The previous common-sense belief was that the Amazon was never densely populated and had always been exactly like it is today, a dense forest with primitive tribes scattered hundreds of km apart.
Twenty years ago, brazilian researchers who would mention this theory were considered a bit lunatic, at the “elvis isn’t dead” or “the US reads all the world’s email” level of conspiracy theories.
So playing down these discoveries with discussions of urban density or cities vs villages is pointless, the important finding is that there was some form of civilization there at all.
The article makes its main point to dispute the “City” characterization and how this is “overblown”.
I can only assume trkaky posted in the same spirit of discrediting the news, which I find worth “taking action” against. It might be old news for people in the field, and not reported faithfully (as usual), but what’s the purpose of raining down on one of the most interesting archeological discoveries in the Americas?
Twenty years ago, brazilian researchers who would mention this theory were considered a bit lunatic, at the “elvis isn’t dead” or “the US reads all the world’s email” level of conspiracy theories.
So playing down these discoveries with discussions of urban density or cities vs villages is pointless, the important finding is that there was some form of civilization there at all.