Geoglyphs Built in Already-Altered Forests

[Claire.]

Mysterious Amazonian Geoglyphs Were Built in Already-Altered Forests

Enormous geometrical earthworks found in the Amazon rainforest were built after humans had already begun altering the forest ecology, but the purpose of these huge ditches remains mysterious, according to new research.

The geoglyphs — trenches as big as 36 feet (11 meters) wide and 13 feet (4 m) deep — were dug at various times between the first and 15th centuries. The geoglyphs were discovered in the 1980s, when deforestation for cattle ranching and other agricultural purposes exposed the earthworks, said Jenny Watling, an archaeologist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, who led the research while she was a doctoral candidate at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. The question, Watling told Live Science, was how the landscape looked when the geoglyphs were built. "There's been a very big debate circling for decades now about how pristine or man-made the Amazonian forests are," Watling said. The new study suggests that humans have been altering these forests for about 4,000 years.

Read more: Live Science

[Mr.United_Nations]

I swear this has been posted before?

[Saru]

It's quite possible that there has been something about it, but there are new details of discoveries like this being published all the time. The Amazon in particular is home to many hidden clues about the activities of the people who lived there thousands of years ago.

[Nnicolette]

Why do archeologists just assume that anything they dont have a clue about it ritualistic or religious? Sure it often is but maybe not so much.

[Parsec]

Very interesting thread, although like others said more or less "old story". 

 

I wonder, how old has to be a forest for being considered "virgin" or "never touched by man"? 

500 years without human interference sound pretty pristine to me.

[pallidin]

Huh, that whole region might be rich with potential archeological sites, I suppose.

[aquatus1]

On 2/7/2017 at 7:46 AM, Nnicolette said:

Why do archeologists just assume that anything they dont have a clue about it ritualistic or religious? Sure it often is but maybe not so much.

Because 90% of what people do tends to fall into one of those two categories.

[Tatetopa]

Check out 1491 by Charles Mann, earlier work on this topic was mentioned. If the observations are true, the forest was farmed in a style of agriculture not familiar to the West. it seems fruit and nut trees are clustered around these mound and causeway sites. Some of the mounds appear to have a large core inclusion of pottery shards. Pallidin, I would say that if a forest still bears the marks of purposeful planting, it is not virgin. 500 years is not long in the lives of trees. I would also recommend

[Tatetopa]

"The Hidden Lives of Trees" by peter Wohllenben.  Sorry about the cut-off.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Check out 1491 by Charles Mann, earlier work on this topic was mentioned. If the observations are true, the forest was farmed in a style of agriculture not familiar to the West. it seems fruit and nut trees are clustered around these mound and causeway sites. Some of the mounds appear to have a large core inclusion of pottery shards. Pallidin, I would say that if a forest still bears the marks of purposeful planting, it is not virgin. 500 years is not long in the lives of trees. I would also recommend

What classifies something as "purposeful planting"?

[Tatetopa]

28 minutes ago, Myles said:

What classifies something as "purposeful planting"?

Planting fruit and nut trees or medicinal plants around your village site for example. (Not in geometric rows for harvest though)  That is the claim made in 1491 in any case.  Forests and grasslands were managed in North America as well with the intent of clear floors, game support, nut trees such as hickory, pecan, beech and fruits like persimmon.  I think if you have time and plenty of food, its not hard to throw down some hickory nuts in a clearing you found or made, keep the underbrush down, the deer away for a few seasons  and let your children harvest the nuts and hunt more game.  Probably grandparents planted the tree that  one is currently using for winter comestibles.  That is my take from the book anyway.  It seems to have a healthy bibliography.

[Parsec]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Check out 1491 by Charles Mann, earlier work on this topic was mentioned. If the observations are true, the forest was farmed in a style of agriculture not familiar to the West. it seems fruit and nut trees are clustered around these mound and causeway sites. Some of the mounds appear to have a large core inclusion of pottery shards. Pallidin, I would say that if a forest still bears the marks of purposeful planting, it is not virgin. 500 years is not long in the lives of trees. I would also recommend

Maybe you meant me instead of Pallidin. 

Anyway, not so straightforward topic I'd say. 

I was thinking that the kind of trees living in tha Amazon could be younger than 500 years,  but it looks like you could be right 

http://www.livescience.com/3979-ancient-trees-amazon.html

And here, a relared article from 2014

http://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKL6N0PI5L320140707

 

But yet again, if you leave a group of domesticated animals on an island alone for 500 years, can you still consider their descendants domesticated? 

[clare256]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0207/Do-these-ancient-geoglyphs-hold-a-secret-to-preserving-the-Amazon

 

How much early inhabitants changed these parts of the Amazon is still a “very hot debate” among experts, but Watling says her research “supports the idea that indigenous peoples have been conscious actors throughout the history of Amazonia, and that they actively transformed their environment to make it more livable.”

This under-appreciated cultivation of the land by indigenous peoples can lead to serious problems when experts try to create conservation policy based on a misunderstanding of what is, and isn’t normal. 

“In many cases over long term human interaction the forests and people adjusted to each other, and the 'natural' state is one of human management,” Mr. Mann explains. But “these ideas haven't yet really percolated to ecologists and environmental activists, many of whom continue to use 1492 [the year Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas] as a benchmark for the onset of human activity.”