8(1): 5-18.
EVANS, C. 1967. Introducao: PRONAPA 1, Publicacoes Avulsas do Museu
Paraense Emilio Goeldi (Belem) 6: 7-12.
FAUSTO, C. 1992. Fragmentos de historia e cultura Tupinamba. Da
etnologia como instrumento critico de conhecimento etno-historico, in
Cunha (ed.): 381-96.
FERNANDES, F. 1963. Organizacao social dos Tupinambd. 2nd edition.
Sao Paulo: Difel.
FREITAS, A.A. de. 1914. Distribuicao geographica das tribus indigenas
na epoca do descobrimento, Revista do Instituto Historico e Geographico
de Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo) 19: 103-28.
GALLOIS, D.T. 1986. Migracao, guerra e comercio: os Waiapi na Guiana.
Sao Paulo: FFLCH-USP.
GARCIA, R. 1922. Ethnographia indigena: diccionario historico,
geographico, e ethnographico do Brasil 1: Introducao geral: 249-77. Rio
de Janeiro: Imprensa Official.
GREENBERG, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford (CA): Stanford
University Press.
GUERIOS, R.F.M. 1935. Novas rumos da Tupinologia, Revista do Circulo
de Estudos Bandeirantes [Curitiba) 1(2).
HOWARD, G.D. 1947. Prehistoric ceramic styles of lowland South
America, their distribution and history. New Haven (CT): Yale
University. Publications in Anthropology 37.
1948. Northeast Argentina, in G.D. Howard & G.R. Willey, Lowland
Argentine archaeology: 9-24. New Haven (CT): Yale University.
Publications in Archaeology 39.
JENSEN, C.J.J. 1989. O desenvolvimento historico da lingua Wayampi.
Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.
KRAUSE, F. 1925. Beitrage zur Ethnographie des
Araguaya-Xingu-Gebietes, Actes du [XXI.sup.e] Congres International des
Americanistes (Goteborg): 67-79.
LARAIA, R.B. 1986. Tupi: Indios do Brasil atual. Sao Paulo:
FFCLH-USP.
1988. O movimento constante do povoamento indigena no Brasil,
Humanidades (Brasilia) 5: 104-9.
LA SALVIA, F. & J.P. BROCHADO 1986. Ceramica Guarani. Porto
Alegre: Pozenato Arte & Cultura.
LATHRAP, D. 1970. The upper Amazon. London: Thames & Hudson.
LEMLE, M. 1971. Internal classification of the Tupi-guarani
linguistic family, in D. Bendor-Samuel (ed.), Tupi Studies 1: 107-29.
Norman (OK): Summer Institute of Linguistics.
LIMA, T.A. 1987. Ceramica indigena brasileira, in B. Ribeiro (ed.),
Suma etnologica brasileira 2: 173-229. Petropolis: Vozes.
LINNE, S. 1925. The technique of South Americam ceramics. Goteborg:
Goteborgs kungl. Vetenskaps-och Vitterhets-Samhalles Handlingar.
LOTHROP, S.K. 1932. Indians of the Parana Delta, Argentina, Annals of
the New York Academy of Science 32: 77-232.
LOUKOTKA, C. 1929. Le seta, un nouveau dialacte tupi, Journal de la
Societe des Americanistes (NS) 21: 373-98.
1935. Linguas indigenas do Brasil, Revista do Arquivo Municipal (Sao
Paulo) 54: 147-74.
1950. Les langues de la famillie Tupi-guarani. Sao Paulo: Faculdade
de Filosofia, Ciencias e Letras da Universidade de Sao Paulo. Boletim 16
de Etnografia e Linguas Tupiguarani.
MAGALHAES, E.D. 1993. O Tupi no litoral, Revista de Arqueologia (Sao
Paulo) 7: 51-67.
MARTIUS, K.F.Ph. 1845. Como se dave escrever a historia do Brazil.
Revista Trimensal de Histaria e Geographia ou Jornal do Instituto
Historico e Geographico Brazileiro (Rio de Janeiro) 6: 389-411.
1869. Beitrage zur Ethographie und Sprachangenkunde Sudamerika's
zumals Brasiliens 1. Leipzig: Friederich Fischer.
MASON, J.A. 1950. The languages of South American Indians, in J.
Steward (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians 6: 157-317. Washington
(DC): Smithsonian Institution.
MEGGERS, B.J. 1951. A pre-columbian colonization of the Amazon,
Archaeology 4(2): 110-14.
1954. Environmental limitation on the development of culture,
American Anthropologist 56: 801-24.
1957. Environment and culture in the Amazon Basin: an appraisal of
the theory of environmental determinism. Washington (DC): Pan American
Union.
1963. Cultural development in Latin America: an interpretative
overview, in Meggers & Evans (ed.): 131-45.
1972. Prehistoric America. Chicago (IL): Aldine.
1975. Application of the biological model of diversification to
cultural distributions in tropical lowland South America, Biotropica 7:
141-61.
1976. Fluctuacion vegetal y adaptacion cultural prehistorica en
Amazonia: algunas correlaciones tentativas, Relaciones (NS) (Buenos
Aires) 10: 11-26.
1982. Archaeological and ethnographic evidence compatible with the
model of forest fragmentation, in Prance (ed.): 483-96.
1985. Advances in Brazilian archaeology, 1935-1985, American
Antiquity 50(2): 364-73.
MEGGERS, B.J. & C. EVANS. 1957. Archaeological investigations at
the mouth of the Amazon. Washington [DC): Smithsonian Institution.
(Ed.). 1963. Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: an
interpretative review. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution.
1973. A reconstituicao da pre-historia amazonica: algumas
consideracoes teoricas, O Museu Goeldi no Ano do Sesquicentenario
(Belem) Publicacoes Avulsas 20: 51-69.
1978. Lowland South America and the Antilles, in J.D. Jeunings (ed.).
Ancient native Americans: 543-91. San Francisco (CA): W.H. Freeman.
MEGGERS, B.J., O. DIAS, E.TH. MILLER & C. PEROTA. 1988.
Implications of archaeological distributions in Amazonia, Anais da
Academia Brasileira de Ciencias: 275-94.
MELIA, B. 1986. El 'modo de ser' Guarani en la primera
documentacion jesuitica (1594-1639), in B. Melia, El Guarani conquistado
y reducido: 93-116. Asuncion: CEAUC.
MELIA, B., M.V.A. SAUL & V. MURARO. 1987. O Guarani: uma
bibliografia etnologica. Santo Angelo: Fundacao Nacional
pro-Memoria/FUNDAMES.
MENENDEZ, M. 1981-2. Uma contribuicao para etno-historia da area
Tapajos-Madeira, Revista do Museu Paulista (NS) (Sao Paulo) 28: 289-388.
METRAUX, A. 1927. Migrations historiques des Tupi-guarani, Journal de
la Societe de Americanistes (NS) 19: 1-45.
1928. La civilisation materielle des tribus Tupi-guarani. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste.
1948a. The Guarani, in Steward (ed.): 69-94.
1948b. The Tupinamba, in Steward (ed.): 95-133.
MIGLIAZZA, E. 1982. Linguistic prehistory and the refuge model in
Amazonia, in Prance (ed.): 497-519.
MONTSERRAT, R.M.F. 1994. Linguas indigenas no Brasil contemporaneo,
in L.D.B. Grupioni (ed.), Indios no Brasil:
93-104. Brasilia: Ministerio da Educacao e Desporto.
MORAN, E.F. 1999. A Ecologia humana das populacoes da Amazonia,
Petropolis: Vozes.
MYERS, T. 1990. Sarayacu: ethnohistorical and archaeological
investigations of a nineteenth-century franciscan mission in the
Peruvian Montana. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska Press.
NETTO, L. 1885. Investigacoes sabre archeologia brazileira, Archives
do Museo Nacional do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro) 6: 257-554.
NEVES, W. (ed.) 1991. Origens, adaptacoes e diversidade bio1ogica do
hamera nativo da Amazonia. Belem: SCT/CNPq/MPEG.
NIMUNENDAJU, C.U. 1981. Mapo etno-historico de Curt Nimuendaju. Rio
de Janeiro: IBGE/FUNDACAO NACIONAL PRO-MEMORIA.
NOELLI, F.S. 1993a. Por uma revisao da 'busca da terra sem
mal' dos Tupi. Boletim da ABA (Florianopolis) 20 (Dezembro): 18.
1993b. Sem Tekoha nao ha Teko (em busca de um modelo etnoarqueologico
da subsistencia e da aldeia Guarani aplicado a uma area de dominio no
delta do Jacui-RS). Porto Alegre, Dissertacao (Mestrado), IFCH-PUCRS.
1994. Por uma revisao das hipoteses sabre o centro de origem e rotas
de expansao pre-historicas dos Tupi, Estados Ibero-Americanos (Porto
Alegre) 20(1): 107-35.
N.d. A fossilizacao de uma vista academica: o desenvolvimento e a
manutencao da producao cientifica de Betty J. Meggers (1948-1993). MS.
PEIXOTO. J.L. 1995. A ocupacao do Tupiguarani na borda oeste do
Pantanal Sul-matogrossense: macico do Urucu. Porto Alegre, Dissertaco
(Mestrado), IFCH-PUCRS.
PORRO, A. 1992. As cronicas do rio amazonas: notas etnohistoricas
sobre as antigas populacoes indigenas da amazonia. Petropolis: Vozes.
PRANCE, G.T. (Ed.). 1982. Biological diversification in the tropics.
New York (NY): Columbia University Press.
PRONAPA [Programa Nacional de Pesquisas Arqueologicas].
1970. Brazilian archeology in 1968: an interim report on the National
Program of Archeology Research - PRONAFA, American Antiquity 35(1):
1-23.
RENFREW, G. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of
Indo-European origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
RIVET, P. 1924. Langues Americaines III: langues de l'Amerique
du sud et des Antilles, in A. Meillet & M. Cohen (ed.), Les Langues
du monde: 639-717. Paris: Societe de Linguistique de Paris. Collection
Linguistique 16.
RODRIGUES, A.D. 1945. Fonetica historica Tupi-guarani: diferencas
foneticas entre o Tupi e o Guarani, Arquivos do Museu Paranaense
(Curitiba) 4: 333-54.
1950. A nomenclatura na familia Tupi-guarani, Bolefin de Filologia
(Montevideo) 6(43-44-45): 98-104.
1958. Classification of Tupi-Guarani, International Journal of
American Linguistics 24: 231-4.
1963. Os estudos de linguistica indigena no Brasil, Revista de
Antropologia (Sao Paulo) 11(1-2): 9-22.
1964. A classificao do Tronco linguistico Tupi, Revista de
Antropologia (Sao Paulo) 12: 99-104.
1984-5. Relacoes internas na Familia linguistica Tupi-guarani,
Revista de Antropologia (Sao Paulo) 27-28: 33-53.
1985. Evidences for Tupi-Carib relationship, in H. Klein & L.
Stark (ed.), South American Indian languages: retrospect and prospect:
371-404. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
1986. Idnguas Brasileiras. Sao Paulo: Loyola.
ROOSEVELT, A.C. 1991a. Determinismo ecologico na interpretacao do
desenvolvimento social indigena da Amazonia, in Neves (ed.): 103-41.
1991b. Moundbuilders of the Amazon. New York (NY): Academic Press.
1992. Arqueologia Amazonica, in Cunha (ed.) 1992: 53-86.
ROUSE, I. 1986. Migrations in prehistory. New Haven (CT): Yale
University Press.
SALZANO, F.M. 1992. O velho e o novo: antropologia fisica e historia
indigena, in Cunha (ed.) 1992a: 27-36.
SALZANO, F.M. & S.M. CALLEGARI-JACQUES. 1991. O indio da
Amazonia: uma abordagem microevolucionria, in Neves (ed.): 39-53.
SANTOS, C.A. 1991. Rotas de migracao Tupiguarani - analise das
hipoteses. Recife, Dissertacao (Mestrado), CFCH-UFPE.
1992. Mobilidade espaco-temporal da Tradicao Tupiguarani:
consideracoes linguisticas e arqueologicas, Clio (serie arqueologica)
(Recife) 1(8): 89-130.
SCATAMACCHIA, M.C.M. 1981. Tentativa de caracterizacao da tradicao
Tupiguarani. Sao Paulo, Dissertacao (Mestrado), FFLCH-USP.
1991. Tradicao policromica no leste da America do Sul evidenciada
pela ocupacao Guarani e Tupinamba: fontes arqueologicas e
etno-historicas. Sao Paulo, Tese (Doutorado), FFLCH-USP.
SCHMIDT, W. 1913. Kulturkreise und Kulturschichten in Sudamerika.
Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 45: 1014-1130.
SCHMITZ, P.I. 1985. O Guarani no Rio Grande do Sul, Boletim do Marsul
(Taquara) 2: 5-42.
1991. Migrantes da Amazonia: a tradicao TupiGuarani. Arqueologia do
RGS, Brasil - Documentos (Sao Leopoldo) 5: 31-66.
SILVA, F.A. & B.J. MEGGERS. 1963. Cultural development in Brazil,
in Meggers & Evans (ed.): 119-29.
SOARES DE SOUSA, G. 1987. Tratado descritivo do Brasil em 1587. Silo
Paulo: Cia Editora Nacional.
STELLA, J.B. 1928. As linguas indigenas da America, Revista do
Instituto Historico e Geographico de Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo) 26: 5-172.
STEWARD, J. (ed.). 1948. Handbook of South American Indians 3.
Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution.
SUSNIK, B. 1975. Dispersion tupi-guarani prehistorica: ensayo
analitico. Asuncion: Museo Etrnografico 'Andres Barbero'.
SWADESH, M. 1971. Glottochronology, in M. Fried (ed.), Readings in
anthropology: 384-403. 2nd edition. New York (NY): Thomas Crowell.
'Terminalogia'. 1969. Terminologio arqueologica brasileira
para a ceramica, porte II. CEPA. Curitiba: UFPR. Manuais de Arqueologia
1.
1976. Terminologia arqueologica brasileira para a ceramica (2nd
edition), Cadernos de Arqueologia (Curitiba) 1(1): 119-48. Centro de
Ensino e Pesquisas Arqueologicas.
TORRES, L.M. 1911. Los primitivos habitantes del delta del Parand.
Buenos Aires: Imprenta de Coni Hermanos.
1934. Relaciones arqueologicas de los pueblos del Amazonas, Actas y
Trabajos Cientificos del XXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas,
Buenos Aires 2: 191-3.
URBAN, G. 1992. A historia da cultura brasileira segundo as linguas
nativas, in Cunha (ed.) 1992a: 87-102.
VLB. 1952. Vocabulario na lingua brasilica. 2nd edition. Revista por
Carlos Drumond. Sao Paulo, Boletim 137, Etnografia e Tupi-guarani
23-FFCL-USP.
VON DEN STEINEN, K. 1886. Durch Zentral-Brasilien: Expedition zur
Erforschung des Schingu im Jahre 1884. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.
WILLEY, G. 1949. Ceramics, in J. Steward, Handbook of South American
Indians 5: 139-204. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution.
WILLEY, G.R. & P. PHILLIPS. 1958. Method and theory in American
archaeology. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.