We turn now to southern Europe and Greece, to one of its small islands, Evia. Here we find some find very fascinating and very curious prehistoric, stone buildings that locals have called ‘Dragon Houses’ for many centuries.
They do not quite fit the definition of megaliths since they are more complex than the menhir and dolmen. Though they are rather primitive being comprised of rough megaliths stones, whose blocks were stacked without mortar of any kind.
However, these are assembled into a much more complex type architecture.
In addition, the structures do not fit very well into the categories with, Cairn, et al. we shall examine in later posts. What separates the Dragon Houses is that they were not built to be tombs, which those largely were allegedly anyway.
One of the more interesting features of these mysterious structures is that their construction is of relatively thin stones. These mostly square or rectangular, stones were placed on top of one another without any bonding or other material.
As the old adage goes, God is in the details, so let us begin to drill down into the enigmas of the dragon houses.
As shown above, the houses were built entirely out of fairly thin stones that were stacked on top of each other. However, it is only by examining specific features that we realize that the initial primitive impression was deceptive.
There are features that required careful design work and a well-trained construction crew. We see a cleverly arranged pattern in the concentric stonework that seems to spiral up to an opening in the roof. (See insert below)
This must have been an extremely tedious and time-consuming process, but the marvels don’t stop there. Some of the work was done so meticulously that no binding agent was needed to keep them from coming undone.
The interiors of the buildings were even sturdier than the outside. The slabs of stone used to line the inner walls all fit together perfectly, which is something that has amazed historians.
The rocks would have needed to be carefully cut to fit the dimensions, but no one knows how the architects were able to make such precise incisions since they supposedly only had primitive tools.
There is no accepted theory about the identity of the builders nor an agreed upon estimation on their construction dates. No mention that defines the builders is made in classical texts and the first account is from the 18th-century British geologist, traveler and writer John Hawkins.
The first detailed account, after Hawkins was in 1842 by the German archaeologist H.N. Ulrichs. More recently, the Swiss archaeologist Karl Reber has tracked down all reported buildings, about two dozen, and published a report in 2010.
The “dragko”, that is native term invoked for the builders. The term refers to a race of giant, humanoid/monsters with great strength. We can picture them as a cross between Cyclops Polyphemus, Hercules and Theseus of so-called Greek mythology .
We should not, however, think of them simply as giant humans. That is not the portrait that is given in the ancient accounts.
The stones are large yet most appear to be manageable. Built with plenty of the gray-green slate that abounds in south Evia, reminds a simple “dry” stone construction (without clay or cement between the stones). But here the plates of the roof and lintel (like pilasters) were gigantic.
Huge, gray slate pieces, with green lines and lacy mats of moss, sculptured by winds and rains stood there, like a primitive lego, showing unsafe balance, causing you vertigo when approaching.
Who brought them here? Who cut them? Who set up the site?
The “dragko”, a race of humanoid, yet not human, cyclops according to both the Greeks and Romans, “is a member of a primordial race of giants, each with a single eye in the center of his forehead. The word "cyclops" literally means "round-eyed" or "circle-eyed.” (Wikipedia). (Robot-like entities perhaps)
We must proceed slowly and carefully here. Western scholars dismiss the accounts as nothing but fanciful myths, legends, basically the stuff of ancient imaginations. Which means that all westerners have been thusly schooled, when coming up, to do likewise.
Well, we should not be so arrogant as to quickly throw out these histories which were given by the forefathers of our civilization; after all, doesn’t our modern version go straight back to the Greco-Roman civilizations?
The same scholars that scoff at giants, wax oh so eloquently, and full of praise regarding the sophistication of Greco-Roman arts and architecture, philosophy and early science. Is it not a bit contradictory to then mutter under one’s breath what fools they could be when recounting their history, since they could tell us imaginary fables?
There may be one kernel of useful truth, or even many, in these virtually universal accounts of an era of giants in the remote past. A single thread or several strands that we have, and are missing, that have prevented us from understanding ancient and prehistory as well.
For a change we are going to take the ‘myths’ as simple, perhaps factual accounts and see where that leads.
Commenti