Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

Some Greeks visited Cyprus starting from 1500 bc or so, and some stayed, but the best genetic evidence suggest that for the majority of Cypriots, whether Turkish Speaking (excluding post 74 settlers) or Greek Speaking, the majority of their ancestry can be traced to the first permanent settlers from Anatolia, probably the same as the ancestors of those who built Stonehenge.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474

See also

https://www.albany.edu/honorscollege/files/Jennings_thesis.doc

[Sotos]

"Anatolians" is not an ethnic group, "Greeks" is an ethnic group. You are comparing apples and oranges. "Anatolia" is just a geographic identification that is in fact Greek itself. Who told you that Greeks and Anatolia are incompatible terms? Greeks are an Eastern Med. Civ, and Anatolia was part of our civilization for 1000s of years.

Human beings existed for over 200.000 years, long before ethnic groups were formed, and lots of migrations happened during that time.

[supporttheunderdog]

What makes you think that the people from Anatolia who settled Cyprus long before anything that could be described a Greek ethnos existed were not an ethnic group with a shared ancestry, language, culture, etc that define ethnicity?
The fact of the matter is that the Hellenisation of Cyprus, which seems to have mostly occurred red in a period from say 1150 bc to 800 bc likley supplanted an existing ethnicity, given that before that time Cyprus was very much a part of the Anatolian /Levantine system and associated with the Hittite Empire.

It is however typical of the very ProHellenic version neo fascism that you promote to dismiss other ethnicities...

[Sotos]

You are the one who makes that claim, so you are the one who needs to provide the evidence. What evidence do you have that people in Cyprus spoke the same language and had the same religion and culture as those of the Hittite Empire? There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that suggests such thing.

Just like it is the case with nearly all other places in the world, prehistoric people migrated to Cyprus from different places in different eras. Such migrations happened EVERYWHERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-moder ... _migration

You are trying to question our ethnicity based on prehistoric migrations, which is totally stupid and just goes to show the lengths that you are willing to go to attack the unity of our nation.

But I do have evidence that in England, before the Germanic Anglo-Saxon invasions, there have been other ethnic groups, e.g. the Celts. So what are you? Foreign occupiers, in which case you should move out of Britain, or are you not really English, in which case you should stop calling yourself that. And what about all the people of African or Asian decent that you have in your country? Are those genetically either British or English? Clearly they are neither. So what are you going to do about it?

If you are going to use genetics to split up a nation this can be done FAR easier with your nation, which is far more mixed in terms of DNA and doesn't have anywhere as long of a history as ours. So why don't you do that?

[Lordo]

can anybody explain this.

After the Mycenaean age ended in about 1100BC, Greece entered a Dark Age. It is known as a dark age because nobody knows much about what happened - all written language and art disappeared. In 800BC, almost 300 years after the Dark Age began, Greek civilisation slowly emerged again.

how can a civilisation lose its art and language.

[Sotos]

The ability to write 3000 years ago was something new, Greeks were the first Europeans to learn this new technology (Cretan Civ a bit earlier) but literacy rate was not 99% like we have now, but probably more like 0.5%... just some elites and government officials knew how to write. And writing back then wasn't used to write literature, but just to record certain transactions and a few other things by the state.

When the civilization broke down there was no elites and government anymore. To have a government you need to have an organized civilization that produces a surplus of food and pays taxes to support those elites and government officials. If you don't have that then everybody needs to produce food and build shelter for their own families and there is no time for "high tech" like writing. And since so few people knew how to write this new tech (which was also more complicated back then) was forgotten after a few generations. Or maybe it was just greatly reduced to the point where it is difficult for archaeologists to find something.

There might be other reasons also...

[Lordo]

The ability to write 3000 years ago was something new, Greeks were the first Europeans to learn this new technology (Cretan Civ a bit earlier) but literacy rate was not 99% like we have now, but probably more like 0.5%... just some elites and government officials knew how to write. And writing back then wasn't used to write literature, but just to record certain transactions and a few other things by the state.

When the civilization broke down there was no elites and government anymore. To have a government you need to have an organized civilization that produces a surplus of food and pays taxes to support those elites and government officials. If you don't have that then everybody needs to produce food and build shelter for their own families and there is no time for "high tech" like writing. And since so few people knew how to write this new tech (which was also more complicated back then) was forgotten after a few generations. Or maybe it was just greatly reduced to the point where it is difficult for archaeologists to find something.

There might be other reasons also...

was it really. you are talking out of your arse boy. mezopotamians and the egyptions were writing in 3500 bc, where is your griiks did not start till 2500 bc. i hazard a guess that they learnt it from the earlier people and then claim it as their own. you bunch of theiving swine.

[supporttheunderdog]

The ability to write 3000 years ago was something new, Greeks were the first Europeans to learn this new technology (Cretan Civ a bit earlier) but literacy rate was not 99% like we have now, but probably more like 0.5%... just some elites and government officials knew how to write. And writing back then wasn't used to write literature, but just to record certain transactions and a few other things by the state.

When the civilization broke down there was no elites and government anymore. To have a government you need to have an organized civilization that produces a surplus of food and pays taxes to support those elites and government officials. If you don't have that then everybody needs to produce food and build shelter for their own families and there is no time for "high tech" like writing. And since so few people knew how to write this new tech (which was also more complicated back then) was forgotten after a few generations. Or maybe it was just greatly reduced to the point where it is difficult for archaeologists to find something.

There might be other reasons also...

The earliest known literature can be traced to Sumer in 2600 bc and the epic of Gilgamesh was written say 2250 to 2000 bc, while by 1400 bc the Cypriot Rulers were in correspondence with the Ugarit kings in the Armana letters, so there was nothing new about writing or story telling in say 1000 bc. Crete had Hieroglyphic script by 2000bc then Linear A was in use for about 500 years until the collapse of the Minoan civilisation in about 1450. Linear B, based on Linear A, then emerged.

As you correctly observed unlike the rather more advanced Middle Eastern civilisations who were creating literature and had been doing so for 1000 years, Linear B was mainly used for record keeping and accounting, and probably only by trained scribes, who probably vanished in the Bronze Age collapse. Cyprus had a script which survived.

You have however made an absurd claim that Cyprus was settled by Greeks in 2000 bc. Simply not true.
The archaeological evidence does otherwise indicate that until say 1050 BC Cyprus was more a part of an eastern Mediterranean polity, in particular the Hittite Empire. There is evidence of trade, not settlement from say 1600 bc, but the earliest sign of Greek language was about 1000bc.

As for Ethnos, plainly you confuse the modern label for a geographical location with a description of an Ethnos but I would say it is self apparent that though label Ethnos is Greek, the label can be applied to preGreek groups in the area now labeled as Anatolia. It also follows that those who settled Cyprus would have shared an Ethnos with those of their origin location, and while the geographical separation would lead to divergence, that would likley be a slow process before they were significantly different that but for an intervening event language would become incompressible and beliefs very different. In any event there was a non Greek Ethnos in Cyprus before Hellenisationwhich only began after say 1100bc.

I repeat, the Genetics do not support a Greek mass migration theory, as is so often claimed to have occurred.

[Sotos]

The ability to write 3000 years ago was something new, Greeks were the first Europeans to learn this new technology (Cretan Civ a bit earlier) but literacy rate was not 99% like we have now, but probably more like 0.5%... just some elites and government officials knew how to write. And writing back then wasn't used to write literature, but just to record certain transactions and a few other things by the state.

When the civilization broke down there was no elites and government anymore. To have a government you need to have an organized civilization that produces a surplus of food and pays taxes to support those elites and government officials. If you don't have that then everybody needs to produce food and build shelter for their own families and there is no time for "high tech" like writing. And since so few people knew how to write this new tech (which was also more complicated back then) was forgotten after a few generations. Or maybe it was just greatly reduced to the point where it is difficult for archaeologists to find something.

There might be other reasons also...

was it really. you are talking out of your arse boy. mezopotamians and the egyptions were writing in 3500 bc, where is your griiks did not start till 2500 bc. i hazard a guess that they learnt it from the earlier people and then claim it as their own. you bunch of theiving swine.

The ancient Greeks would learn from others and then make their own discoveries above and beyond what others had at the time. The Greek civilization was one of the greatest ever and this is recognized by the whole world. You on the other hand have trouble to spell even basic words and apparently you are so stupid you don't even know what a spell checker is

[Lordo]

this precise mentality of ypurs explains exactly why t=you boys are stuck in 2500 years bc with your alphabet. where as language is a living thing and should be allowed to be used as we like not jsut becasue some sfuffy swine is saying this is how it hould be, you stupid boy.

now bugger off.