Town Networks Defy Myth Of Pristine Rainforest

torpor writes "An interesting article being published in Science magazine discusses the ways tribes in the Xinguano region cultivated and integrated the Amazon rainforest into their culture by building 'networks of towns and cities, geometrically structured' to accomodate better use of the surrounding forest region. From an article at agriculture.com: "Brazil's northern Amazon region, once thought to have been pristine until modern development began encroaching, actually hosted sophisticated networks of towns and villages hundreds of years ago, researchers said on Thursday." ... When I saw some of the satellite pictures, I couldn't help thinking it would make a very interesting software model ... Starcraft, Xinguano-mod, anyone?"

7 Cities of Gold

[AtariAmarok]

Nah. Just a mistake. These guys accidentally looked at the C-64 emulator running "7 Cities of Gold" where Jason in the next cubicle had put little missions and forts over the South American interior. They thought it was satellite imagery.

False alarm, folks. Indiana Jones, better stay home this time.

Re:7 Cities of Gold

[torpor]

Seriously though, I think it'd be kind of interesting to make a computer model - in video game context - of these villages, and the problems/solutions they encountered.

Think about it, the management of these villages and the structures they built has some parallel to the "Age of Mythology" resource-management paradigm.

I'm sure it would be interesting to develop computer models of the surrounding flora/fauna based on human impact as well as provide an interface for managing their road systems geometrically

Complete lack of surprise

[Xenothaulus]

Brazil's northern Amazon region... actually hosted sophisticated networks of towns and villages hundreds of years ago...

The civilisations which existed in this hemisphere before the arrival of Europeans have been consistently looked down upon as "uncivilised" by modern culture. A finding like this leads to surprise and even disbelief. Where is the surprise? They were too busy trying to survive to develop culture, etc? Bah.

Re:Complete lack of surprise

[Planesdragon]

The civilisations which existed in this hemisphere before the arrival of Europeans have been consistently looked down upon as "uncivilised" by modern culture. A finding like this leads to surprise and even disbelief. Where is the surprise? They were too busy trying to survive to develop culture, etc? Bah.

The surprise is that we thought that THIS part of S.America was never settled. We--that being, "everyone who has ever even heard about native American culutres"--aren't surprised that they existed at al

Welcome !

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new city-building Amazon overlords. Or is that war-ladies? We look forward to being entwined in their magic lassoes.

Rapacious Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great. Now Bush and Cheney and their rich friends will use this as a justification for clearing the Amazon rain forest: "There have always been people cutting it down".

Re:Rapacious Republicans

[Catskul]

How is this Insightful?

Stereotypes and Impact

[fm6]

We have all these stereotypes about the "primitive" people who lived in the Americas before Columbus. Even their descendents, struggling to find identity and self-esteem, tend to think this. These stereotypes are usually, romantic, or racist, or both.

The big stereotype is the naked savage. In Manifest Destiny days, this allowed people to justify land grabs and massacres by thinking in terms of "progress" and "dying races". The post-Hitler era is less sanguine, but still likes this stereotype -- "noble savages" make for nice guilt-tripping.

The reality is a lot more complicated. There were hunter-gatherer bands in the Americas. But there were also agricultural communities, towns, cities, and everything in between. I'm not just talking about the famous civilizations south of the Rio Grande. The first settlers in what is now upstate New York found large settlements, even nascent cities. These soon disappeared of course -- too vulnerable to epidemics and raids.

And of course these cultures had their environmental impacts, as human cultures always do. It may be comforting to think of natives as ecologically wise -- but any wisdom they actually have, they acquired the hard way. Yes, Pueblo folklore is full of sound ecological concepts -- but it also contains nasty folk memories of the Anasazi culture that was too successful for its own good.

The bottom line is that ecological impact is just a part of being human. To manage this impact we need to find a good middle path between naive romanticisim and glib "progress and development" stupidity.

Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I'm currently reading "Gun, germs and steel" by Jack Diamond which outlines the reasons how europe ended up as top dogs in the world. To oversimplify- it's because Europe is at the same latitude, so crops/animals that are useful at one part spreads very rapidly across the whole continent; and had certain resources such as 3 key crops and a few domesticable animals.

In particular the animals are crucial- animal power is much more efficient than human power, so any animal that can be domesticated multiplies farming effectiveness up enormously; that means that surpluses are produced that creates trading, and that leads to villages, towns and eventually cities.

Additionally, living with your animals means you are more likely to catch diseases from them- that's why the europeans carried nasty diseases that practically annihilated native populations that lacked domesticated animals. The europeans themselves had built up a tolerance over time, so were mostly immune.

Anyway, putting the book to one side, this discovery is particularly interesting. The sustainable farming technology that these 'primitive' people found is actually better than the slash and burn that is used in the Amazon currently. Who would have guessed that stirring in some graphite into the Amazon soil would improve it so much that long term the soil is preserved? In fact the soil they made is still good nearly 5 centuries later, and is sold commercially.

Re:Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[fm6]

I love reading stuff like that, and I thank you for the book reference. But you need to take it with a grain of salt. Lots of theories "explain" the past, but do you go about deciding which ones are right?

Re:Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[WolfWithoutAClause]

You have to look at the evidence, make theories based on the evidence, and then pick the simplest theory that is consistent with the evidence. ("Ockhams Razor").

A theory like 'primitive people are too stupid to create civilization anyway' is too simple (they can't all be that stupid); and actually looking at the archeological evidence, or even evidence from 'backward' peoples today, it doesn't really line up with this view anyway (if you have a reasonably open mind anyway- you can't really expect racists to suddenly decide that Africans lacked key resources.)

The evidence in the book is nigh-on overwhelming; it's excessively detailed, and having read it (even 1/4 of it), I atleast can easily see that it cannot really have been any other way.

Re:Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[WolfWithoutAClause]

So basically you're saying that out of all the simple explanations, you still pick the one that appeals to you

No; I repeat, I pick the simplest one. Only if there are several, equally simple theories do I get to pick and choose. And even then it's usually a good idea to experimentally test wherever possible. (And if it isn't possible- that's usually a good sign you've got a rubbishy theory.)

That Ockham Thing

[fm6]

But who gets to decide what's the simplest theory? It all depends on your general world view. Ockham himself had strange, complicated beliefs [newadvent.org] that most modern people would find hard to accept. I've heard people propound some really convoluted theories and assert that they were the "simplest" explanation for some thing or another.

This is a very basic problem. In any discipline, you run the risk of falling in love with a theory. Even the physical sciences have this problem. But they at least have Experiment

Re:That Ockham Thing

[WolfWithoutAClause]

But who gets to decide what's the simplest theory?

I don't think that matters as much; provided the people who are checking your reasons are logical, they broadly should come to equivalent conclusions.

It all depends on your general world view.

I think you need to include your world view in with the assumptions.

Note, that strictly, Ockhams razor does not determine truth. It merely identifies the theory that is least arguable given the evidence.

For example, if you apply Ockhams razor to religion- it usu

Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[IM6100]

The fossil evidence shows that before Man arrived on the North American continent there were indigenous horses. The fossil record of said horses ends a bit after the first immigrants to America, the 'Native Americans,' arrived. Rather than train the horses as draft and riding animals and companions, they hunted and ate them to extinction.

So much for the 'ecological native Americans.'

Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[fm6]

Good lord, where did you get that crap? Whoever put it together has muddled about three different sources.

I was arguing for a non-romantic attitude towards native peoples, not racist garbage.

Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[IM6100]

The 'racist garbage' is placing the native Americans on a pedestal, making "noble savages" out of them.

The fossil record speaks for itself. There were horses on the North American continent. They were driven extinct shortly after Man arrived on the continent.

Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[fm6]

Ok, you're right about the horses. The last time I read anything on the subject, the accepted theory was that there were no native horses in the Americas after Eohippus [britannica.com] went extinct 49 million years ago. A little Googling tells me I'm out of date, and new discoveries make for a horse (or something in the horse family) being around until the big exinctions 10,000 years ago.

But I still have a couple of criticisms. First, it is rude and lame to lecture me on the whole "noble savages" thing when you're replyi

Re:Stereotypes and Impact

[Silburn_Luke]

A simple (and somewhat snarky) analysis, but basically sound - as the poster upthread mentions, any eco-wisdom held by aboriginal societies is the hard won product of trial and error and there are a number of interesting examples in the worldwide archaeological record of societies running head-on into environmental crises.

It wasn't just horses mind, there were a number of large mammal and avian species that went extinct around the time we think humans first made it to the Americas.

These species had one cr

Horizon link on this topic

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Check out the horizon transcript [bbc.co.uk].

Basically, the soil 'terra preta' is the secret to how these peoples managed to prosper on land which is currently considered to 'poor soil' only suitable for slash and burn. This soil holds on to the soil nutrients even in the face of high rainfall; and enables farming; it's made by mixing charcoal into the soil.

Amazon rain forest a human artifact?

[mlinksva]

"1491" [theatlantic.com], an intriguing article in the Atlantic magazine last year claims this may be so.

Re:Amazon rain forest a human artifact?

[tolldog]

That is probably one of the most interesting articles I have ever read. Thank you for pointing it out.

-Tim

Re:Amazon rain forest a human artifact?

[p3d0]

Here's a interesting phrase from that article: "hundreds of acres across".

Re:Amazon rain forest a human artifact?

[blahtree]

Thanks for the link! Utterly fascinating!

Book of Mormon

[jgardn]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up.

A young farmer, Joseph Smith, translated a book written on gold plates in the 1820s that described several societies that inhabited the Americas for thousands of years. The American Indians are descendants of one of them.

This book is called the "Book of Mormon" and is translated into hundreds of languages. Ask a friend who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a copy and they will gladly give you one for free.

You can read about the heights of their civilization -- 400 years of no wars and complete harmony and prosperity for all -- and the depths of their civilization -- complete warfare including women and children, to the complete destruction of a race.

You'll also understand why some Native Americans had a ceremony of drinking the blood and eating the body of their God (in symbol, of course), and why Quetzecoatl resembles Christ. The strange tribes of Indians who spoke a language resembling Hebrew, as well as the Egyptian-like enscriptions on their tombs and pyramids will also make a lot more sense.

Re:Book of Mormon

[Creedo]

The Book of Mormon has been shown to be unreliable as a archeological text by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Claims to archeological validity were dealt with here [utlm.org] by the Smithsonian Institute.

Re:Book of Mormon

[jgardn]

Interesting, you claimed that a letter that claims that the Smithsonian doesn't use the Book of Mormon as an archealogical guide means that the Book of Mormon isn't valid as an archealogical guide.

Think about that for a moment. Just because someone doesn't use Linux doesn't mean it isn't an OS.

The Book of Mormon, I agree, makes a horrible archeological guide, however. It is a wonderful spiritual and religious record however, written specifically for our day and age.

Re:Book of Mormon

[eglamkowski]

I was just yesterday reading a book on world mythology and was specifically reading the Aztec section (a Mexican co-worker piqued my interest on the topic...). The Aztecs absolutely rejected Jesus and refused to add him to their pantheon even as a minor figure (which is pathetically amusing considering how huge their pantheon is and how often they integrated gods of other tribes...). There is some reason to suspect that this complete and total rejection of Christianity may have led to their thoroughly bru

Re:Book of Mormon

[corbettw]

Who moderated this as "Interesting"??

In any event, there were no Native Americans who had a ceremony that resembled anything like Holy Communion. The Mayans had several blood sacrifice ceremonies, and the Aztecs were pretty brutal in their human sacrifice, but none of them believed they were consuming the body and blood of God, thus joining with him in Spirit. And they sure as hell didn't believe their God became human and died for their sins.

Last I checked, Christ didn't look like a giant feathered serpe

Re:Book of Mormon

[scribler]

Do you have any proof of your accusations regarding the Book of Mormon? I am asking, because they are unfounded.

The Book of Mormon does not teach that "Indians" are children of the devil. Now the LDS church does teach that the Native Americans are descendants of the people of the Book of Mormon, but not that they are children of the Devil.

And I don't even know where you got the idea that the Book of Mormon condones slavery for Blacks.

As for the chattel cooment, I can guarantee you that it does not t

"myth of pristine rainforest"

[penguin7of9]

Why use that kind of biased language? That kind of phrase is usually followed by arguments of the form "since it's not pristine anymore anyway, we might as well chop it down", or "since people have lived there in the past, why not settle it again"?

The fact is: those people aren't living there anymore, and they haven't lived there for a long time. And it wasn't Europeans that killed them. Obviously, that environment is not a great environment for humans to live.

Besides, this hardly sounds all that unusu