Talk:Greek pyramids

Changes in history of dating
Hi. I made a very important update to the history of the dating. It is very important to be clarified that these pyramids have no relation to Egyptian ones and also that the dating with luminescence (optical stimulated luminescence or thermoluminescence) is an acceptable method for dating from entire the scientific community. Nick. I made these Changes. --Nikplas (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Helleniko/Hellenikon
These are the two favorite spellings, not Hellinkon. Additionally, I think the article should discuss all claims for pyramids in Greece, and thus should be titled Greek pyramids just as we have Chinese pyramids. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Or at least Argolid pyramids, since all the sources tend to talk about this and Ligourio simultaneously. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 12:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Greek pyramids, with the other spellings and Argolid pyramids as redirects? Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrections that should be done to the Author
As I mentioned to the section Corrections that should be done to the section of the Lemma related to Greece of the Talk:Pyramid of the general lemma Pyramid the assumptions of Mary Lefkowitz are without any scientific evidence and therefore her comments are misleading. Suggestions are not a proof and therefore suggestions or working hypotheses are not scientifically sound to be cited in official pages such as the Wiki lemmas.

For example the lemma mentions She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions

This is totally wrong. Any possible dismantling of an older structure and reuse of slabs to another monument the age of slabs represents the last use not the initial one due to their light exposure prior to their setting on the wall.

As I suggest to the Talk:Pyramid, the paragraph with Mary Lefkowitz criticism should be replaced by the administrators with a short paragraph e.g. Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research but on purely theoretical assumptions, while in several points she mixes up methodological aspects obviously due to her lack of expertise in dating methods, or refers to other work not cited.

77.49.7.196 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't do that, see WP:OR. You are welcome to find reliable sources that comment on her work in regard to this issue, but we can only reflect what such sources say, not our own interpretations of the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological findings
It is very strange that the article currenly does not contain any useful information about the history of archaeologic findings around, inside, backgroups of the pyramid, except for dating information. There should be a lot about this; could please anyone with the knowledge and sources fill it up? DenisRS (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing strange at all, there's been no one with the knowledge and sources reading it to do it is the most likely explanation. Dougweller (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pyramids of Caral older than Hellinikon?
I seems that archeologists consider pyramids of Caral to be of the same age, or possibly older than the Hellinicon pyramid. According to this source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-12-16/science/27988573_1_civilisation-pyramids-discovery, evidence has been found that the pyramids of south america are at least from 2,627 BC (with strong accurancy), but many believe that they are even older because many parts are still to be dated: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0103/p11s1-woam.html. Interted (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks. One of the references, the website, doesn't look like a reliable source, the other doesn't even claim it's the oldest in the world, just says it's older than Egyptian pyramids. Plus there's Lefkowitz's argument that the dates are wrong. All that coupled with Caral (which the editor who added the claim probably didn't know about) has convinced me to remove the claim. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions
Why are the dimensions of these pyramids not mentioned in this article? That is very basic information any reader would expect to find, which should have been included in this article from the very beginning, and its omission does not reflect well on our purportedly "encyclopedic" project. How do they compare in size to the pyramids of Egypt, Nubia, or Mesoamerica? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Pausanias Dating
Theoretically, Proetus and Acrisius lived around 1412-1389BC, or the days of Amenhotep 3 in Egypt. The science does not appear to align with this dating. 2601:58B:E7F:8410:5B84:3940:B22D:E683 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)