Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

The similarity of the phenomena that characterise the LCIIIA period,
particularly its first half, with the historical events that occurred in Palestine during
the same period has been strongly emphasised. The series of destructions that ended
the Canaanite city-states and the subsequent appearance of locally produced
Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery in large quantities are regarded as results of the same
cause: the action of the Aegean (at least partly) Sea Peoples (Mazar 1985; 1988; 1991;
Dothan 1982: 289-296; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 191-198; Burdajewicz 1990;
Karageorghis 1992: 81; Iacovou 1995: 99; 1998: 335-336).
During the first half of the following century (LCIIIB: 1100-1050 BC) new
settlements were founded by a second, definitely more extensive influx of
Mycenaeans, which is basically attested by
- the introduction of a new tomb-type: chamber tombs with long dromoi and small
squarish/ rectangular chambers bearing close affinities to Mycenaean graves,
- many Mycenaean elements in the shape- and decoration-repertory of the of the
Proto-White Painted ceramic style, that appeared at the beginning of LCIIIB,
- various architectural features and artefacts of Aegean origin or inspiration and
most importantly
- the introduction of the Greek language
(Karageorghis 1990: 30-32; 1998: 56-60; 1997: 272-285; 1998: 56-60; Iacovou 1999:
7-14).

[Paphitis]

The new settlements coincide in location with the capitals of the ancient
kingdoms of Cyprus, which according to the foundation myths, were established by
Greek heroes that came to Cyprus after the Trojan War (section IIIa). Thus the
foundation of the Cypriot kingdoms is generally placed within the course of the 11th
century (Iacovou 1994; 1995: 100-104; 1999: 9-10, 14-19; Courtois 1997: 290)
although the earliest written reference to them would take us down to 709 BC, when
the Assyrian king Sargon II erected a stele commemorating his victory over the seven
kings of Ia (Cyrpus) at the town of Kition (Reyes 1994: 50-56; Gjerstad 1948, 449-
451; Steel 1993: 147-148). Consequently the 11th century has been regarded as the
beginning of a long and extremely significant procedure: the hellenization of Cyprus
(Karageorghis 1994).
including processes as migrations and invasions, to occur with virtually no perceptible
change in the material record (Hall 1997: 111-142).
The direct translation of artifacts into historical events led researchers to
another widely criticised equation: that of absolute/ historical with relative/ stylistic
time. We cannot possibly regard all destructions that occurred while a particular ware
was in use, i.e. within a particular stylistic phase, which corresponds to a period of
thirty-fifty years in Cypriot Late Bronze Age, as synchronous. If we do make this
error, however, it is fairly easy to jump from this point to a further assumption: these
synchronous events were most probably the result of the same cause. Maier believes
that this tendency “is clearly but subconsciously influenced by an event orientated
view of history focussed far too exclusively on wars and migrations. It is also
conditioned by a contortion of our chronological perspective, which makes a span of
50 or 70 years in the 12th century seem a very short period” (Maier 1986: 317; 1994:
306-307).
As a consequence of the above fundamental errors various problems of
practical nature have arisen: numerous mistakes concerning the classification of the
material culture, pottery in particular, have been made. As the colonization theory is
largely based on the interpretation of certain categories of artifacts, archaeologists
have tried to define the boundaries of these categories as clearly as they could. This is
usually a very difficult task: material culture is not the product of programmed
machines; it is the result of human activity, which can be planned, organised and
imitative but also spontaneous and innovative. Kling, for example, has demonstrated
that the so-called Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery, that has been regarded as the trademark
of the Mycenaean immigrants, cannot always be distinguished from the rest of the
local painted Mycenaeanizing wares (Kling 1989; 1991).
More assumptions and practical misunderstandings have emerged through the
uncritical association of some Aegean or even un-Aegean looking groups of artifacts/
architectural features with the immigrants. An example: the rectangular capitals with
stepped sides, that have been found in most of the major Late Cypriot sites and dated
around the end of the 13th century. For this reason they are thought to have been
connected with the Mycenaeans (Karageorghis 1971) although no parallels have been
recovered anywhere in the Aegean. Nevertheless every time the Cypriot soil reveals
such a capital, it is usually reported as evidence for monumental construction built by
the Mycenaeans (Karageorghis-Maier 1984: 99-101).
The above observations have instigated a series of studies, including my own
research, that have dismissed the use of artifacts as “defining criteria” of ethnic
identity; artifacts can, however, be used as “emblemic indicia” of ethnic boundaries in
the similar way as language and religion (Hall 1997: 20-1). What we archaeologists
have to do is to “illuminate the ways in which ethnic groups actively employed
material culture in making boundaries that have already been discursively
constructed” (Hall 1997: 142).

[Paphitis]

Many variations on the details of the above narrative have been suggested.
These are usually the result of differences in the classification and the interpretation of
the various classes of material evidence (Karageorghis 1992; 1994; Rupp 1998: 213).
Moreover during the last twenty years various aspects of the narrative have been
questioned on methodological grounds (part II). Nevertheless nobody has yet clearly
suggested that a movement of Aegean peoples to Cyprus during the end of the Late
Bronze Age never took place.

[Get Real!]

I didn’t need to get a PhD in History, Anthropology, and/or Archeology to figure out that there was a rat Paphitis… I just used common sense and my gut feeling that there was a problem, and I’ve been trying to encourage all my fellow compatriots to start doing the same instead of jumping on the Hellenic bandwagon.

This paper should be made compulsory reading for all Greek Cypriots so that they may hopefully wake up to reality as to how our history has been sabotaged and monopolized to push specific Greek agendas.

[Paphitis]

The only radical reconsideration of the Mycenaean colonization hypothesis, at
least of a part of it, has been proposed by Rupp (1985; 1987; 1988; 1998), who has
focused his research mainly on the processes that resulted in the formation of the
Cypriot kingdoms. Rupp argues that there was a significant decrease in the
complexity of the political organisation of the island between the 12th and 8th centuries
BC. After systematic analysis of the archaeological record he has concluded that
during this period the island was not divided in monarchical states but covered by a
regional network of chiefdoms (Rupp 1987: 147-149; 1998: 214-215). Based on the
sharp increase of settlement-sites observed around the middle of the 8th century (Rupp
1987: 149-151) and the more or less synchronous and sudden appearance of
monumental built tombs throughout the island (Rupp 1985; 1987: 15), Rupp suggests
that the state-based political system that characterized Cyprus during the Cypro-
Archaic and Classical periods emerged during the final decades of the Cypro-
Geometric III (850-750 BC) period. The rise in the number of sanctuaries (Rupp
1987: 152) as well as the relatively more widespread use of the Cypro-Syllabic script
(Rupp 1987: 151), which occurred during the Cypro-Archaic period (750-475 BC)
have been used as corroborative evidence. The process of the kingdoms’ formation is
viewed as an internal affair instigated by the expansion of the state societies in the
Levant and Mesopotamia, mainly the Phoenicians, that started as early as the 10th
century (Rupp 1987: 153-156; 1998: 216-218). The foundation myths mentioned
above are explained as the result of ancient political manipulation: “Many of these
Cypriot arriviste monarchs apparently concocted ancient heroic pedigrees in order to
claim they were, in fact, Achaean bluebloods” (Rupp 1998: 218-19).

[Paphitis]

II. THE MYCENAEAN COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS NARRATIVE: THE
PROBLEMS

[Paphitis]

I didn’t need to get a PhD in History, Anthropology, and/or Archeology to figure out that there was a rat Paphitis… I just used common sense and my gut feeling that there was a problem, and I’ve been trying to encourage all my fellow compatriots to start doing the same instead of jumping on the Hellenic bandwagon.

This paper should be made compulsory reading for all Greek Cypriots so that they may hopefully wake up to reality as to how our history has been sabotaged and monopolized to push specific Greek agendas.

The study offers very clear evidence that there is not even one scholar or historian on this planet that refutes Mycenaean migration to Cyprus.

[Get Real!]

I didn’t need to get a PhD in History, Anthropology, and/or Archeology to figure out that there was a rat Paphitis… I just used common sense and my gut feeling that there was a problem, and I’ve been trying to encourage all my fellow compatriots to start doing the same instead of jumping on the Hellenic bandwagon.

This paper should be made compulsory reading for all Greek Cypriots so that they may hopefully wake up to reality as to how our history has been sabotaged and monopolized to push specific Greek agendas.

The study offers very clear evidence that there is not even one scholar or historian on this planet that refutes Mycenaean migration to Cyprus.

Err, I'm afraid you haven't read it properly Paphitis... if anything it fully supports my theories!

[Paphitis]

The admittedly attractive hypothesis of the Mycenaean colonization encompasses
various methodological problems, which have been underlined by many researchers
during the last twenty years. Although brief, the summary provided above suffices to
demonstrate that what constitutes its basis is the infamous and erroneous equation
between pots (artefacts/ material culture) and peoples (ethnic groups), which has been
seriously questioned in recent years on both anthropological and archaeological terms.
According to Susan Sherratt, its roots lie in the development of the European nation
state and its corporate (ethnic, linguistic and cultural) identity in the early modern
period. “The practice of defining cultures in the contexts of prehistoric Europe has
been aggravated by notions of race, ethnicity and language in a largely historicallyminded
vision of prehistory in which wars and battles, invasions, colonial enterprises
and political coups leap up directly from buried tombs and potsherds which are
themselves imagined as in some sense speaking distinct languages and carrying their
own racial genes” (Sherratt 1992: 316-317).

[Get Real!]

The poor bastard just keeps posting oblivious to the fact that this paper destroys the "hellenic" myths!