Huge ancient city found in the Amazon

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Huge ancient city found in the Amazon, (source).


    • 53 minutes ago


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 managed 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.

 
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.

Bullshit detected. Bullshit detected.

For reference, some city sizes in 500 BC:

Sparta: 40,000-50,000
Babylon (city only, not empire): 25,000
Rome: 25,000 (got a lot bigger later, some say a million)


Only the largest cities in China got to a 100,000 population at that time.

The research on these cultures is absolutely tainted by the politics that say we must radically inflate the achievements of "indigenous" civilizations and disparage the accomplishments of any classical civilization. Researchers make the most outlandish claims all the time and journalists don't bother to correct it at all, because it's more exciting to pretend some Amazon savages with nothing left of their civilization had ackshully been more civilized and advanced than Athens and Rome.
 
Bullshit we've known that Mesoametican and South American societies had great big cities, road networks and great water way development. What they didn't have was the wheel and a religion system that said human sacrifice was bad. We've talked about the collapse of civs and shit being reclaimed by the jungle forever.
 
Bullshit detected. Bullshit detected.

For reference, some city sizes in 500 BC:

Sparta: 40,000-50,000
Babylon (city only, not empire): 25,000
Rome: 25,000 (got a lot bigger later, some say a million)


Only the largest cities in China got to a 100,000 population at that time.

The research on these cultures is absolutely tainted by the politics that say we must radically inflate the achievements of "indigenous" civilizations and disparage the accomplishments of any classical civilization. Researchers make the most outlandish claims all the time and journalists don't bother to correct it at all, because it's more exciting to pretend some Amazon savages with nothing left of their civilization had ackshully been more civilized and advanced than Athens and Rome.
There actually is some truth to the massive population sizes of pre-contact Meso-American cities. Spanish observers were struck by how many people lived in Aztec and Incan cities and mentioned it in their writings. It has little to do with the technological level of the societies, which were admittedly low, and instead the fact that the New World didn't have the plethora of Old World pathogens that capped the sizes of cities in Europe and Asia in the pre-sanitation era.

It's pretty easy to get huge when you don't have smallpox or bubonic plague or cholera killing a good chunk of your population every couple of decades or so.
 
This isn't huge news to anyone who has either a slight interest in archaeology or who read The Lost City of Z. I'd add, or who saw the movie version, but no one did so it's unnecessary.

It's very cool, but not to the point where everyone needs to rethink societal thinking or our focus on the European societies that America's founding stock and most migrants came from before the Hart-Cellar Act opened our doors to the basement detritus of the world in preference from continuing a desire for high-performing, High social trust and coherence, future time-oriented immigrants from Europe/Australia/Canada. Yeah, I know, migrants are all rocket scientists/brain surgeons/astronauts. But are they really? Why does it never seem to work out that way in reality? Is racism holding them down that much? Like they'd do better in a pure meritocracy, I'm sure. Oh, that's never existed and never will? Then I guess we'll never know, will we?
 
There actually is some truth to the massive population sizes of pre-contact Meso-American cities. Spanish observers were struck by how many people lived in Aztec and Incan cities and mentioned it in their writings. It has little to do with the technological level of the societies, which were admittedly low, and instead the fact that the New World didn't have the plethora of Old World pathogens that capped the sizes of cities in Europe and Asia in the pre-sanitation era.

It's pretty easy to get huge when you don't have smallpox or bubonic plague or cholera killing a good chunk of your population every couple of decades or so.

That's in 1500. Even then, estimates before the modern trend of puffery (which are still used by more honest scholars) put Tenochtitlan at a population of around 70k. The estimate that tends to be used a lot lately is one of the highest estimates ever made. There is a major bias in modern Wikipedia citations (and all subsequent citation-washing from people who read wikipedia and then pretended they read the book) toward citing the largest and most impressive numbers for these civilizations. In 500 BC, in the Amazon? That's many, many thousands of miles from the basin that held the Aztecs and supported a grain economy. Jungles historically can't support urbanization because jungles aren't very nutritionally accessible to humans at a high density.

By the way, this is a graph from Sanders, the guy with the population estimate of 200k for Tenochtitlan before contact:

1705011243042.png


2500 years ago the population of the entire basin of Mexico had about 25-50k people total, in all its settlements. They say it lasted 1000 years, so until 1500 years ago, when the entire basin of Mexico was populated with about 100,000 people. To believe this city had a minimum of tens of thousands and possibly hundreds, we'd have to think that a part of the Amazon that has almost no human habitation today was far more populated than the entire basin of Mexico where there has historically been an almost nonstop high population density.
 
Last edited:
What they didn't have was the wheel and a religion system that said human sacrifice was bad.
You don't need the latter to be a successful civilization, we only associate it with successful civilizations today because of how hard the Greeks and Romans stamped it out whenever they could.
 
You don't need the latter to be a successful civilization, we only associate it with successful civilizations today because of how hard the Greeks and Romans stamped it out whenever they could.
You kinda do, Aztecs lost against an enemy they outnumbered by orders of magnitude 'cause everyone hated their fucking guts for the human sacrifice thing and joined Cortez. Assyrians had the same problem, they were a bit too hardcore with their cruelty thus ensuring they had no allies once they started losing their grip.
 
Bullshit detected. Bullshit detected.

For reference, some city sizes in 500 BC:

Sparta: 40,000-50,000
Babylon (city only, not empire): 25,000
Rome: 25,000 (got a lot bigger later, some say a million)


Only the largest cities in China got to a 100,000 population at that time.

The research on these cultures is absolutely tainted by the politics that say we must radically inflate the achievements of "indigenous" civilizations and disparage the accomplishments of any classical civilization. Researchers make the most outlandish claims all the time and journalists don't bother to correct it at all, because it's more exciting to pretend some Amazon savages with nothing left of their civilization had ackshully been more civilized and advanced than Athens and Rome.

In 500 BC, Rome hadn't built it seafaring empire yet. It wouldn't grow to over 100,000 people until they conquered an empire and ships were regularly bringing grain from Egypt. The Peloponnese is quite mountainous, so there really isn't a good spot for a very large city.

Unlike the Spartans, the Athenians did have a large (for the time) seafaring empire, and Athens was much larger. Near the end of the Peloponnesian War, the population of Athens had grown to over 100,000. If we look at some other ancient cites at the height of their power, Ancient Ur (2000 BC) was over 60,000 people. Egyptian Thebes in 1300 BC had 80,000 people. Teotihuacan, ~500 AD, was enormous at over 100k. Babylon may have been over 100k as well, likewise with Nineveh during the reign of Sennacherib (Mongols, Arabs and Macedonians were extremely good at destroying things in that region, so it's hard to say). Tenochtitlan was much later, of course, but it maintained a population of over 100k with primitive farming & fishing technology at the heart of the Aztec empire.
 
I have no insight or input on South American population numbers, but I think it's cool they bothered making a network of roads and hubs for travel when they come across as pack animal-less, wheel-less walkers. Lost City of Z was an interesting book but I hear the movie was trash.
 
I have no insight or input on South American population numbers, but I think it's cool they bothered making a network of roads and hubs for travel when they come across as pack animal-less, wheel-less walkers. Lost City of Z was an interesting book but I hear the movie was trash.
Maybe that's why they built them, it must be easier to navigate bad roads or paths with a pack animal vs. carrying everything yourself. The Romans and other cultures built their roads for armies marching on foot first and foremost.
 
Back
Top Bottom