Age is Important for Archeology

This is a recurring idea or concept of mine, I am about to knock off a place on the checklist, or tick in as the Brits say, I am going soon to the Pyramids of Egypt.

I have been to:
Angkor Wat
Tikal in Guatemala - Mayan
Incas - Machu Picchu
Mexico City - They have Aztec or something, they have Pyramids.
Brugge, Belgium 1050

There is this idea that a place has to be covered with sand or someway lost to be a good archeology site, I would say many castles and forts of both Europe and for sure in Asia, are great.

Oh yes, I have also seen the Great Wall of China.

1200 AD

(1) 1200 BC to 200 AD built Temples and ended around 900 AD
Mayan - Meso-American Indians occupying a nearly continuous territory in southern Mexico, Guatemala, and northern Belize.

1200 AD to after 1500 AD when the Spanish destroyed a lot.

2500 BC
(1) three 4th-dynasty (c. 2575�c. 2465 BC) pyramids erected on a rocky plateau on the west bank of the Nile River near Al-JYzah (Giza), northern Egypt; in ancient times they were included among the Seven Wonders of the World. The ancient ruins of the Memphis area, including the Pyramids of Giza, �aqq(rah, Dahsh¨r, Ab¨ Ruwaysh, and Ab¨ �Yr, were collectively designated a World Heritage site in 1979.

For the curious, Tikal is my top, then Brugge, I will see how the Egyptian Pyramids play out.

I am for sure taking age into the game, a modern country can with large equipment make the world tallest building if they are willing to pay, however like Paris or any major ancient places on the planet, these building sites were done with the push on the lower class.

Really there has to always be a surplus of food on the planet or nobody could have a war or build these huge monuments to themselves.

DARN- Invade above by funky letter, sorry.


My Account