Overview
A major Maya center sits approximately fifteen minutes on foot from an active highway. It includes plazas, causeways, reservoirs, and what appears to be a ball court. More than 6,500 features have been detected across roughly 47 square miles.
And no, it was not lost. Locals have lived and farmed in the region for generations.
The discovery was not made with a machete. It was made by reopening a 2013 airborne LiDAR dataset that was not even collected for archaeology. The data sat unused for years. When archaeologist Alanna M. Reed reanalyzed it through an archaeological lens, a densely engineered landscape emerged from beneath the forest canopy.
The site is now called Valeriana. And it raises a question more interesting than "What did we find?" It raises: "How much are we still missing because we are not looking the right way?"
What LiDAR Is (And Is Not)
LiDAR is not a photograph. It is a time-and-distance measurement technology. A sensor mounted on an aircraft emits laser pulses toward the ground. The pulses reflect off surfaces—tree canopy, understory vegetation, ground—and return to the sensor. By measuring the time it takes for each pulse to return, the system calculates elevation.
The result is a point cloud: millions of individual elevation measurements that can be processed into a terrain model. When processed correctly, LiDAR can "see through" vegetation and reveal the shape of the ground beneath dense forest.
But here is the critical detail: LiDAR does not interpret itself. The data must be processed. And processing involves assumptions.
If the data is collected for forest monitoring, the processing algorithms are tuned to identify tree canopy structure, biomass, and vegetation density. They are not tuned to detect subtle variations in micro-topography—the low mounds, shallow depressions, and slight rises that mark ancient human construction.
When Alanna M. Reed reprocessed the 2013 dataset, she adjusted those assumptions. She looked for archaeological features instead of trees. And the landscape changed.
The 6,500 Structure Claim: What It Means
Press summaries often cite "over 6,500 structures." That phrasing is careful. And it needs to be.
Not all detected features have the same level of confidence.
Large features—plazas, causeways, reservoirs, monumental platforms—produce clear signatures in LiDAR data. These features are big. They modify the landscape at a scale that survives vegetation, erosion, and time. When LiDAR detects a 50-meter-wide platform or a linear causeway extending hundreds of meters, there is little ambiguity. These are human constructions.
Small features—residential platforms, low house mounds, small retaining walls—are where uncertainty increases. In karst landscapes like the Maya lowlands, natural limestone rubble can form low mounds. Erosion can create depressions. And once the data is smoothed for visualization, these natural features can appear deceptively rectilinear.
The honest claim is this: the landscape is crowded. There is at least one very dense center now called Valeriana. And within that center, the urban grammar—the arrangement of plazas, monumental precincts, and infrastructure—is unmistakable.
But the exact count of 6,500 structures should be understood as "6,500 detected features, some of which are certainly ancient buildings, and some of which may be natural topography misidentified as construction." Ground-truthing through excavation is required to distinguish between them.
Urban Grammar: What Makes Valeriana a Center
What pushes Valeriana beyond a scatter of random settlement is the presence of urban grammar—the architectural patterns that signal centralized planning and political authority.
Plazas
Multiple plaza spaces have been identified. Plazas are not accidental. They require labor to level, maintain, and define. They serve as gathering spaces for public ceremonies, markets, or political events. The presence of multiple plazas suggests a site that hosted large-scale social activities over time.
Ball Courts
At least one structure has been identified as a probable ball court—a rectangular playing field flanked by sloped walls. Ball courts are diagnostic features of Mesoamerican political centers. They are not found in every settlement. Their presence correlates with political authority, ritual importance, and regional influence.
The ball game was not recreational. It was ceremonial, political, and often tied to cosmological beliefs. A ball court is a statement.
Causeways
Causeways—raised roads connecting different parts of the site—have been detected. These are engineered features. They require planning, labor, and maintenance. They facilitate movement through the landscape and connect monumental precincts.
Causeways do not appear in small villages. They appear in centers with the organizational capacity to mobilize labor and coordinate construction across generations.
Reservoirs
Water control infrastructure is visible across the site. In a region with pronounced wet and dry seasons, reservoir engineering is not optional. It is governance.
The Maya highlands and lowlands experience seasonal drought. Storing water during the rainy season for use during the dry months requires technical knowledge, labor coordination, and long-term planning. It also requires maintenance. A reservoir that silts up or breaches is useless.
The presence of multiple reservoirs at Valeriana suggests sustained management over time. This is not a temporary camp. It is a settlement with infrastructure designed to support a population through seasonal variability.
The Temporal Problem: LiDAR Collapses Time
Here is the limitation that matters most: LiDAR collapses centuries into a single map.
The features detected in the data represent the accumulated construction of the site over its entire occupation. A plaza built in AD 300 appears in the same layer as a house mound constructed in AD 800. The map shows everything at once. It does not show when each feature was built or how long it was in use.
This creates ambiguity around two critical questions:
How many structures were occupied simultaneously?
The 6,500 detected features do not necessarily represent 6,500 buildings in use at the same time. Some were built, abandoned, and replaced. Some were occupied for centuries. Others may have been used briefly and left to erode.
Without excavation to separate stratigraphic layers and establish construction sequences, we cannot determine peak population or simultaneous occupation.
What was the site's timeline?
The Classic Maya period spans roughly AD 250 to AD 900. Within that timeframe, political centers rose, declined, and were sometimes reoccupied. Valeriana's specific chronology—when it was founded, when it peaked, when it was abandoned—is not answered by LiDAR.
These questions require excavation. LiDAR tells us where to dig. It does not replace digging.
Why It Was Missed
The claim that Valeriana was "lost" is misleading. The site was not lost. It was unrecognized.
Locals have lived and farmed in the region for generations. They walk past mounds. They clear fields on platforms. But without training in archaeology or access to comparative datasets, the features do not register as part of a once-continuous urban landscape.
And traditional archaeological survey—teams walking transects through the forest, recording visible mounds—struggles in dense vegetation. Features obscured by canopy, covered by leaf litter, or eroded into low rises are easy to miss. Ground survey requires extraordinary effort to cover even a fraction of the area LiDAR can map in hours.
The 2013 airborne survey was not designed for archaeology. It was flown for forest monitoring—tracking deforestation, biomass, and carbon storage. The data sat in an archive. No one had processed it with archaeological questions in mind.
When Alanna M. Reed reanalyzed the data in the early 2020s, she applied archaeological processing methods. And the landscape revealed itself.
This is not a story about a hidden city waiting to be found. It is a story about data processing blind spots. The information existed. It just was not being interpreted archaeologically.
The Verdict: Real Discovery, Real Caveats
As a skeptical reading of the evidence, here is what can be said with confidence:
-
A densely engineered landscape exists. The LiDAR data shows clear modification of the terrain—plazas, causeways, platforms, reservoirs. These are not natural formations.
-
Valeriana was a political center. The urban grammar—ball court, monumental precincts, water infrastructure—indicates centralized authority and regional significance.
-
The 6,500 structure count is uncertain. Large features are reliable. Small features require validation. Natural topography can mimic human construction.
-
Population and chronology are unresolved. LiDAR does not provide dates. It does not distinguish simultaneous occupation from sequential construction. Excavation is needed.
This is not a ghost city inflated by data processing. It is a real site. But the details—how many people lived there, when they lived there, and how the site functioned politically and economically—are questions that remote sensing cannot answer alone.
The Larger Question
The discovery of Valeriana is significant. But the more interesting implication is methodological.
If a site this dense, this close to modern infrastructure, went unrecognized until a decade-old dataset was reprocessed, how many other sites remain invisible in existing archives?
LiDAR data has been collected for purposes other than archaeology—forestry surveys, infrastructure planning, environmental monitoring—across Maya regions and beyond. Much of that data has never been analyzed archaeologically.
The question is not "Are there more lost cities?" The question is: "How much data already exists that we have not yet interpreted correctly?"
Valeriana was not found by exploring an unmapped region. It was found by looking at a mapped region differently. And that shift—from discovery through fieldwork to discovery through data reanalysis—is reshaping how archaeology approaches the problem of visibility.
What Remains Unresolved
The LiDAR analysis identified Valeriana. It did not excavate it.
The chronology of the site—when it was founded, when it reached its peak population, when it was abandoned—is unknown. The relationships between Valeriana and neighboring centers are unclear. The economic base that supported the population is unconfirmed.
These are questions that require ground-truthing. Test excavations to establish dates. Ceramic analysis to identify trade connections. Soil chemistry to understand agricultural practices.
Remote sensing opens the door. Excavation walks through it.
Explore the Arc
This case file is part of the Old World Arc.
View related investigations and site evidence here:
Open Old World Topic Hub