Slashdot Mirror
15-Year-Old Boy Discovers Long-Lost Ancient Mayan City Using Constellations And Google (nzherald.co.nz)
Master Moose quotes a report from NZ Herald: Deep within a dense Central American forest sit the ruins of an ancient city the world forgot. And it has just been discovered by a precocious 15-year-old boy. Quebec teenager William Gadoury claims he has discovered a long-lost ancient Mayan city using a clever combination of old-world astronomy and ultra-modern technology. [The inquisitive youngster, who has a deep fascination with ancient Maya, analyzed 22 Mayan constellations and realized that the Mayans aligned their 117 cities with the positions of the stars. Using satellite images from the Canadian Space Agency and Google Earth maps, William zeroed in on the precise location -- and a pyramid and about thirty ancient buildings were spotted, partially hidden, in the dense forest.] UPDATE: As the story continues to spread, so does the skepticism. David Stuart, anthropologist from The Mesoamerica Center-University of Texas at Austin, said via his Facebook page: "This current news story of an ancient Maya city being discovered is false..." Thomas Garrison, an anthropologist at USC Dornsife, told Gizmodo that the objects are relic corn fields.
Well, it is a theory, so now he his looking to go there in person.
No sig for now.
Remember, it was a child who grasped plate tectonics when established science said no way never.
*I lost my pyramids and have no backups*
The news I heard was that he came up with a hypothesis, did a bit of work on his own and then asked for help to see if there were indications of a city at certain locations. There are some indications but they need to be researched further. He can't go exploring until summer break since he is 15 and has high school exams. With what is all too typical news reporting hyperbole, it is being blown way out of proportion. I don't even know if he can afford to go on that type of trip.
This story set off my bullshit detector within about 2 sentences.
You wouldn't believe how a teenager discovered a Mayan city using this one weird trick! Archaeologists hate him!
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
https://www.amazon.com/Long-Jo... I read his book by accident. Amazing book and a scientific theory that he worked years on
Has anyone checked to see if it's just some radio guts in a box or something?
Why would the Mayans build their cities based on star pattern and brightness AND GIVEN A CERTAIN ASPECT RATIO AND SCALE AND ROTATION that matches the "genius" kid here? How'd the kid come up with the theory to begin with?
For THAT matter why do we need a full-on expedition?! Send a group of interns out there to go scope it out first and actually SEE if anything is there, then you can start propositioning your government for funds for your school.
He's Canadian
On his mother's side, which makes him a MexiCan.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Girls need the same opportunities! We must immediately invest in programs to educate schoolgirls in these areas so that they are no longer held back!
They work fast!
In just a few hours since I read this, we went from a square and some geometric forms to a pyramid and 30 buildings!
I feel live I've seen this somewhere before...
In 3010, the potatoes triumphed
in this case test is actually checking the site. and that evident fails to confirm the theory. there is no city, just a fallow cornfield abandoned 10-15 years ago.
nor is there any other correlation between other mayan cities and visible stars, then or now, that is just modern pseudo science mystic nonsense.
a modern high resolution image of sky with lots of stars may fit a map of known mayan cities (or any random map of cities or parking lots/malls/anything) with stars but since there are lots of stars that is to be expected, and most stars in that image wont have corresponding cities and never will.
this is what so called modern "science' has become to sell tv shows and books.
and mass society at large takes it for real science and are ever ready to believe stories that fit fairy story patterns( this story fits right in; young boy, ancient legends and mysteries, confounded authority etc etc).
media is happy to oblige . (how many media outlets that ran this story today, will run a story that pointed out that "city" was a cornfield tomorrow? very few. and fewer people will choose to read it if it ran).
"science" now has become a popular mass belief with believers thinking it is the undeniable unchallengeable TRUTH (a concept that is alien to philosophy of science), with computer models and artists images taken for real instead of experiments and real world data, and consensus and voting has become proof of theories while scientific method is ignored
to go with it and when does he get to see the president?
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/long-lost-mayan-city-teen-found-isnt-lost-city/
I was fooled, too. But I am gullible. It was a neat feeling believing it while it lasted... loves me some Mayan archeology. But some of you already figured out it was probably too good to be true.
In general, since we know of several environmental facts that influenced the location of Maya settlements, the idea correlating them with stars is utterly unlikely.
I bet Ivan's original response was much more colorful.
And the coordinates to this "city" are?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
As evidence, he produced a calendar signed with a Mayan private key.
-Dave
As a PhD archaeologist, I can assure you that the vast majority of "archaeoastronomical" findings are complete and utter bullshit.
anything has a meaningful astronomical alignment if you pick the right constellation, and most supposed alignments are simply the human brain finding non-existing patterning in random data. Outside of obvious polar/solstice/equinox alignments, pretty much any supposed ancient astronomical alignment is made up out of whole cloth.
The fact that many serious archaeologists take this tripe seriously is a disgrace to the discipline.
It is a hypothesis. A theory is a proven hypothesis.
This is cool, but could we wait for something verified like:
1. An expert actually visiting the rumored site?
2. Higher resolution pictures of the site from the ground or an airplane? Preferably in a wavelength that screens out the foliage?
2. A published (or even submitted) paper to a peer-reviewed journal?
I applaud the kid for his efforts, but you have to close the loop scientifically before declaring victory... even if you are 15.
Also, right now, there is nothing stopping some asshole with more resources from beating this kid to publication (unless there is a missing link to a report).
I've actually done quite a bit of hiking in the Petan and Yucatan. People forget that this was a major civilization that lasted around 1500 years. There's a lot of ruins under the jungle. If he goes there, he'll probably find something within a reasonable distance of his prediction to validate his hypothesis. This isn't because he's right, but because there are Mayan ruins _everywhere_.
I don't buy the "aligned their cities to the stars" bunk though. The Mayans paid a lot of attention to the stars and worshipped them. They waged wars based on the star's advice. They certainly built temples that aligned to the stars and some of these may have grown into cities, as some medieval monasteries did in Europe. But mostly they built close to water sources, or places where they could build resevoirs.
"As the story continues to spread, so does the skepticism". They always spoil the show. In the name of science. Doh! What is science? It's the religion for intellectuals. The rest don't care about science or evidence, the rest want to get that elated fuzzy feeling of happiness.
evident fails to confirm the theory. there is no city, just a fallow cornfield abandoned 10-15 years ago.
The "evident" is some professor who THINKS that is a fallow cornfield. Just as the kid THINKS there is a city there.
The only satellite image for counter proof (see end of article) looks nothing like the satellite image of the area the kid found.
If you look at the image of the area in question why does the vegetation look exactly the same age as the surrounding vegetation, simply sunken? Vegetation from a fallow cornfield just fifteen years ago would not appear the same from above as much older vegetation surrounding it, it would not look so even across the whole space.
The actual proof would be obtained by going to the area and exploring the ground on foot. At the very least the shape and apparent age makes it worth taking a look.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From the story comments, looks like:
17.9447247 , -90.1666302
Enter into your favorite mapping system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wait, why does that sound so familiar?
Cities grow based on trade routes, natural resources, areas of strategic importance, defensible land, population growth and so on. While there might be the odd city arbitrarily placed for an administrative or religious purpose, most aren't.
He did this and was rather startled when he managed to find the long sought after golden Mayan city. He was even more startled when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he was lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable archaeologists who had realized that one thing they couldn't stand was a smart-arse.
How did this get into slashdot? This National Enquirer level crap "science".
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
In the scientific vernacular, a "theory" is defined as a proven hypothesis.
Today, many real scientists are saying that's not a lost city, it's a milapa, i.e. an abandoned corn field from 10-15 years ago. Of course, we can't know for sure until somebody actually goes there and investigates on the ground. I admire this kid, but his conjecture is probably incorrect.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It is my understanding that a "theory" is an explanation of observed behavior. A good theory will predict certain behavior that can be tested - i.e., a "falsifiable" hypothesis. If an experiment is carried out to test the hypothesis, it may result in a positive result that supports the hypothesis, and thus the theory. (Note - A single positive outcomes doesn't mean the hypothesis is proven - the experiment needs to be repeatable and each repetition needs to yield the same positive results. Also note that a successful experimental outcome doesn't "prove" the theory, it just shows that the theory has some explanatory power, which is the main function of a theory. The theory may have other consequences [falsifiable hypotheses] that may be found to be not true, showing that although the theory has some explanatory power, it is not the complete explanation.) The experiment may result in a negative outcome that disproves the hypothesis, and hence the theory as it is currently described. Sometimes the theory can be salvaged by adding the results of the experiment to the observed data used to develop the theory, then "refactoring" the theory to incorporate the new observations. If the new version of the theory can successfully explain the new data in a fundamental way (i.e., not just as an exception to a rule), then the new theory is probably a better explanation than the original theory.
Theories that have stood up to a lot of experimental testing are judged to be more likely and more complete explanations, while those that are relatively new and untested are considered suspect. Heuristics such as Occam's razor play a role in judging the quality of a theory as well; simple explanations are preferred over more complex explanations, all else being equal (ability to explain observed data, ability to generate falsifiable hypotheses).
A good theory will probably have generated many falsifiable hypotheses, all of which will have been experimentally validated (with repeatable experiments carried out by a number of people, not just one experiment by one person). At least, that is how I understand the interrelationship between theories and hypotheses.
On one hand the kid shows a lot of intelligence and drive in gathering the information.
On the other hand he shows his lack of education by misinterpreting satellite data.
Can't really fault him either way.
As far as the press is concerned, they are a bunch of uneducated baboons who would rush to print any story with an eye catching headline. Really, they are just performing as trained.
1) Mayans had no "central planning" to organize any such construction... the Maya were comprised of independent and relatively autonomous city-states, each with its own rulership and usually at war with one another. While some large states could exert influence and demand tribute for a period, none were completely in control of the whole of the Mayan region at any point.
2) Mayans were building cities over a span of roughly 4,000 years... not all at once.
2a) The boy used historical data from the 15th century, sure, but that was *well* after most of the Mayan cites were built. By then, they had been in decline for centuries and not building major cities and monumental centers. The shift in positions of millenia would render 15th century astronomical maps nearly useless.
3) Looking for astronomical patterns is common, especially for the Maya considering that their astronomy and math were highly advanced for the times compared to any of their contemporaries worldwide, but no such patterns have ever been found for any kind of regional analysis. There are some patterns *within sites* to the orientations of various astronomical bodies and events, but not to the overall distribution of sites across the entirety of Mesoamerica. Yes, we've looked.
4) Do a quick search on Google Earth to see what a real Mayan center looks like from the imagery (I'd suggest Calakmul, Tonina, Tikal, Coba, or any of the other major centeres) that stratched over square miles... then compare the image of a fallow milpa that the boy found. Yes, artifical and man-made... and nowhere close to ancient. There is a lot of work going on analyzing sattelite images, aerial photogrammetry, Lidar, etc to look for sites all over the world... and has been for a good long while. Plenty of articles published on it.
Not *one* archaeological expert, let alone any experts on Mayan history or archaeology of which there a very very many, was consulted when this story was being exploited by adults for their own 15 minutes of fame. Those people should be ashamed of themselves... the lot of them!
The kid has an interest and obviously a passion and dedication to putting in the effort, but NO ONE thought to put him in touch with anyone in the RELATED FIELDS OF STUDY?! They built up the poor kid's self-confidence and hopes unrealistically, based in ignorance and their own selfish desires for attention, with NO regard or responsibility.
I could go on, but this nonsense disgusts me and I feel very sorry for that poor kid. He's been used and left the butt of an inordinately poor joke by people that ought to have known better.
Yes, I AM a professional archaeologist... as is my wife, who happens to BE one of those Ph.D.experts in Mayan archaeology, writing, and art! None of us relish having to be the ones to burst that kid's balloon and embarass him after all the international attention, but it would be and is CRUEL to the kid to allow him to have false hopes and accolades built on a fantasy (he even went so far as to *name* the site) because media outlets want click-bait and ostensible grown-ups such as the "experts"(in totally unrelated fields) that exploited him (including, astonishingly, the Canadian Space Agency!) want attention.
My head hurts
Too bad our schools don't encourage this kind of thing instead of trying to make everybody feel good about themselves. Great work here from a smart inquisitive Canadian kid!