Because they aren’t as visually impressive?
I just copied the original title. Yes, it’s definitely because they’re not as visually impressive
Exactly. To cite from the article: “…a historic monument that did not, honestly, look like all that much to me.” “It mostly looked like a scrubby field with a gravel plant on the other side.” “…not particularly photogenic piles of dirt…” “This isn’t the easiest World Heritage Site you’re ever gonna visit…” The archeological significance is probably really huge, but the visual impact is too low to make it as interesting to general public as the pyramids.
As others said in the article, I had no idea. Thanks for the good read!
I learned a lot! Glad you enjoyed it too
I tried to read the article, but the ads interrupted the read and I couldn’t get it back.
deleted by creator
Did you read the article?
The article is very long and talks mostly about the efforts to make the place a UNESCO world heritage site. There’s comparably very little information about the structures and their uses.
Yeah it’s definitely more about the UNESCO application process and the ramifications for the indigenous community than the archaeology on site. But it was still a very informative read because I’d never thought about that side of historical preservation before
deleted by creator
