Oracle wrote:Get Real! wrote:Oracle wrote:Get Real! wrote: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.
You have a lot to learn from people like Natasa, who despite being Greek has not surrendered to Hellenic-hogwash brainwashing like you, and utilizes her intellect independently to investigate and question that which does not add up.
