Slashdot Mirror


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?"

16 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. 7 Cities of Gold by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  2. Complete lack of surprise by Xenothaulus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
  3. Welcome ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  4. Rapacious Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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".

  5. Stereotypes and Impact by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

  6. Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Good book Re:Stereotypes and Impact by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  7. Horizon link on this topic by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  8. That Ockham Thing by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:That Ockham Thing by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  9. Amazon rain forest a human artifact? by mlinksva · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  10. Book of Mormon by jgardn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:Book of Mormon by Creedo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 by the Smithsonian Institute.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    2. Re:Book of Mormon by eglamkowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Government IS the problem.
    3. Re:Book of Mormon by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 serpent, so I'm not sure where you get the "Quetzecoatl resembles Christ" remark. They didn't even have similar philosophies. One was a god of war, the other was a Man of peace.

      As for tribes of Indian speaking Hebrew, there weren't any (there may be today, nothing says an Apache can't become a Jew if he isn't, er, attached to his foreskin). There is a tribe in Alabama who uses some Celtic words and phrases, most likely thanks to St. Patrick, and there are artifacts from Mexican which bear Chinese and Phoenician characteristics. But nothing remotely resembling ancient Jews.

      Of course, you left out the little niggling details about "Indians" and the Book of Mormon. Like how that book teaches all Indians are children of the Devil and should be killed. And that blacks should be kept as slaves, since it's their natural state. And don't forget the idea of keeping women as chattel. Oh, wait, I forgot, Mormons dropped that one so their territory could become a state. Christians have done some horrible things through history, but they never claimed revelations from God countradicting core beliefs just so they could gain the benefits of US statehood.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.