Canadian teen discovers lost Mayan city

[Katy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/canadian-teenager-discovers-ancient-mayan-city-lost-in-jungles-o/

[GailV]

Wow!  What a great story!

[Mothersweets]

Very cool!!

[Starr]

Right from his own home in Quebec! 

[umsami]

I saw this yesterday! So very cool!

[jrn]

That is so neat!

[wendy not in HI]

I heard about that on NPR yesterday.  So cool!!

[bibiche]

This isn't a great story at all. It makes me feel really bad for the kid, who seems bright and enthusiastic about the Maya, and how he was duped into believing that he made this great "discovery."

I don't know who publicized this, and I don't know what reputable news source would publish this (Some "news sources" one would expect, of course, but I've lost all respect for the BBC). But essentially, the teen discovered a cornfield, and it was built up to be this exciting new find. He even named his "site."

Mesoamerican archaeologists have been taking care to congratulate him on his passion for the subject while lambasting the ridiculous coverage.  I seriously hope that something good of it comes for the boy and that he isn't ridiculed into a depression or worse. This was absolutely irresponsible attention-seeking (I doubt from the teen - he seems too naive) and in turn incredibly irresponsible "journalism."

ETA there is a "besoin de fonds" with an email address to send money in the Montréal paper article, so perhaps it was a money grab by someone involved. Sad, sad, sad.

 

links that should actually work!

http://gizmodo.com/teen-discovers-lost-maya-city-using-ancient-star-maps-1775735999

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0511/How-Canadian-teen-uses-space-archaeology-in-hunt-for-lost-Mayan-city

Edited May 11, 2016 by bibiche

[katilac]

 . [this should link to an article with their remarkshttp://nymag.com/selectall/2016/05/teen-probably-didnt-unearth-an-ancient-mayan-city-using-star-maps-updated.html]

 

broken link 

 

ETA: I found another link that says similar things:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/11/did-a-teen-discover-a-lost-mayan-city-not-exactly/

Edited May 11, 2016 by katilac

[Katy]

This isn't a great story at all. It makes me feel really bad for the kid, who seems bright and enthusiastic about the Maya, and how he was duped into believing that he made this great "discovery."

 

I don't know who publicized this, and I don't know what reputable news source would publish this (Some "news sources" one would expect, of course, but I've lost all respect for the BBC). But essentially, the teen discovered a cornfield, and it was built up to be this exciting new find. He even named his "site."

 

Mesoamerican archaeologists have been taking care to congratulate him on his passion for the subject while lambasting the ridiculous coverage. [this should link to an article with their remarkshttp://nymag.com/selectall/2016/05/teen-probably-didnt-unearth-an-ancient-mayan-city-using-star-maps-updated.html]I seriously hope that something good of it comes for the boy and that he isn't ridiculed into a depression or worse. This was absolutely irresponsible attention-seeking (I doubt from the teen - he seems too naive) and in turn incredibly irresponsible "journalism."

 

ETA there is a "besoin de fonds" with an email address to send money in the Montréal paper article, so perhaps it was a money grab by someone involved. Sad, sad, sad.

 

What are you talking about?  Your link doesn't work.  Can you please sum up what you're trying to say in a more coherent way?

 

[Corraleno]

What are you talking about?  Your link doesn't work.  Can you please sum up what you're trying to say in a more coherent way?

 

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/discover-ancient-mayan-city-archaeology-458473

 

http://technewsdb.com/that-long-lost-mayan-city-a-teen-found-isnt-lost-or-a-city/

Edited May 11, 2016 by Corraleno

[bibiche]

What are you talking about?  Your link doesn't work.  Can you please sum up what you're trying to say in a more coherent way?

 

 

DP

Edited May 11, 2016 by bibiche

[bibiche]

What are you talking about?  Your link doesn't work.  Can you please sum up what you're trying to say in a more coherent way?

 

 

I didn't realize my post was incoherent, my apologies.  Basically, the "discovery" is balderdash.

 

Sorry about he broken link - my phone wasn't cooperating.  But it looks as if others have posted some links that say the same thing.  

I feel so bad for that poor kid.

 

Try this link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0511/How-Canadian-teen-uses-space-archaeology-in-hunt-for-lost-Mayan-city

Edited May 11, 2016 by bibiche

[hornblower]

I'm going to share some of Astro Katie's tweet this morning: (astrophysicist Dr Katherine Mack) 

"It's a sad truth of the Internet that "wiz-kid" stories are incredibly popular & usually overblown or misrepresented

In general, if a story is about an astounding discovery in an academic discipline by someone not trained in that field, BE REALLY SKEPTICAL. 

If the person in question is a child, a daring maverick, a celebrity, or a quirky iconoclast, dial the skepticism up to 11 and wait a week. "

https://twitter.com/AstroKatie

[fraidycat]

I didn't realize my post was incoherent, my apologies. Basically, the "discovery" is balderdash.

 

Sorry about he broken link - my phone wasn't cooperating. But it looks as if others have posted some links that say the same thing.

I feel so bad for that poor kid.

 

Try this link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0511/How-Canadian-teen-uses-space-archaeology-in-hunt-for-lost-Mayan-city

I'm as skeptical as the next person, but the "debunking" story is just as unproven as the "discovery" story. Both could be balderdash.

 

I see a lot of "it's probably, or could be blah, blah, blah" in all of the articles.

 

So it could be an old corn field, or it could be the base of a pyramid. It could be a dry lake bed or it could be old buildings.

 

Perhaps everyone should hold off on any definitive terms until someone treks in and takes a look.

[bibiche]

I'm as skeptical as the next person, but the "debunking" story is just as unproven as the "discovery" story. Both could be balderdash.

 

I see a lot of "it's probably, or could be blah, blah, blah" in all of the articles.

 

So it could be an old corn field, or it could be the base of a pyramid. It could be a dry lake bed or it could be old buildings.

 

Perhaps everyone should hold off on any definitive terms until someone treks in and takes a look.

 

I think the archaeologists have all been very careful not to crush the young man, which may be why you think their responses are equivocal.  But trust me, they are all in agreement that there is nothing there.    These are people who are top in their field and have been working in the area for many years, so I think we should defer to their expertise.  The last thing needed is for a bunch of amateurs without experience (or a permit!) to "trek in and take a look."   Which unfortunately is probably what will happen, because hey! everyone wants fifteen minutes of fame.  blergh.

 

There are sites all over the area that have not been excavated and it is not as if people don't know they are there. You don't excavate for the sake of excavating if you are a responsible archaeologist. You dig (and document. And publish your findings.) because you have a question to be answered.  Without a specific reason to dig, it is always better to leave things in situ and undisturbed because future archaeological and conservation methods will likely be superior.  Amateurs who go in and dig destroy valuable data.  There is already a tremendous problem with looting.  So again, the *last* thing that needs to be done is to send a lot of bozos into the area to take a look.

[Corraleno]

I'm as skeptical as the next person, but the "debunking" story is just as unproven as the "discovery" story. Both could be balderdash.

 

I see a lot of "it's probably, or could be blah, blah, blah" in all of the articles.

 

So it could be an old corn field, or it could be the base of a pyramid. It could be a dry lake bed or it could be old buildings.

 

Perhaps everyone should hold off on any definitive terms until someone treks in and takes a look.

 

Other scholars have been less gentle in their criticism. Prof. David Stuart, a Mayan expert and head of The Mesoamerican Center at UT Austin, said the story is false and described it as "a terrible example of junk science hitting the internet in free-fall."

 

Another archaeologist pointed out that the location seems quite close to a well-known Mayan site that has been under excavation since 2009, so not exactly a secret undiscovered spot.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Corraleno

[Katy]

Well, for one thing, similar technology, laying buildings out by astronomical signs or where the sun lined up at solstices, etc, clearly happened in the middle ages in Europe.  I remember watching documentaries on the mystery of it as a kid, some of which has since been spun into all sorts of fiction about conspiracy theories.

 

Until 15 or so years ago, crop circles were an unsolved mystery.  Everyone said it was impossible, no one could fake something like that without leaving a trace.  Until one of the original pranksters showed how easy it was to replicate with a broomstick and some rope.

 

I can tell you that perfectly square shapes of that size are, at the very least, unique in nature.  The mounds build across the US indicate a much larger civilization that was previously thought. My thought is to give the kid the benefit of the doubt until someone verifies or disproves.

[bibiche]

Yeah, except that's not how science works. If I say I found a unicorn are you going to give me the benefit of the doubt? His claim is not much more valid.

[Corraleno]

Well, for one thing, similar technology, laying buildings out by astronomical signs or where the sun lined up at solstices, etc, clearly happened in the middle ages in Europe.  I remember watching documentaries on the mystery of it as a kid, some of which has since been spun into all sorts of fiction about conspiracy theories.

 

Until 15 or so years ago, crop circles were an unsolved mystery.  Everyone said it was impossible, no one could fake something like that without leaving a trace.  Until one of the original pranksters showed how easy it was to replicate with a broomstick and some rope.

 

I can tell you that perfectly square shapes of that size are, at the very least, unique in nature.  The mounds build across the US indicate a much larger civilization that was previously thought. My thought is to give the kid the benefit of the doubt until someone verifies or disproves.

 

The problem is that there is no evidence, at all, that the Mayans built cities (which are great distances apart, separated by dense jungle) in patterns that matched constellations. There is also no evidence at all that a square clearing is likely to be an undiscovered pyramid rather than a cornfield or something much more mundane. The article says the kid became interested in Mayan astronomy when he was reading about the Mayan end-of-the-world stuff in 2012, so I'm guessing his "sources" may not have been the most scholarly to start with. 

 

ETA: And it's certainly not true that "everyone" thought crop circles must have been made by aliens because they were impossible to fake. How people made them was a mystery for a while, but the fact that people, not aliens, made them was never really in doubt. 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Corraleno

[monstermama]

The problem is that there is no evidence, at all, that the Mayans built cities (which are great distances apart, separated by dense jungle) in patterns that matched constellations. There is also no evidence at all that a square clearing is likely to be an undiscovered pyramid rather than a cornfield or something much more mundane. The article says the kid became interested in Mayan astronomy when he was reading about the Mayan end-of-the-world stuff in 2012, so I'm guessing his "sources" may not have been the most scholarly to start with. 

 

ETA: And it's certainly not true that "everyone" thought crop circles must have been made by aliens because they were impossible to fake. How people made them was a mystery for a while, but the fact that people, not aliens, made them was never really in doubt. 

 

My early Latin American history is pretty sketchy, but wasn't what we call Mayan culture a bunch of mostly warring city-states?  Cooperating enough to build their cities in constellation patterns seems unlikely.

[Corraleno]

My early Latin American history is pretty sketchy, but wasn't what we call Mayan culture a bunch of mostly warring city-states?  Cooperating enough to build their cities in constellation patterns seems unlikely.

 

Yes. It's rather like claiming that the Greeks built Athens, Delphi, Olympia, and Sparta in a particular pattern to match a constellation. Even if they weren't exactly warring when the cities were built, it's not as if a bunch of ancient architects got together and drew up plans for all these cities and carefully paced off the distances.

 

The reason the kid gave for trying to match cities to constellations to begin with was totally erroneous. He said he noticed that the locations of the cities "didn't make sense" because they weren't built near lakes or rivers or other natural resources. In fact, the Mayan lowlands are mostly limestone and there are no lakes or rivers; they got their water from large sinkholes (cenotes). The cities were built near water and other resources — no need to "explain" the locations with nutty astrological theories.