"Space Archeology" Uncovers Lost Pyramids

krou writes "A new technique dubbed 'space archeology' using satellites and infra-red imaging has helped uncover 17 new pyramids in Egypt, as well as some 1,000 tombs, and 3,000 ancient settlements. The mud bricks used to build Egyptian structures means it has a different density to the surrounding soil, and thus shows up in the images. Dr Sarah Parcak, who pioneered the technique, said that 'Indiana Jones is old school, we've moved on from Indy, sorry Harrison Ford.'"

Comments

goodbye-mr.-jones dept

[oztiks]

should be goodbye-dr.-jones dept

Re:goodbye-mr.-jones dept

[mjwx]

should be goodbye-dr.-jones dept

He belongs in a museum.

Re:goodbye-mr.-jones dept

[L4t3r4lu5]

You think that's the worst mistake in the article? If you were ever exposed to "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" you'll already know that Dr. Jones is well up on his "space archaeology" already.

If anything this is another instance of life imitating art, even if it is some of the most atrocious "art" you've ever had the misfortune to witness.

Re:goodbye-mr.-jones dept

[Jason Levine]

I still think the fridge scene would make for a great Mythbusters episode. Obviously, they can't detonate a nuclear device (Jamie want BIIIIIIIG boom!), but they could put Buster with some shock discs in a fridge and drop it from the approximate height that Indy fell to simulate how much he'd have been hurt from the fall. They could also go back to the place that they ran the "Cockroaches survive nuclear bomb" experiment and put the fridge in the chamber with some equipment inside to test for radiation. Of course, the finale would be burying some explosive (C4?) under the fridge with shock-disc-enabled Buster inside and blowing the whole thing up.

I'm pretty sure the whole scene would be Busted, but it would turn that awful scene into something that was actually fun to watch!

Real archaeology

[fremsley471]

Talk about old and buried- NASA Archeological Remote Sensing. Adobe PageMill 2.0!

Re:New? Hardly.

[jamesh]

So... the technology has existed for 80 years and yet she and her team are the ones who are finding the pyramids? I think they deserve just a little kudos... i'm betting that they had to do a bit of work to make the technology be able to find the pyramids they found.

Re:New? Hardly.

[pnot]

Dr Sarah Parcak should study her history - because she's "pioneered" a technique first used in the 30's from aircraft and more recently from any number of orbital platforms.

Absolutely! She should, for example, read the 28-page historical introduction and 32-page bibliography of the excellent book Satellite remote sensing for archaeology by... oh look, it's by Dr Sarah Parcak. Turns out she literally wrote the book on this stuff. Seriously, do you think she's spent a scientific career doing this work without bothering to check what's been done before? If someone is a "Dr", they have written a doctoral dissertation, which means they know how to review literature.

Yes, the BBC article (not the researcher) used the word "pioneered". I imagine there must be some pioneering about work that located several thousand hitherto unknown structures and seventeen pyramids. (If it's all old hat, why didn't someone find them "in the 30's from aircraft?") Even if it's not "pioneering", the fault is with the reporter who chose to use that word.

Sure-fire recipe for a snarky Slashdot reply: if it's successful work building on previous accomplishments, say "huh, that's not new, she's just repeating what someone else did". If it's groundbreaking work previously unachieved by anyone else, say "huh, that's just ivory-tower tinkering, nobody's replicated it and it'll never work in the real world".