Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too.
A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis.
No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists.
It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London.
(London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
> London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century
Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times.
> Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London.
So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.
It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it.
The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate.
In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow.
The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility.
Even ancient substantial ruined stone structures in some areas of the UK exist without much notice being taken of them - e.g. the hill forts at Cademuir south of Peebles. Apart from the fact that the name might mean "great battle" there seems to be relatively little known about them.
A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis.
No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.