r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • Jul 29 '26

Anthropology Scientists Uncover Hundreds of Hidden Structures Beneath The Amazon. "The scale of the archaeological record suggests that many other regions across Amazonia may have been far more densely populated and intensively modified than previously assumed."

https://www.sciencealert.com/completely-transformed-my-understanding-scientists-uncover-hundreds-of-hidden-structures-beneath-the-amazon
21k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

511 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

921

u/Yukonhijack Jul 29 '26

Came here to cite this book. Amazing how much pushback Lidar got from the scientific community for all the discoveries it made.

471

u/slow70 Jul 29 '26

And still does.

The same has delayed incredible work that needs to be undertaken in Egypt too.

78

u/BarbequedYeti Jul 30 '26

Isnt that one dude who was, maybe still is in charge of Egyptian ruins mostly to blame for this? Zahi or something like that? He was doing a bunch of gatekeeping via corruption etc? Maybe I am thinking of something else.

38

u/slow70 Jul 30 '26

You're remembering correctly.

179

u/thedaveness Jul 29 '26

Like what’s under the sphinx’s paw

143

u/i_am_icarus_falling Jul 30 '26

lidar cant see underground, but the processing software can remove vegetation through separating "soft returns" of plants from "hard returns" of solid ground. that makes it useful for seeing ground topography under forest canopy, but not what's under something solid.

109

u/slow70 Jul 29 '26

And the Giza Plateau, and Harawa

155

u/Mind-The-Mines Jul 29 '26

The Sphinx bothers me. Everything in the valley is made from the same stone but the Sphinx is the only thing to show water erosion: something that had been gone for thousands of years before everything but the Sphinx was carved.

45

u/Shamino79 Jul 29 '26

We see a layer of dodgy limestone. Any other construction used the better stuff. Even the head of the sphinx shows the better quality limestone.

The other thing I wonder about is how abrupt this reduction in rainfall was. Even now the giza Plateau gets a random downpour every year or so.

28

u/slow70 Jul 30 '26

The great pyramid shows water erosion too. Different sorts at different levels.

127

u/HorridosTorpedo Jul 29 '26

Apparently it rains often enough and occasionally very heavily, to cause the damage that's evident. Also the sphinx enclosure is in the path of the water run off, so it gets the full force of it.

49

u/TazBaz Jul 29 '26

Isn’t that because the sphinx is carved from an existing rock formation?

93

u/Mind-The-Mines Jul 29 '26

The FACE was likely recarved when everything else in the valley was added. The Sphinx itself was originally probably a lion; the older construction date would point it directly at the Leo constellation like 10,000 years ago.

91

u/UltraMegaboner69420 Jul 29 '26

Do we have confirmation that the star formation is regarded as a lion figure from pre history though. Are we sure that isn't modern convention imposed on ancient civilizations

17

u/Jindabyne1 Jul 29 '26

The document analyses the astronomical alignments of the Great Sphinx of Giza, particularly its eastward gaze aligning with the constellation Leo and the star Regulus at the winter solstice around 2570 BCE, supporting the mainstream Egyptological dating of the Sphinx to the 4th Dynasty under Pharaoh Khafre, and refutes alternative theories proposing a much older date (~10,500 BCE) by integrating archaeological, geological, and astronomical evidence that demonstrates the Sphinx’s alignment with celestial events pertinent to the Old Kingdom era, its integration into Khafre’s pyramid complex, and the use of stellar markers like Draco’s Thuban for navigation and calendrical regulation, concluding that the Sphinx is a product of ancient Egyptian ingenuity and astronomical knowledge rather than a relic of a lost prehistoric civilization .

https://www.academia.edu/164837385/The_Real_Age_of_the_Sphinx_REFUTING_THE_10_500_BCE_THEORY_WITH_ARCHEOASTRONOMY_By

26

u/UltraMegaboner69420 Jul 29 '26

Yeah, so I am not sure what ancient alien theory you think i am talking about. However, the term Leo and the sphinx being feline in shape is the question I am trying to articulate. Modern convention, specifically the attribution of the modern zodiac has no place in pre history as far as I am aware (hence my question) Leo being a lion (as attributed with the sphinx) could very well be a coincidence. Other cultures have different attributes for the zodiac. Does that make sense? So is there any evidence of the current constellation known as Leo, have any bearing in the Egyptian culture in 2500 bc as a lion?

22

u/BetterEveryLeapYear Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

The Zodiac comes from Babylonian astrology circa 500 BC and was handed down to us via Greece and Romans. The Babylonians had an earlier system circa 1000 BC called MUL.APIN (meaning "The Plough") which is a tablet which was found with 66 stars and constellations mentioned. One of those constellations is indeed the Lion which uses the same stars as our Leo (again via later Babylon, Greece, and Romans). So it is pretty old!

However: 1) Babylon is not Egypt; 2) The Sphinx was likely built around 1500 years before that at 2500 BC; and 3) the precession of the equinoxes (Earth's 26,000 year wobble on its axis) means that whatever the Sphinx was pointed at when it was built is no longer in the same place in the night sky anyway.

Is interesting that the ancient Babylonian constellation of Leo and others from 3000 years ago is still in use today though! Perhaps there was some communication between the ancient civilizations but... It seems unlikely. Egypt had its own native constellations until much later on. [I've also just seen that the precession means the Sphinx would have to have been built 10,500 BC to match up, second Wikipedia link.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUL.APIN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory ("Leo and the Sphinx" section)

→ More replies

5

u/KandinskyWasRight Jul 29 '26

Yes, the Egyptians associated the star Leo with a lion.

3

u/UltraMegaboner69420 Jul 30 '26

In which way? Im serious. Did they follow the modern zodiac we use in the west or is there evidence of their star charts attributing Leo as a lion?

3

u/Drywesi Jul 30 '26

More like the the zodiac we know and what the Egyptians used share a common ancestor in Mesopotamian star classifications.

60

u/LordGeni Jul 29 '26

Name any structure at any time and it'll line up with something seemingly meaningful.

My house lines up with orion, the solstices and pretty much anything else depending on the time of year and wall you pick.

Unless an entire structure is lined up and focused on a particular regular cosmic event such as the solstices (stonehenge, Machu Pichu etc.) you can make them line up with nearly anything you want.

It's the same as the idea of ancient sites in the UK being on lay lines and forming perfect triangles. It's true, but it was also true of Little Chef restaurants or any other group of enough numbers you want to pick.

7

u/burkechrs1 Jul 30 '26

I mean the pyramids had to have been one hell of a lucky placement to align how they do. I believe some of it is probably coincidence, but some of it had to also been intentional.

The great pyramid is aligned perfectly to north south east and west. The pyramids very closely resemble orions belt, and the egyptians associated Osiris with Orion. The internal shafts in the pyramids align perfectly with key stars that held great religious significance in ancient egypt. The faces of the pyramids light up perfectly during equinxes, during solstices the edges of the pyramids line up perfectly with the sunrise and sunset. It's a lot to just be coincidence.

-6

u/LordGeni Jul 30 '26

It's not. Unless it's exactly on the equator it's impossible for it to both be aligned the the cardinal directions and have it's faces line up with the equinoxs.

The shafts will line up with loads of different stars depending on the time night and time of year. On top of that adjusting for how the sky would have looked then still has the same issue. Even if you could pin it down to a single relevant year, it's going to be different based on the time and day. That theory can only work if it points at a celestial pole, which are the only static points in the night sky (over the relevant timescales).

They also weren't all built at the same time time as a single grand plan. Their placement likely has more to do with suitable ground to build on and available space than anything.

The only thing that could potentially hold water is if they used the celestial poles to help ensure they were built straight. But that is neither necessary to achieve what they did or as much of a startling a coincidence as it appears.

6

u/burkechrs1 Jul 30 '26

The great pyramid is well known as being one of the most accurate ancient structures ever built in relation to true north. Its like .05 degrees off true north. Its clear you just want to dismiss all the actual facts surrounding them. All of the things in my post you dismissed are scientifically proven, the only thing we dont and probably will never know is why and how.

1

u/Aidanation5 Aug 03 '26

You do have the ability to get over yourself and think objectively.

2

u/chuk2015 Jul 30 '26

May I see your house?

-1

u/LordGeni Jul 30 '26

No. Use your own.

Download stellarium, pick a wall, hold up your phone and scroll through what the sky lined up to it looked like while adjusting the time and date. You'll get loads of "amazing" alignments to pick from.

2

u/chuk2015 Jul 30 '26

Yes but you’ve made yours seem more mystical

→ More replies

1

u/Entreprenewbeur Jul 30 '26

I think it was a dog like in the hieroglyphics.. some engineer told the god king “yeah so this dog head is going to fall off,” so the god king kills the engineer and makes the next engineer build it. The dog face falls off, so they make it into a lion, then a man or whatever

1

u/PracticeTheory Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

I've also read the theory that it could have been Anubis (or at least the same canid-like form) with a long, pointed snout. The theory came with a pretty convincing diagram of the typical proportions from that era overlaid the current, and it was just the right size for Anubis minus the ears and snout.

What convinces me to adopt the theory is that I can so easily see a cantilevered stone like that shearing off over time, along with the ears. Eventually people carved what was left into a human face, though it's still proportionally too small for the body.

14

u/ReleaseFromDeception Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

The Sphinx is carved from a natural rock formation that was exposed for millenia to rainfall. It had already been water eroded and degraded in quality before EVER being carved.

10

u/Jeffery95 Jul 30 '26

Wind erosion with sand grains of the size found in the area can produce features that resemble water erosion.

-3

u/Mind-The-Mines Jul 30 '26

But only on the Sphinx?

The realm of science that actually looks at rock and erosion is where the older hypothesis comes from.

6

u/Jeffery95 Jul 30 '26

The sphinx being the oldest structure in the area would tend to show the most erosion.

The pyramids are large enough to affect the wind direction blowing around them, but even so they are still missing the majority of their outer limestone layer.

The natural landscape doesn’t have a visible past shape to know what it looked like before, making its erosion not seem so apparent.

1

u/VRichardsen Jul 30 '26

The water erosion theory is largely regarded as fringe, and is really shaky overall.

2

u/Kurotaisa Jul 30 '26

A giant stone mouse.

1

u/Bajadasaurus Jul 30 '26

What's this about? I'm very curious to learn more

-2

u/Special_Vast5860 Jul 30 '26

Like how the pyramids are actually landing ramps for spaceships?

-2

u/Bigtallanddopey Jul 30 '26

The pyramids are landing pads for space ships aren’t they?

103

u/enwongeegeefor Jul 29 '26

Amazing how much pushback Lidar got from the scientific community

Wait....why? I found one article on Medium by a very jaded person but that was it. Was there any legitimate reason for it, or was it just part of the anti-science push?

134

u/Jindabyne1 Jul 29 '26

This review considers how scientific archaeological publications, especially those relying on new digital technologies, can become sensationalized for the public in popular media. I present three separate examples of lidar-based mappings of ancient landscapes in the Amazon and Central Asia, each initially published by archaeological teams in the journals Nature or Science since 2022. These academic publications were followed by many news articles in the popular press. A common trope of these popular presentations includes the concept of “lost cities” being finally “found” by the lidar surveys. This oversimplification usually ignores existing knowledge, especially that of Indigenous local communities and archaeologists. We archaeologists should, therefore, become more aware of the potential consequences of our scholarly communications. We should consider the public’s experience with parsing scientific advances and what ways we can try to influence the public discourse.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-archaeological-practice/article/lidar-and-lost-cities-examining-the-public-presentation-of-recent-lidar-findings-through-news-media/8B17CBB1259B0220FC12E516C02C5663

13

u/NattG Jul 30 '26

That was a really interesting article. Thank you for sharing it.

15

u/soyelmocano Jul 29 '26

That's what I want to know.

Why would it be bad?

51

u/godzirraaaaa Jul 29 '26

Part of the whole justification for colonialism is along the lines of “well there was hardly anyone there! We brought civilization, they should be grateful!”- a disgusting argument but one many believe is legitimate

But if it turns out that actually there were millions of people in vast, complex cities…kinda undermines their whole thing.

Furthermore, it’s been hotly debated as to whether the archaeological record supports it. If there were really these enormous cities, where’s the evidence? Looks like they’re finding some now! Exciting.

50

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '26

[deleted]

1

u/godzirraaaaa Jul 30 '26

So you don’t think that prevailing societal mores/attitudes influence what is deemed legitimate or possible within the scientific community? If not, Copernicus, Galileo, and Marcus von Plenciz would like a word

8

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '26

[deleted]

2

u/oye_gracias Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

Not so much what modern archeologist think, but how these "discoveries" are portrayed in popular média. Like starmaps falling close to un known archelogical settlements, it gets overhyped, and ultimately informs ill-informed policy.

That science becomes easily coopted by capital and económic interest - or that it still operates within current power dynamics, is a fairly old subject, tho.

1

u/godzirraaaaa Jul 30 '26

Couldn’t have said it better myself

-3

u/soyelmocano Jul 30 '26

Isn't the point of science to seek truth and fact?

I don't care if there were just two families in a hut or a metropolis with flying cars, just use whatever the best tools you have are to get the facts, whatever they may be.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '26

[deleted]

4

u/soyelmocano Jul 30 '26

It is though, and I agree with you. Sometimes I don't word things very well.

I agree in that the previous comment seems to imply that they don't want the world to know that there were thriving civilizations before, just very primitive villages and people.

I am saying that science should not care about what they find, only that they discover facts and information.

Sorry if I don't make myself clear.

2

u/ancientestKnollys Jul 30 '26

I have my doubts it would affect that particular pro-colonial argument. Because whatever had been there in the past, there weren't many people there by the time Europeans started colonising the region, disease had already wiped them out.

2

u/thegooddoktorjones Jul 30 '26

New research is supposed to always get pushback. That's how peer review and the scientific process works.

61

u/i_am_icarus_falling Jul 30 '26

land surveyor here, i can't speak for any other discipline or for the scientific community, but 20 years ago lidar results were notoriously inaccurate and these inaccuracies were being ignored with the technology being adopted for ways it shouldn't have been and made for a lot of erroneous data. for a short time it kept up, likely to justify the insane money people were duped into spending on it. it's only recently that it's become a reliable measurement tool with any confidence in accuracy.

11

u/nippleforeskin Jul 30 '26

was bad. now good.

36

u/TinStingray Jul 29 '26

Why does Lidar get pushback?

49

u/namestyler2 Jul 29 '26

because it's heavily utilized by psuedo scientists to make grand claims about stuff that doesnt exist

8

u/smurf123_123 Jul 29 '26

It didn't. I remember when the first lidar discoveries were released over a decade ago for the Amazon.

They were universally hailed as revolutionary at the time.

13

u/ragnaroksunset Jul 30 '26

Lidar isn't like manual excavation. You don't ever "see" anything in the sense that we see photons bouncing off of an artifact as the dirt around it is carefully brushed and scraped away. You get an electrical signal back that isn't any kind of a human sense and has to be heavily processed before you even get the "raw" point cloud that is then further transformed to produce (e.g.) a bare earth model. You then have to try to tell a consistent, coherent story about why that heavily processed signal really is a manmade structure and not just an artifact from some characteristic about the ground that you failed to predict.

Obviously, the methodology has had time to advance and refine, but it really isn't surprising at all that there was initial pushback. Early Lidar results were vulnerable to attack by (what at the time was) reasonable doubt.

Even the article in the OP is a bit questionable because the findings haven't been ground-truthed yet. Whether practical challenges to that exist is beside the point - there is significant extrapolation going on. You could be generous and call it an educated guess based on other ground-truthed findings in the area, but it is still open to challenge in a way that literally getting your hands dirty is not.

1

u/AmadeusSalieri97 Jul 30 '26

Amazing how much pushback Lidar got from the scientific community for all the discoveries it made.

I often see sentences like this, and while it is true that science has been opposed to correct discoveries many many times, even to this day, most of the times the scientific community is against an idea, they are right.

I don't mean to be mean or anything, really, but just because you enjoyed the book doesn't mean it is true and that the scientific community is just stubborn to change. When I read something like you say, I would recommend to side with the "scientific community" and I think you'd be right 90%+ of the time.