For such an exciting subject matter, the Times article leaves something to be desired. First of all, the sensationalism of Fawcett's quest should have worn out by now, and needn't be the basis of reports that should be about the ecology of the civilization itself. But more appallingly, the Times' reporter is so fixated on the notion of an Edenic, pristine past, that he contradicts himself in his writing. Though the writer claims that "Z" was an enormous and complex civilization, which required serious modification in the landscape (it was in the Amazon, after all), he seems to think that deforestation is counterproductive to our understanding of Z. The subtitle of his article reads: "The newly discovered rainforest civilization shows that deforestation is not just vandalism but a crime against history." ...What?
Pärssinen et al. explicitly state that "In the last 30 years,...areas once believed to be pristine forest began to be cleared for the cattle industry. In their new treeless, savanna-like landscape, the ancient earthen structures became visible, especially from the sky." As harmful to biodiversity as deforestation is, the ancient city would not have been found if trees hadn't been cleared. Maybe it was an editor who wrote the Times subtitle, but it's still irresponsible journalism.