2. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
amazônicos antigos tiveram um papel significante no estabelecimento dessa paisagem
amazônica emblemática.
Key Words: Amazonia, non-timber forest products, plant genetics, landscape domestication,
historical ecology, historical linguistics, Amazonian archeology.
Introduction cent areas in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela,
Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & and the Guianas. The Brazilian state of Pará contains
Bonpl.) is a signature Amazonian species and an the largest populations (Müller et al. 1980). Brazil
important resource for local populations. Brazil nut trees are found in groves (Fig. 1) of 50–100
nut’s nutritious, oil-rich seeds are eaten fresh, individuals known as castanhais (Portuguese),
roasted, or pressed to produce a milk-like extract. manchales or castañales (Spanish), with groves
The colossal trees reach up to 60 m in height and separated by considerable distances of compatible
16 m in circumference (Pires 1984; Villachica et al. habitat where the species is completely absent (Peres
1996). The Brazil nut family, Lecythidaceae, and Baider 1997). This patchy distribution led
includes the oldest known tree in the American Adolpho Ducke (1946) to suggest that Brazil nut
tropics, a specimen of Cariniana micrantha Ducke groves might be plantations left by ancient
dated to 1,400 years old (Chambers et al. 1998). Amazonian peoples. This “anthropogenic hypoth-
Brazil nut trees ~150 cm in diameter have been esis” has been echoed by numerous authors since
dated to 270 years (Chambers et al. 1998), while (Balée 1989; Müller et al. 1980; Posey 1985;
the largest individuals (~500 cm in diameter) may Tupiassú and Oliveira 1967) without empirical
be over 1,000 years old (Pires 1984; cited in Peres test or systematic review. Here we review the
and Baider 1997). literature and present new results from the authors’
Carbonized Brazil nuts were identified at Pedra studies of Brazil nut ecology and genetics, manage-
Pintada, an upper Paleolithic cave site in the ment practices by local people, and linguistic
central Brazilian Amazon that was occupied some analysis of indigenous terms for the species.
11,000 years ago by ancient hunter-gatherers Based on these findings we suggest that the Brazil
(Roosevelt et al. 1996). Although archeologists nut was spread or facilitated throughout much of
have found a diversity of oily seeds, especially its current distribution by ancient indigenous
palm nuts, in Paleolithic sites throughout lowland populations.
South America (e. g., Morcote Ríos et al. 2006),
Pedra Pintada is the only one where Brazil nut
consumption is clearly documented.
Botany, Taxonomy, and Ecology
Brazil nuts were introduced to Europe in the late Bertholletia is a monotypic genus of Lecythida-
18th century by Dutch traders, with trade increas- ceae, a pantropical family of small to very large
ing greatly in the late 19th century (Mori and trees. Lecythidaceae in the Americas are found
Prance 1990a). Today, Brazil nut is Amazonia’s from Mexico to Paraguay and southern Brazil,
most important non-timber forest product. It is with diversity and abundance centered on Ama-
also the only globally-traded seed crop collected zonia. The family includes about 200 species
from natural forests (Clay 1997). Historically, divided among ten genera; however, recent
Brazil has been the leading producer, but Bolivia genetic studies demonstrate that major taxonomic
has now taken the lead, with 2004 exports valued revisions are needed in at least four of them (Mori
at $50 million, compared with $15 million for et al. 2007). Bertholletia excelsa was named in
Brazil and $10 million for Peru (Wander et al. 1807 by Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé de
2008). From 2002–2006 annual harvests in Bonpland in honor of the chemist L. C.
Brazil have varied from 24,895 to 30,555 metric Berthollet; the species epithet refers to its lofty
tons (IBGE–Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e stature. A second species, Bertholletia nobilis,
Estatística 2004, 2007). Overall, the industry described by John Miers in 1874, was later
employs some 200,000 people, mostly forest- rejected as synonymous with B. excelsa. Morpho-
based extractivists (Peres et al. 1997). logical features place Bertholletia closest to the
Brazil nut grows in well-drained terra firme genus Lecythis, with affinities to L. lurida (Miers)
forests throughout the Brazilian Amazon and adja- S. A. Mori (Mori and Prance 1990a:135), but
4. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
agouti scatter-hoarding would presumably lead to germinate within the fruit cases. Peres and Baider
the establishment of a new grove. (1997:599), citing de Souza (1984), claim that
Several published studies as well as our own seeds left inside unopened Bertholletia pyxidia
field observations indicate that human disturb- rarely if ever germinate, succumbing to fungus.
ance and intervention greatly facilitate Brazil nut Perhaps the drier climate or high levels of human
regeneration, and may be crucial for the establish- disturbance in Alter do Chão facilitate germina-
ment of new groves. Indeed, the weakness of tion in these circumstances. Notably, Alter do
Peres and Baider’s (1997) argument is that, while Chão is within the proverbial stone’s throw of the
scatter-hoarding agoutis are ubiquitous in Ama- Pedra Pintada site where Roosevelt et al. (1996)
zonia, Brazil nut saplings are exceedingly rare in discovered the earliest evidence of Brazil nut
primary forest habitats (Pires 1984), requiring consumption in ancient Amazonia.
significant canopy gaps to develop (Myers et al. Associations between Brazil nut groves and
1996). Peres et al. (2003) have argued that anthropogenic dark earths have been mentioned
commercial over-harvest may be responsible for in the literature (Balée 1989; Conklin 2001), and
a “demographic bottleneck,” though this inter- we found similar associations in our field expedi-
pretation has been criticized in the light of tions. In the Amanã Sustainable Development
significant human facilitation of Brazil nut Reserve of Brazil, the community of Boa Esper-
recruitment (see Stokstad 2003). Agoutis appear ança harvests Brazil nuts from a large and
to disperse Brazil nuts preferentially into garden productive grove nearby known as “Castanhal
fallows, where densities of seedlings and saplings are Urumutum.” The community is located within a
much higher (two and four times, respectively) than patch of anthropogenic dark earths where over
in undisturbed forest (Cotta et al. 2008). Human 200 pre-Columbian funerary urns were discov-
predation of agoutis—an abundant game species ered, indicating a significant ancient occupation
often hunted by indigenous peoples in their (Shepard 2001). Guix (2005) found high den-
gardens (e. g., Ohl-Schacherer et al. 2007)— sities of useful, large-seeded plants including
would only tend to magnify the agouti’s impor- Brazil nut in soils rich with archeological remains
tance as a seed dispersal agent, freeing more along the Rio Negro River. Similar observations
abandoned scatter hoards for germination. have been made in recent archeological and
In the basin-wide survey of Brazil nut pop- botanical surveys in the Rio Trombetas (Magalhães
ulations published by Peres et al. (2003), by far 2009). Guix (2005) suggests that humans may
the highest densities of saplings and trees overall have replaced extinct Pleistocene megafauna spe-
were registered by Shepard (2002) in a small, fire- cies in dispersing a number of economically useful,
impacted grove near Alter do Chão, Pará, with 50 large-seeded tree species that might have otherwise
individuals/ha, mostly in the size class of 10– gone extinct or suffered range reductions in the
60 cm diameter. This was a clear outlier in the sudden climatic and ecological changes that
dataset, where most groves had 10–100 times occurred approximately 10,000 years ago (Piperno
lower densities of Bertholletia, and the majority of and Pearsall 1998). Brazil nut trees have also been
individuals were larger than 100 cm in diameter. found in association with geoglyphs—square or
What made the Alter do Chão site unique was its circular man-made trenches dated to between
situation in a drier, central Amazonian climate 1,000 and 2,500 years ago (Pärssinen et al. 2009;
zone with high susceptibility to fire. Local Ranzi et al. 2007)—that have become visible in
informants reported that the region suffered a newly deforested areas in Acre. Similar formations,
major fire in the 1980s, which cleared away also rich in Brazil nut trees, were observed in
significant areas of forest understory but also Riberalta, Bolivia, near the junction of the Beni
completely exterminated the local agouti popula- and Madre de Dios rivers (H. Ramirez, pers. obs.).
tion. This was the only region surveyed where Field observations made during a year-long
multi-trunked Brazil nut individuals were found: survey of Bertholletia populations throughout the
nearly 50% of the trunks surveyed at the site (45 Brazilian Amazon by Shepard (2002) revealed
of 93 trunks) were fused in groups of 2–5 specific ways in which local populations have
individuals (see Shepard 2002). This was puzzling promoted Brazil nut stands through management
until multiple seedlings were observed emerging and direct plantation. For example, Ponta da
from single, unopened seed cases. Without Castanha is a managed Brazil nut grove on Tefé
agoutis to open and disperse the seeds, the seeds lake near the Mamirauá Sustainable Development
7. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
Fig. 5. Distribution of the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa). Data synthesized from Mori and Prance (1990a:-
137), a spatial analysis of RADAM-Brasil (1973–1981) inventory data conducted by Desmoulière (n.d. -a, b), and
authors’ pers. obs.
Comparing the geographical distributions of in Bertholletia compared with other tropical trees
species within the sapucaia group (Fig. 6) with (Buckley et al. 1988; Kanashiro et al. 1997).
that of Brazil nut (Fig. 5), a strikingly different Though Buckley et al. (1988) originally attrib-
pattern emerges. The sapucaias are distributed uted this result to special ecological characteristics
among well-defined and geographically distinctive of the species, Kanashiro et al. (1997) noted the
populations, as might be expected of a lineage hypothesized interventions of indigenous people
with a long history of dispersal and geographical as a more likely explanation (see also Mori and
isolation between populations. Brazil nut, by Prance 1990a). Both studies, which used nuclear
contrast, demonstrates an extensive geographic DNA markers, found far greater levels of genetic
range—equal to or exceeding that of the two diversity within Brazil nut groves than between
Amazonian sapucaias, L. zabucajo and L. pisonis them, a result that is uncommon for wild woody
ssp. pisonis—and yet shows no internal taxonomic plant species (see Buckley et al. 1988) but
differentiation as might be expected of an ancient common among cultivated species such as Euca-
evolutionary lineage. Given the cumbersome lyptus globulus Labill. and Camellia sinensis (L.)
dispersal mechanism of Bertholletia, compared Kuntze (Kanashiro et al. 1997). Curiously,
with the dehiscent and more easily dispersed Kanashiro et al. (1997) found the highest levels
seeds of the sapucaias, one would expect Berthol- of within-grove phenotype diversity for the central
letia to show more rather than less geographical Amazon Santarém population (adjacent to Alter do
isolation between populations, unless of course Chão and Pedra Pintada) and the lowest diversity
the Brazil nut’s evolutionary history has been for populations from Acre in the western Amazon.
more recent, and its dispersal process more rapid. Though the authors do not comment on this fact,
Reinforcing this conclusion, two prior studies the data might suggest a central Amazonian center
found exceptionally low levels of genetic diversity for Brazil nut genetic diversity.
8. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
Fig. 6. Distribution of Lecythis spp. in the “sapucaia” or pisonis group. Data adapted from Mori and Prance
(1981:72).
A Brazilian research group led by Rogerio cant geographical structuring, with 93% of the
Gribel and Maristerra Lemes used contemporary genetic variation found within populations, rein-
chloroplast gene (cpDNA) sequencing and micro- forcing the prior findings of Buckley et al. (1988)
satellite markers to study genetic diversity of the and Kanashiro et al. (1997) using different
Brazil nut (Gribel et al. 2007; Shepard 2002). techniques. If Brazil nut distribution depended
The chloroplast genome, analogous to the mito- mostly on short-distance seed dispersal by agoutis,
chondria genome in animals, is transmitted along with rare, long-distance dispersal events of single
maternal lines and thus relevant to studying seed seeds to form new groves, the process would have
dispersal. The results of this study revealed no taken a very long time, and a geographically
variation for six non-coding cpDNA markers coherent pattern of genetic variability should have
amplified and sequenced for eight widely sepa- emerged, as is the case for other Lecythidaceae.
rated (up to 2,800 km apart) Brazil nut popula- Instead, low genetic variability at a large geo-
tions (Gribel et al. 2007). This result contrasts graphical scale suggests a recent and rapid
with cpDNA sequence variability documented at irradiation of the species from a geographically
local scales (populations separated by as little as limited population origin.
30 km) for other Lecythidaceae, including Lecy- Hans Carlos Müller, who has spent decades
this zabucajo (Hamilton et al. 2003). Micro- gathering Bertholletia throughout Amazonia for
satellites are highly variable regions of DNA agronomic experimentation (see Müller 1981;
used to study genetic diversity within popula- Müller et al. 1980), suggests the phenotypic
tions, analogous to paternity testing in humans. variation he has observed may be the result of
Using eight microsatellite markers, Gribel et al. human selection (H. C. Müller, pers. comm.).
(2007) identified 21 haplotypes for 116 individ- For example, the Brazil nut variety known as
uals from the eight widespread populations. An abufari produces extremely large seeds (about
analysis of molecular variance revealed no signifi- 7 cm in length) arranged like the individual slices
9. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
of a grapefruit. He describes other varieties that innovations (Balée 2000; Balée and Moore
produce exceptionally large or numerous seeds, 1991; Comrie 2002; Urban 1992).
that have exceptionally low tree crowns, or that Henri Ramirez has collected a large database of
present variable fruiting and maturation dates, vocabulary words in numerous South American
characteristics which are reproduced in offspring, languages, including botanical and zoological
ruling out mere ecological variation. Such phe- terms (see also Ramirez 2001). Results for the
notypic variables (fruit size, low crown, etc.) are Brazil nut, published and analyzed here for the
typical of traits selected for by humans in first time (Appendix), suggest an intriguing
incipient domestication of managed species pattern (Figs. 7 and 8). Of the three major
(Clement 1990). language families within Brazil nut’s range—
Arawak, Carib, and Tupi—only Arawak and
Carib have terms for Brazil nut that reconstruct
Linguistics and Cultural History to the respective proto-languages. Tupi, on the
Historical linguistics has been used to shed other hand, shows variable terms for Brazil nut
light on the dispersal of ancient peoples and their across different subfamilies that do not appear to
crops, languages, and genes (Bellwood 2001; reconstruct. The suggested proto-Arawak term for
Bellwood and Renfrew 2002; Brown 2006; Brazil nut is *maiña or *maina, while the
Comrie 2002). Though caution is needed in suggested proto-Carib word is *tutka or *tutuka
interpreting such data (Campbell 2002; Moore (the asterisk denotes hypothetical proto-vocabu-
and Storto 2002; Roosevelt 1992), proto-language lary terms deduced from modern forms). When
reconstruction and the study of loan words can specific vocabulary items (plants, animals, tools,
provide evidence about the timing and direc- etc.) reconstruct to the proto-language (barring
tion of agricultural, technological, and cultural recent loan words, which can be detected through
Fig. 7. Indigenous terms for Brazil nut in the Amazon, showing approximate geographical location of each
group, color-coded for language family.
10. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
Fig. 8. Preliminary historical/geographical analysis of indigenous terminology for Brazil nut.
careful study), it is presumed that these items 2005). Regardless, the relatively close linguistic
were present in the cultural and environmental proximity among existing Carib languages sug-
milieu at the time the proto-language was spoken gests a relatively recent common ancestor, with
(Facundes 2002; Moore and Storto 2002). perhaps only half the time depth of the Arawak or
Contradicting earlier hypotheses, which were Tupi language families, estimated to have begun
based on fragmentary or flawed evidence (Noble internal diversification more than 3,000 years ago
1965; Schmidt 1917), more recent archeologists (Payne 1991; Rodrigues 1999). Wherever proto-
and linguists propose that Arawak peoples origi- Carib speakers found themselves some 1,500 to
nated in the northern portion of the Amazon 2,000 years ago, Brazil nut appears to have been a
basin, though opinions are divided as to the salient element of their environment.
precise center of origin, whether in central The Arawak and Carib cases contrast with that
(Lathrap 1970; Ramirez 2001:26) or northwest- of the Tupi family, for which a proto-word for
ern Amazonia (Heckenberger 2002:99; Oliver Brazil nut does not appear to reconstruct.
1989). Arawak speakers began a vigorous expan- Variable proto-words for Brazil nut reconstruct
sion approximately 3,000 years ago and came to for some of the Tupi subfamilies (Tupi-Guarani,
occupy a vast region from the savannas of Tupari) and perhaps other intermediate group-
southern Brazil, to the Caribbean, to the Andean ings (see Appendix). This speculative linguistic
foothills of Peru and Bolivia (Hill and Santos- evidence suggests that the earliest proto-Tupi
Granero 2002; Payne 1991). Carib languages speakers might not have known the Brazil nut,
were long thought to have emerged in the but came to know it (either through migration or
southern Amazon (Rodrigues 1985; Steinen interethnic contact) after certain subfamilies had
1894). However, a more recent internal classi- diverged. Both linguistic and archeological data
fication by Meira (2006:200) suggests a northern provide strong support that the Tupi language
origin in the Guianas (see also Heckenberger family originated in the southern Amazon, likely in
2005; Lathrap 1970; Meira and Franchetto the upper Tapajos and Madeira rivers in what is
11. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
now the Brazilian state of Rondonia (Heckenberger Madeira, the Takana-speaking Esse-Eja refer to
et al. 1998; Métraux 1928; Rodrigues 1964). This Brazil nut as xiwiwi, more similar to the Mura
region currently contains large and important and Matanawi words than the cluster of terms
populations of Brazil nut; thus the absence of a (moke, moje, muihe) used by their Takana
clear proto-word is striking and anomalous. neighbors. The Mura and Matanawi terms (tihii,
Indeed, Eurico Muller, the preeminent arche- txipii) bear at least superficial resemblance to
ologist of Rondonia’s prehistory (see Miller nearby Carib forms such as tetkï, and even to the
1992), remarked on the curious absence of Brazil word for peanut, dihi, among the Leko in the
nut remains (though charred palm nuts are upper Madeira (see discussion below about pea-
common) from 4,000-year old sites he has nut/Brazil nut associations). The Iquito term sahii
excavated in regions where Brazil nut groves are (Peruvian Amazon), Katawixi sákodia (central
a dominant element of the current landscape Amazon), and Asurini sa (Tupi-Guarani of
(E. Muller, pers. comm.). Tocantins) also show a superficial similarity.
Diverse language groups near the limits of the Similarity among vocabulary items can also
current distribution of the Brazil nut refer to it emerge by chance, and thus more systematic
using loan words from neighboring languages. investigation would be required to test these
For example, the Arawak-speaking Lokono in the speculations.
Guianas call the Brazil nut tutuka, clearly a loan A stronger case for chains of linguistic borrow-
word from neighboring Carib speakers. Likewise ing can be made for a cluster of unrelated
the Tupi-speaking Tembé in Pará (eastern language families located in the Purús basin and
Amazon) call it teko-ingwer, the first element of Madeira headwaters in the southwest Amazon.
which may be a loan from Carib (an alternative Terms in the Arawá (not be confused with the
name for Brazil nut in Tembé, zapukaza’i refers Arawak) language family such as mowe and moi’di
to Lecythis pisonis, an example of naming by are strikingly similar to the Tupian Arara term
analogy; see below). The word for Brazil nut in mowi, and also resemble nearby Arawak terms
Tikuna, ñoo, appears to be a loan word from the such as Kaixana maihu and Marawá manazi.
reconstructed Tupi-Guarani ña, associated with Further south in the Madeira headwaters between
the late western expansion of Tupi speakers Bolivia and Perú, the reconstructed proto-Takana
along the main Amazon channel (Rodrigues term *moike is similar both to these modern
1999). Other indigenous groups along the Arawá terms (mowe, moi’di) and to *maïkï as
fringes of its distribution refer to the Brazil nut reconstructed for the proto-Piro-Apurinã subgroup
with regional vernacular terms: the Yekuana of Arawak (see Fig. 8, Appendix). The Harakmbut
(Carib) term, wufia, is a loan word from the word morikke is a clear loan word from the proto-
regional Venezuelan term, jubia, while multiple Takana *moike.
groups in southern and eastern Brazil have terms The Harakmbut presents a particularly inter-
derived from the Portuguese castanha or the esting case, since Brazil nut is virtually absent
regional term tocari, probably of Carib origin from their current territory on the Manu and
(see Appendix, Figs. 7 and 8). upper Madre de Dios rivers in Peru (upper
In the Tupi-Guarani subfamily of the Tupi Madeira tributaries). A few isolated individuals
family, the reconstructed proto-term for Brazil of Brazil nut are currently found in the forest
nut, *(i)ña, is close enough to the proto-Arawak interior several kilometers from the Pakitsa guard
*maiña to warrant further scrutiny. The term post of Manu National Park (G. Shepard, pers.
minata in Kamayurá (within Tupi-Guarani) is obs.), far from the commercially viable Brazil nut
especially similar to the Arawakan form. Maneéh groves on the lower Madre de Dios that have
in Maku (northwest Amazon) and méhe in been considered the southernmost distribution
Taruma (Guiana region) are more clear-cut cases limit (Mori and Prance 1990a). These isolated
of Arawak loan words to unrelated languages. Brazil nut trees in Manu are not likely to have
In some cases, regional loan word patterns arrived at Pakitsa by natural dispersion, and were
suggest longer chains of interethnic contact or instead probably brought by indigenous people
migration. For example, along the Madeira River, such as the Harakmbut-speaking Toyeri who
the Mura word for Brazil nut, tihii, is similar to occupied Manu before being decimated by rubber
the word among the unrelated but neighboring tappers beginning in the 1890s (Shepard et al.
Matanawi, txipii. In the headwaters of the 2010). The Harakmbut word for Brazil nut, and
12. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
the Brazil nut trees themselves, appear to have reminiscent of the word for peanut, wai-se,
been acquired either through downstream trading among the neighboring Arawak-speaking Pareci.
with the Takana, or as a result of an earlier The peanut, curiously, was probably first domes-
upstream migration. In the latter regard, Adelaar ticated nearby in the dry south Amazon border
(2000) suggests tentative linguistic connections region (see Piperno and Pearsall 1998).
between Harakmbut and the Katukina language Among the more northerly Tupi groups
family of Brazil. This example suggests a link (Tupi-Guarani subgroup), the word for Brazil
between processes of linguistic borrowing and nut in some languages is closely related to the
actual plant dispersal. general word for “seed,” even showing systematic
A number of unrelated, geographically sepa- sound correspondence between for example ña
rated languages in the southern and western (“Brazil nut”) and—a’ïña (“seed”) in Wayampi-
Amazon appear to have named the Brazil nut Kawahip-Apiaká, and sa (“Brazil nut”) and—
through analogy to some other edible nut (see a’ïsa (“seed”) in Asurini. Likewise the Chapa-
Appendix), particularly the peanut (Arachis hypo- curan (Rondônia/Bolivia) terms tokwe, tokä, tike,
gea L.). Novel plants or animals are often named teke are very close to the general terms for “seed”
by analogy with more familiar local species (tokwin, toki).
(Berlin 1992; Witkowski and Brown 1983). Linguistic borrowings depend upon complex
The Portuguese and Spanish words for Brazil factors involved in sociolinguistic contact (Campbell
nut represent precisely such a case, where the 2002; Comrie 2002; Dixon 1999), and interpre-
terms castanha and castaña referred originally to tation of such data presents numerous challenges.
the chestnut (Castanea spp.), and later came to We speculate, based on analysis of loan words and
refer to the Brazil nut through analogy. The semantic extension (“nut”/“peanut”), that some
Matsigenka (Arawak) live in the Andean foothills of the language groups around the fringes of the
outside the Brazil nut distribution, and came to Brazil nut distribution, and along certain key river
know it only in recent decades through trade; they routes (e. g., upper Madeira, western Amazon),
refer to Brazil nut either as inke, literally “peanut,” encountered the Brazil nut relatively recently
or else use the Spanish term castaña. In a similar through migration, trade, or contact. The Tupi
fashion, the linguistically unrelated Sharanahua case is particularly important, since they are
(Panoan) and Kokama (Tupi), who live near the presumed to have originated in the upper
southern and western limits (respectively) of Madeira/Tapajos region, which currently contains
Brazil nut distribution, refer to it as “large vast, commercially productive Brazil nut groves.
peanut” (see Appendix). These groups, like the Our preliminary linguistic analysis suggests that
Matsigenka, appear to have encountered the some four millennia ago, when the Tupi language
Brazil nut relatively recently. Among the Panoan family emerged, the Brazil nut may not have been
languages there seems to be thorough interchan- present in their environment.
geability between terms: while the Sharanahua Recent archeological studies (Arroyo-Kalin
call the Brazil nut “large peanut” (tama wan), the 2008; Neves et al. 2003) have demonstrated that
Chacobo call the peanut a “ground Brazil-nut” the large patches of anthropogenic dark earths, or
(mai tapa). terra preta do índio, found mostly in the Brazilian
Among multiple subgroups of southern Tupi Amazon, resulted from the intensification of
languages, the word for Brazil nut is suspiciously agriculture and the emergence of sedentary life-
similar to the word for peanut: in Makurap, arao styles, especially during the first millennium C.E.
(where arawï is “peanut”); in Mondé, mam Arawak peoples have been implicated in the
(where mam kap is “peanut”); Karitiana, mijo spread of sedentary agriculture in the Amazon
(where mĩ’ĩ is “peanut”); and Munduruku, wenïj/ (Schmidt 1917), the generation of these dark
wenã (where wenã-bïn ñe is “peanut”). The iso- earth soils (Arroyo-Kalin 2008), and the forma-
lated languages Kanoe and Rikbaktsa (Rondônia) tion of large-scale interethnic trade networks (Hill
show a similar semantic overlap between Brazil nut and Santos-Granero 2002). Sedentary lifestyles
and peanut (see Appendix). Likewise in the two and dark earths are especially associated with the
Nambikwara dialects (southern Amazon), Brazil cultivation of bitter manioc, which requires labor-
nut is wana’ and wanakka, respectively, while intensive processing that generates large amounts
peanut is waiki and waikki. In the related of charcoal during the cooking and toasting of
Sabanê language, kwaiki for Brazil nut is various kinds of manioc flour and other byprod-
13. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
ucts; bitter manioc cultivation predominates in some already published and some presented here
the eastern half of Amazonia, the Orinoco basin, for the first time, lends credence to some degree
and the Guianas (Arroyo-Kalin 2008). Sweet of human involvement in the dispersal of the
manioc (“yuca”), by contrast, requires no special Brazil nut to its current range. A review of the
processing other than simple cooking, and is geographic distribution of B. excelsa, and compar-
predominant in the western Amazon where semi- ison with that of several Lecythis species with
nomadic shifting cultivation is the norm, and similar, more easily dispersed seeds, suggest a
where both the Brazil nut and anthropogenic number of anomalies that are consistent with a
dark earths are mostly absent. The intensive relatively recent colonization of Bertholletia
agriculture practices required to create large throughout Amazonia. The dispersal ecology of
patches of anthropogenic dark earths provide the Brazil nut renders it highly responsive to and
exactly the combination of anthropic factors that perhaps largely dependent on anthropogenic
would have facilitated the establishment of Brazil disturbance for the establishment and expansion
nut stands. Brazil nut groves are often associated of groves, at least given post-Pleistocene ecological
with anthropogenic dark earths, and Arawak conditions. Field observations and a review of
languages appear to represent an important hub ethnographic examples suggest how specific cul-
of loan words for Brazil nut to other language tural practices might have facilitated the expan-
families. Indeed, the distribution of Brazil nut sion of Brazil nut populations from ancient
shows striking similarities with the distribution of through recent times. Phenotypes observed in
known dark earth sites in the Amazon basin certain Brazil nut populations suggest a degree of
(see Kern et al. 2004:54). selection and incipient domestication. Past
Several authors have noted the conspicuous genetic studies suggesting low degrees of inter-
absence of the Brazil nut in the Juruá basin (Mori population genetic diversity were confirmed and
and Prance 1990a; Fig. 5). While soil conditions made more emphatic by our own more recent
may be a factor, the Juruá is also a region of studies of chloroplast DNA, suggesting a recent
cultural disjunction between more geographically and rapid dissemination from a restricted pop-
circumscribed Arawá and Panoans, surrounded to ulation of origin.
the north and south by suggested routes of Arawak Historical linguistic analysis of indigenous
and multiple Tupi expansions along the Madeira terms for the Brazil nut reinforces our inter-
and Amazon proper (Aikhenvald 1999; Hornborg pretation of previously published genetic
2005; see also Heckenberger 2002:105). Thus the (Kanashiro et al. 1997) and archeological
limits of the Brazil nut distribution may represent at (Roosevelt et al. 1996) data, suggesting a northern/
least in part the limits of various cultural-linguistic central Amazonian origin for Bertholletia, with
“diasporas” (Heckenberger 2002) associated with a more recent spread of Brazil nut distribution
the intensification of agriculture, especially begin- (and cultivation?) to the south and west. Such an
ning in the first millennium C.E. (Arroyo-Kalin expansion would have been particularly facili-
2008; Neves and Petersen 2006). Speculative tated by the emergence of intensive bitter
dating of language families (see Appendix) manioc cultivation and networks of interethnic
supports a similar time frame (1,500–2,000 years trade associated with the Arawak diaspora of the
ago) for the acquisition of loan words or analogy first millennium C.E. (see Heckenberger 2002).
terms (“peanut,” “seed”) for Brazil nut in several The often-noted association between Brazil nut
Amazonian language families in the southern groves and anthropogenic dark earths—themselves
and western Amazon (Tupi, Pano, Takana, a result of intensive pre-Colombian sedentary
Nambikwara, etc.). agriculture—lends support to such an interpreta-
tion. Our arguments contribute to a body of
relatively recent discoveries challenging the long-
standing view of pre-Colombian Amazonian
Conclusion peoples as small, low-impact nomadic popula-
There is so far no “smoking gun” that proves tions, revealing instead the significant legacy of
Brazil nut groves are the forest plantations of ancient indigenous peoples in shaping modern
ancient indigenous peoples, as Ducke (1946) Amazonian landscapes (Balée and Erickson 2006;
once hypothesized. However, a preponderance Heckenberger et al. 2008; McCann et al. 2001;
of evidence from independent lines of research, Roosevelt 1980).
14. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
Acknowledgments to Carlos Peres for sharing data, observations, and
The authors wish to acknowledge Rogerio Gribel photographs during various drafts. We thank Scott
and Maristerra Lemes for support and research Mori and two anonymous reviewers for their careful
collaboration in the early phases of this study. We reading of the manuscript and many helpful com-
also acknowledge Eduardo Góes Neves and the ments and revisions. We acknowledge Denny Moore
Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at University for urging caution in our linguistic interpretations.
of São Paulo for support during a later phase of the Finally, we thank Joshua Birtchall for helpful com-
research. We thank Manuel Arroyo-Kalin for many ments on the final draft of some figures. Different
useful suggestions on a draft of the paper. We also phases of the research were supported by Brazil’s
thank Sylvain Desmoulière for kindly sharing Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
unpublished geographical analyses of RADAM- Tecnológico (CNPq) and Fundação de Amparo a
Brasil inventory data on the Brazil nut. Thanks also Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).
Appendix
Regional, vernacular, and indigenous terms for Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), researched and
organized by H. Ramirez. All vernacular terms were collected in the field except where bibliographical
sources are noted.
REGIONAL AND VERNACULAR TERMS:
& noix du Brésil (French) < *Latin nuc(e) “fruit of a european tree (Juglans regia),
or any similar kind of fruit with an almond” < *Indo-European knu(t).
& Brasil nut (English) < *Germanic knut “hard seed” < *Indo-European knu(t).
NOTE: The German and English words for the peanut (Arachis hypogaea) have been formed
from the same linguistic root: pea + nut in English and erd + nuβ nut of earth in German.
& castanha (Portuguese), castaña (Spanish) < *Latin (nux) castanea “nut of the chestnut tree (Castanea
vesca) or any similar kind of fruit < *Greek kástanon < Asiatic language (cf. English chestnut < *Old
English chesten nut < *Old French chastaigne “chestnut”).
& almendra (Spanish, cf. Portuguese amêndoa, French amande, English almond) < *Latin amygdala
“almond” < *Greek amygdále “ amygdalis”.
& to(ro)cari (Brazil of XVIIIth century) < probable Carib loan, with the non-Carib suffix -ri.
& touca (French Guiana) < probable Carib loan: tutuka in Kari’ña.
& yuviá, jubia (Venezuelan Spanish) < loanword from an unknown indigenous language.
Symbols, abbreviations, and orthography:
N.P. Brazil nut not present in locality
† extinct language
[<...] etymological meaning or loan word
—/— synonyms
(— yrs.) approximative time depth for the proto-language
*— hypothetical reconstructed proto-form
Ï high central vowel
Ä mid central vowel
y high round front vowel (like u in French)
ñ palatal nasal
j palatal semivowel (like y in English)
x voiceless palatal fricative
tx voiceless palatal affricate
’ glottal stop
ã, ẽ,... nasalized vowel
15. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
INDIGENOUS TERMS:
NOTE: Terms are organized by linguistic families. Roman numbers (I, II, III, etc.) indicate the
subfamilies, while letters (Ia, Ib, Ic, etc.) show further subgroupings. New internal classifications have
been suggested here by H. Ramirez for Arawá, Arawak, Chapacura, Carib, and Pano families. Where
ongoing lexico-statistical study permits, suggestions for language family time depth are provided in
parentheses. Supplemental terms for “peanut,” “nut,” etc. are provided where relevant.
Aikana jiry (wikere / wita peanut)
Arawá (2,000 yrs.)
I) PAUMARI moi’di (mowa flower)
II) ZOROWAHA namï-wasazu (namï high?, wasazu inajá [Attalea sp.])
III) YARAWARA-DENI
IIIa) YARAWARA mowe (mowe flower) (cf. Arara-Aripuanã [Tupi] mowi)
IIIb) DENI wato
Arawak (Aruak, Maipure) (4,500 yrs.) *maiña/*maina
I) KAIXANA maíhu / maikï (sïmi / sumi seed)
II) †BAHUANA miñi’i
III) WAPISHANA minaï
IV) MAWAYANA mija
V) †MARAWÁ manazi (usi seed) (data from Tastevin 1920)
VI) PIRO-APURINÃ (2,000 yrs.) *maï(-)kï (cf. proto-Takana *moike, Harakmbut morikke,
Paumari [Arawá] moi’di)
VIa) PIRO mïxi / janajsi (-xi seed)
VIb) INAMPARI mïhï (-hï seed)
VIc) APURINÃ makï / make / mitjatakuru (-kï seed)
VII) LOKONO tútuka (< Carib)
VIII) PARECI tokali-se / tokware-se (< Carib) (wai-se peanut)
IX) CAMPA/MATSIGENKA inke (= peanut), kastaña (<Sp.)
Cahuapana xiwako’, monopi, tanpa’pi nuts spp.
Carib (2,500 yrs.) *tut(u)-ka (cf. Mura-Piraha tíihí)
I) GUIANA
Ia) † PALMELLAS tutuko (data from Fonseca 1880–1881)
Ib) WAIWAI tïtko
HIXKARYANA tutko
KAXUYANA tutko
Ic) TRIÓ tuhka / tuuka
† OYARICOULÉ tura-tura
Id) APALAI tutuko
WAYANA tutukä / tutuko
WAIMIRI-ATROARI tetkï
KARI’ÑA tutuka
18. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
Yanomami hawari
Yurakare N.P. (sebbe peanut, cf. Pano tapa, Moseten dabah)
Literature Cited Brown, C. H. 2006. Glottchronology and the
Adelaar, W. F. H. 2000. Propuesta de un nuevo chronology of maize in the Americas. Pages
vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos 647–663 in J. Staller, R. Tykot, and B. Benz,
indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut eds., Histories of maize: Multidisciplinary
y Katukina. Pages 219–236 in L. M. Esquerre, approaches to the prehistory, linguistics, bio-
ed., Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas geography, domestication, and evolution of
de Sudamérica, Vol. 2. Universidad Ricardo maize. Academic Press, Burlington.
Palma, Lima. Buckley, D. P., D. M. O’Malley, V. Apsit, G. T.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 1999. The Arawak language Prance, and K. S. Bawa. 1988. Genetics of
family. Pages 65–106 in R. M. W. Dixon and Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. &
A. Y. Aikhenvald, eds., The Amazonian Bonpl.: Lecythidaceae). Theoretical and
languages. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Applied Genetics 76:923–928.
bridge. Campbell, L. 2002. What drives linguistic diver-
Arroyo-Kalin, M. 2008. Steps towards an ecology sity and language spread? Pages 49–63 in P.
of landscape: A geoarchaeological approach to Bellwood and C. Renfrew, eds., Examining
the study of anthropogenic dark earths in the the farming/language dispersal hypothesis.
central Amazon region, Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Dept. of Archeology, University of Cam- Research, Cambridge.
bridge, Cambridge, U.K. Chambers, J. Q., N. Higuchi, and J. P. Schimel.
Balée, W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian 1998. Ancient trees in Amazonia. Nature
forests. Pages 1–21 in D. A. Posey and W. 391:135–136.
Ballee, eds., Resource management in Ama- Clay, J. W. 1997. Brazil nuts: The use of a
zonia: Indigenous and folk strategies. New keystone species for conservation and develop-
York Botanical Gardens, New York. ment. Pages 246–282 in C. H. Freese, ed.,
———. 2000. Antiquity of traditional ethno- Harvesting wild species: Implications for bio-
biological knowledge in Amazonia: The Tupi- diversity and conservation. John Hopkins
Guarani family and time. Ethnohistory 47 University Press, Baltimore.
(2):399. Clement, C. R. 1990. Origin, domestication and
——— and D. Moore. 1991. Similarity and genetic conservation of Amazonian fruit tree
variation in plant names in five Tupi-Guarani species. Pages 249–263 in D. A. Posey and W.
languages (Eastern Amazonia). Bulletin of the Overall, eds., Ethnobiology: Implications and
Florida Museum of Natural History: Biolog- applications. Proceedings of the First Interna-
ical Sciences 35(4):209–262. tional Congress of Ethnobiology. Museu Para-
——— and C. Erickson. 2006. Time and ense Goeldi, Idi/CNPq, Belém, Para.
complexity in the Neotropical lowlands: Comrie, B. 2002. Farming dispersal in Europe
Explorations in historical ecology. New York: and the spread of the Indo-European language
Columbia University Press. family. Pages 409–419 in P. Bellwood and C.
Bellwood, P. 2001. Early agriculturalist popula- Renfrew, eds., Examining the farming/language
tion diasporas? Farming, languages and genes. dispersal hypothesis. McDonald Institute for
Annual Review of Anthropology 30:181–207. Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
——— and C. Renfrew. 2002. Examining the Conklin, B. A. 1989. Images of health, illness and
farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cam- death among the Wari’ (Pakaas Novos) of
bridge, U.K.: McDonald Institute for Rondonia, Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, Medical
Archaeological Research. Anthropology Program, University of California,
Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: San Francisco.
Principles of categorization of plants and animals ———. 2001. Consuming grief: Compassionate
in traditional societies. Princeton University cannibalism in an Amazonian society. Austin:
Press, Princeton. University of Texas Press.
19. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
Cotta, J. N., K. A. Kainer, L. H. O. Wadt, and Guix, J. C. 2005. Evidence of old anthropic
C. L. Staudhammer. 2008. Shifting cultiva- effects in forests at the confluence of the
tion effects on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) Caurés and Negro Rivers–NW Amazonia: The
regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management role of Indians and Caboclos. Grupo de
256(1–2):28–35. Estudos Ecologicos, São Paulo.
de Souza, M. L. 1984. Estudos de processos Hamilton, M. B., J. M. Braverman, and D. F.
tecnológicos para obtenção de produtos da Soria-Hernanz. 2003. Patterns and relative
Castanha-do-Brasil (Bertholletia excelsa, H. B. rates of nucleotide and insertion/deletion
K.). Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Tecnologia de evolution at six chloroplast intergenic regions
Alimentos, Universidade Federal do Ceará, in new world species of the Lecythidaceae.
Fortaleza. Molecular Biology and Evolution 20(10):1710–
Desmoulière, S. J. M. n.d. -a. Castanha da 1721.
Amazônia: Inventario padronizado. Unpub- Heckenberger, M. J. 2002. Rethinking the
lished GIS product (map) summarizing special Arawakan diaspora: Hierarchy, regionality
data on Bertholletia from RADAM-Brasil and the Amazonian Formative. Pages 99–122
(1973–1981) botanical inventories. GIS Labo- in J. D. Hill and F. Santos-Granero, eds.,
ratory, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa da Comparative Arawakan histories: Rethinking
Amazônia (INPA), Manaus. language family and culture area in Amazonia.
———. n.d. -b. Castanha da Amazônia: No University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
texto descritivo da parcela. Unpublished GIS ———. 2005. The ecology of power: Person,
product (map) summarizing special data on place, and culture in Southern Amazon, AD
Bertholletia from RADAM-Brasil (1973–1981) 1250–2000. New York: Routeledge.
botanical inventories. GIS Laboratory, Insti- ———, E. G. Neves, and J. B. Petersen. 1998.
tuto Nacional de Pesquisa da Amazônia De onde surgem os modelos? As origens e
(INPA), Manaus. expansões Tupi na Amazônia Central. Revista
Dixon, R. M. W. 1999. Introduction. Pages 1– de Antropologia 41(1):69–96.
22 in R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald, ———, J. C. Russell, C. Fausto, J. R. Toney, M.
eds., The Amazonian languages. Cambridge J. Schmidt, E. Pereira, B. Franchetto, and A.
University Press, Cambridge. Kuikuro. 2008. Pre-Columbian urbanism,
Ducke, A. 1946. Plantas de cultura précolombi- anthropogenic landscapes, and the future of
ana na Amazônia brasileira. Boletin Técnico the Amazon. Science 29(321):1214–1217.
do Instituto Agronomico do Norte 8:2–24. Hill, J. D. and F. Santos-Granero. 2002. Com-
Facundes, S. D. S. 2002. Historical linguistics parative Arawakan histories: Rethinking lan-
and its contribution to improving the knowl- guage family and culture area in Amazonia.
edge of Arawak. Pages 74–96 in J. D. Hill and University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
F. Santos-Granero, eds., Comparative Arawa- Hornborg, A. 2005. Ethnogenesis, regional inte-
kan histories: Rethinking language family and gration and ecology in prehistoric Amazonia:
culture area in Amazonia. University of Illinois Toward a system perspective. Current Anthro-
Press, Urbana. pology 46(4):589–620.
Fonseca, J. S. da. 1880–81. Viagem ao redor do IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Esta-
Brasil, 1875–1878 (2 vols. ). Oficina tipográf- tística. 2004. Produção da extração vegetal e
ica de Pinheiro, Faria & Companhia, Rio de da silvicultura–2003. Instituto Brasileiro de
Janeiro. Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro.
Greenhall, A. M. 1965. Sapucaia nut dispersal by ———. 2007. Produção da extração vegetal e da
greater spear-nosed bats in Trinidad. Carib- silvicultura–2006. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto
bean Journal of Science 6:167–171. Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.
Gribel, R., M. R. Lemes, L. G. Bernardes, A. E. Janzen, D. H. and P. S. Martin. 1982. Neo-
Pinto, and G. H., Jr. Shepard. 2007. Page 281 tropical anachronisms: The fruits the gom-
Phylogeography of Brazil-nut tree (Bertholletia photheres ate. Science 215:19–27.
excelsa, Lecythidaceae): Evidence of human Kanashiro, M., S. A. Harris, and A. Simons.
influence on the species distribution. Associa- 1997. RAPD diversity in Brazil nut (Bertholle-
tion for Tropical Biology and Conservation, tia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.: Lecythidaceae).
Morelia. Silvae Genetica 46(4):219–223.
20. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
Kern, D., G. D’aquino, T. Rodrigues, F. Frazao, (Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl.: Lecy-
W. Sombroek, T. Myers, and E. Neves. 2004. thidaceae). Advances in Economic Botany
Distribution of Amazonian dark earths in the 8:130–150.
Brazilian Amazon. Pages 51–75 in J. Leh- ———. 1990b. Lecythidaceae—Part II. The
mann, D. Kern, B. Glaser, and W. Wodos, zygomorphic-flowered New World genera
eds., Amazonian dark earths. Kluwer Aca- (Couroupita, Corythophora, Bertholletia, Coura-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht. tari, Eschweilera, & Lecythis). Flora Neotropica
Lathrap, D. W. 1970. The Upper Amazon. 21(2):1–376.
Praeger, New York. Müller, C. H. 1981. Castanha-do-Brasil: Estudos
Magalhães, M. P. 2009. Evolução antropomorfa agronômicos. EMBRAPA/Centro de Pesquisa
da Amazônia. Revista de História da Arte e Agropecuária do Trópico Úmido, Belém, Pará.
Arqueologia 12:4–38. ———, I. A. Rodrigues, A. A. Müller, and N. R.
McCann, J. M., W. I. Woods, and D. W. Meyer. M. Müller. 1980. Castanha-do-Brasil: Resul-
2001. Organic matter and anthrosols in tados de pesquisas. Belém, Pará: EMBRAPA/
Amazonia: Interpreting the Amerindian leg- Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Trópico
acy. in R. M. Rees, B. C. Ball, C. D. Úmido.
Campbell, and C. A. Watson, eds., Sustain- Myers, G. P., A. C. Newton, and M. Melgarejo.
able management of soil organic matter, pp 1996. The influence of canopy gap size on
180–189. CAB International, Wallingford. natural regeneration of Brazil nut (Bertholletia
Meira, S. 2006. Cariban languages. Pages 199– excelsa) in Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Man-
204 in K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of agement 127(1–3):119–128.
language and linguistics, 2nd edition. Elsevier, Neves, E. G. and J. B. Petersen. 2006. The political
Oxford. economy of pre-Columbian Amerindians: Land-
——— and B. Franchetto. 2005. The Southern scape transformations in central Amazonia. Pages
Cariban languages and the Cariban family. 279–310 in W. Balée and C. Erickson, eds., Time
International Journal of American Linguistics and complexity in the Neotropical lowlands:
71(2):127–192. Explorations in historical Eecology. Columbia
Métraux, A. 1928. La civilisation matérielle des University Press, New York.
tribus Tupi-Guarani. Librairie Orientaliste, Paris. ———, ———, R. N. Bartone, and C. A. da
Miller, E. (ed.). 1992. Arqueologia dos empreen- Silva. 2003. Historical and socio-cultural
dimentos da Eletronorte: Resultados prelimi- origins of Amazonian dark earths. In Amazo-
nares. Brasilia: Eletronorte. nian dark earths: Origins, properties, manage-
Moore, D. and L. Storto. 2002. As línguas ment, ed. J. Lehmann, D. Kern, G. Glaser,
indígenas e a pré-história. Pages 73–92 in S. and W. I. Woods, 29–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer
D. J. Pena, ed., Homo Brasilis. FUNPEC Academic Publishers.
Editora, São Paulo. Nimuendajú, C. 1925. As tribus do alto Madeira.
Morcote Ríos, G., S. Mora Camargo, and C. E. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de
Franky Calvo. 2006. Pueblos y paisajes anti- Paris 17:166–172.
guos de la Selva Amazónica. Universidad Noble, G. K. 1965. Proto-Arawakan and its
Nacional deColombia/Instituto de Ciencias descendants. International Journal of Ameri-
Naturales, São Paulo. can Linguistics 31(3):1–129.
Mori, S. A. (lead author) et al.; D. Swarthout Ohl-Schacherer, J., G. H., Jr. Shepard, H.
(topic editor). 2007. Brazil nut family (Lecy- Kaplan, C. A. Peres, T. Levi, and D. W. Yu.
thidaceae) in the New World. In Encyclopedia 2007. The sustainability of subsistence hunt-
of Earth, ed. C. J. Cleveland and D. Swarth- ing by Matsigenka native communities in
out. Environmental Information Coalition, Manu National Park, Peru. Conservation
National Council for Science and the Environ- Biology 21(5):1174–1185.
ment, Washington, D.C. Oliver, J. R. 1989. The archaeological, linguistic
——— and G. T. Prance. 1981. The “sapucaia” and ethnohistorical evidence for the expansion
group of Lecythis (Lecythidaceae). Brittonia 33 of Arawakan into northwest Venezuela and
(1):70–80. northeastern Colombia. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of
——— and ———. 1990a. Taxonomy, ecology Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana-
and economic botany of the Brazil nut Champaign.
21. 2011] SHEPARD & RAMIREZ: HUMAN DISPERSAL OF THE BRAZIL NUT
Pärssinen, M., D. Schaan, and A. Ranzi. 2009. Rodrigues, A. D. 1964. A classificação do tronco
Pre-Columbian geometric earthworks in the lingüístico tupí. Revista de Antropologia 12
upper Purús: A complex society in western (1–2):99–104.
Amazonia. Antiquity 83(322):1084–1095. ———. 1985. Evidence for Tupi-Cariban rela-
Payne, D. L. 1991. A classification of Maipuran tionship. In South American languages: Retro-
(Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical spect and prospect, ed. H. Klein and L. Stark,
retentions. Pages 355–499 in D. C. Derbyshire 371–404. Austin: University of Texas Press.
and G. K. Pullum, eds., Handbook of Amazo- ———. 1999. Tupí. In The Amazonian lan-
nian languages. Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague. guages, ed. H. Klein and L. Stark, 107–124.
Peres, C. A. and C. Baider. 1997. Seed dispersal, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
spatial distribution and population structure of Roosevelt, A. C. 1980. Parmana: Prehistoric maize
Brazilnut trees (Bertholettia excelsa) in south- and manioc subsistence along the Amazon and
eastern Amazonia. Journal of Tropical Ecology Orinoco. Academic Press, New York.
13:595–616. ———. 1992. Arqueologia Amazônica. In His-
———, L. C. Schiesari, and C. L. Dias-Leme. tória dos Índios no Brasil, ed. M. M. Carneiro
1997. Vertebrate predation of Brazil-nuts, an da Cunha, 53–86. São Paulo: Companhia das
agouti-dispersed Amazonian seed crop (Ber- Letras.
tholletia excelsa, Lecythidaceae): A test of the ———, M. Lima da Costa, C. Lopes Machado,
escape hypothesis. Journal of Tropical Ecology M. Michab, N. Mercier, H. Valladas, J.
13:69–79. Feathers, W. Barnett, M. Imazio da Silveira,
———, C. Baider, P. A. Zuidema, L. H. O. A. Henderson, J. Sliva, B. Chernoff, D. S.
Wadt, K. A. Kainer, D. A. P. Gomes-Silva, R. Reese, J. A. Homan, N. Toth, and K. Schick.
P. Salomão, L. L. Simões, E. R. N. Franciosi, 1996. Paleoindian cave dwellers in the Ama-
F. Cornejo Valverde, R. Gribel, G. H. zon: The peopling of the Americas. Science
Shepard Jr., M. Kanashiro, P. Coventry, D. 272:373–384.
W. Yu, A. R. Watkinson, and R. P. Freckle- Schmidt, M. 1917. Die Aruaken: Ein beitrag zum
ton. 2003. Demographic threats to the sus- problem der kulturverbreitung. Universität
tainability of Brazil nut exploitation. Science Leipzig, Leipzig.
302:2112–2114. Shepard, G. H. Jr. 2001. Relatório preliminar
Piperno, D. and D. M. Pearsall. 1998. The sobre sítio arqueológico e cemitério indígena
origins of agriculture in the lowland Neo- na Reserva Amanã. Report submitted to 1ª
tropics. Academic Press, San Diego. Superintendência Regional do IPHAN (Memo
Pires, J. M. 1984. The Amazonian forest. Pages nº 0308/2001). Instituto de Patrimônio His-
581–602 in H. Sioli, ed., The Amazon: tórico e Artístico Nacional (IPHAN), Brasilia,
Limnology and landscape ecology of a mighty DF, Brazil.
tropical river and its basin. Dr. W. Junk ———. 2002. Estudos sobre a biologia reprodu-
Publishers, Boston. tiva de plantas Amazônicas e suas aplicações no
Posey, D. A. 1985. Indigenous management of uso, manejo e conservação dos recursos natur-
tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the ais. Manaus, AM, Brazil: Conselho Nacional
Kayapo Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. de Pesquisa (CNPq).
Agroforestry Systems 3:139–158. ———, K. Rummenhoeller, J. Ohl, and D. W.
RADAM-Brasil. (1973–1981). Levantamento de Yu. 2010. Trouble in paradise: Indigenous
recursos naturais: Geologia, geomorfologia, populations, anthropological policies, and bio-
solos, vegetação, uso potencial da terra (22 diversity conservation in Manu National Park,
volumes). Rio de Janeiro: Ministério de Minas Peru. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 29:252–
e Energia, Departamento Nacional de Produção 301.
Mineral. Steinen, K. von den. 1894. Unter den natur-
Ramirez, H. 2001. Línguas Arawak da Amazônia völkem Zentral-Brasiliens. Berlin.
setentrional: Comparação e descrição. Univer- Stokstad, E. 2003. Too much crunching on
sidade do Amazonas, Manaus. rainforest nuts? Science 302:2049.
Ranzi, A., R. Feres, and F. Brown. 2007. Internet Tastevin, C. 1909/1920. Vocabulaires Katawishi.
software programs aid in search for Amazonian Unpublished vocabulary. Archives of Professor
geoglyphs. Eos 88(21):226–229. Paul Rivet, Musée de l’Homme, Paris.
22. ECONOMIC BOTANY [VOL
———. 1920. Dialecte Marawa. Unpublished Villachica, H., J. E. Urano de Carvalho, C. H.
vocabulary. Archives of Professor Paul Rivet, Müller, S. C. Diaz, and M. Almanza. 1996.
Musée de l’Homme, Paris. Frutales y hortalizas promisórios de la Amazonía.
Trivedi, M. R., F. H. Cornejo, and A. R. Watkinson. Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica/Food and
2004. Seed predation on Brazil nuts (Bertholletia Agriculture Organization (FAO), Lima, Peru.
excelsa) by macaws (Psittacidae) in Madre de Wander, A. E., R. Gazzola, C. H. M. Coelho, J.
Dios, Peru. Biotropica 36(1):118–122. Gazzola, and G. da Silva e Souza. 2008. Brazil
Tupiassú, A. and N. V. C. Oliveira. 1967. A nut almonds: Nutritional and market aspects.
castanha do Pará. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Tropentag 2008. Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Ger-
Econômico-Social do Pará, Belém, Pará. many: Competition for Resources in a Changing
Urban, G. 1992. A história da cultura Brasileira World: New Drive for Rural Development.
segundo as linguas nativas. Pages 87–102 in Witkowski, S. L. and C. H. Brown. 1983.
M. M. Carneiro da Cunha, ed., Índios no Marking-reversals and cultural importance.
Brasil. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo. Language 59(3):569–582.
