Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

CONSTRUCTING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE:
THE HELLENIZATION OF CYPRUS

Natasha (Anastasia) Leriou

Department of Ancient History & Archaeology, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

[email protected]

[Paphitis]

This paper focuses on an archaeological narrative that has received plenty of criticism
lately and is regarded by some scholars as a series of factoids: the Mycenaean
colonization and subsequent hellenization of Cyprus during the transitional period
from the latest phase of the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age. After a brief
presentation of the current version of the narrative and the methodological problems
associated with it, the discussion will go back in time to the first half of the 19th
century, when the earliest academic references to the colonization theory were made.
By following the narrative’s gradual development until the present day, I will attempt
to elucidate the reasons and circumstances, academic and other, that led historians and
archaeologists to build and subsequently adopt this narrative, which besides its many
problems, is still widely accepted.

[Get Real!]

But where's the link to the paper Bafidoui?

[Paphitis]

But where's the link to the paper Bafidoui?

I will give you the link at the end.

[Paphitis]

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

[Paphitis]

Should one wish to learn about the ethnic identity of the Cypriot society during the
Early Iron Age, he/ she would discover that almost all books, popular or academic, on
Cypriot (Hill 1949: 82-94; Catling 1966: 64-73; Åström 1972a: 775-781; Demetriou
1987; Karageorghis 1968; 63-70; 1976a: 144-153; 1978: 58-71; 1981: 62-70; 1982:
82-113; 1990: 35-46; 1990a; 1997: 255-285; 1998: 39-60; Coldstream 1990: 47-51;
Kyrris 1996: 44-71) and Greek ancient history (Desborough-Hammond 1962: 4-5;
Desborough 1964: 196-205; 1972: 55-56; Snodgrass 1971: 29, 314, 316-317, 365;
Karageorghis 1971a: 350-352; Bury-Meiggs 1975: 62-63; Coldstream 1979: 67-68;
Boardman 1980: 38; Osborne 1996: 22; Bournia-Simantoni 1997: 16-17, 18-19)
supply us with the very same story: the island had been hellenized towards the end of
the Late Bronze Age by numerous immigrants from the Aegean. The formulation of
this hypothesis goes back to the early 19th century. Since then it has entered a process
of endless modification and refinement as more and more archaeological finds are
being unearthed, new interpretative theories are developed and applied and the sociopolitical
circumstances of the island significantly altered. The investigation of this
process constitutes the main objective of the present study (part III).

[Get Real!]

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/archaeolog ... /paper.pdf

I've got it dopey-head...

It's amazing she talks about "factoids" which is pretty much what I've been arguing about all along although I wasn't familiar with this term! Thanks for that Paphidoui...

[Paphitis]

The current version of the narrative3 advocates two successive waves of
Aegean immigrants that occurred during the course of Late Cypriot4 III (1200-1050
BC5), which was the final phase of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. The preceding
LCII (1400-1200 BC) was a period of great prosperity and intensive contacts with
countries in the Eastern and Central Mediterranean, which were based primarily on
the development of the copper-trade. The exceptionally rich material culture attests to
the cosmopolitan character of the period. The population had grown considerably and
lived either in villages in the countryside or in large urban settlements, which had
been built mainly in the coastal areas of the island. LCIIC (1300-1200 BC) is
characterised by the establishment of more important centres with monumental
architecture, most of which were associated with metallurgy and the exploitation of
copper (Karageorghis 1990: 2; Karageorghis 1990a: 22-35; 1997: 243-255; 1998: 28-
38; Iacovou 1999: 3-4).

[Paphitis]

The thriving LCIIC period ended with a series of catastrophes and/ or
abandonments, which have been observed in most settlement-sites and are considered
as part of the general upheaval that caused the collapse of the Hochkulturen of the
Eastern Mediterranean and is usually associated with the action of the Sea Peoples.
This is the time of the fall of the Mycenaean palaces in mainland Greece and the
subsequent arrival of the first wave of Mycenaean settlers, who have recently been
argued to be a branch of the Sea Peoples. (Muhly 1984: 51-53; Mazar 1988: 255-257;
Karageorghis 1990: 3-26; 1992; 1998: 39; 2000: 255; Iacovou 1999: 4-5; Betancourt
2000).

[Paphitis]

The LCIIIA (1200-1100 BC) levels have yielded considerable numbers of
locally produced Mycenaean pots, which belong to a style widely known in
bibliography as Mycenaean IIIC:1b, and are regarded as irrefutable evidence for the
presence of Mycenaean settlers on the island. Further novel features have been
observed in the material culture of the island (cyclopean walls, large bath- and hearthrooms
and stepped capitals). However no significant cultural break between LCIIC
and LCIIIA may be observed. Although no new sites were established, some of the
abandoned ones were rebuilt and eventually reoccupied. The majority of the LCIIIA
settlements were destroyed in the course of the 12th century (Karageorghis 1990: 27-
30; 1992: 80-81; 1997: 255-272; 1998: 39-56; 1998a; 1998b; 2000; Iacovou 1989:52-
55; 1994: 150; 1999: 5-6).