No, not here, this is not the National Geographic Blog. Here, at the National Geographic Blog...
But wait, don't go there yet, I want to make a quick comment...
With almost no exceptions, and one of those exceptions is a Pyramid, the finds that National Geographic sees as most important are dead bodies, often mummies, sometimes piles of skeletons.
Is it possible, I ask you, that this is what archaeology is all about? No way, man! This is, perhaps what National Geographic, or the readers of National Geographic, is all about. And sure, this stuff is cool. But really, give me a break.
Perhaps in the future National Geographic should consider breaking it down a bit differently. Like the way Time Magazine does it's news stories of the year, NGS could use different categories. They could have a top ten in paleolithic archeology, a top ten in "origins and earliestest" finds (perhaps call that one "firsts and foremosts"), a top ten in "civilizations and their dusty-contents" and of course, one on "Top Ten Dead Guys and Gals: The More Gruesome the Greater."
I'm just sayin'
- Log in to post comments
Greg said: "...the finds that National Geographic sees as most important..."
From National Geographic: "... this year's most popular archaeology stories from National Geographic News."
That means these are just the most viewed or emailed NatGeo stories of 2007, not the finds or research of 2007 that NatGeo finds most important. Big difference. That's like going to Yahoo! News' "Most Popular" page and claiming that Yahoo! has deemed those stories most important.
That being said, most of these stories are arguably among the least important of the year. My top pick is probably the findings about the start of urbanization at Tell Brak.
Good point, Son. Nonetheless, I would wish NGS to be above unadulterated beauty pageants.