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?"

Comments

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: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.

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 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 to poke holes in a theory that's beautiful and elegant and logical and utterly wrong. Other disciplines have to be more cautious.

Which is not to say that historical theories are a waste of time. They just have to be taken, as I said, with a grain of salt.

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 brutal treatment at the hands of the Spanish.

But really, when you have hundreds, possibly thousands, of gods in your pantheon, its inevitable that at least one would bear strong similarities to Jesus, or any particular god of any other religion you care to name, for that matter. I wouldn't read anything into it.