• EccentricOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just copied the original title. Yes, it’s definitely because they’re not as visually impressive

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • kersplooshA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As others said in the article, I had no idea. Thanks for the good read!

  • Rylyshar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I tried to read the article, but the ads interrupted the read and I couldn’t get it back.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • EccentricOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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