Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

I wonder if Paphitis has yet to realize his calamity in utilizing this paper...

Where does the paper contradict the colonisation theory?

If anything it clearly states that there is absolutely no scholar or historian who could irrefutably deny the fact that Mycenaeans colonised and settled in Cyprus.

All I'm gonna tell you is this...

Soon, Oracle will wake up, read this thread and whack you on the head with a frying pan Paphiti, so go put your helmet on!

You have been denying for so long the fact that Mycenaean settlers colonised and settled in Cyprus.

My aim is to prove you wrong and support the commonly held belief amongst scholars and historians that Mycenaeans did in fact colonise Cyprus and that Cyprus was gradually Hellenised.

Show me the sentence in this paper that proves your silly theories correct and mine wrong.

[Get Real!]

I wonder if Paphitis has yet to realize his calamity in utilizing this paper...

Where does the paper contradict the colonisation theory?

If anything it clearly states that there is absolutely no scholar or historian who could irrefutably deny the fact that Mycenaeans colonised and settled in Cyprus.

All I'm gonna tell you is this...

Soon, Oracle will wake up, read this thread and whack you on the head with a frying pan Paphiti, so go put your helmet on!

You have been denying for so long the fact that Mycenaean settlers colonised and settled in Cyprus.

My aim is to prove you wrong and support the commonly held belief amongst scholars and historians that Mycenaeans did in fact colonise Cyprus and that Cyprus was gradually Hellenised.

Show me the sentence in this paper that proves your silly theories correct and mine wrong.

Paphiti, this paper is a STUDY that DEBUNKS the MANUFACTURED NARRATIVE of “Hellenism of Cyprus”!

[EPSILON]

Given has proposed that this climate of political unrest caused by the development of
the Cypriot nationalism urged the colonial authority to consider ways of minimising
the connection of the island’s early history with ancient Greece, as the Greek Cypriot
intelligentsia drew upon it in order to legitimise its demands (Peristianes 1910;
Zannetos 1910: 102-218; Given 1998:3-4; 12-15).
The only possible way that this could be achieved was through the
identification of an ancient autochthonous population that had remained largely
unaffected by more recent colonization and immigration and would thus make ancient
Cyprus look less Hellenic. The coincidence of the discovery of the Eteocypriots10 by
the Swedish scholars that had been excavating on the island since 1927 (section IIIg)
must have been a happy one (Given 1998: 18-20). Nevertheless it should be
emphasized that it does not seem to have been anything more than that. The evidence
does not suffice to support the possibility of a conscious collaboration between the
colonial authority and the Swedish expedition in order to manipulate the ethnic
identity of the Cypriots according to the best interest of the former. However, both the
Swedes and the British administrators were coming from the same intellectual
background that supported the superiority of the ancient Greek/ Western world over


The above is from her majestic's Leriou text/study.All else are useless.
If you go through her study you can notice that she consider more than 20 sientist as wrong and her theory the correct one.

The history is living signs. In Cyprus we have today Hellines affected in language/culture etc by various foreigners like Venetians/Turks and not otherwise.This someone do not need histotical or other knowledge to understand - a visit to Cyprus is more than sufficient

[Get Real!]

If you find a section in this paper that says “Mycenaeans colonized Cyprus” it’s because she is FIRST giving the STANDARD MYTH so as to ATTACK IT later in the next chapter! Every OTHER chapter is the debunking!

[Paphitis]

I wonder if Paphitis has yet to realize his calamity in utilizing this paper...

Where does the paper contradict the colonisation theory?

If anything it clearly states that there is absolutely no scholar or historian who could irrefutably deny the fact that Mycenaeans colonised and settled in Cyprus.

All I'm gonna tell you is this...

Soon, Oracle will wake up, read this thread and whack you on the head with a frying pan Paphiti, so go put your helmet on!

You have been denying for so long the fact that Mycenaean settlers colonised and settled in Cyprus.

My aim is to prove you wrong and support the commonly held belief amongst scholars and historians that Mycenaeans did in fact colonise Cyprus and that Cyprus was gradually Hellenised.

Show me the sentence in this paper that proves your silly theories correct and mine wrong.

Paphiti, this paper is a STUDY that DEBUNKS the MANUFACTURED NARRATIVE of “Hellenism of Cyprus”!

Where has the paper successfully debunked Hellenism in Cyprus?

Where does it refer to the "Manufactured Narrative" of Hellenism in Cyprus apart from provide for an inconclusive counter argument against the massive evidence at hand?

[Paphitis]

If you find a section in this paper that says “Mycenaeans colonized Cyprus” it’s because she is FIRST giving the STANDARD MYTH so as to ATTACK IT later in the next chapter! Every OTHER chapter is the debunking!

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

[Get Real!]

First the Myth is presented:

I. THE MYCENAEAN COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS NARRATIVE: A BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Then it gets debunked…

II. THE MYCENAEAN COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS NARRATIVE: THE PROBLEMS

Now she explains HOW the Myth was MANUFACTURED!

III. THE MYCENAEAN COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS NARRATIVE: HOW IT WAS CONSTRUCTED

[EPSILON]

Given has proposed that this climate of political unrest caused by the development of
the Cypriot nationalism urged the colonial authority to consider ways of minimising
the connection of the island’s early history with ancient Greece, as the Greek Cypriot
intelligentsia drew upon it in order to legitimise its demands (Peristianes 1910;
Zannetos 1910: 102-218; Given 1998:3-4; 12-15).
The only possible way that this could be achieved was through the
identification of an ancient autochthonous population that had remained largely
unaffected by more recent colonization and immigration and would thus make ancient
Cyprus look less Hellenic. The coincidence of the discovery of the Eteocypriots10 by
the Swedish scholars that had been excavating on the island since 1927 (section IIIg)
must have been a happy one (Given 1998: 18-20). Nevertheless it should be
emphasized that it does not seem to have been anything more than that. The evidence
does not suffice to support the possibility of a conscious collaboration between the
colonial authority and the Swedish expedition in order to manipulate the ethnic
identity of the Cypriots according to the best interest of the former. However, both the
Swedes and the British administrators were coming from the same intellectual
background that supported the superiority of the ancient Greek/ Western world over


The above is from her majestic's Leriou text/study.All else are useless.
If you go through her study you can notice that she consider more than 20 sientist as wrong and her theory the correct one.

The history is living signs. In Cyprus we have today Hellines affected in language/culture etc by various foreigners like Venetians/Turks and not otherwise.This someone do not need histotical or other knowledge to understand - a visit to Cyprus is more than sufficient


NOTE: I WILL ADD THAT GR IS ALSO SEEMS TO BE USED OURDAYS FOR SAME PURPOSE

[Get Real!]

If you find a section in this paper that says “Mycenaeans colonized Cyprus” it’s because she is FIRST giving the STANDARD MYTH so as to ATTACK IT later in the next chapter! Every OTHER chapter is the debunking!

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

That's in the MYTH SECTION you womble!

[Get Real!]

Given has proposed that this climate of political unrest caused by the development of
the Cypriot nationalism urged the colonial authority to consider ways of minimising
the connection of the island’s early history with ancient Greece, as the Greek Cypriot
intelligentsia drew upon it in order to legitimise its demands (Peristianes 1910;
Zannetos 1910: 102-218; Given 1998:3-4; 12-15).
The only possible way that this could be achieved was through the
identification of an ancient autochthonous population that had remained largely
unaffected by more recent colonization and immigration and would thus make ancient
Cyprus look less Hellenic. The coincidence of the discovery of the Eteocypriots10 by
the Swedish scholars that had been excavating on the island since 1927 (section IIIg)
must have been a happy one (Given 1998: 18-20). Nevertheless it should be
emphasized that it does not seem to have been anything more than that. The evidence
does not suffice to support the possibility of a conscious collaboration between the
colonial authority and the Swedish expedition in order to manipulate the ethnic
identity of the Cypriots according to the best interest of the former. However, both the
Swedes and the British administrators were coming from the same intellectual
background that supported the superiority of the ancient Greek/ Western world over


The above is from her majestic's Leriou text/study.All else are useless.
If you go through her study you can notice that she consider more than 20 sientist as wrong and her theory the correct one.

The history is living signs. In Cyprus we have today Hellines affected in language/culture etc by various foreigners like Venetians/Turks and not otherwise.This someone do not need histotical or other knowledge to understand - a visit to Cyprus is more than sufficient


NOTE: I WILL ADD THAT GR IS ALSO SEEMS TO BE USED OURDAYS FOR SAME PURPOSE

She makes a serious error here onto which her flawed theory is based…

The September 1931 unrests were PRO-Enosis, not Cypriot Nationalism!

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Disturban ... 0159507414