myers - spanish contacts and social change on the ucayali river peru 1974

8/14/2019 MYERS - Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River Peru 1974

1/24

The American Society for Ethnohistory

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River, PeruAuthor(s): Thomas P. MyersReviewed work(s):Source: Ethnohistory, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), pp. 135-157Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/480948.

Accessed: 04/07/2012 18:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Pressand The American Society for Ethnohistoryare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toEthnohistory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/480948?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/480948?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/24

SPANISH CONTACTS AND SOCIAL CHANGEON THE UCAYALI RIVER, PERU1by

ThomasP. MyersUniversityof NebraskaState Museum

ABSTRACTArchaeological evidence from the Ucayali River suggests that largecommunities, probably with a complex social organization, were character-istic throughout the prehistoric period. In contrast, Steward and M6trauxsuggest that large communities were the unstable product of the missionaryperiod. Re-examination of the ethnohistoric sources indicates that large,stable communities were in fact characteristic of the mainstream Ucayalitribes at the beginning of the historic period but that they collapsed withthe precipitous population declines caused by Spanish diseases. Tribes onthe major tributaries probably had smaller communities; but only thetribes most remote from the mainstream were characterized by the kind ofone house communities which Steward and M6traux believed to becharacteristic of the Peruvian montana as a whole.

Archaeologicalresearch carried out by Donald W. Lathrapand hisassociateson the UcayaliRiverand its tributarieshasmadeit possibleto tracethe cultural record some 4000 years into the past. Within the later partsofprehistory we believe that it is possible to recognize the arrival anddevelopment of the cultural groups which occupied the area during theHistoric Period: the Cocama and the Shipibo/Conibo, or more generallyspeaking, he Panoantribes(Lathrap1962, 1970; Myers1970; Roe 1973).Our evidence indicates that Panoan speakers arrivedon the Ucayaliabout A.D. 300 when ceramicsof the PacacochaTradition first make theirappearance n the archaeologicalrecord. Througha seriesof changesin therules of ceramic manufacture,by A.D. 800 the pottery of the PacacochaTraditioncame to be characterizedby a complex series of vessel forms andpolychrome painted decorationwhich was outlined by incised lines. At leastin part, these changes can be attributedto influences from the PolychromeTradition which was spreading up the Amazon and its major tributaries(Lathrap1970; Myers1970; Roe 1973).

135ETHNOHISTORY 21/2 (Spring 1974)


3/24

136 THOMAS P. MYERSThe Polychrome Tradition appears on the Ucayali by A.D. 1320,

marking he arrivalof the Cocamaon the Ucayalisouth of the PachiteaRiver(Lathrap1970). However,by the early historic period Cocamaterritoryhadcontractedto the lowerthird of the Ucayali(Myers 1968), a sharpreversalofthe expansionary tendencies which had characterizedthe Miracanguerasub-traditionof the PolychromeTradition since before A.D. 1000 (Lathrap1970).Our evidence indicates that large sites, apparently occupied for aconsiderableperiodof time, were characteristichroughoutthe archaeologicalrecord (Myers 1973), a settlement pattern which did not fit the compositepicturepresentedby JulianStewardand Alfred Metraux n the HandbookofSouth American Indians (1948). As a result of this lack of fit betweenarchaeologicalevidence and Steward and Metraux'ssummary,a reexamina-tion of the ethnohistoric record s in order.The TraditionalViewof UcayaliEthnohistoryAlmost all of the informationon the ethnohistoryof the riverine ribeswas also available o Steward and Metrauxwhen they prepared he relevantchapters for the Handbook of South American Indians (Metraux 1948;Steward and M6traux 1948). Nevertheless, their discussions appear to beaffected by two unstated biases which color almost everythingthey say.These biases are reflected most clearly in their general discussionsaboutmontanaethnography.First, they treatmontanaethnographyas anhistoricalcomposite. That is, they lump all of the available nformation as if it camefrom a single time frame. When there is a conflict between two sources ofdifferent date, they select the later one (usually written by a nineteenthcentury European traveler) as the more reliable, rather than searchingformechanismswhich would account for the differences between accounts ofdifferent date. This is not to say that Steward and Metraux were notthoroughly familiarwith the historical sources. Their discussion of Conibohistory, for example, is still impressivealthoughsome improvementscan bemade. Second, they assume the cultural unity of a languagefamily. Thus,they speak of the Panoanvillage and the Panoansociopoliticalunit as ifthere were not significant differencesamong the various tribes of Panoanspeech. In both regardsthey do a seriousinjusticeto the facts of montanaethnohistory. Nevertheless, their descriptions have greatly influenced agenerationof anthropologicalthinking about the Peruvianmontafa. There-fore, it seems useful to summarize those aspects of their discussionswhichdeal with Indian groups resident on the central Ucayali and its westerntributaries.Steward and Metrauxstate that a largehouse shelteringone to severalfamilies constitutes the Panoan village or community (1948:570). TheaboriginalPanoan sociopolitical unit was the household, which evidentally


4/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 137consisted of related families. .... It was also the political unit, despite theproximity of many houses to one another, and was to a large degree theeconomic unit (1948:581). They go on to claim that the householdcommunity has persistedsince earliesttimes. Evenmissionlife, when scoresof people were concentratedin largevillagesfailed to destroyit, for familiesreturned to their aboriginal separatism after leaving the missions(1948:581). The aboriginalcommunityheadmanwas doubtlessthe familyelder (1948:583).The Cocamasocio-politicalorganizationappearsto be quite differentfrom that of the Panoantribes. Cocamavillagesconsistedof thirty to fortyhuts, each shelteringseveral extended families (Metraux 1948:693). Theauthorityof the Cocama chief appearsto have been slight but it may haveextendedbeyond the household to the village(Metraux1948:698).Based upon these descriptions,we would expect Cocamavillages,onthe lower Ucayali. to be significantly larger than those of groups livingupstream.The largerCocamavillages might contain as many as 600 persons,slightly more than the numberwhich Forge suggestsas the upperlimit for aneolithic egalitarian society (1972:375). This fits well with Metraux'sobservation that the authority of the Cocama chief may have extendedbeyond the household to the village. Panoan villages should have beencomposed of one to a small number of houses, certainly less than 100persons. Consequently, we would expect egalitariansocieties with no realauthorityvested in the headman.In termsof Service's 1962) levels of socialorganization, the Panoans would be at the tribal level while the Cocamawouldbarelyhavereached he chiefdom level.

The HistoricalRecordMy readingof the historicalrecorddoes not meet the expectationsthatmight be derived from the Handbook of South AmericanIndians. Still lessdoes it fit the caricature ater presentedby Steward and Faron(1959). Putbriefly, there appearsto be a markeddifferencein the complexity of socialorganizationbetween groups which lived on the mainstreamUcayali (theCocama, Conibo and Piro); those who lived on the principaltributaries theSetebo and Shipibo);and those who lived on the uppertributariesandin theinterfluvialareas Campa,Cashinahua,Remo, and so forth). The distinction snot along linguistic lines, as conceived by Steward and M6traux,but alongecological lines. Accordingto the population dynamicsmodel presentedbyDonald W. Lathrap 1968:28-29; 1970:75), the alluvial ands of the AmazonBasin are the best agricultural ands for tropical forest agriculture,able tosupport the largest and most powerful tribes. As these groups expanded,smallerand less powerful tribes were forced onto the tributariesandinto theinterfluvialareas.


5/24

138 THOMAS P. MYERS

My view of Ucayali ethnohistoryis at odds with that of Steward andMetrauxon almost every significantpoint. Therecan be no questionbut thatthey were familiarwith the same ethnohistoricsourcesthat I employ: theydid not believe them. I do. Thereareat least two considerationswhichwouldlead StewardandMetraux o disbelievethe historicalevidence.First,we mustrecognize that the earliest historical sources were written either by adven-turers in searchof gold and kingdomsto conquer;or by missionarieswhosevast expenditures could only be justified by a proportionate number ofconversionsto the Catholicfaith. Whendisinterestedpartiesfinallydid reachthe Amazon, they found no evidence of the large populations which werereportedto havelived there.

The second factor which seems to have affected the conclusionsreachedby Steward and Metraux s an expectation that peoples with similarlanguagesshould have similar cultures. The Cocamamight have a relativelylarge and complex socio-politicalorganizationbecause their relativeson theAmazon, the Omagua,were evenlarger.The Omagua, n turn,were believablebecausetheir social complexity fit with that of the Tupinambawhose habitswere well describedbefore their culture was destroyed. The Conibo, on theother hand, are related to the Remo and Cashinahuawho did not haveparticularlycomplex organizationswhen they were first described.However,they fit into a generalpatternof the Campawhose earlyculture s fairlywellknown(Varese1968).

My point of view, that the historical sources are at least relativelybelievable,is based upon different considerations.First, the historic sourcesare consistent among themselves.While later observations are not identicalwith those of an earlierdate, when severalobservationsareavailable hereis aclear trend - generally toward a reduction in numbers and societalcomplexity. Moreover,within the sources themselves are suggestedmech-anismswhich would account for the apparent ncongruities: laveraidinganddisease.Second, the reportedexistence of very largeriverinecommunities nthe early historic period is consistent with the archaeological videncewhichsuggeststhat communities of similarsize existed in the prehistoricperiod aswell (Myers'1973). Third,the assumptionof demographic imilaritybetweengroups of the same languagefamily is highly suspect. Although there is noevidence from the period of initial contact which bearsupon the question,evidence from the mid-eighteenth century suggests that while the riverineConibo lived in villagesof 500 to 600 persons,the ShipiboandSetebo of thelower tributaries ivedin much smallercommunities.

Unfortunately,the historic recordusuallytells us little aboutcommun-ity organization.Still, we do learnenoughof tribalsizes,locationsandhabitsto sketch the destructionof indigenous ife on the Ucayali.


6/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 139The Ethnohistoryof the Ucayali

The ethnohistory of the Ucayalican be divided nto five majorperiodsprior to the observationsof anthropologists.The first period dates to themid-sixteenthcentury when Juan Salinasde Loyolafirst contactedthe tribesof the Ucayali.Becausehis accountscontain the only observationsmadepriorto the establishment of missions in the Amazon Basin, his reports areparticularlyimportant for establishingan ethnohistoric baseline. Not sur-prisingly,the records are somewhat difficult to interpret, partly becausehepresentslittle geographicnformationby which the locationsof the tribes canbe positively identified. Nevertheless, here is sufficient information to get apretty good ideaof what the Ucayaliwas like more than 400 yearsago.The second period dates to the mid-seventeenthcentury, almost 100years after the epic voyage of Juan Salinasde Loyola. During this period,missionariesentered the Ucayali from three directions: the Jesuits from thenorth;and the Franciscans rom the south and east. It ended when the Jesuitswithdrew to the Huallagaunder threats from the Shipibo. Ethnohistoricinformation from the Franciscans s sparse,but the writingsof the Jesuitsconfirmthe generaloutlines of the facts recorded n the previouscentury.The thirdperiod beginsin 1682 andends in 1698 when the priestsweremassacred.Again, both Jesuits and Franciscanswere involved,but this timethe Franciscans ntered only from the south. By this time the lower Ucayaliwas virtuallyuninhabited,so the Jesuitsextended their activity well to thesouth. Forthe first time, the missionsof the two ordersoverlapped.In the mid-eighteenth century both missionary orders attempted tore-establish hemselves on the Ucayali,but the Jesuits were soon forcedout,leavingthe field to the Franciscanswho later withdrewunder renewedIndianattacks.

Finally,in 1791 the Franciscansmanaged o establishthemselveson theUcayali for good. Duringthe succeedingyears they were regularly isitedbyEuropeantravelerssuch as Raimondi(1876, 1942), Herndon(HerndonandGibbon 1854), and Macroy (1875). It was the observations of these menwhich were believedby Steward and M6traux.While the nineteenth centuryobserversoffer manyuseful observationson the state of the montanaIndians,their observationson social organizationandsocietalcomplexity can be onlya palereflection of the aboriginal ondition. Nearly300 yearsof slaveraiding,missionizationanddiseasehad taken their toll.TheExpeditionof JuanSalinasde Loyola in 1557Juan Salinasde Loyola enteredthe Ucayalion September29, 1557. Hewent upstreamfor a distance of 100 leaguesbefore reachingthe ProvinceofBenorinawhose inhabitantsmet him with threats of war.They werequickly


7/24

140 THOMAS P. MYERSconverted to peace and Salinas passed on to the Province of the Cocamawhich was very much larger, extending for a distance of more than sixtyleagues. There were many well formed villages on the high banks of the riverand on the lakes. Each village had a chief who was very much respected bythe people. The Cocama wore cotton clothing decorated with manybeautifully painted designs. They adorned themselves with features andornaments made of gold and silver. They made splendid pottery. Althoughtheir language was unknown to Salinas, he had little difficulty understandingit with the help of interpreters (Salinas de Loyola 1897a:LXXIII-LXXIV).

Leaving the Province of the Cocama, Salinas continued upstreamthrough about fifty leagues of uninhabited territory until he reached theProvince of the Pariaches which was well populated and extended for manyleagues. The land was mountainous (muntuosa)2 and since the river was soabundant, the wetness of it was sufficient to create forests (montana),especially in the winter when the river left its course and flooded a great partof the land. The Pariaches had many large villages located upon the banks ofthe river. In each village there were chiefs who were much respected andobeyed. Clothing was made of cotton, decorated with painted designs. ThePariaches spoke a different language which was very difficult to understand(Salinas de Loyola 1897a:LXXIV).

Past the Province of the Pariaches he entered another province ofwar-like people, very different in language and dress. He asked them forYcatara, according to the notices that he had carried with him since thebeginning, and they assured him that Ycatara was Cuzco of Peru. Theybrought him Indians who had been there, and according to details and signsthat they gave him, he realized that they were telling of Cuzco which he hadknown for many years. Having found out what he came to learn, he returnedto Santiago de las Montafnas where he had left the rest of his men andequipment (Salinas de Loyola 1897a:LXXV).

In another manuscript, probably later but incomplete and undated,Salinas de Loyola speaks again of his discoveries on the Ucayali River:

I discovered many provinces of people with great reason and goodbreeding, of cotton clothing well painted with a brush; jewels of goldand silver with which they adorned their persons, with large medals ontheir breasts and on their wrists, and beads of gold and silver hung fromtheir noses and ears and headdresses of silver on their heads in themanner of hoops (aros de cedazos); great plumagry. They are amagnificent (lucido) people, well disposed and well featured; they havetheir settlements on the high banks of the river in the manner of villagesof 200 and 300 and 400 houses. The chiefs are obeyed and respectedmuch more than those before [on the Marafionand Pastaza Rivers] andit is thus that in the ornament of their persons they representthemselves to be lords. The language is different than those of beforeand only by great luck and the aid of interpreters that I understoodthem. In the distance of the 350 leagues I discovered many provinces,


8/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 141as I have said, and settlements, and although in dress and manners,sustenance, hunting and fishing and fruits they are all one, in thelanguage there was great difference that they were not able tounderstandwithout interpreters Salinasde Loyola 1897b:LXXXII).One of the most interestingobservations n Salinas'narratives the factthat the Ucayali was not continuously occupied but rather there were largesegments of uninhabited land between the provinces.Such an unoccupied

territory between two large and powerful groups on the major rivers is arecurringfeature in the early history of Amazonia. Salinas observed thispattern not only on the Ucayali, but also on the Marafion.Orellanamadesimilarobservations on the Napo River and on the Amazon itself (Medina1934). These stretches of uninhabitedterritorycan be interpretedas bufferzones betweeneach of the majorgroups.The absenceof unoccupiedterritorybetween the Benorinaand the Cocamasuggests that the two groups wereallied. On the other hand, the fact that the Cocamaand the Pariachewereseparatedby a no man's land almost as large as the territory occupied byeither group suggeststhat there was considerablehostility between them. Insupportof this position, we can note that each time the Spaniards ntered anew province they were subject to attack, whereas in moving from theBenorinato the Cocamathere were not renewedhostilities. Further, he factthat each of the three principal groups on the Ucayali spoke a differentlanguage upportsthe probabilityof hostility amongthem.

Nevertheless, in spite of the linguistic differences among the threegroups,their modes of livelihood and dresswereverysimilar.Withrespecttothe socio-political organizationof these groups, we note the existence ofwell-orderedtowns with up to 400 houses. If we presume that there weremulti-familyhouses containingsome twenty persons,whichseemslikely fromlater evidence (Figueroa 1904:108), there were towns of 4000 to 8000persons.Each town had its own chiefs who could be distinguished rom thepopulaceat largeby means of their ornaments.These ornamentswere oftentradegoods presumablybroughtin from Cuzco by the thirdmajorgrouponthe river. However, from Salinas' accounts there is nothing to suggest aparamountchief in any of the provinceson the Ucayali.

It is most unfortunate that Salinas does not give us a more detailedaccount of the geographyof the Ucayali.His estimatesof distancearealmostcertainlyinflated as were his estimates of distance on the MarafnonJimenezde la Espada1897:LXXIIIn).About the only thingthat he does tell us is thatthe Pariaches ived in a mountainous ocale. On the Ucayali, the areawhichbest fits this descriptionis the zone above the mouth of the Pachitea River(Figure1), an areawhichwas occupiedby the Conibo a centurylater.Barringany major population shifts, for which there is no evidence, the sixteenthcenturyPariacheareprobablyConibo.


9/24

Cocama

: ::Panache

iUnnamed--S---Irambo R^T ^Group

? 100 J. akm A' Purimac H,

Fig. I Location of Ucayali tribes in 1577.


10/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 143

Salinasalso tells us that the unnamedgroup upstream romthe Pariachetradedwith Cuzco. Since this importantactivitywasconductedby the Pirointhe seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Chantre y Herrera1901:282;Herndon and Gibbon 1854:200), it is most likely that Salinas' unnamedgroupshould be identified asPiro.The fact that the languagesof the Cocama,Conibo and Pirobelongtodifferentlanguagefamilies fits with Salinas'observationthat the threetribesof the Ucayalispoke different languages.Thus, it is most interesting hat thecultural characteristicsof these groups were very similar. Such culturalsimilarity s at odds with the model employed by Stewardand Metrauxwhoexpect that linguisticallyrelated groups will have similar culturalcharacter-istics whereas those of unrelated anguageswill have a quite different set ofcultural characteristics.The fact is that Cocama,Conibo and Piro culturalcharacteristicswere very similarin a wide variety of traits which includedtheir dress,patternof cranial deformationand ceramiccharacteristics.Thesecannot be explained by postulating a common cultural base. Nor can thesimilarity be explained in straight-forward cological terms. It is a case ofcultural convergencefor cultural advantage,a strategy which was mutuallyadopted by the principaltribes of the Ucayali. In most cases it is not clearwhich tribe originateda particularcharacteristicand which adopted it later.However,polychrome pottery appears o have been introducedto the Ucayaliby Cocama(Lathrap 1970:151) and later imitated by the Conibo and Piro.The location of the principal ribes does follow an ecologicalmodel. Onlythemajor riverscould support large tribes with a complex social organization.Tribes without large populations were not powerful enough to maintainthemselves on the major rivers. When a tribe did succeed in reestablishingitself on the Ucayali, it adoptedthe visiblesignsof its newly-achievedpower.Cultural onvergenceamongtribes of differenthistoricalbackgroundswas theresult.The Ucayali n the mid-seventeenth entury

Duringthe last half of the seventeenthcentury there was a remarkableamount of missionaryactivity on the Ucayali. Franciscans ntered from thesouth and east; and Jesuits entered from the north (Figure 2). Althoughthetwo orders were in contact with one another, andevenhelpedeach other onoccasion, their operationswere essentiallyindependent.Even the namesbywhich they called particulartribes were frequently different, a fact whichpresentscertainproblems n coordinating heir accounts.In 1644 it became necessary for the Spanish of Mianas to establishpeace with the Cocama of the Ucayali who were a continuing source oftrouble for missions on the Huallagaand the Marafion.PadreGasparCujiavisited the Cocama with a troop of Spanishsoldiersas well as some Xeveroand MainasIndians and an interpreter.Because of a lack of missionaries,nomission was established at this time but occasional visits were made until


11/24

L. Gran Cocama

Setebo'

9


12/24

SpanishContactsandSocialChange n the UcayaliRiver 1451651 when a mission was finally established by Father BartolomePerez.After only three months, Father Perez returned to Borja on missionarybusiness and the Cocama were left without a mission until 1657. FatherTomas Mojano and Brother Domingo Fernandezlived among the Cocamafrom 1657 to 1659. They established ournew villages rom their base on thelake known as the Gran Cocama. By 1659, the dangerof livingamong theCocama had become too great so they were ordered to Sta. MariadelHuallaga,bringingwith them about 100 Cocamawarriorswith theirfamilies(Chantrey Herrera1901:140-141, 145-146, 211; Figueroa1904:104-108).Duringthis periodof thirteenyears,the nature of Cocamasociety musthave changed radically.When they were first visited by FatherCujiatherewere estimated to be some 10,000 to 12,000 persons, includingabout 2000warriors.Onelargevillagehadeighty houses, othershad forty houses,andtheaveragevillageincludedabout thirtyhouses. Just sevenyearslater,about300warriorswere left; and six years after that, many less. Figueroa,who was incharge of the missions of Mainasuntil his death in 1666, attributes thedecline of the Cocamanot only to the ravagesof the Chipeo(Shipibo) butmore importantly to the effects of repeated pestilence. In 1644 Cocamachiefs appear to have been powerful men whose authority extended farbeyond the confines of their own village. There may even have beenparamountchiefs. When Father Cujiavisited the Cocama, the chief of thesouth had recently died. While this need not meanpatrilineal nheritanceof the chieftainship,it does imply that the sons of the dead chief mighthavehad some claim on his position. Moreover, t seemspossiblethat the chiet otfthe north might have hoped to expandhis authorityby keepingthe two sonsunderhis roof. But, only thirteenyearslater,not only did the Cocama ive insmall dispersedsettlements, but Father Mojanowas able to speak of theirleadersas chiefs in nameonly (Figueroa1904:108-109).When they entered history the Cocamahad a fearsomereputationonthe Huallagaand MarafionRivers where they made frequent raids. Theirattacks on the Shipibo to the south must have been equally ferocious. But,with the ravages of disease brought on by Spanish contact, substantialchanges took place. By 1657 peace was established with the Shipibo whoregularlyvisited the Cocamamission and in fact it was the threats of theShipibowhich ultimately forced the withdrawalof FatherMojano Figueroa1904:109-110). Nevertheless,the Cocamaplayed a leadingrolein the Indianuprisingson the HuallagaRiverfrom 1663 to 1666, aidedby the Maparainas,who had been Cocama allies as early as 1644, and the Shipibo, who hadearlier ravaged the Franciscan missions among the Payansos (Chantre yHerrera1901:226, 229; Figueroa1904:108).In 1657 the Franciscansbegan a seriousmissionaryeffort toward theUcayali from their missions among the Payanso Indianson the TulumayoRiver.Two missionswereestablishedamongthe Setebo in 1657, andagain n1661. The second time, morethan 2000 Indianswerebroughttogetherwhile


13/24

146 THOMAS . MYERSmany more remaineddispersedin the forest. Both times, Setebo uprisings,said to have been inducedby the Calliseca,forced the abandonmentof themissions. Finally, in 1663 a mission which brought together many Indianswas established among the Calliseca but it was abandonedfive years later,apparentlybecauseof renewedhostilities(Amich 1854:26-29).There is very little ethnographicinformation contained in Amich'sdiscussions about the first Franciscan missions among the tribes of theUcayali.Welearnonly that it wasnecessary o bringIndians ogetherto makeup the mission communities. Since there were two missions among theSetebo, the originalvillagesize must have been less than 1000 persons.TheCallisecawere, if anything,somewhat more dispersedsince no missionswerefounded among them until six years after the first attempt with the Seteboeventhoughthe Callisecawere closerto the Payansomissions.It is not easy to identify the Callisecaof the seventeenthcenturywith amodem tribe. Father Amich thinks that the Calliseca became known asShipibo in the eighteenth century, but Herndon (Herndon and Gibbon1854:1:209) and Tessman(1930:127) believe that they were Cashibo. Thedifficulty is that although three tribes occupied this general area in theeighteenthcentury, only two of them were known to the Franciscans f theseventeenth century. The eighteenth century tribes were the Setebo, whooccupied the lower ManoaRiver;the Shipibowho occupiedthe lowerPisquiandAguaytiaRivers;and the Cashibowho occupiedthe upperAguaytiaRiverand the middle Pachitea. For presentpurposes t makeslittle difference sincewe are concerned not so much with the accuracyof tribal identifications aswe are with the demographicsituation on the western tributariesof theUcayali. Both the Callisecaand the Setebo of the seventeenthcentury seemto have lived in smaller communities than the tribes of the Ucayaliandmayeven have lived in dispersedcommunitiescomposedof one or two houses.We have one more bit of evidence from this period. In 1641, FatherIllescas went down the Pachitea River to the Ucayali on an exploratorymission. He passedsafely throughConiboterritory,but was killedby Shipiboat the mouth of the AguaytiaRiver.The facts of his death were learnedfromConibo on the Ucayali in 1686 and from Shipibo at the Jesuit mission atSantiagode la Lagunain 1687 (Raimondi 1876:11:220).The Jesuits calledtribes at this mission in 1682 the Chipeo and the Xitipo (Chantrey Herrera1901:274). On the eighteenth century map of the Jesuit Javier Weigel(Chantre y Herrera 1901: following p. xvi) the Xitipo are shown inFranciscan erritoryon the lower ManoaRiver. On the contemporarymapofthe Franciscan Jose Amich the Setebo are shown in the same position(Izaguirre1922-24:111: ollowing p. 16). Hence there can be little doubt thatthe Xitipo was the Jesuit name for the Franciscan'sSetebo. Therefore,theChipeomust be the Shipibo.


14/24

SpanishContactsandSocialChange n the UcayaliRiver 147The Jesuits were forced out of the Ucayaliin 1659 and the Franciscansin 1668. The Indian societies that they left behind were very differentfrom

those which they had found. When the Jesuits first visited the Cocamain1644 there were thousandsof them. After 1644 there was a greatpestilencewhich killed off seventy percent of their numberin only seven years. Withsuch an abrupt population decline, the essentialsof their social organizationmust have vanishedduringthis period. Diseasespreadsrapidlyamongpeoplewho do not have naturalantibodiesto ward it off. Since the Shipibofoughtwith the Cocama duringthe period of their decline, the Shipibotoo musthave contracted the disease, then fromthe Shipiboto the next group,to thenext.By the time the Franciscansreachedthe Callisecaand Setebo in 1657these tribes may alreadyhave suffered their first great population decline.Since social and economic systems change radically during precipitouspopulationdecline, observationsof nativelife madeafter 1644 must reflectacultural adaptation to sharply reduced numbers of people rather than toconditions which existed prior to the SpanishConquest. If large, complexsocieties did exist on the Ucayali duringthe prehistoricand early historicperiods, they hadvanishedby the 1650's.

TheUcayali n the late seventeenthcenturyIn the late 1600's both the Franciscansand the Jesuits tried again(Figure3). FatherLucas de Lucerolearned that at thirty days of navigationfrom Laguna,up the Ucayali, there were many nations to be Christianized.These included the Campa,Remo, Manamobobo,Conibo and Piro which,together, were said to numbersome 10,000 persons.ThePirotradedwith anadjacentnation at whose head was a rulercalledingawho hadsome 200,000vassals.Gold ornamentstraded to the Piro proved that this was a very richnation. To obtain so many souls for God, FatherLuceromade friendswiththe Conibo who at that time numberedsome 1500 persons.A missionvillagewas establishedand though no missionarywas sent, some Conibo boys wereinstructed in the ChristianDoctrine with the hope that they wouldlaterserveasinterpreters Chantrey Herrera1901:282).In January, 1686, Father Enrique Rither left Laguna or the Ucayaliwith a group of Conibo who had come to ask for their own missionary.Hetook withhim a lay brother,FranciscoHerrera,and a numberof Seteboswhospoke the same languageas the Conibo. They reacheda villageknown as SanNicolas de Pachiteawhich had been foundedby FatherLucero. In a periodoftwelve years, Father Rither founded nine new villagesand made more thanforty trips into the interior. He died in 1698 at the hands of the Conibo atabout the same time that another missionary was killed by the Shipibo(Chantrey Herrera1901:293-296).


15/24

Saraya W

Setebo

Cashibo . onibo

^^^\ Ago^ Tafnh ^Simirinche

0 100

Fig.3 Locationof Ucayali ribes n the late seventeenth entury.


16/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Changeon the Ucayali River 149

Very little is known of the labors of Father Rither on the Ucayali.Although he is said to have written a memoir of his experiences, thisdocumenthas not yet come to light.In 1685 an advancepartyof Franciscansdescendedthe Peren6River tothe Ucayali which they followed as far as the Jesuit villageat San Nicolaswhich the Franciscanscalled San Miguelde los Conibos. In 1686, FatherManuelBiedma recorded that the Conibolived in largehouses,each of whichcontained some twenty to thirty persons. The 2000 Indiansin San Miguelwere governed by three chiefs: Cayampay, Sanaguamiand Saman-pico(Amich 1854; Izaguirre1922:1:252; Raimondi 1876:11:216). It is virtuallycertain that San Miguelhad been broughttogether by the Jesuits,probablycombiningthree previouslyexisting groupseach of which had its chief. Thissuggests that each of the original groups numbered about 600 to 700individualswho livedin longhouses which containedtwenty to thirtypersonseach - perhaps twenty-five to thirty such houses in a community. Thesecommunity characteristicsare very similar o those described or the Cocamasome forty yearsearlier.

AbandoningSan Miguelto the Jesuits, the Franciscans ounded SanJos6 de los Conibos about midwaybetween the juncture of the Tambo andUrubambaRivers and the mouth of the Pachitea nto the Ucayali.Heretheyunited two groups of Conibo led by chiefs named Izana and Quebruno(Raimondi1876:11:222).Father Biedma recordedin his diary (Raimondi 1876:11:220-227) hatIndiansof various other tribes lived on the tributariesbetween San Migueland San Jos6. He visited a Maspovillagetwo leaguesup a riverknown to himas the Taco River. Therehe found twenty-six houses occupied by some 500persons.A groupof Amahuaca ived one leagueup the ConiguatiRiver.ThereBiedma ound twelvehouses occupiedby 150 persons.

TheUcayali n the mid-eighteenth enturyIn 1736 the Franciscansreentered the Ucayali from the Peren6 Riverwhich had been closed for nearly fifty years by the Machobos,Simirinches,and Piros.The Conibo has at least two villageson the Ucayali:Camarinahueand Cararosqui, ndprobablymanymore. Siabar, he chief of Cararosquiwasthe son of Cayampaywho had assisted Father Biedma some fifty yearsbefore. However,other Conibochiefs resented the specialtreatmentof Siabarand demandediron tools of their own. Unable to comply, the missionaryretired Izaguirre1922:11:90-95).A few years later, the Franciscansagain moved overland toward theUcayali, this time from the missions of Cajamarquilla,ar to the north of anypreviousexpeditions.They traveledacrossthe northernpartsof the PampadeSacramento to the Manoa River where they found the Setebo (Figure4).Having established outposts with this tribe, they moved southward to


17/24

Sar a .I, , \

\ /^^^: /

/ ^^^ '*^^ Conib0

Seteibo: 7

iSh ar

Fig. 4 Location of Ucayali tribes in the late eighteenth century.


18/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 151

missionizethe Shipibo andfinallyreached he Conibo before they wereagaindrivenout. To providesupportforthe fledglingmissionsamongthe Setebo,anexpedition set out down the Pachitea River. It aborted, but searchpartiessent to ascertain he fate of a missingmissionaryrecorded nformationon theCashibo of the middle Pachitea River. Another search party, from theSetebo, contacted the Shipibo who were missionized after this date (Amich1854:26-29).The Pampade Sacramentowasenteredrepeatedlyduring he 1750's bymissionariesn searchof the greatnumbersof Indianswho were believedtoinhabit the Ucayali. Only a few temporary campsites were found on thePampa,one of which had been recently abandonedby the Indians,perhapsupon seeing the approachof the missionaries.The entire area, includingtheupper reaches of the Huallaga and Ucayali Rivers apparently had nopermanentinhabitantsalthough it was used as a huntinggroundby groupswhich lived on the principal western tributaries of the Ucayali (Amich1854:214-220).The Cashibo of the upper AguaytiaRiver were contacted in 1757 byFather Alonso Abad who crossed the southernPampade Sacramentofromthe TulumayoRiver.He saw bananaandmaize fieldsalongthe riverbeforehewas attackedand forced to retreat Amich 1854:214). The Cashibowerealsocontacted in 1763 and 1765 on the middle PachiteaRiverwherethey lived inlargehouses (galpones)a quarterof a league from the river.Fieldswerekeptnear the house (Amich 1854:234-236; 242-243). This is precious littleinformation,but it does suggest that Cashibo communities consisted of atleast two largehouses, each of which probablyshelteredfour or five familiesas did the Setebo and Conibo galpones of the next generation(Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:245). The settlement on the Pachiteaevidently had somepermanence incethe Franciscans toppedthere in both 1763 and 1765.When he Setebo werecontactedin 1760 they livedon the ManoaRiversome twenty leagues from the Ucayali. Only 220 of them remainedafter adisastrousdefeat by the Shipibo in 1736. Like the Cashiboof the upperAguaytia, the Setebo fields were placed near the river while the housesthemselveswere set back into the forest. Chiefsevidently maintained someauthority since the missionarieswere taken to the chiefs house where theywere given food and drink(Amich 1854:226-233). Althoughno informationis given about the size or composition of the community, there appeartohave been severalhouses, probably multifamily houses similarto the onesoccupied in the next generation (Izaguirre 1922-24:VIII:245). Still theSetebo community prior to the formationof the missionprobablycontainedless than 100 persons.The Shipibo of this era lived on the Aguaytiaand Pisqui Rivers,sometwenty leaguesfrom the Ucayali. They were certainlymuch more numerousand powerful than the Setebo whom they had beaten badly in a pitchedbattle. By 1764, 1000 Shipibohad been united in fourmissionvillageswhile


19/24

152 THOMAS P. MYERS

many more remaineddispersedin the forest. Of Shipibovillagesand socialorganizationthere is no record. We know only that four missionshad beenfounded because the Shipibo could not be persuadedto gather into largersettlements(Amich 1854:239; Izaguirre1922-1924:11:326).The Conibo were also contacted briefly in the 1760's. The Franciscansbelieved that they visited SanMiguelde los Conibos(Amich 1854:246), quitelikely Siabar'svillage,but the community may have been moved.TheUcayali n the late eighteenthcenturyThe last great missionary effort toward the Ucayali began in 1790(Figure4). Startingfrom Lagunaon the lowerHuallagaRiver,FatherNarcisoGirbal y Barcelojourneyed down the Marafionto the Ucayali which heascendedfor nineteen days to the first settlement. It was located on a lake tothe west of the Ucayali and occupied by some fifty Setebo (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:136-139). The second Setebo village, a day's travel to thesouth on the SarayacuRiver,was inhabitedby about 200 Indians(Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:140, 239). It was to become the center of Franciscanactivity on the Ucayali for the next seventy years.Four more Setebo villageswere located on the Manoa River. The one farthestupstreamhad been thesite of the last Franciscanmission to the Setebo, destroyed in 1767.Following the revolt, the Setebo had scattered into a number of separatevillagesand movedtoward the mainstream.During he interim,theirnumbershad increased to at least 600 persons and perhapsas many as a 1000, agrowth of 300 to 500 percent in less than twenty-five years (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:151-153).The northernmostConibosettlementwaslocated on the Ucayali,aboutmidway between the Sarayacuand ManoaRivers,but the bulk of the tribecontinued to live around the mouth of the Pachitea River (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:130, 160). The Piro livedstill fartherupstream.Perhaps 1000 Shipibo lived on the Pisqui and Aguaytia Rivers.Thebalance of power must have shifted since 1767 since they were now verymuch afraidof the Setebo and Conibo and steadfastlyrefusedto move intothe mission at Sarayacualthoughthey repeatedlyasked the missionaries ortheir own priest (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:241).Many other tribes lived in the hinterlands o the east and west of theUcayali but except for the slavesheld by the Setebo and Conibo, they hadlittle directcontact with the FranciscansIzaguirre1922-1924:VIII:249).The firstethnographicdescriptionof the UcayalitribeswasrecordedbyFather Juan Duefias, based upon his observations in 1792 (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:239-255). In addition to confirmingand enlargingupon themany small bits of information gatheredin earlierepochs, Father Duefiasadded a good deal of new information.The descriptionappliesspecificallytothe Setebo and Conibo but he also felt that it would apply to the Shipibo,


20/24


although he did not know them well. The Indians lived in large houses(galpones)which shelteredfour or five families,separatedonly by fireplacesandsleepingquarters.Whena chief died, they intrigued o determinethe nextchief, but were happy to leave the choice up to the missionaries.Both theSetebo and Conibo kept slaves from a numberof different tribes, includingthe Shipibo. These slavesregularlyntermarriedwith theircaptorsto increasethe size of the tribe.

After the establishmentof the mission at SarayacumanyConibomoveddownstreamto the mouth of the SarayacuRiver which became the site of anew mission called San Antonio de Padua de los Conibos (Izaguirre1922-1924:VIII:240-241). Other nations also movedtoward the new missionor requested missionariesof their own to gain access to the iron tools andother gifts which were freely distributedby the Franciscans.Thus beganthemixing of tribes on the Ucayalithat was observedby later travelerssuch asMarcoy,Herndonand Raimondi as well as by later missionaries.The rubberboom of the early twentieth century intensified the redistributionof tribeswhich were enslaved to work the plantationsuntil the boom collapsed in1920.

DiscussionThe preceding discussion demonstrates the necessity of revisingthe

prevailingevaluation of the ethnohistorictribes of the Ucayali River.Thesetribeswere importantin their own right,not merelysimpletribes which livedon the marginsof Andean civilization. Evidence from the earliest periodsuggests that the riverinetribes, at least, had complex social organizationswhich involvedmany thousands of people. But earlyobservationsare scarce.By the time the independentobserversof the nineteenthcenturydid arrive,amassive population decline had already taken place. Once powerful tribeswere brought into mission villages,Portugueseslave raiderswere a constantthreat (Chantrey Herrera1901:495; Edmundson1922:118) and there wereat least two majorepidemicsbefore 1700.Withinthe seven yearsbetween 1644 and 1651 the populationof theCocamanation had declinedby seventy percent and the tribe had ceased tobe a significant orce on the Ucayali.The effect of this decline on other tribesis not clear. Wedo know that the Shipibo were in contact with the Cocamaduringthis period but there is no evidenceby which we cangaugethe effectthat Cocama diseases had on the Shipibo. In view of Lathrap'smodel ofpopulation dynamics (1970:75) it is somewhatsurprising hat groups livingon the tributariesdid not invadethe Ucayali to occupy the territoryvacatedby the Cocama. However, the tributary tribes also suffered a significantpopulation decline as a result of Spanish diseases (Chantre y Herrera 1901).


21/24

154 THOMAS P. MYERSThis, coupled with the threat of Portuguese slave raids(which would fitLathrap'smodel as a powerful groupexpandingalongthe alluvial andsof theAmazon Basin), was sufficient to keep the tributary tribes in theirplace. Further, the length of time involved may not have been enough topermit the establishment of a new equilibrium.By the 1790's, both theSetebo and the Conibo were movinginto the lands which formerlyhadbeenoccupied by the Cocama.Certainlythe lower Ucayaliwaswell knownto theConibo who regularly raversed t on their way to trade with Jesuitmissionsto obtain iron tools; yet, the bulk of the Conibo remainedaroundthe mouthof the PachiteaRiverwhich remains he heartof theirterritoryeven today.Likewise, he territoryoccupiedby the ShipiboandSetebo haschangedlittle since the seventeenthcentury. The Shipibo occupiedthe AguagytiaandPisquiRivers the firsttime that these riversarementioned in history. In 1791they also occupied the TamayaRiver.The location of the Shipibo is hardlydifferenttoday. The Setebo traditionallyoccupiedthe lowerManoaRiver.By1791 they had expanded to the Sarayacuand even had a smallvillageon anoxbow lake of the Ucayalito the north of Sarayacu.At this time they wereallied with the Conibo who also were expandingto the north. Theterritorialexpansion of these two tribes may have been one of the benefits of theiralliance.

The Cashibooccupied the headwatersof the Aguaytia Riverand themiddle Pachitea River in the seventeenth century. Only very recently havethey moved toward the mainstreamTrujilloFerrari1960). Othertribessuchas the Mayoruna,Remo, and Amahuacaare seldom mentioned in the earlydocuments.These tribes to the east of the Ucayaliremainedargelyout of themissionary nfluence until the earlynineteenthcentury.As a resultthey havepreserved heir aboriginalpatterns to a much greaterdegree than have thetribes on the mainstreamand to the west.It is much more difficult to talk about tribal populations and socialcomplexity than it is to speak of tribal locations. The early populationestimatesare probablyfairly reliable when they pertainto a particular illageor to a tribewith whom the missionarieshad extensivecontact.The fact that the estimates are fairly consistent from generationtogenerationalso suggestthat they maybe reasonablyaccurate.In fact, thereisonly one population estimate that seems reallyout of line: the estimate ofonly 220 Setebo in 1760. Perhaps o muchof the tribehad scattered nto theforest that the missionarieshadnever evenheardof them.It is still more difficult to judge social complexity. In reality, thehistoric sources shed little light on the problem.Thereareonly threekinds ofstatements about political leaders in the sources: 1) chiefs were muchrespected and obeyed; 2) chiefs or their houses, were decorated in anextra-ordinarymanner;and 3) the tribe was led by a chief. We earnvirtuallynothing about how a chief was chosen, about his duties, or about his


22/24

Spanish Contacts and Social Change on the Ucayali River 155prerogatives.The fact that one Conibo chief was the son of a formerchiefmay mean nothingmorethan that a chief'sson wasjust a little morelikely tobecome the next chief than the son of a commonman.Only for the Cocamain 1644 is there really some indication that the chief was a special kind ofperson. Although the tribe had some 10,000 to 12,000 members thereappearto have been just two principalchiefs. Oneof them haddied recentlyand the other had taken the sons of the dead chief to live with him. Thismight havebeenjust familialduty, but it mightalso havebeen a political playto consolidate the tribeundera singleleader.

For the most part, an estimate of social complexity must be derivedfrom the numberof occupants n the largestcommunity.Such a procedure spossible only on the assumptionthat social complexity is a function of thenumber of individuals in the face-to-face social unit. Anthony Forge hassuggested that the upper size limit of neolithic egalitariancommunitiesisabout 350 to 400 persons. Beyond this number, more complex forms ofsocial organizationbecome necessary(1972:375). Translated nto the termsof Service's levels of social organization(1962), the neolithic egalitariansociety would be a tribe; and the next most complex form of socialorganization would be a chiefdom. In these terms, Cocama and Conibosocieties would have been chiefdoms at the time of Contact;andthe Shipiboand Setebo societiesmighthavebeen tribes.But, as Servicepoints out, a tribewhich is consistently in competition with a chiefdom may itself become achiefdom because the higher level of social complexity is better adaptedtohandlingthe problemsof war (Service 1962:152). Thus, while the Shipiboand Setebo communities might not have been large enough to give rise topristinechiefdoms,theircompetitionwith chiefdomsmighthavecausedthemto developinto secondarychiefdoms.

The patternthat emergesfrom the reexaminationof the ethnohistoricrecord is that the tribes of the Ucayali and its tributariesvariedin bothlanguageand social organization.Themost powerfultribes werethe Cocama,Conibo and Piro who lived on the Ucayali River.At least the CocamaandConibo must have been chiefdoms at the time of Spanish contact. TheShipibo and Setebo were less powerful groups that lived on the majortributaries: he Aguaytia,Pisquiand ManoaRivers.They may alsohavebeenorganizedinto chiefdoms not so much because it was necessary n terms ofnumbersof face-to-facesocial relationshipsasbecause it wasa moreeffectiveorganization or holding off the chiefdoms of the Ucayali.On the headwatersand minor tributaries were a large number of minor tribes such as theCashibo, Amahuaca,Remo, Mayorunaand a host of others. Little is knownabout these groups in the early period beyond the fact that their memberswere frequently the slaves of the Ucayali chiefdoms. In all likelihood, thegroupson the marginsof the Ucayalishouldbe classifiedas tribes.


23/24

156 THOMAS P. MYERS

NOTES1. It was Donald C. Lathrap who started my interest in the ethnohistory of the Ucayaliby encouraging me to read Izaguirre. I am indebted to Nancy C. Morey for herdetailed comments on an earlier version of this paper.2. The translation of muntuosa presents something of a problem. Generally, whenmuntuosa is used in the early sources it means forested rather thanmountainous as I have translated it here. But since Salinas' entire journey up tothis point had been through the tropical forest it seems unlikely that he would havemade a special point of mentioning it for the first time when he was 300 leagues upthe Ucayali, except in connection with some other natural phenomenon, flooding, ashe does in the same sentence. Further, his travels up the Ucayali would have broughthim into the vicinity of the Pachitea River where altitudes of more than-500 m. arequite close to the river. Certainly it seems that Salinas was attempting to draw some

sort of contrast. The other possibility is that the lands through which he had beentravelingwere not forested. While this might have been possible in the Province of theCocama, the fifty leagues of uninhabited land between the Province of the Cocamaand the Province of the Pariaches must have been heavily forested as it is today.Therefore, the translation of muntuosa as mountainous seems most likely to bethe proper translation.

REFERENCESAmich, Jose M.1854 Compendio Hist6rico de los Trabajos Fatigas .... en las Montanas de los

Andes, Pertenecientes a las Provincias del Peru. Paris.Chantre y Herrera,Jose1901 Historia de las Misiones de la Compania de Jests en el Maranon Espanol(1637-1 767). Madrid: Imprenta de A. Avrial.Figueroa, Francisco de1904 Relacion de las Misiones de la Compania de Jesus en el Pais de los Maynas.Madrid.Forge, Anthony1972 Normative Factors in the Settlement Size of Neolithic Cultivators (NewGuinea). In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, pp. 363-376. Edited by Peter J.Ucko, Ruth Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby. London: Gerald Duckworth andCo., Ltd.Herndon, William Lewis and Lardner Gibbon1854 Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon ... 2 Volumes. Washington, D.C.Izaguirre,Padre Fray Bernardino1922-1929 Historia de las Misiones Franciscanas y Narracion de los Progresos de laGeografia en el Oriente del Peru, Vol. I-XIV. Cajamarca: Tipografic SanAntonio.Jimenez de la Espada, Marcos1897 Relaciones Geogrdficas de Indias, Tomo IV. Madrid: Ministerio de Fomento.Lathrap, Donald W.1962 Yarinacocha: Stratigraphic Excavations in the Peruvian Montafa. Ph.D.dissertation. HarvardUniversity, Cambrdige.1968 The Hunting Economies of the Tropical Forest Zone of South America: AnAttempt at Historical Perspective. In Man the Hunter, pp. 23-29. Edited byRichard B. Lee and Irven DeVore with the assistance of Jill Nash. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.1970 The Upper Amazon. New York: PraegerPublishers.Marcoy, Paul1875 Travels in South America from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean.London.


24/24


Medina, Jose Toribio1934 The Discovery of the Amazon. American Geographical Society, SpecialPublication No. 17. New York.Metraux. Alfred1948 Tribes of the Middle and Upper Amazon River. In Handbook of SouthAmerican Indians, Vol. 111,Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 143:pp. 687-712. Edited by Julian H. Steward. Washington:Smithsonian Institution.Mycrs. ThoTmas P.1968 Political Prehistory in the Peruvian Montana. Paper read to the AnnualMeeting of the American Anthropological Association, Seattle.197(0 The Late Prehistoric Period at Yarinacocha, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Univer-sity of Illinois, Urbana.1973 Toward the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Community Patterns in the AmazonBasin. In Variation in Anthropology. Essays in honor of John C. McGregor,pp. 233-252. Edited by Donald W. Lathrap and Jody Douglas. Urbana: IllinoisArchaeological Survey.Raimondi, Antonio1876 El Peru. Vol. 11.Lima: Imprenta del Estado.1942 Notas de Viajes para su Obra El Pf'ru. Vol. 1. Lima: Imprenta TorresAguirre.Roe. Peter (,.1973 Cumancaya: Archeological Eixcavations and Ethnographic Analogy in thePeruvian Montana. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana.Salinas de Loyola, Juan de1897a Descubrimientos, Conquistas y Poblaciones de Juan de Salinas Loyola, (1571).In Relaciones Geogrdficas de Indias, Tomo IV, pp. LXV-LXXVII. Edited byMarcos Jimenez de la Espada. Madrid:Ministerio de Fomento.1897b Untitled manuscript (n.d.). In Relaciones Geogrdficasde Indias, Tomo IV, pp.LXVII-LXXVII. Edited by Marcos Jimenez de la Espada. Madrid: Ministeriode Eomento.Service, Elman1962 Primitive Social Organization. an Evolutionary Perspective. New York:Random House.Steward, Julian and Louis C. Faron1959 Native Peoples of South America. New York: McGraw Hill.Steward, Julian H. and Alfred Metraux1948 Tribes of the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Montafia. In Handbook of SouthAmerican Indians, Vol. II1, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 143:pp. 535-656. Edited by Julian H. Steward. Washington:Smithsonian Institution.Tessman, Gunter1930 Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg: Friederichsen, De Gruyter & Co.M.B.H.Trujillo Ferrari, Alfonso1960 Analisis del Comportamiento Econ6mico de los Kashibo Frente a los EfectosAculturativos. Revista do Museu Paulista, n.s., Vol. XII, pp. 199-309. SaoPaulo.Varese, Stefano1968 La Sal de los Cerros. Notas Etnograficas e Hist6ricas sobre los Campa de laSelva del Peru. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnologia.

myers - spanish contacts and social change on the ucayali river peru 1974

Documents