By Lucas Guaraldo*
Bruna Rocha, archaeologist and professor at UFOPA (Federal University of Western Pará) in Santarém, highlights the role of archaeological studies in the Amazon and what the history of the forest reveals about current environmental challenges. The interview was published in the newsletter Um Grau e Meio, produced by IPAM (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia).
Sign up to receive Um Grau e Meio every two weeks in your inbox.
With a PhD in Archaeology from the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, Bruna is co-coordinator of the Amazônia Revelada Project, an initiative that seeks to integrate archaeological research with traditional Amazonian knowledge, identifying archaeological sites in the biome and adding a new layer of protection to the forest.
For many years it was taught that pre-Columbian Amazonia was a great human void. With the new discoveries in the region, what can we say about the forest’s true past?
Much of our imagery of the Amazon is based on records made by European travelers who couldn’t read the forest. They only saw a somewhat indistinct forest when, in fact, many of the areas there are succession forests, which would have grown in areas that were previously more open, and which concentrate a series of botanical species that have an interconnection with the human species.
We will only be able to make this reading with a paradigm shift that began in the 1980s with an area of knowledge called historical ecology, which brings together a series of disciplines to understand how human societies have transformed the forest over time, with a historical reading of the landscapes.
Then, with the development of satellite images, at the end of the 1990s a series of large pre-Columbian settlements were identified in the Upper Xingu, interconnected with roads.
And now, with this new LiDar technology, which allows topographic surveys in areas that are very difficult to access, we’re able to highlight a series of structures, ditches, roads, paths that show a really interconnected forest and a diversity of forms of life in the forest and really monumental structures that require work to be organized.
What were the most striking characteristics of these Amazonian peoples and communities? How did these communities relate to the forest?
The Amazon doesn’t have the abundance of rocky raw materials as the Andes and Mesoamerica. So what we really see today is that monumentality needs to be understood in Amazonian terms. Monumentality was made from the forest itself, from the domestication of plants, from the management of large areas to the point where it’s not even possible to talk about “virgin forest”.
That’s the great legacy. If today Brazil is an environmental power in the face of COP 30, this is also due to the Amazonian peoples, both in the past and today, through indigenous peoples, riverside dwellers and quilombolas. This sagacity, this knowledge, of living in harmony with the forest is one of the most striking characteristics. Monumentality can be seen in these interventions on the land itself.
Why did the idea that the Brazilian Amazon was “undeveloped” persist for so long, even after studying other civilizations in the Americas?
This was also incorporated by the Brazilian state. Getúlio Vargas would present the uses of the Amazon as a place to extract natural resources, ignoring human presence. And this idea of demographic emptiness was crystallized during the business-military dictatorship, in which the Amazon served the purpose of redirecting demands for land reform in the Northeast and South of Brazil. Hence the slogan “land without people for people without land” and the political use of the Amazon as a repository of natural resources.
And unfortunately this vision is still with us. Even today, if we look at the government’s projects, we see there this notion that the Amazon needs to be developed, that it serves as a logistical corridor or a place from which natural resources are taken.
In other American societies, we had a very striking materiality of urban constructions with stone cities, for example. This was always very impressive and ended up making Brazilian intellectuals who think about heritage disinterested in Brazilian heritage, not least because of the comparison with Andean and Mesoamerican heritage.
This developed a certain contempt even for the peoples who lived in what would later become Brazil, and had an impact on our heritage policies. To this day, if we look at what is listed, the overwhelming majority of properties listed by IPHAN [the National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute] are buildings linked to a European heritage. We have very few, less than 10, listed archaeological sites.
For a long time, archaeology dealt with European concepts of civilization and society. How do these concepts change when we analyze the peoples of South America? Do we need a new paradigm to really understand the region?
Yes, we are still stuck with some paradigms formulated in other parts of the world, such as the Middle East and Europe, which do not fully apply to the South American reality. We therefore need to rebuild these paradigms, because the mega socio-biodiversity that exists in the Amazon doesn’t fit into these traditional explanatory models. Here, political decentralization is a choice, a cultural option, which calls into question the linear narratives of development that have emerged in other historical contexts.
We have an idea of development based on the parameters of our own civilization: hierarchies, armies, inequality and bureaucracy. Perhaps we need to rethink what we mean by “development” by observing that these peoples – around 10 million people in the pre-colonial Amazon – managed to transform and inhabit the forest for at least 15,000 years, without degrading it. Meanwhile, in the last 500 years, and especially in the last four decades, we have destroyed around 10% of the Amazon’s vegetation cover. This comparison should lead us to reflect deeply.
How can understanding the past of the Amazonian peoples help us understand the current situation of the forest?
The current situation of the forest shows that the best preserved areas are precisely those inhabited by indigenous peoples and traditional communities. This archaeological research allows us to read the past vividly, showing how ancient societies managed to concentrate resources and make the forest a habitable and productive place for millennia.
This understanding is also fundamental to recognizing the history of certain plants that are essential to humanity. Species such as manioc, chili peppers, pineapple and various medicinal plants were domesticated by these peoples and are now spread around the world. Each one is the result of many generations of experimentation, management and the transmission of knowledge.
Knowing this past is essential to combat the idea of the Amazon as a blank slate that needs to “receive” development. Development models imposed from the top down, such as Henry Ford’s attempts in Fordlândia and Belterra, or dam, mining and road projects, have shown time and again that they don’t work. They fail because they ignore local governance and the knowledge accumulated by those who have always lived in and cared for this territory.
How has deforestation affected the discovery and preservation of new archaeological sites in the biome? What can be done to protect these territories?
At first, deforestation made it possible to identify geoglyphs in Acre about 20 years ago, when during an overflight geometric shapes were recognized that could not be seen from the ground. However, the same deforestation that allowed the initial visualization is also responsible for the destruction of this heritage.
The trees themselves are considered archaeological remains, as there is an inseparable link between culture and nature. This destruction therefore directly affects our biocultural heritage. In addition, legislative setbacks, such as the new General Environmental Licensing Law, have contributed to further weakening the protection of this heritage.
The first essential step to guaranteeing preservation is the recognition of traditional territories. The creation of indigenous lands, quilombola territories, extractive reserves, conservation units and collective land reform areas are fundamental and effective instruments for ensuring the protection of historical and cultural heritage.
From the point of view of archaeologists, it is essential to register as many archaeological sites as possible, since, according to the new legislation, only sites registered with IPHAN will be considered in environmental licensing processes. This is a particularly serious concern in the Amazon, where there are still vast areas without archaeological research.
And how is this registration done today?
Traditionally, registration is done by filling in a form with geographical coordinates, sending photographs and a description of the site. However, we are in talks with IPHAN to make it possible to record sites using LiDAR data, since many areas are extremely difficult to access and we are not always able to physically reach these sites to collect information. This innovation is all the more urgent given the changes in licensing, which could lead to the loss of as yet unknown archaeological sites, threatened by works and developments.
IPAM journalist, lucas.itaborahy@ipam.org.br*