Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

No Cyprus has not been Greek since the dawn of History - Cyprus had a history for 4000/5000 years before the Mycenaeans invaded in about 1100BC aosed.nd had Hellenism imposed.

The rest is ancient Greek Propoganda!

[Sotos]

You have no evidence for any such invasion but the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain are well recorded in history Greeks have a 3500 year history in Cyprus and you have no evidence that they invaded while the English don't even have half of that history in Britain and we know for sure that they invaded! Where does that leave your argument?

[Sotos]

Germanic tribes from northwestern Europe began to raid Roman-occupied Britain in the third century, carrying away grain, cattle, and other valuables. Not long after Roman troops were withdrawn from Britain, 407–10, bands from three distinct but closely related tribes—the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—sailed across the North Sea in search of land for settlement.

According to tradition, the first important settlement was made about 449 by the Jutes on Britain's eastern coast. For nearly two centuries, a steady stream of Teutonic invaders followed. They penetrated the island by way of its inland rivers, ravaging as they advanced. Roman civilization was destroyed; its language, religion, and customs disappeared. Most of the native Britons, a Celtic people, were killed, enslaved, or driven into Wales and to Brittany (in France).

About 613 the Anglo-Saxon conquest of central Britain was completed. Anglo-Saxon England was divided into a number of small kingdoms. The Jutes occupied the region called Kent, between the Thames River and the Strait of Dover. The Saxons settled to the south and west of London. Their major kingdoms were Sussex, Essex, and Wessex. The Angles, who gave their name to the country, inhabited the eastern coast from the territory of the Saxons northward into the Scottish lowlands. They formed the kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria.

Although barbarians, the Anglo-Saxons were more advanced than the Britons had been before the Roman occupation. Predominantly a rural people, they settled in small villages scattered throughout the country and farmed the land.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/europe ... axons1.htm

[supporttheunderdog]

The Myth of a masive influx of Anglo saxons is now discredited by science: here are some rather more scientific document which analyse the position
http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/enwiki/en/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles
http://www.jogg.info/31/campbell.htm
[url]http://www.jogg.info/32/campbell.htm[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1_(Y-DNA)
[quote}The traditional view of British and Irish prehistory was that several waves of migration had resulted in widespread, if not total, population displacement. After the Last Glacial Maximum the region was first repopulated by Paleolithic hunter gatherers. During the Neolithic period, with the spread of farming, this population was supposedly replaced by the farmers. Later immigrations were thought to have accompanied the transitions to bronze and iron-working, known respectively as the Bronze and Iron Ages. The introduction of iron was particularly significant because archaeologists had associated it with the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. These came to be associated by early archaeologists with the so-called Celtic culture, which was seemingly widespread on the continent. A later migration, that of the Anglo-Saxons, was also claimed to have led to total population replacement, but genetic evidence suggests otherwise. In his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Bede claimed that the Angles came to Britain en masse as an entire nation leaving no one behind in their homeland Angeln.[19] Other population movements (though not total displacements) recorded during historical times include those of the Danish and Norwegian Vikings, Danes in the east of England (especially the Danelaw) and Norwegians in the Shetland and Orkney Isles, Western Isles and Ireland.

The replacement model has been under sustained attack since the 1960s, with researchers asserting a much greater continuity than previously known or acknowledged. British archaeologist Simon James attributes the idea of large-scale mass migration to the assumption of primitivism about earlier inhabitants, assuming that cultural changes, such as nomadic hunter-gathering to farming, stone-working to metalworking, and bronze-working to iron-working, required newcomers introducing materials and techniques to the indigenous population, rather than them learning through trade or other methods.

Francis Pryor has stated that he "can't see any evidence for bona fide mass migrations after the Neolithic."[20] Historian Malcolm Todd writes, "It is much more likely that a large proportion of the British population remained in place and was progressively dominated by a Germanic aristocracy, in some cases marrying into it and leaving Celtic names in the, admittedly very dubious, early lists of Anglo-Saxon dynasties. But how we identify the surviving Britons in areas of predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlement, either archaeologically or linguistically, is still one of the deepest problems of early English history."[21] Although the idea of mass human migrations into Great Britain and Ireland is now a relatively minor point of view amongst British and Irish archaeologists, there is still a perception outside of the archaeological community that an "Anglo-Saxon" mass migration (especially) occurred, and that this forms a fundamental division between English "Anglo-Saxon" populations in Great Britain and non-English "Celtic" populations.


Map showing the distribution of Y chromosomes in a trans section of England and Wales from the paper "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration". The authors attribute the differences in frequencies of haplogroup I to Anglo-Saxon mass migration into England, but not into Wales.In 2002 a paper titled "Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration" was published by the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at the University College London in cooperation with Vrije Universiteit and the University of California, Davis claiming direct genetic evidence for population differences between the English and Welsh populations and proposed a model for mass invasion of eastern Great Britain from northern Germany and Denmark.[22] The authors assumed that populations with large proportions of haplogroup I originated from northern Germany or southern Scandinavia, particularly Denmark, and that their ancestors had migrated across the North Sea with Anglo-Saxon migrations and Danish Vikings.

In her book Origins of the English Catherine Hills criticized these conclusions, arguing that a biased sampling strategy flawed the study, especially since testing was limited only to regions in England where Danes were known to have settled during the Danelaw, which is archaeologically distinct. In the paper the main claim by the researchers was that an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50–100% of the Central English male gene pool at that time is required. We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number … This study shows that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea … These results indicate that a political boundary can be more important than a geophysical one in population genetic structuring.

The paper was widely publicized in the media, especially in the United Kingdom, but reporting was often misleading and inaccurate. For example, the BBC claimed that the "English and Welsh are races apart" and asserted "that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out" though this was not a claim of the paper.[23] The conclusion for evidence of mass Anglo-Saxon migration, and that east English samples were more similar to Frisian samples than to Welsh samples, did not support the archaeological orthodoxy of modern times. A year later, in 2003, the paper "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" was published by Capelli et al..[24] This paper, which sampled Great Britain and Ireland on a grid, found a much smaller difference between Welsh and English samples, and was much more characterised by isolation by distance, with a gradual decrease in Haplogroup I frequency moving westwards in southern Great Britain. It also found North German and Danish samples were not more similar to east English samples than Welsh samples.

Distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups from Capelli et al. (2003). Haplogroup I is present in all populations, with higher frequencies in the east and lower frequencies in the west. There appears to be no discrete boundary as observed by Weale et al. (2002)But what is clear is that English share more in common genetically with the Dutch than they do with the Welsh.

Oxford archaeologist David Miles has argued that 80 percent of the genetic makeup of native Britons probably comes from "just a few thousand" nomadic tribesmen who arrived 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age. This suggests later waves of immigration may have been too small to have significantly affected the genetics of the pre-existing population.[25]

Traditionally, areas with a majority Angle influence included the Kingdoms of Northumbria (Nord Angelnen, Nordimbria Anglorum), East Anglia (Ost Angelnen) and Mercia (Mittlere Angelnen) while the Saxon areas were the Kingdoms of Sussex (Suth Seaxe), Essex (Est Seaxna), and Wessex (West Seaxna).[26] The Kingdom of Kent was considered a place of another Germanic tribe, the Jutes. Stephen Oppenheimer suggested that the Anglo-Saxon invasions actually had been predominantly Anglian.[27]

Meanwhile, Bryan Sykes has said that the Anglo-Saxons made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but probably less than 20 percent of the total, even in southern England, where raids and settlements were supposedly commonplace. His conclusions, on Britain at least, mirror those of other researchers including Siiri Rootsi and Nordtvedt.[28] A report on the Saxons who were part of the Germanic settlement of Britain during and after the fifth century was issued by University College London in July 2006, with a wide-ranging estimate for the total number of settlers varying between 10,000 and 200,000.[29]

The Vikings, both Danes and Norwegians, also made a substantial contribution after the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, Sykes said, with concentrations in central, northern, and eastern England, territories of the ancient Danelaw. Sykes said he found evidence of a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, near 40 percent. Mitochondrial DNA as well as Y DNA of northern Germanic origin was discovered at substantial rates in all of these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement, Sykes explained. However, Nordtvedt has said that separating I1 haplotypes into Viking and non-Viking groups has been impossible thus far.

Evidence of Norman genetic influence in England was extremely small – about two percent according to Sykes, discounting the idea that William the Conqueror, his troops and any settlers disrupted and displaced previous cultures. Some notable British historians (and Anglophiles) assumed that the Norman invasion of AD 1066 greatly affected the society of the time and that little culture survived from the original Britons. In England, from the fifth to seventh centuries, the Anglo-Saxons soon developed their own paganism as well.[/quote}

[bill cobbett]

Oooooh nice Stud,

Was looking at this a few weeks ago and the Anglo-Saxon Invasion must have been the most curious invasion ever, cos... where are the remains of battlefields, of cemeteries, where are the new villages, where is the folk-lore of invasion and resistance and reprisals, where is the evidence of a huge influx of people and mass migration of the indigenous, pre-existing population away from the invasion... ??? ... very, very curious.

Many years ago read Bede's History of the English People, a great read and a most, most, perhaps the most influential book in this matter, still got a copy somewhere and it left an interesting impression in that it said sooo little (if anything) about English History before the landing of St Augustine and the "bringing" of Christianity to England. Plenty of evidence that a Christianity independent of Rome was already being practised in England years before Augustine. So can only be one conclusion and that is that there was and still is A Papist Plot to re-write English History... and then we could go on to find out about recent research in to the origins of the English Language.

[supporttheunderdog]

Oooooh nice Stud,

Was looking at this a few weeks ago and the Anglo-Saxon Invasion must have been the most curious invasion ever, cos... where are the remains of battlefields, of cemeteries, where are the new villages, where is the folk-lore of invasion and resistance and reprisals, where is the evidence of a huge influx of people and mass migration of the indigenous, pre-existing population away from the invasion... ??? ... very, very curious.

Many years ago read Bede's History of the English People, a great read and a most, most, perhaps the most influential book in this matter, still got a copy somewhere and it left an interesting impression in that it said sooo little (if anything) about English History before the landing of St Augustine and the "bringing" of Christianity to England. Plenty of evidence that a Christianity independent of Rome was already being practised in England years before Augustine. So can only be one conclusion and that is that there was and still is A Papist Plot to re-write English History... and then we could go on to find out about recent research in to the origins of the English Language.

I believe St Bede described one of the aims of the mission of St Augustine as to meet the British Christians, which he did in Kent, to get them join in converting the Saxons. Part of it was evidently to bring the insular British Church under Roman Domination - a papist plot indeed.

Some people theorise (and this is contraversial) that early Germanic language influences may have existed in Britain before even the Romans arrived and that in particular it was through Northern Gaulish tribes,the Belgea in particular, who may have spoken a germanic related language, and who occupied part of Britain. This is even hinted at by Julius Ceasar who describes the Belgic tribes as being differnt linguistically to the Gauls.

See [url]http://www.romanarmy.net/invasion.htm[/url}

I am trying to track down some work by Dr Peter Forster who comments on this.
v

[Piratis]

The Myth of a masive influx of Anglo saxons is now discredited by science

You and some others can dispute how massive the influx of Anglo Saxons was in Britain, just like you can dispute how massive was the influx of Myceneans in Cyprus. But would that sort of arguments stop the English people of Britain from being English, or the Greek people of Cyprus from being Greek? Of course not.

I will repeat what I said earlier: Nations are not merely a single family which grew in size by incest and share the exact same genes. Nations were gradually created over the centuries by constant mixing of various groups.

I've also noticed that you were quick to claim about some "Mycenean invasion" of Cyprus and imposing Hellenism by force, something that you have no evidence whatsoever, but at the same time you were quick to deny the Anglo Saxon invasions of Britain, which while they might be disputed by some obscure sources, they are accepted by most scholars as a historical fact.

The Myceneans came to Cyprus more than 1500 years before the Anglo-Saxons went to Britain. At that time the world population was 150 times less than it is today, and therefore most of it was still uninhabited, particularly places like Cyprus which were settled comparatively late (probably about 9000 years ago). The Myceneans came to Cyprus and created their own cities and gradually mixed with other populations.

On the other hand by the time the Anglo-Saxons went to Britain, 1500 years later, the world population was much higher, and Britain which has been inhabited for at least 25000 years, was also settled by Celts and Romans. It makes sense that the newcomer Anglo Saxons would have to fight to get some land for themselves.

Conclusion: If we are to use your kind of arguments, we can far easier dispute how "English" are the people who call themselves English, than to dispute how Greek the majority of Cypriots are.

The question is: Why aren't you bothered by the 10s of millions of your own compatriots calling themselves English, and yet you are so bothered with Cypriots being Greek? I would really like a direct answer to this question and an explanation of your double standards. (if you do go to British forums and attack anybody who claims to be English in the same way that you attack us, then give us some links)

[kurupetos]

No Cyprus has not been Greek since the dawn of History - Cyprus had a history for 4000/5000 years before the Mycenaeans invaded in about 1100BC aosed.nd had Hellenism imposed.

The rest is ancient Greek Propoganda!

Can you prove your nonsense?

[Lordo]

What nonsense?

[supporttheunderdog]

[quote]
I've also noticed that you were quick to claim about some "Mycenean invasion" of Cyprus and imposing Hellenism by force, something that you have no evidence whatsoever, but at the same time you were quick to deny the Anglo Saxon invasions of Britain, which while they might be disputed by some obscure sources, they are accepted by most scholars as a historical fact.

The Myceneans came to Cyprus more than 1500 years before the Anglo-Saxons went to Britain. At that time the world population was 150 times less than it is today, and therefore most of it was still uninhabited, particularly places like Cyprus which were settled comparatively late (probably about 9000 years ago). The Myceneans came to Cyprus and created their own cities and gradually mixed with other populations.

[/qoute]
Ah the old propoganda is being trotted out - Engkomi, for example on the coast was destroyed by fire (probably sacked and burned) and replaced by a Mycenaean city : gives the impression of a conquest event. Paphos and Polis had been settled since Neolithic times and again the Mycenaeans took over - so they did not just fill the gaps. For Greek to to have survived and become the dominant language the Greek Speakers must have been very dominant - a ruling elite, as happened with the Anglo Saxons, who had originally formed mercanary forces for the local kings who, once the Romans went, began fighting for each other and where the palace guard took-over the palace . That or the Mycenaean alleged peaceful settlement was every bit as bad what the Tur* s are doing in the North - bringing in so many people to swamp the locals, otherwise the prospect is that they would have been absorbed by the existing population as happened many times in the UK with waves of immigrants, including the Normans, who were an elite but no so sufficiently dominant to do much more than partly modify the local language, not replace it. Peoples do not otherwise change languages to a new language group.

The debate is however about the Genetics and blood relationship withthe ancient Myceneaens, where as I have said most Cypriots can mostly claim descent from the first neolithic settlers - which takes into account that other genetic lineages eg Myceneaen have been introduced, just as other lineages have been introduced over time in the UK, but which have not overewhelmed the indigeonous peoples .