Pyramids in Greece

[Gregg]

A good book that discusses the history of the Greek pyramid myth is "Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public," by Garrett G. Fagan.

Gregg

[Dan D'Silva]

I know I'm more than a little late here, but...

The Minoan language is generally considered an isolate of an unknown family, though I'm sure someone has tried to connect it to every other language in the Eastern Hemisphere. They had a lot of cultural influence on the Mycenaeans, but they weren't themselves Greek.

[PMBardunias]

I thought the so-calle pyramids were actually some type of tower structure, not pyramids at all.
I'm sure it was discussed some time ago, somewhere on here.

Those tholos tombs were lined on the inside with stone. If all of the soil of the mound eroded away, wouldn't you be left with something that looks like what was shown earlier in this thread?

The Minoan language is generally considered an isolate of an unknown family, though I'm sure someone has tried to connect it to every other language in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Crete is genetically linked to Anatolia, so Hurrian and real early indo-european would seem appropriate. Though perhaps a Luwian influx can account for all the shared genetics.

[Idomeneas]

There can be endless speculating about the purpose and original form of these structures. Since stone cannot be carbon dated (as far as i know) we dont have even an aproximate date to discuss on. The only real and bold answer is ''We dont know, and possibly we never will unless we get really lucky in the future''. Actually the same answer applies to many issues of archaeology. I am really annoyed when i read theories of ''scholars'' or ''pseudoarchaeologists'' (the terms seems many times to be interchangeable, depending of who has the best PR in the academic community) almost declaring the absolute truth of what essentially is just an opinion. Some say these are the first pyramids, others say its just a hellenistic watchtower forgeting to tell us that they actually have no facts to support their theories, just their ''afilliation'' to one or the other side.
If we only consider how many terms that we reffer as basis to support other theories, are just made-up. Byzantine, Indoeuropean, hoplon (as shield) etc. And offcourse we can add to these the pop culture syndroms, of popular illustrations or descriptions making their way to media and in the end establishing in the peoples conscious as ''true''. I believe that the experimental archaeology and reverse engineering the fellow reenactors apply to their every day activities, worth hundreds of times more than the notions of armchair scholars. Offcourse i wouldnt bag the whole academic community. Thank God there are plenty academians ready to ''get their hands dirty'', pick up a period tool or gear and then speculate, doing some real service to the public that is interested in history and not politics.

Sorry for my rant but I had to post these thoughts :oops: