petroglyphs in the lower negro river basin, nw brazilian amazon - a preliminary view

PETROGLYPHS IN THE LOWER NEGRO RIVER BASIN,

NW BRAZILIAN AMAZON – A PRELIMINARY VIEW

A ARTE RUPESTRE DO RIO NEGRO –

UMA CONTRIBUIÇÃO À PESQUISA PRELIMINAR

Raoni VALLE

Doctoral Student – PPGARQ/MAE-USP

Visiting Researcher NPCHS – INPA

[email protected]

Resumo

A bacia do rio Negro, no extremo NW do Brasil, apresenta-se hoje como uma área pouco explorada

pela arqueologia brasileira. No âmbito da investigação de arte rupestre a documentação para fins de

pesquisa começou a partir de 2006, a despeito de inúmeros relatos de naturalistas, viajantes e

antropólogos referentes à ocorrência de gravuras rupestres desde o século XIX. Portanto, desde a

estação seca de 2006 campanhas oportunísticas de documentação fotográfica de sítios rupestres com

gravuras, seguindo um protocolo específico têm sido implementadas na calha do rio Negro e em seus

principais afluentes para subsidiar uma pesquisa doutoral. As prospecções se concentram no médio rio

Negro, estado do Amazonas, na área de confluência com o rio Branco, proveniente de Roraima, onde

também se encontra uma fronteira geológica entre os granitóides da formação Jauaperi, no escudo

cristalino Guianense, e os arenitos do grupo Trombetas e formação Alter do Chão. Esta conjuntura geo-

ambiental tem influenciado na formulação de proposições concernentes a variabilidade gráfica e técnica

dos petroglifos lá encontrados, sobretudo na hipótese de identificação de uma fronteira gráfica pré-

colonial na área. Nesta comunicação específica apresentamos um repertório de imagens coletadas entre

2006 e 2008 inseridas numa abordagem descritiva e comparativa, no sentido de expor em linhas gerais o

que se tem documentado até o presente momento.

mailto:[email protected]

Raoni VALLE

3 / Arte Rupestre da Amazônia.

92

“...when I was about Branco river mouth, I found in a

small rocky island, several figures of men and animals,

all of them in great size, engraved on the

hard granite rock.”1

Alfred Russell Wallace, 1889[1979:316].

Introduction

Since 2006, rock art recording field work has

been conducted in the lower Negro river

basin, Western Brazilian Amazon, in an

opportunistic and extensive manner. Through

GPS location and preliminary photographic

documentation of open air, riverine and

underwater rock art sites we begin to study

these weathered petroglyphs. Some have been

historically known, visited and disturbed, but,

have never been submitted to any kind of

specific analysis (Heckenberger 1997).

This research is a first effort centered on

survey and recognition of sites within a

sample area sandstone and granite rock

formations accessible only in the climax of the

dry season (last half of October and first week

of November, normally), when most known

petroglyphs are out of water.

For the rest of the year (ten months) these

sites remain under turbulent waters, which

results in: (1) temporal, climatic and logistic

restrictions on field work; (2) a deplorable

preservation state with several physical,

biological and chemical weathering factors

conditioned by the hydration/dehydration

situation and; (3) a geomorphological

implausibility for the formation and/or

conservation of datable archaeological

deposits related to rock art. The situation

could not be worse for the rock art itself and

in terms of contextual relational data.

Keeping these restrictions in mind, the survey

area comprises a purposeful geographical cut

based on geo-environmental aspects

(hydrographical confluence and geological

contact) that we believe active in, and

1 The original was already translated in Portuguese, so, this is

my own translation back into English and not Wallace`s original written version.

determinant to, an expected graphical

variability scenario. Indeed, we are identifying

such variation in the rock art corpus

documented. This assemblage we are working

with comprises twelve (12) sites found until

this moment based on boat prospective work

during a very restrict period per year. In each

field season, we went through a small portion

of a total survey line of about 87 kilometers

along the main course of the Negro river.

This transect2 was established from the

prehistoric and historic archaeological site of

the Velho Airão town (now a small riverine

“caboclo” community) to the mouth of the

Branco river, and also penetrating the lower

courses of its respective tributaries: Jaú, Unini

and Jauaperi rivers.

Between 2006 and 2008, three campaigns

were established in this sample area. Two of

them were directed toward the lower courses

of the Jaú river (Jaú National Park) and Unini

river (Unini Federal Extractive Reserve) and

surroundings, resulting in the photo-

documentation and GPS-plotting of seven (7)

rock art sites, six on sandstone and one on

granite formations. The third was conducted

between the Unini/Negro and the

Branco/Negro confluences, and also in the

lower course of the Jauaperi river between the

Brazilian states of Amazonas and Roraima,

resulting in the photo-documentation and

GPS-plotting of five (5) rock art sites, all on

granite bedrock. In 2008, another expedition

was sent to the Upper Negro river, which

consisted of prospection in the lower and

middle Içana river basin (one of Upper

Negro‟s main tributary), Baniwa‟s indigenous

territory. Six (6) rock art sites were partially

documented as being reused (“resignified”

and renewed) by Baniwa culture and

mythology, but because of contextual 2 Each drought we try to go further along this planned

transect. Due to lack of specific funding and programs for Amazonian Rock Art research which is, for the most part, not a priority in the Brazilian Western Amazonian Archaeology agenda, access is gained through opportunistic hitchhiking on expeditions run by nongovernmental organizations (e.g. pro-environment, sustainable development, etc.)., Slowly we are trying to revert this trend, but this process demands huge amount of effort, personnel and money in the middle and long terms, which, are definitely not available now and for the coming years.

Congresso Internacional da IFRAO 2009 – Piauí / BRASIL

93

specificity these sites are discussed elsewhere

(Valle & Costa 2008; Valle 2009b).

None of these campaigns were conducted in

extreme dry conditions (what would be ideal)

nor in an adequate logistic fashion (see note

2). Instead, they took place during common

dry seasons, in normal low water level

situations or when the levels had already

started to go up (almost 10 cm per day). As a

result, until now, we still don‟t have access to

the entire corpus, and probably we are dealing

with a small fraction of what would be

available in a “good” drought (like the 2005

one) and with the ideal fieldwork logistics. We

suspect that the assemblage presented is only

the „tip of the iceberg‟.

The sampled corpus is very small in terms of

analytical purposes, but as we have said, this is

a preliminary work and, before any attempts

at breaking the corpus into formally different

corpora, styles or graphical identities, and in

order to establish an internal relative

chronology, we have to find them, observe

them and record their content. We are at this

embryonic stage of research.

Sample Area

The sample area encompasses two

municipalities in the lower Negro river basin,

from Barcelos to Novo Airão, (coordinates

S02°17‟ W61°03‟ to S01°16‟ W62°17‟). Major

environmental features of this area are the

geological diversity and a multi-confluence

situation in the hydrographic network.

Geologically, the contact between the granites

and gneisses of the Guiana crystalline shield‟s

Jauaperi complex and the sandstone and

siltstone from Prosperança, Içá, Alter do

Chão and Trombetas group sedimentary

formations introduces different sources of

lithological materials with highly diverse

petrographical properties into the area, which

probably would have led to different

technical-operatory chains.

Hydrographically, several tributaries of the

Negro river‟s lower course converge in the

area, bringing biotic and abiotic influences

from very different parts of the Amazon

region. The confluence of the alkaline white

waters of the Branco river coming from the

north, (savannahs from the Roraima state, SE

Venezuela and Guiana) with the acidic dark

waters from the Negro river basin, whose

headwaters are located in the extreme NW of

Amazonia (rain forests from east Colombia

and Upper Orinoco river), connects areas that

are also highly diverse in terms of

ethnographical content and cultural histories.

We present here a sequence of maps and

satellite images to show this environmental

variability in the sample area along with the

plotted location of the sites we are studying.

(Fig.1- 4 )

Hypothesis

We propose that this geo-environmental set

(hydrographic and geological variability) has a

direct contribution in the determination of

graphical variability (heterogeneity) in a rock

art corpus under similar conditions. We have

chosen this specific geographical space in the

course of Negro basin in order to test this

assumption. What we have found, until now,

indicates a confirmation, rather than a

refutation, of our basis hypothesis.

Thus we are inclined to postulate that areas

of geological contact and hydrographic

confluence are more suitable for presenting

factual rock art variability, and hence for the

study of its theoretical consequences. This

sound proposition is of imminent testability

and therefore we believe it is built on

hypothetical-deductive scientific ground even

if in the future it is proven to be false.

Consequently, we understand that this

experiment lends support to the proposition

of a preliminary geo-archaeological predictive

model to be tested in other areas along the

Negro basin and outside of it. The suggested

PETROGLYPHS IN THE LOWER NEGRO RIVER BASIN, NW BRAZILIAN AMAZON – A PRELIMINARY VIEW

Raoni VALLE


94

model is based on the following background

assumptions: (1) multiple cultural and

geographical proveniences of authors‟

communities were conditioned by the

hydrographical net; (2) multiple strategies and

choices of rock art elaboration were

conditioned by variability in geological raw

materials of technical surfaces and tools.

So, from this geological point of view,

diversity in available rock types would have

led to different operatory procedures in the

manifestation of graphic phenomena,

beginning with the prime agency over raw

materials through the parietal artifact‟s final

appearance and subsequent intentional

manipulation.3

The problem is that what we are detecting in

different rock surfaces in the sample area

indicates not just different techniques (what

would be expected) but rather other sorts of

graphical choices in terms of thematics,

morphological structure, topological

arrangements within the graphical space (the

so-called “scenography”) and

geomorphological positioning of panels in

sites and of sites in the landscape, patterns

which are heterogeneously emerging.

According to previous studies (Pessis 2002;

Valle 2003) and based on ethnographical

substrata (Lewis–Williams 2004; Whitley 2001,

1998; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1967, 1971; Eliade

1949 [1993]; Levi-Strauss 1966) it is possible

that geological choices are neither random nor

naturally constricted, and could be governed

by prehistoric systems of geological ethno-

knowledge or, at minimum, a geological

ethno-taxonomy materialized in culturally

and/or ritualistically deliberate choices for

determined lithological types at the base of

their operatoire and symbolic chains.

Within the hydrographic perspective, we have

an indigenous history and ethnohistory, at

3 To this day, some ethnic groups in the Upper Negro river

retouched the old petroglyphs, sometimes with lithic manufacturing techniques, but more often, just applying industrialized paint, or other sort of pigment over it.

least for the latter part of the Holocene

occupation, for the entire Amazonian

lowlands that is based on fluvial movements

of languages, cultures and peoples, a riverine

lifestyle which is considered one of the tenets

for the definition of a tropical forest culture

(Lowie 1948). In the Negro the panorama is

exactly the same and several sources (Wallace,

1979; Spix & Martius, 1981; Rodrigues

Ferreira, 1972; Koch-Grunberg, 2005,

Métraux, 1948; Goldman, 1948; Nimuendaju,

1950; Wright, 1992; Urban, 1992; Montserrat,

2000; Neves 1998) point to a multicultural

and multilinguistic prehistoric scenario.

Given the multi-confluence characteristic of

the sample area, where the connection of

Negro and Branco rivers dominates the

hydrographical landscape, we assume that

cultures coming from the northern savannahs

and igneous uplands of Roraima, Southeast

Venezuela and Guiana via the Branco river,

and cultures coming from the Northwest

Amazon, East Colombia and Upper Orinoco

basin via the Negro river were in possible

diachronic contact precisely within the

research area, where we are finding variability

in the rock art corpus.

Equating biotic and abiotic convergence

(Ab‟Saber 2002) with cultural confluence, we

believe that hydrographical and geological

contact areas are best suitable for testing

models of rock art graphical heterogeneity,

which is hypothetically associated with

cultural variability conditioned by socio-

environmental factors.

Theoretic-Methodological Framework

In the realm of discussions about formal and

informed methods (Chippindale and Taçon

1998; Chippindale and Nash 2004) we opt for

a formal one. Despite the existence in the

Amazon region of living indigenous mytho-

historical traditions that interpret the

petroglyphs, mainly in the Negro river basin

(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1967, 1971; Koch-

Grünberg 1907; Xavier 2008), there is, by no

means, an unequivocal way to demonstrate,


95

verify or test a “philogenetic” or cultural-

historic connection between these living

traditions and the prehistoric authors‟ graphic

concepts and practices, assuming that these

petroglyphs are older than the ethnographic

present and memory.4

Considering this, we follow Chippindale and

Taçon‟s definition (1998:7) of formal method,

which postulates: “For much prehistoric art,

beginning with the Palaeolithic art of the deep

European caves, we have no basis for informed

knowledge. There we must work with formal methods,

those that depend on no inside knowledge, but which

work when one comes to the stuff „cold‟, as a

prehistorian does. The information available is then

restricted to that which is immanent in the images

themselves, or which we can discern from their relations

to each other and to the landscape, or by relation to

whatever archaeological context is available.”

In so saying, we should not discard the

ethnographical meanings and usages of the

petroglyphs by the living indigenous

traditions, but we must be conscious, when

making analogical attempts, that this

repertoire of (re)significations and practices is

probably separated by millennia from the

prehistoric rock-art‟s original atmosphere of

creation. When one cannot be sure about time

it becomes necessary to rely on space, from

micro-spatial analyses of the technical and

morphological formal constitution of the

images to the macro-spatial analytic levels of

the images in the panel, then on to the panel‟s

geomorphological insertion in the site rock

formation and, finally, through to the

insertion of the site in the major landscape

features (Chippindale and Nash 2004).

4 Indeed, considering their topo-geomorphological situation of

submersion, one can speculate about a middle holocenic origin for most part of the corpus available today, based on palaeoenvironmental indicatives of much lower water levels in Negro basin between 6.000 years B.P. and 3.000 years B.P., (Ab’Saber 1996; Williams 1985). During this time, the geomorphological locations of those rock art panels would have been exposed year-round, assuming that most of this rock art was made to be seen and to communicate something to someone passing along the river.

With regard to this issue of temporal control,

Franklin is of particular interest: “The basic

problem with many studies of rock art in Australia

(and in other parts of the world) is a lack of control

over time” (in Bahn&Lorblanchet 1993:1). And

further, she says (Ibidem 1993:8): “Fruitful

approaches might be spatial analyses, where attempts

are made to measure variation within rock art on a

spatial basis. We cannot at present deal in any detail

with time in rock art, but we can deal with space.

Rock art has a fixed location, and generally does not

suffer the problem of, for instance, movement within an

archaeological deposit…Although some movement and

erosion of rock art panels may occur as a result of

natural processes [We should add here cultural

processes as well, as in the case of

ethnographic selective retouch]…this may not

be as great as disturbances observed in other

archaeological sites…In spatial approach, one would

proceed from a known factor, space, or location of sites,

to in most cases unknown factor, time”.

Thus, our focus is less on time than on space.

Hence, it would be suitable to discard two

levels of the phenomena, time and meaning

(the ethnographic myth-historical and

ecological ones or our western logical ones),

which we consider, for the purpose of our

work and given its limitations, unreachable

and useless, respectively. Instead, we should

focus on the visual photographical pieces of

evidence, trying to segregate modalities of

factual features based on cognitively

detectable materiality of the rock art codes

and analogical reoccurrences (what could be

called visual analogies [Sieveking in

Bahn&Lorblanchet 1993:33]) among those

detected material aspects recognized by our

brain and visual system.

The formal method employed here is in great

part derived from A.M. Pessis‟ (1987, 1989,

1992a, 1992b 1993, 1999, 2002 and 2004) and

N. Guidon‟s (1982, 1986, 1992 and 1996)

work with the rock art traditions of Serra da

Capivara National Park in Piauí as well as

from G. Martin (1999, 2000) and from my

own research efforts (Valle 2003) within the

rock art corpora of the Seridó arid region


Raoni VALLE


96

between the Brazilian Northeastern states of

Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte. The

procedures of these authors share a common

theoretical background which poses two main

questions as guidelines for rock art studies in

Brazil:

1 - Who made it? This poses a problem of

cultural authorship based on the proposition

that the diversity in graphical presentation5

and in technical-operatory procedures

identified in Brazilian rock art points to

diversity of social presentation (Pessis 1989)

in its authorship. This view is also supported

by the known linguistic and ethnographical

scenario for the Brazilian native population at

the moment of European intrusion which

indicates a highly heterogeneous prehistoric

socio-cultural context (Carneiro da Cunha

1992).

2 - When it was made? This second

preoccupation for the sites under discussion is

of almost unbearable discomfort, but, where it

is concerned, it tries to establish hypothetical

relative chronologies based on

superimpositions of distinct graphic practices

or graphic moments, and, when possible,

through stratified and contextual positioning

in datable archaeological deposits. The first

procedure could be tested in the current

assemblage, and indeed, we are already

attempting to do so. The second procedure is

out of the question, as is direct dating, which

rests far beyond of our range of possibilities,

at least for now.

When looking for patterns of graphic

(re)presentation the first thing that we must

5 The concept of graphic presentation according to Anne-

Marie Pessis (1989) “is based on the fact that a representation of the perceptible world, prehistoric or modern, is a manifestation of the system of social presentation of author’s ownership. Accepting that each cultural group or each segment inside a society has its own procedures for presenting themselves to the observation of someone else…it would be plausible that these procedures could be integrated in the graphical representations of a such cultural group…[T]he analysis of the graphic manifestations of the prehistoric men, looking for the identification of patterns in graphic presentation, constitutes a way of access to their culture.” Original text was in Portuguese, so this translation is mine.

realize is that these are arranged both in space

and time. However, we assume that only the

spatial dimension can be discernible by the

researcher`s cognition in a quasi-objective

manner. Chronological indications of the

superimpositions can also be objectively

perceptible but when one deals with severely

weathered petroglyphs, this is not an easy

task, and depending of the degree of

weathering, even the graphic formal patterns

cannot be recognized.

We are treating prehistoric rock art as visual

communication systems belonging to authors‟

communities, which are structured as

graphical languages. That is to say, they are

symbolic codes ordered through rules and

graphic conventions analogous to the social

rules and conventions of the social

presentation of cultural communities (Pessis

1989). Every system of communication of

Homo sapiens and of other primates is based in

two ethological principles: sensorial

observation of reality (environment) and self-

presentation to this reality (environmental

interaction and sense of self-existence and the

existence of others) (Pessis 2004).

Each community structured in its own social

rules will produce specific graphic codes made

by their own graphical-cultural choices. This

process of graphical construction can be

understood as a side effect of systems of

problem-oriented technical resolution based

upon learning and innovative behaviors

(Pessis 2004), products of cognitive

observation of the reality and self presentation

into the world. Taking this perspective into

account, our fundamental proposition is that

there is a direct connection between graphic

presentation of rock art and the social

presentation of its authors, making

theoretically possible the identification of

“ethnic groups”, and/or, wider cultural

traditions behind the graphic patterns

regionally localized in the rock art corpus

(Pessis and Guidon 1992; Guidon 1992).

In this line of reasoning, which treats rock art

corpora as prehistoric systems of visual


97

communication, Pessis (2004: 282) postulates:

“Considering rock paintings as an expression of the

manner of communication, opened the way to knowing

prehistoric cultures. But the possibilities are slight of

discovering the meanings that the figures or scenes

represented to given cultures. If instead of searching for

mere meanings, one search to identify what figures

represent, the thematic and technical characteristics and

the manners in which they were conceived, it is possible

to discover more information about the ways of

communication. To identify the ways through which

the groups present themselves graphically is a method of

identifying them, for in real life they also differ.”

This assumption has a semiotic6 background

and thus two main propositions (Eco 1974) of

semiotic approach can be put in order here:

- “Every culture should be studied as a

communication phenomenon.”

- “All aspects of a culture can be studied as content

[we would add here „and form‟] of

communication.”

In view of the definition as communication

systems, rock art codes, in general, existed as

ordinations of signs characterized by the

union of signifier (objects/symbols) and

signified (meanings) (Saussure 1969; Eco

1974; Ostrower 1977; Renfrew 2007),

expressed in the relation of form and content

of symbolic codes in which only fragments of

the forms have survived and are now available

to the scientific analysis. That is to say, we

have lost all the semantic and phonetic

6 Semiotics is a philosophical and scientific discipline derived

from the Semiology of Ferdinand de Saussure (1969) “that consider[s] all cultural phenomena as processes of communication” and deals with “the study of the conditions of communicability and comprehensibility of a message (its codification and decodification)” (Eco 1974). The Saussurian Semiology (1969) proposes the application of the concept “sign” as the union between a signified and a signifier under a communicational relation between a sender and a receiver. According to Saussure, Semiology is “a science that studies the life of the signs inside the social life”. The Semioses of Peirce (1972) also contributes to the constitution of a semiotic discipline. According to this author Semioses is characterized by “an action, an influence in which is implicit an operation amongst three subjects: a sign, its object and its interpreter, not being possible, in any way, this tri-relative influence get resolved in pair actions” where he poses a critique to the Saussurian view. All the quotations were translated from Portuguese to English by the author and do not constitutes the original texts.

dimensions of the code remaining only

fragments of its visual structural syntax.

Linguistically we can define precisely what we

mean by following the Saussurian view of

signs as social reality constructs (Renfrew

2007; Bednarik 2007; Ostrower 1977), units of

signification that point simultaneously to two

existential plains: “the sensorial aspect, verbal or

visual, by means of the sound, the written or the image

of a word (signifier), and to its notion, that is to say, a

conventionalized content (signified)” (Ostrower,

1977).

The analysis of the rock art signifier, which

basically characterizes the formal method

employed here, consider seven (7) parameters:

1. Technical-operatory chain – the whole

sequence of procedures, technical steps,

gestures, postures, time consumption,

implements and accessories utilized to

transform raw materials into final products.

2. Morphology – the segregation of the forms

of the graphical units, their structural features

and constitutional traces.

3. Thematics – the themes morphologically

represented, or cognitively identified in the

graphical units by an external observer. We

segregate three basic types: Biomorphs

(zoomorphs, anthropomorphs and

phitomorphs); pure graphism (abstract or

geometrical morphology, themes with no

correspondence to the sensible world, not

cognitively identified by an external observer);

and object representations related to the

depiction of material culture components.

4. Scenography – the set of patterns expressed

in the presentation of forms in the graphic

space, modalities of articulation, agency,

interactions and isolation amongst graphical

units in a synchronic or diachronic

composition.

5. Geo-environmental choices – patterns of

petrographical selection of the panel‟s rock

type, of the instruments employed, and in the

technical mark, linked to technical operatory

chain; and patterns in the geomorphological

selection of the panels in the site‟s rock


Raoni VALLE


98

formation and of the site in the surrounding

landscape.

6. Chronology – observation of the

superimpositions among distinct graphical

moments and juxtaposition or

superimposition among distinct conservation

states (different colors and textures) indicative

of posterior selective retouch, renewal within

a graphic panel, or different dates for the

prime execution.

7. Taphonomy – Sequence of natural

processes of alteration in the physical

properties and characteristics of the rock art

starting just after the confection to the

moment of our documentation and through

its complete disappearance.

The systematization of these seven

parameters, when applied to a given rock art

corpus, leads to the segregation of modalities

in graphic presentation as well as the

proposition of hypothetic chronological

sequences among those modalities could be

possible. When we analyze a single site, we

propose that the segregation of the site‟s

graphic patterns constitutes its graphic profile.

But when dealing with a set of sites that are

spatially related, searching for their graphical

patterns, and their idiosyncrasies, we propose

the repertoire of similitude shared among

their graphical profiles as integrating the same

hypothetical graphic identity7.

It is commonly observed that the same rock

art sites have been used by several different

cultural groups along centuries and millennia

which lead to the superimposition or

juxtaposition of diverse graphic profiles, or

patterns of graphic presentation, in the same

site or panel, which introduces ambiguity and

complexity into the analysis. When

confronted with a larger sample, it is possible

to recognize: (1) a slow historic-cultural

process of evolution and change of groups

once closely related or (2) the sudden

7 The graphic identities are “constituted by a set of

characteristics that allows one to attribute a rock art corpus to a determined social authorship. These characteristics constitute patterns of graphic representations correlated to certain cultural characteristics” (Pessis 1993).

irruption of a new cultural identity coming in

from abroad that is materialized in a highly

contrasting rupture in the graphic patterns,

indicating the presence of different rock art

traditions (Pessis & Guidon 1992).

If similar phenomena could be observed as

recurrent in other sites nearby, this would

imply that diverse graphical identities would

have occupied those same sites expressing a

correlation with a diachronic peopling by

diverse ethnic groups more or less culturally

related, or even without any relation at all.

Graphical identities would be equivalent to

ethnic groups inside a major rock art

tradition8, which in turn corresponds to an

entity analogous to a linguistic family within

which several graphic languages evolve. Being

initially close and related to each other, those

languages undergo transformation in time and

space becoming different cultural entities

(Pessis & Guidon 1992).

Therefore, if our entrance analytic category is

the site‟s graphic profile, our exit analytic

category will be the graphical identities of a

determined archaeological area9 (Martin 1999)

8 Rock art tradition is an anthropological analogue to cultural

horizon and match archaeologically as the broadest taxonomic class of rock art where one can define cultural identities in a wider character (Pessis 1992). Another version of the same definition: the largest analytic unit amongst the divisions established to the rock art (Martin and Asón 2000). Tradition characterizes distinct classes of rock art by the segregation of morphological, technical, scenographical and chronological markers or attributes proper from a graphic corpus of a determined region. The graphic identity of a given tradition is the grouping of the identical features of these indicators as they occur in the corpus, their pattern behavior which tends to vary in time-space. 9“An archaeological area as an entrance category to the

beginning and systematic continuity of a research, must keep flexible limits inside the same ecological unit sharing the same geo-environmental characteristics. With the development of the research and the systematic study of archaeological sites becomes possible the acquisition of chrono-estratigraphic data allowing the determination of human occupations in space and time demonstrating human permanence in all or part of the area. It would be possible as well to know the processes of human adaptation and resources management” (Martin 1999). PS: All the quotations were translated from Portuguese to English by the author and do not constitutes the original texts.


99

which would be hypothetically associated with

the prehistoric social groups that occupied

this area over a long time, and which would

have materialized on those rocks their

cognitive-cultural systems of knowledge and

procedure. But, indeed, what we deal with are

researcher‟s constructs that express our

efforts in grouping and segregating the palaeo

graphic phenomena under a tentative heuristic

process of pursuit for measurable and

verifiable categories, which allow us a

necessarily restricted comprehension.

Preliminary Results

At this very analytic moment we are working

at the site‟s graphic profile level, upon which

we base our preliminary contrasts and visual

analogies, which are for the same reason

tentative and still contain considerable

ambiguity. It is worth noting that we are not

defining graphical identities, styles and

traditions by obvious reasons of quantitative

analytical restrictions, and because we still

have not applied more rigorous statistical and

mathematical methods of grouping and

segregation (cluster, cladistics, upgma) which

we consider necessary, in addition to direct

observation of rock art panels and

photographs supporting our visual analogical

impressions and provisional procedures.

Although two of these graphical profiles

possess analogical matches in more than one

site, we still do not feel secure in the

affirmation that they constitute the same

graphic identities, nor that we only have the

three (3) proposed profiles in the assemblage.

Possibly the sites we are now segregating may

contain more than one graphic profile each,

which would introduce considerable noise and

ambiguity in our temporary segregation

schemata. Nevertheless we hold the position

that the total assemblage can be divided in

this rough way and that it expresses distinct

formally identifiable modes of graphic

thought (Renfrew 2007).

Considering all of the above, as a preliminary

taxonomic attempt, it was possible to divide

the corpus available in the sample area into

three major classes of distinct graphic profiles,

namely:

- Velho Airão Graphic Profile;

- Rio Negro Graphic Profile;

- Unini Graphic Profile

Velho Airão Graphic Profile

The Velho Airão Graphic Profile was defined

based on the analysis of four rock art sites

located between the Velho Airão riverine

community and the lower course of the Jaú

River, inside and adjacent to the Jaú National

Park. A later addition to this graphic profile

was the single horizontal sandstone panel of

Unini 4, found isolated on a rocky island in

the second set of rapids of the Unini river.

This profile receives its name from Pedral

Velho Airão (S 01° 55' 09.9" W 061° 24'

14.8"), the major concentration of petroglyphs

available in the assemblage documented,

which extends through a shore line of four

hundred and thirty (430) meters of riverine

Prosperança sandstone boulders comprising

eight (8) graphic concentration areas with

several panels each, totaling hundreds of

graphic units (individual petroglyphs).

Technologically, no specific observation could

be made due to the extremely harsh

weathering situation affecting these

petroglyphs, which does not allow for proper

observation of the technical-operatory chain.

What can be said based on very few well-

preserved figures is that direct percussion was

in use, (and in minor cases indirect

percussion, but see Bednarik 2007:37),

probably executed with a pointed lithic

cobble-like implement, possibly quartz, with a

percussive surface measuring between one (1)

cm and a half (0.5) cm, judging by the small

pounded marks and by the length, depth and

textural internal surface of the rare preserved

pounded traces. We presume minor indirect

percussion based on experimental tests with


Raoni VALLE


100

the same sandstone and by the precision of

the lines and the control of line directions,

mainly in the circular and spiraled lines

present in most figures. However, affirming

this for the entire site and graphic profile

remains difficult because of taphonomic

alteration. We hope in the near future to

employ field microscopy observations to

sharpen the definition of technical features.

Thematically, we perceive a majority of

anthropomorphic figures associated with a

minority of non-recognizable graphic units

(what we would call abstract figures), mainly

several modalities of spirals, conjuncts of

cupmarks and wavy lines. Morphologically,

the graphic presentation of the

anthropomorphic assemblage varies greatly

internally but, in general, retains certain main

features characterized by the following: varied

size, in general, medium to large proportions

(fifty [50] cm to a hundred and forty [1.40]

cm); single or double line contour of the body

(no filled-in); sexual distinctiveness; enormous

angular belly with navel and breasts assigned;

fixed postures with opened limbs; facial

characteristics (mouth and eyes), some

presenting straight radial projections out of

the head indicating possible ornamentation;

and several modalities of stylized

morphological constitution of body (head,

trunk and limbs) represented with non-

naturalistic conventional morphologies, (e.g.,

extremity of the limbs converted into spirals).

These features allow one to think that these

are representations, not of human beings, but

of entities of extraordinary nature, assuming a

correlation between unnatural morphology

and behavioral properties or powers.

Zoomorphic representations are extremely

rare but do occur in two panels in Pedral

Velho Airão totalizing seven (7) small units

between twenty (20) cm and thirty-five (35)

cm, all apparently quadrupeds exhibited in

profile with round heads and tail ending in a

spiral.

Scenographically, anthropomorphic figures

are almost always shown in groups in frontal

disposition, but not in direct graphic contact,

resembling collective scenes or a kind of

visual narrative in which the themes

represented cannot be recognized. Some

appear in an upside-down disposition,

showing small ambiguous anthropomorphic

figures in graphic connection with the genital

area and in-between the legs. These are quite

impressive, resembling birth scenes and

suggesting the representation of adults and

infants. The contra-natura aspect becomes

clearer when one realizes that these appear

not only in morphological features of the

anthropomorphic figures but also in the

graphic spatial disposition and postural

presentation of the figures. Several modalities

of interaction can be discerned between

anthropomorphic and abstract graphic

compositions, and almost no abstract unit is

presented alone. When this does happens, the

abstract unit seems to retain a resemblance to

a stylized decomposed anthropomorphic

character, such as faces with big eyes in spiral

form or only the inferior limbs in spiral

convention. In general, the rule seems to be a

graphic spatial association between

anthropomorphic and abstract units with

prominence given to the former category.

Zoomorphic figures are shown in groups as

well, and in at least one panel they seem to be

associated with an anthropomorphic figure.

Geomorphologically, as far as it is concerned

in this graphic profile, the positioning of the

panels in the space is the more prominent

feature. In this matter the set does not seem

to present any discernible pattern in terms of

the general positioning of the panels in the

internal rocky landscape of the site. In fact,

this could be the geomorphological pattern

itself, that is to say, the absence of uniform

orientation of the panels. Most of them are

vertical or diagonal panels but vary in

geographical orientation, some are oriented

backwards the river pointing to the forest,

some of them are oriented to the rocky sides

of the shore line (W-E), some of them are

oriented to the river, and, yet, some of them

are facing the sky staying horizontally,

although this is a minority. None is shown

facing down. In general, the spatial situation


101

seems to be equally distributed, perhaps with

a more slightly tendency to the river

orientation, indicating a sort of fluvial

signaling.

As could be understood by the above text,

taphonomical alteration by means of physical

(erosion and exfoliation of the sandstone) and

biological (micro-vegetal, fungi and other

organism‟s accretions and cortical

penetration) weathering has been distorting

the physical appearance of the technical marks

and morphological constitution of these

petroglyphs in severe and diverse ways

(mostly erasing the peck-marks, transmitting

an homogeneous aspect between the inside

and the outside spaces of the petroglyphs).

This evidence indicates that the general

assemblage of this graphical profile has been

subject to weathering action for a long time,

and thus could be extremely ancient, maybe

millenia old. No superimposition could be

detected, therefore, we cannot speak to

internal chronology, but it seems probable

that we are dealing here with more than one

graphic profile and different moments of

execution based on differences in weathering

states, all of which needs further investigation.

Rio Negro Graphic Profile

The Rio Negro Graphic Profile was defined

based on one single Prosperança sandstone

site, Pedral Rio Negro (S 01° 53' 01.1" W 061°

26' 36.6"). This site contains four (4) graphic

concentration areas, most containing a single

panel, and one being almost permanently

underwater and out of conventional

photographic range. Quantitatively and in

spatial terms inferior to Pedral Velho Airão,

this site presents only a few dozens of graphic

units.

Thematically, we have a remarkable turning

point here materialized in the massive

occurrence of non-recognizable, abstract,

repertoire of figures (so-called pure graphism in

Pessis‟ terminology). Not a single figure could

be matched into a figurative thematic, and

neither did any possess recognizable

morphology. So we are considering the entire

corpus of this site of imminent hermetic

nature indicative of a completely different

kind of graphic thought. Even in comparative

terms to the abstract elements identified in the

Velho Airão Graphic Profile we could not

find any clear analogy, despite the

resemblance of one unit in the submerged

panel. One other petroglyph seems to be a

schematic or geometric stylization of a face or

a mask but retaining so much formal

ambiguity that we cannot categorically assume

this.

The scenographical aspect is internally varied

with respect to the graphical concentration

area. But two general situations could be

identified: one more concentrated where the

graphical space is apparently crowded with

units and another sparser, with more

technologically uninterfered spaces amongst

the units. Despite the ambiguity of defining

scenes in a non-narrative figurative visual

context, in this case, at least, one can perceive

where one unit finishes and another begins.

As far as scenography is concerned, this is the

key property for an understanding of the

morpho-topology in the filling-in of graphic

space, as it makes discernible the syntactical

arrangements of the figures. For now, at this

level of the internal analysis, neither

associative patterns between units in the

panels, nor internal recurrences of single

figures could be detected. The petroglyphs

seem to be a general composite of unique

morphologies from outside the site and inside

as well (with an exception of only two units

that have morphological equivalents in Velho

Airão Graphic Profile).

Technologically, observations indicate that

both direct and indirect percussion were

employed in the execution of these percussive

petroglyphs. Again the basis for such

diagnosis relies on comparative

experimentation with the same sandstone type

using instruments made with the local

lithological raw materials, as well as on the

patient observation of the pecking and

pounded marks in situ and on analysis of

macro-photographs of technical details within


Raoni VALLE


102

the units. In these technical elements we find

correspondence with Velho Airão Graphic

Profile (which is largely conditioned by a

shared rock matrix), noting that while in the

latter there is no sound basis for a clear and

specific technical statement, in the former we

have a much more preserved set of technical

marks, wherein different kinds of pecking and

pounding can be observed, indicating

different instruments employed and probably

different moments of execution.

The techniques vary from erratic superficial

pounding (three [3] mm to five [5] mm in

depth by one [1] to three [3] cm in length) that

just disrupted the ancient cortex, indicating a

vacillate-handled direct percussion with,

probably, a pointed pebble, to deep and large

pecked-like grooves (four [4] to six [6] cm in

length by two [2] to four [4] cm in depth)

penetrating the sandstone matrix, indicating

successive retouch of the same pecked lines

with a large blunt instrument probably beaten

with a hammer-like implement.

In one vertical panel, a group of deep

cupmarks (reaching seven [7] cm in depth)

were executed with fine polishing, leaving an

astonishing degree of internal textural

homogeneity. Given the geomorphological

position of these marks in the rock boulder

(inside a concavity quite in a negative hollow

but still in general verticality) we have not yet

been able to reconstitute the operatory

process, and treat this as an isolated

phenomenon. The general good conservation

state of panel I is seen in the contrast between

the dark brown, oxidized-like ancient cortex,

and the fresh, vivid orange, little eroded or

repatinated rock matrix inside the pounding

that is still visible. This site, along with its

main panel (I), constitutes a very interesting

piece of technical evidence that deserves

further technical analysis.

In geomorphological terms most petroglyphs

at this site are located inside small open

niches, recesses along fifty (50) meters of a

rock wall immediately on the edge of a

channel of the Negro river, which is almost

inside the water stream, with wide visibility to

the fluvial navigators, being the best preserved

panel (I) exactly in the line of sight of those

descending the stream. Visible within a range

of more than fifty (50) meters, the sense of a

fluvial signaling really catches our attention.

Judging by their topographical level on the

wall we are inclined to suppose the existence

of more petroglyphs permanently underwater

in the climax of low waters in the dry season.

This general pattern of geomorphological

location contrasts with that observed in the

Velho Airão graphic profile, which as we said

shows no proper locational pattern. In both

geomorphological parameters we adopt here,

i.e. panels within the site and the site within

the landscape, Velho Airão and Rio Negro

profiles are equally contrasting. Bearing in

mind a comparison at the same water level,

the disposition of these rock formations with

respect to surfaces available to external sight

and use, Pedral Rio Negro presents a

uniformity in the positioning of the panels,

widely facing the river, and with a much more

direct contact of the rock wall with a highly

dynamic and deep fluvial channel. This

characterizes the insertion of the site in a

specific surrounding landscape, while Velho

Airão is set over a sandy shore, which, of

course, may be of modern sedimentation but

the general rock-art-panels/river contact is

quite different.

Taphonomic factors have a differential action

considering the four (4) graphic concentration

areas, indicating different chronologies for the

time of weathering availability of each panel,

or at least differential weathering conditioned

by favored location of some areas in relation

to the erosive power of the streams, which

apparently constitutes the most powerful

source of physical weathering in action here.

But, given the geomorphological uniformity

of the panels, this second hypothesis seems

less plausible, leading us to accept a different-

chronologies scenario for the execution of the

panels, being the youngest one the more

preserved in the internal assemblage, where

one can still admire the actual techniques of

execution and to some extent the original

contrast between the ancient cortex and

internal nature of the pecked/pounded marks,

in color, texture and technical morphology.

The oldest panel would probably be the one


103

that today is almost submerged, and which

shows severely weathered petroglyphs and

contains a morphological analogue to a unit in

the Velho Airão profile. In this line of

thinking, we assume that the crowded,

abstract, and well preserved panel (I), the

main one in this site, which characterizes its

profile, is of younger age compared to the rest

of the sandstone assemblage inside and

outside the site.

Unini Graphic Profile

Unini Graphic Profile was defined initially by

a single site, Unini 2 (S 01° 40‟ 12.8 “W 061°

47' 32.2”) amongst the granite boulders of the

first rapids of the lower course of the Unini

River. Subsequently five (5) other sites were

discovered outside of the Unini river in the

Negro close to the mouth of the Branco river

and in the lower course of the Jauaperi river.

These sites present visual analogies which

strongly suggest direct graphic connections

among them (and all are found on granite

bedrock), and show characteristics that

suggest a distance from the sandstone

bedrock sites comprising the Velho Airão and

Rio Negro Profiles.

Thematical choices here privilege zoomorphic

figures and a minor proportion of

anthropomorphic representations. When only

Unini 2 was under consideration, no abstract,

non-recognizable figures were accounted for

in terms of the thematic definition of this

profile. But after the positive contact with

such graphic units outside of the Unini river,

it became necessary to accommodate them

with the other themes. However the inclusion

of this graphic class does not alter the

supremacy of the zoomorphic character in the

Unini graphic profile.

Morphologically and within the

scenographical scope of this profile, the

zoomorphic figures are assembled generally in

medium to large sizes, a few ranging between

thirty (30) cm and fifty (50) cm, but most

larger, measuring up to one hundred and sixty

(160) cm. They present full body infill graphic

resolution, showing a majority of quadrupeds

in profile and in apparent movement, with

distinctive morphological features in the body,

head and legs permitting the recognition of

“species” or types of animals such as cervidae-

like and primate-like, and also bird- and

snake-like forms. The animals do not seem to

obey any organized positioning in the graphic

space, being scattered inside the panel when

they are not isolated in the plan. An exception

occurs at Unini 2, where one can see what

could be called a scene of four (4) small birds

(twenty [20] cm each, more or less) in a profile

line following a single direction, the last one

on the Eastern extremity being superimposed

by a small, “reptile”-like figure (forty [40] cm),

all of them with a fresh non-cortical technical

surface resembling a recent moment of

execution. At another site, Pedra da Vovó

(UTM 20M S0669915 W9828415), a primate-

like figure holds in its hand what is interpreted

to be a flute, and taking it to its head,

apparently playing the instrument. Indeed this

thematic action of playing a flute is a recurrent

one within the anthropomorphic figures in

this profile.

The anthropomorphic figures were presented

in two situations. First, the figures appear in

large groups with more than ten individuals in

graphic connection through each other‟s arms,

showing a frontal disposition and with no

distinctive features, such as sexual or facial

traces or adornments, this scene resembles a

depiction of a communal dancing and/or

ritual. The other situation is that of isolated

individuals, some in profile taking a stick to

their head or mouth with one or both hands

(as in playing a flute), and some frontally

presented holding still. In both cases, an

animal is associated in immediate graphic

space, such as a bird or quadruped, and again

no distinctive features, despite the supposed

flute, like sexual or facial ones.

Geomorphologically the Unini 2 site seems to

present a pattern in the location of the panels

and in the location of the site within the


Raoni VALLE


104

cascade. All the panels are facing the river

executed in the south or southwest faces of

the boulders and situated on the left edge

(north) of the river in the context of the

rapids. The verification of the opposite river‟s

edge at the rapid formation showed no

evidence of petroglyphs, indicating a

geomorphological selection for rocks on the

left side. Outside the Unini river, the same

cannot be said, but in general all the

petroglyphs are oriented toward rivers or

channels, and executed in sizes and in plans to

permit recognition by boat-borne observers.

While this situation links them to the

sandstone site of Pedral Rio Negro, it

distinguishes them from the Velho Airão

graphic profile which generally requires one to

disembark in order to see most of the

petroglyths.

The confection technique of the entire granite

assemblage seems to avail itself of different

degrees of abrasion as the main procedure. In

some units, one finds polished surfaces, while

in others just surface scraping (resembling

Sgraffitto technique [see Bednarik 2007:38]),

removing just the surface cortex, this latter

modality being more common. It is possible

that a prime moment of direct percussion

would have been used to open the rocky

cortex, sketching the figures and giving the

textural and color contrast; subsequently, the

abrasive techniques were adopted to create

the design‟s texturally uniform interior and

contour. This further assumption was verified

in experimental exercises using the same

granite bedrock, quartz pebble and quartz

sand available at the sites. Experiments tested

a direct abrading technique against direct

percussion followed by abrasion, and the

latter achieved results closer to what we infer

could be the original aspect of the

petroglyphs. What appear to be faint

reminiscent pounded marks in some units of

the sites outside of the Unini river, also

corroborate this interpretation, but these

marks occur in very low proportion. The

dominance of abrasion techniques in the

Unini graphic profile is almost certain, in

which case it greatly contrasts with the

sandstone assemblage techniques. Another

aspect that could be noted is that signs of

technical selective retouch and renewal, by

abrasion as well, are clearly visible in several

units of this profile, sometimes modifying the

preexistent morphology, thematics and

scenography of the figures. An emblematic

case may be the cervidae figure at Unini 2,

which seems to have suffered a retouch

changing it into a primate-like figure running

in the opposite direction, with its head being

the former cervidae tail10.

Taphonomic aspects in general point to a high

degree of weathering in these igneous

petroglyphs, either in terms of exfoliation

and/or of repatination. Consequently, most of

the petroglyphs in granite boulders are almost

disappearing and look like shadows of once

contrasting and visible figures. The general

causes can be attributed to the riverine and

seasonally submerged context which is

catastrophically alternated by sun exposure

two (2) to three (3) months a year, introducing

a strongly contingent physical weathering.

Furthermore, although it may be true that

granitic rocks are more resistant to erosion

than is sandstone, the same cannot be true in

terms of chemical and biological weathering.

We believe that to some extent those igneous

rocks are being subjected to geo-chemical

alteration by the acidity of the dark water,

which is rich in humic acid from debris of

organic matter deposited on the boulders‟

surfaces. One can perceive an increasing

disaggregation of the rocky subsurface

constituents by the penetration of bioactive

acidic matter in the interstitial micro-spaces of

the igneous pores. This can also make room

for colonies of microorganisms, which

promote an unknown series of subsequent

biochemical reactions along with the more

general physical weathering.

This assumption deserves deep investigation

but for now what can be said is that the

general aspect of the granite petroglyphs

10

This observation was not mine. I owe this to Madame Pessis’ clinical eyes, during personal communication.


105

assemblage suggests significantly more

degradation than the sandstone ones. This

may be a matter of ageing, of differential

weathering considering the rock types,

perhaps the differential techniques employed,

maybe all three. The fact is that the granite

petroglyphs look “older” than the sandstone

material and several graphical moments can

be discerned in those granite panels either by

different degrees of repatination in the figures

of the same panel, or by superimpositions

between figures, or still through this

interesting fact of selective retouch/renewal,

which changes the preexistent subjects

depicted. All of these factors, of course, have

very interesting chronological implications

with which we are at present working. This

context is only clear and generalized within

the granite assemblage.

Discussion

We still know very little, close to nothing,

about the rock art of the Negro Basin.

Weathering is obliterating the possible

observable features of this riverine rock art

assemblage, upon which formal method

analysis attempts rely.

The seasonality in hydration and dehydration

of the rock surfaces acts in favor of several

taphonomic factors. When the petroglyphs

are out of water they get exposed to extremely

high temperatures (nearing 40 degrees Celsius)

due to the equatorial latitude, and direct sun

heating due to a lack of vegetation covering

most of riverine boulders. This situation

alternates with high levels of precipitation

proper from the end of dry season in the

Lower Negro river rain forest ecosystem. The

combination of these factors results in

considerable physical and biological

weathering.

Underwater, the erosive force of the stream-

borne solid particles (albeit less than in white

waters), along with the acidic conditions of

dark waters, caused by high concentrations of

humic acid from organic debris

decomposition, play their role as taphonomic

agents causing physical and chemical

weathering. We still do not know the exact

process, but we do know that this conjuncture

affects the submerged and riverine rock

surfaces; consequently the Rock Art on it has

undergone severe decay for at least the last

three thousand years (since 3.000 B.P.), when

palaeoenviromental conditions began to

resemble current conditions, and the

agricultural ceramic riverine lifestyle started

becoming dominant (Neves 1998).

On the other hand, we cannot rely on

informed method for the Negro river, even if

Reichel-Dolmatoff (1967, 1971), Koch-

Grünberg (1907), Denis Williams (1985) and

others did so in their interpretive approaches,

given the concrete possibility that

contemporary ethnic accounts for the rock art

would be as “ethno-historically weathered” as

physically are the petroglyphs. This approach

allows us no certain glimpses of past graphical

modes of thought and behaviors, at least not

in a hypothetical-deductive scientific fashion,

because of the lack of testability of the

propositions thus derived when confronted

against the archaeological record. First of all,

there is no archaeological record

unequivocally related to the Amazonian

petroglyphs, not even for the upland

petroglyph sites (Greer 2001). Second, how

could one archaeologically falsify a myth of

creation? Myths are not falsifiable constructs.

They simply do not work by the same logic

science does. Ecological functionalist‟s

propositions, such as riverine resource

management, extracted from the ethnographic

present and memory, although more scientific

founded, work almost in the same way as the

myths in terms of falsifiability against past

behavior.


Raoni VALLE


106

The men or women who made the

petroglyphs are long deceased as are their

societies and possibly their environmental set,

and no procedure can prove, test, falsify,

verify or demonstrate a cultural relationship of

the living Indians with petroglyph prehistoric

authors, maybe only at the conjectural level.

The difference lies in whether one researcher

decides to believe in such accounts and

another does not.

Thus, insights from the living native myth-

historical accounts cannot elucidate problem-

oriented investigations of preceramic archaic

and ceramic formative horizons, assuming a

middle to lower holocenic origin and practice

for most of the petroglyph corpus of the

lower and middle Negro Basin, given their

semi-submerged geomorphological situation

in the climax of dry seasons of contemporary

times. This is a quite simplistic view of their

chronological and palaeoenvironmental

problem and deserves a proper sub-aquatic

and multidisciplinary investigative approach.

Summarizing the chronological complexities

of the Amazonian rock art Greer (2001:682)

tells us: “Categories [rock art ones] may be parts

of different cultural or social systems and different ages.

What is clear, however, is that rock art production

covers a very long time span.”

We are aware that the reality must be much

more complex than the one proposed here

because the sites can comprehend multiple

levels of superimpositions and juxtapositions

of different graphic profiles in the same

panels, which are not yet well understood.

Furthermore, graphic profiles can have several

moments of overlap in different proportions,

caused by diachronic moments of

reoccupation, reuse and selective retouch or

renewal, implying a long chronology in their

usage as graphical spaces. But in the end, as

we rely on the subjective perception of the

researchers and their cameras, what is

cognitively detectable and arranged by the

entrance categories applied for the graphic

phenomena in the sample area can be

organized in this diagram:

This graphic scheme is a very provisional one

representing the table of divisions that were

preliminary established within the available sample

based on visual analogies, through direct

observation of sites and collection of

photographic evidence, executed through the

application of those analytical categories

explicated above. Although constituted in the

form of a cladogram the above diagram does not

represent one, nor was it constructed through any

kind of mathematical, statistical nor evolutionary

ordered model (e.g. cluster analysis). These

remain to be tested and will be, given the fact that

the analytic categories we employ can be

converted into binary coded characters and

character states for ordering within a data matrix.

These, in turn, can be run in specific computer

programs (Macintosh Paup and others) to

generate, for instance, maximum parsimony trees,

an approach which has already been successfully

tested with another sample (Valle 2006b).

Note that the scheme is not ordered by graphic

profile but instead by sites, and that two main

groups, instead of three, can be clearly discerned.

Unini 2 is a group and Velho Airão is another

group; the others are more or less related to Velho

Airão, which implies that the Rio Negro abstract

graphic profile is the more distant related “cousin”

or “descendent” of the Velho Airão profile. This

assumption is based on conformities of technical

and petrographical choices, and of some minimal

morphological units retained between the two, as

well as on the conservation state of, at least, the


107

major panel (I) of the Pedral Rio Negro site which

is less taphonomically impacted by erosion than

the Velho Airão petroglyphs. Thus, considering

the same rock, the same technique and almost the

same environmental set, we believe it implies a

younger age for the Rio Negro Profile panel I.

However this does not change our former

proposition that these two constitute different

graphic profiles and overall different cultural or

ritual choices. As we said before, they do

constitute two rather distinct modes of thought;

nevertheless, both maintain a considerably larger

distance from the Unini graphic profile than exists

between them. This is exactly what this diagram

above expresses, in isolating the Unini group.

Conclusion

At this moment we cannot propose distinct styles

of rock art for the Negro river basin because of

quantitative limitations in the sample and because

no proper quantitative, mathematically sound

internal approach, was attempted. For now we

classify these manifestations as three different

graphic profiles of sites, two of which are

represented in more than one site. In our

understanding, this fact could be an indicative of

shared hypothetical graphical identities.

We are dealing with only twelve (12) sites

spread in a straight line of almost ninety (90)

kilometers in a fluvial basin which has more

than one thousand and five hundreds (1.500)

kilometers in the main course. In so doing, we

are being extremely cautious of any assertive

affirmation, given the fact that we need to

know much more about the rock art of the

entire Negro river basin. What is interesting is

that even in this quantitatively and spatially

restricted assemblage, we have considerable

heterogeneity, which makes us think in two

directions: (1) the representativeness of this

context for the rest of the basin in terms of

the validity of any potential extrapolation; (2)

the possible localized character of this

variability scenario conditioned by our

hypothesized geo-environmental background

factors (hydrographical confluence and

geological contact).

So, we will definitely need much further

testing and expansion of our prospection grid

in the basin. This will involve painstaking and

patient formal hard work and a huge amount

of luck to obtain good climatic conditions,

proper light exposures and well preserved

petroglyph panels or sites (which is almost

impossible). It will require locating generous

and comprehensive sponsorship to finance

several years of research, considering that field

work can only be done during one specific

month of the year under Amazonian jungle

harsh conditions and praying not to get

malaria, hepatitis (the entire alphabet),

leishmanioses, snake, alligator or pirana bites,

sucuri hug or any unknown tropical disease.

Acknowledgments

To Edithe Pereira, Kay Tarble Scaramelli, Niede

Guidon, Anne-Marie Pessis, Gabriela Martin,

Eduardo Góes Neves (advisor), Robert G.

Bednarik (IFRAO), Giraraj Kumar, Mila Simões,

Franz Scaramelli, Marcos Corrêa (pioneer), Mauro

Farias, Anna T. Browne (for the english revision),

Ana Carla Bruno (Inpa), Carlos Cesar Durigan e

Sérgio Borges (FVA), Samuel Taranran (WWF),

Fábio Origuela, Adília Nogueira (pacient wife and

also revision) and the Rio Negro Indigenous

Movement.


Raoni VALLE


108

Figures and References

Figure 1 - General map showing the position of NW Amazonia in its South American context, with a closer

view of the Negro basin in regional context. Square A shows the location of sites documented in the 2006 and

2007 campaigns. Author: M. Brito.


109

Figure 2 – Image of the sample area showing the location of Rock Art sites arranged in 3 main clusters: the

mouth of Jaú river at the bottom of the picture (Velho Airão, Rio Negro, Jaú 1, 2 and 3); the lower course of

Unini river in the middle of the picture (Unini 2 and 4); the proximities of the mouth of the Branco river near

the top (Ilha das Andorinhas, Santa Helena and Guariba 2). Other Rock Art sites include Pedra da Vovó (in a

channel of the mouth of the Jauaperi river) and São Pedro (on the lower course of Jauaperi not shown in the

map) which are, for the moment, isolated sites. Other markers indicate ceramic sites. Source: Google Earth.

Figure 3 – Sample area, characterized by a multiple-confluence hydrographic region, in the transition of the

middle to lower Negro river basin, markedly the junction between the Branco river and other smaller

tributaries (Jufari, Caures, Jauaperi, Unini and Jaú). Source: CBRS-INPE. Scale 1 cm 25 km.


Raoni VALLE


110

Figure 4 - Geological frontier along the course of the Unini River. Pink indicates igneous formations, others

are sedimentary rocks. Source: CPRM (Reis & Marmos 2007).


111

R. Valle

Figure 6 - Group of anthropomorphic and abstract figures, contra-natura scenography, upside down, note small

anthropomorphic figurines in between the legs and the genital zone (Births?). Pedral Velho Airão site,

Octuber 2006. Photo: R. Valle.

Photo:

Figure 5 - Pedral Velho Airão riverine geomorphological situation. Pedral Velho Airão, octuber, 2006.


Raoni VALLE


112

Figure 7 - Contra-natura upside down anthropomorphic figures with smaller figurines in between the legs and

the genital zones (births?) Pedral Velho Airão site, octuber 2006. Photo: R. Valle.

Figure 8 - Schematic stylization in anthropomorphic figure showing the extremities of the limbs converted in

spirals. Pedral Velho Airão site, octuber 2006. Photo: R. Valle.


113

Figure 10 - Pedral Rio Negro site, panel 1, november 2006. Photo R. Valle.


Figure 9 - Pedral rio Negro site. Riverine geomorphological situation, november 2006. Photo: R. Valle.

Raoni VALLE


114

Figure 12 - Graphic unit of panel 1, Pedral Rio Negro site. A mask ? November 2006. Foto: R. Valle

and a crowded-like scenography, Pedral Rio Negro. November 2006. Photo R. Valle.

Figure 11 - Detail of the bottom right corner of panel 1, presenting different levels of erosion


115

Figure 13 - Unini 2, Panel 1 showing different levels of repatination pointing to different moments of

technical execution, at least two: one anthropomorphic (darker) at the bottom and another zoomorphic,

which could be divided in internal technical episodes of renewal, note the latest one (more clear) at the vertical

snake-like zoomorph in the panel`s west side. November 2006. Photo: R. Valle.


Figure 14 - Unini 2 – panel 2 showing different organic-like repatination stages indicating a chronology

of different technical moments and/or renewal of the clearest unit. November 2006. Photo: R. Valle.

Raoni VALLE


116

Figure 15 - Unini 2, panel 3. Isolated zoormorphic figure, cervidae like, showing differential repatination in

the cephalic zone (darker). Indicates selective renewal changing morphology and scenography in the rest of

the body suggesting a primate-like superposed where its head is the former cervidae tail, moving to the

opposite side. Or am I hallucinating ? November 2006. Photo: R. Valle

Figure 16 - A specimen of flute player- like

anthropomorphic figure followed by a bird-like

zoomorphic figure. Ilha das Andorinhas Site, Unini profile.

November 2008. Photo: R. Valle


117

Figure 18– Anthropomorphic scene of the so-called communal body contact dance or ritual. Ilha das


Figure 17 – Specimen of Flute player-like zoomorphic figure (resemblig a primate with a abstract

unit just above. Pedra da Vovó site, Jauaperi River. November 2008. Photo: R. Valle.

Andorinhas site, Unini Profile. See the depredation mark on the top right corner. November 2008.

Photo: R.Valle.

Raoni VALLE


118

Figure 19 – Zoormorphic petroglyph from Ilha das Andorinhas site, Unini Profile. Resembling a cervidae

morphology with segmented antlers. This specimen points to an open vegetation cervidae type, contrasting

with the present vegetation of the area, dense tropical forest. Could it be a paleoenviromental indicative of the

age of this petroglyph? For in the middle Holocene the area was probably colonized by opened savannah-like

vegetation. Were they representing a locally existing animal by their time? November 2008. Photo: R. Valle.


119

References

Ab’saber, Azis. 2002. Bases Para O Estudo Dos

Ecossistemas Da Amazônia Brasileira. Estudos

Avançados. Vol. 16, Num. 45, Usp, Sp.

______________1996. Paleoclima E

Paleoecologia Da Amazônia Brasileira. In:

Amazônia Do Discurso À Práxis. Edusp,

São Paulo.

Bahn, Paul. 1998. The Cambridge Illustrated

History Of Prehistoric Art. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Bahn, P.& Vertuit, Jean. 1988. Images Of The Ice

Age. Winward, Leicester.

Bahn.P. & Loblanchet. M .(Eds.) 1993. The Post

Stylistic Era or Where do we go from here?

Oxbow Monographs. Cambridge. UK.

Barse W. 2003. Holocene Climate And Human

Occupation In The Orinoco, Under The Canopy:

The Archaeology Of Tropical Rain Forests, J.

Mercader, Ed., New Brunswik: Rutgers

University Press, Pp. 249-270.

Bednarik, R.G., 1989. On The Pleistocene

Settlement Of South America. Antiquity 63:101-

111.

_____________1997. The Global Evidence Of

Early Human Symboling Behaviour. Human

Evolution Vol. 12 - N. 3 (147-168) .

_____________2007. Rock Art Science: The

Scientific Study Of Palaeoart. Arian Books, New

Delhi, India.

Carneiro Da Cunha, Manuela (Org.).1992.

História Dos Índios No Brasil. São Paulo,

Companhia Das Letras.

Chippindale,C. & Taçon, P. (eds.)1998.

Archaeology Of Rock Art. Cambridge

University Press, Uk.

Chippindale, C. And Nash, G. (Eds.) 2004.

Pictures In Place-The Figured Landscape Of

Rock-Art. Cambridge University Press, Uk

Clottes, J. (Editor) 2001. La Grotte Chauvet. L’art

Des Origines. Le Seuil, Paris.

________2003a. Return To Chauvet Cave:

Excavating The Birthplace Of Art. Thames And

Hudson, London. (In The Usa:Chauvet Cave;

The Art Of Earliest Times. University Of

Utah Press, Salt Lake City.)

Corrêa, M.V.M.1994., As Gravações E Pinturas

Rupestres Na Área Do Reservatório Da Uhe –

Balbina – Am. Rio De Janeiro,. 187 P.

(Dissertação - Mestrado) – Universidade Federal

Do Rio De Janeiro.

D’errico, F. Et Al. 2003. Archaeological Evidence

For The Emergence Of Language, Symbolism,

And Music—An Alternative Multidisciplinary

Perspective. Journal Of World Prehistory, Vol. 17,

No. 1.

Eco, Umberto 1974. As Formas Do Conteúdo.

Editora Perspectiva, Ed. Da Usp, São Paulo.

Fabbri, Paulo. 1968. Considerations Sur La

Proxémique. Langages, N.10, P.65 –75.

Greer, John .1995. Rock Art Crhronology In The

Orinoco Basin Of Southwestern Venezuela. Phd

Dissertatation, Department OfAnthropology,

University Of Missouri, Columbia. Umi

Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor.

____________2001. Lowland South America.

In Handbook Of Rock Art Research. Whitley,

D. (Ed.) Altamira Press Califórnia, Us.

Guidon, Niede.1986. Las Unidades Culturales

De São Raimundo Nonato – Sudeste Del

Estado De Piauí-Brazil. In New Evidence

For The Pleistocene Peopling Of The

Américas, Bryan, A. (Ed.), Pp. 157-71. Peopling

Of The Americas, Symposia Series, Center For

The Study Of Early Man, University Of

Maine, Orono.


Raoni VALLE


120

___________1989. On Stratigraphy And

Chronology Of Pedra Furada. Current

Anthropology 30:641-642

Guidon, N., And Delibrias, G. 1986. Carbon-14

32,000 Years Ago. Nature 321:769-71.

Heckenberger, M. 1997. Relatório Preliminar

Sobre Levantamento Arqueológico No Parque

Nacional Do Jaú, Fundação Vitória

Amazônica, Manaus.

Koch-Grünberg, T. 2005a [1905-1907]. Dois Anos

Entre Os Indígenas: Viagens Ao Noroeste Do

Brasil. Manaus, Edua- Fsdb.

__________.1907. Sudamerikanische

Felszeichnungen. Verlegt Bei Ernst Wasmuth

A.-G. Berlin.

Levi-Strauss, C. O Pensamento Selvagem. 1966.

Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, SP.

Lewis-Williams, D. 1981. Believing and Seeing:

Symbolic meanings in Southern San Rock

Paintings. London, Academic Press.

Lewis-williams. D. 2004 . The Mind in the Cave.

Thames and Hudson, London.UK.

Lowie, R. 1948. The Tropical Forests: An

Introduction. Handbook Of South American

Indians, Vol. Iii, The Tropical Forest Tribes.

Steward, J. (Org.), Washington Dc, Us.

Martin G. 1999. Pré-História Do Nordeste Do

Brasil.- Ed Universitária, Ufpe, Recife.

Neves, E.G. 1998. Paths in Darks waters.

Ethnoarchaeology and Indigenous Hystory in the

Upper Negro River. PHD Thesis, Indiana

University, US.

Ostrower, Fayga. 1977. Criatividade E Processos

De Criação. Ed. Vozes Ltda, Rio De

Janeiro.

Peirce, Charles S. 1972. Semiótica E Filosofia.

Cultrix & U. S. P., São Paulo

Pereira, E. S. 1990. As Gravuras E Pinturas

Rupestres No Pará, Maranhão E Tocantins,

Estado Atual Dos Conhecimentos E Perspectivas.

Dissertação Do Mestrado Em História, Ufpe.

Ed. Universitária,Recife.

------------------.1996. Las Pinturas E Grabados

Rupestres Del Noroeste De Pará – Amazônia –

Brasil.Valência, 1996. 2v. Tese (Doutorado) –

Departamento De Arqueologia E Pré –

História, Universidade De valência.

------------------2003. Arte Rupestre Na Amazônia –

Pará – Belém: Museu Emílio Goeldi; São

Paulo:Unesp.

Pessis, A-M. 1987. Art Rupestre Prehistorique:

Premiers Registres De La Mise En Scene. These

Pour Le Doctorat D’etat. Universite De Paris

X – Nanterre, France

------------------ .1989. Apresentação Gráfica E

Apresentação Social Na Tradição Nordeste De

Pinturasrupestres Do Brasil. Clio, Série

Arqueológica N.5, Ed. Universitária, Ufpe,

Recife.

------------------.1992. Identidade E Classificação

Dos Registros Rupestres Pré-Históricos Do

Nordeste Do Brasil. Clio Série Arqueológica

N.8. Ed. Universitária, Ufpe, Recife.

-------------------.1993. Registros Rupestres, Perfil

Gráfico E Grupo Social. Clio Série Arqueológica

N.9,Ed, Universitária, Ufpe, Recife.

--------------------(1999)The Chronology and

evolution of the prehistoric rock paintings in the

Serra da Capivara National Park, Piauí, Brazil. In

M. Strecker and P. Bahn (eds.) Dating and

the earliest known rock art, pp.41-47.Oxbow

Books, Oxford.

-------------------.2002. Do Estudo Das Gravuras

Rupestres Pré-Históricas No Nordeste Do Brasil.

Clio Arqueológica, N.15, Vol. 1. P. 29 – 44.

--------------------2004 Imagens Da Pré-História,

Ed, Universitária, Ufpe, Recife.


121

Pessis, Anne-Marie; Guidon, Niéde.1992. Registros

Rupestres E Caracterização Das Etnias

Préhistóricas.In Grafismo Indígena (Lux

Vidal [Org.]), São Paulo, Studio Nobel, Fapesp,

Edusp, P. 19-33

Ramos, B. De A. Da S. 1930 Inscripções Lapidares

E Tradições Da América Pré- Histórica,

Especialmente Do Brasil. Rio De Janeiro:Imprensa

Oficial, 1930. V.1 515 P.

Renfrew, C. 2007. Prehistory – The Making of

Human Mind, Modern Library Ed. NY.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G.1967. "Rock-Paintings Of The

Vaupes: An Essay Of Interpretation", En

Folklore Americas, Separata, Vol. Xx Viii, No.

2, Junio, Los Ángeles. 1967.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1971) Amazonian Cosmos

– The Sexual and Religious symbolism of the

Tukano Indians. University of Chicago Press, EUA

Reis, N. & Marmos, J. L. 2007. Aspectos

Geológicos Do Parque Estadual Do Rio Negro.

Cprm, Manaus, Am.

Ribeiro, P.A.M. Et Al.., 1985. Projeto

Arqueológico De Salvamento Na Região De

Roraima, Brasil –Segunda Etapa De Campo –

Nota Prévia. Rev. Cepa. (Santa Cruz Do Sul), V.

13, N. 16, P . 5 – 48 (1986).2.

Roosevelt, A.C. Et Al. 1996. Paleoindian Cave

Dwellers In The Amazon: The Peopling Of The

Americas. Science, 272:373-384.

Roosevelt, A. Et Al. 2002. The Migrations And

Adaptations Of The First Americans: Clovis

And Pré-Clovis Viewed From South America,

In: The First Americans, The Pleistocene

Colonizations Of The New World, N.

Jablonski, Ed. San Francisco: Memoirs Of The

California Academy Of Sciences Number 27, Pp.

159-235.

Sausurre, Ferdinand De. .1969. Curso De

Linguística Geral. Cultrix & U.S.P., São Paulo.

Stradelli, H. 1900. Iscrizioni Indigene Della

V.1, N.37, P.457-83.

Valle, R.B.M, 2003. Gravuras Rupestres Do Sertão

Potiguar E Paraibano: Um Estudo Técnico

E Cenográfico. Dissertação De Mestrado,

Programa De Pós-Graduação Em História,

Área De Concentração Em Pre- História, Ufpe,

Recife.

________________2006a. Relatório Preliminar

Sobre As Gravuras Rupestres Do Parque Nacional

Do Jaú E Reserva Extrativista Do Rio

Unini, Baixo Rio Negro, Amazonas. Fundação

Vitória Amazônica E Ibama, Manaus.

________________2006b. Gravuras Rupestres

Do Seridó Potiguar E Paraibano, Um Estudo

Técnico E Cenografico, Novos Aportes. Anais

Do I Simposio De Povoamento Pré-

Histórico Das Américas, São Raimundo

Nonato, Piauí.

Http://Www.Fumdham.Org.Br/Fumdha

mentos7/Artigos/23%20raoni.Pdf

______________ .2007. Relatório Do

Levantamento Arqueológico No Parque Estadual

Rio Negro Setor Norte, Plano De Uso

Público Da Unidade. Fundação Vitória

Amazônica, Manaus.

Valle, R. & Costa, F. 2008. Reconhecimento

Arqueológico Preliminar No Alto Rio Negro,

Pac-Mae-Usp/Foirn/Inpa, Manaus.

Valle Et Al. 2009. Relatório Do Levantamento

Arqueológico No Baixo Rio Jauaperi E Na Zona

De Confluência Entre Os Ríos Negro E

Branco. Expedição Mariuá-Jauaperi, Wwf

Brasil, Manaus.

Wallace.A.R.1979[1889]. Viagens Pelos Rios

Amazonas E Negro. Editora Da Universidade De

São Paulo, São Paulo.

Whitley, D.S. 1998. Finding Rain in The Desert:

Landscape, Gender and far Western North

American Rock-Art. In Chippindale,C. & Taçon,

P. (eds.) Archaeology Of Rock Art. Cambridge

University Press, Uk.


http://www.fumdham.org.br/Fumdha

http://www.fumdham.org.br/Fumdha

Raoni VALLE


122

Whitley, DS. 2001. Handbook of Rock Art

Research. Altamira Press, US.

Williams, D. 1985. Petroglyphs in the prehistory of

northern amazonia and antilles. Advances in

World archaeology. New Cork: Academia

Press, P. 335-87.

Wright, R. (1998) For Those Unborn: Cosmos,

SeIf and History in Baniwa ReIigion. Unpublished

MS.

Xavier, C. (2008) A Cidade Grande de Ñapirikoli e

os Petroglifos do Içana - Uma Etnografia de

Signos Baniwa. Dissertação de mestrado, ppgas,

Museu nacional, UFRJ, RJ.

petroglyphs in the lower negro river basin, nw brazilian amazon - a preliminary view

Documents