suetoniuspaulinus wrote:Mr cannedmoose
I'm hoping that you will be able to clarify something for me.
Is it possible that some members of this Forum believe their "Greekness" stems from the early Hellenic colonisers of Cyprus?
In your opinion can there be any connectioin between a modern day Greek, either from Greece or Cyprus, who has a remote connection to say Alexander the Great?
I admit to being confused since I have been repeatedly told that Cyprus has never been a Greek island
Yes, I believe that some GC members of this forum, and many beyond do have a romantic notion of the pureness of their blood... ironically it was a discussion that I was having with a GC friend on Saturday evening and she attested to being a pure Greek. In ethnic terms, I think any analysis of Cypriots DNA would display a significant mix of origins, including Greek, but I doubt that many would have 'pure Greek' blood. It's like saying that I, as an Englishman, have pure blood dating back to the people who constructed Stonehenge, which is a fallacy as to my knowledge I have a mixture of celtic, scandinavian, germanic and East Mediterranean/North African origins (yes, I may even have Greek, Cypriot or Turkish ancestry).
It's an interesting issue because GC and TCs look at their origins in different ways and, as you write, are taught different perspectives on the origins of Cyprus and its people.
SP, if you'll indulge me, and apologies in advance for its length, I'll quote a section from Rebecca Bryant's book 'Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus' that I've just finished writing a review on for an academic journal. She explains how GC and TC adopt completely different perspectives when considering the history of Cyprus. She explains it far better than I can:
"Turkish Cypriots speak of their history in terms of contingency, and forms of historical proof exist within what I will call here an 'archaeological' discourse, attempting to secure truth by tracing causation. Their Greek Cypriot compatriots, on the other hand, construct an ineluctable history discussed within the framework of what I will call a 'genealogical' discourse in which historical proof is aimed at demonstrating truths that are taken to be self-evident. In genealogical discourse, one traces links between persons and events whose relationship to each other is already presupposed. In archaeological discourse, in contrast, one attempts to construct a causative sequence that will explain events. In the first, one validates the truth; in the second, one uncovers truth.
Moreover, this concern with a purity and continuity that underlies external appearances is reflected in genealogical discourse, by which I mean one that merely attempts to trace links that are already assumed. This is a very prevalent form of 'proof', expressed for instance, in opening remarks given in a 1993 international archaeological symposium by the then minister of education, who stated that:
'The goddess of love emerged from our sea shores, and the depths of our soil had shed light on 3,000 years of Greek history and civilisation because the heart of the island, since the time of the Trojan war, beats along a Greek frequency despite the Laestrygons and the Cyclops encountered in the flux of time'.
In contrast to this genealogical discourse and distinctly ethnic notion of genealogical blood ties, I want to suggest that, despite Turkish Cypriots' uses of blood as a metaphor for historical power, it is blood without genealogy - it is simply blood shed, or an inert historical fact, something that one uncovers archaeologically. As in the Greek Cypriot case, this is perhaps best understood through the ways in which Turkish Cypriots attempt to explain the other community. One old teacher remarked that 'we were never obsesssed, like the Greeks, with some idea of a pure culture'. Rather, he argued, the Greeks have fantastic notions about the nature of descent:
"You see they have this utopia. For instance, this business about the island of Aphrodite. They think that Aphrodite really came out of the sea in Paphos, and then went up to our village and took a bath in the spring near Latchi... Of course this is a myth and so on. But to believe that this island is the island of Aphrodite - Aphrodite's something mythical. Very strange to me anyway - to make it a political thing. Some things which came from the walls of Troy say that some of the men who escaped established some colonies here, but there were no Greeks here. But all these things which we have show that either the culture was connected mainly with Anatolia because it's closer, to Syria and then to Egypt. The Greeks came later, and they never dominated the island as such."
Like the few Turkish Cypriot works that deal directly with the issue of Greek Cypriot culture, the concern here is with heterogeneity, factuality, and mixture. An interesting example of this comes from Necmi Potamyalizade. He continued for over two decades to write long and often unprintable letters to the editors of Morning Post and the Near East in which he used Homer, Herotodus and other ancient sources to undermine Greek Cypriots' claims. These sources, he believed,
"clearly proved that the Greek Christians of Cyprus are not Greek by origin and descent, that their language is not the language of Homer, but 'only a dialect of the ordinary commercial language of the Eastern Mediterranean - Greek - which has gradually superceded the Roman influences', that Cyprus had never been a Hellene island..."