PLOS ONE Extensive Networks of Megalithic Monuments at the North Bank of the Mouth of the Amazon River --Manuscript Draft-Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-21077 Article Type: Research Article Full Title: Extensive Networks of Megalithic Monuments at the North Bank of the Mouth of the Amazon River Short Title: Extensive Networks of Megalithic Monuments at the Amazon Corresponding Author: Joao Darcy de Moura Saldanha, Ph.D. Universidade de Évora: Universidade de Evora Portimao, Évora PORTUGAL Keywords: "Archaeology" "Amazonian Archaeology" "Monumentality" Abstract: Ritual practices and landscape modifications have long been central themes in the study of the late pre-colonial Amazonian occupation. The debate focused on how, on the one hand, the intensification of rituals and, on the other hand, the increase in landscape changes are related to increases in socio-political inequalities, population growth, territoriality and ideology. Such changes are often correlated with evidence of the transformation of small-scale societies into more complex social formations, sometimes referred to as “chiefdoms”. The coastal region of Amapá was the site of the development of archaeological cultures characterized not only by highly decorated ceramics (often with the plastic representation of humans and animals), but also by the construction of megalithic structures. New prospections and excavations carried out in these structures give us a very good opportunity to understand the relationship between ritual practices, monument construction and cultural change in this region of the Amazon during late prehistory. This article presents a synthesis of practices related to the construction and use of megalithic monuments in the region. I try to show the extreme complexity of ritual practices, adding new information about social formations in the late prehistoric period in the region. Order of Authors: Joao Darcy de Moura Saldanha, Ph.D. Opposed Reviewers: Additional Information: Question Response Financial Disclosure The author(s) received funding from the Instituto de Pesquisas Científicas e Tecnológicas do Estado do Amapá (http://www.iepa.ap.gov.br). The Institution had no Enter a financial disclosure statement that role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation describes the sources of funding for the of the manuscript. work included in this submission. Review the submission guidelines for detailed requirements. View published research articles from PLOS ONE for specific examples. This statement is required for submission and will appear in the published article if the submission is accepted. Please make sure it is accurate. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Unfunded studies Enter: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Funded studies Enter a statement with the following details: • Initials of the authors who received each award • Grant numbers awarded to each author • The full name of each funder • URL of each funder website • Did the sponsors or funders play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript? • NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. • YES - Specify the role(s) played. * typeset Competing Interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Use the instructions below to enter a competing interest statement for this submission. On behalf of all authors, disclose any competing interests that could be perceived to bias this work—acknowledging all financial support and any other relevant financial or nonfinancial competing interests. This statement is required for submission and will appear in the published article if the submission is accepted. Please make sure it is accurate and that any funding sources listed in your Funding Information later in the submission form are also declared in your Financial Disclosure statement. View published research articles from PLOS ONE for specific examples. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation NO authors have competing interests Enter: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Authors with competing interests Enter competing interest details beginning with this statement: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: [insert competing interests here] * typeset Ethics Statement Enter an ethics statement for this submission. This statement is required if the study involved: • • • • • Field Research granted by the Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional (IPHAN), under the project "Investigações Arqueológicas na Bacia do Rio Calçoene e Seu Entorno". Field permit number "Portaria IPHAN nº 27". Human participants Human specimens or tissue Vertebrate animals or cephalopods Vertebrate embryos or tissues Field research Write "N/A" if the submission does not require an ethics statement. General guidance is provided below. Consult the submission guidelines for detailed instructions. Make sure that all information entered here is included in the Methods section of the manuscript. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Format for specific study types Human Subject Research (involving human participants and/or tissue) • Give the name of the institutional review board or ethics committee that approved the study • Include the approval number and/or a statement indicating approval of this research • Indicate the form of consent obtained (written/oral) or the reason that consent was not obtained (e.g. the data were analyzed anonymously) Animal Research (involving vertebrate animals, embryos or tissues) • Provide the name of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or other relevant ethics board that reviewed the study protocol, and indicate whether they approved this research or granted a formal waiver of ethical approval • Include an approval number if one was obtained • If the study involved non-human primates, add additional details about animal welfare and steps taken to ameliorate suffering • If anesthesia, euthanasia, or any kind of animal sacrifice is part of the study, include briefly which substances and/or methods were applied Field Research Include the following details if this study involves the collection of plant, animal, or other materials from a natural setting: • Field permit number • Name of the institution or relevant body that granted permission Data Availability Yes - all data are fully available without restriction Authors are required to make all data underlying the findings described fully available, without restriction, and from the time of publication. PLOS allows rare exceptions to address legal and ethical concerns. See the PLOS Data Policy and FAQ for detailed information. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation A Data Availability Statement describing where the data can be found is required at submission. Your answers to this question constitute the Data Availability Statement and will be published in the article, if accepted. Important: Stating ‘data available on request from the author’ is not sufficient. If your data are only available upon request, select ‘No’ for the first question and explain your exceptional situation in the text box. Do the authors confirm that all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript are fully available without restriction? Describe where the data may be found in All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. full sentences. If you are copying our sample text, replace any instances of XXX with the appropriate details. • If the data are held or will be held in a public repository, include URLs, accession numbers or DOIs. If this information will only be available after acceptance, indicate this by ticking the box below. For example: All XXX files are available from the XXX database (accession number(s) XXX, XXX.). • If the data are all contained within the manuscript and/or Supporting Information files, enter the following: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. • If neither of these applies but you are able to provide details of access elsewhere, with or without limitations, please do so. For example: Data cannot be shared publicly because of [XXX]. Data are available from the XXX Institutional Data Access / Ethics Committee (contact via XXX) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from (include the name of the third party Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation and contact information or URL). • This text is appropriate if the data are owned by a third party and authors do not have permission to share the data. * typeset Additional data availability information: Tick here if your circumstances are not covered by the questions above and you need the journal’s help to make your data available. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Cover Letters  Summarize the study’s contribution to the scientific literature and relate the study to previously published work During the last three decades, archaeologists have successfully documented networks of large and dense settlements around the southern Amazonian rim and earth enclosure and mound monuments in the western parts of Amazonia. This degree of sophistication of Amazonian forms of ‘urbanism’, and ‘monumentality’ that rises around 2000 B.P., highlight the extent of past human-induced local and regional ecologies. This extent stands in stark contrast to previous accounts that extrapolated 19th and 20th century Amazonian ethnographic societies to the precontact period, presupposing that past societies were organized as small, autonomous villages with simple technologies and egalitarian structures, leading to little environmental impact. In this paper, we present new survey and excavation data from the previously uncharted extensive networks of megalithic monumental structures at the north bank of the Mouth of the Amazon River. Although reported in the archaeological literature of the region since the end of the 19th century, it is the first time that intensive research has been carried out to a in-depth understanding of the megalithic structures in this region. I report the discovery of 31 new megalithic monuments sites, filling a gap in understanding the human societies of the Eastern Amazonia. The discovery shows that there is an impressive investment in landscape engineering, with the massive workload to dig pits, and transport large stone slabs into specific places to be arranged in specific shapes. Excavations suggest that landscape engineering was designed to configure commemorative monuments to celebrate the dead. It changes traditional views about the scale of Pre-Columbian landscape modification and sustainability of past populations in the Atlantic littoral of the north bank of the Amazon River.  Specify the type of article: Research article  Describe any prior interactions with PLOS regarding the submitted manuscript:  Suggest appropriate Academic Editors: Gonca Dardeniz Arikan; Eleni None Asouti; Peter F. Biehl; Clive Bonsall  List any opposed reviewers: None Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Megalithic enclosures in Amapa Final draft2.docx 1 2 Extensive Networks of Megalithic Monuments at the North Bank of the Mouth of the Amazon River 3 4 João Darcy de Moura Saldanha (Universidade de Évora – Centro de História da Arte e Investigação Artística (CHAIA) 5 Abstract 6 Ritual practices and landscape modifications have long been central themes in the study 7 of the late pre-colonial Amazonian occupation. The debate focused on how, on the one hand, the 8 intensification of rituals and, on the other hand, the increase in landscape changes are related to 9 increases in socio-political inequalities, population growth, territoriality and ideology. Such 10 changes are often correlated with evidence of the transformation of small-scale societies into more 11 complex social formations, sometimes referred to as “chiefdoms”. 12 The coastal region of Amapá was the site of the development of archaeological cultures 13 characterized not only by highly decorated ceramics (often with the plastic representation of 14 humans and animals), but also by the construction of megalithic structures. 15 New prospections and excavations carried out in these structures give us a very good 16 opportunity to understand the relationship between ritual practices, monument construction and 17 cultural change in this region of the Amazon during late prehistory. 18 This article presents a synthesis of practices related to the construction and use of 19 megalithic monuments in the region. I try to show the extreme complexity of ritual practices, 20 adding new information about social formations in the late prehistoric period in the region. 21 22 Introduction 23 During the last three decades, archaeologists have successfully documented networks of 24 large and dense settlements around the southern Amazonian rim(1) and earth enclosure and 25 mound monuments in the western parts of Amazonia(4, 5). This degree of sophistication of 26 Amazonian forms of ‘urbanism’, and ‘monumentality’ that rises around 2000 B.P., highlight the 27 extent of past human-induced local and regional ecologies(6). This extent stands in stark contrast 1 28 to previous accounts that extrapolated 19th and 20th century Amazonian ethnographic societies to 29 the pre-contact period, presupposing that past societies were organized as small, autonomous 30 villages with simple technologies and egalitarian structures, leading to little environmental 31 impact(7). 32 The Mouth of the Amazon River is one of the best-known region in terms of a large 33 cultural sequence that spans from 7000 B.P till the European conquest. Since the first 34 archaeological explorations carried out in this region in the late 19th century (8, 9) two elements 35 have attracted a lot of attention in the archaeological sites of the region: on the one hand, a highly 36 elaborated pottery, containing polychrome painting, and anthro- and zoomorphic appliqués; on 37 the other, the sheer size of habitation and funerary mounds on the island of Marajó(3). Such 38 elements were considered as evidence of populations with a more complex socio-political 39 organization in the region than previously though (10). It also served as the basis for a series of 40 discussions on the nature and scale of the native populations of the Amazon in the period prior to 41 contact with the European colonizer (11-13). However, in addition to the evidence derived from 42 excavations on the island of Marajó, the remaining areas of the Amazon estuary, specially its 43 North Bank have been little worked on archaeologically until recently, resulting in an incomplete 44 overview of ancient Amerindian occupation in the region, that, till recently were regarded was 45 simple forest tropical cultural groups, with little impact on the landscape. 46 In this paper, we present new survey and excavation data from the previously uncharted 47 extensive networks of megalithic monumental structures at the north bank of the Mouth of the 48 Amazon River. This is a region historically assigned as the traditional territory of Arawakan 49 speaking groups, as the contemporary Palikur. In fact, this zone was, according to ethnohistorical 50 sources and Palikur emic history, the territory of several arawak or arawaknized groups that 51 formed a great clan confederation, which existed until 18th century(14-17). Although reported in the archaeological literature of the region since the end of the 19 th 52 2 53 century(8, 18), it is the first time that intensive research has been carried out to understand in- 54 depth the megalithic structures in this region. I report the discovery of 31 new megalithic 55 monuments sites, filling a gap in understanding the human societies of the Eastern Amazon. The 56 discovery shows that there is an impressive investment in landscape engineering, with the massive 57 workload to dig pits, and transport large stone slabs into specific places to be arranged in specific 58 shapes. Excavations suggest that landscape engineering was designed to configure 59 commemorative monuments to celebrate the dead. This is confirmed by the temporal dimension 60 that shows the continued use of such structures for centuries, with arrangements and 61 rearrangements of human bones and votive depositions. It changes traditional views about the 62 scale of Pre-Columbian landscape modification and sustainability of past populations in the 63 Atlantic littoral of the north bank of the Amazon River. 64 Monumentality 65 The creation of monuments – conspicuous landmarks that serves to create and preserve 66 memories, values and identities – is considered as a signal of a major cultural change(19). Early 67 interpretations on monumentality invocated that such cultural change occurred during intensification 68 of food production systems. So those system could support population densities and provide regular 69 surpluses, leading to wealth accumulation and social stratification. In this scenario, where inequality 70 increases, elites would mobilize labor, control ritual and convince people to invest in monumental 71 projects in order to promote and advertise their power (20). More recent research, however, has been 72 able to show that social change can be derived from different trajectories and contexts, as in lower- 73 density populations of hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists where monumentality can play a role in 74 fostering hierarchies and corporate and heterarchical polities(21). 75 Megalithic monuments in eastern Amazonia were created in a context of semi-sedentary 76 groups. Apparently relying in a “polyculture agroforestry” system (22), combining extensive 77 cultivation of domesticated plants with the management of useful and semi-domesticated plant 3 78 species in enriched forests, rather than large-scale clearance for monocultivation. In this case, 79 monumentality is not always accompanied by an evident increase in food production systems, but 80 can be related to a process of competition of intragroup and regional competition, and the urge of 81 factional leaders to increase the production of symbolic resources and increase of prestige (23). 82 This study provides an important contribution to develop new perspectives on the relations between 83 monumentality, commemorative expression, social memory and social complexity in Amazonia. 84 85 Area of Study 86 The present research project is focused on the Atlantic coast of Amapá, North of the 87 mouth of Amazon River, Brazil. Geographically, Amapá is bounded in the West by the Guiana 88 Plateau, in the North by French Guyana, in the East by the Atlantic coast, and in the South by the 89 Amazon River and the State of Pará. The area is roughly divided in half by the Equator line, 90 generating some implications for climatic and environmental patterns found there, as a clearly 91 marked rainy season, which starts from the end of December and lasts until end of July. These 92 variations are correlated with changes in the water level of rivers and lower parts of the coastal 93 plain, which flood during rainy season. 94 The Atlantic coast of Amapá is a very environmentally dynamic area, with dramatic 95 changing conditions during the Holocene times, caused by different factors, as the system of 96 dispersion of the Amazon River and the macro-tidal action (24). Those factors, plus the low 97 altitudes of the region, make this landscape subject to constant changes, as fast appearances and 98 disappearances of watersheds, documented by ancient cartography and the location of residual 99 lakes and dried inlets in satellite imagery (25). This turns the pedestrian location and interpretation 100 of spatiality of ancient sites a very difficult task, as some ancient river beds are now very far from 101 current hydrography and can only be reached by walking through extensive mangroves and 102 flooded areas. 4 103 The project covers a rectangular pilot-area of 130km long by 110km wide (Figure 01), 104 comprising three main watersheds in the Amapá North coast, Flechal, Amapá Grande and 105 Calçoene Rivers. The North limit of the area is the Cunani River. 106 Figure 01: General location of Project’s area at the northern coast of Amapá State. 107 108 109 At least three ecological zones can be discerned in the project’s area (24). Along the coast 110 and covering the lower courses of the rivers, one can found extensive mangrove forests growing 111 over mud capes. Associated with the mangrove forests are patches of open savannas that grow on 112 Holocenic sediments and can flood daily due to ocean tides. Only mound sites have been found 113 on this area (18, 26). 114 Behind this first ecological zone one can find a large stretch of plain savannas that grow 115 over tertiary sediments, periodically flooded every year during rainy season. This low and plain 116 savanna is only interrupted by gallery forests along the streams or by natural high areas that 117 become islands during rainy season. It is on the top of those “islands” where most of the sites 118 currently known in the project’s area are found (11, 27). 119 Further away from the shore one can find the typical Amazonian terra firme forest, where 120 there are higher areas. It’s the main ecological zone where natural caves, used as funerary places 121 by ancient indigenous groups in the region, are found (11, 28, 29). 122 123 Materials and Methods 124 Permission for survey and excavations was granted by the Instituto do Patrimônio 125 Histórico e Artístico Nacional (Portaria IPHAN nº 27). Given the general lack of empirical data 126 on such archaeological structures, initial efforts of the project were concentrated on understanding 127 megalithics sites on the region, trying, at the same time, to correlate it to different kinds of sites, 5 128 as burial caves, open air sites, etc. Our main goal is to understand, through spatial and landscape 129 analysis in different scales, the arrangement and configuration of sites on the region, in order to 130 get a better idea of possible nature and scale of societies involved in the erection and use of 131 megalithic structures. 132 An approach towards an understanding of interconnectness between natural environment 133 and archaeological sites, following a landscape perspective (30-32), drove us into a wide view of 134 space. 135 Systematic pedestrian surveys of large forested and isolated areas, i.e. walking along 136 regularly spaced lines (e.g. 20 to 50 m) are the optimal method, but they are often too 137 time-consuming. Instead, using available maps, daily missions or roundabouts are plotted 138 in the G PS, favoring ridges, plateaus, (high) riverbanks and anomalies detected by aerial 139 survey previously conducted by open source high-resolution satellite images softwares. 140 Once those areas have been reached by foot, w e s t a r t t o l o o k f o r l a r g e s t o n e s , 141 alien to the geological setting of the area, in a search for megalithic 142 s t r u c t u r e s . R oots of fallen trees and animal holes are checked with a trowel or machetes 143 to find artefacts. In many cases there are not enough u uprooted trees to inspect, and a few 144 auger tests are needed to check the soil profile for buried surfaces (palaeosoils) or dark 145 earths. A description of the site are made, considering the shape and topography of the 146 hillock, its position in the landscape in particular with regard to water and the presence of 147 certain useful tree and palm species on the site (33). 148 Once the pedestrian fieldwork is completed, another more detailed but destructive 149 phase of research can be carried out by digging trenches. It may be sufficient to dig only 150 a few trenches to get an idea of the soil sequence and the presence of features such as 151 b u r i a l pits and post holes. In this manner, soil samples are also easier to obtain and can 152 be taken with greater precision, which is important for charcoal sampling and thus enhances 6 153 the accuracy and reliability of radiocarbon dating results. 154 In principle, all trenches have being dug until the oldest geological formations 155 are reached. Normally the geological substract allow only shallow trenches: the sterile 156 subsoil is often reached to a depth of between 40 and 60 cm once the forest floor has 157 been removed. Key sites were chosen to conduct open-area manual excavation, allowing to 158 a holistic and reflexive process to interpret the archaeological features and their interconnectivity 159 (34). 160 Before the beginning of the project thirteen megalithic sites were known, located mainly 161 between Cunani and Flechal Rivers in the North coast of Amapá, thanks to works done since the 162 19th century (8, 11, 18, 35). Through our works on the area, thirty one other megalithic structures 163 have been identified, among other types of sites, as ancient villages, funerary caves and ceramic 164 depositions in special places. 165 Contrary to some expectations about the conservation of megalithic sites (36), some of 166 them are very well preserved, being possible to access its original configuration. In fact 167 excavations confirms this observation. 168 169 Results 170 General characteristics of the surveyed sites. The survey located 31 new megalithic 171 enclosures adding a total of 44 Pre-Columbian megalithic sites. Archaeological sites are mostly 172 found in the domain of the coastal zone, which is characterized by terrain of flat and very low 173 relief, intersected by a complex drainage system, with strong influence of the tides, which reach 174 the Atlantic Ocean through a wide muddy tidal plain and sand bars. The vast majority of 175 megalithic sites occupy transitional, lowland terra firme savannas, between the terra firme tropical 176 forest and the flooded savannas under the influence of the ocean tides. In this transitional zone, 177 there are hills that never exceed 30m in altitude. 7 178 179 Those enclosures of varying diameters (3–36 m) numbers of megaliths (2-127 rocks), and layouts. They are always situated on the tops of the small hills, overlooking rivers and streams. 180 The layouts of the most megalithic enclosures are not perfectly circular, but irregular and 181 often oblong, as if built in stages, to enlarge their sizes. Inside the area delimited by those upright 182 megaliths we can find circular stone slabs covering 1-3 meters deep shafts containing funerary 183 urns. Stone pillars likely served not only to mark and delimit the funerary area, but also for commemorative 184 purposes as indicated by whole or ritually broken vessels at their base. 185 186 Spatial patterns. In order to explore settlement patterns, we classified sites according to a 187 simple formula that include the maximum diameter versus the total numbers of rocks used to build the 188 megalithic enclosures. The energetics of monumental construction (and critiques of approaches 189 towards it, such as Webster (37) is something that has been debated back and forth since at 190 least Renfrew's chapter in Models in Prehistory (38). However, we preferred to use a much 191 simpler formula, derived from our impressions from fieldwork: The fact that quantity of rocks 192 and size of structures seems to give the impression of “monumentality” for such megaliths. We 193 called it a “Monumentality Index” (MI), it provides a means to measure labor involved in 194 construction.. This information allow us to classify sites according to large (MI>1000), medium 195 (MI>200) and small megalithic enclosures (MI>9) (figure 2). After that we constructed a graphic 196 that shows the MI of all sites (figure 3). Most of them follow a normalized curve. Three sites are 197 outliers because of their size and number of rocks, and the presence of larger megalithic pillars 198 (some measuring more than 4 meter above contemporary soil). By the graphics below we can see 199 not only the MI of megalithic enclosures against the normalized curve, but also their distribution 200 in accord of size and number of rocks. 201 202 Fig. 2: Megalithic enclosures of different sizes and shapes surveyed in the area 8 203 204 Figure 3: Above, “Monumentality Index” of megalithic enclosures against the normalized 205 curve; below, distribution of megalithic structures in accord of maximum diameter and number 206 of rocks. 207 208 209 210 The surveying of the monuments shows not only different sizes and shapes but 211 emphasizes the regular spacing of the larger Megalithic Enclosures in the research area, with the 212 clustering of small and medium enclosures around them. This suggests that the larger monuments 213 (called here first-order megalithic enclosures) seems to have served as regional centers. Two of 214 those first-order megalithic enclosures in the site hierarchy were separated by only 18 km, while 215 another one is separated by 60 km from the other two. All those first-order megalithic enclosures 216 exhibit a significant gravitating clusters of small to medium-larger enclosures with a regularly- 217 spaced pattern (Figure 4). If we accept that the megalithic enclosures where used to population 218 gather to feasting allied to burials, we interpret the clusters of small to medium-larger megalithic 219 enclosures gravitating around the largest sites as reflecting independent groups nested within 220 peer-polity territories. Under such organization, larger and architecturally more elaborated 221 megalithic sites constitute ceremonial nodes exerting influence not only over surrounding smaller 222 to medium-larger megalithic enclosures, but also to neighboring, contemporaneous, village sites. 223 By radiocarbon dating performed on different megalithic enclosures along the area we can 224 confirm that they show contemporaneity between 1.100 to 300 cal. B.P. 225 226 Fig. 4: Map with the distribution of megalithic enclosures of different sizes (red dots), 227 Contemporaneous village sites (black dots), buffer zones around major megalithic enclosures and 9 228 modelled density of monumentality using Kring method for MI measurement. 229 230 Village sites are always modest in size, not measuring more than 1 Ha. This led to a low 231 archaeological visibility, and thus, to their under-representation in the archaeological data. 232 Surveys, however, allow us to say that they occupy all the environmental places in the area – sea 233 shore, mangroves, savannas, and upland forest. Open-area excavations carried out on three of 234 those village sites shows that they exhibit shallow archaeological deposits, few ceramic artifacts, 235 and simple archaeological features, such as post holes and clay-molded floors. This point to short 236 occupation sites, seasonally occupied in order to have a complementary economic/subsistence 237 activities, using more fertile soils of the upland forest, collection of palm tree fruits that have large 238 stands in the savannas (as Euterpe Oleracea and Mauritia flexuosa), and abundant fish and 239 crustacean at the mangroves and seashore. 240 241 Cultural contents and chronology of the sites. In order to examine the cultural contents, 242 stratigraphy and chronology of the sites, and to understand the difference in size, a pilot area was 243 selected for further study. In an area measuring 2x0.6 km of savannahs in close vicinity to igarapé 244 Rego Grande, there is a ceremonial complex involving five megalithic structures of different 245 sizes. Four of them have been subject to archaeological investigations, which has shown via the 246 differences in general composition of artefact deposition and size of megalithic structure to reflect, 247 a hierarchy of sites along the landscape (39). The smaller structure in the complex is formed by 2 248 concentrations of megalithic blocks deposited in a horizontal position. Excavations have shown 249 that the blocks covered small pits containing plain ceramic urns. 250 The two medium enclosures excavated, has shown that the horizontal deposited blocks 251 marked the presence of chambered tombs at their centre. Five investigated tombs in both medium 252 enclosures have shown the deposition of simpler funerary urns or the direct deposition of 10 253 disarticulated human bones in the chambers, one accompanied by 5 ceramic vessels, and one only 254 by a polished axe head as offering. We also evidenced the deposition of possibly votive vessels 255 around the only vertically lined megalithic structure at the sites. 256 The largest megalithic structure in the complex, is formed by a more intense palimpsest 257 of different types of depositions and reworking of features inside the enclosure than the previously 258 described (40) . The stratigraphy of events appears to be 1) pits dug of different sizes for funerary 259 deposition and closing them with horizontal stone blocks; 2) re-opening of pits and re-working of 260 material inside along with new depositions of other materials. Episodes of massive deposition of 261 broken ceramic vessels over the chambered pits, possible related to memorial feasting; and 262 different kinds of offerings of ceramic around the blocks. Through geophysical signatures 263 obtained, only 11 pits can be found present inside this megalithic enclosure, indicating the 264 restriction of funerary deposition to specific location. The types of depositions inside larger and 265 medium megalithic enclosures can be seem in Figure 5. 266 267 Fig. 5-Archaeological contexts founded during excavations in Rego Grande complex. 268 Above, left, stone pillars. Above, right, massive deposition of broken ceramics over the lid of a 269 burial pit. Below, left, burial pit with dozens of burials and ceramic offerings. Below, right, burial 270 pit in a small megalithic enclosure, with deposition of disarticulated bones of one individual. 271 272 The archaeological dating of different sites of this ceremonial complex indicates it´s 273 continuous use from 1,100 B.P. until 300 cal B.P., and excavations can affirm that the megalithic 274 circles have complexes life histories that endured for centuries. 275 Ceramics recovered from Rego Grande Complex exhibit a series of decorative styles, who’s 276 typical, anthropomorphic and polychromic. The large assemblages consisting of different decorative 277 styles/traditions (Figure 6), such as the Hertenritz, Barbakoeba, Thémire and Mazagão styles (41) 11 278 may indicate either trade or imitation of styles, or more complex social processes, such as 279 aggregation of more extensive groups gathering at specific moments for feastings at those 280 monuments, as documented in similar contexts worldwide (42, 43). 281 282 Fig. 6: Different decorative styles founded at the megalithic enclosures. First column, 283 typical Aristé style; first and third row, typical Hertenritz and Barbakoeba styles; Second row, 284 Themire style. Lower row, Mazagão style. 285 286 287 Discussion 288 The mouth of the Amazon seems to be inhabited since, at least, 7,000 years B.P.(39). 289 From the beginning of Christian era, the Aristé emerges as a dominant archaeological culture at 290 the area(44). From the point 291 archaeological culture (11), this ancient Amerindian socio-political-economical organization 292 where necessarily based on small and autonomous villages with simple technologies. of view of the archaeological research that defined this 293 In the general view of this “Standard Model” (45) of Amazonian Indians, such 294 instability and apparent simplicity of socio-political institutions were seen as responses to 295 deficiencies in the environment where tropical forest groups would have developed, basing 296 it´s economy in slash and burn, itinerant cultivation (46)). 297 Although recognizing the fact that the settlement data related to Aristé archaeological 298 culture perfectly fits what it could be called a typical “Tropical Forest Culture” (small hamlets, 299 with short-time occupation, and with no obvious site hierarquies), the data on other 300 archaeological evidence associated with the Aristé culture presented challenges to this view. Not 301 only precise territorial pattern between residential and ceremonial site has be found (44), but 302 also the data presented here on megalithic enclosures, that not only demanded a large 12 303 investment of labour, but also have complexes life histories that endured for centuries, and 304 demonstrate a very developed sense of cult of ancestors. 305 On the basis of this striking contrast between settlement and ceremonial/funerary 306 evidence, we can understand it through the “theater state” perspective, quite well applied by 307 Heckenberger ( 1 ) to understand the Xinguano people in southern Amazonia. In this case, the 308 emphasis on the sociability of indigenous people in the Mouth of the Amazon before the 309 European impact, as in Xingu case, were more r e l i e d on collective places which seems to 310 fulfill the role of an ideological mediator to the social structuring of groups, than on paramount 311 settlements, as in a euro-centered perspective on socio-political complexity. In a resource-rich 312 area as the mouth of the Amazon, the settlements can spread-out, getting the best from the 313 environment (47). So we can think the monuments as “anchors” in space, bounding together 314 social groups spread out in the landscape. 315 The present article proposes that we can potentially decouple evidence of 316 monumentality of Amazonian region and large-scale landscape engineering with sedentary 317 settlement and the development of socio-political hierarchies, enabling the recognition of 318 alternative social and economic orders. It goes in accord with numerous examples around the 319 world that are now liberating monumentality with assumed increase in food production (48), 320 and add new evidence to document the diversity of different social and economic 321 circumstances for monumentality and landscape modification by indigenous people. 322 In our case, from around 1,100 years BP, moment of the beginning of monument building, 323 we can see a real explosion of different hybrid ceramic styles, characterizing one of the most 324 diverse areas of the Amazon (49), where a previous homogeneity of the ceramics begins to 325 dissipate, due to the incorporation of new influences on material culture. We can see this new 326 artefactual style as more elaborate means of presenting identity. Hybrid ceramic complexes 327 are the most characteristic manifestations, such as the Aristé, Mazagão, Hertenritz, Themire 13 328 and Barbakoeba styles. 329 What may be at stake in the period is the development by indigenous people of a series 330 of intricate social networks and contexts, leading to the development of more diverse and 331 differentiated life histories. Once communities ceased to be constituted by shared experiences 332 and understandings of the world, personal identity would have to be sought no longer in larger 333 group affiliations, but rather through descent, with a great need for investment in realigning 334 the social identities of the groups through the connection with the ancestral world. Investment 335 in funerary monuments is thus a way of fixing the dead bodies of a particular group in the 336 past, turning it into a point of a recognizable line of descent. 337 In this way, a language that is at once common, at the same time individualized, begins 338 to emerge in the form of very elaborated anthropomorphic urns for burial purposes, where 339 regional differences could be used to demarcate regional power centers through the construction 340 and use of ceremonial monuments and their relations with the world of the ancestors (50). 341 The ritual monumentality definitively changes the character of the landscape: the 342 landesque capital(51) to be obtained in the investment of labour in the landscape would not 343 properly derived from the agroecological increment, but from a symbolic capital derived from 344 the connection of the groups with the ancestral domains. It is at this point that the social 345 constitution of the indigenous groups of the region begins to take place through the connection 346 of the individuals with the place of the ancestors. 347 In these monumental structures the dead no longer became the buried individual that 348 should be forgotten by the group, but turns into a s ocial body represented by the mass of 349 urns, ceramic fragments, bones, rocks and earth, which intersected in constructed spaces and 350 began to act as landscape transformation agents. The activities of visiting and revisiting these 351 monuments, sometimes over hundreds of years, reinforce their role in the construction and 352 maintenance of the social structures that organize these indigenous groups in the period just before 14 353 the impact caused by the European invasion. 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 1. Heckenberger M. The Ecology of Power: Culture, Places and Personhood in the Southern Amazon, AD 1000-2000. Londres: Routledge; 2004. 432 p. 2. Heckenberger M, Neves EG. Amazonian Archaeology. Ann Rev Anthropol. 2009;38:251-66. 3. Schaan DP. Sacred Geographies of Ancient Amazonia: Historical Ecology of Social Complexity. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2012. 233 p. 4. Saunaluoma S, Schaan D. Monumentality in Western Amazonian Formativa Societies: geometric ditched enclosure in the brazilian state of Acre. Antiqua. 2012;2(1). 5. Erickson CL, Streets S, editors. OCCUPATION MOUNDS (LOMAS) IN THE LLANOS DE MOXOS2000. 6. Heckenberger M. Biocultural Diversity in the Southern Amazon. Diversity. 2009;2:1-16. 7. Meggers BJ. Amazônia: a ilusão de um paraíso. São Paulo: Editora Itatiaia Ltda / Editora da Universidade de São Paulo; 1987. 239 p. 8. Goeldi E. Excavações Archeologicas em 1895. 1ª parte: As Cavernas funerarias atificiaes dos indios hoje extinctos no rio Cunany (Goanany) e sua ceramica. Memórias do Museu Goeldi. 1905:1-45+estampas. 9. Denevan WM. “Pre-Spanish Earthworks in the Llanos de Mojos of Northeastern Bolivia”. Revista Geográfica. 1964;33(60):17-25. 10. Barreto CNGdB. Social complexity and inequality in ancient Amerindian societies: perspectives from the Brazilian Lowlands. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2005. Report No.: Working Paper Number CBS-63-05. 11. Meggers BJ, Evans C. Archaeological investigations at the mouth of the Amazon. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology. 1957;167:1-664. 12. Roosevelt AC. Moundbuilders of the Amazon: Geophysical Archaeology on the Marajo Island, Brazil. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.; 1991. 13. Schaan D. The Camutins Chiefdom: Rise and Development of Social Complexity on Marajó Island, Brazilian Amazon. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg; 2004. 14. Grenand F, Grenand P. La côte d'Amapá, de la bouche de l'Amazone à la baie d'Oyapock, a travers la tradition orale Palikur. Boletim do MPEG. 1987;3(1). 15. Passes A. The Gathering of the Calns: The Making of the Palikur Naoné. Etnohistory. 2004;51(2 (Spring)):257-91. 16. Rostain S. Between Orinoco and Amazon: The Ceramic Age in the Guianas. In: Whitehead NL, Alemán SW, editors. Anthropologies of Guayana: Cultural Spaces in Northeastern Amazonia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2009. p. 36-54. 17. Green L. Knowing the day, knowing the world: engaging Amerindian thought in public archaeology. Recording and translations by David R. Green ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2013. 308 p. 18. Nimuendajú C. In Pursuit of a Past Amazon - Archaeological Researches in the Brazilian Guyana and in the Amazon Region. In: Stenborg P, editor. In Pursuit of a Past Amazon Archaeological Researches in the Brazilian Guyana and in the Amazon Region by Curt 15 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 Nimuendajú: A posthumous work compiled and translated by Stig Rydén and Per Stenborg. 45. Goteborg: Ethnological Studies; 2004. p. i-380. 19. Bellentani F, Panico M. The meanings of monuments and memorials: toward a semiotic approach. Punctum International journal of semiotics. 2016;2:28-46. 20. Brysbaert A. Constructing monuments, perceiving monumentality: introduction. 2018. p. 21-47. 21. Hildebrand EA. Is monumentality in the eye of the beholder? Lessons from constructed spaces in Africa. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa. 2013;48(2):155-72. 22. Maezumi SY, Alves D, Robinson M, de Souza JG, Levis C, Barnett RL, et al. The legacy of 4,500 years of polyculture agroforestry in the eastern Amazon. Nature Plants. 2018;4(8):5407. 23. D. Trubitt MB. MOUND BUILDING AND PRESTIGE GOODS EXCHANGE: CHANGING STRATEGIES IN THE CAHOKIA CHIEFDOM. American Antiquity. 2000;65:669. 24. Silveira OFM. A planície costeira do Amapá: dinâmica de ambiente costeiro influenciado por grandes fontes fluviais quaternárias. Belém: UFPA; 1998. 25. Santos VF. Ambientes Costeiros Amazônicos: Avaliação de modificações por sensoriamento remoto [PhD.]. Niterói: UFF/IGEO; 2006. 26. Pardi ML, Silveira OFM, editors. Amapá: Gestão do Patrimônio Arqueológico e o Programa Estadual de Preservação. XIII Congresso da SAB: arqueologia, patrimônio e turismo; 2005; Campo Grande, MS: Ed. Oeste. 27. Saldanha JDM, Cabral MP. A Arqueologia do Amapá: reavaliação e novas perspectivas. In: Pereira EdS, Guapindaia V, editors. Arqueologia da Amazônia. Belém: MPEG; no prelo. 28. Guapindaia V. Encountering the Ancestors. The Maraca Urns. In: McEwan C, Barreto C, Neves EG, editors. Unknown Amazon. London: British Museum Press; 2001. p. 156-75. 29. Green LF, Green DR, Neves EG. Indigenous Knowledge and Archaeological Science: The Challenges of Public Archaeology in the Reserva Uaça. Journal of Social Archaeology. 2003;3(3):365-97. 30. Tilley C. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford/ Providence: Berg Publishers; 1994. 221 p. 31. Knapp AB, W. A, editors. Archaeologies of landscape: contemporary perspectives. Massachusetts/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.; 1999. 32. Ingold T. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge; 2000. 488 p. 33. Levis C, Costa F, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, Clement C, Junqueira A, et al. Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science. 2017;355:925-31. 34. Boyd MJ, Campbell R, Doonan RCP, Douglas C, Gavalas G, Gkouma M, et al. Open Area, Open Data: Advances in Reflexive Archaeological Practice. Journal of Field Archaeology. 2021;46(2):62-80. 35. Linné S. Les recherches archéologiques de Nimuendajú au Brésil. Journal de la Société des Américanistes. 1928;Tome XX:71-89. 36. Neves EG. Introduction: The Relevance of Curt Nimuendajú's Archaeological Work. In: Stenborg P, editor. In Pursuit of a Past Amazon - Archaeological Researches in the Brazilian Guyana and in the Amazon Region by Curt Nimuendajú: A posthumous work compiled and translated by Stig Rydén and Per Stenborg. 45. Goteborg: Ethnological Studies; 2004. 37. Webster GS. Monuments, mobilization and Nuragic organization. Antiquity. 2015;65 (249):840-56. 38. Renfrew C. Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, editor. London1973. 803 p. 16 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 39. Saldanha JDdM. Poços, Potes e Megalitos: Uma longa história indígena no litoral da Guayana. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo; 2017. 40. Cabral MP, Saldanha JDM. Note sur des strucures mégalithiques en Guyane Brésilienne, Amapá. Journal de la Société des Américanistes. 2009;95(1):97-110. 41. Rostain S. The Archaeology of the Guianas: An Overview. In: Silverman H, Isbell WH, editors. Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York: Springer; 2008. 42. Adrià F. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 Feasting Rituals in the Prehistoric Societies of Europe and the Near East. Jiménez GA, MontónSubías S, Romero MS, editors: Oxbow Books; 2011. 43. Parker Pearson M. Stonehenge for the Ancestors : Synthesis. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2021. 44. Rostain S. Que Hay de Nuevo Al Norte: Apuntes Sobre El Aristé. Revista de Arqueologia. 2011;24(1):10-8. 45. Viveiros de Castro E. Perspectivismo e multinaturalismo na América indígena. In: Viveiros de Castro E, editor. A inconstância da alma selvagem - e outros ensaios de antropologia. São Paulo: Cosac & Naify; 2002. p. 347-99. 46. Sterward JH. Culture areas of the Tropical Forests. In: Steward J, editor. Handbook of South American Indians, Bulletin 143. 3. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology; 1948. p. 883-99. 47. Neves EG. Não Existe Neolítico ao Sul do Equador: as primeiras cerâmicas amazônicas e sua falta de relação com a agricultura. In: Barreto C, Lima HP, Betancourt CJ, editors. Cerâmicas Arqueológicas da Amazônia Rumo à uma Nova Síntese. Belém: IPHAN 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi; 2016. 48. Fausto C, Neves EG. Was there ever a Neolithic in the Neotropics? Plant familiarisation and biodiversity in the Amazon. Antiquity. 2018;92(366):1604-18. 49. Neves EG. Arqueologia da Amazônia. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor; 2006. 50. Barreto C, Nascimento HF, Pereira EdS. Lugares Persistentes e Identidades Distribuídas no Baixo Amazonas: Complexos Cerâmicos Pré-coloniais em Monte Alegre - PA. Revista de Arqueologia. 2016;29(1). 51. Hakansson NT, Widgren M, editors. Landesque Capital: The Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Formatted: Space After: 6 pt, Line spacing: Double 481 17 Figure 1 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 1.tif Figure 2 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 2.tif Figure 3 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 3.tif Figure 4 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 4.tif Figure 5 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 5.tif Figure 6 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 6.tif