Cyprus-Forum.com

[phoenix]

Just a worthwhile letter I came across demonstrating that Cyprus provides much interest and debate:

Science 21 September 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5845, p. 1679

Letters
How Old Is the Human Presence on Cyprus?

Albert Ammerman's contributions to archaeology are substantial, but his
comments about Cyprus may mislead the reader ("Exploring the prehistory of Europe, in a few bold leaps," J. Bohannon, News Focus, 13 July, p. 188).
Current studies on this Mediterranean island have indeed indicated a
human presence much earlier than previously believed. As the article notes, research by Peltenburg and others has pushed back the island's Neolithic presence to ~8200 calibrated B.C.E.
Ammerman suggests that his sites are approximately 12,000 years old and are the remains of seafaring pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers. Whether or not aeolianite dunes would have made suitable camps, we commend Ammerman for examining ephemeral sites that all too often have been ignored. However, he believes that these are "the oldest evidence of seafaring in the Mediterranean," a claim presently based only on artifactual data, and as Peltenburg points out, "independent evidence" is needed to confirm their antiquity.

An early human presence on Cyprus has been well established at Akrotiri
Aetokremnos for nearly two decades (1). It is thus no surprise that there may be other sites dating to this time period, and many of us hope that Ammerman's sites are as old as he claims. But until this can be confirmed
by defensible dating of materials in good context, these sites should not
enter the literature as examples of a pre-Neolithic presence on Cyprus.

Alan H. Simmons
Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

Rolfe D. Mandel
Kansas Geological Survey
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66047, USA

Reference

A. Simmons, Faunal Extinction in an Island Society (Klewer/Plenum, New
York, 1999).

[free_cyprus]

Just a worthwhile letter I came across demonstrating that Cyprus provides much interest and debate:

Science 21 September 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5845, p. 1679

Letters
How Old Is the Human Presence on Cyprus?

Albert Ammerman's contributions to archaeology are substantial, but his
comments about Cyprus may mislead the reader ("Exploring the prehistory of Europe, in a few bold leaps," J. Bohannon, News Focus, 13 July, p. 188).
Current studies on this Mediterranean island have indeed indicated a
human presence much earlier than previously believed. As the article notes, research by Peltenburg and others has pushed back the island's Neolithic presence to ~8200 calibrated B.C.E.
Ammerman suggests that his sites are approximately 12,000 years old and are the remains of seafaring pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers. Whether or not aeolianite dunes would have made suitable camps, we commend Ammerman for examining ephemeral sites that all too often have been ignored. However, he believes that these are "the oldest evidence of seafaring in the Mediterranean," a claim presently based only on artifactual data, and as Peltenburg points out, "independent evidence" is needed to confirm their antiquity.

An early human presence on Cyprus has been well established at Akrotiri
Aetokremnos for nearly two decades (1). It is thus no surprise that there may be other sites dating to this time period, and many of us hope that Ammerman's sites are as old as he claims. But until this can be confirmed
by defensible dating of materials in good context, these sites should not
enter the literature as examples of a pre-Neolithic presence on Cyprus.

Alan H. Simmons
Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

Rolfe D. Mandel
Kansas Geological Survey
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66047, USA

Reference

A. Simmons, Faunal Extinction in an Island Society (Klewer/Plenum, New
York, 1999).

those people must have made a mistake mate, there has never been anyone on the island of cyprus except greeks and turks and they remain pure as truks and greeks on the island of cyprus

[Get Real!]

those people must have made a mistake mate, there has never been anyone on the island of cyprus except greeks and turks and they remain pure as truks and greeks on the island of cyprus

Do you think you can ever manage to post something of substance for once? The article talks about pre-Neolithic findings so how are Greeks or Turks relevant?

[twinkle]

those people must have made a mistake mate, there has never been anyone on the island of cyprus except greeks and turks and they remain pure as truks and greeks on the island of cyprus

There has always been plankton

[alexISS]

those people must have made a mistake mate, there has never been anyone on the island of cyprus except greeks and turks and they remain pure as truks and greeks on the island of cyprus

Do you think you can ever manage to post something of substance for once? The article talks about pre-Neolithic findings so how are Greeks or Turks relevant?

He was obviously being "ironic", in the same boring way he replies to every thread...

[free_cyprus]

lol small pleasures for small minds lol

[devil]

I have long hypothesised human presence pre-10,000 BCE in the coastal plains N. of Pentadaktylos. The problem is finding them as they will be covered by many m of alluvium. Why? Because that land is visible from what is now Turkey which we know was inhabited then. We can surmise they had some form of reed raft, as they fished. It does not require an Einstein to surmise that some made the crossing and probably settled.

The article mentions Akrotiri. It would seem peculiar if the first landfall were made there, out of sight of all other land.

[phoenix]

I have long hypothesised human presence pre-10,000 BCE in the coastal plains N. of Pentadaktylos. The problem is finding them as they will be covered by many m of alluvium. Why? Because that land is visible from what is now Turkey which we know was inhabited then. We can surmise they had some form of reed raft, as they fished. It does not require an Einstein to surmise that some made the crossing and probably settled.

The article mentions Akrotiri. It would seem peculiar if the first landfall were made there, out of sight of all other land.

But it fits in with the "out of Africa" hypothesis.

[devil]

But it fits in with the "out of Africa" hypothesis.

I feel my hypothesis is more likely. I can't imagine anyone setting forth into unknown seas from N. Africa with anything like the reed rafts that may have existed. Put yourself in an analogical position. You are at Lady's Mile with an air mattress. You don't know that Africa exists; the end of the world is the horizon. Would you go paddling south into the infinity? With my hypothesis, they KNOW there is land there, because they can see it and we know that there was man along the Anatolian coast in 12000-11000 BCE.

[StuartN]

Some of the earliest artefacts from the Northern pediment are over 400k old - and pre-date humans. They were more than likely created by homo erectus. - they mainly consist of what are called Levalloisian implements - tools created by flaking flint. There's also a record of a Chellio-Acheulian hand axe being found in the same strata - the Ayos Epiktitos terrace. I've personally found a number of these implements at the top of the slope above Ayos Yioryos chapel on the coast road near Orga.