Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

...of course I am hoping for some lively debate on the subject:

By sequencing the mitochondrial DNA of the first Near Eastern farmers for the first time, an international team of researchers have discovered evidence supporting an Early Neolithic pioneer maritime colonization of mainland Europe that involved expansion through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands.

Furthermore, the results show that the two primary migration routes (Mediterranean and European) could have been genetically linked. This is due to the degree of genetic similarity between the populations of the Fertile Crescent and those found in Cyprus and Crete, which suggests that the Neolithic spread across Europe was due to seafaring colonization and not a land-based expedition, according to Fernández.

“Recent archaeological finds have proved that the Neolithic arrived to Cyprus around 10,600 years ago, some years after the first documentation of agricultural practices in the Near East,” said Turbón. He added that the similarity between the architecture and burial models of sites in Cyprus and those of found in the Middle Euphrates basin “indicates a direct colonization of these territories.”

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11 ... KGZ4B4X.99

[Get Real!]

Just a reminder to you Repulse that the Euphrates River is in modern day Iraq and not on the outskirts of Athens!

I’m highlighting this because you’re one of those uneducated nincompoops who call themselves “Greek” so you’ve just read it in B&W that you’re NOT “Greek”!

As the article informs it’s the Cypriots who travelled and spread into Europe, not the other way round.

Of course, that's not news to me… it’s common sense given that the earliest human skeletons were found in Africa in the Eritrean/Ethiopian regions so the spread into the Levant and then to Cyprus makes perfect sense.

[repulsewarrior]

..off your meds again I see.

[Get Real!]

..off your meds again I see.

There’s no point in reading such research if you’re not gonna learn anything from it Repulse…

Will you remember it one month from now or keep posting that you’re Greek again?

Here's what it's basically saying to you regarding the direction of human migrations into Europe...

Picture1.jpg

[GreekIslandGirl]

Hello RW

There's a lot wrong with the (far too preliminary) report on their research ...

For example, first they say they examined DNA from samples dating:

The research team looked at 63 skeletons from the Pre Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) sites of Tell Halula, Tell Ramad and Dja’de El Mughara, which have been dated to between 8,700 BC and 6,600 BC. They recovered 15 validated mitochondrial DNA profiles, and compared them to available ancient genetic data from human remains

- and then they try to explain this as being responsible for:

“Recent archaeological finds have proved that the Neolithic arrived to Cyprus around 10,600 years ago, some years after the first documentation of agricultural practices in the Near East,” said Turbón.

It doesn't make sense because then they go on to say agriculture started 12,000 years ago but have not provided any new data as to how they have pinpointed this ...

Nothing new here other than isolated DNA studies from the 15 samples.

[Get Real!]

Hello RW
There's a lot wrong with the (far too preliminary) report on their research ...

[Oceanside50]

...of course I am hoping for some lively debate on the subject:

By sequencing the mitochondrial DNA of the first Near Eastern farmers for the first time, an international team of researchers have discovered evidence supporting an Early Neolithic pioneer maritime colonization of mainland Europe that involved expansion through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands.

Furthermore, the results show that the two primary migration routes (Mediterranean and European) could have been genetically linked. This is due to the degree of genetic similarity between the populations of the Fertile Crescent and those found in Cyprus and Crete, which suggests that the Neolithic spread across Europe was due to seafaring colonization and not a land-based expedition, according to Fernández.

“Recent archaeological finds have proved that the Neolithic arrived to Cyprus around 10,600 years ago, some years after the first documentation of agricultural practices in the Near East,” said Turbón. He added that the similarity between the architecture and burial models of sites in Cyprus and those of found in the Middle Euphrates basin “indicates a direct colonization of these territories.”

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11 ... KGZ4B4X.99

Mravo kopeli..eisai palikaaari!!

[repulsewarrior]

..off your meds again I see.

There’s no point in reading such research if you’re not gonna learn anything from it Repulse…

Will you remember it one month from now or keep posting that you’re Greek again?

Here's what it's basically saying to you regarding the direction of human migrations into Europe...

Picture1.jpg

dude, maybe your life would be better if you didn't feel so threatened by another Cypriot who does not take the simple view, and who has gone beyond the idea that "Greeks" are Cypriot, or the other way around. if you have been actually reading, you will see my views are not in contradiction to yours, although there is better, I think, than the way things are framed right now.

...as for the scientific facts, indeed the issues of Mankind's past remain unclear, although it is becoming apparent that the sea was not an impossible obstacle to migration. like Crete, the evidence points to habitation and social-exchange before the dominance of the European Continent's dwellers over the same region.

[supporttheunderdog]

I think the article is flawed, and there are eg the inconsistencies between dates of 10600 bc on the one hand and 6000 bc on the other, correctly pointed out by GIG. A point also overlooked is that it is quite possible that the earliest humans who are thought to have come to Cyprus in 10600 bc or so may not have left permanent continuing settlement.

I also have some doubts about the maritime migration theory VIA Cyprus and Crete. I am rather more inclined to suspect that the main route was along the Anatolian coast both by land and sea with Cyprus in particular being settled through an offshoot from the main route. Crete would likely have been visited as a part of an island hopping route. Island hopping through the Aegean area the distances are relatively small.

That said I think it rather more likely that of those who left permanent and continuing settlement in Cyprus the earliest settlers were likely to be middle eastern / Anatolian in origin.

[yialousa1971]

..off your meds again I see.

Well the vet thought it might be the meds causing her not to lay so we stopped giving them to her.