Cyprus-Forum.com

[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

That's in the MYTH SECTION you womble!

Mycenaean Tombs excavated in Cyprus are myth.....

BTW, there is only one scholar who has argued that the excavation of so many Mycenaean artifacts in Cyprus is not conclusive evidence to the colonisation theory but he too does not debunk the colonisation theory but only questions the assumptions made by archaeologists.

Rupp does not reject the hypothesis that there was a migratory movement of
Mycenaeans to Cyprus during the 12th and 11t h centuries (Rupp 1998: 219).

[DT.]

Eprisate ta archithkia mas....

[EPSILON]

:roll:

Eprisate ta archithkia mas....

Eprisate- from Greek word Prizo
Archithkia-from Greek word-archidia

Conclusion: Mrs Leriou-is an unecudated and fully wrong

[turkkan]

As if what the 'truth' is matters. National identity is not obtained by studying journals on archeology or genealogy, but obviously by the environment you are brought up in. Once you have developed that ethnic/religious conscious, its incredibly hard to get rid of it. I seem to recall reading of jews adopted by german parents who were brought up as nazis but even when they found out that they were originally of jewish origin they refused to accept it and continued being nazis.

[Oracle]

The use of the term "Narrative" in this Archaeological context, is equivalent to the use of the term "Theory" in Science. So when the author says this:

"CONSTRUCTING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE:"

It can be read as:

"CONSTRUCTING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY:"

The author then attempts to dissect the evidence from detractors and supporters, which uphold or tear-apart the "theory/narrative". However, she has presented nothing noteworthy which debunks the more widely held, and evidenced, theory on the Hellenisation of Cyprus. On the other hand, she cannot help but indicate the wealth of evidence which exists to support Hellenisation along the way, thus (unwittingly?) reinforcing the narrative/theory that Cyprus is overwhelmingly, irrefutably (even with this outright biased attempt) Hellenic.

My feeling is that she has jumped on the bandwagon to find something new to discuss (and isn't it fun to be a "maverick" GR!) ... so there is a clear bias towards proving the contesting, recent (Turk-inspired), views that Cyprus is not Hellenic .... But she has failed to deconstruct (if that was the aim) the widely held view that Cyprus was Hellenised, millennia ago.

As an academic and not a researcher, she does not provide any evidence of her own, some new discovery or artifact to seriously oppose the substantial narrative/theory that Cyprus was colonised and recolonised and received continual exchanges with mainland Greece for thousands of years.

The author was obviously presented with an assignment to weigh up the opposing views as an exercise in criticism. Fine.

Maybe the author has set herself a monumental task to put an end to one or other view and cleverly starts with the most controversial bias i.e. preference to believing Cypriot Hellenism is a myth, builds up the controversy (keeping GR! happy) ... BUT by failing to find adequate support for it, has achieved the ultimate confirmation of a Hellenic Cyprus (making Paphitis ecstatic). Brilliant! Anyone who can still doubt Cyprus' Hellenic historical/present connections, even based on this critical paper, has a serious anti-Cypriot political agenda. I guess that would just be the Turks then!

Not having much time for forum-play today, I cannot see if a conclusion has been presented and can't download the software to read the pdf ...

So Paphitis .... does the paper reach an effective conclusion?

[DT.]

:roll:

Eprisate ta archithkia mas....

Eprisate- from Greek word Prizo
Archithkia-from Greek word-archidia

Conclusion: Mrs Leriou-is an unecudated and fully wrong

Lafazani

[Paphitis]

Oracle wrote:

The author then attempts to dissect the evidence from detractors and supporters, which uphold or tear-apart the "theory/narrative". However, she has presented nothing noteworthy which debunks the more widely held, and evidenced, theory on the Hellenisation of Cyprus. On the other hand, she cannot but help indicate the wealth of evidence which exists to support Hellenisation along the way, thus (unwittingly?) reinforcing the narrative/theory that Cyprus is overwhelmingly, irrefutably (even with this outright biased attempt) Hellenic.

That is exactly right.

The paper is merely an analysis of the overwhelming evidence and widely held and archaeologically supported theories on the islands Hellenisation compared to the detractors for which she only mentions one person known as Rupp who merely challenges some assumptions but does not dispute the widely held colonisation theories.

Rupp does not reject the hypothesis that there was a migratory movement of
Mycenaeans to Cyprus during the 12th and 11t h centuries (Rupp 1998: 219).

Oracle wrote:

My feeling is that she has jumped on the bandwagon to find something new to discuss (and isn't it fun to be a "maverick" GR!) ... so there is a clear bias towards proving the contesting, recent (Turk-inspired), views that Cyprus is not Hellenic .... But she has failed to deconstruct (if that was the aim) the widely held view that Cyprus was Hellenised, millennia ago.

I believe the aim was to analyse the two schools of thought. The one backed up by evidence and which is widely held amongst scholars and historians and the other school of thought for which she was only able to reference Rupp and who also concedes to the fact of Mycenaean Migration into Cyprus anyway.

Oracle wrote:

As an academic and not a researcher, she does not provide any evidence of her own, some new discovery or artifact to seriously oppose the substantial narrative/theory that Cyprus was colonised and recolonised and received continual exchanges with mainland Greece for thousands of years.

The paper offers no new evidence that contradicts Mycenaean migration.

Oracle wrote:

The author was obviously presented with an assignment to weigh up the opposing views as an exercise in criticism. Fine.

Correct.

Oracle wrote:

Maybe the author has set herself a monumental task to put an end to one or other view and cleverly starts with the most controversial bias i.e. preference to believing Cypriot Hellenism is a myth, builds up the controversy (keeping GR! happy) ... BUT by failing to find adequate support for it, has achieved the ultimate confirmation of a Hellenic Cyprus (making Paphitis ecstatic). Brilliant! Anyone who can still doubt Cyprus' Hellenic historical/present connections, even based on this critical paper, has a serious anti-Cypriot political agenda. I guess that would just be the Turks then!

I think it was a very interesting piece and in the end it offered no credible conclusion other than the author herself admitting that the task of the paper was to highlight the social and political influences in the construction of certain narratives and then conceding to the fact that the aim of her paper is impossible to prove due to the overwhelming evidence at hand.

Oracle wrote:

So Paphitis .... does the paper reach an effective conclusion?

No the paper offers no conclusion other than highlight the overwhelming widely held beliefs against the detracting school of thought (Rupp and GR!) for which even Rupp still concedes to the fact that in all probability Mycenaean Migration did occur which was the catalyst for the Hellenisation of Cyprus.

It is just the way certain assumptions were made solely based on archaeological finds such as Mycenaean Pottery and Jewelery, he questions as this alone does not prove Mycenaean Migration which he does not reject. This is the school of thought GR! is claiming but it offers little else other than concede to what is commonly believed by all historians and archaeologists.

[The Cypriot]

Jibro mu, ya ’nan yelion su, dhio su don athrobon mu.
Monon mida su enna dhehto na mirasto do fos mu.
Ya din garkian je din angalin du.
Ma don Theon, ulla halalin du.

[denizaksulu]

Oracle wrote:

The author then attempts to dissect the evidence from detractors and supporters, which uphold or tear-apart the "theory/narrative". However, she has presented nothing noteworthy which debunks the more widely held, and evidenced, theory on the Hellenisation of Cyprus. On the other hand, she cannot but help indicate the wealth of evidence which exists to support Hellenisation along the way, thus (unwittingly?) reinforcing the narrative/theory that Cyprus is overwhelmingly, irrefutably (even with this outright biased attempt) Hellenic.

That is exactly right.

The paper is merely an analysis of the overwhelming evidence and widely held and archaeologically supported theories on the islands Hellenisation compared to the detractors for which she only mentions one person known as Rupp who merely challenges some assumptions but does not dispute the widely held colonisation theories.

Rupp does not reject the hypothesis that there was a migratory movement of
Mycenaeans to Cyprus during the 12th and 11t h centuries (Rupp 1998: 219).

Oracle wrote:

My feeling is that she has jumped on the bandwagon to find something new to discuss (and isn't it fun to be a "maverick" GR!) ... so there is a clear bias towards proving the contesting, recent (Turk-inspired), views that Cyprus is not Hellenic .... But she has failed to deconstruct (if that was the aim) the widely held view that Cyprus was Hellenised, millennia ago.

I believe the aim was to analyse the two schools of thought. The one backed up by evidence and which is widely held amongst scholars and historians and the other school of thought for which she was only able to reference Rupp and who also concedes to the fact of Mycenaean Migration into Cyprus anyway.

Oracle wrote:

As an academic and not a researcher, she does not provide any evidence of her own, some new discovery or artifact to seriously oppose the substantial narrative/theory that Cyprus was colonised and recolonised and received continual exchanges with mainland Greece for thousands of years.

The paper offers no new evidence that contradicts Mycenaean migration.

Oracle wrote:

The author was obviously presented with an assignment to weigh up the opposing views as an exercise in criticism. Fine.

Correct.

Oracle wrote:

Maybe the author has set herself a monumental task to put an end to one or other view and cleverly starts with the most controversial bias i.e. preference to believing Cypriot Hellenism is a myth, builds up the controversy (keeping GR! happy) ... BUT by failing to find adequate support for it, has achieved the ultimate confirmation of a Hellenic Cyprus (making Paphitis ecstatic). Brilliant! Anyone who can still doubt Cyprus' Hellenic historical/present connections, even based on this critical paper, has a serious anti-Cypriot political agenda. I guess that would just be the Turks then!

I hink it was a very interesting piece and in the end it offered no credible conclusion other than the author herself admitting that the task of the paper was to highlight the social and political influences in the construction of certain narratives and then conceding to the fact that the aim of her paper is impossible to prove due to the overwhelming evidence at hand.

Oracle wrote:

So Paphitis .... does the paper reach an effective conclusion?

No the paper offers no conclusion other than highlight the overwhelming widely held beliefs against the detracting school of thought (Rupp and GR!) for which even Rupp still concedes to the fact that in all probability Mycenaean Migration did occur which was the catalyst for the Hellenisation of Cyprus.

It is just the way certain assumptions were made solely based on archeological finds such as Mycenaean Pottery and Jewelery, he questions as this alone does not prove Mycenaean Migration which he does not reject. This is the school of thougth GR! is claiming but it offers little else other than concede to what is commonly believed by all historians and archeologists.

I think it is an interesting 'opus'. I have yet not finished the whole work, but I found this interesting,"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).".

Natasha seems to be a 'doubter' or at least she is 'clouding' the waters re: 'Hellenism'.

I am surprised my fellow' Chiroichitian' did not use this article as a weapon himself.

[Paphitis]

Oracle wrote:

The author then attempts to dissect the evidence from detractors and supporters, which uphold or tear-apart the "theory/narrative". However, she has presented nothing noteworthy which debunks the more widely held, and evidenced, theory on the Hellenisation of Cyprus. On the other hand, she cannot but help indicate the wealth of evidence which exists to support Hellenisation along the way, thus (unwittingly?) reinforcing the narrative/theory that Cyprus is overwhelmingly, irrefutably (even with this outright biased attempt) Hellenic.

That is exactly right.

The paper is merely an analysis of the overwhelming evidence and widely held and archaeologically supported theories on the islands Hellenisation compared to the detractors for which she only mentions one person known as Rupp who merely challenges some assumptions but does not dispute the widely held colonisation theories.

Rupp does not reject the hypothesis that there was a migratory movement of
Mycenaeans to Cyprus during the 12th and 11t h centuries (Rupp 1998: 219).

Oracle wrote:

My feeling is that she has jumped on the bandwagon to find something new to discuss (and isn't it fun to be a "maverick" GR!) ... so there is a clear bias towards proving the contesting, recent (Turk-inspired), views that Cyprus is not Hellenic .... But she has failed to deconstruct (if that was the aim) the widely held view that Cyprus was Hellenised, millennia ago.

I believe the aim was to analyse the two schools of thought. The one backed up by evidence and which is widely held amongst scholars and historians and the other school of thought for which she was only able to reference Rupp and who also concedes to the fact of Mycenaean Migration into Cyprus anyway.

Oracle wrote:

As an academic and not a researcher, she does not provide any evidence of her own, some new discovery or artifact to seriously oppose the substantial narrative/theory that Cyprus was colonised and recolonised and received continual exchanges with mainland Greece for thousands of years.

The paper offers no new evidence that contradicts Mycenaean migration.

Oracle wrote:

The author was obviously presented with an assignment to weigh up the opposing views as an exercise in criticism. Fine.

Correct.

Oracle wrote:

Maybe the author has set herself a monumental task to put an end to one or other view and cleverly starts with the most controversial bias i.e. preference to believing Cypriot Hellenism is a myth, builds up the controversy (keeping GR! happy) ... BUT by failing to find adequate support for it, has achieved the ultimate confirmation of a Hellenic Cyprus (making Paphitis ecstatic). Brilliant! Anyone who can still doubt Cyprus' Hellenic historical/present connections, even based on this critical paper, has a serious anti-Cypriot political agenda. I guess that would just be the Turks then!

I think it was a very interesting piece and in the end it offered no credible conclusion other than the author herself admitting that the task of the paper was to highlight the social and political influences in the construction of certain narratives and then conceding to the fact that the aim of her paper is impossible to prove due to the overwhelming evidence at hand.

Oracle wrote:

So Paphitis .... does the paper reach an effective conclusion?

No the paper offers no conclusion other than highlight the overwhelming widely held beliefs against the detracting school of thought (Rupp and GR!) for which even Rupp still concedes to the fact that in all probability Mycenaean Migration did occur which was the catalyst for the Hellenisation of Cyprus.

It is just the way certain assumptions were made solely based on archaeological finds such as Mycenaean Pottery and Jewelery, he questions as this alone does not prove Mycenaean Migration which he does not reject. This is the school of thought GR! is claiming but it offers little else other than concede to what is commonly believed by all historians and archeologists.

I think it is an interesting 'opus'. I have yet not finished the whole work, but I found this interesting,"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).".

Natasha seems to be a 'doubter' or at least she is 'clouding' the waters re: 'Hellenism'.

I am surprised my fellow' Chiroichitian' did not use this article as a weapon himself.

Why do you ignore important facts such as:

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).

And this from Rupp:

Rupp does not reject the hypothesis that there was a migratory movement of
Mycenaeans to Cyprus during the 12th and 11t h centuries (Rupp 1998: 219).

and then latch on to the authors opinion that social and political influences were responsible for formulating the colonisation theory which she later concedes in her conclusion as being impossible to prove?