KEYWORDS: annarooseveltThanks Red Badger.
Posted on 07/24/2015 6:22:31 AM PDT by C19fan
It is often held aloft by environmental campaign groups as an example of one of the last remaining regions of unspoiled habitat left in the world. But instead of being a pristine rainforest untouched by human hands, the Amazon appears to have been profoundly shaped by mankind. An international team of researchers have published evidence that suggests the Amazon was once home to millions of people who lived and farmed in the area now covered by trees.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Very interesting article. Thanks for the ping. I enjoyed reading the book, 1491.
Duck Dynasty?
Really? Way back when I wuz a young un......
I heard it wuz no more 'n eleventy eleven million.....
I read a book on the explorer Percy Fawcett who disappeared into the jungle and was never seen again. The author tried to retrace his steps using some journals he got from his granddaughter or something like that. Anyway, he mentioned that the dense jungle was full of mounds which were remnants of pre-columbian settlements. All over. That observation supports the idea that the current rainforest region was densely populated and actively farmed centuries ago.
Hail Atlantis
Yes, I think you’re referring to this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_City_of_Z_(book)
Yes, that’s it. I wasn’t very convinced with author’s speculation that the amazing and breathtaking city of gold Fawcett supposedly was headed towards was probably just one of these unassuming mounds but I was interested to know that they exist in such quantities.
I read the book “1491” also. I looked all through the book for some proof, but did not find any. I found only speculation. One of the speculations was that the new world was more populated than the old.
If so, how come every time they put a shovel in the ground to build something in Europe, they find remains. That is NOT the case in the new world. In fact, the remains of native americans are relatively rare.
The entire chapter speculating on the 94% death rate for diseases was TOTALLY without any kind of proof. There has never been a plague that kills that high a percentage in the past (that has been documented). The reason the book stopped at 94% was because going higher was even more unrealistic.
1491 was a total waste of time.
Rainforest Researchers Hit Paydirt (Farming 11K Years Ago In South America)
From The CDC:
Historical Review: Megadrought And Megadeath In 16th Century Mexico (Hemorrhagic Fever)
"The epidemic of cocoliztli from 1545 to 1548 killed an estimated 5 million to 15 million people, or up to 80% of the native population of Mexico (Figure 1). In absolute and relative terms the 1545 epidemic was one of the worst demographic catastrophes in human history, approaching even the Black Death of bubonic plague, which killed approximately 25 million in western Europe from 1347 to 1351 or about 50% of the regional population.
"The cocoliztli epidemic from 1576 to 1578 cocoliztli epidemic killed an additional 2 to 2.5 million people, or about 50% of the remaining native population.
The 1491 book uses 94% average for the death rate. I don’t see that in what you list. In calculating it the way the book did, you will get the following results:
Say there were 1,000,000 people (you can pick any number you want and repeat these same calculations) in the new world after the plague. If there was a 94% death rate, the population before he plague would be = 1,000,000 / .06 = 16,666,667 people before.
Using the worst in your post (80%) the population before the plague would be = 1,000,000 / .20 = 5,000,000 or less that 1/3 of the number the book authors were working with. Big difference.
Using 50%, the amount before would be 2,000,000. Even bigger difference.
Also, the book insists that the 94% was the AVERAGE death rate for what is now Canada, US, Mexico, Central America, and South America. That is ridiculous. The larger the amount of land that the epidemic spreads to, the lower the percentage of death. That was shown during the Black Death which has some pretty accurate counts in many places.
Doo-doo-doo, da-da-do-do-wow!
There’s a place called the rainforest that truly sucks ass
Let’s knock it all down and get rid of it fast
You say ‘save the rainforest’, but what do you know?
You’ve never been to the rainforest before!
Getting Gay with Kids is here
To tell you things you might not like to hear
You only fight these causes ‘cos caring sells
All you activists can go ...k yourselves.
Someday if we work hard boys and girls..
There’ll be no more rainforests left in the entire world..
Getting Gay with Kids is here
To spread the word, and bring you cheer
Getting Gay with Kids is here
Lets knock down the rainforest, whaddaya say?
Its totally gay, it’s totally gay
Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses.
There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer.
Join the fight now and help stop the Rainforest before it’s too late.
-Getting Gay With Kids (South Park)
Way down below the ocean where I wanna be she may be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUEjzVQwKo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leI7sfmipuI
We used to have that on a 45. I think it was the B side of “Jennifer, Juniper.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
