Was the Amazon rainforest man made?

There are still tribes living deep within the Amazon, and although popular belief is that they are "uncontacted", they HAVE been contacted. Some of them are sort of on the fringe, living traditionally, but selling trinkets, for example.

There's a fabulous article in this month's Smithsonian about how these tribes were threatened and slaughtered by loggers and others hoping to exploit the jungle's rich resources. The tribes fled deeper and deeper, although they are aware of the "outside" world, they don't want any part of it.
Check out the fourth (longest) 'paragraph' below that I clipped...
they believe in the connectedness of ALL of nature, and have a profound respect - as a family member, truly - for their home. I applaud the governments that are sectioning off millions of acres for them to remain in the lifestyle they have lived for thousands of years.

The Lost Tribes of the Amazon

Often described as “uncontacted,” isolated groups living deep in the South American forest resist the ways of the modern world—at least for now.....

Today, however, Colombia continues to move into the vanguard of protecting indigenous peoples and their land. In December, the government announced a bold new plan to double the size of remote Chiribiquete Park, currently 3.2 million acres in southern Colombia; the biodiversity sanctuary is home to two isolated tribes.

Franco believes that governments must increase efforts to preserve indigenous cultures.

“The Indians represent a special culture, and resistance to the world,” argues the historian, who has spent three decades researching isolated tribes in Colombia. Martínez says that the Indians have a unique view of the cosmos, stressing “the unity of human beings with nature, the interconnectedness of all things.” It is a philosophy that makes them natural environmentalists, since damage to the forest or to members of one tribe, the Indians believe, can reverberate across society and history with lasting consequences.

“They are protecting the jungle by chasing off gold miners and whoever else goes in there,” Franco says. He adds: “We must respect their decision not to be our friends—even to hate us.”

I highly recommend the article for more information about the Amazon and how the countries that include parts of it are dealing with it.

Big thanks to OmegaLogos and Colin42 for helping me expand on this. I am current using my Ipad to post everything here, while using a #ty internet connection, as I am travelling. So it takes me AGES just to write out a simple post, let alone argue with full explanations. My net went down 3 times while I was typing the last post, and I lost everything

Anyway..
It is a truly remarkable Idea, but like we've already established, it does deserve, at the very least, a closer look.
Just imagine what we could learn from this culture, in terms of ecology and sustainability.

Anyway, I kindly ask the Mods to edit the maya-part out of the initial post, as it will only confuse the matter further

reply to post by wildtimes
They have every reason to hate us and no reason at all to trust us. All they have learned from us is we are best avoided.

We have much we could learn from them and now it appears we could help them understand their rich past. The world is a huge place and if we cannot find space in it to allow others room to live then I see a very poor future for our species.

Would I choose to live like them? Could I live like them? 100% no to both. Could I learn from them? I believe much, much more than they could ever learn from me.

reply to post by colin42

You know, when I finished reading that article, I found I was weeping silently.

They are right, in my opinion, and if I could go and live with them, I would. (I bet you "could" if it was your only option )

Modern industrialized nations are raping this planet with very little regret or attention to the so-called "primitive" belief that we are dependent on nature ENTIRELY, and should revere the Earth, the plants, the animals, the seas and all other life as our absolute providers.

But, now I'm getting off topic; sorry to OP.

Originally posted by Fjernt
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.

It is sad when a poster resents members that employ critical thinking.

Please do not appeal for more ignorant posts. If you wait, you'll get enough of them in this thread.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I am not resenting anyone. I just wanted to point out that neither of those guys had actually taken the time to review the links that this thred is about.
I even ended that on a funny note.

Anyway, it's hard to write sarcastically or ironically. People will always flavor what they read with their own views and concepts :/

reply to post by Fjernt


The rainforest 55 million years man has been around seven. I do not think it was made by man. It was altered by man. Slash and burn techniques permaculutre and creating fruit islands in the forest.

reply to post by Harte

It is sad when a poster resents members that employ critical thinking.

What i find sad was a verdict was given without looking at the links supplied.

The OP linked to a BBC documentary that is well worth using as a discussion point but a few here have completely ignored it.

Punkinworks wrote

Really people,
The amazonian rain forest is man made, really people?

The OP did not make that claim he did however provide evidence for the rain forest may not be the pristine wilderness we all think it to be.

It's the size of the continental us, and the rain forest has been there for 55 million years.

The OP never claimed anything different

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.

Then the many scientists and archaeologists that are actually saying it well maybe are wrong and that the black earth is always found to contain pot shards. An explanation of why they are wrong would have been useful.

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.

That is a valid conclusion only if you discount a comparatively high civilisation that evidence is provided in the unnatural histories program

Now here in cal and Nevada the population is about 37 million people, that's 37 million people an area that is

Irrelevant to this thread

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.

Again that is not what the documentary explained.

In short it would have been nice if Punkinworks had addressed the OP and the links provided and I would have thought you Harte would have taken a little more care when jumping on a member of less than a month.

So have you watched the Documentary linked to a few times now and have you got anything to say about that?

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Fjernt

 

The rainforest 55 million years man has been around seven. I do not think it was made by man. It was altered by man. Slash and burn techniques permaculutre and creating fruit islands in the forest.

Really people watch the dam video before you discount it and if you have please explain why it is so wrong and of no interest to you.

Sheesh

I opened the thread.. eyeballed the OP and decided to watch the video before I opened my mouth, JUST IN CASE there was anything lurking there that would sway my decision or would be worth mentioning in a later debate. Aha, and the time has arisen.

Love seeing the bickering that happens, especially when. . . . nah, not worth it.

The repetitive theme being that 'man couldn't have shaped the amazon, and even if he did it's not much. a few fruit groves.' -- Yes, that is a generalization and not a direct quote from any one member.

To the point: Having watched the video, the fact that they have plotted the black-earth along the major water-ways.. and following the path of Orellana (hoping I spelled that guys' name correctly!) on his early expedition.. which would mean it would have had to be occupying the same space that large populations (according to the explorer) of Indians were reported in.... and then digging INTO the good 'ole dirt and finding potsherds all over it...

Okay, until someone can prove it WASN'T man-made from organic waste and household detritus, I'll go with the idea that it was.. meaning a sizeable population to create so MUCH of it.

Next.

Altering the actual amazon.. well, a few things. First, they showed how man eating fruit from location X at location Y, and discarding the seeds at location Y, can very easily cause said fruit-tree/grove to spring up at location Y (via the black earth, heh heh heh)..... -- That isn't it's only effect. The eco-sphere AROUND location Y begins to change, including the type of animals and plants that live there.. because they now have access to said fruit - or in the case of some plants, die out because said fruit-tree is taking their sunlight? soil nutrients? attracted a specific bug who liked to eat the former Location Y-plant leaves? Take your pic.

In a nutshell, as they cleared ground for this or that.. ate various plants, fruits, and animals from varying locations.. they literally (and perhaps unintentionally) began eco-forming the Amazon. THATS what I believe the OP was getting at.

Perhaps some of these areas where we can't believe how bio-diverse it is.. are because at one point, man had dumped a bunch of fertilizer, planted some trees that were from 100mi away, and caused a different type of animal to take up residence, thereby altering (and perhaps IMPROVING) the local ecosystem.


What I thought might be just a 'Cool, that was interesting..' thread turned into a 'Hah! That was really enlightening!!!! S&F OP!!' kind of thread.

If you want to comment, then please at the very least use the sources he listed (or bring some of your own)! Yeeeeah OP, S&F!!!!

reply to post by Fimbulvetr
I am flabbergasted finally someone took the time to look at the doc. Star for you

Good description of the programme BTW

I hope I did not come across as bickering it was more frustration.

I have read with interest many posts from both Bryd and Harte who show to be knowledgeable about this subject area and I have been able to make an informed opinion from the information they gave in the past.

So when they dismissed the OP it irritated me as I hoped they would be able to give a different view.

Maybe they have already answered this in another thread that I have missed but the documentary makes a good argument and the answers they gave were disappointing to say the least.

Welcome to the group that said WOW!!

Edit: The only thing I find suspicious is that they explained why the forest soil was poor due to rains and floods but did not explain why the 'black earth' was not affected in the same way.

reply to post by colin42


Thanks!

As for why the natural soil is so poor..

Over two-thirds of the world's rainforests, and three-fourths of the Amazonian rainforest can be considered "wet-deserts" in that they grow on red and yellow clay-like laterite soils which are acidic and low in nutrients. Many tropical forest soils are very old and impoverished, especially in regions—like the Amazon basin—where there has been no recent volcanic activity to bring up new nutrients. Amazonian soils are so weathered that they are largely devoid of minerals like phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, which come from "rock" sources, but are rich with aluminum oxide and iron oxide, which give tropical soils their distinctive reddish or yellowish coloration and are toxic in high amounts. Under such conditions, one wonders how these poor soils can appear to support such vigorous growth.

rainforests.mongabay.com...

And as to why the black soil isn't washing away? Well, I can only guess it's because it runs so deep.. It was never 'washed' away to begin with, the indigenous people simply kept piling onto it until they moved on. I presume that's why they're located in specific areas and don't seem to bleed out into the surrounding land, but be more of a 'pillar' within the ground.

reply to post by colin42


This topic is fascinating to me. What is being uncovered is domesticated landscape.

Amazonia: The Historical Ecology of a Domesticated Landscape

People augmented the existing conditions...such as building canals in arid areas and creating causeways and mounds in other places. Exquisite design, blending and care of existing conditions...terracing, terra preta etc. shows how sophisticated the culture would have been on a mundane level...very attuned to the land, able to moderate conditions to support massive agriculture.

The Extra-Ordinary Geoglyphs which would have been conceived and executed over miles and miles is just awe inspiring.

mystery abounds and we can learn a lot from the evidence. thanks for the thread OP.

reply to post by Fimbulvetr
You make a good point about why the 'black earth' is not washed away that I think I can go with.

The tree and vegetation roots would probably go deeper or form a more substantial root system that would help retain it. Seems like an explanation to me.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Fimbulvetr

 

You make a good point about why the 'black earth' is not washed away that I think I can go with.

The tree and vegetation roots would probably go deeper or form a more substantial root system that would help retain it. Seems like an explanation to me.

Well.. even if there weren't tree roots going deep and holding it in place.. think about it. That village-made refuse pile just .. sinks, so to speak, into the ground, soaking it with nutrients deeper and deeper. Now there is a column of 'black-earth' surrounded by the general reddish soil. Even if a hard rain washed the top away, or even just washed away enough to start getting rid of some nutrients.. this black soil goes down deep, and kind of like a ... banana? I guess?, you can slice the top off and there's just more banana sitting there.

reply to post by maggi


The nerd in me can't resist.. I just keep thinking of TSR/Dragonlance.. and how the 'civilized' elves eco-form their environment. Enhancing it, but not forcing it. Natives = Elves? I think soooo!!

But still very good link!

Originally posted by Fimbulvetr
reply to post by maggi

 

The nerd in me can't resist.. I just keep thinking of TSR/Dragonlance.. and how the 'civilized' elves eco-form their environment. Enhancing it, but not forcing it. Natives = Elves? I think soooo!!

But still very good link!

At the end of the chapter I posted, a mention was made of conflicting interests between "conservationists" and "developers". If the ancient citizens of Amazonia inhabited and managed the landscape, the area was not pristine wilderness. Would that then take the wind out of censervators attempts to protect the region.

NO. we all are responsible for the wise management of resources and by acknowledging the wisdom in the ancient practices, we an all copy the Eco-forming Elves again and maybe become civilized?

reply to post by maggi


Well, technically.. yes? The elves were the chosen of the gods, etc etc.. so I guess their civilization was the one to be emulated.

But yes, I agree with the notion. I think that history is proving that a harmonic balance between man and tree can and does exist. It shouldn't be Man vs Nature, we're a part of nature. Aren't we?

The geoglyphs everywhere also show that either the land was previously exposed, or they were just that good. And like the Central American complexes have shown us, overgrowing and hiding entire cities, it takes almost no-time at all for the jungle to reclaim it's autonomy once people remove themselves.

reply to post by colin42


Not all people can watch a video. If possible a blurb about the video is helpful. I based my reply on the written text in your OP. The information you supplied.
When I commented that humans have not been around as long as the rainforest you tell me to watch the video. Can you not counter argue yourself and tell me why I am wrong. I cannot watch the video..

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Harte

 

It is sad when a poster resents members that employ critical thinking.

What i find sad was a verdict was given without looking at the links supplied.

The OP linked to a BBC documentary that is well worth using as a discussion point but a few here have completely ignored it.

The "artificial" soil has been discussed here before. No one is ignoring it. We're just not accepting exaggerations about it.

Note the title of the thread. Are we not to take it, then, that the OP is espousing the possibility that the Amazon Rain Forest is some ancient arboreal argricultural project?

Regarding pot shards, that's part of what "anthropogenic" means.

Harte