Saruku
Jr. Member
Posts: 341
|
|
« on: October 01, 2020, 06:07:20 PM » |
|
I was clearly referring to the natives of the United States with that remark. I have been to the pyramids in Mexico and climbed them myself.
Are you unfamiliar with the Mississippian mounds? Cahokia was an entire city built upon high, man made mounds, the largest of which was as big as a pyramid. It was fairly close to Saint Louis, and at its height, was slightly larger in population than the contemporary city of London.
Unless I am incorrect, the extent to which we can call those "permanent structures" is debatable. Most of those structures are now gone, and those that remain have become increasingly overgrown to the point that they resemble grassy hills. Not exactly Giza.
You seem to be using a very narrow definition of "permanent structures" that would exclude most of the architectural products of civilizations that built with wood rather than stone. If Japan was suddenly depopulated much of Kyoto and Nara would soon cease to be "permanent structures" by this standard too.
Hmm, I suppose "permanent structure" can refer to just any building with a roof that stays in one place. Nevertheless, I was thinking more about structures that can stand the test of time.
ancestral puebloans
|