SCI Huge ancient lost city found in the Amazon

Melodi

Disaster Cat
At the bottom of the article, the archeologist recounts how he was told he shouldn't bother excavating in the Amazon because it was "known" that there were "no cities in the Amazon." Talk about not finding anything because you are not looking for it! Thankfully, as he says in the article, this archeologist is stubborn. Six thousand mounds so far, along with straight roads built through the jungle linking everything...(pictures included for context).

Huge ancient lost city found in the Amazon​

    • Published
      1 day ago
Share
Scientists found evidence of 6,000 mounds thought to be the basis for ancient homes
IMAGE SOURCE,STEPHEN ROSTAIN
Image caption,
Scientists found evidence of 6,000 mounds thought to be the basis for ancient homes
By Georgina Rannard
Science reporter, BBC News

A huge ancient city has been found in the Amazon, hidden for thousands of years by lush vegetation.
The discovery changes what we know about the history of people living in the Amazon.
The houses and plazas in the Upano area in eastern Ecuador were connected by an astounding network of roads and canals.
The area lies in the shadow of a volcano that created rich local soils but also may have led to the destruction of the society.
While we knew about cities in the highlands of South America, like Machu Picchu in Peru, it was believed that people only lived nomadically or in tiny settlements in the Amazon.
"This is older than any other site we know in the Amazon. We have a Eurocentric view of civilisation, but this shows we have to change our idea about what is culture and civilisation," says Prof Stephen Rostain, director of investigation at the National Centre for Scientific Research in France, who led the research.

"It changes the way we see Amazonian cultures. Most people picture small groups, probably naked, living in huts and clearing land - this shows ancient people lived in complicated urban societies," says co-author Antoine Dorison.
The city was built around 2,500 years ago, and people lived there for up to 1,000 years, according to archaeologists.
It is difficult to accurately estimate how many people lived there at any one time, but scientists say it is certainly in the 10,000s if not 100,000s.

The archaeologists combined ground excavations with a survey of a 300 sq km (116 sq mile) area using laser sensors flown on a plane that could identify remains of the city beneath the dense plants and trees.
Graphic showing map of settlements connected by roads

This LiDAR technology found 6,000 rectangular platforms measuring about 20m (66 ft) by 10m (33 ft) and 2-3m high.
They were arranged in groups of three to six units around a plaza with a central platform.

The scientists believe many were homes, but some were for ceremonial purposes. One complex, at Kilamope, included a 140m (459 ft) by 40m (131 ft) platform.
They were built by cutting into hills and creating a platform of earth on top.
Roads, paths and canals were found connecting the platforms suggesting a large area was occupied
IMAGE SOURCE,STEPHEN ROSTAIN
Image caption,
Roads, paths and canals were found connecting the platforms suggesting a large area was occupied
A network of straight roads and paths connected many of the platforms, including one that extended 25km (16 miles).
Dr Dorison said these roads were the most striking part of the research.

"The road network is very sophisticated. It extends over a vast distance, everything is connected. And there are right angles, which is very impressive," he says, explaining that it is much harder to build a straight road than one that fits in with the landscape.
He believes some had a "very powerful meaning", perhaps linked to a ceremony or belief.

The scientists also identified causeways with ditches on either side which they believe were canals that helped manage the abundant water in the region.

There were signs of threats to the cities - some ditches blocked entrances to the settlements, and may be evidence of threats from nearby people.

Researchers first found evidence of a city in the 1970s, but this is the first time a comprehensive survey has been completed, after 25 years of research.

It reveals a large, complex society that appears to be even bigger than the well-known Mayan societies in Mexico and Central America.

"Imagine that you discovered another civilisation like the Maya, but with completely different architecture, land use, ceramics," says José Iriarte, a professor of archaeology at University of Exeter, who was not involved in this research.

Some of the findings are "unique" for South America, he explains, pointing to the octagonal and rectangular platforms arranged together.
The societies were clearly well-organised and interconnected, he says, highlighting the long sunken roads between settlements.
Not a huge amount is known about the people who lived there and what their societies were like.

Pits and hearths were found in the platforms, as well as jars, stones to grind plants and burnt seeds.

The Kilamope and Upano people living there probably mostly focussed on agriculture. People ate maize and sweet potato, and probably drank "chicha", a type of sweet beer.

Prof Rostain says he was warned against this research at the start of his career because scientists believed no ancient groups had lived in the Amazon.

"But I'm very stubborn, so I did it anyway. Now I must admit I am quite happy to have made such a big discovery," he says.
The next step for the researchers is understanding what lies in an adjoining 300 sq km (116 sq mile) area not yet surveyed.
 

mikeho78

Contributing Member
I remember reading somewhere that we should try to imagine society a few months following a global catastrophe/ loss of electricity and tech etc.
The priorities of the survivors and their methods would archeologically look exactly the same as what we find from the "cavemen."
The cave pictures we find to this day could just be remnants of a "staff" meeting of hunters who don't speak the same language trying to coordinate a plan without the use of a whiteboard or projector etc.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Makes you wonder what happened to them. Kind of sad when you think about it...just how little we REALLY know about our world and its past.
Well, I have a theory (and that's all it is, an educated guess) that Nightwolf and I came up with.

Two guys from Spain got lost on one of the first expeditions and ended up in the Amazon. When they returned to Spain, they wrote an adventure book believed to be "fiction" for several hundred years. They wrote about visiting magnificent city-states with kings, standing armies, and constant warfare. Excellent roads, waterways, and trade networks, you get the idea. It was a couple of hundred years before more Europeans were brought to the area, and there wasn't any evidence of this, so it was believed these guys made it up.

A weirdly similar thing happened in North America when a Spanish Explorer in the very early 1500s was left for dead by his comrades. Except he recovered with the help of some Native Americans. Cut off and lost from his people, he became a trader going up and down the Mississippi for three years until he heard about more Europeans to the South. He also returned to Spain and wrote an adventure book about his travels. But when Europeans came into the area, they didn't find teaming populations of people and agriculture; they found vast empty spaces, deserted villages, and deserted fields.

Now, in the Amazon, it only takes about ten years for a clear-cut area to look like a virgin rain forest again (they did an experiment that showed this), whereas in North America, the buildings were more fragile, but some were left empty. Remnants survived (and were not covered by jungle).

Anyway, my theory (and Nightwolf's) was that in both cases, the European explorers inadvertently, and having no idea they were doing it, spread germs to the Native Population (especially Cavasa De Vaca - the guy in North America was ill). There was no resistance, and millions of people died just like they did in the rest of the Americas when the main groups of Europeans came over later (also in the Pacific Islands).
 

BUBBAHOTEPT

Veteran Member
I remember reading somewhere that we should try to imagine society a few months following a global catastrophe/ loss of electricity and tech etc.
The priorities of the survivors and their methods would archeologically look exactly the same as what we find from the "cavemen."
The cave pictures we find to this day could just be remnants of a "staff" meeting of hunters who don't speak the same language trying to coordinate a plan without the use of a whiteboard or projector etc.
Holy S***! That's too damn much reality for a Sunday thought….:eek:
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Well, I have a theory (and that's all it is, an educated guess) that Nightwolf and I came up with.

Two guys from Spain got lost on one of the first expeditions and ended up in the Amazon. When they returned to Spain, they wrote an adventure book believed to be "fiction" for several hundred years. They wrote about visiting magnificent city-states with kings, standing armies, and constant warfare. Excellent roads, waterways, and trade networks, you get the idea. It was a couple of hundred years before more Europeans were brought to the area, and there wasn't any evidence of this, so it was believed these guys made it up.

A weirdly similar thing happened in North America when a Spanish Explorer in the very early 1500s was left for dead by his comrades. Except he recovered with the help of some Native Americans. Cut off and lost from his people, he became a trader going up and down the Mississippi for three years until he heard about more Europeans to the South. He also returned to Spain and wrote an adventure book about his travels. But when Europeans came into the area, they didn't find teaming populations of people and agriculture; they found vast empty spaces, deserted villages, and deserted fields.

Now, in the Amazon, it only takes about ten years for a clear-cut area to look like a virgin rain forest again (they did an experiment that showed this), whereas in North America, the buildings were more fragile, but some were left empty. Remnants survived (and were not covered by jungle).

Anyway, my theory (and Nightwolf's) was that in both cases, the European explorers inadvertently, and having no idea they were doing it, spread germs to the Native Population (especially Cavasa De Vaca - the guy in North America was ill). There was no resistance, and millions of people died just like they did in the rest of the Americas when the main groups of Europeans came over later (also in the Pacific Islands).
This was before the spanyard deployed smallpox infected blankets FYI.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
This was before the spanyard deployed smallpox infected blankets FYI.
You don't need blankets when you have infected people or people who are carriers. Besides that was the British, and by the time this supposedly happened in the early 1700s, it is estimated that up to 90 percent of the pre-contact population of the Americas had already vanished. Estimates of the die-off vary from 60 to 90 percent, with a growing body of evidence for the higher figure, at least in North America.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
I remember reading somewhere that we should try to imagine society a few months following a global catastrophe/ loss of electricity and tech etc.
The priorities of the survivors and their methods would archeologically look exactly the same as what we find from the "cavemen."
The cave pictures we find to this day could just be remnants of a "staff" meeting of hunters who don't speak the same language trying to coordinate a plan without the use of a whiteboard or projector etc.

In one of my threads, in the unexplained, we discuss this very thing that happened some 12,900 years ag. Guys goes to work, he’s sitting in his work pod getting stuff done, gets up to take a break looks out the window and says “holy sheet”!

SMOD smacks the planet and next thing you know he and a few others are fighting to survive. Everything has been destroyed. And globally only a few thousand people have survived the event.

I think this is in the graham Hancock thread.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
You don't need blankets when you have infected people or people who are carriers. Besides that was the British, and by the time this supposedly happened in the early 1700s, it is estimated that up to 90 percent of the pre-contact population of the Americas had already vanished. Estimates of the die-off vary from 60 to 90 percent, with a growing body of evidence for the higher figure, at least in North America.
I would say it would be near 95% plus. Not to mention the whole QuetlQuatl and his whole uprooting of the Mayan/Aztec cultures as they just up and vanished overnight.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
You don't need blankets when you have infected people or people who are carriers. Besides that was the British, and by the time this supposedly happened in the early 1700s, it is estimated that up to 90 percent of the pre-contact population of the Americas had already vanished. Estimates of the die-off vary from 60 to 90 percent, with a growing body of evidence for the higher figure, at least in North America.
I'm not discounting the "smallpox die-off" theory--but here's what puzzles me about this.

When the smallpox first came into Europe (from the middle east? Wikipedia in its "History of Smallpox" article, says the earliest evidence of smallpox is in Egypt, where mummies have evidence of the disease.) did the Europeans have no immunity?

If not, why did they not die off at a rate of 90%, depopulating Europe?

If their immune systems gradually "developed" immunity, WHY did the immune systems of the native residents of the north / central / south not also develop such immunity?

It is postulated that the tribes that were found inhabiting the Americas in the 1500's had, thousands of years before, migrated here. If you ask the Mormons, they believe the inhabitants were from the Middle East, specifically Israel. If you ask the sociologists, they believe they came from Asia--either eastern Russia, or from China and its environs, or even from Polynesian islands.

Well---did they not have smallpox in Russia? China? Polynesia? If they did, why was this one resistance in their immune systems not passed down genetically, when it appears all other "resistances" were? And if not, when the germ was introduced into their societies, was the die-off 90%? If not, why not?

Just something that's always made me wonder...........
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
I'm not discounting the "smallpox die-off" theory--but here's what puzzles me about this.

When the smallpox first came into Europe (from the middle east? Wikipedia in its "History of Smallpox" article, says the earliest evidence of smallpox is in Egypt, where mummies have evidence of the disease.) did the Europeans have no immunity?

If not, why did they not die off at a rate of 90%, depopulating Europe?

If their immune systems gradually "developed" immunity, WHY did the immune systems of the native residents of the north / central / south not also develop such immunity?

It is postulated that the tribes that were found inhabiting the Americas in the 1500's had, thousands of years before, migrated here. If you ask the Mormons, they believe the inhabitants were from the Middle East, specifically Israel. If you ask the sociologists, they believe they came from Asia--either eastern Russia, or from China and its environs, or even from Polynesian islands.

Well---did they not have smallpox in Russia? China? Polynesia? If they did, why was this one resistance in their immune systems not passed down genetically, when it appears all other "resistances" were? And if not, when the germ was introduced into their societies, was the die-off 90%? If not, why not?

Just something that's always made me wonder...........

north and south america were populated, not to cause a religious drift but look up Peleg, there are sources outside of the bible that discuss what happened during his life time the plates of the earth moving and splitting up being one of them. North and south america have always had populations...
 

Taco Salad

Contributing Member
I'm not discounting the "smallpox die-off" theory--but here's what puzzles me about this.

When the smallpox first came into Europe (from the middle east? Wikipedia in its "History of Smallpox" article, says the earliest evidence of smallpox is in Egypt, where mummies have evidence of the disease.) did the Europeans have no immunity?

If not, why did they not die off at a rate of 90%, depopulating Europe?

If their immune systems gradually "developed" immunity, WHY did the immune systems of the native residents of the north / central / south not also develop such immunity?

It is postulated that the tribes that were found inhabiting the Americas in the 1500's had, thousands of years before, migrated here. If you ask the Mormons, they believe the inhabitants were from the Middle East, specifically Israel. If you ask the sociologists, they believe they came from Asia--either eastern Russia, or from China and its environs, or even from Polynesian islands.

Well---did they not have smallpox in Russia? China? Polynesia? If they did, why was this one resistance in their immune systems not passed down genetically, when it appears all other "resistances" were? And if not, when the germ was introduced into their societies, was the die-off 90%? If not, why not?

Just something that's always made me wonder...........
There was a plague of some type around 1616-1618 that killed most of the Natives, up to 90%, but I've never seen anything that states specifically what it was. I see smallpox attributed to it a lot but it doesn't quite fit because the Natives still didn't seem to have any natural immunity to it 250 years later.

That plague and the population reduction is what finally allowed the Europeans to be able to colonize North America. The infrastructure that they had built was still there including the cleared fields for agriculture but the number of people using the resources and space were gone.

You'll notice also that for the most part the Natives were able to handle the European diseases after that point except for the much later smallpox epidemics.

Also just throwing this out there but I think part of the reason that smallpox was so devastating was the lack of herd animals and milk consumption by the Natives. Remember that the pox carried by cattle was very close to the smallpox hence the clear skin of milkmaids.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
There was a plague of some type around 1616-1618 that killed most of the Natives, up to 90%, but I've never seen anything that states specifically what it was. I see smallpox attributed to it a lot but it doesn't quite fit because the Natives still didn't seem to have any natural immunity to it 250 years later.

That plague and the population reduction is what finally allowed the Europeans to be able to colonize North America. The infrastructure that they had built was still there including the cleared fields for agriculture but the number of people using the resources and space were gone.

You'll notice also that for the most part the Natives were able to handle the European diseases after that point except for the much later smallpox epidemics.

Also just throwing this out there but I think part of the reason that smallpox was so devastating was the lack of herd animals and milk consumption by the Natives. Remember that the pox carried by cattle was very close to the smallpox hence the clear skin of milkmaids.
Thank you. I was going to say that several diseases were usually fatal to the Native Americans (or they became extremely ill with them). Measles was another big killer, as well as unidentified ones like the plague in the early 1600s.

I used to talk to Nightwolf about that, saying that while there probably was some pre-Colombian European Contact, we know there was at least on the part of the Norse; it doesn't seem to have been a large enough contact for the diseases to kick off.

In the case of the Norse, Nightwolf speculated that most of the colonists (that we know about) were from Iceland or Greenland, which were already cut off from a lot of regular contact with the rest of Europe for large parts of the year. Which, along with genetic drift (small populations that intermarry_ could have limited the diseases carried by those explorers and colonists.

The one wild card and I finally saw a mainstream book on history and disease mention this: the 14th-century outbreak of the Black Death that we know went as far as Greenland (eventually took a few years) and very likely destroyed the trading colony in Baffin Island. That trading colony had European drop spindles and European rats, and after 500 years, it suddenly collapsed almost overnight. The local Native Americans and Inuit in the area say, "Something horrific happened in that area, and we don't go there anymore."

Did it spread from the Baffen Trading Post to the Northern Native Americans (like the Beothuck and MIcmack they traded with)? If so, did it spread to the rest of North America or even further? Considering that Yersinia Pestis took out at least one-third of the population of Europe and was even worse in Scandinavia (ninety percent in some places), one could expect a similar death rate in the Americas.

Which would have been only a hundred years before the official contacts in the Caribbean in 1492. If that happened, the local population may have been even higher before the 1350s than at the time of the so-called "discovery."

But we don't know. Most modern tribes hesitate to allow human excavations or examinations of their ancestors for good reasons. Occasionally, it is permitted when asked respectfully and for a good reason - the researcher who asked permission had it granted to exhume the 1916 flu victims in Alaska in hopes of preventing another outbreak. But I suspect just trying to find out if the Black Death did reach the Americas (beyond Baffin Island) or now wouldn't be enough for most tribes to grant access. Now folklore? That might be another approach, but you still wouldn't know.

As to later plagues, pictures of the Aztecs, some drawn by the Spanish and some drawn by the Aztecs themselves, show people dying covered in red spots. So, it is probably either Measles or smallpox.
Zw
 
Top