Drones and Satellites Spot Lost Civilizations In Unlikely Places

sciencehabit writes What do the Sahara desert and the Amazon rainforest have in common? Until recently, archaeologists would have told you they were both inhospitable environments devoid of large-scale human settlements. But they were wrong. Here today at the annual meeting of the AAAS, two researchers explained how remote sensing technology, including satellite imaging and drone flights, is revealing the traces of past civilizations that have been hiding in plain sight."

Comments

every few years

[ganjadude]

Every few years we read about long lost civilizations that were found by aerial footage. I remember a handfull of years ago people were using google earth to locate some. Its always interesting when the news comes out. but 99% of the time once its "found" thats the end of it for us, no more news ever comes out. Hopefully this will lead to some new findings

Re:every few years

[TWX]

Except that in both cases, evidence of civilization in both places has been established prior to satellites and aircraft, and anthropologists and archeologists have provided evidence, and climate scientists have provided us with theories for the end of that civilization in what's now the Sahara, in the form of the Sahara Pump Theory.

Sure, aerial survey techniques can be used to help, and might even be able to establish evidence in other places, but for the moment it isn't quite as influential as the summary makes it out to be.

Re:every few years

[rtb61]

That of course is of limited benefit as humanity has a predilection to crafting civilisations on the coast at river mouths. Not much visible ancient history of that but of course end of a twenty odd thousand year long ice age and a rather substantial couple of hundred metre odd rise in sea level. Perhaps sonar mapping will expose far more than aerial or satellite images. Watching you civilisation die beneath the waves will likely have a major impact upon where you choose to rebuild it, keeping in mind the real destructive impact of societies attempting to relocate to more primitive already inhabited areas.

I came for pictures....

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME CLICKING ON THIS ARTICLE!
I came for pictures but all I got was teasers for conferences.

Yamamomo

[Frosty Piss]

The Yamamomo didn't want to be found, and being found destroyed their world.

Re:How can a civilization perish without AGW?

[grey1]

I think the evidence suggests a longer-range climate cycle, rather than a man-made event, at least based on some of the material summarised in wikipedia on the Sahara:

Sahara pump theory with long periods of increased rainfall

Neolithic subpluvial with a wet phase from about 10000 years ago to about 5000 years ago

and then a very specific paper from 1987, for those who like their research in detailed PDFs, describing the evidence (bones, different alluvial deposits etc) for the wet period

Re:How can a civilization perish without AGW?

[mi]

The Sahara as we know it now exists mainly because during 'roman times' (+/-500 years) the woods there got lumbered down.

Here is the timeline — already linked to once before:

• 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
• 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
• 9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.
• 7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.

Then there is this article, in which a NASA scientist explains the climate-change with changes in Earth's orbit. It also dates the end of the "Green Sahara" at about 5500 years ago. Or, roughly, three thousand years before the nameless momma-wolf suckled the fateful human twins...

Can one get any more wrong than blaming Roman lumber industry for Sahara's climate-change? I suppose, one can. But you are certainly within the top 1% territory...

Lots of other stuff on the subject is along the same line, but nothing blames the humans today. Whether the humans of the times blamed each other, was my original question.