Was the Amazon rainforest man made?

Alot of evidence supporting this claim, continues to surface as the de-forrestation continues. Could this varitable garden of Eden actually have been made by ancient man? Perhaps as both a source for food and medicine?

Speculations

There are plenty of ancient civilizations that are known to have lived in this vast areas. For example the Mayans, of which we continue to find hidden structures and cities hidden deepin the jungle. We already know that they had vast knowledge of the stars. Could they have had similar knowledge of plants, wildlife and agriculture? The answer ofcourse, is yes. Their civilization could not have grown to such a size without enormous amounts of food.

The forest does contain more plants and trees than anywhere else on this planet.

The evidence

I do not make any assertions to these speculations, but with theamount of ruins in the forest, still emerging as "geoglyphs", which could be interpreted as fences, its definitely a possibility.

The most damning evidence tho, is the soil itself. Made up of manure, clay, charcoal and bone, it keeps nutrients for several thousand years. See link 1 this soil can only be man-made.

Link 1

This second link, is a 60 minute documentary, shown on BBC 4 late last year.

Link 2

More info can be found around the web. Hope you enjoyed the post, let me know what your ideas are on this.

(If this is posted incorrectly, or another thread on this subject exists, I kindly ask the Mods to move it.
I searched the site, but found only a slight mention, in relation to a different thread.)

As one of our more prolific members might say, "Our ancestors were anything but primitive." Responsible for the whole Amazon rainforest though?

Because of their elevated charcoal content and the common presence of pottery remains, it is now widely accepted that these soils accreted near living quarters as residues from food preparation, cooking fires, animal and fish bones, broken pottery, etc., accumulated. The intentionality of the formation of terra preta has not been demonstrated, rather it is believed to have formed under kitchen middens. Areas used for growing crops around living areas are referred to as terra mulata. Terra mulata soils are more fertile than surrounding soils but less fertile than terra preta, and were most likely intentionally improved using charcoal.

At the very least, they seem to have added much to the soil.

reply to post by Fjernt


if i'm not mistaken the mayans, lived in central america. the incas were the only people to live in south america, that had a civilization that compared to the maya, and they lived mostly in and on the west coast in columbia,ecuador, peru, chile, just on the edges of the rainforest, through the andes. with most in peru.

there may be others, if so there they aren't as well known. it is still possible that some tribe learned cultivation practices from the incas in limited areas, but to cultivate the whole rainforest

here is a list of tribes or peoples that are known of.
List of Indigenous peoples of South America

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


You beat me to it. The Maya were spread throughout the Yucatan and into Guatemala. However, using the incorrect term doesn't necessarily invalidate the idea that the Amazon was cultivated. It is certainly an intriguing idea.

I watched a Doco on this very thing and it made a very good case to say yes.

Unnatural histories Amazon

reply to post by HobbesPrime


sorry about that.

again if i remember right, the inca cultivated about 70 crops. they also used terracing, fertilized and irrigated their crops.

if you look at the pictures in the links and look at the inca terraces, they look very similar.

Just watched the doco again and it supports the OP

The culture that thrived there was both sophisticated and in tune with its environment and far from being destructive as ours is lived in relative harmony and encouraged biodiversity

If nothing else it is a lesson we could learn from

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yes indeed, I'm sorry about that:p I wrote this down in a bout of excitement, and my references didnt quite keep up with my mind

As for the Unnatural Histories Docu, thats the one I was referring to in the second link. It probably wont show properly for people outside Europe.

As for what you said about the soil, yes, at the very least they added to it, intentionally or not. I am not saying the whole rainforest, as it exists today, was man-made. What I am suggesting is that over the last centuries, it expanded on its own, as gardens and orchards do when left unattended

reply to post by Fjernt

What I am suggesting is that over the last centuries, it expanded on its own, as gardens and orchards do when left unattended

It will be a pity if the documentary cannot be seen by others across the pond as it has a strong message.

I think it also backs all you were saying. The culture described certainly turned that area into a managed forest at least and a fertile garden at best and as you say what we see today is a lost garden

I had no idea the maya civilization stretched that far south into the amazon.

Oooohh myyyy,

Where do I start?

Really people,
The amazonian rain forest is man made, really people?
It's the size of the continental us, and the rain forest has been there for 55 million years.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

And as far as the black earth goes, in some areas it is certainly anthropogenic, but characterizing the whole basin as being anthropogenic based on the widely distributed man made occurences is just rediculous.
No doubt that man had a hand in shaping the biosphere in the basin, in very small areas.
Just think about the numbers, so the most aggressive estimate for the population of the basin is 5 million people.
Now here in cal and Nevada the population is about 37 million people, that's 37 million people an area that is
7 times smaller than the Amazon basin, with a population 7 times larger, and there are still places where there are no people.
There is no way humans affected the whole 5.5 million sq kilometers of the Amazon basin.
It's a case of someone taking a limited occurance and applying it across the board.

reply to post by Fjernt


As Punkinworks says, the very fact that it IS so fertile argues against any human intervention at all.

Primitive human agriculture is very hard on the land. It's basically slash and burn, and after the land is used up, they move on. All nutrient value is gone and it takes awhile for the land to regain its fertility.

Forests themselves have an extremely efficient method of turning land fertile because of their incredible biodiversity. As trees die and fall, they leave areas of sunlight were smaller trees arise and where the action of microbes, insects, and the vast diverse life works to enrich the soil.

Humans and farming create monocultures. Insect, reptile, mammalian, life is tightly controlled (undesirables are killed or removed) and microbes are regulated (no sick plants or animals allowed.) We also regulate floods and rain events to manage topsoils and moisture.

Human ability to create, manage, and regulate huge biodiversity is not easy even with modern tools.

So, no. It's natural and created over tens of millions of years.

reply to post by punkinworks10


We also live in a completely different way. Back then, everyone contributed.

Anyway, I thought this was a forum for openminded people.
- you can believe in ancient prophecies, aliens and technology vastly superior to our own, that has been lost, but you cannot believe that those same civilizations could harvest and manipulate one of the greatest natural resources of all time?

You sound like you should be working for the CIA back in the fifties, maan.

reply to post by Byrd


Fair point indeed, but didnt the egyptians maintain their agricultural land by the river nile for about a thousand years?

Anyway, like I said in my initial post, it is mostly speculation from my side. I have predispositions that allows me to see this differently. I'm not saying that its the right way to see it, just a different one.

Did you guys watch the documentary that was already linked twice in this thread, before commenting?

Here is some info on the geoglyphs and artifacs I mentioned earlier.
Geoglyphs deep in the amazon

Literally hundreds of them, buried by the rainforest, are being uncovered by deforestation.

Instead of being pristine forests, barely inhabited by people, parts of the Amazon may have been home for centuries to large populations numbering well into the thousands and living in dozens of towns connected by road networks, explains the American writer Charles C. Mann.

I said Mayans in the initial post, which I should have checked, cause I was wrong. Turns out it might even be a previously unknown civilization.

In addition to parts of the Amazon being “much more thickly populated than previously thought,” Mr. Mann, the author of “1491,” a groundbreaking book about the Americas before the arrival of Columbus, said, “these people purposefully modified their environment in long-lasting ways.”

Please watch the documentary, it's a BBC 4 production, before you go flaming on everything that does not fit with your reality-tunnel.

Heres another link

And another



And yet another

And some google earth for good measure

reply to post by Byrd

As Punkinworks says, the very fact that it IS so fertile argues against any human intervention at all.

Sorry Bird but the unnatural histories programme not only shows it could have been but also how it was shaped by man at least and directly linked the 'black earth' to man. Black earth is the only fertile soil found in the rain forest

Primitive human agriculture is very hard on the land. It's basically slash and burn, and after the land is used up, they move on. All nutrient value is gone and it takes awhile for the land to regain its fertility.

This was not a primitive slash and burn culture according to the programme

Forests themselves have an extremely efficient method of turning land fertile because of their incredible biodiversity. As trees die and fall, they leave areas of sunlight were smaller trees arise and where the action of microbes, insects, and the vast diverse life works to enrich the soil.

Again it was shown that although you are correct in our part of the world in the rain forest it does not work that way. The falling leaves/debris are quickly reabsorbed into the forest life that it does not have time to enrich the soil which would be a waste of time as the rain washes it away anyhow

Humans and farming create monocultures. Insect, reptile, mammalian, life is tightly controlled (undesirables are killed or removed) and microbes are regulated (no sick plants or animals allowed.) We also regulate floods and rain events to manage topsoils and moisture.

This culture used a different model, they had little other choice as they cannot regulate the floods, have more than enough rain both of which strips away any attempt to enrich the soil. That is why our attempts to move that land into agriculture does not work. It appears they encouraged their environment to produce rather than made it produce

Human ability to create, manage, and regulate huge biodiversity is not easy even with modern tools.

So, no. It's natural and created over tens of millions of years.

To maintain that stance you need to explain the Geoglyphs, large settlements, road systems. Why every time you find black earth you find masses of pot shards. A high culture with fine pottery, and organised society that rivalled those in the West.

If this programme is correct then It is another case where we in the west have dismissed another culture because we do not understand it and played a part in destroying it by importing our diseases that they had no protection against.

A Spanish explorer around 400 years ago described a very different picture to what was found later. He described a high culture. Colourful sophisticated and he found it in abundance everywhere he travelled along the river. The programme shows enough evidence to back that first description.

I hope you get the chance to view the U-tube video I linked to as I would like your opinion on that as I cannot see a flaw in the logic they used.

reply to post by Fjernt
Hi Fjernt, I feel your pain.

Your thread deserves much more consideration than it has been given so far. People on this site go on about hidden histories but if that does not involve aliens they seem to have no further interest.

There is clearly a hidden and previously unknown/underated civilisation that not only found a way to live in the conditions of that area they thrived.

So please to the other posters here watch the video. Yes it is an hour but it will be an hour well spent

Here's an HD version:

reply to post by Fjernt


Explanation: S&F!

A truly amazing concept!

I think that YES it is within the realm of both what is possible and also just within reason and here is why ...

Man grows 1,360-acre forest in India...by himself (by jude11 posted on 1-5-2012 @ 05:00 PM) [ATS]

And ...

The Man That Planted Trees... (by purplemer posted on 4-3-2013 @ 09:55 AM) [ATS]

So if one man can plant an entire FOREST measuring 1,360 acres in his own lifetime the surely an entire ancient South American civilization could do the same.

Personal Disclosure: However it would come down to the numbers of citizens that were to be dedicated to such an enterprising adventure and currently I have not many clues as to the amount of surface area involved with the Amazon jungle and nor do I have any clues about the population demographics and sizes of any of the cultures that lived there.

As it stands for me now the concept is possible ... if but a bit far fetched!

I'd like to crank the numbers before I make any further comments regardling this issue.

reply to post by OmegaLogos
The program spoke of an area the size of twice that of Spain and a probable population of around 3 million I think.

I don’t think either the OP or the programme claims the forest is solely man made but has been managed and altered by mans actions over many millennia