Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

so you dismiss how others feel/think coz it doesn't suit your argument?...the figures you showed come from the government... ffs direct your problems to the government...or next time do not bring something into a discussion that you strongly disapprove if the discussion does not go the way you want it to go...

No I don't dismiss how people feel at all.

I only put forward a scientific argument based on the definition of ethnicity and nationality.

Nationality - The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.

Ethnicity - an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations

So where does an Australian fit into the picture?

The mere fact that the ABS actually asked every Australian citizen this question is proof the Australian Government does differentiate between every one's nationality, which is naturally Australian, and their ethnicity, because Australia IS a multicultural country consisting of several ethnicities and "Australian" unfortunately does not fall under the definition of ethnicity if you are not referring to the Aboriginals.

People are free to classify themselves however they like, if they feel the need to do so. What I have a problem with is revisionists such as GR! and yourself. It seems that it is you that has an issue with the Hellenistic attributes and character of most Cypriots, whereas I could not care less if you consider yourself a Cypriot only or even a Turk. And I have no issue with any Aussie classifying themselves as purely Aussie either.

so the greeks aren’t natives but came from far far away and completed the job by 400BC...same as the brits...
Another point is what exactly do you mean it was complete?...you mean colonization and assimilation, coz for the life of me I can't think of anything else...

Cyprus was mostly uninhabited when the Phoenicians and Greeks colonised the island. Australia was also largely uninhabited because now it is populated by 21,000,000 mostly Europeans. I mean what else would you expect? Did you honestly believe that no one would not claim and habitate the Australian continent because there were some Aboriginal tribes?

So most of the people living in Australia or the US and Canada are European just like most people in Cyprus today are Hellenic.

So what is the issue Boom?

I think you are missing the point and I am not sure where you getting your information...
I am saying the aboriginals, like the Cypriots, will disappear in time due to colonization and assimilation....I thought I was clear on this point in my previous post but somehow you are unwilling to get the point...please show me where I claim otherwise...

Assimilation is only expected and is never really enforced in all situations like you insinuate.

Even the 1,000,000 Greeks in Australia have been largely assimilated with Australian Anglo society and in another 2 more generations, there will be no Greeks or Cypriots in Australia, but just Australians with Greek names. This is also assimilation and this is what happens to minorities whether you accept it or not.

you are contradicting yourself here, because above you claim "The Greeks came to Cyprus around 1200BC and by 400BC the island was completely Hellenised."
what do you mean was completely hellenized by 400BC?....you mean the colonization and assimilation process was finished by then?...well as far as the brits are concerned they did the same in 100 years...today the colonization and assimilation of the aboriginal people is well and truly over...

Cyprus was Hellenised since most of the population consider themselves Greek, and uphold the same religion, language, custom and culture with other Hellenes around the world.

Can't get much simpler than that can it?

I don't know what assimilation process you are referring to because there is not one single scholarly paper illustrating the "assimilation process" as fact. But if that is what you want to believe then so be it. The Aborigines in Australia will be assimilated in the long run just like the Greeks, Italians, Cypriots, Germans will be. There is no escape from this, but there sure as hell is no "assimilation process" in Australia in this present day.

The assimilation of Aborigines is definitely not "over" as you put it, because Aboriginal culture is alive and well today. But they are a tiny minority which makes them vulnerable and perhaps they will be assimilated or blend with Europeans to the point where their culture unfortunately dies. But no one is trying to assimilate them or eradicate their culture. In fact Australia is desperately trying to preserve the Aboriginal culture, but these efforts could well prove futile.

commonly known as the indigenous people of the land...prior to assimilation...

So what's you point?

How many Australians have links with the indigenous people of the land? About 200,000 out of 21,000,000...

Australians are still mostly British, or Irish. They are not indigenous and neither are we...

you can't have colonization and no assimilation....its just the greeks lasted more than others thus making the process more successful...

So?

Assimilation is to be expected... That is exactly what is happening to you children and if not it will happen to your grand children or their children. Because I guarantee you, in a few generations they will be completely assimilated within Australian society and they would not care about Cyprus or Ukraine. Even you and I have been slightly assimilated even though you were not born in Australia.

you can't have colonization and no assimilation....its just the greeks lasted more than others thus making the process more successful...

You are wrong here. The Greeks did not last the longest at all. The only time you could argue that Cyprus was part of any Greek nation was when it was part of Alexander The Great's empire and this was only for a few decades. And yet Hellenism still thrived in Cyprus under the most awful tyranny and through countless occupations, including Ottoman rule.

So why did Hellenism survive under these conditions?

Minorities are always assimilated over time.

Assimilation is not a side issue, coz that is the issue...

no need for me to prove it coz you did it for me the minute you said

The Greeks came to Cyprus around 1200BC and by 400BC the island was completely Hellenised

There were Aboriginal Peoples in much of Europe just like there is in Australia and now account for 0.58% of the population.

The same with Cyprus. The island was colonized and colonised again by various peoples

End of the day we established
1...there were people in Cyprus prior to the greeks coming out here...even helping them with the Greek Alphabet which proves beyond any doubt we were advanced and not some Neanderthals...

2...This helped in allowing the greeks to progress further by inventing democracy, which would have been next to impossible without an alphabet ...

3...Aboriginals were natives to Australia 80,000 years ago while you dismiss there were Cypriots at the same time...your history only starts 3500 years ago...

4...The cypriots were indeed colonized, your own admission, and assimilated in some 800 years...

JD is ok with me, I am not really partial in what I drink....but calling zivania crap you are insulting me...

I never denied that there were people in Cyprus before the Greeks arrived. As you know, there were also Aboriginals in Australia before we arrived.

So what?

It still does not change the fact that most Cypriots are Hellenic and that Cyprus has always been Hellenic for over 3,500 years surviving even the worst oppressions. It is Hellenic because Cypriots basically provided a cornerstone of Hellenism itself by contributing to the development of the Greek Alphabet. So even the Eteocypriots are Hellenic, because Hellenism is NOT really a race under the proper definition because even the mainland Greek States differed slightly. Add to this the massive migration of Mycenaeans, and Arcadians, and the massive trade and cultural links with the mainland for over 3,500 years then there is no question about the Hellenistic character of Cypriots.

Cyprus is no different to any other Greek island but it is nevertheless an independent nation.

[boomerang]

Assimilation is to be expected...

Thank god here you have it after a long exchange we finally got to the bottom of it...

I was assimilated, what I have been saying all along...

do I accept it?....the answer is a NO...do you accept it?...the answer is YES...

As I said before mate, your version of history only dates back from 3500 years ago to the present date...My of history dates further than that...

This from my ancestors...



way before any greek set foot on Cyprus...

[Paphitis]

Thank god here you have it after a long exchange we finally got to the bottom of it...

What have we got to the bottom off?

I was assimilated, what I have been saying all along...

Really?

And how the hell did you come up with that conclusion?

For all you know, your direct descendants might be Mycenaean, Arcadian, Phoenician, or even Ottoman but more than likely be a mixture of all of them.

I have only stated that Cyprus was largely uninhabited before the Phoenicians and Greeks arrived. Never ever denied that Cypriots existed for 10,000 years.

do I accept it?....the answer is a NO...do you accept it?...the answer is YES...

The only thing I accept is that I am a Hellene Cypriot or Greek Cypriot just like my ancestors before me. But I do not deny that Cypriot culture existed for 10,000 years.

As I said before mate, your version of history only dates back from 3500 years ago to the present date...My of history dates further than that...

WRONG!

My Cypriot History goes back 10,000 years.

But I will NOT deny my Hellenistic roots which existed for 3,500 because to do so is ALSO denying my Hellenic ancestry which blended with my pre-Hellenic ancestors. Cyprus as a result is still Hellenic and will always be so. because we offered so much to Hellenism itself, speak the same language, have the same culture and custom with other Hellenes.

[Paphitis]

The main deity on the Island was the Great Goddess, Phoenician Astarte, later known under the Greek name of Aphrodite,

Why did they rename the goddess from Astarte to Aphrodite ?. The phoenician name astarte had nothing to do with Greece . Its origins were in Egypt. They have distorted the name from Astarte to Aphropdite to make the island look more hellenic.

starte (from Greek Ἀστάρτη (Astártē)) is the name of a goddess as known from Northwestern Semitic regions, cognate in name, origin and functions with the goddess Ishtar in Mesopotamian texts. Another transliteration is ‘Ashtart; other names for the goddess include Hebrew עשתרת (transliterated Ashtoreth), Ugaritic ‘ṯtrt (also ‘Aṯtart or ‘Athtart, transliterated Atirat), Akkadian DAs-tar-tú (also Astartu) and Etruscan Uni-Astre (Pyrgi Tablets).

Didn't you say that Astarte's origins were in Egypt?

So how is this Cypriot?

Maybe it was imported into Cyprus by the Phoenicians and was later adopted by the Hellene Cypriots and re baptized Aphrodite...

[Paphitis]

Would those 2 errors hint towards the fact that Cyprus was colonised by Mycenaean settlers in 1200BC as evidenced by the excavation of Mycenaean Tombs in Cyprus?

No. Because there's no such thing as "Mycenaean Tombs" unless you want to label them as such yourself.

And what do you have to say about the fact that the only Scholar who is questioning the colonisation narrative does not reject Mycenaean migration to Cyprus at all?

Not much, because he's not the only one.


Next idiot please...

KOURION

The cemetery of Kaloriziki (Ayios Ermogenis’ valley) was used constantly over the subsequent periods, which are not represented by any other architectural remains. Tombs of the Geometric, Archaic and the Classical phase of the kingdom testify in the same cemetery the continuity of the settlement. According to the finds of the tombs dating to these periods, the remains of the architectural style of the Mycenaean tombs is considered the same as the one applied while building the tombs of the seaports of Minet and Beida of the adjoining the city of Ugarit.

http://www.limassolmunicipal.com.cy/kou ... uton2.html

[michalis5354]

Paphitis my point was to prove how the island became from a multicultural place to a mono cultural place as your argument imply . Unless there was a genocide then how can you prove that all foreign influence on the island disappeared after the Greeks came to settle in .If it was uninhabited then how can you explain the foreign influence on the island including coins with foreign symbols . If there was coins then there should had been an economy on the island.

Thus King Evelthon of Salamis (560 BC-525 BC), probably the first one to cast silver or bronze coins in Cyprus, shows a ram on the obverse and an "ankh" (Egyptian symbol of good luck) on the reverse.

Accepting Greek prototypes and culture does not make you Greek genetically speaking . Nowadays we joined EU we did not became French or Germans . People accepted Greek European prototypes . Accepting Greek Prototypes and becoming pure Greek its a totally different thing . Some people are more Greek than others and some Tcs are more Turkish than others .

[Paphitis]

Paphitis my point was to prove how the island became from a multicultural place to a mono cultural place as your argument imply . Unless there was a genocide then how can you prove that all foreign influence on the island disappeared after the Greeks came to settle in .If it was uninhabited then how can you explain the foreign influence on the island including coins with foreign symbols . If there was coins then there should had been an economy on the island.

Thus King Evelthon of Salamis (560 BC-525 BC), probably the first one to cast silver or bronze coins in Cyprus, shows a ram on the obverse and an "ankh" (Egyptian symbol of good luck) on the reverse.

Accepting Greek prototypes and culture does not make you Greek genetically speaking . Nowadays we joined EU we did not became French or Germans . People accepted Greek European prototypes . Accepting Greek Prototypes and becoming pure Greek its a totally different thing . Some people are more Greek than others and some Tcs are more Turkish than others .

What makes us Greek is the fact we speak Greek, are Greek Orthodox, and have an extremely similar, if not the same culture and customs as mainland Greeks as well as our own regional customs.

Genetics have nothing to do with being Greek.

[Get Real!]

CONCLUSIONS-EPILOGUE

“this analysis has shown that political considerations and academic trends have played a major role. Furthermore the archaeological evidence, usually squeezed into preexisting historical constructions, often illuminated from very specific angles, and sometimes even completely ignored, has not always been the prime source of inspiration. That is why the colonization narrative is lately regarded by more and more researchers as an unstable house of cards.”

(Page 18 )

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeolog ... /paper.pdf

And because she failed to come up with any evidence that indeed the colonisation narrative/theory is flawed, she had to include a proviso for undertaking such a thesis. After seeing the overwhelming lack of evidence to support what she set out to show, she needs to defend why she 'wasted' the time. So of course, she would say, 'it's topical' ... which is all the bold statement says. And we know it's topical because the Turks (and a few xerokefalli), use the academic 'need to question' merely to destabilise our alliances with Greece ....

I agree with the 'need to question', and research. But then at some point, you have to weigh up the evidence and draw a conclusion. Like it or not GR!, the overwhelming support for the Hellenisation of Cyprus (of which I am but one piece of living proof ), would make some more universally accepted theories in other areas, seem flimsy by comparison!

(Still trying to find a way to impress her for a date? )

Oracle, you’re too sick in the head with Hellenism itself to be able to participate in any discussion/investigation surrounding this myth, so don’t worry about it.

[Get Real!]

Would those 2 errors hint towards the fact that Cyprus was colonised by Mycenaean settlers in 1200BC as evidenced by the excavation of Mycenaean Tombs in Cyprus?

No. Because there's no such thing as "Mycenaean Tombs" unless you want to label them as such yourself.

And what do you have to say about the fact that the only Scholar who is questioning the colonisation narrative does not reject Mycenaean migration to Cyprus at all?

Not much, because he's not the only one.


Next idiot please...

KOURION

The cemetery of Kaloriziki (Ayios Ermogenis’ valley) was used constantly over the subsequent periods, which are not represented by any other architectural remains. Tombs of the Geometric, Archaic and the Classical phase of the kingdom testify in the same cemetery the continuity of the settlement. According to the finds of the tombs dating to these periods, the remains of the architectural style of the Mycenaean tombs is considered the same as the one applied while building the tombs of the seaports of Minet and Beida of the adjoining the city of Ugarit.

http://www.limassolmunicipal.com.cy/kou ... uton2.html

Did they find a label with a barcode on the side of the tomb that read…

“Genuine Mycenaean Tomb – Please keep your receipt for warranties”

...or did someone ASSUME that it was a "Mycenaean Tomb" because that's what everyone else had been speculating from the 1800s?

DID YOU ACTUALLY BOTHER TO READ THAT PAPER YOU POSTED IN THIS THREAD? COVER TO COVER?

Of course you didn't because you would've never posted it in the first place!

[Oracle]

CONCLUSIONS-EPILOGUE

“this analysis has shown that political considerations and academic trends have played a major role. Furthermore the archaeological evidence, usually squeezed into preexisting historical constructions, often illuminated from very specific angles, and sometimes even completely ignored, has not always been the prime source of inspiration. That is why the colonization narrative is lately regarded by more and more researchers as an unstable house of cards.”

(Page 18 )

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeolog ... /paper.pdf

And because she failed to come up with any evidence that indeed the colonisation narrative/theory is flawed, she had to include a proviso for undertaking such a thesis. After seeing the overwhelming lack of evidence to support what she set out to show, she needs to defend why she 'wasted' the time. So of course, she would say, 'it's topical' ... which is all the bold statement says. And we know it's topical because the Turks (and a few xerokefalli), use the academic 'need to question' merely to destabilise our alliances with Greece ....

I agree with the 'need to question', and research. But then at some point, you have to weigh up the evidence and draw a conclusion. Like it or not GR!, the overwhelming support for the Hellenisation of Cyprus (of which I am but one piece of living proof ), would make some more universally accepted theories in other areas, seem flimsy by comparison!

(Still trying to find a way to impress her for a date? )

Oracle, you’re too sick in the head with Hellenism itself to be able to participate in any discussion/investigation surrounding this myth, so don’t worry about it.

You are allowed this face-saving withdrawal from your indefensible position.