Reports from Ukraine are suggesting that the Russian occupier has destroyed a 5th millennium BC mound in Mariupol. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the mound (known as the Did mound курган Дід - Grandfather [Burial] Mound), was destroyed by an excavator, in advance it seems of planned construction on its site. Activists raising the alarm ware noting that apart from anything else, such an action would be a violation of the HagueConvention for the Protection of Cultural Property. Photos from the site seem to show the digging away of the mound in progress.
The problem is, these claims have bneen made before, on 1 September 2022, here on PACHI I wrote of this '
Mariupol: Alleged Redevelopment of Prehistoric Site'. To my eye, there is nothing in the shape of the mound, its location or any other feature to suggest that it is manmade any more than any of the other hillocks of similar size and character dotted around this part of the town. Dating it to the "fifth millennium BC" (on the basis of what?) is simply bonkers. Two yeas ago I concluded that "everything I can see so far suggests this is a fake-news story, trying to exploit the current conflict and capitalise on concern for cultural property to discredit somebody". Nothing in the new news story in any way changes that. If you want to take a look, the place is on the NW fringe of the city at 47° 7'21.58"N 37°31'25.85"E. The Google time slice photos are a bit vague and difficult to interpret, there has been some digging around the base since at least 2019, a levelled area on the NW side ditto. Something was built on the NW flank in April 2022.
I would like to stress though I do not think this is anything but a prominent natural hill rather than being an artificuial construction, I do not know about the antiquarian literature (which could be from the 1770s onward), and the locam toponym suggests that locals thought the hill was an important ancient landmark. This means it could have been incorporated at some stage into a list of protected sites and if so, damage to it is still illegal.
I would like to stress though I do not think this is anything but a prominent natural hill rather than being an artificuial construction, I do not know about the antiquarian literature (which could be from the 1770s onward), and the locam toponym suggests that locals thought the hill was an important ancient landmark. This means it could have been incorporated at some stage into a list of protected sites and if so, damage to it is still illegal. 
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment