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

Kumako: a place of convergence for Maroons and Amerindians in Suriname, SA. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Introduction The Dutch occupied Suriname in the mid 1600s after failed attemptsby the French and English. In a span of 20 years Suriname had changedhands from the French to the Spanish and Portuguese, who were quicklydriven away by indigenous peoples, and by 1634 to the English who soughtto establish settlements in Suriname. However, each of these instancesof attempted habitation was short lived and precipitated years ofrepetitive power struggles leading toward colonisation (Goslinga 1971,1979). Suriname soon developed a Maroon population, that is people ofAfrican descent who had escaped from enslavement, and an importantdestination was Kumako (Figure 1). It is possible that ad hoc transientgroups defined as petit-maroonage (small-scale opportunistic flight fromplantations) may have been the first to establish a Maroon presence atKumako. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] This initial population may have been followed later by apopulation surge catalysed by gran-maroanage (the flight of large groupsof slaves from plantations), which was documented to have occurred by1680. The Kumako settlement was pivotal to early Maroons because itprovided immediate refuge for large communities of runaway slaves andthe context for a uniquely New World cultural transformation to takeplace. The settlement became culturally defined in the early 1700s withnumerous Maroon clans creating alliances. Dutch planters had heard of Kumako's existence by 1713, butstill did not know of its whereabouts. By the 1730s Kumako was reportedto be a thriving village, boasting a supportive hinterland peopled bymatrilinear groups living along forest tributaries of the SurinameRiver. Kumako was infiltrated and burned by the Dutch in the early1740s. After the peace accord of the 1760s, the settlement was abandonedfor the river-based communities we still see today. Maroons and the indigenous peoples of Suriname must have co-existedin relative proximity, which raises the issue of how far theyinter-married or learnt technology from each other. While we do not wantto read the ethnography back into deep time, it is nonethelessinformative to observe that little cohabitation and few mixed marriagesoccur today in areas where Maroon and indigenous villages border eachother, as is the case in the Tapanahoni Valley region (Ndjuka Maroonsand Wayana Amerindians) and the Lawa Valley (Boni Maroons and WayanaAmerindian). The principal methods of study have so far been anthropological,most notably, archival and oral historical documentations, which arecommonly used to identify unique attributes of contemporary and pastMaroon culture (Fermin 1781; Price 1975, 1983, 1996; Price & Price1980, 1988, 1991, 1992; Bilby 1996; Hart 2002). The existing bodies ofhistorical documentation offer some context for a discussion about thecauses and consequences of the social structure of African-diasporapeoples, but they do not address cultural exchanges between indigenouspeoples and early Maroon communities. Even though archival and oralhistorical documentations are substantive in their accounts of culturaldevelopment, they provide limited evidence about population shifts, theidentification of population groups and the diffusion of materialculture. History gives us clues but it does not track movements in spaceand time, and it does not report the interactions that incoming groupsmay have had with indigenous people in a country upon arrival. Maroon sites are often studied for their historical relevance toAfrican diaspora discourses on resistance, rebellion and retention(Brana-Shute 1990; Agorsah 1993, 2001; Allen 1999; Price & Price2003; Haviser & MacDonald 2006; Ngwenyama 2007; Ogundiran &Falola 2007). To assess the validity of possible historical andprehistoric occupation of a location, archaeometric analysis can providecomplementary datasets to better understand and assess culturaltransformation expressed in settlement patterns and lifeway choices(Stahl 1995). Using the Maroons, communities of escaped slavedescendants as a case study, the following article discussesarchaeological evidence in conjunction with radiocarbon dating toillustrate the possible relationship that seventeenth and eighteenthcentury Maroons had with their indigenous counterparts in the Amazonianhinterlands of Suriname. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Investigations at Kumako Kumako was rediscovered in 1997 and excavated from 1999 to 2004 bythe Maroon Heritage Research Project (MHRP). The MHRP--directed by DrKofi Agorsah (1997) and co-directed by the author--is a circum-Caribbeanresearch endeavour that seeks to understand the advent of Maroon culturein the New World. To quote Agorsah (2006: 190), 'the MHRP usesoral, ethnographic, and historical documents to guide its archaeologicalsurveys and test excavations in order to reconstruct the pattern ofsettlement development in the areas inhabited by the Maroons'. Inthe years leading to the defining 2004 excavation, we tried tocorroborate oral historical accounts with the ethnographic work ofRichard Price (1975, 1983). Using historical documentation and oralhistorical accounts as a guide during surveys, Kumako was identified dueto its lack of dense old growth trees compared to the surroundingforest. The settlement was surveyed and defined as two main activityregions: Kumako 1 and Kumako 2 (hereafter referred to as KMK1 and KMK2)(Figure 2). New archaeological evidence was derived from excavationscarried out in 2 x 2m squares (see Figures 3 & 4) (see Ngwenyama2007 for full contextual reading; see White 2009 for abridged discussionof archaeological excavation). The area of KMK1 produced a high yield ofceramic and non-ceramic artefacts, such as lithics of groundstone,projectile point fragments and bifacial flakes. In addition, metalobjects, including nails and musket balls, and organic remainsconsisting of cowry shells and charcoal were identified (Figure 5;Agorsah 2006). All were found at a shallow depth of no more than 0.Sinbelow the surface. The assemblage of artefacts at KMK1 is believed torepresent an area of domestic food procurement and processing. KMK2, by contrast, features a large circular mound approximately300m across. It was initially recognised from its slopes and surroundingditch and mapped by GPS (White 2009: 74). The mound is encircled by thehigh forest canopy and its centre is devoid of old growth. Excavationson the mound produced a higher frequency of morphologically distinctceramics: bases, handles and curved body parts. Located at thenorth-eastern edge of the mound was a dark circular depression about 3macross that descended approximately 2m below the surface. Excavationshere produced sherds identified by the Saramaka as belonging to ahgbangceramic vessels used during ritual baths. In particular, the local crewidentified the large pot rims as remnants of an ahgbang and/or bungu,large earthenware bowls or pots used to boil and/or mix skillfullyselected medicinal plants and other powerful herbs for special ritualpurposes (White 2009: 78). The crew also described the dark circulardepression as an example of the ritual baths used by elders (White 2009:76, 78). Dating the site Radiocarbon ([sup.14]C) dating is a technique widely used byarchaeologists of the circum-Caribbean (Fitzpatrick et al. 2004; Hofmanet al. 2008; Reid 2008), but not commonly applied to historical Maroonarchaeological sites. Adequately contexted material is in short supply,and the measures of recent date can be quite equivocal. Four sampleswere taken and measured from the excavations at Kumako (Table 1). Theearliest dates were from burnt organic matter reduced to charcoal foundat 0.5-0.7m down in the depression on the periphery of the mound in KMK2(samples 1 and 2, unit I24). The results (in the first millennium AD)point to the incorporation of residual material from a prehistoric,possibly non-cultural event, such as a forest fire. Potsherds, offering a better chance of a contemporaneous date wereexamined from KMK1 (0.1-0.2m down, sample 3, Unit P6) and KMK2 (0.7mdown, sample 4, Unit H22). Sample 3 gave possible dates from thefifteenth to twentieth centuries, and sample 4 offered better precision,the early fifteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. The potterysampled was typical of many of the distinctive slipped and burnishedsherds found at KMK2, and attributed to Maroon culture (Figure 6). Inthe recent period, the calibration curve offers a number ofstatistically possible dates, but the pottery dates from Kumako belongto the historic period and most probably to the fifteenth to seventeenthcenturies (Figures 7 & 8). [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] Discussion As the archaeological evidence demonstrates, the Maroon settlementof Kumako had a structured settlement layout, suggestive of areas fordomestic activity (KMK1) and ritual practices (KMK2). Both areas wereassociated with ceramics, confirmed by radiocarbon dating to belong tothe historic period, while other, less certain dates from KMK2 suggest apossible pre-Maroon occupation. It is from KMK2 also that indigenousaspects of the settlement may be seen in the mound and the vessels usedfor ritual baths. The historical records concerning Kumako make no mention of acircular mound, which is otherwise a widespread feature of the AmazonBasin. According to Heckenberger's (2005: 145) archaeologicalresearch among the Arawak-speaking Kuikuru people of northern Brazil,researchers must consider that: 'Ditches and/or palisades, mounds, and other major public works have a restricted geographical distribution, forming an arc extending along the peripheries of the forested Amazonian lowlands'. These types of monument are the attributes of people that hereferred to as: 'typical Amazonian forest farmers, in that they opened up large, contiguous tracts of agricultural land, denuded of original forest and which were cultivated in long term rotational cycles that include manioc gardens, planted in a new place every few years' (Heckenberger 2005: 195). This general description also parallels the working definition ofprehistoric lifeways in the Guianas. Archaeological sites in Surinamecharacterised by mounds are commonly associated with pre-Columbiansettlements. However, such earthworks are normally associated withsettlements located in coastal waterways, which incorporate shellmiddens and aquatic debris. The Kumako mound lacks these attributes,certainly attesting to key differences with the people of the coastalwaterways. Similarly, ahgbang usage may be a direct reflection of thehistorical exchanges Maroons had with indigenous peoples during theirformative period. Ahgbangs are common in villages today, and eachhousehold boasts at least one. They are used solely for regular ritualwashing to appease ancestral spirits during adverse circumstances on thefamilial and/or village level. According to the historical records (King1996; Bos 1998), ritual baths were a behavioural trait learned fromindigenous groups. Ritual baths by warring Maroons took place prior tobattles with Dutch planters during their expeditions to locate anddestroy Maroon strongholds and reclaim escaped slaves. There is some indication, therefore, of a Maroon/indigenousinteraction at Kumako. Elsewhere, such interaction has been studied bymeans of richer artefact assemblages. Agorsah's (1994, 1995, 2001,2006, 2007) groundbreaking archaeological work at Nanny Town in Jamaicaexposed a European stock of Spanish coins, Belarmine jars, musket balls,pipe stems and door hinges. Also discovered at the site were localearthenware and terracotta figurines believed to be indigenous inorigin. Agorsah (2007) has presented these findings as an indication ofmulti-occupation. With a similar approach to site dating, thearchaeological study of the nineteenth-century Black Seminole Maroontown of Pilaklikaha in central Florida presented a preponderance ofindigenous and European artefacts (Weik 2002). According to Weik (2007:327), Pilaklikaha's artefact assemblage is comparable to colonialperiod settlements throughout the region. In addition, much of thecolonial-made pottery is suggestive of storage vessels, bowls, cups andplates (Weik 2007). Weik (2007: 328) further stated that most of theceramic fragments at the site are a Seminole and Creek Indian typereferred to as 'Withlacoochee Brushed'. This type of'brushed' pottery is strongly indicative of Native Americanconstruction, but it is plausible that the Black Seminole Maroons mayhave reinterpreted vessel use. Similar findings at theseventeenth-century Maroon site of Palmares in Brazil attest to anoverwhelming presence of known prehistoric ceramic technologies (Allen2000, 2001; Funari 2006, 2007). Current analysis of archaeologicalevidence (Ngwenyama 2007; White 2009) from Maroon sites in Suriname hasyet to reveal types and temporal markers similar to Nanny Town,Pilaklikaha and Palmares. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] With the onset of gran-maroonage, indigenous people, too, wereplaced in a precarious situation that affected their sedentary agrarianlifestyle (Koelewijn & Riviere 1987). After the Amerindian peace wasestablished with the Dutch in the late 1600s, many groups may havemigrated farther inland to distance themselves from the Europeans andthe Maroons who were encroaching on their territory. Historical andethnographic documents indicate that the Trio and Wayana Indianspopulated much of the Sipaliwini Savannah, extending from central tosouth Suriname prior to and at the time of contact (Stewart 1963;Versteeg 1998, 2003). Amerindians did maintain, however, open trade withboth groups, and they reportedly engaged in active trade with theMatawai and Saramaka Maroons for exotic European items. It is reasonableto surmise that Maroon relations with indigenous peoples may have beenmore intense than imagined by historians and archaeologists. As Africanswere escaping plantations to find refuge in the forests, so, too, wereindigenous peoples forced to avoid the harsh colonial world--thrustingboth groups into a parallel quest for refuge. Conclusion This interpretation of the archaeological evidence, archaeometricdata, archival records and ethnohistorical accounts illustrates arelationship between Maroons and Amerindians that is insufficientlydiscussed in African diaspora archaeological discourse. Theinterpretation offered in this discussion differs from regional examplesof archaeological evidence notably in Jamaica, Brazil and thesouth-eastern US, because it offers an articulation of a relationshipbased on ritual exchange, not transient historical associations. Inaddition the archaeometric analysis provided in this article offers muchneeded empirical data on Amerindian chronology in the Neotropicallowlands of the Guiana region of South America; and by doing so willcontribute to the knowledge of macro-regional pre-and-post contactsettlement patterns and behaviours. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the staff of the Suriname National Museum fortheir collegiality and support for Maroon archaeology. And mostimportantly the Saramaka tribe of Suriname for recognising theimportance of archaeological research, not just to their history, butthe history of the indigenous peoples of Suriname. I would also like toacknowledge and thank Rafael Rodriguez for formatting all graphics foundin this article. Received: 14 May 2008; Revised: 24 September 2009; Accepted: 20October 2009 References AGORSAH, E.K. 1993. Archaeology and resistance history in theCaribbean. The African Archaeological Review 11: 175-96. --(ed.) 1994. Maroon heritage: archaeological ethnographic andhistorical perspectives. Kingston: Canoe Press. --1995. Archaeology and the Maroon heritage in Jamaica. JamaicaJournal 24(2): 1-9. --1997. Locational and spatial transformation patterns of Maroonsettlements in Suriname: a preliminary report (Technical Report: MaroonHeritage Research Project). Portland (OR): National Geographic Societyand Suriname National Museum. --(ed.) 2001. Freedom in black history and culture. Middletown(CA): Arrow Point Press. --2006. The other side of freedom: the Maroon trail in Suriname, inJ. Haviser & K. MacDonald (ed.) African re-genesis: confrontingsocial issues in the diaspora (One World Archaeology 23): 191-203.Abingdon: UCL Press. --2007. Scars of brutality: archaeology of the Maroons in theCaribbean, in A. Ogundiran & T. Falola (ed.) Archaeology of AtlanticAfrica and the African diaspora: 332-54. Bloomington (IN): IndianaUniversity Press. ALLEN, S. 1999. Africanism, mosaics and creativity: the historicalarchaeology of Palamares, in PEA. Funari (ed.) Cultura material earqueologia historica: 141-78. Campinas: IFCH/UNICAMP. --2000. The ethnogenesis of the Palmarino: preliminary directionsin the historical archaeology of a seventeenth-century BrazilianQuilombo. Revista de Historia da Arte e Arqueologia 3: 39-52. --2001. 'Zumbi Nunca Vai Morrer': history, the practiceof archaeology, and race politics in Brazil. Unpublished PhDdissertation, Brown University. BILBY, K. 1996. Ethnogenesis in the Guianas and Jamaica: two Marooncases, in J.D. Hill (ed.) History, power and identity: ethnogenesis inthe Americas, 1492-92:119-41. Iowa City (IA): University of Iowa Press. BOS, G. 1998. Some recoveries in Guiana Indian ethnohistory.Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. BRANA-SHUTE, G. (ed.) 1990. Resistance and rebellion in Suriname:old and new (Studies in Third World Societies 43). Williamsburg (VA):College of William and Mary. FERMIN, P. 1781. Historical and political view of the present andancient state of the colony of Suriname in South America; with thesettlements of Demerary and Issequibo; together with an account of itsproduce for 25 years past. London: W. Nicoll. FITZPATRICK, S.M. with Q. KAYE & M. KAPPERS. 2004. Aradiocarbon sequence for the Sabazan site, Carriacou, West Indies.Journal of Caribbean Archaeology 5:1-11. FUNARI, P. 2006. An archaeological study of the African diaspora inBrazil: some ethnic issues, in J. Haviser & K. MacDonald (ed.)African re-genesis: confronting social issues in the diaspora (One WorldArchaeology 23): 84-190. Abingdon: UCL Press. --2007. The archaeological study of the African diaspora in Brazil,in A. Ogundiran & T. Falola (ed.) Archaeology of Atlantic Africa andthe African diaspora: 355-71. Bloomington (IN): Indiana UniversityPress. GOSLINGA, C. 1971. The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast1580-1680. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida Press. --1979. A short history of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam.London: Martinus Nijhoff. GOSLINGA, C. with M.J.L. VAN YPEREN (ed.) 1985. The Dutch in theCaribbean and in the Guianas. Assen: Van Gorcum. HART, R. 2002. Slaves who abolished slavery: blacks in rebellion.First published 1985. Mona: University of West Indies Press. HAVISER, J.B. & K. MACDONALD (ed.) 2006. Africanre-genesis." confronting social issues in the diaspora (One WorldArchaeology 23). Abingdon: UCL Press. HECKENBERGER, M. 2005. The ecology of power: culture, place, andpersonhood in the southern Amazon, AD 1000-2000. New York: Routledge. HOFMAN, C.L. with M. HOOGLAND & A.L. VAN GIJN. 2008. Crossingthe borders: new methods and techniques in the study of archaeologicalmaterials from the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa (AL): The University of AlabamaPress. KING, J. 1996. Guerilla warfare: a bush negroe view, in R. Price(ed.) Maroon societies: rebel slave communities in the Americas. Thirdedition: 298-304. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins University Press. KOELEWIJN, C. & P. RIVIERE. 1987. Oral literature of the TrioIndians of Suriname (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-enVolkenkunde, Caribbean Series 6). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. NGWENYAMA, C.N. 2007. Material beginnings of Saramaka Maroons: anarchaeological investigation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universityof Florida. OGUNDIRAN, A. & T. FALOLA (ed.) 2007. Archaeology of AtlanticAfrica and the African diaspora. Bloomington (IN): Indiana UniversityPress. PRICE, R. 1975. Saramaka social structure: an analysis of a Maroonsociety in Surinam (Caribbean Monograph Series 12). Rio Piedras:University of Puerto Rico, Institute of Caribbean Studies. --(ed.) 1983. First-time: the historical vision of an Afro-Americanpeople (Johns Hopkins Studies in Atlantic History and Culture).Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins University Press. --(ed.) 1996. Maroon societies: rebel slave communities in theAmericas. Third edition. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress. PRICE, R. & S. PRICE. 1980. Afro-American arts of the Surinamerainforest. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. --1988. John Gabriel Stedman: narrative of a five years expeditionagainst the revolted negroes of Surinam. Baltimore (MD): The JohnsHopkins University Press. --1991. Two evenings in Saramaka. Chicago (IL): The University ofChicago Press. --1992. Stedman's Surinam: life in an eighteenth-century slavesociety. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins University Press. --2003. The roots of roots: or how Afro-American anthropology gotits start. Chicago (IL): Prickly Paradigm Press. REID, B. (ed.) 2008. Archaeology and geoinformatics: case studiesfrom the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa (AL): The University of Alabama Press. STAHL, P. (ed.) 1995. Archaeology in the lowland American tropics:current analytical methods and recent applications. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. STEWART, J. (ed.) 1963. Handbook of South American Indians. Volume3: the tropical forest tribes (Smithsonian Institution Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 143). New York: Cooper Square Publishers. VERSTEEG, A. 1998. The history of prehistoric archaeologicalresearch in Suriname, in Th.E. Wong, D.R de Vletter, L. Krook, J.I.S.Zonneveld & A.J. van Loon (ed.) The history of earth sciences inSuriname: 203-34. Utrecht: Kon. Ned. Academie Wetenschappen andNederlands Instituut voor Toegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO. --2003. Suriname before Columbus. Paramaribo: Stichting SurinaamsMuseum. WEIK, T. 2002. A historical archaeology of black Seminole Maroonsin Florida: ethnogenesis and culture contact at Pilaklikaha. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, University of Florida. --2007. Allies, adversaries, and kin in the African Seminolecommunities of Florida: archaeology at Pilaklikaha, in A. Ogundiran& T. Falola (ed.) Archaeology of Atlantic Africa and the Africandiaspora: 311-31. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press. WHITE, C. 2009. Archaeological investigation of Suriname Maroonancestral communities. Caribbean Quarterly 55 (1): 65-88. Cheryl White, Historical Archaeologist and AnthropologicalConsultant, USA (Email: cnw37@hotmail.com)Table 1. Comparison chart of radiocarbon dates (determined by BetaAnalytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory in Miami (FL) USA). Datespertinent to the discussion are highlighted.Sample 1 sigma calibration 2 sigma calibrationprovenance 68% probability 95% probability Cal AD Cal BP Cal AD Cal BPSample 1 Charred 230 1720 80-390 1870-1560KMK2 Moundperiphery UnitI24, 0.5-0.6mbs 130-260 1820-1690 290-320 1660-1630Sample 2 Charred 420 1530 260-560 1690-1390KMK2 Moundperiphery Unit124, 1 x 1 NWcorner ~ 0.7mbs 380-460 1570-1480 480-520 1470-1430Sample 3 1650 300 1490-1680 460-270PotsherdsOrganicKMK1, UnitP6,~ 0.1-0.2m bs 1530-1560 420-390 1770-1800 180-150 1630-1660 320-290 1940-1950 10-0Sample 4 1440- 1480 510-470 1420-1520 530-430PotsherdsOrganicKMK2 Moundperiphery UnitH22, ~ 0.7mbs 1590-1620 360-330Sample [sup.13]C/ Conventionalprovenance [sup.12]C ratio radiocarbon ageSample 1 Charred -28.3 [per thousand]: lab. 1800 [+ or -] 60 BPKMK2 Mound mult=1periphery UnitI24, 0.5-0.6mbsSample 2 Charred -25.8 [per thousand]: lab 1630 [+ or -] 60 BPKMK2 Mound mult=1periphery Unit124, 1 x 1 NWcorner ~ 0.7mbsSample 3 -25.4 [per thousand]: lab 270 [+ or -] 50 BPPotsherds mult=1OrganicKMK1, UnitP6,~ 0.1-0.2m bsSample 4 -24.9 [per thousand]: lab 420 [+ or -] 40 BPPotsherds mult=1OrganicKMK2 Moundperiphery UnitH22, ~ 0.7mbs