Skip to comments.Mysterious Earthen Rings Predate Amazon Rainforest
Posted on 07/10/2014 12:35:30 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Carson and his colleagues wanted to explore the question of whether early Amazonians had a major impact on the forest. They focused on the Amazon of northeastern Bolivia, where they had sediment cores from two lakes nearby major earthworks sites. These sediment cores hold ancient pollen grains and charcoal from long-ago fires, and can hint at the climate and ecosystem that existed when the sediment was laid down as far back as 6,000 years ago.
An examination of the two cores one from the large lake, Laguna Oricore, and one from the smaller lake, Laguna Granja revealed a surprise: The very oldest sediments didn't come from a rainforest ecosystem at all. In fact, the Bolivian Amazon before about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago looked more like the savannas of Africa than today's jungle environment.
The question had been whether the early Amazon was highly deforested or barely touched, Carson said.
"The surprising thing we found was that it was neither," he told Live Science. "It was this third scenario where, when people first arrived on the landscape, the climate was drier."
The pollen in this time period came mostly from grasses and a few drought-resistant species of trees. After about 2,000 years ago, more and more tree pollen appears in the samples, including fewer drought-resistant species and more evergreens, the researchers report today (July 7) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Charcoal levels also went down, indicating a less-fire-prone landscape. These changes were largely driven by an increase in precipitation, Carson said.
The earthworks predate this shift, which reveals that the diggers of these ditches created them before the forest moved in around them
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
They predate the rain forest. Maybe they were just building elevated positions for better fields of fire.
Cataclysmic astrobleme ping.
Are these scientists now telling us that all that bio diversity came into being in a mere 6,000 years?
So if the jungle went away again, it’s normal and we won’t all die?
It has been my opinion for many years that we know very little about mans past, let alone the world in detail.
Most of what I have seen as revealed science and predictions of the future and past are uneducated guesses based on fragmentary evidence.
>Are these scientists now telling us that all that bio diversity came into being in a mere 6,000 years?
And they are telling you that if one thing changes in the next 6000, we’re all gonna die.
Gee, really honey child?
You mean that when you have fruit producing trees in a percentage that is several hundred percent over any other "wild forest" in the world that might be a sign that people planted them?
And soil does not naturally have pot shards and charcoal pounded into it? Well, who knew!
The key point is that man has been radically altering the “natural” landscape for as long as he has been Man. Famously, aboriginal Australians had the whole place on fire at various times of the year - it increased the productivity, “naturally”.
Fire was the chief tool of landscape management; that’s why we should celebrate Earth Day with fire - lots of fires - it’s a good time of year to burn the ditches and such. ;^)
Glowbull Warming! It's retroactive now.
That sounds like a fortification, and a pretty substantial one. I wonder if they have found destruction layers, mass graves, etc., and whether we should expect to find much of that nature given the present climate.
Now let me get this straight. It is said that the Amazonian rainforest contains plant and animal species found nowhere else in the world (save the rainforest). If the rainforest is only 2,000-3,000 years old is that enough time to evolve these unique species?
Does this mean to imply... that the climate might have changed?
Ice ages remove most evidence or make it unrecognizable. Imagine hail the size of cantaloupes traveling toward the ground at 100 mph. It is starting to happen again.
These sediment cores hold ancient pollen grains and charcoal from long-ago fires, and can hint at the climate and ecosystem that existed when the sediment was laid down as far back as 6,000 years ago. An examination of the two cores one from the large lake, Laguna Oricore, and one from the smaller lake, Laguna Granja revealed a surprise: The very oldest sediments didn't come from a rainforest ecosystem at all. In fact, the Bolivian Amazon before about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago looked more like the savannas of Africa than today's jungle environment.
I would imagine that the 2000 to 3000 years ago (I wonder if they meant 3000 years BC, since the cores go back 6000 years), the rainforests were just in a different place. Say SW North America which is now desert. As the climate changes in various places, the species (plants, animals, birds, etc.) just follow.
I recall reading some National Geographic article years ago. One article was about some animal that is being more and more rare in the U.S. due to Global Warming, and something needs to be done, etc. (The article did bury the fact that they are just heading north into Canada).
In the same mag, another article was shouting with joy the sighting of some rare bird, the first time it has been seen in the states for 200 years, and people from all over were coming to see it. (It’s usual range was a few hundred miles south of the border in Mexico. No mention of global warming).
I was watching on PBS within the last month, the reason the rainforests in the Amazon exist is due to the dust kicked up in the Sahara desert in Africa that travels around the world, creates rainclouds and drops.
We know that several thousand years ago the Sahara was no desert. And now we see that the Amazon was no rainforest around the same time.
Climate changes all on it’s own. Apparently alot.
You answered my question; 2,000-3,000 years is not enough time not even probably 100,000 years. So there must have been continuous rainforest environments around for a long time. The forest area can grow and shrink.
Like the old white vs. dark moths things they still teach the kids in school that shows “adaptation” and “evolution”. It is just the population number of the moths that change.
“Climate changes all on its own. Apparently alot.”
If that 2000 - 3000 year number is correct, that to me is surprising, and is challenging. I’ve have said for a long time that climate change SHOULD be studied, and various scenarios should be thought out. Of course 2,000 years is a long time for us to adapt to new things. America’s heartland turned to a 2000 year long dust bowl would have a huge effect on the USA, but humanity would survive by growing the crops in the Sahara instead. (Unless we still have nukes, and end up having WW III over it.)
I’m more concerned with the next ice age. Would cause a world-wide drought with most of the water locked up in the ice.
“Are these scientists now telling us that all that bio diversity came into being in a mere 6,000 years?”
That’s a curious Genesis-linked number.
There’s lots more numerical links like that out there....
...more links than Darwin (piss be upon him) ever found.
I watched that same documentary with interest but became frustrated at the end because they never tried to make a connection re what the "rain forest" would have looked like when the Sahara was largely covered with shallow seas. Scouring the web revealed several efforts to make a connection that never made it into "prestigious journals". Not sure what to make of that. Maybe if they blamed humans for draining the Sahara they could have gotten published???
In any case, and just like this guy found, most conclusions were the South American rain forest was savanna type landscape when the Sahara was wetter. It becomes even more interesting when investigating a cause for this "climate change". This of course happened well past the end of the last glaciation??? Whatever. The theories run the gamut from pole shifts to alien terra formers. From most accounts the change was relatively swift, in geologic time.
The scientific community is nothing if not frustrating. They apparently go as far as the money and no farther. Maybe journal publishers can share the blame since they are the ones who select studies and research that make the cut? In a publish or perish environment whaddaya gonna do, but I digress...
Look at this post, sweet heart, this is close to the present and no one had a clue.
When I was a kid there was jungle and Incas, no high population areas along the Amazon.
Actually the -4026 BC Chevrolet Tahoe was a real smog box. It polluted the air all around the dirt patch where it drove burning slash grass ethanol.
I have read articles here at FR to the effect that very large deep earthquakes, such as the one that created the Indonesia tsunami, can shift axis and rotation by a tiny bit, less than 1 degree, and ultimately have huge effects on climate.
I could see a large meteor hit doing something like that as well.
We have no idea when that was constructed. Apes have no clue. Never did and never will.
There is no shortage of theories and they all have their adherents and furnish evidence, such as it is, to support them. I seem to recall the Bible describes an event, obviously during historical times, when the earth wobbled like a drunk! Eyewitness accounts??? Generally considered fairly reliable evidence. You make the call...
In a short article two years ago I proposed that the Amazon rain forest could only be a few thousand years old and not 55 million years as was currently believed.
These latest finding are a major step towards supporting my stance. I see future research ultimately confirming this.
I arrived at the above conclusion by researching my theory which proposes that the Sahara & Arabian deserts are of very recent extraterrestrial origin.
I reasoned if the Sahara desert didn’t exist 3-4,000 years ago, it couldn’t have sustained the Amazon rain forest with its nutrient rich dust which blows across the Atlantic.
Gary Gilligan (catastrophist)
This is a fascinating article but I think it is important to note this is based on evidence from the BOLIVIAN portion of the overall Amazonian rainforest, which is and was on the periphery of the rainforest proper, and still at its most extreme North-east point almost 500 miles from the Amazon river.
No telling that the forest itself was smaller or not there at all, but my (uneducated ) guess would be there were still vast regions still under forest while Bolivia was savannah. The whole rainforest area now is almost the size of the US East of the Mississippi.
I wouldn’t extrapolate an overall theory about the rainforest from evidence in Bolivia alone.
Thank you for the links.
I notice you're a writer but of course I don't know what your background is. Something occurred to me and as a matter of curiosity I wonder if you've ever looked into the possibility of massive sand blows contributing to the creation of the Sahara? I read a foreign published work within the last day or two that made some compelling arguments re volcanism, massive volcanism, being the culprit responsible for the "green glass" and the abrupt changes to North Africa. Could it be part of the answer?
Geologists have incorrectly assumed that the Earth has had all its water since its beginning. It is demonstrably incorrect yet it remains the primary reason why we do not understand our past.
There was a worldwide flood, and it was recent.
So the world around us is not static? Who knew?
Mars is missing vast oceans of water - much of this fell to earth during encounters with Mars (Mars the god of war for good reason) only a few millennia ago. It is still falling to earth in the form of noctilucent clouds would be my stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
A most excellent BBC documentary on the ‘dark earth’ (Terra Preta) of the Amazon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YS8I6AZRfg
A paradigm shift is going on in regards to the Amazon Rainforest; no longer can we go into any part of the forest and assume it is pristine. Millions of people (est. 5-6 million) once inhabited the region right up until the arrival of the Europeans. There is evidence many of these lived along the Amazon River.
So far an area twice the size of Spain (in the south) is now known to be anthropogenic - this is growing all the time with new archaeological discoveries.
To my mind it makes little sense that parts of the Amazon are only 2,000 yrs old while remainder is 55 million years old.
It may swing back and forth as these things have a habit of doing but ultimately I see future studies confirming my stance.
That part of the article was very unclear. The extent of the rainforest ebbs and flows with climactic conditions. The rainforest in Bolivia has been there for a few thousand years but the rainforest as a whole has been there for millions of years.
First Paragraph mentions: “A series of square, straight and ringlike ditches scattered throughout the Bolivian and Brazilian Amazon were there before the rainforest existed, a new study finds.”
This seems to indicate a larger area was previously not rainforest. The article is confusing.
Having studied the Sahara and Arabian deserts for a number of years now I can say with a good deal of confidence that no matter what you read on the internet the provenance of the quartz grains that form the deserts in unknown (the same would apply to the deserts, beaches, sandstone deposits, etc. worldwide). Pretty amazing given they both contain vast oceans of sand. Some say the underlying Nubian sandstone (almost pure quartz sand) may be the source but then they cannot say where this originated. Volcanism largely produces basalt which is mainly devoid of quartz altogether, so this cannot be the source.
I’m in the middle of writing my third book “Extraterrestrial Desert Sands” in which I proposed the deserts (& quartz sand globally) were formed VERY recently. In short: Cosmic chaos involving mainly Mars (once home to humans the same as you and I) created unfathomable quantities of vaporised rock - this condensed as it fell to earth, precipitating out of the atmosphere to form quartz crystals. In other words it rained sand! Vast swaths of it - this is the origin of the deserts (beaches, dune sand, etc.) of the world! All this occurred in the last few thousand years. Prior to this the Sahara was a green savanna, as too were vast regions of the Arabia peninsular.
I’m in favour of the ‘green glass’ the result of a bolide event... as follows.
“The latest research almost proves that Libyan desert glass is the terrestrial by-product of a massive bolide impacting in desert sands. Analysis shows rapidly quenched molten silica with signs of molecularly altered zircon crystals, shocked quartz and metals such as nickel and iron. The only force that can produce this material is really a cosmic impact. Nuclear blasts come close, but the material is very low quality and frothy. Fulgerites from lightning impact is even more frothy and grainy, and looks more like cemented sand.”
But I would ignore any “gazillion years old” dates. Everything we see today in geological terms occurred mainly in the last few thousand years (catastrophist not creationist!). Earth is still simmering down as a result of recent planetary encounters.
Loads more on my web.
Apologies if I appear illusive, it’s all eyes down in trying to get book completed!
Turns out, sand formation may be more complex than one might originally suspect. And, after doing some more looking around I discovered there are actually several different types of sand that make up the Sahara itself. It's not uniform at all. Never thought about it but I suppose it makes sense.
I gather you're also a follower of many of Velikovsky's ideas and his interpretations of Biblical an other ancient scripts. Have you looked at the 9th plague, the plague of darkness in Egypt? Utter darkness, a darkness that could be felt??? A cloud of sand cold be felt. Not to mention it had to have been exceedingly thick. Lasted either three days or nine days depending on the source.
The rainforest/jungle I that area is young but that does not imply there was no existing rainforest or jungle species in adjacent regions.
In short, the jungle encroached when rainfall permitted it, and birds and other animals followed the advance of the plant growth.