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

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.

Horizon link on this topic

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Check out the horizon transcript.

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", an intriguing article in the Atlantic magazine last year claims this may be so.

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 usually cuts away 'God' (basically God is some ultrapowerful, all knowing being that can do practically anything- you rapidly get into problems that you can't predict such a being, and Ockhams razor cuts him/her/it away in favour of, say, pure physics with no God.)

However, that does not prove that there is no God! It just says that the formalism that is Ockhams razor does not support that religious idea with the current evidence. As another example, if you read the formal rules of ping/pong, you probably find no God there either. There's no God in the rules of chess. These are all things that people do, even religious people. That does not make them atheists, since there is a distinction between what people do and what they believe. Essentially, Ockhams razor is an essential component in practical logic- and logic does not allow you to prove the existence of God. That's what faith is for.

Ockhams razor is needed because otherwise, for example, you would have to try to prove that the moon isn't pushed around by invisible, intangible faeries- it's not possible to do that. Using Ockhams razor puts the onus on the proposer of the theory to show that it is simpler than the idea that the moon is falling towards the earth all the time.

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.