Slashdot Mirror


Archaeologists Discover Lost City In Cambodian Jungle

First time accepted submitter steve_mark66 writes "Australian archaeologists using remote-sensing technology have uncovered an ancient city in Cambodia that has remained hidden for more than a millennium under dense jungle undergrowth. The discovery of Mahendraparvata, a 1,200-year-old lost city that predates Cambodia's famous Angkor Wat temple complex by 350 years, was part of the Hindu-Buddhist Khmer Empire that ruled much of Southeast Asia from about 800 to 1400 A.D., during a time that coincided with Europe's Middle Ages" The Age has a story of its own, with video.

30 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Let's hope no one needs... by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... a road built nearby. Maybe I'm just getting old myself, but archaeological sites should be protected, and their destruction really makes me sick at the stupidity of the human race. - HEX

    1. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This new one appears to be untouched by looters, so it may well be in tact and preserved. It also may have some unique content since it appears to have been built during a transition period. It should be interesting to see what comes from it.

      I will also be curious to see what is found using the same technique in other parts of the world, such as South America, Africa, and the Middle East.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's on top of a mountain, at least. They're not going to build a shopping mall there, but it definitely will become a tourist site.

      Cambodia is in a precarious position where one of their biggest sources of revenue is tourism, and they have to balance making tourist dollars with preserving the site -- which could easily get trashed by tourists if not sufficiently protected, and no amount of protection will protect from a gradual wear caused by millions of tourists every year.

      Basically, in such a poor country:

      no tourism -> site unmaintained; degrades due to natural causes and looters

      some tourism -> money generated funds preservation and restoration

      lots of tourism -> lots of money, but also a lot more damage to the site not all of which can be repaired

      Full disclosure: I went to the Angkor Wat as a tourist last year.

    3. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by gubon13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I spent some time out in Angkor Wat and the surrounding areas just a few months ago. Beng Mealea was by far my favorite because it was the least molested and commercialized. Cambodia is in a period of economic transition and they are starting to amass the kind of discretionary wealth necessary to properly protect their proud history. Sadly, most of it has been destroyed and/or looted over the years and there is little they can do about that.

      As for your hope, I can pretty much assure you that the area where they re-discovered these ruins is so far away from any place that would need a real road that you needn't worry...

    4. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by cusco · · Score: 2

      Another option would be:

      lots of tourism -> lots of money, part of which is used to restore the site

      This is what is being done at Machu Picchu and some of the other sites in Peru. I first saw Machu Picchu in 1987, and visited again two years ago. It's much better restored, much better maintained, and much better researched than it ever was before.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to bring this up but the idea that government provides adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population is really one reason why a government fails to do so.

      Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society. Before government got involved in providing housing and food, the vast majority of people were able to find it and live- even if they were working just for subsistence. Now enter education- kids graduate from high school knowing less about more things then a high school graduate in 1860. I spoke with someone just today who told me that going off welfare and working has actually cost him an average of $40 a week in income because he now has to pay for his transportation to work and childcare. Of course he expects this to be made up within 6 months when he gets his evaluation and raises.

      We have gotten away from a large agrarian society and a lot of the gold old past simply isn't practicable or applicable any more. But expecting government to provide something is really harsh on someone trying to provide for themselves. That is how a country becomes wealthy- when the population provides for themselves and the government only keeps the social economic environment that makes it possible to do so.

    6. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, central America could be huge for that kind of thing. There are large sections of Nicaragua that no one has entered for centuries, for example. There's not even a road from one side of the country to the other.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Alomex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society.

      What on Earth are you talking about? Education in America has been handled by the (local) government going all the way back to the settlement of the new colonies.

      Also, America is exceptional in that it always had high literacy rates, but in other countries, literacy has increased directly proportionally to the amount of involvement by the government, and higher standard of living is directly co-related to the participation of government with the "big-state" countries of Europe such as Germany and Scandinavian countries consistently outperforming the "small state" countries such as the US (yes, by developed world standards the US is a low taxes, small government country).

    8. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Apothem · · Score: 2

      The article mentioned a lot of landmines around the landmark. I'm guessing that's one of the reasons why there hasn't been much looting.

    9. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but you have missed the entire point.

      Nope, I got it loud and clear. Furthermore I gave you evidence to the contrary, i.e. that this "less government implies richer country" is just not supported by the facts. More specifically, there are no examples in the world for the following claim you made.

      That is how a country becomes wealthy- when the population provides for themselves and the government only keeps the social economic environment that makes it possible to do so.

      The last country that tried that is Ireland, which is currently one of the basket cases of Europe. In the meantime the direct opposite of what you claimed, namely Germany, is thriving.

      Seriously dude, you bought this right wing lie of "less government is always better" not unlike the dems of old bought into "more government is always better". Neither one is the case.

      Modern democrats now realize that there is such a thing as too much government. Republicans, on the contrary, have yet to learn that there is such a thing as too little government. See Haiti, for an example across the board, or America under-performing Europe in most health indicators while spending more money for an example of an area where America needs more government, not less.

    10. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Since the 1960s maybe. But looters have had 1,200 years to find the place, and it looks like they haven't.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by cusco · · Score: 2

      the vast majority of people were able to find it and live

      Are you really that ignorant of history? Is that a requirement of becoming a libertarian? The vast majority of people experienced famine and/or pestilence at some point before the beginning of the last century, generally several times during their life. A large percentage of the population well into the middle of the 20th century grew up sufficiently malnourished that they would today be considered mentally deficient. The first year of the Depression, the same year that Herbert Hoover boasted of never having missed a meal in his life, 4000 people in Detroit died of malnutrition. I don't expect you to believe me, you probably didn't grow up hearing about how bad the "good old days" really were from your grandparents. You just have this rose-tinted picture of how great it all was back when the government didn't interfere with the glorious free market. For your sake I hope you never have to actually experience that life.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    12. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by BooMonster · · Score: 2

      Modern democrats now realize that there is such a thing as too much government. [Citation needed]

    13. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Easy, just to give an example federal government spending went down in size during the Clinton administration, and indeed it was smaller on the average than during the Bush administration. In the Obama years, after the first Keynesian expansion, the size of the government has been going down every year since FY 2009.

      The days of tax-and-spend democrats are gone. Now the biggest problem facing America is slash-and-burn republicans, which approve of all and any tax cuts, including those what would place the country at a serious economic disadvantage with the rest of the world such as education, research, basic health and public infrastructure.

    14. Re:Let's hope no one needs... by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure how higher standard of living is connected with adequate food, shelter, and education for the majority of the population. I'm sure with a base line, the rest will follow but you have missed the entire point.

      I'm not the guy you were responding to, but I'm gonna give my 2 cents on the matter. I think you kind of missed his point. In your original post you said:

      But expecting government to provide something is really harsh on someone trying to provide for themselves. That is how a country becomes wealthy- when the population provides for themselves and the government only keeps the social economic environment that makes it possible to do so.

      Implying that the government being involved in these things (ie. welfare). As someone who lives in a welfare state (Finland) and currently works for the public healthcare sector, let me give my thoughts on why I think you're both wrong and right. I know you didn't originally talk about healthcare, but I'm going to be using that as an example because that's what I'm most familiar with and I think health is no different from the other basic necessities (food, shelter, housing) that you mentioned.

      So the facts of the current situation are these: The US is spending the most tax dollars per citizens on healthcare and is ranked 33rd in life expectancy[1][2]. Of the countries that are ahead of US, pretty much all have at least some from of socialized healthcare[3]. Even the countries with insurance-systems like Switzerland and Germany have a model where insurance is used like in the States, but it is mandated and regulated to keep the prices in line and the companies are not allowed to reject sick people. Point being: the US is pretty much the only industrialized country in the world where high amounts of people with no insurance (and therefore pretty much no healthcare) still exist, largerly because of the pricing. This is why it is so expensive: since the law still denies ERs from letting people die even if they're uninsured, the hospitals perform the necessary operations which are priced with (often insane) profit margins because traditionally the insurance companies would pay them, and if/when the uninsured individual cannot pay the bill it is footed by the taxpayers.

      Note that the most expensive healthcare system after the US is Norway's single payer model but even that is a whopping 34,6 % cheaper than the US model and the country with the highest life expectancy (Japan) has a socialized model that is 63,1 % cheaper![1]. Japan's average life expectancy is 83 compared to 79 of the States. This means, that the Japanese are using 63 % less money and still getting 5 % better performance from their system. These figures leave no room for interpretation: the US model is clearly more expensive, and at the same time less effective in increasing maintaining/increasing national health (note that I'm not talking about wealthy individuals, I'm very much aware that if you happen to be rich you can get excellent care in the States but that is not my point) than pretty much any other system used by any industrialized country, yet American politicians and the insurance lobby does their best to keep the current system in place.

      But expecting government to provide something is really harsh on someone trying to provide for themselves.

      You're right, but this is true only in cases where the thing being provided - whether it be healthcare, housing or education - is treated as a privilege instead of as a basic right. The US constitution makes no mention of any of these things as far as I'm aware (although I admit to not having read the thing in its entirety) even though you could easily argue that all of them are necessary for "the pursuit of happiness" that's so often used as the core of the american idealism.

      If you treat stuff like education and health as a commodity to be sold for profit, of course it's going to be unfair for the ones paying for it themselves

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  2. Hey... by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Isn't this the start of the plot for "Alien Vs. Predator"?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Hey... by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alien vs Predator had a plot?

    2. Re:Hey... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it was a plot to separate you from $8.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  3. Now Hiring by fabioalcor · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are now hiring more archaeologists for the exploration. Requirements: must be able to run more than 10k meters in Temple Run.

  4. It wasn't a lost city by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    The archaeologists were using Apple Maps - turns out it was actually Phnom Penh.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Re:More Startling still......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, you're thinking of Mick Jagger!

    Hoffa, I think, was killed by the Manson family back in the 80's, when they killed Sharon Stone. I think Charles Manson's daughter Marilyn is still around, I hear she's the singer in some band.

  6. Re:Thank dog timothy told us the most important pa by _merlin · · Score: 2

    And he neglected to mention that the archaeologists found the city using frikkin' lasers! That would've made the story far more appealing straight away.

  7. Re:More Startling still......... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

    lol.. Hoffa was the leader of the teamsters union that allowed the mob to be part of it. It helped in their so called fight against the big corporations to have a little mob backup. The mob would in turn use the retirement funds to launder money.

    Anyways, the senate started investigating the mob connections and the unions and Hoffa disappeared without a trace. No one has found a body, he is presumed to be dead. Several mobsters have claimed they killed him and lead investigators on wild trips looking for the body but it has never been found to date. There is a lot more involved and is actually a somewhat interesting story if you find yourself bored one of these days. Hoffa was one of the original anti 1%ers so to say, but he did most of his work attempting to unionize America in the 70's which more or less lead to all the downsizing in the 80's and outsourcing in the 90's. Most of what the unions demanded back then has been codified into laws now making them more or less a bullying arm for wages and benefits.

  8. Why tell? by PuddleBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't it have been better if they did NOT announce to the world that they found this new city until they *knew* that the gov't could secure it against looters?

    I mean, now that this 'unlooted site' has been announced, isn't it just a matter of time before someone loots it?

  9. Re:More Startling still......... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 3, Funny

    The kids these days are really resourceful and will lookup Jimmy Hoffa on wikipedia, then watch a Jimmy Hoffa youtube vid and then berate their peers on Facebook for not knowing who Jim Hoffa is and calling their peers noobs. Kids these days ... you gotta love 'em ...

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  10. Re:More Startling still......... by cusco · · Score: 3, Funny

    Friend of mine grew up in South Chicago. He said that when Hoffa disappeared everyone in his neighborhood stopped buying sausage for a couple of weeks.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  11. Re:More Startling still......... by mi · · Score: 2
    Except:
    • 40 hour work week is not really codified anywhere federally and people do routinely work longer hours;
    • the minimum wage existed since before the WW2 thus can hardly be attributed to Hoffa's efforts;
    • and there is no such thing as "wrongful termination" really — we are all employees "at will": neither the employees nor the employers are indentured and can leave or be let go at any time;

    As for "disposable cogs", "respect", and "dignity" these concepts just nebulous as they always have been — and not because Hoffa failed, but because they simply can not codified into law any more than, say, love or, indeed, respect and dignity can be.

    Unions always were — and remain today — (wanna-be) monopolies seeking to maintain and ever increase the prices of what their members are selling (their labor). Plumber Joe and plumber Jim joining a union to be able to get 10% higher prices for their work is not any different than "Joe's Burger" and "Jim's Burger" agreeing to raise their prices on the same day. Unfortunately, America's anti-trust laws apply only in the latter case, even though the former ought to be just as criminal.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  12. Re:More Startling still......... by jbengt · · Score: 2

    Hoffa was one of the original anti 1%ers so to say, but he did most of his work attempting to unionize America in the 70's which more or less lead to all the downsizing . . .

    No, he did most of his work unionizing during the depression, when workers really needed it (when the companies were hiring their own thugs to beat up and shoot picketers). By the 60s Hoffa was just a union boss, and by the mid 70s he was disappeared.

  13. Re:More Startling still......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hoffa was one of the original anti 1%ers so to say, but he did most of his work attempting to unionize America in the 70's which more or less lead to all the downsizing in the 80's and outsourcing in the 90's.

    I wish I could log in here because nobody but you will see this comment, but you're spewing misinformation. I was there; I'm 61. You got your history ass-backwards. By the '70s unions were already past their peak and losing power. The downsizing in the '80s and the outsourcing in the 90's had nothing to do with unions. When Reagan jawboned congress to slash the capital gains tax to half of what an ordinary worker paid, there was an orgy of leveraged buyouts by folks like Romney, who would buy up successful companies, fire all the workers and sell off the assets and take home piles of money made on the misery of others. The capital gains tax discourages this behavior.

    I was working it Disney from 1980 to 1985 and one of thes vulture capital firms were trying to do it to Disney, buying Disney, selling all its IP and real estate, and leaving all its thousands of employees looking for new jobs. My union then was the Teamsters (worse union I've ever been in, they were in bed with management) and our hours were cut from 40 to 30 for a few months. It really hurt, but not nearly as bad as if the vultures would have succeeded and we'd all been out of work.

    The outsourcing was a result of the unions having lost almost all their membership and power; with strong unions, they would not have been able to do all that outsourcing.

  14. Mahendraparvata by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Its already got a wiki link under lidar.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar#Archaeology