https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-made-food-forest-researchers-discover/

The Amazon is a Man-Made Food Forest, Researchers Discover

Most of the edible plants in the rainforest were planted by humans over 4500 years ago, new study finds. Modern farmers should look to these ancient forest gardeners for the key to sustainable food production.


Ancient humans were practicing a form of agriculture known as horticulture or permaculture in the Amazonian rainforest 4500 years ago, which researchers have concluded is responsible for the overwhelming abundance of edible plants we now find there.


The dense abundance of fruit trees in the rainforest didn’t plant themselves, humans spread them.

They say the long-term success of the “forest-gardening” method of food production serves as a model of sustainability for modern farmers.

The study is the first detailed history of long-term human land use in the region conducted by archaeologists, paleoecologists, botanists and ecologists from the University of Exeter in England.

It shows that humans had a more profound effect on the supposedly “untouched” rainforest than previously thought, introducing crops to new areas, boosting the number of edible tree species and using fire to improve the nutrient content of soil,

The researchers found evidence of maize, sweet potato, manioc and squash farming as early as 4,500 years ago in Eastern Brazil.

While the “farmers” practice some clearing of the under-story of the the rainforest, it was nothing like the clear-cutting of forests the Americas have seen since the arrival of the Europeans. The canopy of the forest remained intact, as a protector of the soil and crops.

“Ancient communities likely did clear some understory trees and weeds for farming, but they maintained a closed canopy forest, enriched in edible plants which could bring them food,” said Amazonian paleoecologist Yoshi Maezumi, who led the study.

Rather than depleting the soil and moving on to clear the next section of land, ancient horticulturalists reused the same soil again and again, improving it by adding manure and food waste (aka composting).

“People thousands of years ago developed a nutrient-rich soil called Amazonian Dark Earths,” Maezumi said. “They farmed in a way which involved continuous enrichment and reusing of the soil, rather than expanding the amount of land they clear-cut for farming. This was a much more sustainable way of farming.”

“This is a very different use of the land to that of today, where large areas of land in the Amazon is cleared and planted for industrial scale grain, soya bean farming and cattle grazing. We hope modern conservationists can learn lessons from indigenous land use in the Amazon to inform management decisions about how to safeguard modern forests.”

Permaculturist and author of Gaia’s Garden Toby Hemenway hypothesized the Amazon rainforest was a man-made forest garden years ago. He also believed much of North America was covered in human-made food forests before the Europeans got here.

“The trees were loaded with walnuts, chestnuts, hickory nuts, beech nuts and acorns, and the rivers with “salmon so thick you couldn’t walk across,” he said. “Unfortunately, the people who tended those food forests were exterminated.”

Learn more about forest gardening, as a sustainable alternative to agriculture, in Hemenway’s book Gaia’s Garden:

Fascinating, anybody. Thank you for posting it.

That's all it is.

Yes, but it also sheds light on the origins of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent and elsewhere.

The Jaredites really got around. Good thing they bought all those seeds from Jerusalem Tractor Supply.

I heard, and it was a good source, YouTube, that when it comes to the basics of 'civilization', the Garden of Eden, Ghawd, da debil, etc. are total non-starters.

While there may be other equally important Foundations of civilization, none, NONE, I say, rival Beer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2020 10:56PM by elderolddog.

So cool.
Imagine a floating terraformed house. A Buckminster Fullewr honeycomb of life, in a floating village. Half submerged, with fish ponds underneath, that eat human waste and are edible and a sure source of clean water.
They floating Yurts are big enough to hang a hammock at night and provide shelter.
They have All solar panels, for exterior skins totally independent, self sustaining bodies, floating on otherwise uninhabitable marshes, rivers, tidelands, deserts, forests, mountains!
Make hexagonal greenouses in the spaces in between the hexagonal houses, make aviaries and hot houses in between.
totally independent, self sufficient and free.
To make music, dance and love.
Imagine



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2020 10:54PM by schrodingerscat.

And then the asteroid hits.

Or a TBM family moves in next door to you!

Sounds right to me. the question arises where did they get the fruit trees, and other edible plants? If other places around the globe follow this model. Then edible plants started somewhere?
Interesting thread...

The basic plants are native to the various regions. Wheat and other grains were originally much smaller, but humans cultivated the larger ones and over time effectively bred more fruitful plants. The same is true of rice, bananas, corn--natural ears are two or three inches in length--and most other things that are the staples of modern agriculture.

Jared Diamond took the analysis further: he explained why some regions of the world developed higher cultures based on their natural endowments. The Fertile Crescent, for instance, had a large stock of the natural grains and animals that could be domesticated. The development of those food sources resulted in big increases in population density and wealth, which became the foundation for powerful states and economies and then advanced cultures. Meanwhile places with fewer domesticatable resources like Australia, New Guinea, northern Europe, southern Africa, and the Americas lagged behind.

Revolutionary, no? A framework that explained the origins of the early civilizations as a natural phenomenon unrelated to genetics, race, religious favor, etc.

That man left a mark on the world that will endure a long time.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Revolutionary, no? A framework that explained the
> origins of the early civilizations as a natural
> phenomenon unrelated to genetics, race, religious
> favor, etc.
>
> That man left a mark on the world that will endure
> a long time.

This book is a post hoc explanation which raises more questions than answers.

Its main premise is that civilized societies which arose in areas where there was land extending in a lengthy east west axis (essentially the Mediterranean over to the Chinese river valleys) had an advantage over those who didn't. Since most land is within Afro-Eurasia, which is aligned on this access, this is an easy retrofit. (A similar fallacious argument can be made about sea coasts, even though many coastal societies fail to develop technologies but some inland ones do.)

It especially falls down when it comes to Amerindian civilizations which do not fit his model at all, at least pre-Columbus.

And what are we to make of societies such as the circumpolar peoples who made several technological leaps around the same time, but were essentially frozen?

* Axis not access. :)

p.s. I'm more convinced by the idea that the development of modern societies have been driven more by the climate of Central Asia. Every time the weather there deteriorated for long periods, it drove populations and raiders into Europe, China, the Middle East and even South Asia. These would in turn drive other barbarians ahead of them.

These helped solidify a dependence upon feudal defense models, aggressive expansionism and equestrian culture. They also helped create cycles of collapse and revival in China and Europe.

These invasions even had a knock on effect on much of Africa.

Every one of those migrations out of Central Asia stemmed from the developments Diamond explained. Pastoral economics depended on the existence of sedentary societies that produced an agricultural surplus. That is perfectly clear in the archaeological record in the steppe.

So your Central Asian pattern is not anywhere near an explanation for the emergence of early civilizations based on the dynamics Diamond proposed. The logic works the opposite way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2020 03:13PM by Lot's Wife.

"This book is a post hoc explanation which raises more questions than answers."

Yes. GGS is a perfect example of how a logically loose and wildly speculative post hoc historical narrative--offered as a "just-so story" can become entrenched in academic circles to eventually become canonized as scientific fact. "Post hoc explanations" are fallacies akin to Kipling's "just so stories."

We also find this phenomenon in biology, where instances of biological complexity invoke post hoc explanations (just-so stories) related to wildly speculative selection effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

> Yes. GGS is a perfect example of how a logically
> loose and wildly speculative post hoc historical
> narrative--offered as a "just-so story" can become
> entrenched in academic circles to eventually
> become canonized as scientific fact. "Post hoc
> explanations" are fallacies akin to Kipling's
> "just so stories."

What are the problems with his theory? Your conclusion is interesting but it is a conclusion and, as such, devoid of supporting evidence or argument.


--------------------
> We also find this phenomenon in biology, where
> instances of biological complexity invoke post hoc
> explanations (just-so stories) related to wildly
> speculative selection effects.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Did you just look up a list of scientific failures and imply it applies to Diamond, who is not on the list?

> This book is a post hoc explanation which raises
> more questions than answers.

A "post hoc explanation?" Like Darwin? Like archaeology? Like cosmology? Like anthropology? Like history? Almost all human thought is "post hoc explanation," so that comment is vapid.

If GGS raises questions in your mind, why don't you identify some? That would be a better approach than exclaiming that history is retrospective.


-----------------
> Its main premise is that civilized societies which
> arose in areas where there was land extending in a
> lengthy east west axis (essentially the
> Mediterranean over to the Chinese river valleys)
> had an advantage over those who didn't.

Yeah, I've read the book.


--------------
> Since most
> land is within Afro-Eurasia, which is aligned on
> this access, this is an easy retrofit.

Please explain why that "retrofit" is wrong.


--------------
> It especially falls down when it comes to
> Amerindian civilizations which do not fit his
> model at all, at least pre-Columbus.

To the contrary, it explains precisely why civilization in the Americas could not achieve what Old World cultures did. If you disagree, explain why.


--------------
> And what are we to make of societies such as the
> circumpolar peoples who made several technological
> leaps around the same time, but were essentially
> frozen?

This post reads a lot like Jordan trying to make sense out of Orwell. If you had read the book; if you had understood it; you would realize that the answer to your paradox is that the polar regions are cold. The development of agriculture based on grains and the domestication of pigs, goats, and cows don't contribute much to societies in the arctic.

Did you miss that?

A "post hoc explanation?" Like Darwin? Like archaeology? Like cosmology? Like anthropology? Like history? Almost all human thought is "post hoc explanation," so that comment is vapid.

There is nothing in principle that is wrong with a "post hoc explanation" as strictly defined. As you suggest, many historical explanations have this character. Essentially, it is taking a present physical or cultural fact or circumstance and suggesting a causal chain of events that led to that fact or circumstance. Obviously, this is a legitimate, however difficult, scientific enterprise.

However, in both biology and sociology (not to mention history) the logical problem arises when the causal connections that are appealed to are themselves complex, and loosely connected to the conclusions that are being drawn from them. In such cases, scientific merit evaporates. Moreover, it is further *potentially* problematic when there is an ideological agenda that underlies the explanation; e.g. to discredit claims of white European intellectual superiority; or to discredit claims of an intentional designer. In both cases, the motive may be praiseworthy, but may also account for explanatory excesses.

I personally think GGS is a mixed bag. But certainly his broad claims are questionable.

What are your objections to GGS? Some of them may be persuasive, but saying "I have important criticisms that I won't bother to share" is not a good way of contributing to a discussion.

Nor, frankly, is citing to a link of failed scientific arguments and then saying that list applies to GGS, which isn't on the list.