Greek pyramids, also known as the Pyramids
of Argolis, refers to several structures located in the plain of Argolid, Greece. The best known of these is known as the Pyramid of Hellinikon. In the
time of the geographer Pausanias it was considered to be a tomb. Twentieth century researchers have suggested other
possible uses.[1]
Writing in the 2nd century AD the Pausanias mentions
two buildings resembling pyramids, one, twelve miles southwest of the still
standing structure at Hellenikon (Ελληνικό in Greek),[2] a common tomb for soldiers who died in a legendary
struggle for the throne of Argos and another which he was told was the tomb of Argives
killed in a battle around 669/8 BC. Neither of these still survive and there is
no evidence that they resembled Egyptian pyramids.
There are also at least two surviving pyramid-like
structures still available to study, one at Hellenikon and
the other at Ligourio/Ligurio, a village near the ancient theatre Epidaurus. At
the Southeastern edge of the plain of Argolid, near the springs of the Erasinos river (nowadays Kephalari) and on the main arterial road which in antiquity led
from Argos to Tegea and the rest of Arcadia and Kynouria, there is a small structure extant known as the
Pyramid of Hellenikon.
Although the pyramid structures of Argolis are of great interest, written
references are rather scarce and they are not mentioned in ancient sources.s
ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel,
previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory
about the age of these structures.[3] Pausanias (2nd century AD) mentions two buildings resembling
pyramids, one, twelve miles southwest of the still standing structure at
Hellinikon,[4] a common tomb for soldiers who died in a legendary
struggle for the throne of Argos and another which he was told was the tomb of Argives
killed in a battle around 669/8 BC. Neither of these still survive.
On
the way from Argos to Epidauria there is on the right a building made very like
a pyramid, and on it in relief are wrought shields of the Argive shape. Here
took place a fight for the throne between Proetus and Acrisius; the contest,
they say, ended in a draw, and a reconciliation resulted afterwards, as neither
could gain a decisive victory. The story is that they and their hosts were
armed with shields, which were first used in this battle. For those that fell
on either side was built here a common tomb, as they were fellow citizens and
kinsmen.[5]
There is considerable controversy about the dates of
these structures, with conflict between dating based on archeological
excavations and dating through what was at the time the new technique ofthermoluminescence dating, Ioannis Liritzis and his team argue for an early date through five
sub-projects: 1) geophysical prospection inside and around the two pyramidals
at Hellenikon and Ligourio, where buried monuments were discovered,[9] 2) these results directed the archaeological
excavations carried out by archaeologist A.Sampson and archaeologists of the
Archaeological Museum of Nauplion. Amongst the new finds were foundations of
rooms, ceramics of Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Protochristian periods,
and protohelladic II in the exterior foundations of Hellenikon above the
bedrock. A comparative study of masonries was also made,[10][11] 3) astronomical orientation of the long entrance
corridor was found related to the rise of Orion’s belt occurring in c.2000-2400
BC.,[12]4) the dating of some parts of the overlied large
megalithic blocks in the wall, with the novel thermoluminescence dating method
of rock surfaces. Sampling was chosen for their firmness and lack of sun
exposure of internal contact surfaces, by removing a few milligrams of powder
from pieces in firm contact. Seven pieces gave an age range of c. 2000–2500
BC.,[13][14].,[15] while two ceramic sherds of non-diagnostic typology
one from Hellenikon and one from Ligourio dated by TL and OSL gave concordant
ages of 3000±250 BC and 660±200 BC respectively.[16] This time frame sets the construction of these
pyramids to overlap the construction of the pyramids in Egypt.
Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some
of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method,
as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain
points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the
results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research
are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and
Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall,
etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have
been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research
from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia, was ignored. She argues
that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested
methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these
structures.,[17]
Liritzis responded in a journal article published in
2011, stating that Lefkowitz failed to understand and misinterpreted the
methodology.[18]
A. Sampson wrote that it was "already proved that
the monument stood on Protohelladic constructions, therefore it was built in a
later time. Besides, the masonry of the pyramid, similar to that of Ligourio,
leads us to the Classic or Late Classic years. A new method for dating the
stone, recently applied to the pyramids, indicated a too early dating in the
4th and 3rd millenium BC, which of course cannot be accepted. .[19]
Σχόλια
Δημοσίευση σχολίου