kumako: a place of convergence for maroons and...

Res

earc

h

Kumako: a place of convergencefor Maroons and Amerindiansin Suriname, SACheryl White∗

The author is exploring the site of Kumako inSuriname, a destination for Maroons escapingfrom plantations in coastal Suriname betweenthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Shefinds evidence for a structured settlement,distinctive pottery and local ritual practices,raising new questions about the degreeof interaction and acculturation betweenMaroons and indigenous people.

Keywords: Suriname, Amazon, Suriname River, historic period, Amerindian, Maroons,radiocarbon dating of ceramics

IntroductionThe Dutch occupied Suriname in the mid 1600s after failed attempts by the French andEnglish. In a span of 20 years Suriname had changed hands from the French to the Spanishand Portuguese, who were quickly driven away by indigenous peoples, and by 1634 to theEnglish who sought to establish settlements in Suriname. However, each of these instancesof attempted habitation was short lived and precipitated years of repetitive power strugglesleading toward colonisation (Goslinga 1971, 1979).

Suriname soon developed a Maroon population, that is people of African descent whohad escaped from enslavement, and an important destination was Kumako (Figure 1). It ispossible that ad hoc transient groups defined as petit-maroonage (small-scale opportunisticflight from plantations) may have been the first to establish a Maroon presence at Kumako.∗ Historical Archaeologist and Anthropological Consultant, USA (Email: [email protected])

Received: 14 May 2008; Revised: 24 September 2009; Accepted: 20 October 2009

ANTIQUITY 84 (2010): 467–479 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/84/ant840467.htm

467

Kumako: a place of convergence for Maroons and Amerindians in Suriname, SA

Figure 1. Suriname, showing the location of Kumako.

468

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

This initial population may have been followed later by a population surge catalysedby gran-maroonage (the flight of large groups of slaves from plantations), which wasdocumented to have occurred by 1680. The Kumako settlement was pivotal to earlyMaroons because it provided immediate refuge for large communities of runaway slaves andthe context for a uniquely New World cultural transformation to take place. The settlementbecame culturally defined in the early 1700s with numerous Maroon clans creatingalliances.

Dutch planters had heard of Kumako’s existence by 1713, but still did not know ofits whereabouts. By the 1730s Kumako was reported to be a thriving village, boasting asupportive hinterland peopled by matrilinear groups living along forest tributaries of theSuriname River. Kumako was infiltrated and burned by the Dutch in the early 1740s.After the peace accord of the 1760s, the settlement was abandoned for the river-basedcommunities we still see today.

Maroons and the indigenous peoples of Suriname must have co-existed in relativeproximity, which raises the issue of how far they inter-married or learnt technology fromeach other. While we do not want to read the ethnography back into deep time, it isnonetheless informative to observe that little cohabitation and few mixed marriages occurtoday in areas where Maroon and indigenous villages border each other, as is the case inthe Tapanahoni Valley region (Ndjuka Maroons and Wayana Amerindians) and the LawaValley (Boni Maroons and Wayana Amerindian).

The principal methods of study have so far been anthropological, most notably,archival and oral historical documentations, which are commonly used to identify uniqueattributes of contemporary and past Maroon culture (Fermin 1781; Price 1975, 1983,1996; Price & Price 1980, 1988, 1991, 1992; Bilby 1996; Hart 2002). The existingbodies of historical documentation offer some context for a discussion about the causesand consequences of the social structure of African-diaspora peoples, but they do notaddress cultural exchanges between indigenous peoples and early Maroon communities.Even though archival and oral historical documentations are substantive in their accountsof cultural development, they provide limited evidence about population shifts, theidentification of population groups and the diffusion of material culture. History givesus clues but it does not track movements in space and time, and it does not report theinteractions that incoming groups may have had with indigenous people in a country uponarrival.

Maroon sites are often studied for their historical relevance to African diaspora discourseson resistance, rebellion and retention (Brana-Shute 1990; Agorsah 1993, 2001; Allen1999; Price & Price 2003; Haviser & MacDonald 2006; Ngwenyama 2007; Ogundiran& Falola 2007). To assess the validity of possible historical and prehistoric occupationof a location, archaeometric analysis can provide complementary datasets to betterunderstand and assess cultural transformation expressed in settlement patterns and lifewaychoices (Stahl 1995). Using the Maroons, communities of escaped slave descendants asa case study, the following article discusses archaeological evidence in conjunction withradiocarbon dating to illustrate the possible relationship that seventeenth and eighteenthcentury Maroons had with their indigenous counterparts in the Amazonian hinterlands ofSuriname.

469


Figure 2. Overview of the surface survey of the Kumako site.

470

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

Investigations at KumakoKumako was rediscovered in 1997 and excavated from 1999 to 2004 by the MaroonHeritage Research Project (MHRP). The MHRP – directed by Dr Kofi Agorsah (1997)and co-directed by the author – is a circum-Caribbean research endeavour that seeks tounderstand the advent of Maroon culture in the New World. To quote Agorsah (2006:190), ‘the MHRP uses oral, ethnographic, and historical documents to guide its archaeologicalsurveys and test excavations in order to reconstruct the pattern of settlement development in theareas inhabited by the Maroons’. In the years leading to the defining 2004 excavation, wetried to corroborate oral historical accounts with the ethnographic work of Richard Price(1975, 1983). Using historical documentation and oral historical accounts as a guide duringsurveys, Kumako was identified due to its lack of dense old growth trees compared to thesurrounding forest.

The settlement was surveyed and defined as two main activity regions: Kumako 1 andKumako 2 (hereafter referred to as KMK1 and KMK2) (Figure 2). New archaeologicalevidence was derived from excavations carried out in 2 × 2m squares (see Figures 3 & 4)(see Ngwenyama 2007 for full contextual reading; see White 2009 for abridged discussionof archaeological excavation). The area of KMK1 produced a high yield of ceramic andnon-ceramic artefacts, such as lithics of groundstone, projectile point fragments and bifacialflakes. In addition, metal objects, including nails and musket balls, and organic remainsconsisting of cowry shells and charcoal were identified (Figure 5; Agorsah 2006). All werefound at a shallow depth of no more than 0.5m below the surface. The assemblage of artefactsat KMK1 is believed to represent an area of domestic food procurement and processing.

KMK2, by contrast, features a large circular mound approximately 300m across. It wasinitially recognised from its slopes and surrounding ditch and mapped by GPS (White2009: 74). The mound is encircled by the high forest canopy and its centre is devoid ofold growth. Excavations on the mound produced a higher frequency of morphologicallydistinct ceramics: bases, handles and curved body parts. Located at the north-eastern edgeof the mound was a dark circular depression about 3m across that descended approximately2m below the surface. Excavations here produced sherds identified by the Saramaka asbelonging to ahgbang ceramic vessels used during ritual baths. In particular, the local crewidentified the large pot rims as remnants of an ahgbang and/or bungu, large earthenwarebowls or pots used to boil and/or mix skillfully selected medicinal plants and other powerfulherbs for special ritual purposes (White 2009: 78). The crew also described the dark circulardepression as an example of the ritual baths used by elders (White 2009: 76, 78).

Dating the site

Radiocarbon (14C) dating is a technique widely used by archaeologists of the circum-Caribbean (Fitzpatrick et al. 2004; Hofman et al. 2008; Reid 2008), but not commonlyapplied to historical Maroon archaeological sites. Adequately contexted material is in shortsupply, and the measures of recent date can be quite equivocal. Four samples were takenand measured from the excavations at Kumako (Table 1). The earliest dates were fromburnt organic matter reduced to charcoal found at 0.5-0.7m down in the depression on

471


Table 1. Comparison chart of radiocarbon dates (determined by Beta Analytic Radiocarbon DatingLaboratory in Miami (FL) USA). Dates pertinent to the discussion are highlighted.

Sample 1 sigma calibration 2 sigma calibration Conventionalprovenance 68% probability 95% probability 13C/12C ratio radiocarbon age

Cal AD Cal BP Cal AD Cal BPSample 1 Charred

KMK2 Moundperiphery UnitI24, 0.5–0.6mbs

230 1720 80–390 1870–1560 −28.3 ‰: lab.mult=1

1800 +− 60 BP

130–260 1820–1690290–320 1660–1630

Sample 2 CharredKMK2 Moundperiphery UnitI24, 1×1 NWcorner ∼ 0.7mbs

420 1530 260–560 1690–1390 −25.8 ‰: labmult=1

1630 +− 60 BP

380–460 1570–1480480–520 1470–1430

Sample 3PotsherdsOrganicKMK1, UnitP6,∼ 0.1–0.2m bs

1650 300 1490–1680 460–270 −25.4 ‰: labmult=1

270 +− 50 BP

1530– 1560 420–390 1770–1800 180–1501630–1660 320–290 1940–1950 10–0

Sample 4PotsherdsOrganicKMK2 Moundperiphery UnitH22, ∼ 0.7mbs

1440– 1480 510–470 1420–1520 530–430 −24.9 o/oo:lab mult=1

420 +− 40 BP

1590–1620 360–330

the periphery of the mound in KMK2 (samples 1 and 2, unit I24). The results (in the firstmillennium AD) point to the incorporation of residual material from a prehistoric, possiblynon-cultural event, such as a forest fire.

Potsherds, offering a better chance of a contemporaneous date were examined fromKMK1 (0.1-0.2m down, sample 3, Unit P6) and KMK2 (0.7m down, sample 4, UnitH22). Sample 3 gave possible dates from the fifteenth to twentieth centuries, and sample 4offered better precision, the early fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. The potterysampled was typical of many of the distinctive slipped and burnished sherds found at KMK2,

472

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

Figure 3. Excavations in the zone KMK1, showing position of quadrats and their depths.

Figure 4. Excavations in zone KMK2, showing positions of quadrats and their depths, and the dark depression.

473


and attributed to Maroon culture (Figure 6). In the recent period, the calibration curve offersa number of statistically possible dates, but the pottery dates from Kumako belong to thehistoric period and most probably to the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries (Figures 7 & 8).

DiscussionAs the archaeological evidence demonstrates, the Maroon settlement of Kumako had astructured settlement layout, suggestive of areas for domestic activity (KMK1) and ritualpractices (KMK2). Both areas were associated with ceramics, confirmed by radiocarbondating to belong to the historic period, while other, less certain dates from KMK2 suggesta possible pre-Maroon occupation. It is from KMK2 also that indigenous aspects of thesettlement may be seen in the mound and the vessels used for ritual baths.

The historical records concerning Kumako make no mention of a circular mound, whichis otherwise a widespread feature of the Amazon Basin. According to Heckenberger’s (2005:145) archaeological research among the Arawak-speaking Kuikuru people of northern Brazil,researchers must consider that:

‘Ditches and/or palisades, mounds, and other major public works have a restrictedgeographical distribution, forming an arc extending along the peripheries of the forestedAmazonian lowlands’.

These types of monument are the attributes of people that he referred to as:

‘typical Amazonian forest farmers, in that they opened up large, contiguous tracts ofagricultural land, denuded of original forest and which were cultivated in long termrotational cycles that include manioc gardens, planted in a new place every few years’(Heckenberger 2005: 195).

This general description also parallels the working definition of prehistoric lifeways in theGuianas. Archaeological sites in Suriname characterised by mounds are commonly associatedwith pre-Columbian settlements. However, such earthworks are normally associated withsettlements located in coastal waterways, which incorporate shell middens and aquaticdebris. The Kumako mound lacks these attributes, certainly attesting to key differences withthe people of the coastal waterways.

Similarly, ahgbang usage may be a direct reflection of the historical exchanges Maroonshad with indigenous peoples during their formative period. Ahgbangs are common in villagestoday, and each household boasts at least one. They are used solely for regular ritual washingto appease ancestral spirits during adverse circumstances on the familial and/or village level.According to the historical records (King 1996; Bos 1998), ritual baths were a behaviouraltrait learned from indigenous groups. Ritual baths by warring Maroons took place priorto battles with Dutch planters during their expeditions to locate and destroy Maroonstrongholds and reclaim escaped slaves.

There is some indication, therefore, of a Maroon/indigenous interaction at Kumako.Elsewhere, such interaction has been studied by means of richer artefact assemblages.Agorsah’s (1994, 1995, 2001, 2006, 2007) groundbreaking archaeological work at NannyTown in Jamaica exposed a European stock of Spanish coins, Belarmine jars, musket balls,

474

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

Figure 5. Cowry shell (left) and musket balls (right) recovered from KMK1. Measurements in cm. Photograph by SajiedaJoemratie 2009.

Figure 6. Rim sherds from KMK2 with red slip. Photograph by Sajieda Joemratie 2009.

pipe stems and door hinges. Also discovered at the site were local earthenware and terracottafigurines believed to be indigenous in origin. Agorsah (2007) has presented these findings asan indication of multi-occupation. With a similar approach to site dating, the archaeologicalstudy of the nineteenth-century Black Seminole Maroon town of Pilaklikaha in centralFlorida presented a preponderance of indigenous and European artefacts (Weik 2002).According to Weik (2007: 327), Pilaklikaha’s artefact assemblage is comparable to colonialperiod settlements throughout the region. In addition, much of the colonial-made pottery issuggestive of storage vessels, bowls, cups and plates (Weik 2007). Weik (2007: 328) furtherstated that most of the ceramic fragments at the site are a Seminole and Creek Indian type

475


Figure 7. Sample 3 radiocarbon date for potsherd with attached organics.

Figure 8. Sample 4 radiocarbon date.

referred to as ‘Withlacoochee Brushed’. This type of ‘brushed’ pottery is strongly indicativeof Native American construction, but it is plausible that the Black Seminole Maroonsmay have reinterpreted vessel use. Similar findings at the seventeenth-century Maroon siteof Palmares in Brazil attest to an overwhelming presence of known prehistoric ceramictechnologies (Allen 2000, 2001; Funari 2006, 2007). Current analysis of archaeological

476

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

evidence (Ngwenyama 2007; White 2009) from Maroon sites in Suriname has yet to revealtypes and temporal markers similar to Nanny Town, Pilaklikaha and Palmares.

With the onset of gran-maroonage, indigenous people, too, were placed in a precarioussituation that affected their sedentary agrarian lifestyle (Koelewijn & Riviere 1987). Afterthe Amerindian peace was established with the Dutch in the late 1600s, many groups mayhave migrated farther inland to distance themselves from the Europeans and the Maroonswho were encroaching on their territory. Historical and ethnographic documents indicatethat the Trio and Wayana Indians populated much of the Sipaliwini Savannah, extendingfrom central to south Suriname prior to and at the time of contact (Stewart 1963; Versteeg1998, 2003). Amerindians did maintain, however, open trade with both groups, and theyreportedly engaged in active trade with the Matawai and Saramaka Maroons for exoticEuropean items. It is reasonable to surmise that Maroon relations with indigenous peoplesmay have been more intense than imagined by historians and archaeologists. As Africanswere escaping plantations to find refuge in the forests, so, too, were indigenous peoplesforced to avoid the harsh colonial world – thrusting both groups into a parallel quest forrefuge.

ConclusionThis interpretation of the archaeological evidence, archaeometric data, archival records andethnohistorical accounts illustrates a relationship between Maroons and Amerindians that isinsufficiently discussed in African diaspora archaeological discourse. The interpretationoffered in this discussion differs from regional examples of archaeological evidence –notably in Jamaica, Brazil and the south-eastern US, because it offers an articulation ofa relationship based on ritual exchange, not transient historical associations. In additionthe archaeometric analysis provided in this article offers much needed empirical data onAmerindian chronology in the Neotropical lowlands of the Guiana region of South America;and by doing so will contribute to the knowledge of macro-regional pre-and-post contactsettlement patterns and behaviours.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the staff of the Suriname National Museum for their collegiality and support forMaroon archaeology. And most importantly the Saramaka tribe of Suriname for recognising the importance ofarchaeological research, not just to their history, but the history of the indigenous peoples of Suriname. I wouldalso like to acknowledge and thank Rafael Rodriguez for formatting all graphics found in this article.

ReferencesAGORSAH, E.K. 1993. Archaeology and resistance

history in the Caribbean. The African ArchaeologicalReview 11: 175-96.

– (ed.) 1994. Maroon heritage: archaeologicalethnographic and historical perspectives. Kingston:Canoe Press.

– 1995. Archaeology and the Maroon heritage inJamaica. Jamaica Journal 24(2): 1-9.

– 1997. Locational and spatial transformation patterns ofMaroon settlements in Suriname: a preliminary report(Technical Report: Maroon Heritage ResearchProject). Portland (OR): National GeographicSociety and Suriname National Museum.

– (ed.) 2001. Freedom in black history and culture.Middletown (CA): Arrow Point Press.

477


– 2006. The other side of freedom: the Maroon trail inSuriname, in J. Haviser & K. MacDonald (ed.)African re-genesis: confronting social issues in thediaspora (One World Archaeology 23): 191-203.Abingdon: UCL Press.

– 2007. Scars of brutality: archaeology of the Maroonsin the Caribbean, in A. Ogundiran & T. Falola(ed.) Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the Africandiaspora: 332-54. Bloomington (IN): IndianaUniversity Press.

ALLEN, S. 1999. Africanism, mosaics and creativity: thehistorical archaeology of Palamares, in P.P.A. Funari(ed.) Cultura material e arqueologia historica:141-78. Campinas: IFCH/UNICAMP.

– 2000. The ethnogenesis of the Palmarino: preliminarydirections in the historical archaeology of aseventeenth-century Brazilian Quilombo. Revista deHistoria da Arte e Arqueologia 3: 39-52.

– 2001. ‘Zumbi Nunca Vai Morrer’ : history, the practiceof archaeology, and race politics in Brazil.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Brown University.

BILBY, K. 1996. Ethnogenesis in the Guianas andJamaica: two Maroon cases, in J.D. Hill (ed.)History, power and identity: ethnogenesis in theAmericas, 1492 − 92: 119-41. Iowa City (IA):University of Iowa Press.

BOS, G. 1998. Some recoveries in Guiana Indianethnohistory. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

BRANA-SHUTE, G. (ed.) 1990. Resistance and rebellionin Suriname: old and new (Studies in Third WorldSocieties 43). Williamsburg (VA): College ofWilliam and Mary.

FERMIN, P. 1781. Historical and political view of thepresent and ancient state of the colony of Surinamein South America; with the settlements ofDemerary and Issequibo; together with an accountof its produce for 25 years past. London: W. Nicoll.

FITZPATRICK, S.M. with Q. KAYE & M. KAPPERS. 2004.A radiocarbon sequence for the Sabazan site,Carriacou, West Indies. Journal of CaribbeanArchaeology 5: 1-11.

FUNARI, P. 2006. An archaeological study of the Africandiaspora in Brazil: some ethnic issues, in J. Haviser& K. MacDonald (ed.) African re-genesis:confronting social issues in the diaspora (One WorldArchaeology 23): 84-190. Abingdon: UCL Press.

– 2007. The archaeological study of the Africandiaspora in Brazil, in A. Ogundiran & T. Falola(ed.) Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the Africandiaspora: 355-71. Bloomington (IN): IndianaUniversity Press.

GOSLINGA, C. 1971. The Dutch in the Caribbean and onthe Wild Coast 1580-1680. Gainesville (FL):University of Florida Press.

– 1979. A short history of the Netherlands Antilles andSurinam. London: Martinus Nijhoff.

GOSLINGA, C. with M.J.L. VAN YPEREN (ed.) 1985. TheDutch in the Caribbean and in the Guianas. Assen:Van Gorcum.

HART, R. 2002. Slaves who abolished slavery: blacks inrebellion. First published 1985. Mona: University ofWest Indies Press.

HAVISER, J.B. & K. MACDONALD (ed.) 2006. Africanre-genesis: confronting social issues in the diaspora(One World Archaeology 23). Abingdon: UCLPress.

HECKENBERGER, M. 2005. The ecology of power: culture,place, and personhood in the southern Amazon, AD1000-2000. New York: Routledge.

HOFMAN, C.L. with M. HOOGLAND & A.L. VAN GIJN.2008. Crossing the borders: new methods andtechniques in the study of archaeological materialsfrom the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa (AL): TheUniversity of Alabama Press.

KING, J. 1996. Guerilla warfare: a bush negroe view, inR. Price (ed.) Maroon societies: rebel slavecommunities in the Americas. Third edition:298-304. Baltimore (MD): The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

KOELEWIJN, C. & P. RIVIERE. 1987. Oral literature of theTrio Indians of Suriname (Koninklijk Instituut voorTaal-, Land-en Volkenkunde, Caribbean Series 6).Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

NGWENYAMA, C.N. 2007. Material beginnings ofSaramaka Maroons: an archaeological investigation.Unpublished PhD dissertation, University ofFlorida.

OGUNDIRAN, A. & T. FALOLA (ed.) 2007. Archaeology ofAtlantic Africa and the African diaspora.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

PRICE, R. 1975. Saramaka social structure: an analysis ofa Maroon society in Surinam (CaribbeanMonograph Series 12). Rı́o Piedras: University ofPuerto Rico, Institute of Caribbean Studies.

– (ed.) 1983. First-time: the historical vision of anAfro-American people (Johns Hopkins Studies inAtlantic History and Culture). Baltimore (MD):The Johns Hopkins University Press.

– (ed.) 1996. Maroon societies: rebel slave communitiesin the Americas. Third edition. Baltimore (MD):The Johns Hopkins University Press.

PRICE, R. & S. PRICE. 1980. Afro-American arts of theSuriname rainforest. Berkeley (CA): University ofCalifornia Press.

– 1988. John Gabriel Stedman: narrative of a five yearsexpedition against the revolted negroes of Surinam.Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

– 1991. Two evenings in Saramaka. Chicago (IL): TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

478

Res

earc

h

Cheryl White

– 1992. Stedman’s Surinam: life in an eighteenth-centuryslave society. Baltimore (MD): The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

– 2003. The roots of roots: or how Afro-Americananthropology got its start. Chicago (IL): PricklyParadigm Press.

REID, B. (ed.) 2008. Archaeology and geoinformatics: casestudies from the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa (AL): TheUniversity of Alabama Press.

STAHL, P. (ed.) 1995. Archaeology in the lowlandAmerican tropics: current analytical methods andrecent applications. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

STEWART, J. (ed.) 1963. Handbook of South AmericanIndians. Volume 3: the tropical forest tribes(Smithsonian Institution Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin 143). New York: CooperSquare Publishers.

VERSTEEG, A. 1998. The history of prehistoricarchaeological research in Suriname, in Th.E.Wong, D.R de Vletter, L. Krook, J.I.S. Zonneveld& A.J. van Loon (ed.) The history of earth sciences inSuriname: 203-34. Utrecht: Kon. Ned. AcademieWetenschappen and Nederlands Instituut voorToegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO.

– 2003. Suriname before Columbus. Paramaribo:Stichting Surinaams Museum.

WEIK, T. 2002. A historical archaeology of blackSeminole Maroons in Florida: ethnogenesis andculture contact at Pilaklikaha. Unpublished PhDdissertation, University of Florida.

– 2007. Allies, adversaries, and kin in the AfricanSeminole communities of Florida: archaeology atPilaklikaha, in A. Ogundiran & T. Falola (ed.)Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the Africandiaspora: 311-31. Bloomington (IN): IndianaUniversity Press.

WHITE, C. 2009. Archaeological investigation ofSuriname Maroon ancestral communities.Caribbean Quarterly 55 (1): 65-88.

479

kumako: a place of convergence for maroons and...

Documents