Amazonian High Civilizations Survive Into Modern Times

Pretty interesting discovery, that just like the southwestern deserts there were high civlizations where many people said there couldn't be. How could they survive into the 16th century at least, preferably as long as possible?

PDF plus article

http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/083/1084/ant0831084.pdf

-------------------



January 7, 2010
Under the Jungle

Posted by David Grann
The gradual devastation of the Amazon—the felling of thousands of square miles of forest, the clear-cutting of the jungle—has produced, paradoxically, one of the greatest archeological discoveries: a vast and complex ancient civilization. In cleared-away areas of the upper Amazon basin, researchers, using satellite imagery, have recently pinpointed a vast network of monumental earthworks, including geometrically aligned roads and structures, constructed by a hitherto unknown civilization.

According to a new report published in the journal Antiquity, the archeologist Martii Pärssinen and other scientists have documented more than two hundred and ten geometric structures, some of which may date as far back as the third century A.D. They are spread out over an area that spans more than two hundred and fifty kilometers, reaching all the way from northern Bolivia to the state of Amazonia in Brazil.

As I previously wrote about in The New Yorker and in my book “The Lost City of Z,” for centuries most people assumed that the Amazon was a primeval wilderness, a place in which there were, as Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature, “no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual feare, and danger of violent death.” Although the early conquistadores had heard from the Indians about a fabulously rich Amazonian civilization, which they named El Dorado, the searches for it invariably ended in disaster. Thousands were wiped out by disease and starvation. And after a toll of death and suffering worthy of Joseph Conrad, most scholars concluded that El Dorado was no more than an illusion. Indeed, scientists believed that the merciless conditions in the jungle were simply too inhospitable to support a large population, which is a precursor to any sort of large, complex society. The most influential archeologist of the twentieth century, Betty Meggers, famously dubbed the region a “counterfeit paradise.”

In the early nineteen-hundreds, the British explorer Percy Harrison Fawcett challenged this prevailing notion. While exploring and mapping much of the same area where the ruins were recently discovered, he reported finding large earth mounds filled with ancient and brittle pottery. Buried under the jungle floor, he claimed, were also traces of causeways and roadways. Based on this and other evidence, he insisted that the Amazon once contained large populations and at least one, if not more, advanced civilizations. Despite being dismissed and ridiculed as a crank, he set off in 1925 to find the place, which he christened the “City of Z.” He and his party, including his twenty-one-year-old son, Jack, then vanished forever—a fate that seemed to confirm the madness of such a quest.

Over the past several years, however, there has been mounting evidence that nearly everything that was once generally believed about the Amazon and its people was wrong, and that Fawcett was in fact prescient. When I followed Fawcett’s trail into the Xingu area of the Brazilian Amazon, in 2005, I met up with the archeologist Michael Heckenberger. In the very area where Fawcett believed he would find the City of Z, Heckenberger and his team of researchers had discovered more than twenty pre-Columbian settlements. These settlements, which were occupied roughly between 800 and 1600 A.D., included houses and moats and palisade walls. There were geometrically-aligned causeways and roads, and plazas laid out along cardinal points, from east to west. According to Heckenberger, each cluster of settlements contained anywhere from two thousand to five thousand people, which means that the larger communities were the size of many medieval European cities. “These people had a cultural aesthetic of monumentality,” Heckenberger told me. “They liked to have beautiful roads and plazas and bridges.”
The latest discovery proves that we are only at the outset of this archeological revolution—one that is exploding our perceptions about what the Amazon and the Americas looked like before the arrival of Christopher Columbus. Pärssinen and the other authors of the study in Antiquity write, “This hitherto unknown people constructed earthworks of precise geometric plan connected by straight orthogonal roads…. The earthworks are shaped as perfect circles, rectangles and composite figures sculpted in the clay rich soils of Amazonia.” The archeologists say they still don’t know if these earthworks, which are made of trenches thirty-six feet wide and ten feet deep, with adjacent walls up to three feet high, were designed for defensive purposes or for ceremonial works. Because of the symmetrical shape of many of the mounds and the way they slant to the north, there is some speculation that they may have had an astronomical purpose.

What is striking about the structures is that their monumentality and sophisticated design are best seen from an aerial view, where they look like an elaborate geometry equation diagrammed in the earth. Pärssinen and the team of scientists estimate that the population at these sites may have been as large as sixty thousand people, and what’s more that the sites found so far represent a fraction of what exists—”only ten percent of what is actually there.” The disappearance of this still mysterious civilization correlates with the arrival of the conquistadores in the Amazon and the spread of diseases. Alas, the discovery of this glorious civilization is due to another tragedy—the vanishing of the once great jungles its people inhabited.
 
Ah, I've seen several shows about the guys down there. Afraid I don't know enough to suggest a way for them to last long enough for more contact. Although, if Francisco de Orellana is to be believed, they did make it just into the 16th Century before going the way of the civilizations of North America, dying in waves from disease and abandoning the cities entirely. Well, almost entirely.
 
Ya. If you think the North American natives had it bad with European diseases, the Amazonians had it worse with all those PLUS yellow fever and malaria.

OTOH, I could see a situation where the tattered survivors of a dozen cities pulled together into a single one and kept it going. I don't think we really understand exactly what happened, so trying to come up with a PoD might be tough.

What if someone made it across from Africa and introduced malaria, say, 500 years earlier, so that the locals could have developed ways of coping (if only an increased birthrate)?
 
Ya. If you think the North American natives had it bad with European diseases, the Amazonians had it worse with all those PLUS yellow fever and malaria.

OTOH, I could see a situation where the tattered survivors of a dozen cities pulled together into a single one and kept it going. I don't think we really understand exactly what happened, so trying to come up with a PoD might be tough.

What if someone made it across from Africa and introduced malaria, say, 500 years earlier, so that the locals could have developed ways of coping (if only an increased birthrate)?

Malaria evolves fast, so you'd need a constant back and forth to prevent the pathogen populations from diverging, leaving the Amazonians susceptible to the Old World strain whilst the New World strain rips through Africa etc. That back and forth would butterfly anything happening later.
 
Malaria evolves fast, so you'd need a constant back and forth to prevent the pathogen populations from diverging, leaving the Amazonians susceptible to the Old World strain whilst the New World strain rips through Africa etc. That back and forth would butterfly anything happening later.
Does it? I mean it certainly develops resistance against drugs, but does the parasite change that much?

Actually, since malaria is not something that one can really develop a (full) immunity to, I was thinking partly in terms of societal responses - higher birthrates, and so on, which would allow dealing with other strains of malaria or totally different diseases.

Malaria is something that is long term - so any single Phoenician or Malian or whomever could, in theory, provide such an infection. Yellow fever and influenza and small pox would be harder to introduce. Small pox would be also harder to make endemic, which is what you'd need.
 
I agree with Dathi, since we don't know what happened it's difficult to come up with a PoD, however in general I'd think that the two major things would be needed;


1. Prevent Old World diseases from being as bad as they were, perhaps a result of earlier trading posts that had contact somehow with them, thus allowing them to build-up immunities over time.

2. Make them more capable of adapting to environmental changes, as that has proven to be one of the major things that have lead to the downfall of civilizations across the globe.
 
I read a book on this subject. It was called 1492, a Journalist had written a sort of summation of the last 50 years of research. Going into detail about the Clovis cultures and even touching on some of the then newer discoveries in Bolivia and Brazil (your mounds). This is a neat idea. Who really knows what these people knew. In the book the author quotes some of Orellana's journals and describes and Amazonia that is teaming with people. Literally you could paddle a mile and not find another village on the Amazon. There is also a lot evidence to suggest that the island that Manaus, Brazil is built on is not a natural occurence but was put there on purpose. I think the best POD for this is slower contact with the Europeans. Also one thing to think of is this:

about 50,000 years ago, there was a massive die off of all sorts of large mammals in the Americas. Some Anthropologists attribute it to disease some to being killed off some to natural disaster. Instead of this die off have these large mammals live and in turn become domesticated in due time by the natives and so in turn you have a population that has a immune system that is familiar with infectious disease. IIRC, the Europeans brought smallpox and all sorts of stuff while all the Americas gave back was Syphillius. Not much of a trade off. If you have Natives that develop an immune system or even something similar to Smallpox then what happens? But you need large mammals for this to work. This might be ASB but is certainly worth considering. I have no idea how in the hell to write that POD and the butterflies would be monstrous
 

Philip

Donor
about 50,000 years ago, there was a massive die off of all sorts of large mammals in the Americas. Some Anthropologists attribute it to disease some to being killed off some to natural disaster.

Or, the humans killed them off.

Instead of this die off have these large mammals live and in turn become domesticated in due time by the natives

Were any of them domesticatable?


and so in turn you have a population that has a immune system that is familiar with infectious disease.

That's not how it works. The immune system has to be 'familiar with' each specific disease individually. The result you are going to get is not an American population that will resist European disease. Rather, you get a American population that has reservoirs of diseases the Europeans have no defenses against. The result is a transatlantic exchange that devastates the populations on both sides.

IIRC, the Europeans brought smallpox

And measles, typhus, influenza, diphtheria, ....
 
That's not how it works. The immune system has to be 'familiar with' each specific disease individually. The result you are going to get is not an American population that will resist European disease. Rather, you get a American population that has reservoirs of diseases the Europeans have no defenses against. The result is a transatlantic exchange that devastates the populations on both sides.

In general, true. However, the Europeans had their immune systems tuned for infectious diseases, which made them, in general, slightly less susceptible (statistically) to new viral and bacterial diseases (and probably more susceptible to e.g. autoimmune diseases). But, yes. virgin field epidemics could be nasty in Europe, too.

If the Americas had their own diseases, then, yes, the die offs would be nasty on both sides.

Note, however, that civilization did not collapse even during the Black Death, although it did get thoroughly shaken. We might hope for continuity of civilization in the New World (which you did get in North America, as bad as the die offs were), instead of the total collapse that happened e.g. in the Amazon.
 
Journalists!

If the Amazon team's right, then, they're probably still there....

Like the Maya, contrary to our textbooks' whims, plenty of their descendants'd probably be there. After all, the Amazon's inhabitable, and an easy place to run away from non-disease troubles because it's a good hiding place. There's been a high death rate, but it's hard to lose an entire people there. Some customs preservable across their envirionment's change are probably also there as well.
 
It appears that this Amazonland fell to the same stuff that killed the Maya, Aztecs, Incas and so many, many others, the European plagues. You cannot prevent this from happening. However, you can create a set of diseases that the Europeans have little to no bio-knowledge of. This will not only kill many Conquistadors and the like, but also MASSIVELY SLOW the spread of European Colonization in the Americas and elsewhere as they have to retract to deal with the "American Black Deaths". This gives the NA's the time to rebuild and get ready for the next wave, and maybe start a wave of their own to compete with the other powers of the world.;)
 
Its a real shame about the disease factor, the coolness level of a native civilization still existing in the deep jungle would be high.
 
Journalists!

If the Amazon team's right, then, they're probably still there....

Like the Maya, contrary to our textbooks' whims, plenty of their descendants'd probably be there. After all, the Amazon's inhabitable, and an easy place to run away from non-disease troubles because it's a good hiding place. There's been a high death rate, but it's hard to lose an entire people there. Some customs preservable across their envirionment's change are probably also there as well.
Oh, yes they're most certainly there. Not that they remember much about it, but theres some evidence. A number of the Amazonian peoples have a fairly developed social hierarchy (with a class of hereditary nobles, commoners etc.), fairly unusual for hunter gatherers in the rest of the world, and there seems to have been a lot of movement in the Basin in the last half millenia. Unfortunately I'm away from my books, so I can't get more specific.

To get them to survive would be... difficult. I mean, they were never invaded in OTL, had little contact with Europeans and still died. What more can be changed to make thme more likely to survive without radically altering European disease or European behavior?
 
It might seem a little counterproductive, but what if this civilization came in greater contact with Europeans? Maybe an outside threat would give them some reason to try to pull through. Or alternatively, if they were conquered by a Cortez or Pizzaro type, the Spanish (or whoever) might be interested in preserving some elements of the society, if only to make it easier to exploit. (Mind you, this would probably require that there be something there to exploit...)
 
Or, the humans killed them off.



Were any of them domesticatable?




That's not how it works. The immune system has to be 'familiar with' each specific disease individually. The result you are going to get is not an American population that will resist European disease. Rather, you get a American population that has reservoirs of diseases the Europeans have no defenses against. The result is a transatlantic exchange that devastates the populations on both sides.



And measles, typhus, influenza, diphtheria, ....

to respond to your questions:

1. it is theorized that there aren't enough humans to kill off so many animals and therefore disease is quite likely. Probably something brought by the humans that crossed the bering landbridge.

2. Yes, there were Horses for one as well as the ancestors of the guinea pig and the Llamas/Alapacas. I would imagine you could domesticate the buffalo as well. It is postulated in this book that the plains tribes did just that by their practice of regularly burning the grasslands of the Great Plains.

3. I am aware Europeans brought smallpox. and Dathi, makes a good point. and stated it better than I did. THe point I was trying to get across and he stated for better was that if there is some sort of comparable disease to smallpox than an immune system used to epidemic disease will be able to counter it better.

4. Everyone should really read the book. It really updated my knowledge of the Pre-contact civilizations. When I get home I will post the title and author's name. It is interesting to say the least.
 
The problem with the Amazonian civiliaztions from an AH perspective is pretty much the same as the Minoan and many others: We don't really know enough to speculate about them.

I mean, do we know if it was one nation like the Incas, groups of cities and villages like the mayas, or just several towns and villages of many people who happened to inhabit the same environment?

Anyway, to make them suvive, there is a pretty standard answer for Native American civilizations: The discovery of variolation.
 
The problem with the Amazonian civiliaztions from an AH perspective is pretty much the same as the Minoan and many others: We don't really know enough to speculate about them.

I mean, do we know if it was one nation like the Incas, groups of cities and villages like the mayas, or just several towns and villages of many people who happened to inhabit the same environment?

Anyway, to make them suvive, there is a pretty standard answer for Native American civilizations: The discovery of variolation.
variolation works 'fine' for smallpox (i.e. killed many fewer than an epidemic), but is only helpful for smallpox (hence the name). While smallpox was the primary problem in (temperate) North America, it was FAR from the only one, and in (tropical) South America you also have yellow fever and malaria.

So variolation is A step in the right direction, and might, indeed, be enough to keep the civilizations going in a greatly reduced fashion. (Which IS probably the best we can hope for, realistically.) Somehow the 'pretty standard answer' made me think you thought it would do more, but I may have misinterpreted your remark.
 
While variolation was indeed developed to deal with smallpox, the fundamental principle, inoculation with a weakened strain of the disease, is applicable to a wide range of bacterial diseases.

It won't help against malaria, or the flu, but it will help against many other diseases that struck the natives. It is not going to render the natives invulnerable to infectious disease, but it may help to blunt the impact of the european diseases from a near-extinction event, towards something more like the Black Death plague breakouts in Europe.

Part of the problem is that the less strentous disease environment in the Americas give less incentive to develop either variolation or social mechanisms to deal with epidemics. On method might be by way of Norse/Greenland cattle and cattlepox.

However, another POD: occasional contact with the Mali and further south areas of Africa inflict epidemic disease shocks on the Amazonians, leading to a social adaptions of villages isolating themselves and blocking the road network when an epidemic strikes?
 
Last edited:

The Sandman

Banned
For malaria: earlier accidental discovery of quinine?

And for disease reservoirs to toughen up native immune systems: capybara might be a start, as they seem to be domesticable and are naturally found in the Amazon. Also, any monkey species that people interact with regularly can potentially become a disease vector, along with the local bats.
 
Top