An ancient Maya astronomer finally has a name 11%

By Tom Metcalfe7%

7/16/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 652 faulty-reasoning hits from 569 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.3% and a BS Rank of 11% (19,650 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.80% of the article peer group.

A once-anonymous Maya scientist now has a name. 
Sak Tahn Waax, or “White-Chested Fox,” is credited as the author of a calendrical formula painted in Maya glyphs on the wall of a ruin in Guatemala, researchers report July 14 in Antiquity. 
The table of dates and calculations, recorded more than 1,200 years ago, lays out relationships among the cycling positions of Venus and Mars and several cycles of the Maya calendar over an eight-year span. 
While the names of other Maya luminaries are known  rulers are often named in writings and on monuments, and some artists signed their works  this is the first known name of a Maya mathematician-astronomer. 
Maya texts related historical events and natural cycles, and “individuals like Sak Tahn Waax were not only observing these cycles but linking them with each other,” says MIT archaeologist Franco Rossi. 
“It is frankly surprising that more such signatures haven’t turned up.” 
The name and table were discovered at Xultun, an archaeological site near Guatemala's borders with Mexico and Belize. 
They consist of an inverted L-shape of 11 blocks of elaborate Maya glyphs: The top nine blocks record five Maya calendar dates and the intervals between them, and the last two are the “signature” of Sak Tahn Waax  a presentation that implies White-Chested Fox claimed credit or was being credited for the work, Rossi and his colleagues say. 
The dates span 2,920 days  five cycles of Venus, which takes 584 days to return to the same position relative to the sun as seen from Earth, and eight 365-day Haab years. 
Within that span, the table also incorporates shorter Maya calendrical cycles: the 20-day Uinal, or Maya month; the 260-day Tzolkin ritual count; and the 360-day Tun, a yearlike interval. 
The researchers interpret one inferred 1,560-day interval as two 780-day cycles of Mars. 
Such calculations, which linked astronomical and calendrical cycles, underpinned Maya almanacs and divination. 
The first glyphs are damaged, so the researchers reconstructed the most likely starting date from the others: November 11, 781, in the Gregorian calendar. 
They say the table was probably devised in or near that year. 
The glyphs at Xultun list specific dates, but the method embodied in the table could perhaps have been reused for other 2,920-day spans. 
The glyphs were found in a room the researchers think was a workspace for making Maya codices  painted books of bark folded like an accordion. 
More than 50 “rough drafts” of calculations and tables appear on the walls, most painted and a handful incised, suggesting the room was used for intellectual work and perhaps for training astronomers. 
The glyphs were identified as astronomical when the room was discovered in 2010, but they were fully deciphered only recently, revealing the final calendrical formula. 
“These ‘rough draft’ calculations and tables are akin to finding an early version of a well-known manuscript, or a sketch of a great artwork,” Rossi says. 
“This positions us to better understand the inner workings of Classic Maya mathematics and astronomy.” 
Astronomer E.C. 
Krupp, director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, says the formula reconciled Maya calendrical and planetary cycles centuries before comparable tables appeared in surviving Maya codices. 
Krupp, who was not involved in the study, says that Sak Tahn Waax can now be added to the roll of great astronomers: “Maya astronomy has been personalized by this discovery.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.6%Tom Metcalfe: 3.7%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias7.6%This article: 4.2%Tom Metcalfe: 1.6%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.3%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.3%Tom Metcalfe: 1.6%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.1%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%Tom Metcalfe: 9.0%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias22.5%This article: 10.9%Tom Metcalfe: 3.2%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Tom Metcalfe: 1.1%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 1.9%Tom Metcalfe: 0.6%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 1.9%Tom Metcalfe: 1.8%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.0%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.3%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.3%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.0%Tom Metcalfe: 6.1%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority16.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.7%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Tom Metcalfe: 4.5%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.3%Tom Metcalfe: 2.8%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.2%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Tom Metcalfe: 0.7%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Tom Metcalfe: 2.5%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 2.3%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.2%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.1%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

569 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers35%attributed speech369writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageFranco Rossi • 31 words • 0.0% coverageFranco Rossi • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageFranco Rossi • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageFranco Rossi • 26 words • 0.0% coverageFranco Rossi • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageE.C. Krupp • 27 words • 0.0% coverageE.C. Krupp • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Franco Rossi

100%flagged-word coverage
142 attributed words71% of attributed speech62% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.