Cyprus-Forum.com

[kimon07]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

And all of a sudden, the "Down Unders" have surfaced from the long forgotten past.

INGENIOUS, I must admit. touche

[kimon07]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

And now, to be serious. Against the "short paper" (14 A4 pages) of Mr. Middleton above, I offer this:

G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pp. 564. ISBN 978-90-04-12204-8. €186.00.
________________________________________

Reviewed by Tamar Hodos, University of Bristol ([email protected])

Word count: 3921 words

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-08-38.html

..........................................

A comprehensive study of Greek colonisation has thus been overdue, but that a single individual could do so now is probably impossible. The upshot has been a two-volume collaborative effort initiated by Irad Malkin over ten years ago and brought to fruition by Gocha Tsetskhladze in the form of twenty-two chapters by seventeen scholars to produce the first English-language work that brings together the breadth of material now available for the study of Greek colonisation across its entire geographical ken.
Together, the two volumes expand the scope of most other discussions of Greek colonisation, which are either regionally or temporally bounded. The volumes begin with an account of evidence for Mycenaean activity in the Mediterranean, and conclude with a discussion of Greek colonisation in the Classical period. They draw in literature and history, as well, by incorporating separate chapters on ancient terminology and interpretations of foundation myths. For sheer breadth and depth of coverage alone, the set will be invaluable to students and scholars of Greek colonisation (the second volume is not yet available). The present volume contains thirteen chapters that offer an introduction to the study of Greek colonisation from the Mycenaean period through the Archaic period, incorporating discussion of the Greeks and/or Greek material in Anatolia, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, France, Spain, and the eastern Mediterranean, as well as a chapter on the Phoenicians' contemporary colonial activities, and a discussion about terminology.
………………………
Table of Contents
G. R. Tsetskhladze. Introduction: Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation
M. H. Hansen. Emporion. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Classical Periods
J. Vanschoonwinkel. Mycenaean Expansion
J. Vanschoonwinkel. Greek Migrations to Aegean Anatolia in the Early Dark Age
H. G. Niemeyer. The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean. Between Expansion and Colonisation: A Non-Greek Model of Overseas Settlement and Presence
E. Greco. Greek Colonisation in Southern Italy: A Methodological Essay
B. D'Agostino. The First Greeks in Italy
D. Ridgway. Early Greek Imports in Sardinia
A. J. Dominguez. Greeks in Sicily
J.-P. Morel. Phocaean Colonisation
A. J. Dominguez. Greeks in the Iberian Peninsula
J. Boardman. Greeks in the East Mediterranean (South Anatolia, Syria, Egypt)
H. Pamir. Al Mina and Sabuniye in the Orontes Delta: The Sites.

[GreekIslandGirl]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

Did they find any new evidence, such as pottery, genetic markers or any other artifacts to back up their rambling personal myths?

Neither archaeology nor history are static fields and we can observe changes in the interpretation and presentation of the past. Often works can be seen to reflect the concerns and prejudices of their own times as much as, if not more than, the time they study.

- Hmph, are they talking about themselves?

[yialousa1971]

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).

Good work Paphitis.

[supporttheunderdog]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

Did they find any new evidence, such as pottery, genetic markers or any other artifacts to back up their rambling personal myths?

Neither archaeology nor history are static fields and we can observe changes in the interpretation and presentation of the past. Often works can be seen to reflect the concerns and prejudices of their own times as much as, if not more than, the time they study.

- Hmph, are they talking about themselves?

I think you misunderstand the thrust of the article and that is that label Myceneaens has been applied in relatively recent times and from it assumptions have arisen that there was a unified identifiable Co-hesive group whan in reality what is now assumed as a factoid to be Myceneaen probably consisted of a number of groups of disparate peoples who had no connection with Myceneae and would never have considered themselves as Myceneans. The same applies for example to the use ofthe word Celts in connection with pre-Roman inhabitants.

[GreekIslandGirl]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

Did they find any new evidence, such as pottery, genetic markers or any other artifacts to back up their rambling personal myths?

Neither archaeology nor history are static fields and we can observe changes in the interpretation and presentation of the past. Often works can be seen to reflect the concerns and prejudices of their own times as much as, if not more than, the time they study.

- Hmph, are they talking about themselves?

I think you misunderstand the thrust of the article and that is that label Myceneaens has been applied in relatively recent times and from it assumptions have arisen that there was a unified identifiable Co-hesive group whan in reality what is now assumed as a factoid to be Myceneaen probably consisted of a number of groups of disparate peoples who had no connection with Myceneae and would never have considered themselves as Myceneans. The same applies for example to the use ofthe word Celts in connection with pre-Roman inhabitants.

Juts because our so-called "labels" for different regions and aspects of our history have only now been given English names (relative retards), or awakened to recognition in "recent times" - it doesn't mean that all of a sudden our whole history and cutlture doesn't exist nor ever existed nor is subject to fashionable change to suit your politics.

- So why don't you Greek-haters go and play with your other racist coteries who hate anything Greek and who only use DNA studies to practice eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

[boomerang]

greeks most probably were the first ethnic cleansers 1500 years ago...there has never been colonization with out heads rolling first...

[supporttheunderdog]

And now the concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct....

See: http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/ ... dleton.php

Did they find any new evidence, such as pottery, genetic markers or any other artifacts to back up their rambling personal myths?

Neither archaeology nor history are static fields and we can observe changes in the interpretation and presentation of the past. Often works can be seen to reflect the concerns and prejudices of their own times as much as, if not more than, the time they study.

- Hmph, are they talking about themselves?

I think you misunderstand the thrust of the article and that is that label Myceneaens has been applied in relatively recent times and from it assumptions have arisen that there was a unified identifiable Co-hesive group whan in reality what is now assumed as a factoid to be Myceneaen probably consisted of a number of groups of disparate peoples who had no connection with Myceneae and would never have considered themselves as Myceneans. The same applies for example to the use ofthe word Celts in connection with pre-Roman inhabitants.

Juts because our so-called "labels" for different regions and aspects of our history have only now been given English names (relative retards), or awakened to recognition in "recent times" - it doesn't mean that all of a sudden our whole history and cutlture doesn't exist nor ever existed nor is subject to fashionable change to suit your politics.



- So why don't you Greek-haters go and play with your other racist coteries who hate anything Greek and who only use DNA studies to practice eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

But it is you who want to ethnically cleanse(euphemistically "resettle") legal citizens of the ROC who are probbaly more native than you who I understand to be be half Greek half Cypriot, based upon your own racist perceptions of their ancestry. I have never called for anyone to be displaced but the post 74 settlers and the carpet b*ggers.

[kimon07]

But it is you who want to ethnically cleanse(euphemistically "resettle") legal citizens of the ROC who are probably more native than you who I understand to be be half Greek half Cypriot, based upon your own racist perceptions of their ancestry. I have never called for anyone to be displaced but the post 74 settlers and the carpet b*ggers.

Trying to deprive people of their national identity, like some are doing in regrad to GREEK Cypriots, is an ethnic cleansing practice. And bloody racist too.

[barouti]

I think you misunderstand the thrust of the article and that is that label Myceneaens has been applied in relatively recent times and from it assumptions have arisen that there was a unified identifiable Co-hesive group whan in reality what is now assumed as a factoid to be Myceneaen probably consisted of a number of groups of disparate peoples who had no connection with Myceneae and would never have considered themselves as Myceneans. The same applies for example to the use ofthe word Celts in connection with pre-Roman inhabitants.

This statement on its own proves your ignorance: “groups of disparate peoples who had no connection with Myceneae and would never have considered themselves as Myceneans” No shit, Sherlock. Re “concept of Mycenaeans is under attack as being a modern construct”, once again it shows how clueless you when it comes to history. So welcome to history class, Mr Limey. You need to remove the tinfoil hat and stop treating everything as a conspiracy, old boy. Of course the Mycenaean Greeks never referred to themselves as such. It’s the modern historical term, such as Hellenistic Age, to refer to a period of Greek history. But boy, you really thought you hit the jackpot with that one, you ignoramus LOL. Hey, here’s another one. The Byzantines didn’t refer to themselves as Byzantines either, nor did the Ottomans use Ottoman to refer to their empire. They didn’t even refer to themselves as Turkish! I’ve already said this, but stop trying to portray yourself as some kind expert in genetics and history when you obviously are not. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history can tell with the latter. And this is your contribution to the topic, by posting a university paper whose questionable contents have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. And has for this paper has it turned the world of academia and archaeology on their heads. Are they scrambling to re-write the history books? It’s one academic’s opinion and his arguments are that weak that he needs to keep reminding the reader in every sentence that Greek history as we know is based on “myths”. As GreekIslandGirl pointed out, what “new evidence” did he present to prove his rambling? None. It’s no surprise that a limey wanker with an obvious agenda would take this paper as canon. And assuming you even read this article in its entirety, does it challenge anyway that the Mycenaeans were not Greek if you were trying to insinuate that because one thing that is obvious you really hate Greeks. But take a number and wait in line. The Fyromians and Turks are ahead of you, and boy, you should read the shit they come up with. Now, old boy, we’ve all provided evidence from a plethora of credible academic sources supporting the migration from Greece to Cyprus. What you needed to do was provide evidence using other credible sources that challenges them. I’m sure you’ll do another google search and find a couple more obscure university papers which not only do not give support your wishful thinking that Cypriots are not Greek but are also irrelevant to the topic. But it really doesn’t matter what you think, old boy, because the evidence is there and the modern Cypriots are testament to it that Cyprus was colonized by Greeks in antiquity. It’s an historical fact. So many academics and prestigious institutes supporting this have been quoted in this thread/ And what was your retort to these exactly? Posting a random link and then sticking your head in the sand. Come on, old boy, if you’re such a history expert and master on the subject, surely you’d be able to challenge what we’ve posted by citing primary sources. But you can’t. Actually, even the so-called neo-Cypriots who were argue “Hellenization” over the migration can’t even cite any primary sources. Just like you, the rely on stupid claims. Whatever happened to that Karagiozi, Get Real, what was one of his arguments that the migration could never happen because the boats back then weren’t big enough FFS LOL! But you especially, Mr Limey, when presented with the facts you just stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and yell “la, la, la, la!”