Dynamics and Developments of Social Structures and Networks in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus (Global Perspectives on Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology) [1 ed.] 1032335408, 9781032335407

Citation preview

Dynamics and Developments of Social Structures and Networks in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus

This volume substantiates the island of Cyprus as an important player in the history of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, and presents new theoretical and analytical approaches. The Cypriot Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age are characterised by an increasing complexity of social and political organisation, economic systems, and networks. The book discusses and defines how specific types of material datasets and assemblages, such as architecture, artefacts, and ecofacts, and their contextualisation can form the basis of interpretative models of social structures and networks in ancient Cyprus. This is explored through four main themes: approaches to social dynamics; social and economic networks and connectivity; adaptability and agency; and social dynamics and inequality. The variety and transition of social structures on the island are discussed on multiple scales, from the local and relatively short-term to island-wide and eastern Mediterranean-wide and the longue durée. The focus of study ranges from urban to non-urban contexts and is reflected in settlement, funerary, and other ritual contexts. Connections, both within the island and to the broader Eastern Mediterranean, and how these impact social and economic developments on the island, are explored. Discussions revolve around the potential of consolidating the models based on specialised studies into a cohesive interpretation of society on ancient Cyprus and its strategic connections with surrounding regions in a diachronic perspective from the Neolithic through the end of the Bronze Age, i.e. from roughly the seventh millennium to the eleventh century BCE. Dynamics and Developments of Social Structures and Networks in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus is intended for researchers and students of the archaeology and history of ancient Cyprus, the Aegean, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Teresa Bürge is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Universities of Gothenburg and Bern and at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Her research focuses on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant, in specific pottery and pottery provenance studies, economy, trade, and exchange of goods as well as depositional practices, ritual, and cult. She has co-directed the Swedish excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus, and is the expedition’s ceramic expert.

Lærke Recht is Professor of Early Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology, Institute of Classics (Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies), University of Graz, and Research Fellow at the International Institute for Mesopotamian Area Studies. Her main research interests are the Bronze Age and prehistory of Cyprus, Mesopotamia, and the Aegean, in particular material culture studies, human-animal relations, and exchange networks. She conducts excavations in Cyprus at Erimi-Pitharka and is a part of the Tell Mozan Project in Syria.

Global Perspectives on Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology Series editor: Jeremy Armstrong and Gijs Tol

The series’ remit embraces a broad span of time from the Mediterranean Bronze Age through the Byzantine period (c. 3200 BCE–1453 CE). Although nominally focused on the Mediterranean Sea and areas which immediately border it, the series also welcomes studies on areas slightly further afield which are linked to the Sea by cultural, social, economic, religious, or political connections, and where the Mediterranean zone is directly relevant. A guiding principle of the series is the inclusive appreciation of all available material from a particular area, time, and culture, even if the primary emphasis is on the archaeological aspects. Finally, as suggested by its name, the series is particularly interested in publishing works which adopt a broad comparative and cross-cultural approach, as well as those which bring together concepts and themes more common in the study of archaeology from elsewhere in the world (most notably the Pacific and Australasia) with those from the Old World. Birds in Roman Life and Myth Ashleigh Green

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Global-Perspectives-on-Ancient-Mediterranean-Archaeology/book-series/GPAMA

Dynamics and Developments of Social Structures and Networks in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus Edited by Teresa Bürge and Lærke Recht

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Teresa Bürge and Lærke Recht; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Teresa Bürge and Lærke Recht to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-33540-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-33563-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-32020-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9781032335407

Contents

List of figures List of tables Contributors Online appendices   1 Introduction: Connecting multiple approaches to social structures and networks

ix xv xvii xxi

1

LÆRKE RECHT AND TERESA BÜRGE

  2 Material convergences in a globalising world? Cyprus and the Near East in the seventh and sixth millennia BCE

27

JOANNE CLARKE AND ALEXANDER WASSE

  3 Economic convergences in a globalising world? Cyprus and the Near East in the seventh and sixth millennia BCE

52

ALEXANDER WASSE AND JOANNE CLARKE

  4 A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus

73

FRANCESCA CHELAZZI

  5 Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities: The case of Chalcolithic Cyprus

88

BLEDA S. DÜRING

  6 Metal artefact production and distribution in Early and Middle Bronze Age Cyprus: Patterns of intraregional and interregional connection and disconnection JENNIFER M. WEBB

101

viii Contents   7 Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus between MC III and LC I in the regions of Limassol and Paphos

118

ELENA PERI

  8 Innovation and adaptation: Ceramic development across the Middle to Late Cypriot horizon

134

CHRISTINE JOHNSTON, LINDY CREWE AND ARTEMIOS OIKONOMOU

  9 Cypriot connections through the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition in the Western Galilee: A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv

150

BRIGID CLARK

10 Strategies for success during the transition to the Late Bronze Age at Kissonerga-Skalia

179

LINDY CREWE AND ELLON SOUTER

11 The social context of ritual in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An archaeobotanical study from the cemetery of Hala Sultan Tekke

196

DOMINIKA KOFEL, TERESA BÜRGE AND PETER M. FISCHER

12 Of bulls and birds: Mycenaean and Cypriot animal and social symbolism on the move

210

KATARZYNA ZEMAN-WIŚNIEWSKA

13 Eastern Mediterranean exchange networks: Imported ceramics at Pyla-Kokkinokremos, Cyprus

218

IOANNA KOSTOPOULOU

14 Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Cyprus) and Late Bronze Age Mediterranean networks: The role of the pithoi

236

FRANCESCA PORTA AND VALENTINA CANNAVÒ

15 Pursuits of social status and power at Maa-Palaeokastro

255

ARTEMIS GEORGIOU

16 Connecting communities: Agency and social interactions in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus

281

LOUISE STEEL

Index291

Figures

1.1 Map of Cyprus in its Eastern Mediterranean setting, with main sites mentioned in the chapters (prepared by T. Bürge) 2.1 Map showing sites mentioned in the text 2.2 Schematic chart showing cultural periodisation for Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia and the badia between 6800 and 5300 BCE 2.3  Tholos IA complex at Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios 1953: pl. III) 2.4 a. Grooved carnelian bead from grave I in tholos XVIII at Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios 1953: pl. CI.886) and b. grooved steatite beads from the Burnt House at Arpachiyah (reproduced with permission from Mallowan and Rose 1935: pl. VIb) 2.5 Aerial photograph of structure W-80 at Wisad Pools (photographer Y.M. Rowan) 2.6 Mother-of-pearl ‘link’ from structure W-80 at Wisad Pools (photographer G.O. Rollefson) 2.7 Applied humanoid on Wadi Rabah jar from Ein el-Jarba, mid sixth millennium (reproduced with permission from Streit [2015] fig. 3a) 2.8 Humanoid relief on the side of a stone bowl from Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Le Brun (ed.) [1989] fig. 52.9) 2.9 Possible humanoid relief on the side of a spouted stone bowl from Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios [1953] pl. CXXII.813) 3.1 Incised pebbles from Cyprus: a. Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios [1953] pl. XC.1004), b. Khirokitia, noting apparent suspension hole (reproduced with permission from Le Brun [ed.] 1994: fig. 99.3), and c. Ortos (reproduced with permission from Simmons [1994] fig. 4) 3.2a  Incised pebbles and stamp seals from the mainland: grid designs (reproduced with permission from Eirikh-Rose [2004] fig. 12.8) 3.2b Incised pebbles and stamp seals from the mainland: cross and radiating designs (reproduced with permission from Eirikh-Rose [2004] fig. 12.9)

17 29 29 31

35 36 37 39 40 40

56 57 58

x Figures 4.1 Heat map of: right) the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological datasets from Cyprus, left) the NERD radiocarbon dates from Cyprus 76 4.2 Summed probability distribution (SPD) of unnormalised calibrated radiocarbon dates (solid line) versus a fitted logistic model (95 per cent Monte Carlo confidence grey envelope) of population growth. The x-axis represents the analysed chronological range, the y-axis represents the ‘density of probability’ 77 4.3 Regional summed probability distribution (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates for the southwest, southeast, centre, north Cyprus, compared with a 95 per cent Monte Carlo envelope of the island-wide model produced via permutation of regional datasets 80 5.1 Map of Western Cyprus with the most important Chalcolithic sites indicated. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg 89 5.2 Building sizes of Chalcolithic house at the Lemba Archaeological Project and Chlorakas-Palloures. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg 91 5.3 Plan of Building 1 at Chlorakas-Palloures. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg 95 5.4 In situ jars in Building 15 at Chlorakas-Palloures 96 6.1 Map of Cyprus showing sites mentioned in the text (prepared by the author) 101 6.2 Provenance of copper-base artefacts from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods 103 6.3 Artefact types within the provenanced assemblage from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods 104 6.4 a–d. The composition of provenanced artefacts from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods; e. The relative percentage of Cu/Cu-As and 105 tin alloys in each period 6.5 MC artefacts from Lapithos. a. Spearheads, b. Daggers, c. Axes, d. Awls, e. Chisel, f. Needles, g. Razors, h. Tweezers, i. Spiral, j. Composite tweezer blade, k. Hook, l. Pins, and m. Toggle pins (photographs by Rudy Frank) 110 7.1 Chronological frame of Middle and Late Cypriot wares discussed in this chapter. Chronology for early Monochrome according to Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 223–4; White Slip I: Eriksson (2007) 61, 125; Proto White Slip: Eriksson (2001) 53–5, (2007) 61–70, 80; Base Ring I: Crewe (2007b) 37; Proto Base Ring: Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 224; Plain White Handmade and Wheelmade: Crewe (2009) 79, Crewe and Georgiou (2018) 61; Red on Black: Crewe (2007b) 38; Red and Black Slip (II, III, IV, V, Wheelmade): Crewe

Figures  xi (2007b) 38, Webb (2014) 221; Drab Polished: Webb (2017) 181; Red Polished: Crewe et al. (2008) 113–15, Graham (2013) 112–13, Webb (2017) 133; Red Polished IV: Frankel and Webb (2007) 60–4; Red Polished Punctured: Herscher (1976) 11–19, (1981) 81, (1991) 47, Carpenter (1981) 60, 64–5, Webb (2017) 203; Red Polished III: Barlow (1991) 52, Crewe (2007b) 38, Frankel and Webb (2007) 44–5, Webb (2017) 203; Red Polished Mottled: Swiny (1979) 227–8; White Painted: Crewe (2007b) 35–6, Webb (2017) 130.  (All pottery images are from Karageorghis and Violaris 2012, courtesy of Yiannis Violaris. Illustration by T. Bürge and the author) 7.2 MC III to LC I contexts in Limassol and Paphos districts (map by the author) 8.1 Map of Cyprus highlighting sites yielding MC III–LC I transitional material (map prepared by L. Crewe) 8.2 Excavation plan of Kissonerga-Skalia (plan by L. Crewe) 8.3 Drab Polished (a) and Red Polished (b) sherds from the study sample 8.4 Correlation between the ratios rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) and titanium/chromium (Ti/Cr) (Oikonomou 2020, fig. 2) 8.5 Correlation between the ratios calcium/potassium (Ca/K) against iron/manganese (Fe/Mn) (Oikonomou 2020, fig. 3) 8.6 Group A sample sherds as identified through pXRF analysis, including sherds identified macroscopically as imported RP IV (a) and Black Slip local imitation wares (b) 8.7 Group B sample sherds as identified through pXRF analysis. Sherds were identified macroscopically as examples of local Drab ware vessels (A: KS_pXRF_9) and local Proto Base Ring ware (B: KS_pXRF_22; C: KS_pXRF_24). Section images by Sergios Menelaou 9.1 Tel Achziv and the nearby associated sites, adapted from YasurLandau et al. (2008) fig. 2 9.2 Various White Painted Wares from Tel Achziv (prepared by author) 9.3 Selection of RoB and RoR rims from Tel Achziv (prepared by author) 9.4 Various RoB and RoR sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author) 9.5 Various White Slip sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author) 9.6 Selection of Bichrome sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author) 9.7 Map of sites mentioned in the text (prepared by the author) 10.1 Plan of Kissonerga-Skalia showing the final phase complex and earlier s­ tructures (prepared by L. Crewe)

120 121 135 136 138 140 141 142

143 153 155 157 157 158 160 165 181

xii Figures 10.2 Final pre-abandonment surfaces and deposits in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter) 10.3 Initial surfaces and features in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter) 10.4 a. Juglet KS512 from Room 954 (photograph by I. Cohn). b. Juglet KS221 from Courtyard 613 (photograph by L. Crewe) 10.5 Skull-filled Pit 1161 underlying Surface 1085 in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter) 10.6 a. Upper level of skull-filled Pit 1161 b. Lower level of skullfilled Pit 1161 (photograph by L. Crewe) 10.7 A selection of miniature cups and bowls from Kissonerga-Skalia (scale 1:2) (prepared by L. Crewe) 10.8 Bovid figurine KS480 found in Feature 699 (photograph by I. Cohn) 11.1 Overview of Hala Sultan Tekke, Area A with position of Tombs RR and SS indicated (by A. Buhlke) 11.2 Tomb SS, pottery deposits L148, L150, L151; position of Plain ware jug N387 and Base Ring I jug N457 indicated by arrows (by A. Buhlke; modifications by T. Bürge) 11.3 Plain jug N387 and Base Ring I jug N457 (photographs by T. Bürge) 11.4 Reconstruction of possible ‘bouquet’ found inside N387 (by M. Polaczek) 12.1 Detail of pottery bell krater decorated in the Pictorial Style. Bull and a bird. Enkomi, Late Helladic IIIB, drawing by Mariusz Wiśniewski after British Museum 1897.0401.1150 12.2 Details of amphoroid krater. On each side, there are two big bovines facing each other with one small bovine below, surrounded by birds. Enkomi, LH IIIB1, height 51.5 cm. Medelhavsmuseet E. 018 Sk:006.  CC BY 4.0 12.3 Detail of bell krater. Stylised bull and a bird. Klavdia, Late Helladic IIIB, d­ rawing by Mariusz Wiśniewski after British Museum 1898.1020.15 12.4 Haematite stamp seal with bucranium and birds. Late Cypriot, diameter 1.8 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art 1999.325.210 13.1 Imported Mycenaean Chalice. Bamboula Painter. Photograph by the author 13.2 Imported Mycenaean bell-shaped krater. Bulls and Birds. Photographs by J. Bretschneider 13.3 Imported Mycenaean shallow bowl. Photograph by the author 13.4 Minoan ‘pithoid/amphoroid krater’. Photograph by the author 13.5 Minoan coarse-ware stirrup jar. Photograph by C. Hadjivasili 13.6 Angular-shouldered Canaanite jar. Photograph by the author 13.7 Egyptian jar. Photograph by the author

183 183 184 184 185 187 188 197 201 202 204 210

213 214 215 220 221 222 223 224 225 226

Figures  xiii 13.8 Nuragic impasto belly-handled amphora. Photograph by the author 13.9 Nuragic impasto belly-handled amphora. Photograph by the author 14.1 Pyla-Kokkinokremos and the other Cypriot sites mentioned in the text (Google Earth) 14.2 Topographical plan of the settlement of Pyla-Kokkinokremos, with indications of sectors (© C-PEPL, N. Kress) 14.3 Late Minoan III pithos from Pyla (photo F. Porta; published in Karageorghis and Georgiou 2010) 14.4 Fabric S3 sample in macroscopy and in thin section (long side 5 mm) 14.5 PK17-1103 (photo J. Bretschneider) 14.6 PK17-1103 (drawing A. Arena) 14.7 Fabric E2 sample in macroscopy and in thin section (long side 5 mm) 14.8 6/03/5097/OB 001 (drawing A. Arena) 14.9 Fabric G4 sample in macroscopy and in thin section (long side 5 mm) 14.10 PK14-852 (photo C. Hadjivasili) 14.11 PK14-852 (drawing A. Arena) 15.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text (map drafted by the author, data by the Cyprus Geological Survey department) 15.2  The promontory of Maa-Palaeokastro (left), detail of the excavated areas (Floor II) (right), red (online version) indicates use of ashlar masonry (From Karageorghis and Demas [1988] pl. 2 and fig. 2) 15.3  The Northern (landward) fortification walls at MaaPalaeokastro (photo by the author) 15.4  Vessels with short inscriptions from Maa-Palaeokastro: a. No. 140, b. No. 3, c. No. 598 (photos by the author, drawings from Karageorghis and Demas [1988]) 15.5  Pithoid vessels with impressions in relief: a. No. 109, Chariothunting scene, b. No. 534, Goats feeding from trees (photos by the author, drawings from Porada [1988]) 15.6  Metallurgical ceramics, copper ingot fragments and slags from Maa-­Palaeokastro: a. fragmentary ceramic pot bellows (No. 256), b. copper ingot fragments (No. 189), c. copper-based slag (No. 331), d. lead slag droplet (No. 652) (photos by the author) 15.7  Maritime Transport Containers from Maa-Palaeokastro: a. Canaanite jar (No. 251), b. Canaanite jar, four-handled variant (No. 545), and c. Egyptian jar (No. 585) (photos by the author) 15.8  Buildings II and IV and other structures in Area III, Floor II, showing the distribution and types of hearths (after Fisher [2014] fig. 23.7)

227 228 236 237 239 242 243 244 244 245 246 247 248 255

256 259 261 262

263 265 267

Tables

1.1 Main chronological periods of Cypriot and Levantine prehistory and protohistory; Cypriot chronology adapted after Knapp (2013); Levantine chronology adapted after Sharon (2014) and Akkermans and Schwartz (2009) 7.1 Contexts of the Limassol District according to period, typology and group of documentation 7.2 Contexts of the Paphos District according to period, typology and group of documentation 8.1 Elements detected by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Kissonerga-Skalia sherds 9.1 Chronological comparisons between Levantine and Cypriot phases mentioned in the text (all BCE) 11.1  Archaeobotanical remains from Plain jug N387 and Base Ring I jug N457, Hala Sultan Tekke, Tomb SS; for further information on the contexts see Fischer and Bürge (2022); see results of all 24 vessels in Appendix 11.1 (supplementary online material) 11.2  Flowering periods of the identified species; the simultaneous flowering period of all plants is indicated between the two vertical dashed lines 14.1 Synthetic description of fabrics

18 122 123 140 151

203 205 240

Contributors

Teresa Bürge is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Universities of Gothenburg and Bern and at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Her research focuses on the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant, in specific pottery and pottery provenance studies, economy, trade, and exchange of goods as well as depositional practices, ritual and cult. She has co-directed the Swedish excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus, and is the expedition’s ceramic expert. Valentina Cannavò is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Her research focuses on the archaeometric investigation of ancient pottery. She is in charge of the database of prehistoric pottery and is the director of the field laboratory of archaeological excavation at San Vincenzo Stromboli (Aeolian Islands). Francesca Chelazzi is Postdoctoral Research Associate at Durham University. Her research interests include landscape archaeology, spatio-temporal modelling and multi-proxy regional analysis, all of which are applied to the study of humans-environment-climate interactions in Southwestern Asia. Brigid Clark is a PhD candidate in Maritime Civilizations in the School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures at the University of Haifa. Her research focuses on Bronze Age Mediterranean archaeology, Cypriot ceramics and chronology, and Cypro-Levantine maritime trade. She has worked throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, including at Hala Sultan Tekke, Erimi-Pitharka, Tel Kabri and Dor-Yam. Joanne Clarke is Professor of Archaeology and Material Culture Studies, University of East Anglia. She is a Near Eastern prehistorian with a particular interest in the Neolithic period in Cyprus. Her current research is on the relationship between climate change and cultural change in the early and middle Holocene in the Near East and North Africa and the impacts of climate change on heritage globally. Lindy Crewe is the Director of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) in Nicosia. Her research interests lie in the Chalcolithic

xviii Contributors and Bronze Age of Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly social ­transformations and pottery technology. Bleda S. Düring is Professor at the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University. His research includes the archaeology of early social complexity and early imperialism in West Asia. He is currently directing fieldwork in Cyprus at ChlorakasPalloures and in Oman at the Wadi Jizzi Archaeological Project. Peter M. Fischer is Professor at the Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His research interests are Mediterranean and Near Eastern Bronze and Iron Age archaeology and archaeometry. Artemis Georgiou is Assistant Research Professor at the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus and the Principal Investigator of the European Research Council Starting Grant ‘ComPAS’. Her research interests include the study of pottery of prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, the Aegean and the Levant, the politico-economic organization of ancient Cyprus and Mediterranean interconnections. Christine Johnston is Assistant Professor of Ancient Mediterranean History at Western Washington University. Her research focuses on economic and environmental history in Cyprus, West Asia, and North Africa during the Bronze Age. Dominika Kofel is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Archaeology Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland (grant no. NCN 2023/48/C/ HS3/00173). Her research focuses on the analysis of plant macroremains including charred wood from Bronze Age contexts in various areas of Europe, the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Ioanna Kostopoulou is a PhD candidate at the Department of Prehistory at the University of Tübingen, Germany and the Department of Archaeology at the University of Gent, Belgium. Her research interests include Late Bronze Age pottery from the Eastern and Central Mediterranean, with her main focus on Cyprus and Greece. Artemios Oikonomou is Research Affiliate at the Cyprus Institute, Nicosia. He is an archaeological scientist studying inorganic materials, especially glass and ceramics. His research focuses mainly on the identification of ancient technological features and the provenance of ancient materials. Elena Peri is a PhD candidate in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History at the Department of Historical Studies of Gothenburg University. Her main research interests are the Middle to Late Bronze Age transitional phase in Cyprus and the technological developments of Late Bronze Age Cypriot pottery. Francesca Porta is Postdoctoral Researcher at UCLouvain. Her research interests focus on the analysis of storage, networks and the exchange of goods in the Mediterranean region during late prehistory.

Contributors  xix Lærke Recht is Professor of Early Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology, I­ nstitute of Classics (Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies), University of Graz, and Research Fellow at The International Institute for Mesopotamian Area Studies. Her main research interests are the Bronze Age and prehistory of Cyprus, Mesopotamia and the Aegean, in particular material culture studies, human-animal relations and exchange networks. She conducts excavations in Cyprus at ErimiPitharka and is a part of the Tell Mozan Project in Syria. Ellon Souter recently completed her PhD at the University of Manchester on the changing social role of ground stone tools during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age of Cyprus, the periods during which copper was first exploited and became an important material. Louise Steel is Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. Her research interests include Bronze Age Cyprus, the Near East and Aegean, materiality and the New Materialisms, interconnections in the Bronze Age Mediterranean and representations in the East Mediterranean. Alexander Wasse is a lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at Yeditepe University in Istanbul. His work focuses on the Neolithic periods of eastern Jordan and Cyprus. He is interested in early pastoralism and zooarchaeology, the correlation of archaeological with climatic records, and cycles of economic intensification/deintensification in prehistory. Jennifer M. Webb is Adjunct Professor at La Trobe University, Melbourne, and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Cyprus. Her research interests include all aspects of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Cyprus with a particular current focus on metals, metalworking and the organization of the metal industry. Katarzyna Zeman-Wiśniewska is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Archaeology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (UKSW), Poland. Her main field of interest is the archaeology of Cyprus, especially Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, and more broadly archaeology of religion and migrations.

Online appendices

Appendix 8.1. List of pXRF samples www.routledge.com/9781032335407 Appendix 9.1. Catalogue of imported Cypriot ceramics www.routledge.com/ 9781032335407 Appendix 11.1. Archaeobotanical remains identified at Hala Sultan Tekke www. routledge.com/9781032335407

1 Introduction Connecting multiple approaches to social structures and networks Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge

Social structures and networks: an introduction It has almost become a mantra to say that Cyprus’ insular character and location in the Eastern Mediterranean between the dominant cultures of the Aegean and southwest Asia have made it a place of both isolation and interconnectivity.1 At different points in time during its prehistoric and protohistoric periods, Cyprus has been labelled ‘explored’, ‘colonised’, and ‘exploited’.2 Both isolation and connectivity have been used as a basis for interpreting the dynamics and developments of social structures on the island – typically boiled down to exogenous versus endogenous factors, and the former sometimes understood in somewhat aggressive terms such as colonisation or even invasion. Nevertheless, the unique trajectory found in Cyprus has been recognised for a long time – as Buchholz and Karageorghis wrote in their 1973 volume on the prehistory of the Aegean and Cyprus [Cyprus’] position lies at the point of intersection of the cultural channels from Anatolia, Egypt and the Aegean. These influences are reflected in the development of Cypriot civilization; but the island succeeded more or less in safeguarding its cultural independence by continually modifying the foreign elements to its own character, so that the style even of its prehistoric art is clearly Cypriot.3 Work in the last decades has also started to emphasise local, regional and islandwide developments on Cyprus, as well as the possibility of deliberate individual or group choices rather than Cyprus being a passive actor not following the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean due to isolation.4 Related to this discourse is an increased focus on power relations, questions of egalitarianism and inequality, and the role of urbanisation and early states in creating inequalities.5 Due to its position at the ‘crossroads of civilisations’, the island offers a rich and intriguing cultural microcosmos which may serve as an excellent case study for understanding general social, cultural and economic developments that may potentially be applied to other regions and periods. This volume aims to take up some of these discussions and attempts to unravel the dynamics and developments of social structures and networks through a series of case studies that offer a variety DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-1

2  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge of approaches. However, we are less concerned with categorising relations with the surrounding world into concepts such as ‘migration’, ‘colonisation’, ‘exploitation’, and so on, and rather focus on the dynamics (including changes and continuities) of the social structures and social networks themselves, as they appear on Cyprus, and in relation to other areas. These also include aspects of connectivity, inequalities expressed in social dynamics, adaptability, agency, and Cypriot resistance both inter- and extra-island wide. The chapters are deliberately diverse in their perspectives, as we consider it important to pay attention both to local/regional and short-term developments and the entire Eastern Mediterranean and the longue durée. Only in this way do we get a sense of the nuances and complexities along with the overview of the long term. They cover all the major periods of prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, from the Late Epipalaeolithic to the end of the Bronze Age (ca. 11,000–1100 BCE; see the chronological table below, Table 1.1). Outline of the chapters The chapters are arranged in a roughly chronological manner, although differences in the time spans covered mean that there is a certain amount of overlap. We start with two chapters on the Neolithic by Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse, focussing on economic and material aspects of the Late Aceramic Neolithic on Cyprus as placed in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean. In their first contribution (Chapter 2), they analyse ‘material convergences’ in the so-called globalised Late Neolithic, where Cyprus is often excluded or marginalised due to its insularity. But rather than being outside the processes of the seventh and sixth millennia BCE, Clarke and Wasse argue that Cyprus can be seen as part of the developments of the broader Eastern Mediterranean and southwest Asia (especially the Levant, Syria, and Black Desert). They identify comparative features that might indicate such a participation, with a focus on curvilinear architectural characteristics, along with features that might suggest deliberate resistance to certain mainland practices, such as the rejection of the use of ceramic vessels. In their second chapter (Chapter 3), they develop this theme further, but focus instead on ‘economic convergences’ in the form of (‘big’) sheep, emergent pastoral networks, and the enigmatic ‘incised pebbles’ found both on Cyprus and in southwest Asia during this period. The sheep could represent a (partial) change to an exploitation of dairy and fleece, and Wasse and Clarke hypothesise that the incised pebbles were part of a common symbolic language and a growing focus on ownership. Francesca Chelazzi’s chapter (Chapter 4) provides a longue durée perspective, covering the entire span of time included in this volume, from the Late Epipalaeolithic to the end of the Bronze Age. Taking advantage of the progress made in ‘big data’ studies and the data sets now freely available for prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, she collates the published information on radiocarbon dates. Working from the basis that the quantity of these data correlates with population size (more people -> more waste -> more organic material -> more radiocarbon dates collected),

Introduction  3 she reconstructs demographic pressures on Cyprus over a period of nearly ten millennia. The result largely corresponds to trends as suggested by the archaeological remains – with, for example, punctuated influx of people through the Aceramic Neolithic, a demographic increase throughout the Bronze Age, and a fairly sharp population drop at the end of the Bronze Age and into the Early Iron Age. Bleda S. Düring’s chapter (Chapter 5) discusses shifting forms of social inequality in Chalcolithic Cyprus (ca. 4000–2400 BCE). Social inequality is not only reflected in differentiations in house sizes but also in depositions of highly valuable goods, e.g., imported copper objects. The deliberate burning of short-lived buildings attested at various sites, often in connection with a remarkable concentration of large quantities of storage vessels and other artefacts, has traditionally been interpreted as monopolisation of economic resources.6 However, Düring argues that concentrations of wealth were intentionally burnt down, thus impeding the consolidation of social inequalities over generations. Hence, despite marked differences in wealth, these were highly unstable. Moving on to the Early and Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2400–1700 BCE), Jennifer Webb (Chapter 6) examines mould-cast copper artefacts on Cyprus, a set of material culture that is regarded as one of the defining features of this period, when local copper ores from the northern slopes of the Troodos started being exploited. By analysing the distribution and typology of these artefacts in combination with compositional analyses, she traces shifting dynamics in the relationships between raw material source areas, producers, and consumers, which again provides an insight into the organisation of production of metal artefacts. In contrast to previous concepts of a de-centralised production due to a supposed lack of socio-economic organisation,7 a more complex notion of craft economy emerges: she comes to the conclusion that the central northern coast, in particular the site of Lapithos, played a major role in controlling access to raw materials, the means of production and the maritime exchange of goods and resources. The region’s monopoly on the specialised copper industry came to an end due to increasing competition for control with communities of the south, which led to increasing instability and disruption of interregional networks towards the end of the Middle Cypriot period. The transition from the Middle to the Late Cypriot period occurring somewhere in the seventeenth century BCE is to date not sufficiently understood. It is a period of profound socio-political changes and upheaval, with at the same time increasing complexity and intensification of long-distance networks within the Eastern Mediterranean exchange system. While previous research has explained these changes mainly by external influences from more ‘complex’ societies in the surrounding regions, the chapters by Elena Peri and Christine Johnston, Lindy Crewe and Artemios Oikonomou discuss changes in local ceramic production and agency. In a quantitative approach, Peri (Chapter 7) compares the ceramic record of the Limassol area with that of the Paphos region to establish possible diachronic trends in the local ceramic industry from MC III to LC I that may be indicative of socio-­economic transformation and (inter-)regional networks. The dataset collected points to intense connections between these two regions and an increasing connectivity between western/southwestern Cyprus and other parts of the island.

4  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge She highlights the potential of more in-depth analyses of ceramic wares that have been neglected in previous research, such as Plain ware8 and which may greatly contribute towards a more comprehensive picture of this complex period. Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou (Chapter 8) discuss innovation and adaptation in pottery production at the western Cypriot site of Kissonerga-Skalia in light of shifting markets and consumer demands. Their pXRF analyses of Base Ring ware, which became widespread on the island in the course of the Late Bronze Age and was the most popular ceramic export in this period, and comparison with the preceding Red Polished and Drab Polished wares, show that there is a significant continuity in potting communities at the site. At the same time, they recognise experimentation with new techniques in vessel preparation and firing, most likely influenced by foreign practices and/or traditions from other Cypriot regions. A perspective from the Southern Levantine coastal site of Tel Achziv in regard to increased integration of coastal communities into large-scale economic, political, and social networks is presented by Brigid Clark (Chapter 9). In combination with the evidence from other sites in Western Galilee, she demonstrates that their contacts to Cyprus were consistent (albeit limited) throughout the period discussed, roughly the seventeenth to sixteenth century BCE. Already in this period, which partly predates the innovation and standardisation of the Late Cypriot ceramic industry, we see specific preferences by the Levantine consumers: while open forms, i.e., tableware, are dominant at Tel Achziv – most likely the regional port – at other sites, in particular further inland, closed containers prevail. This raises the question of whether the maritime trade was controlled by Levantine palatial polities or by private entrepreneurs or ‘sailors’9 and to what extent Cypriot merchants were the driving force. Other aspects of society evolving during the period of intensifying contacts with the Levant and Egypt are discussed by Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter (Chapter 10). They explore the possible introduction of new ritual practices at the beginning of the Late Cypriot period (seventeenth to sixteenth centuries BCE) in the context of an increase in complexity and diversity of architectural structures. By examining the history of an industrial building at Kissonerga-Skalia with various ‘peculiar’ deposits connected to its construction and drawing parallels to similar contexts at contemporaneous sites, they suggest that these may reflect ritual practices in connection with large-scale communal consumption, linked to the foundation and termination of buildings. Depositional practices in connection with (mortuary) ritual are the topic of the chapter by Dominika Kofel, Teresa Bürge, and Peter M. Fischer (Chapter 11). Recent archaeobotanical results from mortuary contexts at the Late Bronze Age site of Hala Sultan Tekke contained enormous quantities of ceramic vessels deposited next to and on top of the burials. Exemplified by the contents of two jugs filled with a multitude of different charred plant remains, the findings are integrated into a discussion on the life journey of the plants from their initial collection, through their charring until final deposition in the tombs. These are then discussed in the social context and meaning of food and drink in mortuary ritual, the role of ‘smellscapes’ and sensorial assemblages in shaping memories, as well as the consolidation

Introduction  5 of social bonds and power relations in the constantly increasing social complexity of the Late Cypriot period. In her paper on bull and bird motifs on Mycenaean pictorial pottery found on Cyprus, Katarzyna Zeman-Wiśniewska (Chapter 12) offers some new perspectives on the symbolic meaning of these images found in particular on kraters produced for the Cypriot market. Various vessels from Enkomi and other Late Cypriot sites on which avians and bovines are depicted in interaction with each other have commonly been interpreted as scenes of competition and fight. Though not identified in the faunal assemblages of Cyprus, she suggests that certain scenes depict egrets, a bird known to closely interact with grazing animals by for example sitting on them and pecking at insects. Based on this identification, she interprets some of the depictions of bovines and birds together as symbolic images of cooperation and cohabitation, a notion that may perhaps stand for the specific choices of Cypriot customers, owners, and ‘users’ of these kraters in their close interaction with Aegean and other surrounding cultural spheres. The chapters by Ioanna Kostopoulou, and Francesca Porta and Valentina Cannavò are concerned with pottery from the Late Cypriot site of Pyla-Kokkinokremos, a short-lived settlement of the thirteenth century BCE in the Larnaca Bay. Kostopoulou’s chapter (Chapter 13) deals with both decorated tableware from Mycenaean Greece, which consists of predominantly open shapes, and large (maritime) transport containers from Crete, the Levant, Egypt, and Sardinia. She concludes that the imported pottery found at the site reflects different ‘types’ of economic contacts: while the Mycenaean open vessels were traded as pottery, the jars from the other areas contained agricultural products. The pithoi discussed in Porta and Cannavò’s contribution (Chapter 14) are an important addition to our perspective on intra- and extra-island connectivity. These vessels are, due to their large size and weight, commonly not regarded as suitable for transporting goods and therefore not assumed to travel far away from their place of production. However, their petrographic analyses have revealed four pithoi (out of 35 sampled) imported from other regions of Cyprus and one from the Levant. In their discussion of the distribution of Cypriot pithoi and large ceramic containers from other Mediterranean regions, they demonstrate that these are important indicators of the dense network of Late Bronze Age maritime interactions. The chapter by Artemis Georgiou (Chapter 15) deals with the critical years of collapse of the ‘Age of Internationalism’ in the early twelfth century BCE. Using a holistic approach, she investigates architectural, ceramic, and other remains from the short-lived settlement of Maa-Palaeokastro in western Cyprus. Besides complex economic activities taking place at the site (storage of agricultural goods, redistribution, textile production, metallurgical processing, and not least the management of maritime commerce), she identifies compelling evidence for feasting and communal consumption. This may have been caused by a stronger need for bonding of social groups as well as the re-negotiation of social status and power relations in this unstable period. Finally, Louise Steel (Chapter 16) offers a synthesis of some of the topics raised in the chapters of the volume, along with possible future avenues of research.

6  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge Multiple approaches to social dynamics The first evidence for the presence of modern humans on Cyprus occurs in the Late Epipalaeolithic at the site of Aetokremnos on the Akrotiri peninsula on the south coast (ca. 11,000–9000 BCE). Permanent habitation is not attested until later periods (probably the Early Aceramic Neolithic period or late ninth to eighth millennium BCE), but the very presence of humans on the island implies a connected world. The early travellers brought with them elements that greatly changed the island, including the introduction of new species of animals and plants. Not only the material culture but also faunal remains increasingly suggest that Cyprus was from this time on never entirely isolated and that there was a continuous flow back and forth between the island and the surrounding mainland areas (as also supported by Chelazzi’s chapter).10 While we are not able to reconstruct all the intentions or political strategies behind these movements, we may be able to suggest some of the implications for social dynamics and structures on the island. As can be noted from the outline above, the chapters offer a variety of approaches, explanatory models, and use of material to examine social structures and networks. Some chapters explore developments in a longue durée framework or cover long periods of one or more millennia (Wasse and Clarke; Clarke and Wasse; Düring; Chelazzi), while others represent in-depth analyses of a relatively short span of time (Peri; Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou; Crewe and Souter; Kofel, Bürge, and Fischer; Kostopoulou; Porta and Cannavò; Zeman-Wiśniewska; Georgiou). These differences are at least to some extent dependent on the period studied and the current state of knowledge: there is a general tendency for a lower resolution of data in the earlier periods of prehistory, forcing scholars to work with longer time spans. The lower resolution (overall: fewer excavated sites, less material culture, especially of the type used to create high resolution typologies such as pottery or ‘exotic’ objects used to infer differential social statuses) has, however, also led to a greater emphasis on ‘grand’ or macro-narratives and on exploring a variety of explanatory models of, for example, social structures, state formation and social inequality. In this sense, work on later periods may find some inspiration, as the increased abundance of material culture has led to a focus on the more ‘high-end’ elements. Beyond chronological aspects and ranges of time spans, the chapters here utilise a delightful diversity of data – from architecture, pottery, metal and stone objects to faunal and archaeobotanical assemblages, and radiocarbon dates. The application of ‘big’ data is particularly useful for the deep time approaches mentioned above, and this is precisely what Chelazzi implements in her chapter (in this case, focussing on radiocarbon dates), covering the entire span of prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus (ca. 11,000–1100 BCE).11 Approaches based on human-environment interaction lend themselves to analysis on all scales, and here we also see more focussed case studies of human-animal and human-plant entanglements used in the discussion of social dynamics. Thus, the importance of human-sheep relations becomes evident in Wasse and Clarke’s interpretation of social structures and networks in the Late Neolithic, while Crewe and Souter describe the use of selected

Introduction  7 faunal remains in ritual deposits related to abandonment and construction at the beginning of the Late Cypriot period at Kissonerga-Skalia.12 Zeman-Wiśniewska uses iconography of inter-species interaction on imported vessels to analyse the symbolic role of bovines and birds in the Late Bronze Age, and the role of animals in ritual, likely in the form of feasting events sponsored by an elite, again come to the fore in Georgiou’s chapter on Maa-Palaeokastro. Although archaeobotanical remains have yet to receive the same level of attention as the other types of material mentioned above, much has happened in the last few decades on this aspect of prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus.13 As the chapter by Kofel, Bürge, and Fischer shows, human-flora interactions also played a key role, and plants were, like animal remains, part of (mortuary) ritual practices. On the other end of the spectrum, metal has been the focus of much discussion concerning late prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, with copper assigned a central role in the development of social stratification, urbanisation, and exchange networks in the Bronze Age.14 This aspect is picked up by Webb in her chapter, where we can follow the early evidence of the production and distribution of bronze objects, and their possible implications for a hierarchy of sites in the Early to Middle Cypriot period, facilitated both by the material and the access to (and control of) exchange networks. Dynamics and significant transformations in social structures are likely to be reflected in architecture, and this is again evident in several of the chapters here, and throughout the prehistoric and protohistoric period. Shape, size, layout, and relation between structures, along with their contents and practices of inauguration, levelling, rebuilding, and destruction, are analysed in the chapters by Clarke and Wasse, Düring, Crewe and Souter, and Georgiou to understand how certain groups expressed identity, resilience and resistance, and negotiated power relations. Unsurprisingly for the Bronze Age, pottery is the focus of several chapters. This type of material culture has the advantage of being extremely sensitive to social, economic, and technological changes, allowing for typologies that can be detailed into centuries, if not decades – and thus facilitating both macro and micronarratives. Further, archaeometric analyses continue to be refined, but have for a long time also provided information concerning production, technology and both long-distance and regional movement of pottery. It is thus an ideal type of material culture for the study of social structures and networks, as exemplified in the chapters by Peri, Clark, Georgiou, Kostopoulou, Zeman-Wiśniewska, Porta and Cannavò, and Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou. What is particularly refreshing here is that the chapters include not only the commonly found focus on fine wares (as would be expected, since these wares are the ones currently understood in the greatest detail and tend to be more susceptible to change). For example, Peri notes the possible key of Plain ware in better understanding the still somewhat enigmatic transitional MC III – LC I period on Cyprus, and Porta and Cannavò illustrate that large coarse ware vessels such as pithoi were also part of the movement of goods, both on Cyprus itself and in the wider Eastern Mediterranean. The approaches represented in the chapters thus provide us with a variety of complimentary perspectives on social dynamics and networks in the prehistory and

8  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge protohistory of Cyprus. We would here like to explore certain aspects that come out of the studies in greater detail: networks and connectivity, agency and adaptability, and social inequalities. (Social) networks and connectivity During the entire period of Cypriot prehistory and protohistory, we may see dynamic changes in the types, intensities, and geographical range of networks and connectivity. As mentioned above, the dichotomy between insularity and connectivity is inherent in virtually every aspect of the island’s history, society, economy, and culture. Although insularity implies detachment and isolation, travelling by sea is, at the same time, a very efficient form of mobility,15 and in the case of Cyprus, we also need to take into account that the sailing routes in the Eastern Mediterranean inevitably passed the island.16 As will become clear throughout the volume, the sea was, in many periods, rather a bridge than a barrier, greatly facilitating human mobility and the exchange of goods and ideas. Hand in hand with the advancement of scientific methods for exploring the movement of people, natural resources, and artefacts, approaches to the island’s past have revolved much around its role in Eastern Mediterranean networks,17 especially when discussing the (Late) Bronze Age and later periods. However, to understand extra-island connectivity, one also needs to look at the trajectories of intra-island relations, ranging from a local-site specific to regional and islandwide levels. The diverse landscape of Cyprus, which features two major mountain ranges, the Kyrenia (Pentadaktylos) in the north and the Troodos massif that covers most of the southwestern part, and the central, fertile Mesaoria Plain, has necessarily impacted on settlement patterns, the exploitation of natural resources, and communication between sites and regions.18 Particularly the rich copper sources in the Troodos mountains have been an enormous driving force for connectivity from the Early Bronze Age onward – both on the intra- and extra-insular scale. This is for example epitomised in Webb’s contribution to this volume, where she demonstrates that specific sites, such as Lapithos on the central north coast, played a key role in controlling copper exploitation in the northern Troodos area, as well as in production and distribution of metal goods throughout the Early and Middle Cypriot periods. Increasing competition between different regions, now involving also southern Cyprus, led to a demise of these asymmetrical relations between the settlements and ports on the north coast and the source areas in the Troodos at the end of the Middle Cypriot period. Some of the most intriguing and complex, yet insufficiently understood, economic, and societal changes seem to have taken place during the transition from the Middle to the Late Cypriot period. These comprise, inter alia, the foundation of major settlements (mainly) along the coast, i.e., a spatial reorganisation resulting in regional hierarchies on the island, and increasing contacts with surrounding regions, particularly the Levant,19 which had an enormous impact on economic networks, modes of production, craft specialisation, and social stratification, which were constantly increasing and ultimately resulted in the island’s crucial role in

Introduction  9 the Eastern Mediterranean trade system. Taking a closer look at regional connections and exchange during the MC III – LC I transition, the quantitative evaluation of pottery from the Paphos district in the southwest and the Limassol area in the south carried out by Peri in this volume indicates increasing interactions between these regions as well as an ‘opening-up’ towards other parts of the island. This also becomes evident in the development of island-wide shared ceramic traditions, of which the formation of characteristic wares, such as Base Ring (as discussed by Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou) or White Slip, which will become the most popular Late Cypriot pottery export product (for those see also Clark’s contribution),20 can be connected to specific regions. Shifting patterns of connectivity are also relevant for earlier periods, even those in which the island was assumed to be rather isolated. Clarke and Wasse’s chapters highlight supra-regional communalities and trends in a ‘globalised’ Levantine Neolithic, of which also Cyprus formed a part. These are not necessarily expressed in economic contacts and the exchange of goods but rather in architecture or developments in pastoralism. Besides the island’s role as provider of copper from the Bronze Age on, we should not ignore the population’s need for resources that were unavailable (or only accessible to a limited extent). These comprise copper objects from the Anatolian Taurus ores in the Chalcolithic (as mentioned in Düring’s contribution),21 Anatolian tin for bronze production during the Bronze Age,22 other raw materials and objects such as glass, faience, ivory, various stones (for example, carnelian), other metals (for example, silver, gold), livestock, and agricultural products. All these induced and consolidated the economic and cultural contacts of the Cypriot population with that of the surrounding areas, which culminated in the Late Bronze Age. This period is well-known as the age of ‘internationalism’ in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, and there is a vast body of literature on the intensive and extensive trade networks of this period.23 In contrast to many previous publications, the present volume highlights not only high-end goods (for example, Mycenaean tableware discussed by Kostopoulou) but also trade and storage vessels (as discussed by Kostopoulou, Porta and Cannavò, and Georgiou). While (maritime) transport containers have received increased attention during the past few years,24 pithoi, i.e., large storage vessels with capacities of up to 600 litres,25 are commonly regarded as ‘immobile’ containers for local storage and therefore not considered indicative of trade. Nevertheless, petrographic analyses of pithoi from thirteenth century BCE Pyla-Kokkinokremos have revealed various imported specimens (medium-sized types, around 200 litres capacity) from other regions of Cyprus as well as from the Levant. That these vessels circulated – though to a lesser extent than ‘typical’ trade containers, such as Canaanite jars or Minoan transport stirrup jars26 – is also confirmed by the ten pithoi found in the Uluburun shipwreck27 and by recent discoveries (or identifications) of Cypriot pithoi abroad.28 The circulation of transport vessels and pithoi may also shed light on ‘silent’ goods, i.e., perishable items traded in them. Besides textual information, for example from the Amarna archive29 or on Egyptian jar dockets,30 organic residue analyses will contribute to a more detailed understanding of regional and interregional

10  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge trade patterns. Commodities that leave scanty or no traces in the archaeological record may include, inter alia, various kinds of foodstuffs, textiles, leather, basketry, timber, wooden objects, resins, and cork, and need to be taken into account during all periods and forms of contact. Apart from the economic point of view, it is important to ask how different scales of connectivity may shape cultural identity. It is often hazardous to extrapolate such concepts from the archaeological record which has its well-known limitations. We have to rely on those aspects that are reflected in the material culture without neglecting intangible expressions of culture. As Clarke has put it: ‘Culture is created by experience, and everything that is experienced by human beings comes through interactions with the world around us’.31 That the mobility of goods goes along with the mobility of people (and vice versa), which again triggers and advances the transfer of knowledge and ideas, has become conspicuous when dealing with the (Late) Bronze Age.32 The contributions by Clarke and Wasse on a period in which foreign contacts are less obvious but, as they argue, shared practices with the Levant are visible, is therefore particularly insightful for understanding cultural transfer and its impact on ancient societies. Cypriot adaptability and agency Time and again, we encounter a Cyprus characterised by what appear to be deliberate choices made to create, maintain or challenge social structures and dynamics. As Wasse and Clarke demonstrate in both their chapters, the developments in architecture, material culture, and human-animal relations on Cyprus in the Late Neolithic are mirrored in certain mainland practices in Syria and the Black Desert. Cyprus remained generally committed to circular or curvilinear structures, despite indications of knowledge of other types of structures in use elsewhere – a practice that is also well-known for the Chalcolithic period. Similarly, the technology of making pottery would have been known on Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus (as evidenced by contacts with the mainland, and earlier though limited experimentation), but its introduction was significantly delayed. This is again not due to a lack of awareness, but presumably a deliberate de-selection, or as Clarke and Wasse phrase it, ‘receptivity to mainland innovation had its limits’. Going back to the Early Aceramic Neolithic, one might interpret the relatively brief appearance of cattle in a similar manner: introduced in the Early Aceramic Neolithic, cattle disappeared from the faunal record in the Late Aceramic Neolithic, only to be reintroduced in the Philia phase. For whatever reason, this animal species was not deemed valuable enough to maintain for the people of Early Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus (perhaps requiring too many resources, not necessary for the prevailing social structures, because of an abundance of other available resources, or due to a preference for other animal species), and so import and/or breeding was discontinued. It may be that these practices were possible due to an absence of the same level of demographic pressure as that experienced on the mainland, as suggested by Chelazzi’s analysis, but they nevertheless represent choices made by the inhabitants of Cyprus.

Introduction  11 The tradition of the inhabitants (or some of the inhabitants) of Cyprus going somewhat ‘against the grain’ of broader Eastern Mediterranean and southwest Asian developments despite interaction with and knowledge of them seems to continue in later periods. Examining the evidence from metals, ceramics, figurines and personal ornaments, and mortuary practices in the Chalcolithic, Bolger has argued that many of the practices, or the resistance to foreign influences, were ‘a matter of choice’, or what she calls (deliberate) ‘cultural distancing’.33 The resistance identified by Düring for the Chalcolithic is of a different nature, although the processes may well be linked. The destruction of houses and goods is perhaps rather a reaction against attempts to concentrate wealth with a single person or group and reflects purposeful strategies to prevent marked social inequalities. Purposeful choices were certainly made in other areas of production as well, not all of which are immediately evident, due to for example preservation or ‘invisibility’ or what we might consider less obviously ‘rational’ decisions. For example, Webb reminds us that different copper alloys produce variations in hue and that this aspect may have been as important as access to specific types of raw materials. Agency, adaptability, and resistance are also clearly demonstrated in ceramic production. For the MC III – LC I transition, both the chapter by Peri and that by Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou observe complex continuities alongside experimentation with new elements. These are, however, within the local tradition of pottery making and some of the distribution patterns attest to communities of p­ ractice. The new elements build on the previous productions and the knowledge and skill appear to have been transferred to the next generation – Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou understand the new wares as potters adapting to shifting markets and consumer demands. Intensifying relations with the Levant were certainly a catalyst for the introduction of the potter’s wheel sometime at the beginning of LC I,34 which, as mentioned by Peri, is one of the most significant technological innovations of this period. However, the transition from hand-shaping to wheel-fashioning techniques was by no means straightforward, and it took several centuries before the wheel was used for the production of virtually all vessel types by the beginning of LC IIIA (around 1200 BCE).35 Here again, we see deliberate choices of ‘traditional’ modes of production alongside experimentation with new techniques: the potter’s wheel was used for the production of Levantine-adopted or -inspired shapes and wares, which complemented but never replaced the Cypriot repertoire. Although the Cypriot potters apparently acquired the technical know-how to use the wheel, at least some of them chose to produce the same ‘foreign’ types in their traditional hand-shaping techniques. In addition, all ‘genuine’ Cypriot pottery, most prominently Base Ring, White Slip or cooking wares, were until the end of LC IIC exclusively produced without the use of the wheel.36 Another manifestation of adaptability (and resistance) of Cypriot producers and consumers is reflected in the interactions with the Aegean which have been quite exhaustively discussed in previous scholarship.37 During the intense connectivity of the Late Bronze Age, we have seen that one of the most popular types of pottery imported to Cyprus was that coming from the Aegean, and especially from the

12  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge Mycenaean mainland. A wide range of shapes was produced in the Aegean38 and was presumably part of the assortment available to the people on Cyprus. The Cypriots, however, proved to be discerning customers, preferring quite specific types of vessels (and/or their contents), and the examples found on Cyprus generally come from a limited selection of all the shapes produced. This is for example the case with so-called chariot kraters, usually of the amphoroid variety, which are found in almost equal quantity on Cyprus and in mainland Greece.39 This shape and motif were so popular as to create a feedback in which Mycenaean Greece appears to have specifically produced certain types of pottery with an aim to export to Cyprus and further east. A similar situation may apply to images of birds and bovines, as suggested by Zeman-Wiśniewska’s chapter, where it seems that pictorial scenes with these animals were also primarily produced in Greece to be exported to Cyprus. They do, however, tap into a long tradition of depicting birds and bovines in the iconography of vessels and figurines from the Philia phase and onwards. The shape known as the shallow bowl is part of these practices as well. This tableware shape is again commonly found on Cyprus but still quite rare in Greece. Both kraters and shallow bowls were probably primarily imported for their own sake rather than for their contents and both appear to be associated with elite groups, display, and communal events, including mortuary practices, of which we see examples in the chapters by Kostopoulou, Kofel, Bürge, and Fischer, and Georgiou. Already before and during the peak of Aegean pottery imports of the Late Helladic IIIA2 (ca. middle to late fourteenth century BCE), Cypriot potters started producing the first local ‘imitations’, limited to one specific, obviously very popular shape, the small three-handled jar.40 It very closely emulates Aegean counterparts in technology (again, the use of the wheel), paint, and decoration, to the extent that it is not always easy to distinguish them. However, this seems to be a rather ephemeral phenomenon, as these vessels disappear sometime towards the end of the fourteenth century BCE. A more extended repertoire (mostly the popular shallow bowls and kraters) of Cypriot ‘imitations’41 of Aegean pottery was introduced in the course of the thirteenth century BCE, as Aegean imports started dwindling. Yet, these ‘imitations’ are far from blind or mechanical, and they are as selective as was the import of vessels from the Aegean. For example, various types of kraters with figural and perhaps even narrative scenes were created on Cyprus but, with one possible exception,42 the chariot motif was never adapted, nor was the Aegean type of amphoroid krater. Since Cypriot potters evidently had both the knowledge and skill to paint elaborate scenes on their work, the exclusion of chariot scenes must have been intentional. In contrast to the (amphoroid) chariot krater, the shallow bowl shape was copied down to every detail, including the same types of (albeit much simpler) decoration and added white paint. Here, there appears to have been no limits to the extent of the receptivity, although the social practices that the vessels were incorporated into were specific to Cyprus. The local potters’ adaptability to Aegean counterparts culminated at the beginning of the LC IIIA (twelfth century BCE) when a large part of their products, comprising decorated tableware as well as cooking vessels, were produced in Aegean styles using Aegean techniques (for example, the full use of the potter’s wheel

Introduction  13 mentioned above) most likely in connection with a strong cultural impact from this region, which cannot be explained by exclusively economic phenomena. While this is not the place to discuss these far-reaching transformations occurring around 1200 BCE,43 it is yet another example of the islanders’ continuous adaptation to and appropriation of foreign cultural impact, while at the same time preserving distinct local traits which are clearly perceptible in the material culture. Social dynamics and inequality The earliest periods of Cypriot prehistory are often seen as largely egalitarian (as is also the case for surrounding areas in southwest Asia or the Aegean). Features usually thought to mark social differentiation and stratification include architectural elements (size, construction techniques, location), evidence of surplus production, storage and administration, craft specialisation (including metallurgy), the presence of ‘luxury’ and/or imported goods, and differences in mortuary depositions. Social hierarchies are associated with more sedentary communities, early state formation, and early forms of urbanisation; increased or more intensive trade, demographic pressure, and violence may also play a role.44 In the broader Eastern Mediterranean and southwest Asia, at least some of these features also co-occur with a spread of pottery production, use of secondary products, and later on, writing systems, and an intensification in copper production. However, all of these elements do not appear at the same time and in all areas at once, nor do they entirely replace earlier practices. Whether or not a community is interpreted as egalitarian often depends on what emphasis is attached to each of these features, but overall, there is very limited evidence for any of these in Neolithic Cyprus. Some of the aspects outlined by Wasse and Clarke may have led to some level of social differentiation, if not exactly stratification. If bigger sheep more suitable for exploitation of dairy and fleece were indeed imported to the island for these qualities, this is likely to have involved specialised herding groups, and the incised ‘pebbles’ may be related to some sort of record keeping. Comparing the faunal record of the dominant species of sites from the Neolithic, there are also clear patterns of site specialisation,45 and it is perhaps no coincidence that the larger site of Late Aceramic Khirokitia is also where there was a focus on ovicaprids. However, for the Ceramic Neolithic, the importance of ovicaprids decreases except at Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi, where again there seems to have been a specialisation in sheep and/or goats. More intensive relations between humans and certain animal and plant species (in the form of domestication and more sedentary practices) have been linked to increased disparities in wealth.46 It may therefore again be worth noting the absence of cattle on Cyprus until the Philia phase, with the exception of the few remains from the Early Aceramic Neolithic, the suggestions of ‘mixed’ relations (with both hunted and herded animals)47, and the focus for several millennia on management of animals with a low maintenance requirement (pigs, deer) or a high level of mobility (sheep and goats). Similarly, the long delay in the spread of pottery on the island noted by Clarke and Wasse may have had an impact on the development of social inequalities, since pottery is

14  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge often, though certainly not exclusively, associated with more sedentary communities. Conversely, their suggestion that the incised pebbles indicate ownership is a factor that could lead to competitive and unequal social dynamics. More marked evidence of social differentiation and hierarchies seems to appear in the Chalcolithic. In 1990, Peltenburg commented on the Chalcolithic period in Cyprus that, There is clear evidence for a significant growth in population and the emergence of social ranking. Copper was used for the first time on the island whose later prosperity and very name were to become synonymous with that enviable resource.48 The possible indicators of social differentiation include an overall increase in the number of sites, size differences in some of the characteristic circular structures, with some of the structures having apparently special functions as suggested by their contents and internal divisions (for example, ritual paraphernalia and concentrations of storage vessels or workshop material), intensification of production of picrolite objects, more elaborate burial practices, including extramural cemeteries, and the first evidence of copper. The increase in population is to some extent supported here by Chelazzi’s demographic analysis based on radiocarbon dates, where she notes a new phase of population increase at this time. The importance of copper production has, however, been challenged, with Düring and colleagues concluding that there is no evidence of copper extraction through ore smelting in the Chalcolithic on Cyprus (based on a reappraisal of copper-based objects thought to come from Cyprus).49 In the 2019 publication of the Souskiou cemeteries and figurines, Peltenburg’s previous statement was slightly tempered, offering a more complex interpretation where differences appear to be increasingly expressed as personal and social differences, especially in the figurative material culture, and some evidence of inequality occurs, but ‘appear to have been ephemeral’.50 This is in line with the argument presented here by Düring who, though recognising the indications of social hierarchies in the Chalcolithic, sees a jockeying for status among households, but not one that was transferable to the next generation. Such a transfer was deliberately prevented by depositing assemblages of objects related to wealth in a structure and then burning down both the structure and the objects within. In this sense, the inequalities of the Chalcolithic lasted only for short periods of time and appear to have been closely monitored by the community as a whole. The early prehistory of Cyprus stands in contrast to the prehistoric and protohistoric Bronze Age. Whatever their causes and sources, many of the great transformations that started in the Philia phase represent changes in social dynamics and are related to social hierarchies. These include the prevalence of new types of architecture, with the earlier circular structures of the Chalcolithic being replaced by rectilinear, multi-roomed and increasingly complex buildings, the (re)introduction of cattle and donkeys (marking new agricultural lifeways and probably linked to movement and trade), intensification of trade and copper production, markers of

Introduction  15 wealth in mortuary practices, new material culture, and a significant increase in site numbers, especially in the Late Bronze Age. It is in this period that we see the intense extraction and exploitation of copper. As Webb argues in her chapter on metal in the prehistoric Bronze Age, it appears that the production and distribution of copper came under the control of sites associated with the cemeteries along the north coast. This may have given elite groups at sites such as Lapithos an advantage over communities at other sites on the island; this would also have given them a certain control over maritime trade and thus over access to external contacts and goods. In direct contrast to the situation in the Chalcolithic as interpreted by Düring and supported by others, the wealth of the prehistoric Bronze Age seems to have been inheritable, as also exemplified by the extensive mortuary record of the period. Webb further speculates that a competition over control of metal production and distribution led to increased social instability. Despite the disruptions occurring at the end of the period, in the transition from the prehistoric to the protohistoric Bronze Age, there are also substantial continuities in architecture and material culture that suggest similar continuities in social dynamics; in many aspects, social stratification becomes even more pronounced in the Late Bronze Age. We see this expressed to an even greater extent in (for Cyprus) monumental architecture, evidence of enormous storage facilities and administration, extremely wealthy burials, and of course the ‘international’ age of extensive trade networks discussed above. This is clearly demonstrated at Hala Sultan Tekke (Kofel, Bürge and Fischer), Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Kostopoulou; Porta and Cannavò) and Maa-Palaeokastro (Georgiou). These and other settlements of this period demonstrate large investments of resources and manpower, implying also an available population and someone to orchestrate such elaborate construction works. A steady increase in population during the Bronze Age (with allowance for bias due to excavation history) is supported by Chelazzi’s analysis. At Maa-Palaeokastro, Georgiou again notes the evidence of trade (especially in ‘high-end’ goods) and control of that trade as a tool of power, and the same would certainly apply to coastal sites like Enkomi, Hala Sultan Tekke and Kition. Beyond settlement architecture and architectural elements such as Cyclopean walls and ashlar masonry, wealth-based social status is expressed in mortuary practices. Tombs with astounding accumulations of wealth in the form of (fineware and imported) ceramic and metal vessels, bronze, gold and silver jewellery and personal items, metal tools and weapons, scarabs and cylinder seals, and faience and ivory objects are well-known from Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke,51 and more examples are coming to light with the recent and ongoing excavations in the Area A cemetery of Hala Sultan Tekke.52 Notwithstanding the extensive evidence for social stratification already from the beginning of the Bronze Age, there are also indications of non-elite social dynamics. Here, we return to the pottery that so neatly spans all levels of society. We can thus note not only the continuation of traditions combined with experimentation with new techniques mentioned above but also the distribution of wares on local and regional scales, especially non-finewares. The chapters by Peri on the Limassol and Paphos regions in the Middle to Late Cypriot transition, and Porta

16  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge and Cannavò on Pyla-Kokkinokremos in LC IIC both confirm the movement of pottery (and its contents) that is not classified as fineware, on Cyprus itself and further afield. What still remain to be determined are the mechanisms behind these movements and their implications for social dynamics. The analysis by Clark on Cypriot pottery exported to the Levant offers an interesting insight in terms of the distribution at the other end of the network, where Cypriot ceramics are found outside strictly elite (or ‘palatial’) sites, suggesting that participation in the network and use of material culture was not restricted to certain sectors of the population. Just as ritual practices and other communal events can be used to eradicate, challenge, or prevent further developments of social inequalities, they can be used to create, maintain, and negotiate unequal relations. In fact, activities such as feasting and mortuary practices are perhaps even better known for this quality.53 That communal consumption and rituals involving drinking, eating, sacrificing, dancing, and so on can be both bonding and influential in group identity and highly political, expressing or creating power relations and social status, has long been recognised. More recent studies on food, politics, and ritual in archaeological contexts further support this aspect.54 For Cyprus, Bolger, Crewe, and Peltenburg even suggest that inequalities might have originated, or at least found their first expression, in rituals: ‘the fact that social aggregation and aggrandisement occur in ritual contexts before they become visible in the domestic sphere prompts us to search for the origins of social inequality in the domain of ritual practice’.55 These comments relate to an interpretation of the typical Chalcolithic cruciform figurines as associated with ritual, and through this, their makers being assigned a higher social status. A role of ritual in the marking and negotiation of identity and social dynamics can also be found in the chapters by Crewe and Souter, Georgiou, and Kofel, Bürge, and Fischer. At Kissonerga-Skalia, Crewe and Souter note specific ritual activities associated with the levelling of older structures and the construction of a new complex building at the transition to the Late Cypriot period. These include what appear to be foundation deposits and selected assemblages of animal remains and fineware pottery. There is also possible evidence of an emphasis on eating and drinking in the form of (miniature) cups and bowls, and the authors suggest these might be interpreted as communal consumption events for group cohesion. For Maa-­Palaeokastro, not only the site itself can be seen as an emblem of an elite programme but consumptionbased activities also appear to have been a stable part of it. As Georgiou points out, this is expressed in the so-called hearth rooms, which contained an abundance of drinking vessels and animal bones – the latter in particular from deer, likely not primarily hunted for subsistence purposes in this late period. The impressive concentrations of eating and drinking vessels discovered in the most recent excavations at the cemetery of Hala Sultan Tekke, as discussed by Kofel, Bürge, and Fischer, equally demonstrate how rituals related to mortuary practices involved communal consumption. These wealthy tombs make it clear that social dynamics were also here being expressed and perhaps solidified; what is more, the archaeobotanical analysis of the chapter illustrates the meshwork of relations involved in these practices, including those between humans, nonhuman

Introduction  17 animals, plants, ceramic vessels, transformed bodies (human, animal, clay), and space. The chapters here show that inequalities – and resistance to inequalities – can be detected in a number of ways and can take different approaches. What we can also see is that inequalities did not develop in a neat linear trajectory. Throughout Cypriot prehistory and protohistory, there were periods or episodes of (deliberate, planned) abandonment, rebuilding, resettlement, and new settlements, and that careful choices were made in what practices to continue, where to experiment with new materials and technologies, and when and where to reject or adapt practices from outside the island. The chapters in this volume thus contribute to ongoing discussions related to social structures and networks in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus through a series of case studies. They demonstrate the value of a variety of methods and

Figure 1.1 Map of Cyprus in its Eastern Mediterranean setting, with main sites mentioned in the chapters (prepared by T. Bürge).

18  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge approaches based on scale (from the longue durée to a span of centuries, and from site specific to the entire Eastern Mediterranean and southwest Asia), material culture (architecture, metal, ceramics, and so on), and human-environment interaction in deepening and nuancing our understanding of the changes and continuities in social structures and inequality, social, economic, and ideological connectivities, as well as Cypriot adaptability, resistance and agency. We hope that these will help open up further discussions and new avenues of research, both in terms of the new results presented and in the approaches employed (Fig. 1.1 and Table 1.1). A note concerning abbreviations and chronology: The main abbreviations used throughout this volume relate to the prehistoric and protohistoric chronological periods of the island. This chronology is quite complex and subject to Table 1.1 Main chronological periods of Cypriot and Levantine prehistory and protohistory; Cypriot chronology adapted after Knapp (2013); Levantine chronology adapted after Sharon (2014) and Akkermans and Schwartz (2009) Cyprus

Absolute dates BCE

Levant

Late Epipalaeolithic Initial Aceramic Neolithic Early Aceramic Neolithic Late Aceramic Neolithic

ca. 11,000–9000

Late Natufian

Absolute dates BCE

ca. 11,500– 10,000/9500 ca. 9000–8500/8400 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A ca. 10,000/9500–8500 ca. 8500/8400– Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ca. 8500–7750 7000/6800 Final Pre-Pottery ca. 7000/6800–5200 ca. 7750–6500 Neolithic B / PrePottery Neolithic C / Early Pottery Neolithic Pre-Halaf – Halaf ca. 6500–5200 Ceramic Neolithic ca. 5200/5000– Chalcolithic ca. 5200–3900/3700 4500/4000 Chalcolithic ca. 4000/3900– Early Bronze Age (EB) ca. 3900/3700– 2500/2400 I–III 2500/2300 Philia phase ca. 2400/2350–2250 Intermediate Bronze ca. 2500/2300– Age (IB) / Early 2200/1900 Bronze Age (EB) IV Early Cypriot ca. 2250–2100 Middle Bronze Age ca. 2200/1900–1750 (EC) I–II (MB) I Early Cypriot ca. 2100–1700 (EC) III – Middle Cypriot (MC) III ca. 1750–1550 Middle Bronze Age ca. 1750–1640/1540 Middle Cypriot (MB) II–III (MC) III – Late Cypriot (LC) I transition Late Cypriot (LC) ca. 1550–1200 Late Bronze Age (LB) ca. 1640/1540– I(B)–IIC I–II/III 1200/1150 Late Cypriot (LC) ca. 1200–1125/1100 Late Bronze Age (LB) ca. 1200/1150– IIIA III / Iron Age (IA) IA 1150/1100

Introduction  19 continuous reassessment, and therefore references to cultural periods are usually preferred over absolute years. Below, we provide an overview of the main periods, with their rough equivalent in absolute dates based on the current status quo, and the corresponding periods in the Levant; the main abbreviations for these periods are also noted. As regards Cyprus, we have here adapted the chronological scheme presented by Knapp (largely based on radiocarbon dates), but other terminologies have been and are also in use and preferred by different scholars.56 Other abbreviations in the various chapters mostly refer to the great many types of ceramic wares found on Cyprus; the relevant ones are noted in each chapter at the first mention. Notes 1 Steel (2004) 19; Knapp (2013) 34–7. 2 For example, Swiny (2001); Peltenburg (2003). 3 Buchholz and Karageorghis (1973) 123. 4 For example, Iacovou (2007); Steel (2009); Bolger (2013); Knapp (2013); Georgiou (2015). 5 Both in Cyprus and elsewhere, for example most recently Fisher (2014); Leppard (2019); Webb and Knapp (2021); papers in Leppard and Murray (2023). 6 For example, Peltenburg (1993). 7 For example, Merrillees (1982). 8 See though Crewe (2009, 2015). 9 As suggested by Artzy (2001). 10 Vigne et al. (2011a); Guilaine et al. (2019); Lucas and Fuller (2020); Recht (2023). 11 In another paper, Chelazzi combines archaeodemographic, palaeoecological and palaeoclimatic ‘big data’ for a deep time approach (Chelazzi 2023). 12 The role of faunal remains in ritual practices (including feasting and burials) on Cyprus is well known and has a history going back at least to the Early Aceramic Neolithic. See, for example, Webb (1999); Le Mort et al. (2008); Smith (2009), Chapter 3; Averett (2020). 13 For example, Perrin (2011); Margaritis (2019); Lucas and Fuller (2020); Kofel et al. (2021). 14 For example, Kassianidou (2013); Gaber (2018); Düring (2019); Webb (2019). 15 Gordon and Kouremenos (2020). 16 Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. (2015); Safadi (2016); Safadi and Sturt (2019). 17 For example, Kassianidou (2013); contributions in Demesticha and Knapp (2016) and in Bourogiannis (2022). 18 See also Steel (2018), who discusses human-water entanglements. 19 See, inter alia, Crewe (2012). 20 See also contributions in Åström (2001) and Karageorghis (2001); recently Hacıosmanoğlu et al. (2018). 21 See also Düring et al. (2018, 2021). 22 Düring et al. (2018); Powell et al. (2021). 23 For example, Cline (1994); Buchholz (1999); Aruz et al. (2013); Eder and Pruzsinszky (2015); Knapp and Demesticha (2017); Gilboa and Yasur-Landau (2020). For smaller scale regional networks within the island, see Andreou (2019). 24 E.g. Pedrazzi (2007); Demesticha and Knapp (2016); Knapp and Demesticha (2017); Jung et al. (2023). 25 See compilation of sizes and types in Shai et al. (2019) 70. 26 For these, see, for example, Demesticha and Knapp (2016); Knapp and Demesticha (2017). 27 Hirschfeld (2011).

20  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge 28 For example, Jones et al. (2014) for Sardinia; Rutter (2017) for Crete; Shai et al. (2019) and Shalvi et al. (2019) for the Levant. 29 Moran (1992); Rainey et al. (2014). 30 Aston (2007); Bavay (2015). 31 Clarke (2005) 3. 32 See also Vandkilde et al. (2015) for mobility and technological transfer in the European Bronze Age. 33 Bolger (2013). 34 Which is much later than in the surrounding regions of the Levant, Egypt and Crete, for which see, for example, Knappett (1999); Roux and de Miroschedji (2009); Doherty (2013); Baldi and Roux (2016). 35 Crewe (2007); Jung (2017); Georgiou (2018); Bürge (2023). 36 Jung (2017); Georgiou (2018); Bürge (2023). 37 For example, van Wijngaarden (2002); Jung (2015) with further references therein. 38 Furumark (1941); Mountjoy (1999). 39 Recht and Morris (2021). 40 A sub-type or deviation of the Mycenaean piriform jar; see Graziadio (2017). Mycenaean-imported piriform jars are clearly overrepresented in Cypriot contexts compared to those of the same period in mainland Greece; see, for example, van Wijngaarden (2002); Bürge (2021). 41 In awareness of the somewhat negative connotation that the term ‘imitation’ may have in our modern perception and the fact that the notion of authenticity may have varied through periods and cultures, we prefer to put it in quotation marks. See also van Wijngaarden (2008) 125. 42 Karageorghis and Demas (1984) pls XVIII, XXXIII (ring-based krater repaired with lead clamps). Iacovou (2006) 193 has suggested local production based on the clay. 43 For this extensively and much-debated topic, see most recently Bürge and Fischer (2023) and contributions therein. 44 E.g. Wengrow (2010); Renfrew (2011); Renfrew and Bahn (2016), Chapter 5. 45 Recht (2023). 46 Kohler et al. (2017). 47 Croft (1991); Vigne et al. (2011b). 48 Peltenburg (1990) 6. 49 Düring et al. (2021). 50 Bolger et al. (2019) 330. The increase in the expression of personal identity has also been discussed in some detail by Knapp (for example. 2008; 2013) and Knapp and van Dommelen (2008). 51 For an overview, see Keswani (2004). 52 Bürge (2017, 2021); Fischer and Bürge (2017, 2021). 53 See, for example, Parker Pearson (1999); papers in Dietler and Hayden (2001). 54 For example, Hastorf (2017); Twiss (2019). 55 Bolger et al. (2019) 332. 56 For the scheme, see Knapp (2013) 27 for an overview table, and this and throughout for mention of the other main terms that have been or are being used. For the Levantine scheme, which is not less complex, we have followed the schemes by Sharon (2014) and Akkermans and Schwartz (2009).

Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and G.M. Schwartz (2009), The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge. Andreou, G.M. (2019), ‘Gray Economics in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in C. Kearns and S.W. Manning (eds), New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology. 160–89. Ithaca.

Introduction  21 Artzy, M. (2001), ‘White Slip Ware for Export? The Economics of Production’, in V. ­Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. 107–16. Vienna. Aruz, J., S.B. Graff, and Y. Rakic (eds) (2013), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. New York. Aston, D.A. (2007), ‘A Taste of Honey: mnt- and mḏqt-Vessels in the Late Eighteenth Dynasty’, in T. Schneider and K. Szpakowska (eds), Egyptian Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd on the Occasion of His Retirement. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 347. 13–31. Münster. Åström, P. (ed.) (2001), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19, 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. Stockholm. Averett, E.W. (2020), ‘Blurred Boundaries: Zoomorphic Masking Rituals and the HumanAnimal Relationship in Ancient Cyprus’, World Archaeology 52.5, 724–45. https://doi. org/10.1080/00438243.2021.1900903. Baldi, J. and V. Roux (2016), ‘The Innovation of the Potter’s Wheel: A Comparative Perspective between Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant’, Levant 48.3, 236–53. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Y. Kahanov, J. Roskin, and H. Gildor (2015), ‘Neolithic Voyages to Cyprus: Wind Patterns, Routes, and Mechanisms’, Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 412–35. Bavay, L. (2015), ‘Canaanite Jars and Jar Sealings from Deir al-Medina: Scattered Evidence of Egypt’s Economic Relations with the Levant during the New Kingdom’, in B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky (eds), Policies of Exchange: Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May – 2nd June 2012. Oriental and European Archaeology 2. 129–40. Vienna. Bolger, D. (2013), ‘A Matter of Choice: Cypriot Interactions with the Levantine Mainland During the Late 4th–3rd Millennium BC’, Levant 45.1, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1179/ 0075891413Z.00000000014. Bolger, D., L. Crewe, and E.J. Peltenburg (2019), ‘Ritual, Identity and Community at Souskiou: Traditions and Transformations’, in E.J. Peltenburg, D. Bolger, and L. Crewe (eds), Figurine Makers of Prehistoric Cyprus: Settlement and Cemeteries at Souskiou. 323–36. Philadelphia. Bourogiannis, G. (ed.) (2022), Beyond Cyprus: Investigating Cypriot Connectivity in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the End of the Classical Period. AURA Supplement 9. Athens. Buchholz, H.-G. (1999), Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis: Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten Jahrtausend v. Chr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 261. Münster. Buchholz, H.-G. and V. Karageorghis (1973), Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus: An Archaeological Handbook. London. Bürge, T. (2017), ‘Ritual Depositions versus Garbage Pits: A Re-Evaluation of Pottery Deposits and Offering Pits at the Late Bronze Age City of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus’, Egypt and the Levant 27, 133–50. Bürge, T. (2021), ‘Mortuary Landscapes Revisited: Dynamics of Insularity and Connectivity in Mortuary Ritual, Feasting, and Commemoration in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, Religions 12.10, 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100877. Bürge, T. (2023), ‘The LC IIC to IIIA Transition at Hala Sultan Tekke: A Pottery Perspective’, in T. Bürge and P.M. Fischer (eds), The Decline of Bronze Age Civilisations in the

22  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge Mediterranean: Cyprus and Beyond. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 154. 229–60. Nicosia. Bürge, T. and P.M. Fischer (eds) (2023), The Decline of Bronze Age Civilisations in the Mediterranean: Cyprus and Beyond. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 154. Nicosia. Chelazzi, F. (2023), ‘From Isolated Data Silos to an Integrated and Multi-proxy Regional Synthesis: Insights in a Pan-Mediterranean Approach to Human-environment-climate Interaction’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 52–53, 153–78. Clarke, J. (2005), ‘Cultural Transmissions and Transformations’, in J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplementary Series 2. 1–6. Oxford. Cline, E.H. (1994), Sailing the Wine-dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International Series 591. Oxford. Crewe, L. (2007), ‘Sophistication in Simplicity: The First Production of Wheelmade Pottery on Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2, 209–38. Crewe, L. (2009), ‘Regionalism and the First Appearance of Plain White Handmade Ware in the Middle Cypriot Bronze Age’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C.: Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 4th Cyprological Congress May 2nd, 2008, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 79–90. Vienna. Crewe, L. (2012), ‘Beyond Copper: Commodities and Values in Middle Bronze CyproLevantine Exchanges’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31.3, 225–43. Crewe, L. (2015), ‘Plain Wares and Urban Identities in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in C. Glatz (ed.), Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London 67. 115–34. Walnut Creek. Croft, P. (1991), ‘Man and Beast in Chalcolithic Cyprus’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 282/283, 63–79. Demesticha, S. and A.B. Knapp (eds) (2016), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze– Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature: Pocket-book 183. Uppsala. Dietler, M. and B. Hayden (eds) (2001), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington and London. Doherty, S.K. (2013), The Origins and Use of the Potter’s Wheel in Ancient Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 7. Oxford. Düring, B. (2019), ‘The Chacolithic: Traditions and Innovations’, in R. Binnert Halbertsma and D. Pilides (eds), Cyprus: A Dynamic Island. 37–9. Leiden. Düring, B.S., S. De Ceuster, P. Degryse, and V. Kassianidou (2021), ‘Transformative Copper Metallurgy in Chalcolithic Cyprus: A Reappraisal’, Antiquity 95.381, 670–85. Düring, B.S., V. Klinkenberg, C. Paraskeva, V. Kassianidou, E. Souter, P. Croft, and A. Charalambous (2018), ‘Metal Artefacts in Chalcolithic Cyprus: New Data from Western Cyprus’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18.1, 11–25. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.1069514. Eder, B. and R. Pruzsinszky (eds) (2015), Policies of Exchange: Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May – 2nd June 2012. Oriental and European Archaeology 2. Vienna. Fischer, P.M. and T. Bürge (2017), ‘Tombs and Offering Pits at the Late Bronze Age Metropolis of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus’, American Schools of Oriental Research 378, 1–106.

Introduction  23 Fischer, P.M. and T. Bürge (2021), ‘The New Swedish Cyprus Expedition 2020 (The ­Söderberg Expedition): Excavations in the Cemetery of Hala Sultan Tekke’, Egypt and the Levant 31, 97–145. Fisher, K.D. (2014), ‘Making the First Cities on Cyprus: Urbanism and Social Change in the Late Bronze Age’, in A.T. III Creekmore and K.D. Fisher (eds), Making Ancient Cities: Space and Place in Early Urban Societies. 181–219. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107110274.007. Furumark, A. (1941), The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification. Stockholm. Gaber, P. (2018), ‘Urbanization on Cyprus: The View from Idalion’, Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology 6.1, 1–16. Georgiou, A. (2015), ‘Cyprus during the “Crisis Years” Revisited’, in A. Babbi, F. Bubenheimer-Erhart, B. Marín-Aguilera, and S. Mühl (eds), The Mediterranean Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C. 129–45. Mainz. Georgiou, A. (2018), ‘From the Hand to the Wheel: Revisiting the Transformations of the Late Cypriot Ceramic Industry of Finewares during the 13th-to-12th c. BC Transition’, in I. Caloi and C. Langohr (eds), Technology in Crisis: Technological Changes in Ceramic Production during Periods of Trouble. AEGIS 16. 177–200. Louvain-La-Neuve. Gilboa, A. and A. Yasur-Landau (eds) (2020), Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Studies in Honor of Michal Artzy. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 112. Leiden and Boston. Gordon, J.M. and A. Kouremenos (2020), ‘Introduction’, in A. Kouremenos and J.M. Gordon (eds), Mediterranean Archaeologies of Insularity in an Age of Globalization. 1–26. Oxford and Philadelphia. Graziadio, G. (2017), The Earliest Production of Aegean-Type Pottery in Cyprus. Pisa. Guilaine, J., F. Briois, and J.-D. Vigne (2019), ‘The Neolithic: Migrations from Overseas’, in R. Binnert Halbertsma and D. Pilides (eds), Cyprus: A Dynamic Island. 29–33. Leiden. Hacıosmanoğlu, S., M. Kibaroğlu, G. Sunal, E. Kozal, and P. Gutsuz (2018), ‘Geochemical and Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Ceramics (White Slip I and II and Monochrome from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Hatay) in the Amuq Valley’, Archaeometry 60.3, 471–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12328. Hastorf, C.A. (2017), The Social Archaeology of Food: Thinking about Eating from Prehistory to the Present. New York. Hirschfeld, N.E. (2011), ‘The Cypriot Ceramic Cargo of the Uluburun Shipwreck’, in W. Gauß, M. Lindblom, R.A.K. Smith, and J.C. Wright (eds), Our Cups are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age: Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. 115–20. Oxford. Iacovou, M. (2006), ‘À Contretemps: Late Helladic IIIC Syntax and Context of Early Iron Age Pictorial Pottery in Cyprus’, in E. Rystedt and B. Wells (eds), Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 4° 53. 191–203. Stockholm. Iacovou, M. (2007), ‘Advocating Cyprocentricism: An Indigenous Model for the Emergence of State Formation on Cyprus’, in S. White Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, W.G. Dever, A. Mazar, and J. Aviram (eds), “Up to the Gates of Ekron” (1 Samuel 17:52): Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. 461–75. Jerusalem. Jones, R.E., S.T. Levi, L. Vagnetti, and M. Bettelli (2014), Italo-Mycenaean Pottery: The Archaeological and Archaeometric Dimension. Rome. Jung, R. (2015), ‘Imported Mycenaean Pottery in the East: Distribution, Context and Interpretation’, in B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky (eds), Policies of Exchange: Political Systems

24  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May – 2nd June 2012. Oriental and European Archaeology 2. 243–75. Vienna. Jung, R. (2017), ‘Cooking Vessels from Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Local Traditions, Western and Eastern Innovations’, in J. Hruby and D. Trusty (eds), From Cooking Vessels to Cultural Practices in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. 127–45. Oxford and Philadelphia. Jung, R., H. Mommsen, and T. Pedrazzi (2023), ‘The External Contacts of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age on the Basis of the Ceramic Evidence’, in T. Bürge and P.M. Fischer (eds), The Decline of Bronze Age Civilisations in the Mediterranean: Cyprus and Beyond. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 154. 137–99. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. (ed.) (2001), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. Vienna. Karageorghis, V. and M. Demas (1984), Pyla-Kokkinokremos: A Late 13th-Century B.C. Fortified Settlement in Cyprus. Nicosia. Kassianidou, V. (2013), ‘The Production and Trade of Cypriot Copper in the Late Bronze Age: An Analysis of the Evidence’, Pasiphae 7, 133–46. Keswani, P. (2004), Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus. London. Knapp, A.B. (2008), Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity. Oxford. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge and New York. Knapp, A.B. and S. Demesticha (2017), Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. New York and London. Knapp, A.B. and P. van Dommelen (2008), ‘Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18.1, 15–34. Knappett, C. (1999), ‘Tradition and Innovation in Pottery Forming Technology: Wheelthrowing at Middle Minoan Knossos’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 94, 101–29. Kofel, D., T. Bürge, and P.M. Fischer (2021), ‘Crops and Food Choices at the Late Bronze Age City of Hala Sultan Tekke’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36, 1–8. Kohler, T.A., M.E. Smith, A. Bogaard, G.M. Feinman, C.E. Peterson, A. Betzenhauser, M. Pailes, et al. (2017), ‘Greater Post-Neolithic Wealth Disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica’, Nature 551.7682, 619–22. Le Mort, F., J.-D. Vigne, S.J.M. Davis, J. Guilaine, and A. Le Brun (2008), ‘Man-Animal Relationships in the Pre-Pottery Burials at Shillourokambos and Khirokitia (Cyprus, 8th and 7th Millennia Cal. BC)’, MOM Éditions 49.1, 219–41. Leppard, T.P. (2019), ‘Social Complexity and Social Inequality in the Prehistoric Mediterranean’, Current Anthropology 60.3, 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1086/703174. Leppard, T. and S. Murray (eds) (2023) (forthcoming), Violence and Inequality: A Deep History. Denver, CO. Lucas, L. and D.Q. Fuller (2020), ‘Against the Grain: Long-Term Patterns in Agricultural Production in Prehistoric Cyprus’, Journal of World Prehistory 33.2, 233–66. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10963-020-09140-6. Margaritis, E. (2019), ‘Plants and Society in Neolithic Kantou-Koufovounos, Cyprus’, in E. Mantzourani and I. Voskos (eds), The Excavation at the Neolithic Site of KantouKoufovounos in Cyprus, Volume 2. 373–92. Nicosia.

Introduction  25 Merrillees, R.S. (1982), ‘Archaeological Summary’, in J.D. Muhly, R. Maddin, and V. ­Karageorghis (eds), Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000–500 BC. 373–6. Nicosia. Moran, W.L. (1992), The Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Mountjoy, P.A. (1999), Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden. Parker Pearson, M. (1999), The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud. Pedrazzi, T. (2007), Le giare da conservazione e trasporto del Levante: Uno studio archeologico dell’economia fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400-900 a.C.). Pisa. Peltenburg, E.J. (1990), ‘Chalcolithic Cyprus’, in V. Karageorghis and E.J. Peltenburg (eds), Cyprus before the Bronze Age: Art of the Chalcolithic Period. 5–24. Malibu. Peltenburg, E.J. (1993), ‘Settlement Discontinuity and Resistance to Complexity in Cyprus, ca. 4500–2500 B.C.E.’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292, 9–23. Peltenburg, E.J. (ed.) (2003), The Colonisation and Settlement of Cyprus: Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976–1996. Volume III.1. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70.4. Sävedalen. Perrin, T. (2011), ‘Les données du macro-outillage’, in J. Guilaine, F. Briois, and J.-D. Vigne (eds), Shillourokambos: un établissement néolithique pré-céramique à Chypre: les fouilles du Secteur 1. Paris. Powell, W., M. Johnson, C. Pulak, K.A. Yener, R. Mathur, H.A. Bankoff, L. Godfrey, M. Price, and E. Galili (2021), ‘From Peaks to Ports: Insights into Tin Provenance, Production, and Distribution from Adapted Applications of Lead Isotopic Analysis of the Uluburun Tin Ingots’, Journal of Archaeological Science 134, 105455. Rainey, A.F., W.M. Schniedewind, and Z. Cochavi-Rainey (2014), The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna Based on Collations of All Extant Tablets. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East 110. Leiden. Recht, L. (2023), ‘Transformations and Deep Time: Animals in Prehistoric Cyprus’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 52–53, 179–208. Recht, L. and C.E. Morris (2021), ‘Chariot Kraters and Horse-Human Relations in Late Bronze Age Greece and Cyprus’, Annual of the British School at Athens 116, 95–132. Renfrew, C. (2011), The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. Oxford. Renfrew, C. and P.G. Bahn (2016), Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London. Roux, V. and P. de Miroschedji (2009), ‘Revisiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant’, Levant 41.2, 155–73. Rutter, J.B. (2017), ‘Late Minoan IIIB at Kommos: An Abundance of Deposits, a Dearth of Clear Sub-Phases, and Probably a Gradual Desertion of the Site’, in C. Langohr (ed.), How Long Is a Century?: Late Minoan IIIB Pottery. Relative Chronology and Regional Differences. AEGIS 12. 243–81. Louvain-La-Neuve. Safadi, C. (2016), ‘Wind and Wave Modelling for the Evaluation of the Maritime Accessibility and Protection Afforded by Ancient Harbours’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5, 348–60. Safadi, C. and F. Sturt (2019), ‘The Warped Sea of Sailing: Maritime Topographies of Space and Time for the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean’, Journal of Archaeological Science 103, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.01.001. Shai, I., C. McKinny, M.D. Spigelman, D.B. Shlomo, A. Karasik, D. Namdar, and J. Uziel (2019), ‘Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna’, Tel Aviv 46.1, 65–82. Shalvi, G., S. Bar, S. Shoval, and A. Gilboa (2019), ‘The Pottery of Tel Esur, a Rural Canaanite Late Bronze Age Site on the Via Maris’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 382, 111–42.

26  Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge Sharon, I. (2014), ‘Levantine Chronology’, in A.E. Killebrew and M.L. Steiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, c. 8000–332 BCE. 44–65. Oxford. Smith, J.S. (2009), Art and Society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Oxford. Steel, L. (2004), Cyprus before History: From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age. London. Steel, L. (2009), ‘Exploring Regional Settlement on Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age: The Rural Hinterland’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium BC: Studies in Regionalism During the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 133–43. Vienna. Steel, L. (2018), ‘Watery Entanglements in the Cypriot Hinterland’, Land 7.3, 104. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land7030104. Swiny, S. (ed.) (2001), The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus: From Colonization to Exploitation. Boston. Twiss, K.C. (2019), The Archaeology of Food: Identity, Politics, and Ideology in the Prehistoric and Historic Past. Cambridge. van Wijngaarden, G.J. (2002), Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (1600–1200 BC). Archaeological Studies 8. Amsterdam. van Wijngaarden, G.J. (2008), ‘The Relevance of Authenticity: Mycenaean-type Pottery in the Mediterranean’, in P.F. Biehl and Y.Y. Rassamakin (eds), Import and Imitation in Archaeology. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 11. 125–45. Langenweißbach. Vandkilde, H., S. Hansen, K. Kotsakis, K. Kristiansen, J. Müller, J. Sofaer, and M.L. Stig Sørensen (2015), ‘Cultural Mobility in Bronze Age Europe’, in P. Suchowska-Ducke, S.S. Reiter, and H. Vandkilde (eds), Forging Identities: The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe: Report from a Marie Curie Project 2009–2012 with Concluding Conference at Aarhus University, Moesgaard 2012: Volume 1. BAR International Series 2771. 5–37. Oxford. Vigne, J.-D., S. Bailon, I. Carrère, T. Cucchi, N. Desse-Berset, J. Desse, G. Le Dosseur, N. Serrand, and D. Stordeur (2011a), ‘Apports des faunes de Shillourokambos à la caractérisation historique, techno-économique et symbolique des sociétés du néolithique pré-céramique chypriote et proche-oriental’, in J. Guilaine, F. Briois, and J.-D. Vigne, Shillourokambos. Un établissement néolithique pré-céramique à Chypre: Les fouilles du Secteur 1. 1161–94. Paris. Vigne, J.-D., I. Carrère, F. Briois, and J. Guilaine (2011b), ‘The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East: New Evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus’, Current Anthropology 52.S4, S255–71. Webb, J.M. (1999), Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 75. Jonsered. Webb, J.M. (2019), ‘The Bronze Age: The Importance of Copper and Trade’, in R. Binnert Halbertsma and D. Pilides (eds), Cyprus: A Dynamic Island. 41–5. Leiden. Webb, J.M. and A.B. Knapp (2021), ‘Rethinking Middle Bronze Age Communities on Cyprus: “Egalitarian” and Isolated or Complex and Interconnected?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 29.2, 203–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-020-09148-8. Wengrow, D. (2010), What Makes Civilization? The Ancient Near East and the Future of the West. Oxford.

2

Material convergences in a globalising world? Cyprus and the Near East in the seventh and sixth millennia BCE Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse

Introduction Research has demonstrated that the mainland Late Neolithic (LN) landscape saw a surge in transregional interactions in the runup to the establishment of the Halaf culture (5900–5300 BCE).1 Although the Halaf is typically associated with Upper Mesopotamia, its influence has been documented as far west as the Northern Levantine littoral,2 bringing its traits within indisputable cultural striking distance of Cyprus. The apparent absence of Halaf influence on Cyprus is therefore surprising, especially given the strength of evidence on the island for earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) connections with the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia.3 That pottery was absent on Cyprus until the fifth millennium BCE has undoubtably contributed to the near-indelible perception amongst archaeologists that the island was isolated from interactions taking place on the mainland following the demise of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in the middle of the eighth millennium BCE. The uptake of non-indigenous cultural traits on the island and in other contexts has been shown to be contingent upon cultural receptivity,4 that is, the likelihood or not that a foreign technology, material, or cultural practice will be adopted, partially or entirely, by another cultural group. As such, the fact that communities on Cyprus failed to adopt rectilinear architecture and ceramics until long after their emergence on the mainland in no way implies an isolated population. On the contrary, it is likely that their absence was precipitated by a barrier to receptivity, possibly driven by a cultural preference for a prelapsarian way of life that extended well beyond its corresponding material correlates.5 Indeed, isolated rectilinear architecture and ceramics have been recorded in early Neolithic contexts at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia and Khirokitia, albeit rarely.6 Recently, we have argued that ‘[o]n Cyprus … the paradigmatic predation of Mesopotamian fallow deer that endured into the mid-Holocene appears to have been a relict of Pleistocene-style “controlled predation”, facilitated by low occupation intensity at island – if not always site – level’.7 Given that ‘curvilinear houses have long been associated with varying combinations of mobility, communal living and egalitarianism, more often than not features of hunter-gatherer societies’,8 it is not surprising that, on an island where hunting remained the predominant food

DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-2

28  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse procurement strategy throughout the Neolithic, its material correlates would be present also. The emergent round house There are sporadic occurrences of rectilinear and sub-rectilinear architecture on Cyprus during the course of the Neolithic.9 However, in iconic contrast to the mainland, circular architecture remained predominant until the onset of the Early Bronze Age.10 Although rectilinear architecture was the norm in many parts of the ‘Levantine corridor’11 and Upper Mesopotamia by the start of the eighth ­millennium BCE,12 a mainland exception lay far to the south and east in the drysteppe and sub-desert zones of the Syrian and Jordanian badia.13 As on Cyprus, curvilinear architecture had never been superseded in this region, despite the fact that technological and perhaps economic elements of the PPNB cultural complex – with which rectilinear architecture was so closely associated14 – had reached even the furthest reaches of south Sinai, Jordan’s Black Desert and northern Arabia by the later eighth millennium BCE.15 The fact that curvilinear architecture persisted in the offshore western (Cyprus) and onshore eastern (Syrian and Jordanian badia) margins draws a conceptual link between them, raising the possibility that this thematic convergence was closely associated with the absence of demographic pressures associated with the adoption of rectilinear architecture elsewhere. Round houses in Cyprus during the seventh and sixth millennia BCE At around 6800 BCE, Cypriot sites that had been occupied throughout the ninth and eighth millennia were abandoned and new sites were established elsewhere (Fig. 2.1). These are attributed to the Late Aceramic Neolithic period (6800–5200 BCE),16 which is broadly coeval with the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the subsequent transition to the Late Neolithic on the mainland (Fig. 2.2). Most of the new settlements were small, with lightly built structures and an apparently low-intensity, egalitarian way of life that may have involved a degree of seasonal mobility. This is no better illustrated than at the 0.17-hectares coastal site of Cape Andreas, where the low, circular house walls were typically just one stone thick; some may have supported a timber or otherwise organic superstructure.17 ‘Cette simplicité, cette rusticité’18 stands in sharp contrast to the heavily invested built environment of Khirokitia (~6600–5500 BCE) which, on account of its apparently exceptional size (up to 3 ha), was entirely atypical for Late Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus.19 Cutting across this settlement variability are two Pre-Pottery Neolithic A-derived architectural forms that had – with varying degrees of congruence – ­previously graced eighth millennium BCE Kalavasos-Tenta.20 ‘Circular radial buildings’

Above-ground structures that superficially evoke elements of the Middle to Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B circular building at Munhata 321 are known from both

Material convergences in a globalising world?  29

Figure 2.1  Map showing sites mentioned in the text.

Figure 2.2 Schematic chart showing cultural periodisation for Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia and the badia between 6800 and 5300 BCE.

Khirokitia and Cape Andreas.22 These so-called ‘circular radial buildings’ were characterised by Peltenburg23 as ‘circular structures of… varied sizes…[with] radial, non-communicating cells at the periphery’. At Khirokitia, known examples all date to shortly before the site’s abandonment; at Cape Andreas, too they seem to fall later rather than earlier in the span of the Late Aceramic Neolithic.

30  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse Using the ‘circular-radial-building’ form as a proxy for community-oriented, perhaps more mobile modes of life, Peltenburg24 interpreted their re-appearance in the Cypriot Late Aceramic Neolithic record as the manifestation of a renunciation of ‘large-scale, heavily built-up environments in preference for less archaeologically visible home bases’. It may be noted that just as the ‘circular radial buildings’ of Cyprus have been compared with the circular building at Munhata 3, so the circular building at Munhata 3 has been compared with the so-called ‘wheels’ of the Black Desert of eastern Jordan.25 These have likewise been linked with mobile lifeways and such chronological data as exist26 in no way exclude the possibility that some were contemporary with the smaller but nevertheless analogous ‘circular radial buildings’ of Late Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus. It is not inconceivable that the distinctive ground plans of ‘circular radial buildings’ and ‘wheels’ reflect a common function related to the management of domestic stock. In particular, the arrangement of peripheral radial cells around a central space lends itself to the separation and corralling of animals from the flock – an activity fundamental to pastoral lifeways. ‘Circular pillar buildings’

Much more common at Khirokitia is the so-called ‘circular pillar building’. This was described by Peltenburg27 as a ‘small circular building with stone and mudbrick walls, and internal, disproportionately large rectilinear pillars’. He went on to trace its evolution back through a series of Upper Mesopotamian antecedents, which included the much larger Göbekli Tepe III enclosures as well as examples from Qermez Dere and Nemrik 9 in northern Iraq.28 On the strength of current evidence, this architectural form first appeared on Cyprus at Tenta in the mid eighth ­millennium BCE, a few centuries after circular ‘type D’ pillar buildings were replaced by subrectangular ‘type E’ examples within the final occupation phase at Nemrik 9.29 That the Cypriot ‘circular pillar building’ had enduring social significance is implied by its longevity; it remained virtually unchanged in its essentials until the later seventh millennium BCE. Whatever their role in society, it is notable that on Cyprus, pillar buildings are currently known from only two sites, Early Aceramic Neolithic Tenta and Late Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia, implying that these two sites may have been singled out as special in some way. It is perhaps also worth noting that these two sites are chronologically contiguous and located only 6 km from each other. The most impressive pillar building excavated to date is the so-called tholos IA pillar-building complex at Khirokitia, one of the largest (8.75 m across) and most domestically ambivalent buildings on the site (Fig. 2.3). In many ways, it evokes aspects of the well-known Göbekli Tepe III enclosures30 with its concentric walls, twin central pillars, ‘inner sanctum’, ‘corridor’ and apparent associations with mortuary practice.31 Although the utilisation of Göbekli Tepe III predates the establishment of Khirokitia by at least 1,500 years,32 if not more, the chronological gap between their respective pillar buildings can be very significantly reduced – if not closed altogether – by reference to Nemrik 9 and Tenta.

Material convergences in a globalising world?  31

Figure 2.3 Tholos IA complex at Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios 1953: pl. III).

The late seventh millennium BCE disruption Considerable settlement reorganisation took place at Khirokitia between Levels B and III at approximately 6200 BCE.33 It was marked by a major reconfiguration of the built environment which saw the abandonment of some areas and expansion of others.34 In general terms, although structures were ‘still circular in plan, they [were] not built the same way, and their internal arrangement [had] changed’.35 Internal space, which was loosely delineated prior to level III, was subsequently marked by compartmentalisation achieved through increased use of internal partition walls. This suggests a degree of disengagement from earlier communal physical and social structures. Such behaviours are frequently taken as evidence of increased household autonomy usually associated with ‘Neolithisation’.36 It is probable that what we are observing across the Level B–III transition at Khirokitia is the emergence of genuine round houses as accommodation for household units, as opposed to the previously communally oriented curvilinear structures. These trends were accompanied by a marked reduction in the frequency of pillars,37 which on occasion included their deliberate destruction.38 Other buildings at Khirokitia were subject to highly unusual patterns of abandonment and deliberate infilling that included the structured placement of sculptures and special or utilitarian objects, especially during the third quarter of the seventh millennium BCE.39 Attention is drawn to the recurring deposition of mace heads, which are ‘considered as a mark of prestige but [are] usually found broken’,40 the vertical placement of objects in the ground41 and the utilisation of red ochre or other such pigment.42 Khirokitia also witnessed a sharp decline in fallow deer hunting and a concomitant increase in the herding of sheep across the Level B–III transition.43 There was

32  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse also a change in vegetation cover to species more tolerant of drier conditions,44 possibly the result of intensified anthropogenic pressure on the site catchment.45 That extreme climatic variability was also a feature of the later seventh millennium46 should be considered in this context, as should the possibility that the so-called 8.2 ka event played a role in the changes that took place. Evidence for torrential flooding and landslides at Khirokitia at this time is indicative of slope destabilisation, which in turn points to degradation of vegetation cover however caused.47 On the basis of the evidence to hand, it is notable that the changes recorded at Khirokitia seem not to have extended to known contemporary sites, all of which were smaller, simpler, and lower intensity. At Cape Andreas, for example, hunting may have increased over the same period,48 at least insofar as any zooarchaeological assemblage is representative of life.49 Unsurprisingly, it appears that an exceptionally large site was displaying exceptional patterns of behaviour. Round houses in the Northern Levant, Upper Mesopotamia and badia during the seventh and sixth millennia BCE More than 60 years ago, Dikaios50 drew a comparison between the round houses of Khirokitia and those of the Halaf, specifically Arpachiyah, on the strength of superficial similarities between them that were reflected in the use of the misleading term tholos (pl. tholoi) for both.51 With the advent of radiometric dating, however, it turned out that the first Khirokitia structures to be thus dated predated the mainland examples with which they had been compared, so interest in pursuing the comparison waned.52 Although it is undoubtedly the case that there are differences of detail between them, more recent data suggest that Dikaios’ basic premise warrants further scrutiny. It is now known that within a couple of centuries of the establishment of ­Khirokitia – that is to say at around 6500–6450 BCE53 – circular structures (~3–5 m across54) reappeared without apparent local antecedents across a broad sweep of the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia.55 The earliest known examples come from Tell Sabi Abyad,56 followed slightly later by Tell Halula,57 Tell ­el-Kerkh,58 Yarim Tepe I,59 and Chagar Bazar.60 These sites encompass a vast area, extending from little more than 50 km inland from the Syrian littoral adjacent to Cyprus, through the Northern Levant, and deep into Upper Mesopotamia. Of their earliest occurrence at Tell Sabi Abyad, Akkermans et al.61 have written In the first two to three centuries of their existence, the round buildings were sporadic, isolated occurrences, since there was no more than a single round building amidst a range of rectangular features in each of the relevant strata… [They were], it seems, …special-purpose installations for which there was a limited yet persistent need over a prolonged period of time. It remains difficult to establish what this purpose or need precisely was, although at least one of the circular structures… [differed from] other buildings at the site, in the sense that it had a series of burials underneath its floor, as well as the fragmentary skeletal remains of other humans on the floor… This structure

Material convergences in a globalising world?  33 apparently was used as a receptacle for the dead, and we may wonder whether the other buildings did not serve similar roles. Comparable observations were made of Yarim Tepe I, Level 12, by Merpert and Munchaev.62 In short, it seems that the earliest circular structures on the mainland were distinct from their more numerous rectilinear counterparts and may thus have had a special purpose. In key aspects, they evoke the hybrid leitmotif of mortuary association and domestic ambivalence that characterise many circular structures at Khirokitia prior to ~6200 BCE.63 As at Khirokitia, there was a marked change in the disposition, makeup and use of circular structures at Tell Sabi Abyad at ~6200 BCE. Their frequency increased to the extent that they became a major element within the built environment, though always in association with rectilinear forms.64 Internal space, which had hitherto been loosely delineated in these structures, was henceforth increasingly marked by the same compartmentalisation using internal partition walls that characterised Khirokitia at approximately the same time. A concurrent development, not incontestably seen at Khirokitia, was the ‘occasional addition of a rectangular antechamber to the circular room’.65 This gave rise to the so-called keyhole-shaped building plan that characterises some Halaf tholoi of the sixth millennium BCE. The new domestic credentials of these structures were reinforced by the regular occurrence of hearths and other installations within them, to the extent that ‘it is difficult to regard these round buildings in the late phases as other than the living quarters or houses at the site’.66 Thus, not only were the circular structures of preHalaf Upper Mesopotamia and the Cypriot Late Aceramic Neolithic coeval, but both underwent a transition from domestic ambivalence to unashamedly domestic round house within the same few decades of the later seventh millennium BCE. The architectural changes documented at Tell Sabi Abyad at ~6200 BCE did not occur in isolation but were accompanied by far-reaching shifts in material culture and subsistence practice.67 Some of these are referenced at Khirokitia, including the particularly suggestive subsistence parallels.68 The reasons for these changes are not well understood although, once again, it is assumed that climatic variability during the later eighth millennium BCE will have played some role.69 The apparent synchronicity of events at Khirokitia and Tell Sabi Abyad, sites more than 500 km distant from each other and separated by at least 70 km70 of water, certainly does nothing other than reinforce the case for supra-regional explanations. Post-6000 BCE comparisons between Cyprus and the mainland Although by the end of the seventh millennium BCE round houses had become unashamedly ‘domestic’, some sites evidently retained a requirement for nonquotidian circular structures. A sequence of at least two exceptionally large (~10 m across), superimposed Halaf tholoi dating to the mid sixth millennium BCE71 were excavated on the summit of the low mound at Arpachiyah in Levels TT8 and TT7.72 Two earlier levels, TT10 and TT9, were also characterised by circular structures, albeit of lesser size and poorer construction. The rectilinear antechamber of the

34  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse TT7 tholos was rebuilt on the same plan in Level TT6. This rebuilding, known in the literature as the Burnt House on account of its destruction by fire, preserved an array of high-status objects, including some of the finest examples of Halaf painted pottery yet discovered, large numbers of finely crafted obsidian links, beads, stone vessels, stamp seals, and stone axes, as well as flint and obsidian tools and debitage.73 The TT8 to TT6 structures were constructed one atop the other on stone foundations with upper courses of pisé or mudbrick.74 This echoes the construction of some tholoi at Khirokitia75 and, especially, the earlier circular-communal-building sequence at Tenta.76 Other adjacencies with some structures at Khirokitia and Tenta include the careful clearance of objects from the floors of the TT7 and TT8 tholoi prior to their abandonment,77 a lack of hearths, infilling with red soil,78 and the purposeful collapsing of the walls of the antecedent building inwards onto its floor, which was then infilled and levelled before the subsequent structure was built.79 The presence of nine burials in the vicinity of the tholoi, two against the outer wall of the tholos in Level TT7,80 is indicative of a mortuary association if not primary function.81 In this regard, it may be noted that, at Khirokitia, the largest, most domestically ambivalent tholoi ‘yielded abundant evidence in connexion with the disposal of the dead’.82 Equally noteworthy is the fact that the two graves abutting the TT7 tholos at Arpachiyah contained ‘pottery of exceptional richness and brilliance’.83 If we recall the exquisitely made stone bowls that were included as grave goods in the richest burials at Khirokitia, such as grave I in tholos XVIII,84 it is hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that what we are seeing is comparable funerary practice enacted in different media. Dikaios went to some trouble to identify material-culture similarities between Khirokitia and Arpachiyah, specifically in the realm of beads and personal ornamentation.85 The most convincing concerns the presence in tholos XVIII grave I of a substantial carnelian bead (~1.5 cm long), flat on one surface, convex on the other, with two suspension holes linked by a groove running between them.86 This distinctive feature characterises a subset of the most finely worked stone beads from the Burnt House at Arpachiyah.87 Given the absence of carnelian sources on Cyprus and the very specific form of the Khirokitia bead, it is unlikely to have been manufactured locally. The fact that analogous examples have been found in a ‘special’ building at Arpachiyah raises the possibility that the Khirokitia example represents a high-status Halaf import (Fig. 2.4a, b). It is of note that tholos XVIII is stratigraphically late in the Khirokitia sequence.88 Recently, Alain Le Brun89 integrated tholos XVIII into the stratigraphic sequence of the latest excavations and has, like Dikaios, confirmed that it dates to the final occupation of the site (Levels A3 to A1). This makes it broadly contemporary with Arpachiyah TT8–TT6. Dikaios also drew caveated attention to the distinctive, stone ‘pointed ring pendants’ found at both sites,90 and subsequently at Cape Andreas.91 Supporting evidence from the Land of Conjecture It has been argued above that the archaeological changes that occurred at Tell Sabi Abyad during the later seventh millennium shared many similarities with the

Material convergences in a globalising world?  35

Figure 2.4 a. Grooved carnelian bead from grave I in tholos XVIII at Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios 1953: pl. CI.886) and b. grooved steatite beads from the Burnt House at Arpachiyah (reproduced with permission from Mallowan and Rose 1935: pl. VIb).

changes that took place at Khirokitia over the same time period. This offers support to the notion that the changes evidenced at Khirokitia were likely part of regional transformative processes that extended far beyond Cyprus and the adjacent Syro-Cilician littoral. Just how much further they might have extended is hinted at by emerging evidence from the Black Desert of the eastern Jordanian badia, located some 500 km south of Tell Sabi Abyad. Dubbed the ‘Land of Conjecture’ by Royal Air Force pilots flying the Cairo to Baghdad air-mail route in 1920s on account of its apparent desolation,92 the broken basalt country of the Black Desert actually harbours an unexpected mosaic of productive seasonal microhabitats that, in the seventh and sixth millennia supported the Black Desert Neolithic cultural complex.93 The planar resemblance between the ‘circular radial buildings’ of Cyprus and the ‘wheels’ of the Black Desert has already been mentioned, as have possible reasons for that similarity, but recent research in the Black Desert by the Eastern Badia

36  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse Archaeological Project94 has yielded evidence for very substantial aggregations of curvilinear stone-built structures in well-watered locales such as Wisad Pools and Wadi al-Qattafi. Excavated examples hint at an architectural diversity that has yet to be fully explained, although some aspects of their construction clearly derive from steppic building traditions dating back – in a clear example of cultural continuity – to at least the ninth millennium BCE.95 The majority of structures for which we have information are characterised by a single, prominent, central pillar, regardless of the size of the structure and thus distance to be spanned by any roof. In some instances, it was surrounded by additional pillars around the internal perimeter of the structure, with hints that at least some of the latter were carefully aligned.96 As elsewhere,97 an entirely functionalist interpretation of the pillars seems inadequate on account both of their alignment and the structured placement of objects around the central pillar in at least one instance. Thus, at structure W-80 at Wisad Pools (Fig. 2.5), multiple gazelle mandibles, a fine bone spatula, and a cache of gazelle/ caprine astragali were deposited around the base of the central pillar in different phases.98 Furthermore, a substantial (>500 g) worked block of red ochre was pressed vertically into the ground just inside that same doorway,99 with a large mother-of-pearl ‘link’ (Fig. 2.6) being secreted within the wall construction immediately adjacent to the threshold.

Figure 2.5  Aerial photograph of structure W-80 at Wisad Pools (photographer Y.M. Rowan).

Material convergences in a globalising world?  37

Figure 2.6 Mother-of-pearl ‘link’ from structure W-80 at Wisad Pools (photographer G.O. Rollefson).

The ‘link’ is similar to a near-contemporary example from Level AV at El Kowm 2 in the Syrian steppe;100 smaller but broadly similar objects are also known from the slightly later site of as-Sabiyah H3 in Kuwait, at the bottom end of the TigrisEuphrates river system.101 These mother-of-pearl objects are in their essentials comparable in form and likely function to the similarly iridescent ground and polished obsidian links from Halaf sites including Domuztepe102 and the Burnt House at Arpachiyah.103 The use of mother-of-pearl on the steppic side of the ‘desert line’104 may simply be due to reduced availability of obsidian with increasing distance from its sources or, indeed, the skills needed to work it. The presence of a number of large tabular flint knives pressed – some vertically – hard up against the internal perimeter wall of structure W-80 at regular intervals, within the constructional makeup of an interior bench is reflected in similar depositions within pillar buildings at Khirokitia.105 Indeed, the behaviours exemplified by the structured deposition of ‘special’ items within structures can be traced back to very much earlier curvilinear communal buildings on the mainland, including the Göbekli Tepe III enclosures106 and building EA53 at Jerf el-Ahmar.107 In addition, the presence at structure W-80 of polished stone spheres, a cluster of small spherical clay ‘tokens’ and a ‘labret’ points to the existence of trans-steppic links with Mesopotamia.108 Furthermore, fragments of highly polished, smashed ‘mace heads’109 recall their recurrent presence in pillarbuilding ‘closure’ deposits at Khirokitia.

38  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse What is particularly interesting about the Black Desert pillar buildings is the evidence they have yielded for a cultural and perhaps occupational punctuation110 at ~6200 BCE in a third regional archaeological record. Thus, stone-built structure M7 SS-1 at Wadi al-Qattafi, which evokes the pre-Halaf, clay-slab, circular structures at Tell Sabi Abyad in terms of its size (~5 m across), narrow entrance and substantial internal hearth, saw the addition of an enigmatic rectilinear extension111 and rough internal partition wall, most likely during the last two centuries of the seventh millennium BCE.112 The extension, though poorly preserved, is reminiscent of near-synchronous modifications to circular structures at Tell Sabi Abyad. The partition wall formalised an earlier, undemarcated separation between roofed and open areas,113 evoking the compartmentalisation observable at Tell Sabi Abyad and indeed Khirokitia at this time. Processes of spatial segmentation can be seen even more clearly at Wisad Pools. At structure W-80 (Fig. 2.5), an earlier ~2.3 m wide entrance was narrowed to ~0.6 m and large grinding slabs and a possible storage bin were installed within the now private internal space.114 A partially enclosed forecourt was constructed in front of the narrowed entrance, reinforcing the separation of the private interior from the public outside world. Adjacent to the forecourt was a partially paved low platform, on and around which vast quantities of chipped stone and bone refuse were found. This is suggestive of some combination of primary processing outside the main structure and secondary disposal of waste from the interior. Either might be taken as being indicative of a higher degree of sedentism than previously,115 while subsequently evidence for internal partitioning of the main structure increased.116 Discussion At W-80, as at Khirokitia and Tell Sabi Abyad, these architectural changes did not occur in isolation but were accompanied by marked changes in behaviour and material culture. In addition to the installation of large grinding slabs, likely associated with a cache of three heavy-duty basalt pestles,117 pronounced changes also occurred in the chipped stone assemblage.118 Available radiometric evidence suggests that these developments unfolded over the late seventh and early sixth ­millennia BCE119 and it is hoped that forthcoming assays will bracket them more tightly. In sum, the restricted access, increased investment in exclusive installations and storage, internal compartmentalisation and an increasing emphasis on privacy generally that are discernible at structure W-80 hint at increasing household autonomy at the expense of community. This would be well aligned with the increasingly formalised and structured ways of living emerging at Khirokitia and Tell Sabi Abyad. As ever, it is easier to describe change than explain it but the approximate synchronicity and general alignment of at least some changes in the Black Desert with those in Upper Mesopotamia reinforces the case for supra-regional explanations, although care should be taken to ensure that these elucidate rather than mask detail at the local level. Nevertheless, within the constraints of the archaeological record

Material convergences in a globalising world?  39 as presently understood, it appears that very similar transformations were playing out concurrently along the entire arc of the wider ‘desert line’, including its offshore (Cyprus) and onshore (Jordanian badia) margins. Pottery and stone: a material case for transregional connectivity?

At the beginning of this paper, it was mentioned that pottery was a late addition to the Cypriot technological repertory and that a likely reason was that Cypriot societies made a conscious choice to continue to produce containers in stone. Evidence to support this theory comes from humanoid figurative art – an infrequent though recurring element within the mainland Late Neolithic artistic canon.120 With regard to the later seventh and sixth millennia BCE, it tends to be encountered in the form of applied decoration on the shoulders of large hole-mouth pots and jars (Fig. 2.7). In Upper Mesopotamia, these figures seem to be particularly associated with enclosed storage spaces, with a primarily apotropaic function. ‘Deposited inside the buildings by their human operators, they were left behind to confront demons or other supernatural agents deemed responsible for generalised evil or

Figure 2.7 Applied humanoid figure on Wadi Rabah jar from Ein el-Jarba, mid sixth millennium (reproduced with permission from Streit [2015] fig. 3a).

40  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse specific illnesses, pests or theft’.121 In many cases, a wholly human attribution cannot be inferred as many also display animal characteristics such as tails and, in earlier periods, ‘laterally placed eyes… [and] upward-turned legs’.122 The ultimate genesis of the form seems to go back more than three millennia, via Late Neolithic and Final PPNB examples such as those at Çatalhöyük,123 to PPNA depictions of leopards and/or reptiles at sites such as Tell ‘Abr 3124 and Göbekli Tepe III.125 It is in this context that a humanoid relief on a stone bowl from Khirokitia126 may be interpreted127 (Fig. 2.8). It evokes both the large relief and painted figures from near-contemporary Çatalhöyük VI-VII128 as well as the applied figures on later seventh and sixth millennium pottery from the Levant, Upper Mesopotamia, Anatolia and southeastern Europe.129 Furthermore, it has a Cypriot antecedent in the form of the well-known painted humanoid figures found on the side of the central pillar of structure 11 at Tenta IV-II,130 dated to the later eighth millennium BCE. A large, spouted stone bowl ‘found in a grave [at Khirokitia], intentionally broken and placed under the middle of the body’,131 bears a relief of what appears to be variant of the same motif (Fig. 2.9). These objects evoke the applied humanoid

Figure 2.8 Humanoid relief on the side of a stone bowl from Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Le Brun (ed.) [1989] fig. 52.9).

Figure 2.9 Possible humanoid relief on the side of a spouted stone bowl from Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios [1953] pl. CXXII.813).

Material convergences in a globalising world?  41 figures on some contemporary mainland pottery, suggesting that Khirokitia at least was less isolated than has sometimes been argued, and was instead tracking contemporary symbolic developments within the regional cosmological arena – albeit in a different medium. As multiple media are used in the representation of this motif on the mainland – for example, plaster at Çatalhöyük but pottery at Ein elJarba – the use of stone in Cyprus can be interpreted as a local manifestation of a regional practice. That said, the realisation of such figures within the context of the island’s deeply rooted stone-working tradition is striking as it hints that Cypriot receptivity to mainland innovation – especially pottery – may have had its limits. Conclusion From a supra-regional perspective, the later seventh and sixth millennia BCE were above all else expansive, being characterised by the rapid and decisive movement of Neolithic peoples from southwest Asia and the Aegean into regions that had hitherto lain beyond the domestic horizon. With regard to round houses, it seems clear that mainland receptivity to the circular architectural form increased with the demise of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultural complex. Elsewhere we have argued that early prehistoric culture on Cyprus evolved in cosmological opposition to the structured, corporate world of the mainland Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.132 It may not be straying beyond the bounds of possibility to propose that it was the demise of that Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultural complex in both its ideological and economic manifestations by the earlier seventh millennium that opened the door to a gradual reintegration of Cyprus with its onshore ‘hinterland’ over the course of subsequent centuries. Acknowledgements This article fell out of a reading of Robert Fletcher’s (2015) British Imperialism and the ‘Tribal Question’: Desert Administration and Nomadic Societies in the Middle East, 1919–1936. Our exploration of the later Neolithic ‘desert line’ was prompted by his inspired use of the Mandate-period ‘desert corridor’133 as a primary unit of analysis; it gives us great pleasure to acknowledge this debt. In addition to published sources, we have drawn on primary data recovered by the Eastern Badia Archaeological Project (EBAP), co-directed by one of us. The contribution of EBAP co-directors Dr Yorke Rowan and Prof. Gary Rollefson is gratefully acknowledged, as are the generous financial contributions to that research of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Whitman College. Permission to reproduce figures was generously given by Prof. Alan Simmons, Dr Alain Le Brun, the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, Oxford University Press, and Taylor and Francis. In addition to the anonymous reviewers, Dr Diane Bolger, Dr Paul Croft, Dr Piotr Jacobsson, Dr Odile Daune-Le Brun, Dr Alain Le Brun and the late Dr Carole McCartney gave of their time to comment on drafts of this article, which is greatly improved as a result of their counsel. Any remaining errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. A few sections of the text are based

42  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse on previously published material, which have been adapted here because they still best reflect our thinking on particular topics. Notes 1 Nieuwenhuyse (2017) 840; Carter (2018). 2 Gómez Bach et al. (2016) 131. 3 Le Brun (2021) 32–6; Peltenburg et al. (2001), Peltenburg (2003a, b); McCartney et al. (2008) 75–6; Vigne et al. (2012), (2019a), (2019b) 22; Hadad (2017); Clarke and Wasse (2019) 46. 4 Phillips (2005); Bolger (2013). 5 Wasse and Clarke (2023). 6 Edgar Peltenburg, pers. comm; Le Brun (ed.) (2021). 7 Wasse and Clarke (2023). 8 Clarke and Wasse (2024). 9 Şevketoğlu and Hanson (2015) 225, 236, figs 6, 9; Le Brun and Daune-Le Brun (2009) 76, fig. 8; Le Brun (ed.) (2021). 10 Knapp (2013) 269–70. 11 Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen (1989). 12 Akkermans and Schwartz (2003) 61. 13 Borrell et al. (2011); Rollefson et al. (2018b). 14 Cauvin (2000) 128–32. 15 Betts et al. (2013) 179–91; Crassard et al. (2013); Rosen (2017) 90–109; Makarewicz (2020); Wasse et al. (2020) 86–7. 16 Manning (2013) 504–7, table A2. 17 Le Brun (1981) 13, 15, 20, fig. 6, pls V–VI. 18 Le Brun and Daune-Le Brun (2003) 54. 19 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 154. 20 Peltenburg (2004) 72–9, 85, fig. 7.2. 21 Perrot (1964) 327, fig. 2, pl. XXII.1; Moore (1978) 223–6. 22 Le Brun (1981) 19, fig. 2; Le Brun and Daune-Le Brun (2009) fig. 7. 23 Peltenburg (2004) 78. 24 Peltenburg (2004) 85. 25 Helms (1981) 50, fig. 26; Kennedy (2012). 26 Athanassas et al. (2015). 27 Peltenburg (2004) 75. 28 Kozłowski and Kempisty (1990); Watkins (1990). 29 Kozłowski and Kempisty (1990) 356–9, figs 4–6. 30 Schmidt (2011), (2012); Dietrich and Notroff (2015). 31 Dikaios (1953) 228–9; Schmidt (2010) 243, (2012) 133–4; Gresky et al. (2017). 32 Dietrich et al. (2013); Manning (2013) 504–7, table A2. 33 Le Brun et al. (2022) (see also Jacobsson [2017] 88–91 which places the transition somewhat earlier). 34 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 159–62. 35 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 162. 36 Byrd (1994) 660; Banning (2001) 35–8; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2008) 264; Benz et al. (2017). Neolithisation refers to the social and economic transformations across lifeways and world views that took place at the transition from hunting and gathering to farming and herding in southwest Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. 37 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 163. 38 Le Brun (2017) 234–5. 39 Le Brun (2017). 40 Le Brun (2017) 233.

Material convergences in a globalising world?  43 41 Le Brun (2017) 235, fig. 9. 42 Le Brun (2017) 233–4. 43 Davis (2003) 262–3; Wasse and Clarke (this volume). 44 Thiébault (2003) 227–8; Parés and Tengberg (2017) 247–8. 45 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 161. 46 Rohling et al. (2019). 47 Daune-Le Brun and Le Brun (2016) 156–7. 48 Davis (1989) 195. 49 To the extent that the lightly built structures at Cape Andreas are indicative of transitory occupation, one might speculate as to whether sheep were brought up the length of the Karpass peninsula from elsewhere in order to exploit seasonal grazing as livestock. If the communities involved relied on hunting, foraging and fishing (cf. Knapp [2013] 127–8, 149) for sustenance, instead of depleting their flocks, it would result in an under-representation of sheep in the Cape Andreas death assemblage. 50 Dikaios (1953) 333, 338–9. 51 cf. Mallowan and Rose (1935) 25. 52 Peltenburg (2004) 72–3. 53 Le Brun (ed.) (2021). 54 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 251. 55 Akkermans (2010) 23. 56 Akkermans (2010) 23–4; Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) Ch. 2, 251–2. 57 Cruells and Nieuwenhuyse (2004) 51; Molist et al. (2013) 443–5, figs 4.2–3. 58 Iwasaki and Tsuneki (2003). 59 Merpert and Munchaev (1987) 4. 60 Cruells et al. (2013). 61 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 251. 62 Merpert and Munchaev (1987) 4–6. 63 It is important to note that in Upper Mesopotamia such association between buildings and human remains as existed was in no way unique to circular structures. LN burial practices are notoriously ‘difficult to define as they are varied and changing, without a consistent pattern’ (Croucher [2013] 196). Inevitably, rectilinear structures have also yielded human remains, raising the possibility that any association was with buildings in general or the ruins thereof (cf. Akkermans et al. [eds] [2014] 231). It remains the case, however, that early circular structures with human remains are frequently difficult to characterise as domestic structures. 64 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 251. 65 Akkermans (2010) 25. 66 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 252. 67 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 252–3. 68 Wasse and Clarke (this volume). 69 Nieuwenhuyse et al. (2016). 70 Knapp (2013) 3. 71 Campbell (2000) 1. 72 Mallowan and Rose (1935); Hijara (1978); Hijara et al. (1980). 73 Campbell (2000) 8–23; Healey and Campbell (2014) 86. 74 Mallowan and Rose (1935) 25. 75 Dikaios (1953) 196–8; Le Brun (2017) fig. 1. 76 Clarke and Wasse (2019) 37–45 and references therein. 77 Mallowan and Rose (1935) 34. 78 Campbell 2000: 6 cf. Dikaios (1953) 106. 79 Mallowan and Rose (1935) 26; Dikaios (1953) 106; Todd (1987) 86–7, pl. XXV.3–4 (see also Nieuwenhuyse and Akkermans [2019] 113 re. comparable practice at Tell Sabi Abyad). 80 Hijara (1978) 125; Mallowan and Rose (1935) 34.

44  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse

81 cf. Akkermans (1993) 301. 82 Dikaios (1953) 228 (see also Jones [2008] 123–6). 83 Mallowan and Rose (1935) 34, pl. IIIc. 84 Dikaios (1953) 110–12, pl. XXVIIIc. 85 Dikaios (1953) 333. 86 Dikaios (1953) 110–12, pl. CXLII.886. 87 Mallowan and Rose (1935) 97–8, pl. VIb. 88 Dikaios (1953) 109. 89 Le Brun (2021) 18–19, fig. 1.6. 90 Dikaios (1953) pl. C.906, 1118, 1282 (see also Le Brun (ed.) [1994] Pl. XXVIII.17; McCartney [2007] 76); cf. Mallowan and Rose (1935) pl. VIIb. 91 Le Brun (1981) fig. 46. 92 Hill (1929) 82–4. 93 Wasse et al. (2020) 95. 94 inter alia Rollefson et al. (2018b); Rowan et al. (2020); Wasse et al. (2022). 95 cf. Bartl (2018); Rokitta-Krumnow (2019). 96 Rollefson et al. (2017) figs 3–4. 97 Clarke and Wasse (2019) 35. 98 Rowan et al. (2015) 6, fig. 11b (see also fig. 11a for a similar astragalus cache close to the main doorway); Wasse et al. (2022) figs 15, 18. 99 Wasse et al. (2022) fig. 14. 100 Stordeur (ed.) (2000) 210–11, fig. 2a, 304, fig. 1. 101 Carter and Crawford (eds) (2010) 75–7, fig. 4.3 (esp. 29, 33). 102 Healey (2013) 257, fig. 22.5. 103 Mallowan and Rose 1935: Pl. XIa-b; Campbell (2000) 12, figs 9–10. 104 ‘[T]he boundary between [uncultivated country] and the regularly cultivated area inhabited by village dwelling farmers’ (Lewis [1987] 15), effectively the 200 mm pa isohyet beyond which reliable rain-fed agriculture is impracticable. Although its position is subject to subcentennial diachronic variation in response to climate change, in general terms, it constitutes an extensive region of marked sensitivity to climatic and hydrological fluctuations (e.g. Wasse [2007] 49 and references therein). Although Lewis introduces the term in a historical context, the dynamics described are equally thought provoking with regard to later prehistory. 105 Le Brun (2017). 106 Dietrich and Notroff (2015) 85–6; Dietrich 2016. 107 Astruc et al. (2003) 62. 108 cf. Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 172–4, 177–80, figs 7.18, 7.23–24. 109 Rowan et al. (2015) 8. 110 Jenkins et al. (2022); Wasse et al. (2022) (cf. Drechsler [2009] 147–56, 161–3, fig. 1; Petraglia et al. [2020] 8264; contra Flohr et al. [2016] 30). 111 Rollefson et al. (2017) 21, figs 3–4. 112 Rollefson et al. (2018a) 6. 113 Rollefson et al. (2017) 19. 114 Rollefson et al. (2013) 18, fig. 9b; Rowan et al. (2015) 5–6, figs 9–10, 12; Wasse et al. (2022). 115 Hardy-Smith and Edwards (2004) 255–7. 116 Rollefson et al. (2013) 11–13, fig. 5. 117 Rollefson et al. (2013) 18, fig. 18a–b. 118 Wasse et al. (2022). 119 Rollefson et al. (2018b) table 2. 120 Streit (2015, 2020); Bartl and Nieuwenhuyse (2008); Nieuwenhuyse (2019). 121 Nieuwenhuyse (2019) 205. 122 Streit (2015) 263. 123 Mellaart (1967) Ch. 6–7, pls 24–6, VII, fig. 45; Hodder (2006) 201, fig. 87, pls 18, 23.

Material convergences in a globalising world?  45 124 Yartah (2004) figs 11–12. 125 Schmidt (2012) 130–2; fig. 54 (see also Dietrich and Schmidt [2017] fig. 3 re. an intriguing human / animal composite, sadly unstratified). 126 Le Brun (ed.) (1989) fig. 52.9; pl. XV.3. 127 Peltenburg (2004) 76, fig 7.6. 128 Mellaart (1967) 81. 129 Streit (2015) figs 6–7 (see also Garfinkel [2003]). 130 Todd (1987) 47, fig. 39. 131 Dikaios (1953) 248 (also 106, 109, pls LVI, CXXII). 132 Clarke and Wasse (2019); see also Cauvin (2000) 121–34. 133 Fletcher (2015) 70–1.

Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (1993), Villages in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria. Ann Arbor. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (2010), ‘Late Neolithic Architectural Renewal: The Emergence of Round Houses in the Northern Levant c. 6500–6000 BC’, in D. Bolger and L.C. Maguire (eds), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg. 22–28. Oxford. Akkermans, P.M.M.G., M.L. Brüning, H.O. Huigens, and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds) (2014), Excavations at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. The 1994–1999 Field Seasons. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 11. Leiden. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and G.M. Schwartz (2003), The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge. Astruc, L., F. Abbès, J.J. Ibáñez Estévez, and J. Gonzáles Urquijo (2003) ‘“Dépôts”, “réserves” et “caches” de matériel lithique taillé au Néolithique Précéramique au ProcheOrient: quelle gestion de l’outillage?’, Paléorient 29.1, 59–77. Athanassas, C., G.O. Rollefson, A. Kadereit, D.L. Kennedy, K. Theodorakopoulou, Y.M. Rowan, and A.M.R. Wasse (2015), ‘Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating and Spatial Analysis of Geometric Lines in the Northern Arabian Desert’, Journal of Archaeological Science 64, 1–11. Banning, E.B. (2001), ‘On These Foundations: The First 5,000 Years of Domestic ­Architecture in Syria’, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 36, 33–9. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen (1989), ‘The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant’, Journal of World Prehistory 3.4, 447–98. Bartl, K. (2018), ‘Mushash 163’, in J.D.M. Green, B.A. Porter, and C.P. Shelton (eds), Archaeology in Jordan: 2016 and 2017 Seasons. 11–12. Amman. Bartl, K. and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (2008), ‘Reliefverzierte Keramik des Neolithikums aus Shir/Westsyrien’, in D. Bonatz, R.M. Czichon, and F. Janoscha Kreppner (eds), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne. 9–16. Wiesbaden. Benz, M., H.G.K. Gebel, and T.F. Watkins (2017), ‘The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities. Introduction’, in M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel, and T.F. Watkins (eds), Neolithic Corporate Identities. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20. 1–9. Berlin. Betts, A.V.G., D. Cropper, L. Martin, and C. McCartney (2013), The Later Prehistory of the Badia: Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume 2. Oxford. Bolger, D. (2013), ‘A Matter of Choice: Cypriot Interactions with the Levantine Mainland during the Late 4th–3rd Millennium BC’, Levant 45.1, 1–18.

46  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse Borrell, F., É. Boëda, M. Molist, O. Vicente, and H. Al-Shakel (2011) ‘New Evidence Concerning the Neolithisation Process of the Central Syrian Desert: The Neolithic Complex of Mamarrul Nasr’, Paléorient 37.2, 35–46. Byrd, B.F. (1994), ‘Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village’, American Antiquity 59.4, 639–66. Campbell, S. (2000), ‘The Burnt House at Arpachiyah: A Reexamination’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 318, 1–40. Carter, R.A. (2018), ‘Globalising Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic and the “Ubaid”’, in N. Boivin and M.D. Frachetti (eds), Globalization in Prehistory: Contact, Exchange and the “People Without History”. 43–79. Cambridge. Carter, R.A. and H.E.W. Crawford (eds) (2010), Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-Related Site in Kuwait. Leiden. Cauvin, J. (2000), The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Translated from French by T.F. Watkins. Cambridge. Clarke, J.T. and A.M.R. Wasse (2019), ‘Time Out of Joint: A Re-assessment of the Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic Site of Kalavasos-Tenta and Its Regional Implications’, Levant 51.1, 26–53. Clarke, J. and A.M.R. Wasse (2024), ‘Plastered: People-plaster Relationships in the Neolithic Near East’, in L. Attala and L. Steel (eds), Earthy Matters: Exploring Human Interactions with Earth, Soil and Clay. Cardiff. Crassard, R., M.D. Petraglia, A.G. Parker, A. Parton, R.G. Roberts, Z. Jacobs, A. Alsharekh, A. al-Omari, P. Breeze, N.A. Drake, H.S. Groucutt, R. Jennings, E. Régagnon, and C. Shipton (2013), ‘Beyond the Levant: First Evidence of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic Incursion into the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia’, PLoS One 8.7, e68061. Croucher, K. (2013), ‘Mortuary Identity: Mortuary Practices and Bodily Treatment in the Upper Mesopotamian Later Neolithic’, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 191–201. Leiden. Cruells, W., A. Baghdo, M. Bouso, R. Buxó, A. Gòmez, E. Guerrero, M. Molist, M. Saña, C. Tornero, and Ö. Tunca (2013), ‘Chagar Bazar in Northeastern Syria: Recent Work’, in, O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 467–77. Leiden. Cruells, W. and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (2004), ‘The Proto-Halaf Period in Syria: New Sites, New Data’, Paléorient 30.1, 47–68. Daune-Le Brun, O. and A. Le Brun (2016) ‘“Singing in the Rain”: Khirokitia (Cyprus) in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium cal B.C’, in P.F. Biehl and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds), Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East. IEMA ­Proceedings Volume 6. 153–68. Albany. Davis, S.J.M. (1989), ‘Some More Animal Remains from the Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1983–1986. Mémoire 81. 189–221. Paris. Davis, S.J.M. (2003), ‘The Zooarchaeology of Khirokitia (Neolithic Cyprus), Including a View from the Mainland’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 253–68. Athens. Dietrich, O. (2016), Boars in Göbekli Tepe’s Enclosure C: Just a Story of Hunters and Prey? [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 2 July 2020].

Material convergences in a globalising world?  47 Dietrich, O., Ç. Köksal-Schmidt, J. Notroff, and K. Schmidt (2013), ‘Establishing a Radiocarbon Sequence for Göbekli Tepe. State of Research and New Data’, Neo-Lithics 1.13, 36–41. Dietrich, O. and J. Notroff (2015), ‘A Sanctuary, or so Fair a House? In Defense of an Archaeology of Cult at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe’, in N. Laneri (ed.), Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. 75–89. Oxford. Dietrich, O. and K. Schmidt (2017), ‘A Short Note on a New Figurine Type from Göbekli Tepe’, Neo-Lithics 1.17, 43–6. Dikaios, P. (1953), Khirokitia: Final Report on the Excavation of a Neolithic Settlement in Cyprus on Behalf of the Department of Antiquities, 1936–1946. Monographs of the Department of Antiquities of the Government of Cyprus 1. Oxford. Drechsler, P. (2009), The Dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. BAR International Series 1969. Oxford. Fletcher, R.S.G. (2015), British Imperialism and the ‘Tribal Question’: Desert Administration and Nomadic Societies in the Middle East, 1919–1936. Oxford. Flohr, P., D. Fleitmann, R. Matthews, W. Matthews, and S. Black (2016), ‘Evidence of Resilience to Past Climate Change in Southwest Asia: Early Farming Communities and the 9.2 and 8.2 ka Events’, Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 23–39. Garfinkel, Y. (2003), Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin, Texas. Gómez-Bach, A., W. Cruells, and M. Molist (2016), ‘Sharing Spheres of Interaction in the 6th Millennium cal. BC: Halaf Communities and Beyond’, Paléorient 42.2, 123–39. Goring-Morris, A.N. and A. Belfer-Cohen (2008), ‘A Roof over One’s Head: Developments in Near Eastern Residential Architecture across the Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic Transition’, in J.P. Bocquet-Appel and O. Bar-Yosef (eds), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and Its Consequences. 239–86. Dordrecht. Gresky, J., J. Haelm, and L. Clare (2017), ‘Modified Human Crania from Göbekli Tepe Provide Evidence for a New Form of Neolithic Skull Cult’, Science Advances 3.6, e1700564. Hadad, R. (2017), ‘Le rivage de Chypre: connectivité, architecture et résistance dans le context du PPNA levantin’, in J.-D. Vigne, F. Briois, and M. Tengberg (eds), Nouvelles données sur les débuts du Néolithique à Chypre. Séances de la Société Préhistorique Française 9. 59–78. Paris. Hardy-Smith, T. and P.C. Edwards (2004), ‘The Garbage Crisis in Prehistory: Artefact Discard Patterns at the Early Natufian Site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the Origins of Household Refuse Disposal Strategies’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253–89. Healey, E. (2013), ‘Exotic, Aesthetic and Powerful? The Non-tool Use of Obsidian in the Late Neolithic of the Near East’, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 251–65. Leiden. Healey, E. and S. Campbell (2014), ‘Producing Adornment: Evidence of Different Levels of Expertise in the Production of Obsidian Items of Adornment at Two Late Neolithic Communities in Northern Mesopotamia’, Journal of Lithic Studies 1.2, 79–99. Helms, S. (1981), Jawa: Lost City of the Black Desert. London. Hijara, I. (1978), ‘Three New Graves at Arpachiyah’, World Archaeology 10.2, 125–8. Hijara, I., J.P.N. Watson, and R.N.L.B. Hubbard (1980), ‘Arpachiyah 1976’, Iraq 42, 131–54. Hill, R. (1929), The Baghdad Air Mail. Reprint. Stroud. 2005. Hodder, I.R. (2006), Çatalhöyük: The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient ‘Town’. London.

48  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse Iwasaki, T. and A. Tsuneki (eds) (2003), Archaeology of the Rouj Basin: A Regional Study of the Transition from Village to City in Northwest Syria. Al-Shark 2. Tsukuba. Jacobsson, P. (2017), Report on the Earlier Holocene Archaeological Radiocarbon Chronologies of Cyprus and a Selection of Sites from South-West Asia. Unpublished report submitted to the Council for British Research in the Levant. Jenkins, H., J. Andrews, Y. Rowan, A. Wasse, T. White, G. Philip, A. Marca, and J. Clarke (2022), ‘Local-scale Environmental Gradients in ‘Snail-shell’ Stable Isotopes from Holocene Jordanian Archaeological Sites’, The Holocene, p.09596836221138345. Jones, P.L. (2008) Moving Heaven and Earth: Landscape, Death and Memory in the Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus. BAR International Series 1795. Oxford. Kennedy, D.L. (2012), ‘Wheels in the Harret al-Shaam’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144.2, 77–81. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Kozłowski, S.K. and A. Kempisty (1990), ‘Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq’, World Archaeology 21.3, 348–62. Le Brun, A. (1981), Un site néolithique précéramique en Chypre: Cap Andreas-Kastros. Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Mémoire 5. Paris. Le Brun, A. (ed.) (1989), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1983–1986. Mémoire 81. Paris. Le Brun, A. (ed.) (1994), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1988–1991. Études néolithiques. Paris. Le Brun, A. (2017), ‘Voulu ou accidentel, l’abandon à Khirokitia (Chypre, VIIe-VIe millénaires) de plusieurs constructions à la fin du niveau C’, in J.-D. Vigne, F. Briois, and M. Tengberg, (eds), Nouvelles données sur les débuts du Néolithique à Chypre. Séances de la Société Préhistorique Française 9. 229–39. Paris. Le Brun, A. (ed.) (2021), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1993–2009. Nicosia. Le Brun, A. and O. Daune-Le Brun (2003), ‘Deux aspects du Néolithique Pré-céramique Récent de Chypre: Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 45–59. Athens. Le Brun, A. and O. Daune-Le Brun (2009), ‘Khirokitia (Chypre): la taille et les pulsations de l’établissement néolithique précéramique, nouvelles données’, Paléorient 35.2, 69–78. Le Brun, A., O. Daune-Le Brun, and F. Hourani (2022), ‘Changing with the Years: Khirokitia (Cyprus) at the 7th to the 6th Millennium BC’, in P. Biehl and E. Rosenstock (eds), 6000 BC. Transformation and Change in the Near East and Europe. Cambridge. Lewis, N.N. (1987), Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800–1980. Cambridge. Makarewicz, C.A. (2020), ‘The Adoption of Cattle Pastoralism in the Arabian Peninsula: A Reappraisal’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 31.1, 168–77. Mallowan, M.E.L. and J.C. Rose (1935), ‘Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah, 1933’, Iraq 2.1, 1–178. Manning, S.W. (2013), ‘A New Radiocarbon Chronology for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus, ca 11,000–1050 cal BC’, in A.B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. 485–533. Cambridge. McCartney, C. (2007), ‘Lithics’, in J.T. Clarke (ed.), On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus in the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. 72–90. Oxford. McCartney, C., S.W. Manning, S. Rosendahl, and S.T. Stewart (2008), ‘Elaborating Early Neolithic Cyprus (EENC). Preliminary Report on the 2007 Field Season: Excavations and Regional Field Survey at Agia Varvara-Asprokremnos’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 67–86.

Material convergences in a globalising world?  49 Mellaart, J. (1967), Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London. Merpert, N.Ya. and R.M. Munchaev (1987), ‘The Earliest Levels at Yarim Tepe I and Yarim Tepe II in Northern Iraq’, Iraq 49, 1–36. Molist, M., J. Anfruns, M. Bofill, F. Borrell, R. Buxó, X. Clop, W. Cruells, J.M. Faura, A. Ferrer, A. Gómez, E. Guerrero, M. Saña, C. Tornero, and O. Vicente (2013), ‘Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria): New Data from the Late Neolithic Settlement’, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 443–53. Leiden. Moore, A.M.T. (1978), The Neolithic of the Levant. (PhD dissertation, University of Oxford) Oxford. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (2017), ‘Globalizing the Halaf’, in T. Hodos (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. 839–54. London. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (2019), ‘See or Touch? Applied Humanoid Imagery from Late Neolithic Upper Mesopotamia’ in J. Becker, C. Beuger, and B. Müller-Neuhof (eds), Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near Eastern Prehistory. Oriental and European Archaeology 11. 189–211. Vienna. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. and P.M.M.G. Akkermans (2019), ‘Transforming the Upper Mesopotamian Landscape in the Late Neolithic’, in A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BCE. 103–37. Atlanta. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P., P.M.M.G. Akkermans, J. van der Plicht, A. Russell, and A. Kaneda (2016), ‘The 8.2 Event in Upper Mesopotamia. Climate and Cultural Change’, in P.F. Biehl and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds), Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East. IEMA Proceedings Volume 6. 67–93. Albany. Parés, A. and M. Tengberg (2017), ‘Étude des pratiques d’exploitation et d’utilisation des ressources végétales du village de Khirokitia (Chypre) au Néolithique précéramique récent chypriote (VIIe-VIe millénaires av. J.-C.)’, in J.-D. Vigne, F. Briois, and M. Tengberg (eds), Nouvelles données sur les débuts du Néolithique à Chypre. 241–51. Paris. Peltenburg, E. (2003a), ‘Identifying Settlement of the Xth–IXth millennium B.P. in Cyprus from the Contents of Kissonerga-Mylouthkia Wells’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre: Actes du Colloque International Organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’École Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17–19 mai 2001. 15–33. Athens. Peltenburg, E.J. (ed.) (2003b), The Colonisation and Settlement of Cyprus: Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976–1996. Lemba Archaeological Project, Cyprus Volume III.1. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70.4. Sävedalen. Peltenburg, E.J. (2004), ‘Social Space in Early Sedentary Communities of Southwest Asia and Cyprus’, in E.J. Peltenburg and A.M.R. Wasse (eds), Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series 1. 71–90. Oxford. Peltenburg, E.J., S. Colledge, P. Croft, A. Jackson, C. McCartney, and M.A. Murray (2001), ‘Neolithic Dispersals from the Levantine Corridor: A Mediterranean Perspective’, Levant 33.1, 35–64. Perrot, J. (1964), ‘Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles à Munhatta (1962–1963). Premiers résultats’, Syria 41.3–4, 323–45. Petraglia, M.D., H.S. Groucutt, M. Guagnin, P.S. Breeze, and N. Boivin (2020), ‘Human Responses to Climate and Ecosystem Change in Ancient Arabia’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.15, 8263–70.

50  Joanne Clarke and Alexander Wasse Phillips, J. (2005), ‘A Question of Reception’, in J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplement Series 2. 39–47. Oxford. Rohling E.J., G. Marino, K.M. Grant, P.A. Mayewski, and B. Weninger (2019), ‘A Model for Archaeologically Relevant Holocene Climate Impacts in the Aegean-Levantine Region (Easternmost Mediterranean)’, Quaternary Science Reviews 208, 38–53. Rokitta-Krumnow, D. (2019), ‘The Chipped Stone Industry of Mushash 163: A PPNA/ EPPNB Site in the Badia/Northeastern Jordan’, in L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois, and V. Kassianidou (eds), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move: Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 150. 173–84. Nicosia. Rollefson, G.O., Y.M. Rowan, and A.M.R. Wasse (2013), ‘Neolithic Settlement at Wisad Pools, Black Desert’, Neo-Lithics 1.13, 11–23. Rollefson, G.O., Y.M. Rowan, A.M.R. Wasse, and M.M. Kersel (2018a), ‘Eastern Badia Archaeological Project’, in J.D.M. Green, B.A. Porter, and C.P. Shelton (eds), Archaeology in Jordan: 2016 and 2017 Seasons. 5–6. Amman. Rollefson, G.O., Y.M. Rowan, A.M.R. Wasse, M.M. Kersel, A.C. Hill, B. Lorentzen, J. Ramsay, and M.D. Jones (2018b), ‘Excavation of Structure W-80: A Complex Late Neolithic Building at Wisad Pools, Black Desert’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 59, 531–44. Rollefson, G.O., A.M.R. Wasse, Y.M. Rowan, M.M. Kersel, M.D. Jones, B. Lorentzen, A.C. Hill, and J. Ramsay (2017), ‘The 2016 Excavation Season at the Late Neolithic Structure SS-1 on Mesa 7, Black Desert’, Neo-Lithics 2.17, 19–29. Rosen, S. (2017), Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Southern Levant. London. Rowan, Y.M., G.O. Rollefson, and A.M.R. Wasse (2020), ‘Populating the Black Desert: The Late Neolithic Presence’, in P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.), Landscapes of Survival: The Archaeology and Epigraphy of Jordan’s North-Eastern Desert and Beyond. 59–77. Leiden. Rowan, Y.M., A.M.R. Wasse, G.O. Rollefson, M.M. Kersel, M.D. Jones, and B. Lorentzen (2015), ‘Late Neolithic Architectural Complexity at Wisad Pools, Black Desert’, NeoLithics 1.15, 3–10. Schmidt, K. (2010), ‘Göbekli Tepe – the Stone Age Sanctuaries: New Results of Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures and High Reliefs’, Documenta Praehistorica 37, 239–56. Schmidt, K. (2011), ‘Göbekli Tepe’, in M. Özdoğan, N. Bașgelen, and P. Kuniholm (eds), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavations and New Research – the Euphrates Basin. 41–83. Istanbul. Schmidt, K. (2012), Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia. Berlin. Şevketoğlu, M. and I. Hanson (2015), ‘Akanthou-Arkosykos, a Ninth Millennium BC Coastal Settlement in Cyprus’, Environmental Archaeology 20.3, 225–38. Stordeur, D. (ed.) (2000), El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert: La fin du Néolithique ­précéramique dans la steppe syrienne. Paris. Streit, K. (2015), ‘Interregional Contacts in the 6th Millennium BC: Tracing Foreign Influences in the Hole-mouth Jar from Ein el-Jarba, Israel’, Levant 47.3, 255–66. Streit, K. (2020), The Ancient Near East in Transregional Context: Material Culture and Exchange between Mesopotamia, the Levant and Lower Egypt from 5800 to 5200 calBC. Archaeology of Egypt, Sudan and the Levant 2. Vienna.

Material convergences in a globalising world?  51 Thiébault, S. (2003), ‘Les paysages végétaux de Chypre au Néolithique: premières données anthracologiques’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 221–30. Athens. Todd, I.A. (ed.) (1987), Vasilikos Valley Project 6: Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta Volume I. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.6. Gothenburg. Vigne, J.-D., F. Briois, and J. Guilaine (2019a), ‘Klimonas, the Oldest Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village in Cyprus’, in L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois, and V. Kassianidou (eds), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move: Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions. 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, November 23rd–27th 2016. 3–12. Nicosia. Vigne, J.-D., F. Briois, and J. Guilaine (2019b), ‘To What Extent Has Insularity Played a Role in the Cyprus Neolithic Transition?’, in L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois, and V. Kassianidou (eds), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move: Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions, 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, November 23rd–27th 2016. 19–30. Nicosia. Vigne J.-D., F. Briois, A. Zazzo, G. Willcox, T. Cucchi, S. Thiébault, I. Carrère, Y. Franel, R. Touquet, C. Martin, C. Moreau, C. Comby, and J. Guilaine (2012), ‘First Wave of Cultivators Spread to Cyprus at Least 10,600 Y Ago’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.22, 8445–9. Wasse, A.M.R. (2007), ‘Climate, Economy and Change: Cyprus and the Levant during the Late Pleistocene to Mid Holocene’, in J. Clarke (ed.), On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus During the 6th to 4th millennia BC. 43–63. Oxford. Wasse, A.M.R. and J. Clarke (2023), ‘Mesopotamian Fallow Deer and the Chase in Later Neolithic Cyprus: Insights from Upper Mesopotamia, the Levant and Badia’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 48, 103909. Wasse, A.M.R., G.O. Rollefson, and Y.M. Rowan (2020), ‘Flamingos in the Desert: How a Chance Encounter Shed Light on the ‘Burin Neolithic’ of Eastern Jordan’, in P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.), Landscapes of Survival: The Archaeology and Epigraphy of Jordan’s North-Eastern Desert and Beyond. 79–101. Leiden. Wasse, A.M.R., G.O. Rollefson, Y.M. Rowan, G. Braun, B. Heidkamp, A.C. Hill, M.M. Kersel, B. Lorentzen, and J. Ramsay (2022), ‘Eastern Badia Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report on the 2018 Excavation Season at Late Neolithic Structure W-80, Wisad Pools’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 60, 249–69. Watkins, T.F. (1990), ‘The Origins of House and Home?’, World Archaeology 21.3, 336–47. Yartah, T. (2004), ‘Tell ‘Abr 3, un village du néolithique précéramique (PPNA) sur le Moyen Euphrate: Première approche’, Paléorient 30.2, 141–58.

3

Economic convergences in a globalising world? Cyprus and the Near East in the seventh and sixth millennia BCE Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke

We are the Pilgrims, master; we shall go Always a little further: it may be Beyond the last blue mountain barred with snow, Across that angry or that glimmering sea. (James Elroy Flecker: The Golden Journey To Samarkand)

Introduction More than two decades ago, it was observed of the steppic Syrian site of El Kowm 2 (Fig. 2.1) that during the later seventh millennium BCE1 its herders tended increasingly towards sheep,2 which they exploited primarily for milk and fleece.3 With the subsequent discovery of exactly contemporary tholos round houses at pre-Halaf sites in northern Syria, amongst them Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula, Tell el-Kerkh, and Chagar Bazar,4 two idiosyncrasies of the later seventh millennium Cypriot archaeological record are unexpectedly cast into sharp relief along the wider ‘desert line’5 of Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant, viz. round houses6 and sheep.7 In this chapter, we contend that during the later seventh millennium, the great arc of this ‘desert line’, with Cyprus and the badia8 as its offshore and onshore margins, emerged as a worthy successor to the so-called Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) B ‘interaction sphere’9 and that emergent pastoral networks were amongst the vectors of a late-prehistoric ‘globalisation’ that has attracted increasing scholarly attention in recent years.10 The desert and the deep blue sea: ovine dispersals during the Levantine Neolithic Whilst it was goat herding that underpinned the emergent domestic economies of the Levantine Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (‘peak goat’),11 and – quite ­possibly – brought some of them to a premature end,12 it was sheep herding that went on to contribute to nascent processes of state formation. ‘[I]n Mesopotamia, there is no doubt that it was the development of sheep farming, in the second half of the Ubaid period, which triggered the [emergence of chiefdoms]’.13 In the Levant, the appearance of domestic sheep typically postdates the inception of goat husbandry DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-3

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  53 by some hundreds of years.14 This is suggestive of a southwards dispersal of sheep husbandry from southeastern Turkey during the early to mid eighth millennium BCE. By the later eighth millennium, this dispersal was associated with pastoral economies of varying degrees of mobility that were well placed to breach the ‘desert line’ and press on into the badia rangelands beyond.15 During the seventh millennium, the importance of mobile sheep herding increased exponentially, apparently in direct or indirect association with the spread of so-called ‘burin sites’ over vast tracts of the badia.16 In the north, evidence from Qdeir 1 and El Kowm 2 suggests that, by the first half of the seventh millennium, burin-producing sheep herders with one foot in the badia had access with the other to exchange networks bringing imported items down from the middle Euphrates valley, Upper Mesopotamia and beyond.17 In this context, the ‘not inconsiderable list of foreign goods’18 at the somewhat later ‘trading outpost’ of Umm Dabaghiyah may also be noted. In general terms, it may be asserted that a ‘considerable degree of interregional communication and interaction [existed in upper Mesopotamia] prior to the full onset of the Halaf’19 at ~5900 BCE. As such, our putative badia shepherd – ­standing in the El Kowm depression and linked via the burin sites with rangelands as far afield as the fringes of the Great Nefud20 – may also be positioned at the nexus of a complimentary web of interactions reaching around and across the arc of the ‘desert line’ to within metaphorical sight of the Mediterranean littoral – beyond which lay Cyprus. ‘Big sheep’ and ‘secondary’ products: a mainland perspective

An interesting phenomenon that has hitherto attracted little attention concerns the appearance of ‘big sheep’21 in eighth to sixth millennium BCE faunal assemblages from Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant. Whilst renewed interest in mouflon or feral sheep hunting cannot be ruled out in all cases, ‘big sheep’ are more typically interpreted as: (1) the introduction of fresh domestic stock to bolster ailing and/or inbred lineages (Late PPNB Shillourokambos);22 (2) selective breeding aimed at improvement of stock, perhaps by crossing with wild individuals (Halafperiod northern Mesopotamia);23 (3) a temporary influx of presumably nomadic herders associated with larger-than-local sheep (PPNC-Late Neolithic [LN] ‘Ain Ghazal);24 (4) changes in exploitation patterns that resulted in the slaughter of increased numbers of older, and therefore larger, animals (Late PPNB Tell Halula;25 PPNC Wadi Shu’eib26). Space precludes detailed discussion of the relationship between animal age and size from the perspective of zooarchaeological methodology. Whilst age is today usually assessed on the basis of tooth eruption and wear, size is established on the basis of measurements taken on the post-cranial skeleton. For the purpose of this article, it is sufficient to state that a correlation between the age of a sheep and its size exists until it attains maturity, that exploitation for antemortem products (viz. milk; fleece) typically involves the slaughter of animals at older ages than exploitation for meat, and that exploitation for fleece results in the slaughter of the oldest

54  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke animals of all, as animals can be kept beyond reliable breeding age (>4 years) and are culled only when the fleece loses its quality.27 Put simply, the appearance of ‘big sheep’ in the zooarchaeological record may therefore be interpreted as evidence for a shift towards exploitation of milk or, more likely, fleece.28 Cull profiles suggest that Levantine sheep may have been exploited for both meat and milk from earliest domestication onwards, although it remains the case that there is little evidence for intensive exploitation of fleece prior to the seventh millennium.29 In consequence, the attribution of chronological primacy to postmortem exploitation of domestic animals and the notion of a fourth millennium ‘Secondary Products Revolution’ (sensu Sherratt30) must be put to one side. It remains the case, however, that some locations in Upper Mesopotamia witnessed a more general shift in favour of antemortem products over the course of the later seventh and earlier sixth millennia BCE. These phenomena are nicely illustrated at Tell Sabi Abyad, where caprines were increasingly exploited for milk and fleece, as well as for meat, from ~6225 BCE onwards. This is supported by ceramic-residue analyses demonstrating proof of milk use at the same time and the widespread introduction of spindle whorls.31 These economic adaptations did not occur in isolation but were part of the much wider reorientation of material culture and the built environment – ‘a constellation of innovations’32 – that occurred at the site at around 6200 BCE. Cypriot sheep and the ‘desert line’

On Cyprus, Simon Davis33 has described a modest but discernible increase in the size of sheep (‘big sheep’) at Khirokitia that occurred at ~6200 BCE in the context of: (1) a sharp drop in the importance of hunting and concomitant increase in the importance of herding; (2) a marked reduction in the importance of goat herding in particular, meaning that this intensification of the herding economy was driven by a decisive shift towards sheep and the products derived therefrom; (3) an increase in the proportion of older animals in a combined sample of sheep and goat remains; and (4) a major reconfiguration of the site between Levels B and III.34 Citing continuity in the shape of the Khirokitia sheep bones across the archaeological sequence of that site, Davis35 recently concluded that the appearance of ‘big sheep’ most likely reflects the gradual improvement of local flocks rather than the introduction of new stock from the mainland. One of us has proposed elsewhere36 that these developments are likely to have occurred in the context of economic intensification driven by increases in site occupation intensity at what was – for Cyprus if not the mainland37 – a uniquely large site. It may also be posited that the shift towards herding at Khirokitia was accompanied by the adoption of more structured world views38 that characterise Neolithisation generally and food production in particular. This is suggested by observable correlates such as an increased focus on household over community.39 The appearance of ‘big sheep’ at Khirokitia towards the end of the seventh millennium can be contextualised within much wider patterns of change. Although increases in the size of sheep have been interpreted in different ways at different

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  55 sites, whether on the mainland or on Cyprus, it remains the case that during the seventh and sixth millennia, this taxon – but seemingly not others – was repeatedly subjected to changes in management practice that resulted in the unique situation of flocks containing a higher proportion of larger rather than smaller animals. Given the material-culture evidence for contact between Cyprus and the mainland at this time,40 including incised pebbles (see below), there seems little reason to dispute the probability that the Khirokitia ‘big sheep’ were a Cypriot manifestation of much wider processes that saw the broadly concurrent appearance of ‘big sheep’ on the mainland, which were themselves correlated with the emergence of extensive mobile pastoral networks during the later seventh millennium. These spanned the entire arc of the Upper Mesopotamian ‘desert line’ and penetrated deep into the badia to the south, most likely exploiting seasonally available grazing to focus on production of milk and, increasingly, fleece. Incised pebbles, seals, and sealings in the context of later Neolithic pastoralism An enigmatic but widely reported artefact type in prehistoric assemblages is the so-called ‘incised pebble’.41 These are naturally occurring flat, typically igneous pebbles, ranging in size from approximately 5 to 11 centimetres across, that are carefully incised on one or both surfaces with different kinds of geometric design. Incised pebbles are found at prehistoric sites throughout the Levant and Upper Mesopotamia, as well as on Cyprus (Fig. 3.1).42 On the mainland, they first appear in small numbers in the Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, with their frequency increasing significantly through the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and peaking in the earlier part of the Late Neolithic.43 There is thus a strong correlation between increasing frequencies of these objects and transitions from hunting to herding ways of life. In the Northern Levant, incised pebbles start to disappear from the archaeological record at around 6300 BCE, when stone stamp seals and – a little later – large numbers of clay sealings bearing the impressions of stamp seals begin to appear.44 Few are known after the first centuries of the sixth millennium BCE.45 There has been a great deal of speculation about the possible use of incised pebbles, concisely summarised by Phillip Edwards.46 That they functioned at least on one level as identity symbols seems highly likely, as does some sort of apotropaic association.47 Sarah Stewart and David Rupp48 and Carole McCartney49 have gone further and speculated as to whether they might have been in some way connected with contact or exchange between Cyprus and the Levantine mainland. The fact that few motifs, if not the form of the objects,50 were unique to either the Levant or Cyprus suggests that both areas shared a common symbolic language,51 confirming the feasibility if not actuality of a mutually comprehensible relationship between them. Geometric motifs similar to those on incised pebbles appear on Late Neolithic stamp seals from the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia as far east as Arpachiyah (Fig. 3.2a,b).52 It has therefore been argued that the latest incised pebbles were closely associated with the earliest seals: ‘the connection is reflected in the similarity of geometric patterns on both, the chronological and

56  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke

Figure 3.1 Incised pebbles from Cyprus: a. Khirokitia (reproduced with permission from Dikaios [1953] pl. XC.1004), b. Khirokitia, noting apparent suspension hole (reproduced with permission from Le Brun [ed.] 1994: fig. 99.3), and c. Ortos (reproduced with permission from Simmons [1994] fig. 4).

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  57

Figure 3.2a Incised pebbles and stamp seals from the mainland: grid designs (reproduced with permission from Eirikh-Rose [2004] fig. 12.8).

spatial overlapping of the two and the appearance of hybrid types between seals and incised pebbles’.53 The likelihood that domestic flocks and the products derived from them were considered personal property opens the door to an intriguing line of enquiry, viz. that the sealing system and intensified mobile herding focused on milk and/or fleece were codependent manifestations of an overarching focus on the ownership and administration of production surplus that developed over the course of the Late Neolithic.54

58  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke

Figure 3.2b Incised pebbles and stamp seals from the mainland: cross and radiating designs (reproduced with permission from Eirikh-Rose [2004] fig. 12.9).

Khirokitia has yielded a huge assemblage of more than 150 incised pebbles and fragments thereof,55 with 51 more coming from Ortos. Their first appearance at Khirokitia in Level D and increased frequency at that site in Levels III–I56 suggests a peak in use between ~6200 BCE and the early sixth millennium, which is supported by radiocarbon dates for Ortos ranging from 6385 to 5420 BCE.57 The Cypriot data thus accord well with those from the mainland, albeit with hints of a slightly extended period of use overall and no evidence for participation in the precocious sealing system that characterised the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia from the end of the seventh millennium BCE. The appearance of incised pebbles in large numbers at Ortos and, especially, Khirokita has never been fully explained. They were not found at contemporary Cape Andreas,58 nor were they found at earlier Tenta.59 One potentially significant factor is that the frequency of incised pebbles increased sharply at Khirokitia between Levels B and III, that is at ~6200 BCE.60 This is precisely when the site witnessed an increase in the size and, especially, frequency of sheep (Level B 32.8 per cent; Level III 59.1 per cent; Level II 77.2 per cent [calculated from data provided by Davis61]). At Ortos, sheep are likewise numerically predominant (43.8 per cent [calculated from data provided by Alan Simmons62]). These observations are made all the more remarkable by the contrasting numerical predominance of

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  59 Mesopotamian fallow deer not only at contemporary Cape Andreas,63 but in almost all other eighth to fifth millennium BCE faunal assemblages from the island.64 Discussion It has been argued above that, on the mainland, sheep are likely to have played a key role in emergent pastoral networks that straddled the ‘desert line’ from at least the start of the seventh millennium. These networks became more intensive and extensive in the latter half of that millennium, in conjunction with the widespread dispersal of burin sites across the badia. Multiple lines of evidence, including the apparent participation of Cyprus in the wider ‘big-sheep’ phenomenon and the widespread distribution of incised pebbles, suggest that Cyprus fell within the ambit of these networks from ~6200 BCE onwards. Further evidence that might support such a conclusion can be seen in the increased use during the later seventh and earlier sixth millennia of ‘diminutive drills marked by a significant percentage of microlithic examples made on bladelets or burin spalls’65 at Late Aceramic Neolithic Tenta 1, a development rightly described as being ‘reminiscent of some “burin sites” in the Levant’.66 These developments occurred at a time that saw an atrophying of earlier networks that had bound the disparate regions of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B world into its ‘interaction sphere’, of which the most visible manifestation was a reduction by the mid seventh millennium in the frequency of obsidian at the termini of the routes along which it had flowed in earlier periods.67 Cyprus and the Southern Levant were particularly affected.68 However, this contraction of cultural horizons within the Mediterranean-zone core of the former Pre-Pottery Neolithic B from the early seventh millennium onwards sits uncomfortably with multifaceted evidence for emergent connectivity along and beyond the ‘desert line’. One explanation might be that the new pastoral networks in the badia had supplanted the ancient obsidian routes as preferred conduits of information and materiel.69 This is supported by Yosef Garfinkel’s observation of a positive correlation between obsidian availability and cultural homogeneity in the Southern Levant, for this implies a link between the latter and general levels of connectedness.70 Whilst the collapse of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ‘interaction sphere’ left the Mediterranean zone ‘more isolated, fragmented and self-referential than hitherto’,71 especially during the later seventh millennium BCE,72 in at least some critical aspects the cultural ­homogeneity – and presumably therefore connectedness – of the badia increased.73 If even part of the posited identity and apotropaic significance of incised pebbles had been transferred from an individual or household to flocks and the products thereof by the later seventh millennium, it would be a powerful manifestation of the ‘owning’ trait so characteristic of herding modes of life.74 It also hints that the growing focus on ownership which characterised the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia during the Late Neolithic exerted sufficient gravitational pull to draw some sites on Cyprus (and indeed in the Southern Levant)75 into its orbit. It is important to remember, however, that whatever pull was exerted by the mainland, Cypriot receptiveness was uneven, with some traits – subsistence

60  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke for example – seeming to respond more readily than others, and that at some sites only. Notwithstanding the growing focus on identity implied by the use of incised pebbles, it is clear that insular Cyprus felt no need to communicate notions of identity vis-à-vis outsiders through the medium of pottery, for the island remained resolutely aceramic for more than 1,500 years to come76 – that perhaps being statement of identity enough.77 It is striking too that there seems to have been no place within Cyprus for the emerging highly decorated pottery traditions that characterised the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia at this time. These traditions were heavily skewed towards open forms that communicated identity and status through serving and display, for which there may simply have been no requirement on low-intensity, superficially egalitarian Cyprus. Conclusions The period under discussion saw the dispersal of actual migrant farmers – and not just a Neolithic way of life – from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Atlantic seaboard, with Levantine aDNA appearing in Morocco at the cave site of Ifri n’Amr o’Moussa by the end of the sixth millennium BCE.78 Indeed, Eva Fernández et al.79 attribute a ‘primary role [for] pioneer seafaring colonization through Cyprus and the Aegean islands’ in the earliest stages of this process. Exactly the same window saw migrant farmers crossing the Danube and, in the form of the Linearbandkeramik culture, pushing up through central Europe almost as far as the English Channel by 5000 BCE.80 Turning to the south and east, in Arabia, the later seventh and sixth millennia are characterised by the dispersal of Neolithic pastoralism across the peninsula.81 On either side of the ‘desert line’, Upper Mesopotamia and the badia both witnessed a profound expansion of settlement that resulted in greatly intensified utilisation of these landscapes by the later seventh millennium BCE.82 In the former region, a high level of community mobility makes rapid transmission of new ideas over long distances less surprising, and specific mechanisms might also have played a part, including trading activities, small-scale migration from growing communities, movement of craft specialists, external marriage or the semi-sedentary activities associated with pastoralism.83 With regard to the sixth millennium BCE, Katharina Streit84 has recently argued that Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant witnessed unprecedented levels of cultural integration. Two of her observations are particularly germane here. First, that increasing reliance on herding would have increased the need for transregional connectivity, and that in consequence ‘there was a need for social networks to be expanded and intensified, which resulted in an increased inflow of alien cultural concepts and ideas’.85 Second, citing the location of central-place redistribution sites along the Levantine coast, ‘transport between the northern and southern

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  61 Levant probably extended to both land and sea’.86 Under such ‘globalising’ external circumstances, it would be surprising had Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia and the badia not displayed at least some material convergences in their respective archaeological records. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage how Cyprus could have kept the outside world entirely at bay had it wanted to, for agency in connectivity is seldom in the hands of one party only. The approach taken by this article (and Clarke and Wasse [this volume]) has been to follow ‘flows of people, animals, goods, and practices to uncover a wider zone of interaction’,87 that is to say the ‘desert line’ of Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant, with the badia as its hinterland and Cyprus as its western extremity. Two supposed idiosyncrasies of the later seventh millennium Cypriot archaeological record, viz. round houses88 and sheep, have been tracked across that expanse, resulting in the discovery of new insights in the interstices between traditional culture-historical silos. Foremost amongst these has been the realisation that, from ~6200 BCE onwards, Khirokitia participated in a regional ‘big-sheep’ phenomenon that brought with it in its wake intensified notions of identity and ownership at a sub-communal level. This seems to have been associated with the apparently widespread use of incised pebbles at Khirokitia and Ortos, these being (on current evidence) the only seventh and sixth millennium sites on Cyprus with a numerical preponderance of sheep over Mesopotamian fallow deer. One might speculate whether this shift towards domestic stock came with an increased requirement for the protection and administration of animal property. It seems clear that the well-documented quirks of Late Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus were tempered by a subset of behaviours and stylistic and material traits shared with different facies of the mainland Late Neolithic. It may be argued, therefore, that far from being an isolated cultural outlier during the later seventh and sixth millennia, Cyprus was in fact no more different to Upper Mesopotamia than Upper Mesopotamia was to the badia. Each of the regions under consideration here had its own idio­ syncracies: Upper Mesopotamia a precocious focus on personal identity, ownership and storage, with the badia leveraging the mobility inherent in pastoral lifeways to breach old frontiers and bring new territories into domestic economic production. Cutting across this diversity, however, are some clear convergences. Some – those related to building practice, for example – might derive from immutable environmental or raw-material limitations: ‘we must... consider that constraints of mudbrick construction may often have led to similar responses to the challenge of house building in sites occupied over many generations’.89 Others, particularly in the fields of personal ornamentation, ideology, and subsistence, are harder to dismiss on relativist grounds as independent invention. Indeed, with reference to the so-called Ubaid horizon of the later sixth millennium, Robert Carter has proposed that it was precisely the use and display of small ‘items laden with symbolic meaning, some relating to personal ornamentation, others to exchange systems prevalent in the wider... world’90 that helped widely separated and otherwise culturally diverse communities to transcend the tyranny of distance in their exchanges and interactions. He observes too that Mesopotamian agricultural practices may have travelled in the

62  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke wake of such objects, offering tentative support to the notion that Cyprus might have been similarly receptive to onshore subsistence trends for which an insular need could be identified.91 During the later seventh millennium, the following regional-scale trends can be identified along the wider ‘desert line’: (1) an apparently vibrant focus on mobile sheep herding; (2) a focus on personal identity and ownership as evidenced by incised pebbles and early seals and sealings; (3) the incorporation of new territories within the productive economy; (4) generally increased connectivity and a potential extension of social reach amongst both farmers and herders; (5) intensified exploitation of milk and/or fleece in general; (6) production of storable milk products in particular (‘it is perfectly plausible to infer subsistence for months on goats and sheep milk’).92 To these might be added, (7) ‘a long-term trend [at Tell Sabi Abyad] toward a more efficient employment of pottery containers for storage’.93 Of these, Cyprus demonstrably participated in the first two, and likely more. In terms of explanations, two unavoidable factors seem salient. First, their apparent emergence following the last gasp of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ‘interaction sphere’ in the earlier seventh millennium; second, their apparent concurrence with the so-called 8.2 ka climate ‘event’. Both may have conspired to create recurrent conditions of perceived – if not actual – scarcity, under which Paul Halstead and John O’Shea’s oft-quoted four ‘buffering mechanisms’,94 viz. mobility, diversification, physical storage, and exchange, might be expected to have come to the fore.95 The close alignment of these ‘buffering mechanisms’ with the regional-scale trends listed above is striking. Akiva Sanders has recently argued that during the Halaf, the independent, household production of elaborate craft objects, specifically painted pottery, may have acted as a brake on the aspirations of centralising institutions.96 Central to his argument is the notion that, in later periods, even if emergent institutions succeeding in suppressing egalitarianism temporarily, commonwealth might be re-established through ‘increased contact with regions where such traditions [of elaborate household aesthetics] had never been lost’.97 This thesis is in our view equally applicable to later prehistory, within which context there is good reason to include community-organised Late Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus – ‘a possible refugium of PPNA-derived ideology’98 with a spectacular tradition of independent stone working to boot – at the top of any list of candidate regions. As the structured, arguably segmenting institutions of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B began to break down in the Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia in the earlier seventh millennium, the possibility that hitherto marginalised polities such as Khirokitian Cyprus played a role in shaping post- Pre-Pottery Neolithic B adaptations warrants careful consideration. By ‘turn[ing] familiar units of analysis inside out, so that erstwhile “margins” can be reimagined as zones in themselves’,99 extraceramic thematic narratives which have until now been appended to the culture-historical ‘pillars’ of Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia and the Levantine margins coalesce for almost a millennium as integrating units of analysis in their own right. Owing to the broad geographical

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  63 reach of the issues explored in this article, even if direct causation cannot be demonstrated, a shaping role for the 8.2 ka climate ‘event’ in their development or tempo may reasonably be assumed.100 At the same time, the connectivity inherent in herding networks warrants caution in denying agency to transregional human factors that may have been as influential, if not more so, in shaping the path of events. Just as it is easier to describe diachronic change than explain it, so it is with synchronic similarity and difference in the archaeological record. There is now credible evidence to suggest that the expansive ‘globalisation’ of the later ­seventh and sixth millennia BCE resulted in unprecedented levels of connectivity between communities located many hundreds of kilometres apart. A key challenge for future research will be to ascertain: (1) which of the thematic convergences described here and elsewhere101 are independent adaptations, that is to say functionally driven responses to immutable factors such as ecological marginalisation or raw-material constraints; (2) which derive from a shared cultural ancestry in the earliest Neolithic past; and (3) which may be attributed to real-time connectivity - however facilitated – in the later Neolithic ‘present’. Acknowledgements This article fell out of a reading of Robert Fletcher’s (2015) British Imperialism and the ‘Tribal Question’: Desert Administration and Nomadic Societies in the Middle East, 1919–1936. Our exploration of the later Neolithic ‘desert line’ was prompted by his inspired use of the Mandate-period ‘desert corridor’102 as a primary unit of analysis; it gives us great pleasure to acknowledge this debt. Permission to reproduce figures was graciously given by Dr Alain Le Brun, Prof. Alan Simmons and the Council for British Research in the Levant. In addition to the anonymous reviewers, Dr Diane Bolger, Dr Paul Croft, Dr Piotr Jacobsson, Dr Odile Daune-Le Brun, Dr Alain Le Brun, the late Dr Carole McCartney, Dr Yorke Rowan and Prof. Gary Rollefson gave of their time to comment on drafts of this article, which is greatly improved as a result of their counsel. Any remaining errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. A few sections of the text are based on previously published material, which have been adapted here because they still best reflect our thinking on particular topics. Notes 1 All dates calibrated BCE. 2 Helmer (2000) 256–7. 3 Although woolly fleece is not documented in the regional iconographic record until the third millennium, it is now widely accepted that spinning of plucked or shed animal fibres dates back to at least the third quarter of the seventh millennium (Rooijakkers 2012; Breniquet 2014). The term ‘fleece’ is used here in its broadest sense, up to and including exploitation of moulted underwool. 4 Akkermans (2010) 21. 5 ‘[T]he boundary between [uncultivated country] and the regularly cultivated area inhabited by village dwelling farmers’ (Lewis [1987] 15), effectively the 200mm

64  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke pa isohyet beyond which reliable rain-fed agriculture is impracticable. Although its ­position is subject to subcentennial diachronic variation in response to climate change, in general terms, it constitutes an extensive region of marked sensitivity to climatic and hydrological fluctuations (e.g. Wasse [2007] 49 and references therein). Although Lewis introduces the term in a historical context, the dynamics described are equally thought provoking with regard to later prehistory. 6 Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 7 Davis (1994) 306–8; (2003) 265–6. 8 Water-stressed rangelands on the steppic side of the ‘desert line’. 9 Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen (1989). 10 inter alia Campbell and Fletcher (2013) 44–7; Gómez-Bach et al. (2016); Nieuwenhuyse (2017); Carter (2018); Streit (2020). 11 Wasse (2019) 269–72. The term is here used to describe the association during the later ninth and earlier eighth millennia BCE of goat herding with large agricultural villages, rectilinear architecture and Middle PPNB cultural traits. Although domestic goats were frequently the predominant taxon at such sites, in many locations, broadspectrum hunting continued in parallel. A key point is that ‘peak goat’ appears to have been static, being tethered to its agricultural settlements and involving, at most, short diurnal movements to pasture (cf. ‘sedentary household husbandry with free grazing’ [Khazanov 1994, 24–5]). 12 Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson (1992, 1993); Rollefson and Pine (2009). 13 Breniquet (2014) 73. 14 e.g. Wasse (2000); Saña and Tornero (2012); Martin and Edwards (2013). 15 Quintero et al. (2004); Helmer (2000); Stordeur (ed.) (2000): 304–5; Fujii (2013); Wasse et al. (2020) 82–5. 16 Wasse (2019) 276, fig. 10 and references therein; Wasse et al. (2020) 91–5. 17 Stordeur (1993) 195–200; Stordeur (ed.) (2000) chs 12–13; Betts (2001) 185 (but see Borrell et al. [2013] for an alternate perspective). 18 Kirkbride (1974) 89. 19 Akkermans and Schwartz (2003) 116. 20 Betts (1986) 259. 21 What is referred to here as the ‘big-sheep’ phenomenon relates to an increase in the stature of sheep documented at a surprising number of Neolithic sites following the appearance of the first domesticates. This runs counter to zooarchaeological orthodoxy, which typically sees early domesticates reducing in size compared to their wild progenitors (Davis [1987] 135–40). ‘Big sheep’ are known from the later eighth millennium onwards but are more typically a feature of the seventh and sixth millennia. 22 Vigne et al. (2011) S263–4. 23 Vila (1996) 72. 24 Makarewicz (2014) 125, 128. 25 Saña and Tornero (2012) 87. 26 Makarewicz (2016) 162. 27 Payne (1973); Helmer et al. (2007). 28 e.g. Makarewicz (2016) 162. 29 Helmer et al. (2007) 64, fig. 8; Saña and Tornero (2012) 87–8. 30 Sherratt (1981). 31 Akkermans et al. (eds) (2014) 252–3; see also Nieuwenhuyse et al. (2015) 62. 32 Nieuwenhuyse (ed.) (2018) 380. 33 Davis (1994) 306–8, (2003) 265–6, (2020) 368, table 11.13. 34 Clarke and Wasse (this volume) and references therein; Wasse and Clarke (2023). 35 Davis (2020) 367–8, table 11.13. 36 Wasse (2007) 62–3. 37 Peltenburg (2004) 84; Knapp (2013) 123–4. 38 inter alia Kuijt (2000); Benz et al. (2017). 39 Clarke and Wasse (this volume).

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  65 40 Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 41 Eirikh-Rose (2004) esp. 154–7; Stewart and Rupp (2004); McCartney (2007) 77–9; Duistermaat (2010) 176–9; Knapp (2013) 135–6. 42 Eirikh-Rose (2004) fig. 12.1, table 12.1; Stewart and Rupp (2004) table 13.1. 43 Eirikh-Rose (2004) 145–6; Edwards (2007); Duistermaat (2010, 2012). 44 Duistermaat (2010) table 1, 179; (2012) 8. 45 Eirikh-Rose (2004) 146, table 12.1. 46 Edwards (2007) 27. 47 Duistermaat (2012) 7–10. 48 Stewart and Rupp (2004) 170–1. 49 McCartney (2007) 77–8. 50 cf. Stewart and Rupp (2004) 165. 51 Eirikh-Rose (2004) 158. 52 Eirikh-Rose (2004) fig. 12.7–10; Stewart and Rupp (2004) 164. 53 Eirikh-Rose (2004) 158. 54 cf. Freikman and Garfinkel (2017); Bennison-Chapman (2018) 332–3. 55 Dikaios (1953) 286–92; Cluzan (1984) 120–4; Astruc (1994) 236–43; Le Brun et al. (2022). 56 Le Brun et al. (2022); see also Dikaios (1953) 291. 57 Simmons (2003) 63. 58 Le Brun (1981). 59 Todd (ed.) (1987, 2005). 60 Le Brun et al. (2022). 61 Davis (2003) 265–6; see also Davis (1994) 306–8. 62 Simmons (1994) 10, table 5. 63 Davis (1989) 195. 64 cf. McCartney (2007) 79; Knapp (2013) and references therein (but see Clarke and Wasse [this volume] footnote 49]). 65 McCartney and Todd (2005) 206. 66 McCartney (2003) 145. 67 Thalmann (2006); Ibáñez et al. (2015); Ortega et al. (2016). 68 McCartney (2007) 75; Garfinkel (2011). 69 cf. Wright et al. (2008) 155, 157. 70 Garfinkel (2011) 407–8. 71 Wasse (2019) 278. 72 Gopher and Gophna (1993) 302–3; Rowan and Golden (2009) 5–10. 73 Wasse (2019) 275; Wasse et al. (2020) 91–7; but see Rollefson (2019) 106–7. 74 Ingold (2000) 72–5. 75 cf. Eirikh-Rose (2004) 156–8. 76 Clarke (2007) ch. 7. 77 Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 78 Fregel et al. (2018). 79 Fernández et al. (2014) 11. 80 Shennan (2018) 129. 81 Uerpmann et al. (2000) 233; Drechsler (2009); Martin et al. (2009); Magee (2014) ch. 3; Petraglia et al. (2020) 8264. 82 Campbell (1992); Rollefson et al. (2014); Nieuwenhuyse and Akkermans (2019) 113–22. 83 Campbell and Fletcher (2013) 45. 84 Streit (2020). 85 Streit (2020) 307. 86 Streit (2020) 307. 87 Fletcher (2015) 15. 88 Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 89 Plug et al. (2021) 20.

66  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke 90 Carter (2020) 82. 91 Carter (2020) 73–4. 92 Lancaster and Lancaster (1991) 135. 93 Nieuwenhuyse et al. (2016) 83. 94 Halstead and O’Shea (1989) 3–4. 95 Wasse (2007) 55; Mottram (2016); Nieuwenhuyse et al. (2016). 96 Sanders (2020). 97 Sanders (2020) 17. 98 Clarke and Wasse (2019) 48. 99 Fletcher (2015) 129. 100 cf. van der Plicht et al. (2011) 237; Nieuwenhuyse and Akkermans (2019) 122. 101 Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 102 Fletcher (2015) 70–1.

Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (2010), ‘Late Neolithic Architectural Renewal: The Emergence of Round houses in the Northern Levant c. 6500–6000 BC’, in D. Bolger and L.C. Maguire (eds), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg. BANEA Publication Series 2. 22–8. Oxford. Akkermans, P.M.M.G., M.L. Brüning, H.O. Huigens, and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds) (2014), Excavations at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria: The 1994–1999 Field Seasons. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 11. Turnhout. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and G.M. Schwartz (2003), The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge. Astruc, L. (1994), ‘L’outillage en pierre non-taillée et les petits objets’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1988–1991. 215–89. Paris. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen (1989), ‘The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere’, in I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change. BAR International Series 508(i). 59–72. Oxford. Bennison-Chapman, L.E. (2018), ‘Clay Objects as “Tokens”? Evidence for Early Counting and Administration at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Mesopotamia’, Levant 50.3, 305–37. Benz, M., H.G.K. Gebel, and T.F. Watkins (2017), ‘The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities: Introduction’, in M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel, and T.F. Watkins (eds), Neolithic Corporate Identities. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20. 1–9. Berlin. Betts, A.V.G. (1986), The Prehistory of the Basalt Desert, Transjordan: An Analysis. (PhD dissertation, University of London) London. Betts, A.V.G. (2001), ‘Review of El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert. La fin du Néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne, ed. by Danielle Stordeur’, Paléorient 27.1, 184–5. Borrell, F., E. Boëda, M. Molist, and H. Al Shakel (2013), ‘The First Half of the 7th Millennium cal. BCE in the El Kowm Basin, Central Syria: Umm El Tlel Revisted’, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpretating the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 277–87. Turnhout. Breniquet, C. (2014), ‘The Archaeology of Wool in Early Mesopotamia: Sources, Methods, Perspectives’, in C. Breniquet and C. Michel (eds), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry. 52–78. Oxford.

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  67 Campbell, S. (1992), Culture, Chronology and Change in the Later Neolithic of Upper ­Mespotamia. (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh) Edinburgh. Campbell, S. and A. Fletcher (2013), ‘Scale and Integration in Northern Mesopotamia in the Early 6th Millennium cal. BCE’, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogash (eds), Interpretating the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 9. 39–50. Turnhout. Carter, R.A. (2018), ‘Globalising Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic and the “Ubaid”’, in N. Boivin and M.D. Frachetti (eds), Globalization in Prehistory: Contact, Exchange and the “People Without History”. 43–79. Cambridge. Carter, R. (2020), ‘The Mesopotamian Frontier of the Arabian Neolithic: A Cultural Borderland of the Sixth–Fifth Millennia BC’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 31.1, 69–85. Clarke, J.T. (2007), On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus in the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. Oxford. Clarke, J.T. and A.M.R. Wasse (2019), ‘Time Out of Joint: A Re-assessment of the Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic Site of Kalavasos-Tenta and Its Regional Implications’, Levant 51.1, 26–53. Cluzan, S. (1984), ‘L’outillage et les petits objets en pierre’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1977–1981. Mémoire 41. 111–24. Paris. Davis, S.J.M. (1987), The Archaeology of Animals. London. Davis, S.J.M. (1989), ‘Some More Animal Remains from the Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1983–1986. Mémoire 81. 189–221. Paris. Davis, S.J.M. (1994) ‘Even More Bones from Khirokitia, the 1988–1991 Excavations’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1988–1991. Études néolithiques. 305–33. Paris. Davis, S.J.M. (2003), ‘The Zooarchaeology of Khirokitia (Neolithic Cyprus), Including a View from the Mainland’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 253–68. Athens. Davis, S.J.M. (2020), ‘The Neolithic Mammals from Choirokoitia (Khirokitia), Cyprus: Stasis and Change on an Oceanic Island’, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1993–2009. 297–406. Nicosia. Dikaios, P. (1953), Khirokitia: Final Report on the Excavation of a Neolithic Settlement in Cyprus on Behalf of the Department of Antiquities, 1936–1946. Monographs of the Department of Antiquities of the Government of Cyprus 1. Oxford. Drechsler, P. (2009), The Dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. BAR International Series 1969. Oxford. Duistermaat, K. (2010), ‘Administration in Neolithic Societies? The First Use of Seals in Syria and Some Considerations on Seal Owners, Seal Use and Private Property’, in W. Müller (ed.), Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales SiegelSymposium, Marburg, 9.–12. Oktober 2008. CMS Beiheft 8. 167–82. Mainz am Rhein. Duistermaat, K. (2012), ‘Which Came First, the Bureaucrat or the Seal? Some Thoughts on the Non-Administrative Origins of Seals in Neolithic Syria’, in I. Regulksi, K. Duistermaat, and P. Verkinderen (eds), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East: Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 291. 1–15. Leuven. Edwards, P.C. (2007), ‘The Context and Production of Incised Neolithic Stones’, Levant 39, 27–33. Eirikh-Rose, A. (2004), ‘Geometric Patterns on Pebbles: Early Identity Symbols?’, in E.J. Peltenburg and A.M.R. Wasse (eds), Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on

68  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series 1. 145–62. Oxford. Fernández, E., A. Pérez-Pérez, C. Gamba, E. Prats, P. Cuesta, J. Anfruns, M. Molist, E. Arroyo-Pardo, and D. Turbón (2014), ‘Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands’, PLoS Genetics 10.6, e1004401. Fletcher, R.S.G. (2015), British Imperialism and ‘The Tribal Question’: Desert Administration and Nomadic Societies in the Middle East, 1919–1936. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford. Fregel, R., F.L. Méndez, Y. Bokbot, D. Martín-Socas, M.D. Camalich-Massieu, J. Santana, J. Morales, M.C. Ávila-Arcos, P.A. Underhill, B. Shapiro, G. Wojcik, M. Rasmussen, A.E.R. Soares, J. Kapp, A. Sockell, F.J. Rodríguez-Santos, A. Mikdad, A. TrujilloMederos, and C.D. Bustamante (2018), ‘Ancient Genomes from North Africa Evidence Prehistoric Migrations to the Maghreb from both the Levant and Europe’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.26, 6774–9. Freikman, M. and Y. Garfinkel (2017), ‘Sealings before Cities: New Evidence on the Beginnings of Administration in the Ancient Near East’, Levant 49.1, 24–45. Fujii, S. (2013), ‘Chronology of the Jafr Prehistory and Protohistory: A Key to the Process of Pastoral Nomadization in the Southern Levant’, Syria 90, 49–125. Garfinkel, Y. (2011), ‘Obsidian Distribution and Cultural Contacts in the Southern Levant during the 7th Millennium cal. BC’, in E. Healey, S. Campbell, and O. Maeda (eds), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13. 403–9. Berlin. Gómez-Bach, A., W. Cruells, and M. Molist (2016), ‘Sharing Spheres of Interaction in the 6th Millennium cal. BC: Halaf Communities and Beyond’, Paléorient 42.2, 123–39. Gopher, A. and R. Gophna (1993), ‘Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s’, Journal of World Prehistory 7.3, 297–353. Halstead, P. and J.M. O’Shea (1989), ‘Introduction: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty’, in P. Halstead and J.M. O’Shea (eds), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. 1–7. Cambridge. Helmer, D. (2000), ‘Étude de la faune mammalienne d’El Kowm 2’, in D. Stordeur (ed.), El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert. La fin du Néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne. 233–64. Paris. Helmer D., L. Gourichon, and E.Vila (2007), ‘The Development of the Exploitation of Products from Capra and Ovis (Meat, Milk and Fleece) from the PPNB to the Early Bronze in the Northern Near East (8700 to 2000 BC cal.)’, Anthropozoologica 42.2, 41–69. Ibáñez, J.J., D. Ortega, D. Campos, L. Khalidi, and V. Méndez (2015), ‘Testing Complex Networks of Interaction at the Onset of the Near Eastern Neolithic Using Modelling of Obsidian Exchange’, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12.107, 20150210. Ingold, T. (2000), ‘From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of Human-Animal Relations’, in, T. Ingold (ed.), The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. 61–76. London and New York. Khazanov, A.M. (1994), Nomads and the Outside World. Madison. Kirkbride, D. (1974), ‘Umm Dabaghiyah: A Trading Outpost?’ Iraq 36.1–2, 85–92. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Kuijt, I. (2000), ‘People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 75–102.

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  69 Lancaster, W. and F. Lancaster (1991), ‘Limitations on Sheep and Goat Herding in the Eastern Badia of Jordan: An Ethno-Archaeological Enquiry’, Levant 23, 125–38. Le Brun, A. (1981), Un site néolithique précéramique en Chypre: Cap Andreas-Kastros. Recherche sur les grandes civilisations, Mémoire 5. Paris. Le Brun, A. (ed.). (1994), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1988–1991. Études néolithiques. Paris. Le Brun, A., O. Daune-Le Brun, and F. Hourani (2022), ‘Changing with the Years: Khirokitia (Cyprus) at the 7th to the 6th Millennium BC’, in P. Biehl and E. Rosenstock (eds), 6000 BC: Transformation and Change in the Near East and Europe. 64–80. Cambridge. Lewis, N.N. (1987), Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800–1980. Cambridge. Magee, P. (2014), The Archaeology of Prehistoric Arabia: Adaptation and Social Formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge. Makarewicz, C.A. (2014), ‘Bridgehead to the Badia: A Biometric and Isotopic Perspective of Caprine Husbandry at Pre-Pottery Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal’, in B. Finlayson and C.A. Makarewicz (eds), Survey, Settlement, and Stone: Essays in Honour of Gary Rollefson. 117–31. Berlin. Makarewicz, C.A. (2016), ‘Caprine Husbandry and Initial Pig Management East of the Jordan Valley: Animal Exploitation at Neolithic Wadi Shu’eib, Jordan’, Paléorient 42.1, 151–68. Martin, L. and Y.H. Edwards (2013), ‘Diverse Strategies: Evaluating the Appearance and Spread of Domestic Caprines in the Southern Levant’, in S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning, and S. Shennan (eds), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London 59. 49–82. Walnut Creek. Martin, L., J. McCorriston, and R. Crassard (2009), ‘Early Arabian Pastoralism at Manayzah in Wadi Sana, Hadramawt’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39, 271–82. McCartney, C. (2003), ‘The Mylouthkia and Tenta Chipped Stone Industries and Their Interpretation within a Redefined Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic’, in J. Guilaine, and A. Le Brun (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 135–46. Athens. McCartney, C. (2007), ‘Lithics’, in J.T. Clarke (ed.), On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus in the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. 72–90. Oxford. McCartney, C. and I.A. Todd (2005), ‘Chipped Stone’, in I.A. Todd (ed.), Vasilikos Valley Project 7: Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta Volume II. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.7. 177–263. Sävedalen. Mottram, M. (2016), ‘When the Going Gets Tough: Risk Minimization Responses to the 8.2 Event in the Near East and Their Role in the Emergence of the Halaf Cul­ henomenon’, in P.F. Biehl and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds), Climate and Cultural tural P Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East. IEMA Proceedings Volume 6. 37–66. Albany. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (2017), ‘Globalizing the Halaf’, in T. Hodos (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. 839–54. London. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (ed.). (2018), Relentlessly Plain: Seventh Millennium Ceramics at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Oxford. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. and P.M.M.G. Akkermans (2019), ‘Transforming the Upper ­Mesopotamian Landscape in the Late Neolithic’, in A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BCE. 103–37. Atlanta. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P., P.M.M.G. Akkermans, J. van der Plicht, A. Russell, and A. Kaneda (2016), ‘The 8.2 Event in Upper Mesopotamia: Climate and Cultural Change’, in P.F.

70  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke Biehl and O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds), Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East. IEMA Proceedings Volume 6. 67–93. Albany. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P., M. Roffet-Salque, R.P. Evershed, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and A. Russell (2015), ‘Tracing Pottery Use and the Emergence of Secondary Product Exploitation through Lipid Residue Analysis at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria)’, Journal of Archaeological Science 64, 54–66. Ortega, D., J.J. Ibáñez, D. Campos, L. Khalidi, V. Méndez, and L. Teira (2016), ‘Systems of Interaction between the First Sedentary Villages in the Near East Exposed Using AgentBased Modelling of Obsidian Exchange’, Systems 4.2, 18. Payne, S. (1973), ‘Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan Kale’, Anatolian Studies 23, 281–303. Peltenburg, E.J. (2004) ‘Social Space in Early Sedentary Communities of Southwest Asia and Cyprus’, in E.J. Peltenburg and A.M.R. Wasse (eds), Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series 1. 71–90. Oxford. Petraglia, M.D., H.S. Groucutt, M. Guagnin, P.S. Breeze, and N. Boivin (2020), ‘Human Responses to Climate and Ecosystem Change in Ancient Arabia’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.15, 8263–70. Plicht, J. van der, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, A. Kaneda, and A. Russell (2011), ‘Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria: Radiocarbon Chronology, Cultural Change, and the 8.2 ka Event’, Radiocarbon 53.2, 229–43. Plug, J.H., I. Hodder, and P.M. Akkermans (2021), ‘Breaking Continuity? Site Formation and Temporal Depth at Çatalhöyük and Tell Sabi Abyad’, Anatolian Studies 71, 1–27. Quintero, L., P. Wilke, and G.O. Rollefson (2004), ‘Highland Towns and Desert Settlements: Origins of Nomadic Pastoralism in the Jordanian Neolithic’, in H.-D. Bienert, H.G.K. Gebel, and R. Neef (eds), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5. 201–13. Berlin. Rollefson, G.O. (2019), ‘At the Core of the Matter: Aspects of Late Neolithic Lithic Production at Wisad Pools, Black Desert, Jordan’, in S. Nakamura, T. Adachi, and M. Abe (eds), Decades in Deserts: Essays on Near Eastern Archaeology in Honor of Sumio Fujii. 95–108. Tokyo. Rollefson, G.O. and I. Köhler-Rollefson (1992), ‘Early Neolithic Exploitation Patterns in the Levant: Cultural Impact on the Environment’, Population and Environment 13.4, 243–54. Rollefson, G.O. and I. Köhler-Rollefson (1993), ‘PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th Millennium B.C.’, Paléorient 19.1, 33–42. Rollefson, G.O. and K.J. Pine (2009), ‘Measuring the Impact of LPPNB Immigration into Highland Jordan’, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 10, 473–81. Rollefson, G.O., Y.M. Rowan, and A.M.R. Wasse (2014), ‘The Late Neolithic Colonization of the Eastern Badia of Jordan’, Levant 46.2, 285–301. Rooijakkers, C.T. (2012), ‘Spinning Animal Fibres at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria?’, Paléorient 38.1–2, 93–109. Rowan, Y.M. and J. Golden (2009), ‘The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review’, Journal of World Prehistory 22, 1–92. Saña, M. and C. Tornero (2012), ‘Use of Animal Fibres during the Neolithisation in the Middle Euphrates Valley (Syria): An Archaeozoological Approach’, Paléorient 38.1–2, 79–91.

Economic convergences in a globalising world?  71 Sanders, A.B. (2020), ‘An Aesthetic of Resistance: Beauty and Power in Northern ­Mesopotamia’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 59, 101174. Shennan, S. (2018), The First Farmers of Europe: An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge. Sherratt, A.G. (1981), ‘Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution’, in I.R. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond (eds), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke. 261–305. Cambridge. Simmons, A.H. (1994), ‘Early Neolithic Settlement in Western Cyprus: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1993 Test Excavations at Kholetria Ortos’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 295, 1–14. Simmons, A.H. (2003), ‘Villages Without Walls, Cows Without Corrals’, in J. Guilaine and A. Le Brun (eds), Le néolithique de Chypre. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 43. 61–70. Athens. Stewart, S.T. and D.W. Rupp (2004), ‘Tools and Toys or Traces of Trade: The Problem of the Enigmatic Incised Objects from Cyprus and Levant’, in E.J. Peltenburg and A.M.R. Wasse (eds), Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series 1. 163–73. Oxford. Stordeur, D. (1993), ‘Sédentaires et nomades du PPNB final dans le désert de Palmyre (Syrie)’, Paléorient 19.1, 187–204. Stordeur, D. (ed.) (2000), El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert. La fin du Néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne. Paris. Streit, K. (2020), The Ancient Near East in Transregional Context: Material Culture and Exchange between Mesopotamia, the Levant and Lower Egypt from 5800 to 5200 calBC. Archaeology of Egypt, Sudan and the Levant 2. Vienna. Thalmann, J.-P. 2006. ‘Obsidian at Tell Arqa, North Lebanon – a Stop-Over Point on a Trade Route?’, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 575–93. Todd, I.A. (ed.) (1987), Vasilikos Valley Project 6: Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta Volume I. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.6. Gothenburg. Todd, I.A. (ed.) (2005), Vasilikos Valley Project 7: Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta Volume II. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.7. Sävedalen. Uerpmann, M., H.-P. Uerpmann, and S.A. Jasim (2000), ‘Stone Age Nomadism in­ SE-­Arabia – Palaeo-Economic Considerations on the Neolithic Site of Al-Buhais 18 in the Emirate of Sharjah’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30, 229–34. Vigne, J.-D., I. Carrère, F. Briois, and J. Guilaine (2011), ‘The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East: New Evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus’, Current Anthropology 52 (Supplement 4), S255–71. Vila, E. (1996), ‘Commentaire synoptique sur l’exploitation de la faune en Mésopotamie du nord à la période Uruk et au Bronze ancien’, Anthropozoologica 23, 67–73. Wasse, A.M.R. (2000), The Development of Goat and Sheep Herding during the Levantine Neolithic. (PhD dissertation, University of London) London. Wasse, A.M.R. (2007), ‘Climate, Economy and Change: Cyprus and the Levant during the Late Pleistocene to Mid Holocene’, in J.T. Clarke (ed.), On the Margins of Southwest Asia: Cyprus During the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. 43–63. Oxford. Wasse, A.M.R. (2019), ‘A Joy of Wild Asses, a Pasture of Flocks: Hunting and Herding in the Greater Syrian Desert during the PPNB and Late Neolithic’, in S. Nakamura, T. Adachi, and M. Abe (eds), Decades in Deserts: Essays on Near Eastern Archaeology in Honor of Sumio Fujii. 269–85. Tokyo.

72  Alexander Wasse and Joanne Clarke Wasse, A.M.R. and J. Clarke, (2023), ‘Mesopotamian Fallow Deer and the Chase in Later Neolithic Cyprus: Insights from Upper Mesopotamia, the Levant and Badia’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 48, 103909. Wasse, A.M.R., G.O. Rollefson, and Y.M. Rowan (2020), ‘Flamingos in the Desert: How a Chance Encounter Shed Light on the “Burin Neolithic” of Eastern Jordan’, in P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.), Landscapes of Survival: The Archaeology and Epigraphy of Jordan’s North-Eastern Desert and Beyond. 79–101. Leiden. Wright, K.I., P. Critchley, A.N. Garrard, D.J. Baird, R. Bains, and S. Groom (2008), ‘Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic Sites in Eastern Jordan’, Levant 40.2, 131–65.

4

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus Francesca Chelazzi

Introduction In the spring of 2012, a Web-based survey was launched across the archaeological community of North America and Europe, aiming at identifying ‘problems of broad scientific and social interest that could drive cutting edge research in archaeology for the next decade and beyond’.1 The result of this survey2 was a list of problems with global significance, addressing historical processes operating at different spatial and temporal scales, from households to empires, from sudden climatic changes to long-term land-use transformations. Interestingly, a significant number of these problems are pivoted around identifying past patterns of humanenvironment interaction, resilience, collapse and spatial and material reconfigurations of past landscapes. In the last decade, intergovernmental panels have been created to promote strategies of sustainable development,3 and new projects for exploring the long-term resilience of ancient societies are in progress to understand the complex nature of human-environment interaction in the past. In this perspective, archaeology offers an unmissable opportunity to play an active part in the broader process of citizen empowerment, as it can speak to both academic and wider audiences, especially younger generations. Theoretical and methodological framework The Mediterranean region is characterised by extreme diversity in space and time of both human and environmental communities, with a composite biogeographic origin of its flora and fauna. The history of human-induced changes in biota and ecosystems entails a long-term ecological trajectory of natural communities, resulting in a mosaic of cultural landscapes and a complex distribution of species.4 The concept of human-environment coevolution was defined by Norgaad as ‘any feedback between two evolving systems’ and ‘a reciprocal process of change’ between population and environment, where social and natural systems continually reshape each other (coadaptation).5 In the last decade, an increasing body of non-anthropocentric theory has been developed to investigate the co-dependency of humans, plants, animals, natural processes, climate and everything else that DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-4

74  Francesca Chelazzi makes up the world, and today the coevolutionary paradigm promotes a more culturally and environmentally sensitive approach that is grounded in participatory democracy. At the same time, new intersectoral academic projects were commenced to synthesise the extraordinary archaeological legacy at our disposal and explore the varying nature of human responses to climate and land cover change. The project ‘The Changing Face of the Mediterranean: Land Cover, Demography and Environmental Change’ was established in 2017 to combine many thematic approaches for exploring the major long-term trends in human-environment interaction across the ancient Mediterranean.6 More recently, the ‘CLaSS – Climate, Landscape, Settlement and Society: Exploring Human-Environment Interaction in the Ancient Near East’ project was financed to explore the relationship between climate change and the emergence of complex societies in ancient Mesopotamia.7 Additionally, important infrastructures for networking such as ‘PAGES (Past Global Changes)’ were developed to promote new working groups and collaborative pathways in environmental and societal dynamics in the past. These projects have opened up the potential of using Big(gish) Data8 in archaeology, including radiocarbon, botanical, zoological and genetic datasets and general (climate) circulation models (GCMs) that can be mapped onto each other in order to examine long-term, large-scale trends in different datasets calibrated against each other. While long-term super-regional patterns have been largely explored, changes at the local scale are generally difficult to identify, particularly concerning the relationship between climate change and societal change. Cyprus provides an excellent case study to address these challenges for three main reasons. Firstly, throughout history, the island has acted as an important cultural and economic hub between the Mediterranean world and the major continental regions of Turkey and southwest Asia. Secondly, although Cypriot society successfully endured over the longue durée, it has been constrained by limited natural resources and a fragile environment, entirely reliant on rainfall and made more fragile by an expanding population. Thirdly, while the effects of climate change on Cyprus resemble in many respects those in the Near East, local responses to climatic disturbances appear to have resulted in very different cultural trajectories, characterised by a deliberate insular identity even since its formative periods and distinctive for a combination of vulnerability, resilience and a capacity for transformational adaptation.9 Human and natural communities in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus Although the Cypriot data corpus is strikingly unsystematic and heterogeneous, its multi-thematic and interdisciplinary character is well suited to such a type of study. Data integration has become a fertile area of research in the last decade, exploring how to aggregate and compare the many archaeological legacies that survey archaeology and landscape studies have produced over time. In particular, the archaeological survey has a well-established tradition within Mediterranean

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  75 archaeology, having provided an impressive number of local datasets that still need to be integrated into a more comprehensive regional synthesis. Methods

New techniques have been tested in the last decade to address such a broad range of scientific challenges and integrate and maximise dense, high-quality overlap between archaeological datasets. Many of these techniques necessitate high-­ resolution legacy data (e.g., extensive collection of radiocarbon dates, numerous pollen cores), and this collides with the limited evidence currently available for some areas of the Mediterranean.10 Settlement data from Cyprus suffer from several biases related to the island’s political history and the theoretical history of Cypriote archaeology. While the first half of the twentieth century was characterised by an advanced topographical focus, thanks to the extensive work of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition and the pioneering surveys by Porphyrios Dikaios, the 1974 Turkish invasion dramatically changed the picture. All the attention traditionally placed on the northern part of the island was forced to shift to the south, to the districts of Paphos and Limassol. This uneven coverage in terms of settlement data, coupled with the varying sampling methodologies and theoretical background of the many survey projects, represents a source of bias that needs to be handled carefully.11 Island-wide patterns are hard to infer due to the massive presence of terrae incognitae, and the patchy distribution of well-explored regions results in a regionality12 that should be approached not only as a historical and cultural phenomenon but also as the result of archaeological coverage. The same problem arises for environmental data. Among the environmental proxies, pollen-inferred regional vegetation patterns are generally used to map longterm vegetation change. In particular, large quantities of modern surface samples and fossil pollen cores from archaeological sites are aggregated and summarised via non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) to define vegetation groups and explore patterns of diversity change.13 While the scarcity of fossil pollen cores from Cyprus14 precludes the implementation of pollen-inferred land cover models, the island does not entirely lack archaeobotanical and archaeozoological legacy data. According to a preliminary review of the published literature and the record stored in the ‘Archaeobotanical Database of Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern Sites (ADEMNES)’, 19 excavated sites yielded archaeobotanical samples, 11 sites archaeozoological data, and both archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data have been collected at 13 sites. It should be noticed that the ADEMNES catalogue of sites is incomplete and the amount of archaeological sites with archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data is significantly higher (Fig. 4.1 right, which includes also Iron Age sites). While it is not possible to elaborate pollen-inferred models, this consistent corpus of legacy data demands that we reconsider long-standing techniques that are appropriate to the data at our disposal. Lucas and Fuller,15 for example, have recently published an extensive review of the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological datasets from Cyprus, investigating the diachronic variability in the relative frequency of the main botanical and animal species.

76  Francesca Chelazzi

Figure 4.1 Heat map of: right) the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological datasets from Cyprus, left) the NERD radiocarbon dates from Cyprus.

While the recent review of archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data by Lucas and Fuller forms a solid baseline for making some assumptions about the transforming interaction between human and natural communities, few studies have explored the varying population size of ancient Cyprus. In order to elaborate a reliable archaeodemographic model, the combination and comparison of several population proxies are a required strategy to cope with the many sources of bias that each methodology encompasses. Traditional techniques inferred from archaeological survey data (e.g., raw site counts, estimated settlement size, aoristic sum) are usually compared to explore spatial and temporal patterns in changing population densities. The vast majority of the available datasets from archaeological surveys generally lacks the complete set of information, including the exact positioning of the mapped evidence. Another technique has been recently tested and adopted to infer archaeodemographic patterns from radiocarbon dates. The Summed Probability Distribution (SPD) of radiocarbon dates is based on the assumption that ‘the more people living in a given region, the more garbage, the more organic materials, the more radiocarbon collected and dated’.16 This technique encompasses several sources of bias (e.g., over/underestimation of population, uneven distribution of radiocarbon samples, reliance on traditional typo-chronologies). On the other hand, several online repositories for radiocarbon dates (e.g., OxCal, Radon, Bandora) can support a quick application of this technique across the ancient Mediterranean region, and comparative studies have demonstrated its utility to infer demographic trends in prehistory.17 In the last few years, the NERD (Near East Radiocarbon Dates) archive has been compiled under the umbrella of the projects ‘Changing the Face of the Mediterranean’ and ‘CLaSS’.18 The archive is the largest existing repository of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates covering a significant time span, from the Late Pleistocene to the Late Holocene (15,000–1500 cal. BP). Based on the review of multiple sources, the archive includes 11,027 radiocarbon dates from 1023 sites. 494 dates come

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  77 from Cyprus up to now, and they result from the analysis of charcoals and other materials (bone, wood, dung, seeds and grain) sampled at 52 sites (Fig. 4.1 left).19 The total number of radiocarbon dates fully satisfies the minimum sample size of 200–500 dates for producing reliable SPDs of calibrated radiocarbon dates within a time interval of 8000–10,000 years.20 Additionally, it should be noted that the NERD archive still needs to be integrated with the chronological datasets from Erimi-Laonin tou Porakou, Lophou-Koulauzou, Chlorakas-Palloures and PyrgosAyia Marina,21 as well as with the additional recent radiocarbon dates from Hala Sultan Tekke and Pyla-Kokkinokremos.22 The preliminary processing of the NERD radiocarbon dates from Cyprus indicates that some inferences can be formulated based on the available legacy data. Figure 4.2 displays the result of the summed probability distribution of radiocarbon dates from Cyprus from 14,000 to 2500 cal. BP, processed through rcarbon,23 which is an R package for the analysis of extensive collections of radiocarbon dates. The available dates have been calibrated using the IntCal20 curve and aggregated by creating artificial bins (cut-off value of 100 years) for mitigating the effects of the strong inter-site variability in sample size. The results are shown in Figure 4.2, where the grey shaded region represents a critical Monte Carlo envelope encompassing the middle 95 per cent of the simulated SPDs, with red and blue regions highlighting portions of the SPD where positive and negative deviations are detected. It should be noted that Figure 4.2 slightly differs from what was processed in Palmisano et al.24 as the latter compared the Cypriot pattern with a 95 per cent Monte Carlo envelope of the pan-regional model produced via permutation of subregional dates. Despite some minor differences, the archaeodemographic pattern emerging from both studies is essentially identical. The most significant point from this review is the uneven temporal and spatial distribution of radiocarbon dates. Some regions of the island lack reliable

Figure 4.2 Summed probability distribution (SPD) of unnormalised calibrated radiocarbon dates (solid line) versus a fitted logistic model (95 per cent Monte Carlo confidence grey envelope) of population growth. The x-axis represents the analysed chronological range, the y-axis represents the ‘density of probability’.

78  Francesca Chelazzi collections of dates, while others are probably overrepresented due to the presence of a significant cluster of analysed radiocarbon samples (Fig. 4.1 left). In addition, the uneven coverage also has a chronological dimension, resulting from the scientific interest of data collectors.25 The hinterland of Limassol and Larnaca is characterised by a probable overestimation of its population size during the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age. This is due to the remarkable amount of radiocarbon dates from Parekklesia-Shillourokambos (52), Kalavasos-Tenta (18), KalavasosAyios Dhimitrios (18) and Maroni-Tsaroukkas (24). In contrast, the population size during the Chalcolithic period is probably overestimated in the region of Paphos due to the significant amount of dates from Lemba-Lakkous (17), Kissonerga-­ Mosphilia (29) and Mylouthkia (14). This distributive aspect suggests that some caution is necessary for data interpretation from SPD analysis, particularly to infer regional patterns in archaeodemography. On the other hand, its validity on a super-regional scale was largely demonstrated by analogous multi-proxy studies coupling SPD with other ­archaeology-inferred techniques.26 Results

The final phase of the Late Pleistocene is marked by the Bølling–Allerød interstadial (14,700–12,700 cal. BP), followed by a cold and drying climate during the so-called ‘Younger Dryas’ (12,700–11,700 cal. BP). This period has been strictly related to the possible arrival of the earliest communities on the island during the Late Epipalaeolithic.27 The Early Holocene is marked by punctuated episodes of increase in the population, which finds robust support in the palaeoclimatic record from the Levantine (Jeita Cave and Lake Hula) and Anatolian (Dim cave) coasts.28 This phase starts with the onset of the Aceramic Neolithic at 11,000 cal. BP, and it continued until 9500 cal. BP. The local population size probably increased in correspondence with repeated landings of newcomers (colonising events) during PPNA and PPNB, when farmers and herders settled on the island from the Levantine and Anatolian regions, carrying with them new plants and animals.29 During the very early prehistory of the island, although there were possible existing patterns of inter-site variation, the human communities living in Cyprus were mainly foraging dominant (20 per cent–50 per cent of the faunal assemblage at Krittou Marottou Ais Giorkis and Dhali Agridhi)31 in association with new species under domestication such as sheep and goat. Regarding the botanical species domesticated on the island, the PPNA period was generally characterised by a restricted portfolio consisting of wild barley (probably indigenous), wild einkorn and emmer wheat. In the following PPNB period, new species were introduced, including flax, chickpea, rye and free-threshing wheat,32 suggesting several sequential episodes of plant and animal translocations. The onset of the Middle Holocene was marked by the so-called 8.2k cal. BP event that consisted of an abrupt cold and arid episode that is well visible from the

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  79 available palaeoclimatic proxies.33 While this event apparently did not have a massive impact on several Near Eastern regions,34 it probably caused a slight decrease in population size in Cyprus.35 Several periods of possible population decrease below the envelope are in fact identified at 7900–7800 cal. BP, 7600–7400 cal. BP and 6900–6750 cal. BP. The result of SPD analysis is strongly supported by the palaeoclimatic scenario from the Jeita Cave, suggesting a gradual shift towards more arid climatic conditions after the 8.2k cal. BP event, which resulted in an even greater drying after 7000 cal. BP. The gap in archaeological evidence between 5300 and 4750 cal. BCE has been repeatedly brought into connection with a possible process of agricultural ­de-­intensification due to the lack of population pressure that pushed agricultural intensification forward on the contemporary Levantine mainland.36 Legacy data indicate that this period was characterised by the increasing reliance on fallow deer and a slight decline in cereal cultivation.37 Whether this pattern was affected by the consequences of the 8.2k cal. BP event is difficult to determine, but a general reduction in population size likely occurred in the second half of the fifth millennium BCE. In contrast, the second part of the Ceramic Neolithic was characterised by an overall demographic growth on the island, probably due to an increasing adaptation of local communities to climate change through technological advancements, such as metal manipulation, storage strategies and increasing social stratification. Palaeoclimatic data from the Levant suggest that climatic conditions became dryer from 6000 cal. BP, causing the abandonment of villages and a temporary further shift from agro-pastoralism to hunting.38 This process is well visible in the SPD pattern, including a new phase of increasing population size during the Late Chalcolithic (at around 5000 cal. BP). It has been suggested that this population growth pattern might have also been the result of external forces, including the increasing demand for Cypriot copper resources, which drove some important social and cultural changes, including craft production, copper metallurgy and incipient forms of social inequality.39 Archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data indicate that the Late Chalcolithic period was characterised by an increasing percentage of cultivated crops across the island, coupled with decreasing importance of the hunting culture. Simultaneously, caprine husbandry and other agricultural strategies such as the cultivation of cash crops probably increased and persisted during the following Bronze Age.40 Throughout the following Bronze Age, the SPD analysis suggests that the island was subject to a constantly growing population, with values above the 95 per cent envelope at 4000–3800 cal. BP, and even more so during the Late Bronze Age. This process is largely supported by archaeological data, which indicate the development of more efficient farming strategies due to the package of innovations introduced during the Philia Phase.41 The peak of growth at 3500–3000 cal. BP is probably the result of an overestimation of the pattern due to the impressive number of radiocarbon dates from Late Bronze Age excavations (Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Hala Sultan Tekke, Maroni-Tsaroukkas and Vournes), but a general increase in population size is expected. Interestingly, the archaeodemographic pattern of Cyprus did not suffer from the overall decline in population visible across the Near

80  Francesca Chelazzi East in correspondence with the so-called 4.2k cal. BP event.42 Conversely, Cyprus is one of the Eastern Mediterranean regions where the effects of the Late Bronze Age societal ‘collapse’ are more visible. In Anatolia, the SPD pattern suggests a strong impact of the so-called 3.2k cal. BP event43 while the Levant is characterised by an increase in population during the Early Iron Age (3100–2700 cal. BP).44 It should be noted that the apparent demographic decline at the end of the Late Bronze Age might be biased by the scarcity of excavated archaeological sites with radiocarbon dates. In general, from 4000 cal. BP onwards, the SPD analysis underestimates real population levels as archaeologists rely increasingly on ceramic dating methods. The significant demographic growth of the Bronze Age probably resulted from the technological innovations introduced during the Philia Phase. In parallel, the increasing demand for copper resources during the Early and Middle Bronze Age played an essential role in expanding the settlement pattern in previously unexplored regions with very poor soils, such as the middle river valleys of the south and the pillow lavas. These changing locational strategies probably required the development of new agricultural strategies more suitable for the new ecosystems, as well as new dietary behaviours, including ante mortem products.45 Interestingly, the passage from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age is also characterised by a significant change, consisting of the shift from hulled wheat to freethreshing wheat.46 Hulled wheat was preferred in the Early and Middle Bronze Age

Figure 4.3 Regional summed probability distribution (SPD) of calibrated radiocarbon dates for the southwest, southeast, centre, north Cyprus, compared with a 95 per cent Monte Carlo envelope of the island-wide model produced via permutation of regional datasets.

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  81 as it grows well in the unirrigated soils of the middle river valley and sedimentary formations, and it is resistant to droughts and poor soils. In contrast, free-threshing wheat requires irrigated and nitrogenous soils, such as those of the coastal lowlands where some of the most important Bronze Age sites are located. As freethreshing wheat does not possess greater nutrient ratios, this change was probably dictated solely by the spike brittleness and greater threshability. Figure 4.3 displays the regional SPD of calibrated radiocarbon dates for the north, centre, southwest and southeast of the island, compared with a 95 per cent Monte Carlo envelope of the island-wide model produced via permutation of regionally distributed dates. Even at first sight, it is evident that the archaeodemographic models are significantly biased by the uneven distribution of radiocarbon dates (from 28 in the north to 228 in the southeast). For example, the long-lasting negative deviation at 10,000 cal. BP in the southwest is the result of a complete lack of excavated sites dated to the Aceramic Neolithic, while the apparent demographic decline at 6000 cal. BP in the southeast is due to the scarcity of sites dated to the Chalcolithic period. More generally, the imbalance affects the pattern from the north of the island, where the amount of available radiocarbon dates is insufficient. Conclusions Although radiocarbon dates, archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data from Cyprus are unevenly distributed in space and time, this heterogeneous complex of legacy data constitutes an important baseline for addressing interesting questions about the changing interaction between humans and natural communities throughout time. The picture resulting from this very preliminary study further supports the idea that, due to both the complex environmental biodiversity and the distinct insular trajectory, Cypriote communities adopted subsistence strategies and forms of social organisations during the Holocene that were characterised by a very local identity since its formative periods. The almost complete absence of evidence for entirely agriculturally-reliant forms of economy (>80 per cent crop remnants), a pattern that becomes common in the Levant since 7000 BCE, is a clear illustration of this. Contrarily, subsistence strategies in Cyprus appear to have been centred on mixed farming regimes that could integrate agriculture, livestock and wild resources according to the changing climatic conditions and the regional landscapes. Particularly interesting is the trajectory of agriculture throughout time, which fluctuated between phases of intensification (Neolithic) and extensification (Middle to Late Chalcolithic, Early to Middle Bronze Age) in conjunction with phases of population growth. The exploitation of natural resources, particularly deer hunting, also appears to have been significant throughout the entire Holocene, serving as a fundamental economic asset during times of hard climatic circumstances or as a form of insurance during times when productivity fell below levels needed for subsistence. New palaeoclimatic47 and archaeodemographic48 have been published while this paper was under review. These studies open up new research avenues for

82  Francesca Chelazzi understanding the patterns of human-environment-climate interaction on the island, including the potential to integrate SPD patterns with additional population estimates (such as raw count, aoristic weight and randomised start date). To determine ancient population patterns, a multi-proxy strategy is required to reduce sources of error and boost the strengths of each line of evidence. The co-analysis of population dynamics and past climatic conditions, inferred from still unevenly distributed palaeoclimatic proxies, can support a better understanding of the economic strategies developed and adopted over the course of time, with the aim of identifying which decisions have been made for cultural, social and economic reasons, and which other resulted from climatic-environmental contingencies, or a combination of both. One of the main risks in doing this is to focus on point-wise comparisons and observe each single line of evidence in its individual and momentary value. It is tempting to look for cause-and-effect relationships between events, losing sight of the pattern over the longue durée. More additional data, both in demography and environmental sciences, will certainly help us understand the economic and technological choices that alternatively diverged and converged with those in the Anatolian and Levantine mainland, and to substantiate the insular identity of Cyprus and its distinctive combination of vulnerability, resilience and capacity for transformational adaptation. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Teresa Bürge and Lærke Recht for inviting me to contribute to this volume. I am also grateful to Andrew Bevan, Dan Lawrence, Alessio Palmisano, Stephen Shennan (radiocarbon dates) and Katherine Crawford and Marc-Antoine Vella (settlement data) for making their datasets freely available and reusable for research. I alone am responsible for errors or omissions. Notes 1 Kintight (2013) 1. 2 Kintight et al. (2014a, b). 3 IPCC (2014). See also Dearing et al. (2006). 4 Blondel et al. (2010). 5 Norgaard (1984). 6 The project (2017–2020) was directed by the University of London and financed by the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2015-031). Its results have been extensively published in the 2019 special issue of The Holocene; see in particular Bevan et al. (2019). 7 The project is still in progress (2019–2023), under the direction of Durham University and with funds from the ERC – Starting Grant programme (802424). Resulting papers include Hewett et al. (2022); Lawrence et al. (2021); Palmisano et al. (2021). 8 See Huggett (2020); Wesson and Cottier (2014). 9 Clarke (2003). 10 Broodbank (2013) 36–9. 11 See Crema (2012); Lawrence and Bradbury (2012). 12 Review in Frankel (2009).

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  83 13 Fyfe et al. (2018). 14 Pollen archives from sediment cores currently consist of two continuous cores from the Akrotiri marsh published in Hazell et al. 2022, two continuous cores from the Larnaka lake published in Kaniewski and Van Campo 2013 and Kaniewski et al. 2020, and two peat cores from the Troodos area published in Christodoulou 2015. 15 Lucas and Fuller (2020). 16 Palmisano et al. (2022) 2, referring to Rick (1987). 17 Palmisano et al. (2019); Woodbridge et al. (2019). 18 Palmisano et al. (2022). 19 The 52 sites are the results of some corrections made on the original 55 sites in the archive, due to the duplication of Klimonas/Ayios Tychonas Klimonas, Maroni-Tsaroukkas/ Maroni Tsaroukkas, and Akrotiri Aetokremmos/Simmons Akrotiri Aetokremnos. 20 Michczyńska et al. (2007). 21 See, respectively, Scirè Calabrisotto and Fedi (2017); Violaris et al. (2013); Düring et al. (2018); Agostini et al. (2023). 22 See respectively Wild et al. (2019); Kaniewski et al. (2019). 23 Crema and Bevan (2021). 24 Palmisano et al. (2021) 9, fig 3. 25 Chelazzi (2023) 161–7. 26 Palmisano et al. (2019); Woodbridge et al. (2019). 27 Knapp (2010); Moutsiou (2021); Wasse (2007). 28 Cheng et al. (2015); Roberts et al. (2008); Ünal-Imer et al. (2015). 29 Simmons (2011). 30 See Fuller et al. (2018) 65, table 1. 31 See Simmons (2012); Carter (1989). 32 Colledge and Conolly (2007). 33 See also Flohr et al. (2016); Roffet-Salque et al. (2018). 34 Particularly, Mesopotamia, Levant and Iran according to Palmisano et al. (2021). 35 See Clarke and Wasse in this volume for the level B-III transition at Khirokitia and its possible association with the 8.2k cal. BP event. 36 Clarke (2007); Wasse (2007). 37 Lucas and Fuller (2020) 254, fig. 3. 38 Clarke et al. (2016) 110. 39 Peltenburg (1996); see also Düring in this volume. 40 Lucas and Fuller (2020) 250, fig. 2. 41 Knapp (2013) 263–75. 42 Cookson et al. (2019). 43 Woodbridge et al. (2019). 44 See Palmisano et al. (2019). 45 Spigelman (2006). 46 Lucas (2014) 66. 47 Hazell et al. (2022). 48 Crawford and Vella (2022).

Bibliography Bevan, A., A. Palmisano, and J. Woodbridge (2019), ‘The Changing Face of the Mediterranean – Land Cover, Demography and Environmental Change: Introduction and Overview’, The Holocene 29.5, 703–7. Blondel, J., J. Aronson, J.Y. Bodiou, and G. Boeuf (2010), The Mediterranean Region: Biological Diversity in Space and Time. Oxford. Broodbank, C. (2013), The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London.

84  Francesca Chelazzi Carter, P.L. (1989), ‘Fauna from the 1976 Season’, in L.E. Stager and A. Walker (eds), American Expedition to Idalion Cyprus 1973–1980. 244–58. Chicago. Cheng, H., A. Sinha, S. Verheyden, F.H. Nader, X.L. Li, P.Z. Zhang, J.J. Yin, L. Yi, Y.B. Peng, Z.G. Rao, and Y.F. Ning (2015), ‘The Climate Variability in Northern Levant over the Past 20,000 Years’, Geophysical Research Letters 42.20, 8641–50. Chelazzi, F. (2023), ‘From isolated data silos to an integrated and multi‑proxy regional synthesis. Cyprus in the context of exploring ancient patterns of human-environment-climate interaction’, Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 52–53, 153–178. Christodoulou, A.M. (2015), Ιστορική εξέλιξη της δασικής βλάστησης της ορεινής περιοχής Τρόοδος της Κύπρου. (Unpublished PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) Thessaloniki. Clarke, J. (2003), ‘Insularity and Identity in Prehistoric Cyprus’, in J. Guilaine and A. le Brun (eds), Le Néolitique de Chypre. 203–18. Athens. Clarke, J. (2007), ‘Site Diversity in Cyprus in the Late 5th Millennium cal. BC: Evidence from Kalavasos-Kokkinoyia’, Levant 39, 13–26. Clarke, J., N. Brooks, E.B. Banning, M. Bar-Matthews, S. Campbell, L. Clare, M. Cremaschi, S. di Lernia, N. Drake, M. Gallinaro, S. Manning, K. Nicoll, G. Philip, S. Rosen, U.-D. Schoop, M.A. Tafuri, B. Weninger, and A. Zerboni (2016), ‘Climatic Changes and Social Transformations in the Near East and North Africa during the ‘Long’ 4th Millennium BC: A Comparative Study of Environmental and Archaeological Evidence’, Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 96–121. Colledge, S. and J. Conolly (2007), ‘A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence for the Origins of Farming on Cyprus and Crete’, in S. Colledge and J. Conolly (eds), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe. 53–74. Walnut Creek. Cookson, E., D.J. Hill, and D. Lawrence (2019), ‘Impacts of Long Term Climate Change ­during the Collapse of the Akkadian Empire’, Journal of Archaeological Science 106, 1–9. Crawford, K.A. and M.-A. Vella (2022), ‘Cyprus Dataset: Settlements from 11000 BCE to 1878 CE’, Journal of Open Archaeology Data 10.7, 1–6. Crema, E.R. (2012), ‘Modelling Temporal Uncertainty in Archaeological Analysis’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19.3, 440–61. Crema, E. and A. Bevan (2021), ‘Inference from Large Sets of Radiocarbon Dates: Software and Methods’, Radiocarbon 63.1, 23–39. Dearing, J.A., R.W. Battarbee, R. Dikau, I. Larocque, and F. Oldfield (2006), ‘Human-Environment Interactions: Learning from the Past’, Regional Environmental Change 6, 1–16. Düring, B.S., V. Klinkenberg, C. Paraskeva, V. Kassianidou, E. Souter, P. Croft, and A. Charalambous (2018), ‘Metal Artefacts in Chalcolithic Cyprus: New Data from Western Cyprus’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18.1, 11–53. Flohr, P., D. Fleitmann, R. Matthews, W. Matthews, and S. Black (2016), ‘Evidence of Resilience to Past Climate Change in Southwest Asia: Early Farming Communities and the 9.2 and 8.2 ka Events’, Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 23–39. Frankel, D. (2009), ‘What Do We Mean by ‘Regionalism’?’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium BC: Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Proceedings of a Workshop held at the 4th Cyprological Congress, May 2nd 2008, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 15–25. Vienna. Fuller, D.Q., L. Lucas, L. Gonzalez Carretero, and C.J. Stevens (2018), ‘From Intermediate Economies to Agriculture: Trends in Wild Food Use, Domestication and Cultivation among Early Villages in Southwest Asia’, Paléorient 44.2, 61–76.

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  85 Fyfe, R., J. Woodbridge, and N. Roberts (2018), ‘Trajectories of Change in Mediterranean Holocene Vegetation through Classification of Pollen Data’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 27, 351–64. Hazell, C.J., M.J. Pound, and E.P. Hocking (2022), Response of the Akrotiri Marsh, Island of Cyprus, to Bronze Age Climate Change, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 57, 110788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2021.11078. Hewett, Z., M. de Gruchy, D. Hill, and D. Lawrence (2022), ‘Raincheck: A New Diachronic Series of Rainfall Maps for Southwest Asia over the Holocene’, Levant 54.1, 5–28. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2022.2052660 Huggett, J. (2020), ‘Is Big Digital Data Different? Towards a New Archaeological Paradigm’, Journal of Field Archaeology 45, S8–S17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.20 20.1713281 IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part B: Regional Aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge. Kaniewski, D., N. Marriner, J. Bretschneider, G. Jans, C. Morhange, R. Cheddadi, T. Otto, F. Luce, and E. Van Campo (2019), ‘300-Year Drought Frames Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Transition in the Near East: New Palaeoecological Data from Cyprus and Syria’, Regional Environmental Change 19, 2287–97. Kaniewski, D., E. Van Campo, J. Guiot, S. Le Burel, T. Otto, and C. Baeteman (2013), ‘Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis’, PLoS ONE 8.8, e71004. Kaniewski, D., N. Marriner, R. Cheddadi, P.M. Fischer, T. Otto, F. Luce, and E. Van Campo, E. (2020), ‘Climate Change and Social Unrest: A 6,000-Year Chronicle From the Eastern Mediterranean’, Geophysical Research Letters 47, e2020GL087496. Kintight, K.W. (2013), ‘Grand Challenges for Archaeology – Crowd Sourcing Report’, The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR id: 391233). https://doi.org/10.6067/XCV8R78G30. Kintight, K.W., J.H. Altschul, M.C. Beaudry, R.D. Drennan, A.P. Kinzig, T.A. Kohler, W.F. Limp, H.D.G. Maschner, W.K. Michener, T.R. Pauketat, P. Peregrine, J.A. Sabloff, T.J. Wilkinson, H.T. Wright, and M.A. Zeder (2014a), ‘Grand Challenges for Archaeology’, PNAS 111.3, 879–80. Kintight, K.W., J.H. Altschul, M.C. Beaudry, R.D. Drennan, A.P. Kinzig, T.A. Kohler, W.F. Limp, H.D.G. Maschner, W.K. Michener, T.R. Pauketat, P. Peregrine, J.A. Sabloff, T.J. Wilkinson, H.T. Wright, and M.A. Zeder (2014b), ‘Grand Challenges for Archaeology’, American Antiquity 79.1, 5–24. Knapp, A.B. (2010), ‘Cyprus’s Earliest Prehistory: Seafarers, Foragers and Settlers’, Journal of World Prehistory 23, 79–120. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Lawrence, D. and J. Bradbury (2012), ‘Chronology, Uncertainty and GIS: A Methodology for Characterising and Understanding Landscapes of the Ancient Near East’, in W. Bebermeier, R. Hebenstreit, E. Kaiser, and J. Krause (eds), Landscape Archaeology: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Berlin, 6th – 8th June 2012. 1007–37. Berlin. Lawrence, D., A. Palmisano, and M.W. de Gruchy (2021), ‘Collapse and Continuity: A Multi-proxy Reconstruction of Settlement Organization and Population Trajectories in the Northern Fertile Crescent during the 4.2 kya Rapid Climate Change Event’, PLoS One 16.1, e0244871. Lucas, L. (2014), Crops, Culture, and Contact in Prehistoric Cyprus. Oxford. Lucas, L. and D.Q. Fuller (2020), ‘Against the Grain: Long-Term Patterns in Agricultural Production in Prehistoric Cyprus’, Journal of World Prehistory 33, 233–66.

86  Francesca Chelazzi Michczyńska, D.J., A. Michczyński, and A. Pazdur (2007), ‘Frequency Distribution of Radiocarbon Dates as a Tool for Reconstructing Environmental Changes’, Radiocarbon 49.2, 799–806. Moutsiou, T. (2021), ‘Climate, Environment and Cognition in the Colonisation of the Eastern Mediterranean Islands during the Pleistocene’, Quaternary International 577, 1–14. Norgaard, R.B. (1984), ‘Coevolutionary Agricultural Development’, Economic ­Development and Culture Change 32.3, 525–46. Palmisano, A., A. Bevan, D. Lawrence, and S. Shennan (2022), ‘The NERD Dataset: Near East Radiocarbon Dates between 15,000 and 1,500 cal. yr. BP’, Journal of Open Archaeology Data 10.2, 1–9. Palmisano, A., D. Lawrence, M.W. de Gruchy, E. Bevan, and S. Shennan (2021), ‘Holocene Regional Population Dynamics and Climatic Trends in the Near East: A First Comparison Using Archaeo-Demographic Proxies’, Quaternary Science Reviews 252, 106739. Palmisano, A., J. Woodbridge, C.N. Roberts, A. Bevan, R. Fyfe, S. Shennan, R. Cheddadi, R. Greenberg, D. Kaniewski, D. Langgut, and S.A. Leroy (2019), ‘Holocene Landscape Dynamics and Long-Term Population Trends in the Levant’, The Holocene 29.5, 708–72. Peltenburg, E. (1996), ‘From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus c. 3500–1500 BC’, in V. Karageorghis and D. Michalides (eds), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, 17–43. Nicosia. Rick, J.W. (1987), ‘Dates as Data: An Examination of the Peruvian Radiocarbon Record’, American Antiquity 52, 55–73. Roberts, N., M.D. Jones, A. Benkaddour, W.J. Eastwood, M.L. Filippi, M.R. Frogley, H.F. Lamb, M.J. Leng, J.M. Reed, M. Stein, and L. Stevens (2008), ‘Stable Isotope Records of Late Quaternary Climate and Hydrology from Mediterranean Lakes: The ISOMED Synthesis’, Quaternary Science Reviews 27.25/26, 2426–41. Roffet-Salque, M., A. Marciniak, P.J. Valdes, K. Pawłowska, J. Pyzel, L. Czerniak, M. Krüger, C.N. Roberts, S. Pitter, and R.P. Evershed (2018), ‘Evidence for the Impact of the 8.2-kyBP Climate Event on Near Eastern Early Farmers’, PNAS 115.35, 8705–9. Scirè Calabrisotto, C. and M. Fedi (2017), ‘Radiocarbon Dating’, in L. Bombardieri, Erimi Laonin tou Porakou. A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus. Excavations 2008– 2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 145. 293–300. Uppsala. Simmons, A. (2011), ‘Re-Writing the Colonisation of Cyprus: Tales of Hippo Hunters and Cow Herders’, in N. Phoca-Cosmetatou (ed.), The First Mediterranean Islanders: Initial Occupation and Survival Strategies. 55–75. Oxford. Simmons, A. (2012), ‘Ais Giorkis: An Unusual Early Neolithic Settlement in Cyprus’, Journal of Field Archaeology 37.2, 86–103. Spigelman, M. (2006), ‘Investigating the Faunal Record from Bronze Age Cyprus: Diversification and Intensification’, in A.P. McCarthy (ed.), Island Dialogues: Cyprus in the Mediterranean Network, 119–29. Edinburgh. Ünal-Imer, E., J. Shulmeister, J.X. Zhao, I.T. Uysal, Y.X. Feng, A.D. Nguyen, and G. Yüce (2015), ‘An 80 kyr-Long Continuous Speleothem Record from Dim Cave, SW Turkey with Paleoclimatic Implications for the Eastern Mediterranean’, Science Reports 5.1, 1–11. Violaris, Y., C. Scirè Calabrisotto, M. Fedi, L. Caforio, and L. Bombardieri (2013), ‘The Bronze Age Cemetery at Lophou-Koulauzou (Cyprus): Towards a Cross-Analysis of Radiocarbon Data and Funerary Assemblages from Burial Contexts’, in L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, and S. Valentini, (eds), SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. 331–43. Oxford.

A multi-proxy approach to human-environment-climate coevolution  87 Wasse, A. (2007), ‘Climate, Economy and Change: Cyprus and the Levant during the Late Pleistocene to Mid Holocene’, in J. Clarke (ed.), On the Margins of Southwest Asia. 43–63. Oxford. Wesson, C.B. and J.W. Cottier (2014), ‘Big Sites, Big Questions, Big Data, Big Problems: Scales of Investigation and Changing Perceptions of Archaeological Practice in the Southeastern United States’, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 24.16, 1–11. Wild, E., P.M. Fischer, P. Steier, and T. Bürge (2019), ‘14C-Dating of the Late Bronze Age City of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus: Status Report’, Radiocarbon 61.5, 1253–64. Woodbridge, J., C.N. Roberts, A. Palmisano, A. Bevan, S. Shennan, R. Fyfe, W.J. Eastwood, A. Izdebski, C. Çakırlar, H. Woldring, and N. Broothaerts (2019), ‘Pollen-inferred Regional Vegetation Patterns and Demographic Change in Southern Anatolia through the Holocene’, The Holocene 29.5, 728–4.

5

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities The case of Chalcolithic Cyprus Bleda S. Düring

Introduction The rise of social inequality constitutes one of the key topics in archaeology. In recent years, concerns on how marked social inequalities have undermined democratic institutions, social solidarity, and economic productivity have added relevance to this topic.1 Some historians and archaeologists have postulated that persistent social inequalities emerged in the Neolithic.2 The idea is usually that these intergenerational differences in economic, social, and cultural power are universally present once sufficient (agricultural) resources could be monopolised.3 However, this idea can be called into question. Various archaeologists working on early farming societies in Western Asia – covering the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods – have shown that there are no convincing data to support the existence of persistent social inequalities in agricultural communities before the emergence of urban societies.4 These assessments were mainly qualitative in nature and have been augmented in recent years with quantitative methods in the form of the Gini coefficient, a measure developed by economists to study modern economic inequalities. Applying this tool – that expresses wealth differentiation in a specific category (e.g., income or house size) – to large aggregate datasets, it was postulated that social inequality only increased significantly with the rise of urbanism and plough-based agriculture in Western Asia.5 Thus, both qualitative and quantitative studies suggest that social inequalities were less strongly developed in Neolithic and Chalcolithic societies (with the obvious exception of Uruk Mesopotamia). This does, of course, not mean that early farming societies in Western Asia were all consistently egalitarian. David Wengrow and David Graeber, drawing on the richly outfitted Palaeolithic burials at Sunghir, suggested that societies shifted between egalitarianism and (seasonal forms of) social inequality throughout history.6 Similar examples exist in Western Asia, for example, at Nahal Mishmar and at İnönü Cave.7 Chalcolithic Cyprus, I will argue, is another example of such a context, in which potential indicators of social inequality exist in a cultural context where you might not expect them. I concur with Wengrow and Graeber that such

DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-5

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  89 possible manifestations of social inequality are worthy of investigation and should not be dismissed without it. The case of Chalcolithic Cyprus The Cypriot Chalcolithic (ca. 4000–2400 BCE) can be characterised as a society consisting of relatively small village communities consisting of no more than about a 1000 people8 with a mixed subsistence strategy including horticulture, animal husbandry, hunting, and gathering of plant foods. These village communities were part of a dense network of settlements located at relatively small distances (for example, the distance between Kissonerga-Mospihilia, Lemba-Lakkous and ChlorakasPalloures is only about 1.5 km) and these village communities would probably have been strongly interconnected (Fig. 5.1). Chalcolithic societies on Cyprus

Figure 5.1 Map of Western Cyprus with the most important Chalcolithic sites indicated. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg.

90  Bleda S. Düring clearly differ from later Bronze Age urban societies with extensive plough-based agriculture which are strongly correlated with well-developed social inequalities.9 Yet, at the same time, there are good indications for social differentiation in Chalcolithic Cyprus. These take a variety of forms to mark social distinctions and differentiate between people in death, including clear differences in the sizes and elaboration of houses, elaborate feasting, and the use of craft objects made of valuable and exotic materials.10 There is no evidence, however, that such distinctions were consolidated into persistent (intergenerational) social inequalities.11 For example, elaborate houses were abandoned (and sometimes set on fire), long before the end of their uselife. Likewise, there are no qualitatively different forms of elite houses, burials, or artefacts. Chalcolithic Cyprus, therefore, seems a good place to pick up the gauntlet left by Wengrow and Graeber and to discuss what forms social inequalities took and how these are manifested in material remains, what the temporality of these social inequalities was, and how social inequalities were (re)produced in various social practices. In this paper, I will investigate these issues by focussing on differentiation in (Late) Chalcolithic houses. The world writ small? The Chalcolithic house Chalcolithic round houses were highly standardised in their spatial configuration, with a raised hearth at the centre and a clean plaster platform to the right side of the entrance, that would have been used for resting and socialising, whereas other parts of the building were used for storage and cooking activities.12 Thus, it would be possible to interpret these houses as schematic metaphors of the Chalcolithic world view, which were used to inculcate societal norms into the young and reproduce and manifest social ideas on matters such as gender and seniority, as has been argued for ethnographic and archaeological cases in the past.13 While there is clearly a standard ordering of space in Chalcolithic roundhouses, closer analyses have also revealed a good amount of variability in house configurations and dynamic processes of change in these buildings.14 This variability and the dynamic changes in house use therefore suggest that focussing on the ‘ideal’ house configuration as a representation of the Chalcolithic cosmos risks simplifying complex and continuously negotiated realities into a static rendering of societal norms. Apart from the variable and dynamic spatial configuration of Chalcolithic houses, these buildings also differed considerably in their size and elaboration (Fig. 5.2). The smallest buildings are about four metres in diameter and would have been just large enough to serve as a home. Other buildings, however, can measure up to 14 metres in diameter and have well-executed, plastered and sometimes painted floors.15 Remarkably, all these buildings are essentially variations on a theme, with similar structures and arrangements, and even the largest buildings appear to be domestic residences. There is no compelling evidence, for example, that larger buildings were used for primarily ritual purposes or served as communal buildings of some sort.

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  91

Figure 5.2 Building sizes of Chalcolithic house at the Lemba Archaeological Project and Chlorakas-Palloures. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg.

Therefore, these buildings have been interpreted as household residences pr­imarily, with larger and more elaborate houses representing higher status households. The prevailing model is that in the Middle Chalcolithic, households competed for social statuses, which were fluid in nature, and that the fortunes of houses were intertwined with the charisma and activities of aspiring leaders, who used cultic events to shore up their following and status.16 In the end, this jockeying for status along social and cultic lines did not develop into lasting advantages for particular groups in society. Subsequently, in the Late Chalcolithic, powerful households supposedly shifted to monopolising economic resources, as epitomised in the rich inventory of the ‘Pithos Building’ at Kissonerga-Mosphilia, which provides evidence for large-scale storage, but which was destroyed in a large conflagration. This shift from ritual to economic power neatly mirrors a distinction made by John Robb between ritual elites (as in Neolithic Malta) and political elites (based on wealth and class, as in Iron Age Italy).17 Chalcolithic houses might thus have been used to represent and constitute social inequalities. In this contribution, I will scrutinise this idea by discussing a number of buildings from Late Chalcolithic sites in western Cyprus, and in particular what the evidence for wealth in these houses might have meant in social terms. The idea

92  Bleda S. Düring is to evaluate whether or not wealth monopolisation by dominant households, as postulated by Edgar Peltenburg, is plausible. Revisiting the Pithos Building

The Pithos Building at Kissonerga-Mosphilia, or more prosaically ‘Building 3’, has played a key role in the articulation of the idea that wealth monopolisation by dominant households emerged in the Late Chalcolithic. In this building, some 280 complete objects were found, including various types of ground stone tools and about 58 storage vessels, with an estimated capacity of 4000 litres.18 These objects were found in a thick ashy deposit that also contained parts of burned beams, and, more disturbingly, an infant, which were interpreted as evidence for a substantial conflagration that happened by accident. According to Peltenburg, this building is evidence of control over agricultural resources by an emerging elite in Late Chalcolithic society.19 At this point, we need to ask whether this explanation is indeed the most parsimonious one. First, while the Pithos Building undoubtedly represents a remarkable concentration of objects and wealth, it does not necessarily follow that these were owned by a powerful household group, as Peltenburg has suggested. Alternatively, the goods in the building could have been owned by a larger community. In fact, it was noted by the excavators that the building was in poor condition when it burned down The Pithos House was in a worn state when the fire tore through the building. Evidence for this comes especially from the poor condition of the floor which may once have had a light plaster, but had become so dilapidated it was difficult to trace in the excavation20 This state of the building does not fit well with the idea that this was the house of an affluent household able to monopolise wealth. Instead, we could postulate that the house was used as a storage facility, which could have been used either by a private party or communally owned. Second, we can ask how the building caught fire. It is difficult to burn down a Chalcolithic roundhouse, as there is not much combustible material that can burn, given that floors, walls, and even the roofs are primarily made of loam, and the only wooden components present, give or take a few baskets, are the posts and beams supporting the roof, and the wooden door. Experiments at the Lemba Experimental Village revealed that, indeed, burning Chalcolithic buildings is difficult,21 and this point has likewise been made for loam buildings elsewhere.22 In numerous parallel examples, archaeologists made a case that such burning events in loam buildings were orchestrated, given that large amounts of fuel needed to be added. For the Pithos Building, Peltenburg argued that large quantities of olive oil were kept in the storage vessels in the building and that these vessels accidently caught fire, causing the conflagration seen in Building 3, and trapping an unfortunate infant in the process. This scenario can be questioned, however. There is no evidence to

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  93 suggest that olive oil was indeed cultivated and produced in such quantities in Chalcolithic Cyprus.23 Further, olive oil is actually difficult to set on fire without additional fuels. This is precisely why olive oil is well suited for oil lamps, as the risk of the fire spreading beyond the wick is negligible. Thus, an accident scenario in which large amounts of olive oil accidently caught fire appears unlikely. Instead, I would postulate an alternative scenario for what happened in the Pithos Building. Large quantities of objects and their contents were placed in a dilapidated building for an unknown period of time. These would have constituted a substantial concentration of wealth in this Chalcolithic community. At some point, a considerable amount of fuel was added, after which the structure was set on fire. The horizon with mixed ash, objects, and debris – which included charred beams (posts or roof beams) was about 50 cm deep in Building 3,24 suggesting that possibly something other than oil burned as well, given that oil would hardly leave a residue after it had burnt. Wealth disposal practices in Late Chalcolithic reconsidered I have focused on the Pithos Building here because the manner in which this building and its content were generated determines how we interpret the wealth represented in its inventory in social terms. If we accept Peltenburg’s interpretation of an accidental fire of a building containing large quantities of olive oil, then the idea of economic monopolisation by an elite household becomes plausible, as the fire would have accidentally ‘frozen’ the wealth of a private party. By contrast, if the fire was orchestrated, with the intentional addition of fuel, it is conceivable that some of the inventory of the building – including the infant found within it (presumably already deceased) – were also purposefully placed inside the building before it was set on fire as a social event in which the ritual destruction of wealth played a key role. If the latter is true, then it is possible to interpret the Building 3 assemblage in ways that diverge greatly from one reflecting elite wealth monopolisation. At this point, it is crucial to contextualise the Pithos Building in a broader set of practices surrounding the abandonment of buildings in Chalcolithic settlements on Cyprus. Many Chalcolithic buildings were terminated long before the end of their uselife, and this event often included practices such as the deposition or leaving behind of valuables, setting fire to buildings, or blocking their doorways.25 There can be little doubt that such premature terminations of building represented destructions of wealth in their own right, and in cases in which these terminations included large quantities of storage vessels and other artefacts in a burned context, this destruction of wealth is amplified. Remarkably, at the sites of KissonergaMosphilia around one in five buildings (6 out of 32) was terminated in such a conflagration practice, whereas at Chlorakas-Palloures the ratio at the moment is about one in ten buildings (2 out of 20). In many buildings, we see evidence for a relatively short-lived use of the structure, the closing off of entrances, or the deposition of valuable cache assemblages prior to abandonment. In this respect, the wealth destruction exemplified by the Pithos Building can be seen as one end of a spectrum of house termination practices.

94  Bleda S. Düring Let’s review in brief some examples of house termination practices at the Late Chalcolithic site of Chlorakas-Palloures. The first example is Building 1, which is one of the largest buildings known from the Chalcolithic on Cyprus. It measures about 14 metres in diameter, has very well-built walls of about a metre wide, and a beautiful lime floor that runs to the building portico over a threshold ramp. The building has various unique features, including a massive hearth platform – two metres across – two large stone (diabase) slabs of unknown purpose, and a large mortar installation of unknown function. Apart from being monumental in scale, Building 1 clearly adheres to the normal spatial configuration and characteristics of Chalcolithic houses. Remarkably, we have no evidence for use of the floor in Building 1 (Fig. 5.3). We took a series of micromorphological samples, which were analysed by Victor Klinkenberg.26 The floor material is about 2 cm thick and consists of crushed and powdered local havara limestone and differs from other floors excavated at Chalcolithic sites. This is a very poorly constructed surface and extremely brittle. Importantly, the floor does not exhibit any traces of activities in the form of residues or trampling, suggesting that the floor was only briefly in use. Thus, it seems plausible that Building 1 was not used much for domestic purposes after the floor was put in place, and having been built with great effort, probably was in use as a residence only briefly. In general, buildings in Chalcolithic Cyprus often appear short lived, and cases of superimposition (reuse of earlier walls) and renovation of buildings are rare. Instead, buildings were regularly shifted when they were constructed, often necessitating the partial removal of earlier walls.27 Later in the sequence, Building 1 was used in a less formal manner, with makeshift floors and various fireplaces as well as evidence for chipping chert and flint.28 At this stage, the monumental doors were possibly no longer in place, as a substantial cache of chipped stone flakes and blades made of moni chert was placed over the pivot stone. A similar closure of building entrances is also seen in other buildings, for example, in Building 16 at Chlorakas-Palloures, where the entrance was blocked with a makeshift stone wall placed in the threshold, and additional blockings occur in various buildings at Kissonerga-Mosphilia.29 A second building from Chlorakas-Palloures that I would like to discuss is Building 6, in which we found a complete jar. This jar with three lugs contained five bone hooks made from pig tusks, a large stone flat axe, and a – so far unique – copper axe, that we now know was produced from Anatolian Taurus ores.30 This must have been a very valuable assemblage to own in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus. Yet, this unique assemblage was deposited in this jar and left in a building, never to be retrieved. So, like for Building 1, we have items that would have been very useful to mark social distinctions and prestige being deliberately ended or put away in a cache deposit. A third building from Chlorakas-Palloures that deserves mention is that of Building 15, which resembles the Pithos Building of Kissonerga-Mosphilia in many ways. Although the building has suffered from disturbances by agriculture and earthworks, it has a series of well-preserved and nearly complete ceramic vessels, which are located in the centre of the building (Fig. 5.4). The building as we

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  95

Figure 5.3  Plan of Building 1 at Chlorakas-Palloures. Produced by Victor Klinkenberg.

now understand it has various plastered floor layers in sequence and a series of plastered features. In the centre of the building is a large, plastered hearth, the core of which, however, is not well-preserved. It might have been converted into a jar stand, which would suggest that the building was no longer functioning as a house but had been converted into a storage building. Overlying the upper floor was a series of deposits, which included fragments of charred beams, collapsed building materials, and a substantial deposit of ashy material, suggesting that, like in Building 3, fuel was placed in the structure before it was purposefully burned down. On the basis of this brief review, I would suggest that the termination of buildings in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus was a recurring and therefore culturally meaningful

96  Bleda S. Düring

Figure 5.4  In situ jars in Building 15 at Chlorakas-Palloures.

practice. This termination often included an element of wealth destruction, ranging from the decommissioning and sealing of (monumental) buildings that were in good shape, to the placement of valuable caches in abandoned buildings, to the deliberate and orchestrated burning down of storage buildings containing large quantities of storage vessels possibly containing staples as well as other types of objects. Thus, I argue that the Pithos Building of Kissonerga-Mosphilia should be regarded as a well-preserved and spectacular example of a series of practices surrounding building termination. Now, I would like to turn to the broader implications of this perspective. The meaning of wealth in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus The pertinent question in this paper is what the marked concentrations of wealth for which we have evidence in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus mean. These wealth concentrations take the form of a differentiation in house sizes, caches of valuables deliberately taken out of circulation, and of large concentrations of assemblages and possibly staples that were intentionally burned. Traditionally, there has been the idea that by the Late Chalcolithic powerful households were trying to monopolise economic resources, as epitomised in the rich inventories of the Pithos Building, which was interpreted as the inventory of an elite household that accidentally caught fire. In this paper, this interpretation is challenged, and it is argued that the Pithos Building is but one example of a spectrum of practices of house termination, which often involved some form of deliberate wealth destruction, be it of the house itself, of caches with valuable materials or artefacts, or of large assemblages of artefacts associated with the staple economy. How can we understand such termination practices? Why make the effort of constructing such buildings, when they were in use only briefly? Why deliberately terminate a house and accumulated wealth? One model that can be found

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  97 in many ethnographic and archaeological studies is one in which houses are intimately linked to the identity of a charismatic person, and in which houses are used to articulate their status.31 House termination then may result from changes in household fortunes, such as the death of a key household member.32 For Late Chalcolithic Cyprus, a dynamic social system, in which status could be achieved and lost due to changing circumstances, could well explain the building termination practices we see. House and wealth destruction could, for example, be a practice linked to the sudden or inauspicious death of a charismatic leader. While such scenarios cannot be proven in our archaeological context, the discovery of the skeleton of a young child in the wealth destruction context of the Pithos Building at Kissonerga-Mosphilia does suggest that social considerations were of key significance in these events. If my argument that the termination of the Pithos Building was an orchestrated spectacle holds true, this child (hopefully already deceased) might have symbolised the unravelling of a social group. While there is clearly some evidence for social differentiation in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus, with some people making efforts to build larger houses, amassing large amounts of objects and goods that were part of the staple economy or caching valuable materials or artefacts (including prestigious objects that were obtained through long-distance trade networks), these forms of wealth did not last. Instead, (monumental) houses were terminated long before the end of their use life, caches were deposited in decommissioned buildings, and wealth concentrations were deliberately burned down in orchestrated events. If anything, these examples show very clearly that wealth was not transferable in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus from one generation to the next, and that social inequalities could therefore not be consolidated. Perhaps, it is this very intransigence that was the reason why charismatic people tried so hard to stand out, knowing full well that their wealth and status was temporary in nature. I would therefore concur with the position recently put forward by Wengrow and Graeber,33 that prehistoric societies shifted in and out of forms of social inequality, and that social inequalities were often achieved only briefly, before unfolding again. I would argue that the Late Chalcolithic dataset is one in which we can start to fruitfully explore how this might have functioned in practice. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Lærke Recht and Teresa Bürge for inviting me to contribute to this volume. Notes 1 Stiglitz (2012); Piketty (2014); van Bavel (2016). 2 Fukuyama (2011); Mattison et al. (2016); Scheidel (2017). 3 Mattison et al. (2016); Haynie et al. (2021). 4 Kuijt (2002); Price and Bar-Yosef (2010); Hodder (2022), also Hulin et al. (2018); ­Leppard (2019). 5 Bogaard et al. (2018) 212; Stone (2018); Basri and Lawrence (2020) 698.

98  Bleda S. Düring 6 Wengrow and Graeber (2015); Graeber and Wengrow (2021). 7 Golden (2009); Yalçın et al. (2021). 8 Peltenburg (1998a) 255; see Chelazzi (this volume) for new population estimates in prehistoric Cyprus. 9 Frankel (2000); Manning (2019). 10 Bolger (2013); Peltenburg (2018); Düring et al. (2021), for connections in the preceding Neolithic see Clarke and Wasse (this volume), for connections in the subsequent Early and Middle Bronze Age, see Webb (this volume). 11 Peltenburg (1993); (2014); Bolger et al. (2019) 330–3. 12 Peltenburg (1998a) 237–40. 13 Bourdieu (1973); Schulte Nordholt (1980); Hodder (1990). 14 Schubert (2018); Klinkenberg (2022). 15 Peltenburg (1998a); Schubert (2018). 16 Peltenburg (1998a) 241–55. 17 Robb (2007) 340–41. 18 Peltenburg (1998a) 252; Knapp (2013) 248–9. 19 Peltenburg (1998a) 252–5. 20 Peltenburg (1998b) 38. 21 Peltenburg (1998b) 42; Thomas (2005). 22 Stevanović (1997); Verhoeven (2000); Twiss et al. (2008). 23 Margaritis (2013); Langgut et al. (2019). 24 Peltenburg (1998b) 37. 25 Klinkenberg (2022). 26 Klinkenberg (2021). 27 Klinkenberg (2022). 28 Düring et al. (in press). 29 Klinkenberg (2022). 30 Düring et al. (2018); (2021). 31 Carsten and Hugh-Jones (1995); Borić (2008). 32 Bloch (1995); Verhoeven (2000). 33 Wengrow and Graeber (2015); Graeber and Wengrow (2021).

Bibliography Basri, P. and D. Lawrence (2020), ‘Wealth Inequality in the Ancient Near East: A Preliminary Assessment Using Gini Coefficients and Household Size’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30.4, 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000177. Bloch, M. (1995), ‘The Resurrection of the House amongst the Zafimaniry of Madagascar’, in J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones (eds), About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. 69–83. Cambridge. Bogaard, A., A. Styring, J. Whitlam, M. Fochesato, and S. Bowles (2018), ‘Farming, Inequality, and Urbanization. A Comparative Analysis of Late Prehistoric Northern Mesopotamia and Southwestern Germany’, in T.A. Kohler and M.E. Smith (eds), Ten Thousand Years of Inequality. 201–29. Tucson. Bolger, D. (2013), ‘A Matter of Choice: Cypriot Interactions with the Levantine Mainland during the Late 4th–3rd Millennium BC’, Levant 45, 1–18. Bolger, D., L. Crewe, and E. Peltenburg (2019), ‘Ritual, Identity and Community at Souskiou: Traditions and Transformations’, in E. Peltenburg, D. Bolger, and L. Crewe (eds), Figurine Makers of Prehistoric Cyprus: Settlement and Cemeteries at Souskiou. 323–36. Oxford. Borić, D. (2008), ‘First Households and “House Societies” in European Prehistory’, in A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice. 109–42. Chichester.

Rethinking the emergence of social inequalities  99 Bourdieu, P. (1973), ‘The Berber House’, in M. Douglas (ed.), Rules and Meaning. 98–110. Suffolk. Carsten, J. and S. Hugh-Jones (1995), About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge. Düring, B.S., S. De Ceuster, P. Degryse, and V. Kassianidou (2021), ‘Transformative Copper Metallurgy in Chalcolithic Cyprus: A Reappraisal’, Antiquity 95, 670–85. Düring, B.S., V. Klinkenberg, C. Paraskeva, V. Kassianidou, E. Souter, P. Croft, and A. Charalambous (2018), ‘Metal Artefacts in Chalcolithic Cyprus: New Data from Western Cyprus’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18, 11–25. Düring, B.S., V. Klinkenberg, E. Souter, P. Croft, and M. Gamble (in press), ‘The 2015–2017 Excavations at the Site of Chlorakas-Palloures’, Reports of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Frankel, D. (2000), ‘Migration and Ethnicity in Prehistoric Cyprus: Technology as Habitus’, European Journal of Archaeology 3, 167–87. Fukuyama, F. (2011), Origins of Political Order: From Pre-Human Times to the French Revolution. New York. Golden, J. (2009), Dawn of the Metal Age, Technology and Society during the Levantine Chalcolithic. London. Graeber, D. and D. Wengrow (2021), The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York. Haynie, H.J., P.H. Kavanagh, F.M. Jordan, C.R. Ember, R.D. Gray, S.J. Greenhill, K.R. Kirby, G. Kushnick, B.S. Low, T. Tuff, B. Vilela, C.A. Botero, and M.C. Gavin, (2021), ‘Pathways to Social Inequality’, Evolutionary Human Sciences 3, e35. Hodder, I. (1990), The Domestication of Europe, Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford. Hodder, I. (2022), ‘Staying Egalitarian and the Origins of Agriculture in the Middle East’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 32.4, 619–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774322000063. Hulin, L., L. Crewe, and J.M. Webb (eds) (2018), Structures of Inequality on Bronze Age Cyprus: Studies in Honour of Alison K. South. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PB 187. Nicosia. Klinkenberg, V. (2021), ‘Building Function through Micromorphology of Floors at Chalcolithic Chlorakas-Palloures, Cyprus’, in L. Amadio (ed.), Archaeology in the Smallest Realm, Micro Analyses and Methods for the Reconstruction of Early Societies in Cyprus. 32–49. Rome. Klinkenberg, V. (2022), ‘Building Biographies of the Cypriot Chalcolithic’, Levant 54.3, 295–308. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Kuijt, I. (2002), ‘Keeping the Peace’, in I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. 137–64. Boston. Langgut, D., R. Cheddadi, J.S. Carrión, M. Cavanagh, D. Colombaroli, W. Eastwood, R. Greenberg, T. Litt, A.M. Mercuri, A. Miebach, C.N. Roberts, H. Woldring, and J. Woodbridge (2019), ‘The Origin and Spread of Olive Cultivation in the Mediterranean Basin: The Fossil Pollen Evidence’, The Holocene 29, 902–22. Leppard, T.P. (2019), ‘Social Complexity and Social Inequality in the Prehistoric Mediterranean’, Current Anthropology 60, 283–308. Manning, S.W. (2019), ‘Environment and Sociopolitical Complexity on Prehistoric Cyprus: Observations, Trajectories and Sketch’, in C. Kearns and S.W. Manning (eds), New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology. 99–130. Ithaca and London. Margaritis, E. (2013), ‘Distinguishing Exploitation, Domestication, Cultivation and Production: The Olive in the Third Millennium Aegean’, Antiquity 87, 746–57.

100  Bleda S. Düring Mattison, S.M., E.A. Smith, M.K. Shenk, and E.E. Cochrane (2016), ‘The Evolution of Inequality’, Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 25, 184–99. Peltenburg, E. (1993), ‘Settlement Discontinuity and Resistance to Complexity in Cyprus, ca. 4500–2500 B.C.E’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292, 9–23. Peltenburg, E. (1998a), ‘The Character and Evolution of Settlements at Kissonerga’, in E. Peltenburg, Excavations at Kissonerga-Mosphilia 1979–1992. 233–60. Jonsered. Peltenburg, E. (1998b), ‘Structures and other Occupational Evidence from the Aceramic Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age’, in E. Peltenburg, Excavations at KissonergaMosphilia 1979–1992. 22–64. Jonsered. Peltenburg, E. (2014), ‘Cyprus during the Chalcolithic Period’, in A.E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE. 252–64. Oxford. Peltenburg, E. (2018), ‘The Entry of Cyprus into the Circum-Aegean World and the Growth of Regionalism on the Island’, in S. Dietz, F. Mavridis, Z. Tankosić, and T. Takaoğlu (eds), Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area in the 5th and 4th Millennia BC. 458–67. Oxford. Piketty, T. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA. Price, T.D. and O. Bar-Yosef (2010), ‘Traces of Inequality at the Origins of Agriculture in the Ancient Near East’, in T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (eds), Pathways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality. 147–68. New York. Robb, J. (2007), The Early Mediterranean Village: Agency, Material Culture, and Social Change in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge. Scheidel, W. (2017), The Great Leveller: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton. Schubert, B.K.H. (2018), What Is in a House? An Investigation on the Differentiation of Chalcolithic Architecture in Cyprus. (MA thesis, Leiden University) Leiden. Schulte Nordholt, H.G. (1980), ‘The Symbolic Classification of the Atoni of Timor’, in J.J. Fox (ed.), The Flow of Life, Essays on Eastern Indonesia. 231–47. Cambridge, MA. Stevanović, M. (1997), ‘The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 334–95. Stiglitz, J.E. (2012), The Price of Inequality. New York. Stone, E.C. (2018), ‘The Trajectory of Social Inequality in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in T.A. Kohler and M.E. Smith (eds), Ten Thousand Years of Inequality. 230–61. Tucson. Thomas, G. (2005), The Prehistoric Buildings of Chalcolithic Cyprus: The Lemba Experimental Village. Oxford. Twiss, K.C., A. Bogaard, D. Bogdan, T. Carter, M.P. Charles, S. Farid, N. Russell, M. Stevanovic, E.N. Yalman, and L. Yeomans (2008), ‘Arson or Accident? The Burning of a Neolithic House at Çatalhöyük, Turkey’, Journal of Field Archaeology 32, 41–57. van Bavel, B. (2016), The Invisible Hand? How Market Economies Have Emerged and Declined since AD 500. Oxford. Verhoeven, M. (2000), ‘Death, Fire and Abandonment: Ritual Practice at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria’, Archaeological Dialogues 7, 46–65. Wengrow, D. and D. Graeber (2015), ‘Farewell to the “Childhood of Man”: Ritual, Seasonality, and the Origins of Inequality’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 21, 597–619. Yalçın, Ü., F.G. Ekmen, and H. Ekmen (2021), ‘Chalcolithic Age Gold Bead from İnönü Cave, Zonguldak’, Anatolica 67, 277–98.

6

Metal artefact production and distribution in Early and Middle Bronze Age Cyprus Patterns of intraregional and interregional connection and disconnection Jennifer M. Webb

Introduction In line with the theme of this volume, this chapter will attempt to identify and elucidate social structures and networks in Early and Middle Bronze Age Cyprus (alternatively the Early Cypriot (EC) and Middle Cypriot (MC) periods) (ca. 2400–1700 BCE), through a close analysis of a particular set of material culture, in this case the mould-cast copper-base artefacts which are one of the defining features of the Bronze Age on the island. It will focus on the evidence for production and distribution within the corpus of metal artefacts from across the island as a means of investigating relationships between raw material source areas, producers, and consumers, and thus networks, sites, and regions (for the location of sites, see Fig. 6.1).1 Key to this study is the question of how metal artefact production was organised. The villages of prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus have long been thought to

Figure 6.1  Map of Cyprus showing sites mentioned in the text (prepared by the author). DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-6

102  Jennifer M. Webb have lacked the level of technical and socio-economic organisation required for the centralised production of goods, including metal artefacts, leading to the suggestion that ‘commerce between settlements was assured by itinerant merchants, who transported products in raw, semi-processed or finished form from place to place according to established need and demand’.2 A picture is now emerging, however, of more complex and interconnected communities and of a craft economy that, by the Middle Bronze Age if not before, included the production of goods in formal workspaces.3 This prompts new questions about the organisation of the metal industry. Did a limited number of producer to consumer relationships control the metal industry and the production, in particular, of objects requiring a higher level of skill or a greater range of metal types, or were artefacts produced in workshops across the island? In what follows the available evidence for metalworking will be briefly examined, noting James D. Muhly’s caveat that ‘it is easy to list the sites involved in metallurgical operations’ but ‘difficult to define the exact nature of the activities carried out’.4 This applies in particular to distinguishing between casting and refining and the manufacture of finished artefacts. The main focus, however, will be on the artefacts themselves – their number, distribution, and degree of standardisation in form, technique, and composition. The location of copper ore bodies in the Troodos pillow lavas required interregional economic transfers between primary and secondary production sites. The networks implicated in these transfers have been discussed elsewhere.5 The focus here will be on the location of workshops engaged in artefact production and the distribution of finished objects. The assemblage is grouped in four chronological entities, each lasting some 150 to 200 years, which cover metallurgical developments from the initial phase of the EC (Philia EC) to MC III. While dating objects is frequently problematic, this allows a measure of diachronic control. These are, however, deposition dates. Evidence for long-term use of artefacts suggests that production dates may be significantly earlier.6 The Philia EC (ca. 2400–2250 BCE) Analytical studies of Philia Early Cypriot (Philia EC) fine ware pottery from across the island show a high degree of standardisation, with marked mineralogical and chemical uniformity and a restricted repertoire of shapes suggesting production at one or more closely related sites, thought to have been located on the north coast.7 Stuart Swiny, similarly, noted the island-wide distribution of Philia EC spiral earrings and ‘most other metal types’ and suggested that this lack of regionalism in the metal assemblage is indicative of ‘a degree of craft specialization and standardization caused by the presence of a central authority’.8 The provenanced Philia EC assemblage includes 110 spearheads, daggers, axes, razors, awls, chisels, needles, toggle pins, earrings, and ring ingots from widely dispersed sites (Figs 6.2a and 6.3a).9 Five spearheads, all probably from Vasilia, are of two different types – hook-tang and tripartite – with the latter almost certainly imports. Axes have a distinctive polygonal or, less often, rounded butt with

Metal artefact production and distribution  103

Figure 6.2 Provenance of copper-base artefacts from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods.

a perforation, the latter possibly blanks or ingots rather than axes proper.10 Daggers are triangular double-sided blades with a broad flat midrib and flat rectangular tang, either rivetless or with a rivet at the apex. Swiny11 observed what he suggests are intentionally asymmetrical shoulders and small V-shaped notches on one or more edges of the tang, apparently connected to hafting. Giorgos Georgiou,12 noting similar notches on a dagger from Ayia Paraskevi, suggests that they indicate ‘standard manufacturing procedures during the Philia phase’. The most common metal artefacts are earrings (alternatively toe or hair rings) comprised of a triangular sheet rolled into a spiral.13 They account for 33 per cent of the assemblage with 36 examples. While varying in size they are of identical form and have been found across the island. Five roughly cast rings from Vasilia have been identified as ingots.14 At least three appear to be of non-Cypriot origin.15 Four toggle pins from Vasilia with biconical and quadrangular heads and drilled

104  Jennifer M. Webb

Figure 6.3 Artefact types within the provenanced assemblage from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods.

apertures are probably also imports.16 The needles, razors, and awls are of less distinctive types, which continue largely unchanged into subsequent periods. Compositional analysis shows that 56 per cent of Philia EC artefacts are of relatively pure copper (Cu), with 29 per cent of arsenical copper (Cu-As), including several imports (Fig. 6.4a).17 Seven tin bronzes (Cu-Sn, Cu-As-Sn) include two imported spearheads, an axe of local type, and four earrings.18 The latter are the most diverse group, with 15 analysed examples variously of Cu, Cu-As, Cu-Sn, and Cu-As-Sn. Evidence for production contexts is ambiguous and limited. At Marki, a mould with an axe-shaped cast with a minimum volume of ca. 140 cm3 is indicative of primary casting and ingot-production.19 It may have come from a smith’s workshop, the presence of which is suggested by a concentration of metal, including a possibly unfinished knife, a chisel, several needles, and an uncoiled earring.20 A dagger-shaped object of similar date from Sotira has also been identified as an ingot,21 raising the possibility of primary processing at this site. At Vasilia, one and possibly two metal hoards which contain ring ingots, worn and damaged objects, and finished, unused items, suggest that smiths (or merchants) on the north coast were engaged in the accumulation and recycling of objects of unalloyed copper, arsenical copper, and tin bronze.22 Exploitation of the high-arsenic copper ores of the Limassol Forest has often been seen as the impetus for the spread of Philia settlement south of the Troodos range.23 The dagger-shaped ingot from Sotira, if such it is, is of arsenical copper with arsenic recorded at 3.5 per cent. Use of these ore bodies may also be indicated by lead isotope analysis (LIA) of two axes which are isotopically consistent with copper from Petromoutti/Yerasa in the Limassol area.24 LIA also suggests that a

Metal artefact production and distribution  105

Figure 6.4 a–d. The composition of provenanced artefacts from a. the Philia EC, b. EC I–II, c. EC III–MC I, and d. the MC II–III periods; e. The relative percentage of Cu/ Cu-As and tin alloys in each period.

significant amount of the copper in objects from the north coast is of non-Cypriot origin.25 While we need to keep in mind the caveats relating to LIA, this raises the possibility that the north coast was receiving copper from both external and internal sources in the Philia EC. The Philia EC assemblage is characterised by consistency of form and simplicity of manufacture. Local smiths focused on the production of daggers, earrings, needles, awls, and razors, using relatively pure copper with a more limited use of arsenical copper and tin bronze. No attempt appears to have been made to reproduce imported artefact types. While Marki and perhaps Sotira and Pyrgos were engaged in the production of ingots, there is currently no evidence to suggest that these settlements were involved in the manufacture of artefacts on any scale, though they may have been reworking items for local use. Beyond a single bronze axe or axe-ingot, tin appears to have been used only in the occasional production of earrings. While much remains unclear, this suggests that metal artefacts were produced in a limited number of workshops and dispersed, perhaps along with fine ware pottery, within a system maintained by regular interaction and a flow of manufactured goods. The presence at Vasilia of metal hoards, as well as of all reliably

106  Jennifer M. Webb provenanced imports, leaves little doubt that this settlement was involved in a trade in metals and likely also a centre of artefact production and distribution. If crossisland patterns in material culture can be taken as an indicator of connectivity, then the homogeneity of metal artefacts and the near island-wide distribution of pottery from northern workshops suggest successful long-distance commodity networks.26 These appear to have operated by way of the Ovgos Valley and are likely to have involved a northward movement of copper from extraction zones via intermediary settlements engaged in ingot-production. EC I–II (ca. 2250–2100 BCE) The provenanced assemblage of Early Cypriot (EC) I–II currently stands at 108 objects (Figs 6.2b and 6.3b). The earrings so common in the previous period disappear and the dagger is now the most frequent artefact type followed by spearheads. Other types are rare. Two toggle pins and two plain-shafted pins from Vounous, at least two of which contain tin, are undoubtedly imports.27 Plain-shafted pins do not appear to have been locally produced before EC II. Needles, razors, chisels, and awls are similar to Philia EC types. Daggers have a narrower and sharper midrib than their predecessors but retain the rectangular tang, now with a single rivet. Several examples with additional straddling rivets on the shoulder from Vounous suggest external influence.28 The earliest EC spearheads have a heavy blade with broad straight shoulders and a square- or rectangularsectioned tang which ends in a right-angled terminal with a rectangular stud. In EC II, the stud reduces to a thickened convex terminal, typically bent at >90° and shoulder forms are more variable. Axes have square, medium-sized butts and nonflaring or slightly flaring cutting edges. They are different in form and smaller than Philia EC axes. The type continues with minor differences in butt shape and an increasingly flared cutting edge until the end of the MC. The majority of artefacts (76 per cent) have been recovered on the north coast, primarily at Vounous. Where they appear elsewhere, they do so in similar forms. The early spearhead type is rare beyond Vounous and Lapithos, but identical spearheads have been recovered at Ayia Paraskevi, Episkopi, and Psematismenos.29 Examples of the later type, with thickened convex terminals, are also found at Kalavasos, Episkopi, and Avdimou.30 Daggers, common at Vounous, appear in similar form at Ayia Paraskevi and Kalavasos and smaller examples, reduced by sharpening, at Marki, Avdimou, and Paramali.31 The situation with pins is somewhat different. Two from Karmi have simple thickened heads while the earliest pins from Kalavasos, Episkopi, Pyrgos, Psematismenos, and Paramali have conical heads, raising the possibility that they were produced in this region.32 Cu remained the most common metal in EC I–II but the incidence of Cu-As rises to 35.3 per cent (Fig. 6.4b). The presence of arsenic at over 3 per cent in at least eight artefacts leaves little doubt that high-arsenic Limassol Forest ores were being exploited or imported arsenide minerals added to create the alloy.33 Cu-Sn is rare beyond the likely imports and reported only at Vounous,34 suggesting a limited import of tin or tin bronze or the recycling of earlier imports on the north coast.

Metal artefact production and distribution  107 In sum, the EC I–II assemblage is characterised by a small number of typologically similar artefacts and a limited range of metal types. Except for conical-headed pins, they are represented primarily by examples from the north coast but found in the centre and south in similar forms. While most are relatively simple objects, easily beaten out of a billet cast in an open mould, the spearheads with stud terminals and sharp midribs would almost certainly have required the use of bivalve moulds. Given the large amount of metal also involved in their production, they are likely to have been made in a limited number or even a single workshop. There is no clear evidence for the location of these workshops. Two casting moulds from Marki have multiple boat- and tongue-shaped negatives which are clearly ingot forms.35 They leave no doubt that ingots continued to be produced at Marki but evidence for artefact production remains elusive. The substantial presence of metal in north coast tombs indicates that these communities, and Vounous in particular, were acquiring metal in some quantity. Cross-regional ceramic imports suggest interaction between the north coast and the centre of the island, perhaps involving a northward trade in copper ingots.36 A ceramic blowpipe tip from Tomb 119 at Vounous may, further, indicate metal processing on the north coast.37 Given this site’s distance from the extraction zone, this is most likely to have been associated with melting and casting for artefact production. There is less evidence for direct contact between the more distant north and south coasts but stylistic emulation of north coast vessel types, notably the tulip bowls common at Vounous, is visible at Psematismenos, Kalavasos, and elsewhere.38 EC III–MC I (ca. 2100–1850 BCE) The number of provenanced artefacts rises sharply in Early Cypriot (EC) III– Middle Cypriot (MC) I, with a total of 1056 from 15 sites (Figs 6.2c and 6.3c). This represents a significant increase in both production and distribution, but the recovery bias toward the north coast remains very high, with Lapithos accounting for a much larger number than Vounous by MC I. Awls, axes, and chisels are typologically similar to earlier examples. Tweezers, primarily of the pinched spring type, make their first secure appearance on the north coast in EC III. Razors continue in their earlier form, with a single rivet in the tang or two in the tang or shoulder. Flat-tanged daggers with a single rivet also continue but daggers with one rivet in the tang and two in the shoulder appear at Vounous and Lapithos in EC III, likely a development from earlier examples with ‘straddling’ rivets. New forms with blunt, pointed, rounded, or triangular butts and three rivets become increasingly common in MC I.39 This shift from tanged to tangless forms is accompanied by an increase in the use of arsenical bronze and may have been a response to the different properties of this alloy, as well as of the introduction of shoulder rivets, which strengthened the attachment.40 It is also likely to have been influenced by imported tangless daggers, six of which have been recovered at Vounous and Lapithos.41 Spearheads have square or rectangularsectioned tangs ending in a thickening, slightly more than right-angled terminal, continuing a development which began in EC II, but examples with notched and

108  Jennifer M. Webb grooved shoulders and short hooked tangs appear at Vounous and Lapithos by EC III. In MC, I they continue their trajectory toward lighter blades with hammered and notched heart-shaped shoulders, circular-sectioned tangs, and thinner, fully hooked terminals.42 These artefact types are relatively rare beyond the north coast and for the most part found in similar forms, with axes, awls, and chisels present in settlement deposits at Sotira and Marki. Needles from Vounous and Lapithos, however, typically have a flattened oval eyelet below an elongated pointed head, while those from Marki have low rounded heads like their predecessors.43 The presence of different needle forms suggests that some utilitarian items were produced at multiple locations by MC I, with the north coast type perhaps influenced by contact with Anatolia.44 Conical-headed pins continue to be found primarily in the south. Pins from Vounous, Lapithos, and Karmi have plain, thickened, knob, or button heads.45 New disk-headed pins, which appear at Lapithos before the end of EC III, were considered by Catling to have been made in bivalve moulds and likely of foreign origin.46 Some are very long, up to 41 cm, and may be distaffs rather than pins.47 Splay-centred pins, found only at Lapithos, may be the work of a single smith or workshop.48 Toggle pins continue to make a limited appearance on the north coast. Four of five analysed examples are of high tin bronze, several have incised decoration and drilled eyelets and eight button-headed examples are virtually identical to toggle pins from Syria, suggesting that some if not all are imports.49 New artefact types include ‘spatulate objects’, almost certainly the blades of composite tweezers once fixed in a handle of wood or other organic material, small spatulas known only from Lapithos, and closed and spiral rings/earrings.50 Other new types, found primarily in the centre and south, include tubular ‘hair ornaments’ with punched decoration, and metal strips with beads attached.51 The compositional data show a significant increase in the use of Cu-As with Cu now rare and largely confined to spearheads and pins (Fig. 6.4c). The use of tin bronze has increased slightly, particularly in the production of daggers. Three bronze daggers, a pair of tweezers and probably all four high tin toggle pins are, however, imports.52 Almost 90 per cent of EC III–MC I metal artefacts have been recovered on the north coast, with some types currently recorded exclusively or almost exclusively from this region. This is true also of the imports53 and suspected imports, of the 29 analysed tin bronze objects, except for a needle from Marki and two rings from Alambra, and of a unique spindle and double ‘spatula’ from Lapithos Tomb 201A.54 Gold, silver, and lead artefacts also appear exclusively in north coast tombs, in forms subsequently produced in copper-base metal (rings, tubular ornaments, leaves with punched decoration).55 MC I has produced the first direct evidence for the mining and primary processing of copper. Pottery and stone hammers found in ancient workings in mine shafts at Ambelikou and a nearby workshop with a casting hearth, work platforms, an ingot mould, a blowpipe nozzle, deep mortars, and heavy stone tools used for crushing and grinding leave no doubt that enriched copper sulphide ores were

Metal artefact production and distribution  109 mined, smelted, and cast into axe-shaped ingots here in MC I.56 Ceramic connections between Ambelikou and Lapithos further suggest that metal was moving northward to Lapithos and that miners and smelters at Ambelikou, and perhaps also at Katydata, were operating within a procurement network mobilised if not directly managed from the north coast.57 Moulds used to produce bar ingots ‘or for casting intermediate smelting or refining products’ from Alambra date to MC I or MC II.58 Together with crucible fragments, slag, and ore, they led Noël H. Gale et al.59 to conclude that metallurgy at Alambra involved the small-scale smelting of local oxidised copper ores. There is no evidence for on-site artefact production and the arsenic levels in some analysed artefacts were considered too high to have been produced by local ores.60 At Pyrgos metallurgical installations of similar date may indicate the full chaîne opératoire of copper production (mining, smelting, crushing, refining, casting, and polishing). There are oxide and sulphide ores in the vicinity and clay moulds with axe-shaped negatives with cast lengths of 210–230 mm are likely to have been ingots rather than axes.61 Such casts would have contained substantial amounts of metal and suggest that copper was being produced beyond the needs of the settlement. Concomitant with the increase in metal in north coast tombs, an increase in the movement of regional products between north and south coast settlements is indicated by the presence of north coast White Painted II ware at Pyrgos, imported Red Polished III ware at Erimi, vessels of south coast origin at Lapithos and picrolite disks, beads of picrolite and jasper and other distinctive south coast products with parallels at Episkopi, Erimi, and Pyrgos in tombs at Lapithos and Vounous.62 These imply a significant volume and flow of goods between the central south and the central north coast from MC I. The axe-shaped casting moulds from Pyrgos and Ambelikou suggest that this was the primary form in which copper was transported from extraction zones for secondary production and export. While the majority of artefacts, however, may have been produced in northern workshops, the different morphology of needles and pins and the appearance of new ornament types in the south suggest the production of utilitarian objects and some finer work in sheet metal beyond the north coast by MC I. MC II–III (ca. 1850–1700 BCE) The provenanced assemblage of Middle Cypriot (MC) II–III amounts to over 1600 artefacts from more than thirty sites, with increasing numbers from Kalopsida, Ayios Iakovos, and Nitovikla in the east, and Kalavasos and Limassol in the south, as well as from Katydata, Linou, Deneia, and Ayia Paraskevi (Fig. 6.2d). The bias toward the north coast, however, is as high as in the previous period, with 89.2 per cent of the assemblage from this region and almost entirely from Lapithos (for a representative sample of MC metal artefacts from Lapithos, see Fig. 6.5). All artefact types continued in production (Fig. 6.3d). Spearheads and daggers are particularly common at Lapithos. Plain-shafted pins, while still common, gave way to toggle pins on the north coast, where they rapidly increased in number. Rings/earrings are also common, alongside an increasing number in lead. New

110  Jennifer M. Webb

Figure 6.5 MC artefacts from Lapithos. a. Spearheads, b. Daggers, c. Axes, d. Awls, e. Chisel, f. Needles, g. Razors, h. Tweezers, i. Spiral, j. Composite tweezer blade, k. Hook, l. Pins, and m. Toggle pins (photographs by Rudy Frank).

artefact types include the enigmatic ‘hooks’, known only from Lapithos, a unique socketed ‘fork’ from Lapithos, and three objects identified as ‘shield-bosses’ but more probably decorative disks once attached to a leather or fabric belt or belts from Ayios Iakovos.63 Ornaments found only at southern sites in the previous period continue to appear exclusively in this region along with several new bead or necklace forms.64 A spearhead from Kalavasos and one in the Limassol Museum, both of which lack the usual hooked terminal, may belong to a regional style, hinting at small-scale local production of more complex object types.65 The compositional data, based on a sample of 466 artefacts, show that while arsenical copper remained the single most common metal type, tin alloys, present as 11.7 per cent of EC III–MC I artefacts, now make up 54 per cent of the assemblage (Fig. 6.4d–e). Rarely used for spearheads and pins, they account for 57.1 per cent and 78.7 per cent of daggers and toggle pins, respectively. This suggests the use of special-purpose alloys for artefacts requiring edge hardness or, in the case of toggle pins, to achieve a golden or silvery surface colour.66 Tin bronze, previously found almost entirely on the north coast, was now also in broader use, with 31 artefacts (primarily daggers) recorded from Pyrgos, Limassol, Kalavasos, and

Metal artefact production and distribution  111 Anoyira in the south, Linou in the northern Troodos, and Kalopsida, Ayios Iakovos, and Nitovikla in the east. A wider array of metal types, including leaded bronzes and copper-zinc alloys, was also in use at Lapithos.67 As neither lead nor zinc is present in high concentrations in local ore bodies, this suggests the recycling of imported leaded bronzes or/and the use of non-Cypriot copper. An increase in the recycling of tin bronze is also indicated by a rise in the presence of tin at 40 cm in length, have also been found at Lapithos. If they were produced in local workshops, their distribution beyond this site and its immediate networks may have been actively restricted. I have suggested elsewhere that this investment in weaponry was directed outward to protect Lapithos’ role in the management and distribution of copper.75 The intense mortuary consumption of metal at Lapithos may also be linked with changing attitudes towards metal value reflected in the apparent accumulation in some tombs of alienable wealth in the form of mortuary hoards.76 Together with the manipulation of exotic goods for political purposes, this accumulation of symbolic capital suggests the emergence of inheritable categories of wealth and status. Lapithos may, at this time, have been moving towards an exclusionary political economy, dependent on network strategies by which leaders controlled the production, transport, and exchange of prestige goods, setting them apart from the rest of the island in patterns of production, consumption, and deposition.

112  Jennifer M. Webb Discussion A number of observations emerge from the above. Most obvious is the influence of the central north coast on metal production throughout the Early and Middle Cypriot. All certain or probable imported artefacts have been found at Vasilia, Vounous, and Lapithos. This is true also of unique objects, which are either also imports or indicative of a level of expertise and innovation not matched elsewhere on the island. Most if not all artefacts made in a bivalve mould may also have been produced on the north coast and most if not all those of tin bronze prior to the developed Middle Cypriot. New types, including those which seem to replicate foreign styles, also appear first in this region, along with almost all imports of gold, silver, and lead. Given that most of the assemblage is from this region – due in large part to extensive excavation of tombs here in the first half of the twentieth century – this is to a large extent predictable. After almost 50 years of excavation in the centre and south (and no legitimate excavation in the north since 1974), it is unlikely, however, to be the whole explanation. Virtually identical metal artefacts appear to have been in (limited) use throughout the island in the Philia EC and EC I–II. The lack of diversity in morphology and metal type suggests production in a small number of workshops and I have proposed, on the limited available evidence, that these were located on the north coast. Vasilia was certainly involved in the introduction of metalworking expertise and raw materials to the island and both Vasilia and Vounous, the latter the paramount settlement on the north coast through the Early Cypriot, are likely to have been centres of production and distribution. Except for conical-headed pins, which may have been produced in the south, artefact types represent a single line of evolution. In both periods, interregional connections appear to have involved a northward movement of copper from seasonal or permanent mining camps via intermediary settlements engaged in ingot-production, and a reciprocal exchange of finished artefacts. Other commodities exchanged through these networks may have included picrolite and decorated flasks and their contents.77 Regional differences in needle and pin types and the appearance of new ornament forms in the south suggest the production of some objects in regional workshops in EC III–MC I and MC II–III. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, however, that the north coast, and now specifically Lapithos, continued to be a large-scale producer and distributor of finished metal goods. Lapithos is also likely to have been the principal port from which Cypriot copper was exported in the first half of the second millennium BCE. The movement of distinctive pottery and plank figures outward from Lapithos suggests a procurement network linking the north coast with ore bodies in the northern Troodos via Deneia and Ayia Paraskevi and smaller villages, including Krini, Marki, and Politiko.78 The distribution of arsenic in artefacts from Lapithos, which appears to reflect natural ore content rather than a deliberate alloy, further suggests that high-arsenic ores from the Limassol Forest were available to north coast metalsmiths in significant quantities.79 Involvement in international maritime trade is likely to have provided opportunities for elites at Lapithos to control the means of production, establish direct access to raw materials, and oversee the movement of goods and resources.80

Metal artefact production and distribution  113 The extent to which this involved management of the distribution of imported tin, bronze, lead, and precious metals to metalsmiths and consumers across the island remains unclear. It would appear, however, that by MC II, if not before, Lapithos not only had a monopoly on the supply of metals but also on high value artefacts like spearheads and toggle pins, which rarely appear elsewhere even within Lapithos’ immediate network. These shifting patterns of connection and disconnection suggest that, over the course of the Middle Cypriot, competition for control over access to raw metals and finished artefacts may have been one of the factors responsible for increasing instability, visible in the plethora of weapons at Lapithos, the construction of the earliest forts in the Kyrenia Pass, and progressive settlement abandonment.81 The resulting disruption of interregional networks, accompanied by innovations in economic specialisation and labour organisation in the south, may have led to attempts by communities in the extraction zone to mediate access to metal resources – and ultimately to the demise of the asymmetrical economic relations between source areas and the north coast which appear to have dominated the metal industry through the Early and Middle Cypriot periods. Acknowledgements My gratitude goes to the editors for the invitation to contribute to this volume and to David Frankel, Bernard Knapp, and Giorgos Papasavvas for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft. Notes 1 The paper draws on work being undertaken with A. Charalambous, V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas from the University of Cyprus for the project ‘Using innovative techniques to study and identify ancient copper alloys’. Figures 6.2–6.4 are based on current data. The numbers will change as new artefacts are published and new compositional analyses are carried out. 2 Merrillees (1982) 374. 3 See Webb and Knapp (2021). 4 Muhly (1989) 302. 5 Webb (2019). 6 See, for example, Webb (2020) 479–82. 7 Dikomitou-Eliadou (2014) 203–5. 8 Swiny (1989) 18. 9 This does not include artefacts from Pyrgos which await full publication; see Belgiorno (2009). 10 Webb et al. (2006) 275. 11 Swiny (2003) 371–2. 12 Georgiou (2002) 59. 13 Balthazar (1990) table 176. 14 Webb et al. (2006) 275. 15 Webb et al. (2006) 271, table 5, no. 3; Stos-Gale and Gale (1994) table 11, 1957.23–24. 16 Kafkallia Tomb 1 dromos 12–13, Kilistra Tomb 101.3, Tomb A.6 (Hennessy et al. (1988) 26, 28–29, 43, figs 53, 61). 17 Arsenical copper (Cu-As) is defined as copper containing >1wt% arsenic; see ­Charalambous and Webb (2020).

114  Jennifer M. Webb 18 Webb et al. (2006) table 2, nos 2, 4, 8; Giardino et al. (2003) table 8.1.1, M13–14, M21–22. 19 Frankel and Webb (2006) 216–17, fig. 6.7, S850. 20 Frankel and Webb (2006) 185. 21 Giardino et al. (2003) 391, M12; and, less convincingly, as a dagger preform by Swiny (2003) 373. 22 Webb et al. (2006) 277–9. 23 E.g. Georgiou et al. (2011) 359–60. For these ore bodies see Gale et al. (1996) 392–4. 24 Webb et al. (2006) table 5, nos 1–2. 25 Ten of 12 analysed artefacts from Vasilia have LI signatures considered inconsistent with Cypriot ores; Webb et al. (2006) table 5, nos 3–5, 8–9, 14; Stos-Gale and Gale (1994) table 11, 1957.21–24. 26 Webb (2019). 27 Tombs 84.29–30, 91.15–16, Stewart and Stewart (1950) 66, 97, pl. CVId; Balthazar (1990) 126–7. 28 Tombs 105.25, 161.43–44, Stewart and Stewart (1950) 124, 220, pls. CIIIb, CIVa. 29 Georgiou et al. (2011) 305–6, figs. 6.2–6.4 with references. 30 E.g., Kalavasos Tombs 75.14, 78.12 (Lassen (2007) 252–3, figs. 42–43). 31 E.g., Ayia Paraskevi Tomb 12.4 (Hennessy et al. (1988) 20, fig. 18); Kalavasos Tomb 78.17 (Lassen (2007) 253, fig. 43.3). 32 Georgiou et al. (2011) 307–8, figs 6.2, 6.5 with references. A similar pin from Marki may have been wrongly assigned to the Philia EC, Frankel and Webb (2006) 186, M41, fig. 5.26. 33 Most analyses were undertaken on drilled samples and the quantitative data should therefore be more reliable than in the case of pXRF surface readings. 34 Balthazar (1990) 124, 127–8, Tombs 52.42, 87A.19, 100.8, 164A.54. 35 Frankel and Webb (2006) 215–16, S744–5, fig. 6.7. 36 Georgiou et al. (2011) 360–1. 37 Stewart and Stewart (1950) 171, no. 1, pl. XXa. 38 Georgiou et al. (2011) 361. 39 Balthazar (1990) tables 87–9. 40 As suggested by Gale et al. (1996) 137 and Catling (1964) 60. 41 Vounous Tombs 19.89, 143.32; Lapithos Tombs 2.8, 313C–D.31, 322A.54, 802A.31. 42 See Catling (1964) 56–9; Balthazar (1990) 308–10. 43 E.g., Sjöqvist (1934) pls. XXIII.2, XXIV.2, Lapithos Tombs 313A.115c, 313B.63; Webb (2020) fig. 3.41, Tomb 8.63–64 (later examples); Frankel and Webb (2006) 189, fig. 5.28. 44 Webb (2018a) 189–90 with references. 45 Balthazar (1990) tables 149, 151–3, 156. 46 Catling (1964) 71, Type C3a3; Balthazar (1990) table 154; Webb (2020) 491. 47 Webb (2018b) 46. 48 Balthazar (1990) 407, table 164; Webb (2018b) 45 with references. 49 E.g., Lapithos Tombs 28.39, 46Γ.18, 313A.53, 115d, 318.24a–b; Webb (2020) 318, 427, figs. 3.217, 3.220, 3.319; Gale et al. (1996) table 2.12; Sjöqvist (1934) 93, 127, pls. XXIII.2, XXXII.5, CXLIV.4. For similar toggle pins from Syria see Gernez (2012) 108–9, pls. 4.1–4, 5.1–2, 15.3–8. 50 Balthazar (1990) tables 138 (‘scrapers/awls’), 150 (‘pins with spatulate heads’), 178–9; Webb (2018a) 187–8. 51 Lassen (2007) 256, fig. 45.6–12, 16–18, 21–22, 25–26; Giardino et al. (2002) 37, no. 5. 52 Vounous Tombs 19.89, 33.78, 143.32; Lapithos Tombs 2.8, 28.39, 46Γ.18, 313A.53, 313B.84. 53 See note 51; also Lapithos Tombs 313C–D.31, 322A.35, 54, 802A.31. 54 Webb (2018b) 45–46, figs. 3–4, Tomb 201A.47–48.

Metal artefact production and distribution  115 55 Stewart and Stewart (1950) 239, pl. CVIIf, Vounous Tomb 164B.40 (EC I–II); Sjöqvist (1934) 148, pl. XXXV.2, Lapithos Tomb 322A.29–31; Grace (1940) ­44–7, fig. 31, pl.  XII, Lapithos Tomb 806A.24–27, 29, 132; Lapithos Tomb 204.74–77 (unpublished). 56 Webb and Frankel (2013). 57 Webb and Frankel (2013) 219–20. 58 Gale et al. (1996) 135–6, fig. 31. 59 Gale et al. (1996) 129–30, 359–60, 368, 400. 60 Gale et al. (1996) 401. 61 Belgiorno (2009). 62 Karageorghis (2017); Webb (2017) 172–9; (2018a) 237–8; (2018b) 47; (2020) 476. 63 Webb (2018a) 188; (2020) 275, figs. 3.184, 3.196; Sjöqvist (1934) 319–20, Tomb 6.104, 108, 161, pl. CXLII.13; Åström (1972) 148, fig. 15.3. 64 Belgiorno (1997) 129, fig. 12 (Pyrgos Tomb 21.60a); Webb et al. (2007) 111, 124, fig. 5 (Psematismenos Tomb PKK/94.9a–d). 65 Wheeler (1986) 161, fig. 40.2 (Kalavasos Tomb 36.46); Swiny (1986) 75, figs. 62, 66, LM RR211/7. 66 Charalambous and Webb (2020). 67 See also Charalambous and Webb (2020). 68 See Charalambous and Webb (2020). 69 Fall et al. (2008) 195; Todd (1993) 93; Giardino et al. (2003) table 8.1.1; Webb and Frankel (2012) 111. 70 Fall et al. (2008) 195, fig. 15. 71 Sneddon et al. (2022) 81, 132, fig. 7.1, M5–M6, pl. 16. 72 Belgiorno (1997) 141. 73 Catling (1964) 73. 74 Swiny (1986) 81, fig. 64; Giardino et al. (2002) 41, fig. 3.27. 75 Webb (2022). 76 Webb (2019) fig. 19. 77 Georgiou et al. (2011) 360. 78 Webb (2019). 79 Charalambous and Webb (2020). 80 Webb and Knapp (2021) 235. 81 Webb and Knapp (2021) 228–32.

Bibliography Åström, P. (1972), The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Volume IV.IB: The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund. Balthazar, J.W. (1990), Copper and Bronzeworking in Early through Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 84. Jonsered. Belgiorno, M.R. (1997), ‘A Coppersmith Tomb of Early-Middle Bronze Age in Pyrgos (Limassol)’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 119–46. Belgiorno, M.R. (2009), ‘Progetto Pyrame: Pyrgos ricerche archeologiche e archeometallurgiche, lo stato dell’arte a dicembre 2008’, in M.R. Belgiorno (ed.), Cipro all’inizio dell’Età del Bronzo. Realtà sconosciute della comunità industriale di Pyrgos/Mavroraki. 14–105. Rome. Catling, H.W. (1964), Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. London. Charalambous, A. and J.M. Webb (2020), ‘Metal Procurement, Artefact Manufacture and the Use of Imported Tin Bronze in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus’, Journal of Archaeological Science 113, 105047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.105047.

116  Jennifer M. Webb Dikomitou-Eliadou, M. (2014), ‘Rescaling Perspectives: Local and Island-Wide Ceramic Production in Early and Middle Bronze Age Cyprus’, in J.M. Webb (ed.), Structure, Measurement and Meaning: Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Frankel. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 143. 199–211. Uppsala. Fall, P.L., S.E. Falconer, M. Horowitz, J. Hunt, M.C. Metzger, and D. Ryter (2008), ‘Bronze Age Settlement and Landscape of Politiko-Troullia, 2005–2007’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 183–208. Frankel, D. and J.M. Webb (2006), Marki Alonia: An Early and Middle Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus. Excavations 1995–2000. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 123.2. Sävedalen. Gale, N., Z. Stos-Gale, and W. Fasnacht (1996), ‘Metal and Metalworking’, and ‘Copper and Copper Working at Alambra’, in J.E. Coleman, J.A. Barlow, M.K. Mogelonsky, and K.W. Schaar, Alambra: A Middle Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus: Investigations by Cornell University 1974–1985. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 118. 129–42, 359– 426. Jonsered. Georgiou, G. (2002), ‘The Necropolis of Agia Parasekvi Revisited’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 49–65. Georgiou, G., J.M. Webb, and D. Frankel (2011), Psematismenos-Trelloukkas: An Early Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Nicosia. Gernez, G. (2012), ‘La collection d’objets en bronze de Tell Sougha (ca. 2000 av. J.-C.) et la question des “Porteurs de Torques” au Levant’, Syria 89, 101–28. Giardino, C., G.E. Gigante, and S. Ridolfi (2002), ‘Archaeometallurgical Investigations on the Early-Middle Bronze Age Finds from the Area of Pyrgos (Limassol)’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 33–47. Giardino, C., G.E. Gigante, and S. Ridolfi (2003), ‘Archeometallurgical Studies’, in S. Swiny, G.(R.) Rapp, and E. Herscher (eds), Sotira Kaminoudhia: An Early Bronze Age Site in Cyprus. 385–96. Boston. Grace, V. (1940), ‘A Cypriot Tomb and Minoan Evidence for Its Date’, American Journal of Archaeology 44, 10–52. Hennessy, J.B., K.O. Eriksson, and I.C. Kehrberg (1988), Ayia Paraskevi and Vasilia. Excavations by J.R.B. Stewart. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 82. Göteborg. Karageorghis (2017), ‘A White Painted Ware Pyxis from Pyrgos-Mavrorachi’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (2011–2012), 365–72. Lassen, H. (2007), ‘Metal Artifacts’, in I.A. Todd, Vasilikos Valley Project 11. Kalavasos Village Tombs 52-79. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.11. 252–6. Sävedalen. Merrillees, R.S. (1982), ‘Archaeological Summary’, in J.D. Muhly, R. Maddin, and V. Karageorghis (eds), Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000–500 BC. 373–6. Nicosia. Muhly, J. (1989), ‘The Organisation of the Copper Industry in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus. 298–314. Edinburgh. Sjöqvist, E. (1934), ‘The Necropolis at Vrysi tou Barba’, in E. Gjerstad, J. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist, and A. Westholm, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition I: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931. 33–162. Stockholm. Sneddon, A., L. Graham, T. Rymer, and G. Deftereos (2022), The Middle Bronze Age Settlement at Alambra in Cyprus: Excavations 2012–2016. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 153. Nicosia. Stewart, E. and J.R. Stewart (1950), Vounous 1937–38: Field Report of the Excavations Sponsored by the British School at Athens. Lund. Stos-Gale, Z. and N. Gale (1994), ‘Metals’, in A.B. Knapp and J.F. Cherry, Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and Politico-Economic Change. 92–121. Madison.

Metal artefact production and distribution  117 Swiny, S. (1986), The Kent State University Expedition to Episkopi Phaneromeni Part 2. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 74.2. Nicosia. Swiny, S. (1989), ‘From Round House to Duplex: A Re-Assessment of Prehistoric Cypriot Bronze Age Society’, in E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus. 14–31. Edinburgh. Swiny, S. (2003), ‘The Metal’, in S. Swiny, G.(R.) Rapp, and E. Herscher (eds), Sotira Kaminoudhia: An Early Bronze Age Site in Cyprus. 369–84. Boston. Todd, I.A. (1993), ‘Kalavasos-Laroumena: Test Excavations of a Middle Bronze Age Settlement’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 81–96. Webb, J.M. (2017), ‘The Pottery’, in L. Bombardieri, Erimi Laonin tou Porakou: A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus: Excavations 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 145. 129–205. Uppsala. Webb, J.M. (2018a), Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus: Early and Middle Bronze Age Tombs Excavated by Menelaos Markides. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 148. Nicosia. Webb, J.M. (2018b), ‘Lapithos Tomb 201: A Singular Middle Bronze Age Burial Assemblage’, in L. Hulin, L. Crewe, and J.M. Webb (eds), Structures of Inequality in Bronze Age Cyprus: Studies in Honour of Alison K. South. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology PB 187. 35–52. Nicosia. Webb, J.M. (2019), ‘Shifting Centres: Site Location and Resource Procurement on the North Coast of Cyprus over the Longue Durée of the Prehistoric Bronze Age’, in G. Papantoniou and A. Vionis (eds), Central Places and Un-Central Landscapes: Political Economies and Natural Resources in the Longue Durée. 70–100. Basel. Webb, J.M. (2020), Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus: Early and Middle Bronze Age Tombs Excavated in 1913: Tombs 1–47. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 152. Nicosia. Webb, J.M. (2022), ‘Weapon-Bearers at Middle Bronze Age Lapithos, Cyprus’, in G. Vavouranakis and I. Voskos (eds), Metioessa: Studies in Honor of Eleni Mantzourani. AURA Supplement 10. 371–82. Athens. Webb, J.M. and D. Frankel (eds) (2012), Corpus of Cypriot Artefacts of the Early Bronze Age Part 4. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology III.4. Uppsala. Webb, J.M. and D. Frankel (2013), Ambelikou Aletri: Metallurgy and Pottery Production in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 138. Uppsala. Webb, J.M., D. Frankel, S.W. Manning, and D.A. Sewell (2007), ‘PsematismenosKoliokremmos/Palia Tomb PKK/94’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 105–30. Webb, J.M., D. Frankel, Z.A. Stos, and N. Gale (2006), ‘Early Bronze Age Metal Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: New Compositional and Lead Isotope Evidence from Cyprus’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25, 261–88. Webb, J.M. and A.B. Knapp (2021), ‘Rethinking Middle Bronze Age Communities on Cyprus: ‘Egalitarian’ and Isolated or Complex and Interconnected?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 29, 203–53. Wheeler, E.C. (1986), ‘Metal Artifacts’, in I.A. Todd (ed.), Vasilikos Valley Project 1: The Bronze Age Cemetery in Kalavasos Village. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71.1. 159–65. Göteborg.

7

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus between MC III and LC I in the regions of Limassol and Paphos Elena Peri

The Middle to Late Bronze Age transition on Cyprus, i.e. the period from Middle Cypriot (MC) III to Late Cypriot (LC) I (ca. 1750–1450 BCE),1 is characterised by transformations in settlement patterns, socio-economic conditions, and material culture. During this period, we see a change from an agro-pastoral economy, typical of the Early and the beginning of the Middle Cypriot periods, to a more ‘industrial’ and centralised economy. The intensification of copper production led to closer relations of the island with the central Mediterranean and the Near East.2 These economic changes and the expansion of external contacts had an impact on settlement patterns, which are manifested in a progressive abandonment of many earlier inland sites and the foundation of new centres along the coast. On the social level, the increasingly flourishing and ‘globalised’ economy led to an intensification of social stratification and the rise of elites at the beginning of the Late Cypriot period. These elites were mainly concentrated in the newly founded centres along the coast, as for example in Enkomi, Hala Sultan Tekke and Paphos. This phenomenon has been regarded as a long-term process starting in MC II developing during LC IIA–B (proto-urban phase) and peaking in the ‘urbanisation’ of LC IIC (urban phase).3 However, it has also been suggested that the urbanisation process was the result of significant changes happening in the short timeframe of about a century.4 Focusing on the transition between MC III and LC I, the most remarkable changes consist of the foundation of settlements closer to the coast, and the production and the circulation of new pottery wares and shapes. The latter includes the introduction of innovative technologies, such as the use of the wheel.5 The aim of this chapter is to take a closer look at the MC III to LC I transition from a ceramic perspective. For this study, the regions of Limassol and Paphos have been selected. Both regions have similar geographical features and a similar settlement pattern. Furthermore, the recent research carried out in these areas has provided new data. In particular, pottery production and distribution will be discussed in order to define not only the connections between these regions but also inter-island connections, as well as elements of cultural continuity and disruption during this transitional period.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-7

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  119 The geography of southwestern Cyprus The area of research is the southwestern part of Cyprus and includes the Limassol district, from Limassol to the Avdhimou Valley, and the Paphos district, between the Dhiarizos Valley to the east and the modern village of Kissonerga to the west (the Polis area has not been included as Bronze Age data in this region is sparse). Geographically, the area is divided into three zones: a mountainous area, which includes the southern Troodos foothills; an intermediate area, with hills and plateaus; and the coastal zone, characterised by an alluvial plain with some low plateaus with a maximum height of 100–200 metres. Most characteristics of western Cyprus are numerous fluvial valleys formed by rivers rising in the Troodos Mountains and flowing parallel to each other towards the sea. These valleys, which constitute a favourable place for the foundation of settlements during the Bronze Age, include the Kouris Valley, the Paramali Valley and the Avdhimou Valley in the Limassol region, and the Dhiarizos and Ezousa Valleys in the Paphos district.6 The pottery: chronology and provenance As mentioned, the transition between MC III and LC I is characterised by significant transformations of Cypriot pottery wares. It is currently difficult to disentangle some of the changes and the transformations that occurred in Cypriot Bronze Age pottery as, due to the lack of radiocarbon dates, the chronology is poorly understood and mainly based on stratigraphic sequences.7 A selection of the more common Cypriot wares typical of the end of the Middle and the beginning of the Late Cypriot period is included in this research. Figure 7.1 is a schematic representation of their chronological spread. Some wares which are typical of the Middle Cypriot period, such as Red Polished (RP), Drab Polished (DP), and White Painted (WP), possibly continue to be produced into the beginning of the subsequent period. The focus of the present study lies on the new shapes and wares that appear during the MC III–LC I transition and which are characteristic of the initial Late Cypriot period.8 Among these are Proto Base Ring (PBR) and Proto White Slip (PWS), which are dated to LC I and are regarded as the formative stages of White Slip (WS) and Base Ring (BR), respectively.9 The latter are the most typical finewares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. PWS can be distinguished from WS mostly by its decoration10 and its grittier fabric.11 There is no secure information about the provenance of this ware. According to Louise Maguire, the decoration of WS is inspired by the eastern parts of Cyprus, in particular from the Mesaoria and Karpas regions,12 while production areas can be localised in the Troodos zone.13 The production and the distribution of this ware is from LC I.14 PBR is more difficult to distinguish from BR:15 The decoration on PBR is Middle Cypriot inspired, characterised by incisions and relief bands. At the same time, morphological traits of the Late Cypriot period are introduced, such as so-called

120  Elena Peri

Figure 7.1 Chronological frame of Middle and Late Cypriot wares discussed in this chapter. Chronology for early Monochrome according to Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 223–4; White Slip I: Eriksson (2007) 61, 125; Proto White Slip: Eriksson (2001) 53–5, (2007) 61–70, 80; Base Ring I: Crewe (2007b) 37; Proto Base Ring: Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 224; Plain White Handmade and Wheelmade: Crewe (2009) 79, Crewe and Georgiou (2018) 61; Red on Black: Crewe (2007b) 38; Red and Black Slip (II, III, IV, V, Wheelmade): Crewe (2007b) 38, Webb (2014) 221; Drab Polished: Webb (2017) 181; Red Polished: Crewe et al. (2008) 113–15, Graham (2013) 112–13, Webb (2017) 133; Red Polished IV: Frankel and Webb (2007) 60–4; Red Polished Punctured: Herscher (1976) 11–19, (1981) 81, (1991) 47, Carpenter (1981) 60, 64–5, Webb (2017) 203; Red Polished III: Barlow (1991) 52, Crewe (2007b) 38, Frankel and Webb (2007) 44–5, Webb (2017) 203; Red Polished Mottled: Swiny (1979) 227–8; White Painted: Crewe (2007b) 35–6, Webb (2017) 130.  (All pottery images are from Karageorghis and Violaris 2012, courtesy of Yiannis Violaris. Illustration by T. Bürge and the author).

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  121 wishbone handles and everted rims.16 The base ring, typical of this ware in its latest versions (BR I and II), is entirely missing in its formative stage.17 PBR appears for the first time in Cyprus during LC IA:1.18 Another relevant ware to consider is Plain White (PW), a complex and often misunderstood19 ware which is known in a wide range of colours, surface treatments, and fabrics.20 While all other wares in this period were always handmade, this ware appeared both in a handmade version – chronologically placed between MC II and LC IA – and in a wheelmade version, which began to be diffused from LC IA.21 Possible Levantine inspirations have been recognised in the incised and applied band decoration22 but this ware still offers great potential for further studies and analyses. Methodology Both funerary and settlement contexts (see Fig. 7.2) in the Limassol and Paphos districts dated to MC III, MC III–LC I, and LC I are considered here. The research is exclusively bibliographic and excavation as well as field survey documentation have been taken into account. It is extremely important to underline that there is a difference in the quality of documentation. In certain cases, the publications do not contain any detailed information on the pottery record. In order to provide the most reliable overview, all contexts have been divided into three groups according to the reliability of the documentation (see Tables 7.1 and 7.2 for all sites included in the study). Group A includes all excavated funerary and settlement contexts for which a detailed documentation of the pottery is available (meaning which wares, in which quantity, and sometimes a more detailed catalogue). Group B includes funerary and settlement contexts investigated through survey and for which a catalogue or information about the wares and their percentage are published. Group C comprises funerary and settlement contexts, excavated and/or documented by survey for which a detailed pottery record is not available (but the classification of

Figure 7.2  MC III to LC I contexts in Limassol and Paphos districts (map by the author).

Group

MC III Settlement

Funerary

MC III–LC I Settlement

Funerary

A

- Erimi Laonin tou - Erimi Laonin tou Porakou Porakou (T.228, 230, 248) - Alassa Palialona T1 - Lophou Koulauzou

- Episkopi Phaneromeni Area A - Episkopi Phaneromeni Area G

- Ypsonas Vounaros T1 - Erimi Kafkalla (CS1838, T9) - Episkopi Phaneromeni (T23d, T25c, T25d) - Ayia Phyla Hioni (T70, T96)

B

- Anoyira Livadhia - Evdhimou Beyouk Tarla - Evdhimou - Evdhimou Shilles Beyouk Tarla - Paramali Mandra - Evdhimou tou Pouppou Shilles - Paramali Mandra tou Pouppou Survey: - Anoyira Livadhia - Paramali Lakho - Paramali Pharkonia

- Erimi Kafkalla - Episkopi Phinijin

- Erimi Kafkalla

C

Survey: - Paramali Lakho

LC I Settlement

Funerary - Limassol T7 - Limassol Ayios Athanasios (T8, T9) - Limassol Germasogeia T11 - Limassol Katholiki T128 - Limassol Ayios Ioannis T272 - Limassol Enaerios Area III

Excavation: - Erimi Pitharka - Episkopi Bamboula

Excavation: - Limassol Ayios Nikolaos

122  Elena Peri

Table 7.1  Contexts of the Limassol District according to period, typology and group of documentation

Table 7.2  Contexts of the Paphos District according to period, typology and group of documentation Group

MC III Settlement

A

Settlement

- Kissonerga Ammoudhia B - Mesoyi Katarrakis - Anarita

Survey: - Kritou Marottou Pyknopitia A - Ayia Marinoudhia Akoni A

Excavation: - Kissonerga Kambos tis Appis Survey: - Kritou Marottou Pyknopitia B

LC I Funerary

Settlement

- Timi - Kedhares Skales - Kouklia Evreti B Excavation: - Kissonerga Skalia - Prasteio Lakries - Kouklia Marcello - Kouklia Laona - Kouklia Evreti A Survey: - Ayia Varvara Teratsin A - Nata Plevra tou Petrovounou - Kedhares Franjika - Kedhares Soumajera - Kedhares Alonia A - Kedhares Pouspoutis - Arminou Argaki tis Kortilou - Salamiou Kokkina - Souskiou Grijellati A - Kouklia Ainikoloudhia A

- Khoulou Stazondas Excavation: - Kouklia Hadjabdullah - Kouklia Teratsoudhia A Survey: - Ayia Varvara Hadjiyiannoukoudhes

Funerary - Yeroskipou Playeri - Acheleia Anatoliko - Kouklia Asproyi B (T. IX) Excavation: - Yiolou Moutti tou Kleovoulou - Kouklia Teratsoudhia B Survey: - Ayios Dhimitrianos Vounin - Ayia Varvara Pladhkia Petra - Ayia Marinoudhia Akoni B

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  123

B C

Funerary

MC III–LC I

124  Elena Peri wares is available). All these groups are included in the present study. However, higher value has been given to Group A due to its greater reliability. Synopsis of wares in the Limassol district Middle Cypriot III

Data for MC III in the Limassol district come from funerary and settlement contexts known from excavations in the Kouris Valley23 and from surveys in the Avdhimou and Paramali valleys.24 Two of the sites in the Kouris Valley, Lophou-Koulauzou and Alassa-Palialona,25 are funerary contexts of Group A, with complete and reliable documentation. In both contexts, the locally produced RP and RP IV constitute the highest percentage of all wares. Although not occurring in significant numbers, the following imported wares indicate initial contacts with other regions of Cyprus: the presence of DP, found in both contexts, could suggest a connection with the Paphos district;26 RP III, found in Alassa-Palialona, indicates a connection with the northern part of the island;27 and Black Slip (BS) II suggests possible contact with eastern Cyprus.28 Connections with the western and northern parts of Cyprus are suggested by the presence of DP and by RP III found in a significant percentage in the settlement and in the tombs of Erimi-Laonin tou Porakou (Group A).29 In the Paramali Valley, the contexts are mostly funerary, known by survey and belonging to Groups B and C.30 In all contexts, the locally produced wares, RP Punctured and RP IV, are the most frequently attested, but in Group B contexts, the percentage of sherds of the DP is higher than that recorded for locally produced wares. A similar situation can be observed in the Avdhimou Valley, where all funerary and settlement contexts (of Groups B and C31) have a higher percentage of the locally produced RP Mottled and RP IV. The DP present in all contexts of the valley, as well as the RP III, could indicate connections with the west and the north of the island. Middle Cypriot III – Late Cypriot I

Excavated MC III – LC I contexts in this region consist of funerary and settlement sites located in the Kouris Valley, in Limassol city, and along the coast. Cemeteries and settlements known by survey are located in the Paramali Valley and in the coastal area. Ypsonas-Vounaros,32 Erimi-Kafkalla (Group A), are excavated contexts in the Kouris Valley in which the highest numbers of sherds are of the local RP. WP, a ware generally considered typical of the Middle Cypriot period that is not attested in the Limassol area before MC III–LC I, is found at Erimi-Kafkalla in association with PWS, WS I, BR I, and Red Slip (RS) V.33 The Group C settlement Paramali-Lakho is the only context in the Paramali Valley. Even if scarce documentation is available, the presence of RP IV, RP Mottled and DP34 seems to confirm the pattern observed in the other areas of Limassol region. Other excavated contexts (Group A) of MC III–LC I date are the settlement and the tombs35 of Episkopi-Phaneromeni, as well as two tombs at Ayia Phyla Hioni in Limassol city.36 The local productions (RP, RP Punctured, RP Mottled and RP IV) continue

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  125 to have the highest number of sherds, but the amount of DP and WP, especially in Episkopi-Phaneromeni, is significant.37 PWS, the most meaningful ware for the LC I chronological classification, is attested along with PBR and Red-on-Black (RoB).38 Even if local wares are still attested in the highest percentage, the ‘transitional’ wares (PWS and PBR) and the typical Late Cypriot wares (WS I and BR I) were introduced during this phase. Late Cypriot I

LC I contexts in Limassol are all known from excavations and consist mainly of tombs39 located in Limassol city (Group A). Other information is limited to a few sites, such as Erimi-Pitharka, in the Kouris Valley, and Episkopi-Bamboula on the coast (Group C).40 In this phase, the amount of Middle Cypriot wares drastically decreased, though they did not completely disappear. The assemblages of Episkopi-Bamboula consist of RP Punctured, RP IV, DP, RP III, and RoB from the Karpas Peninsula. BR I is, in absolute terms, the Late Cypriot ware that is best represented, followed by WS I and early Monochrome.41 Synopsis of wares in the Paphos district Middle Cypriot III

MC III contexts in the Paphos region are located around the modern village of Kissonerga and along the Ezousa Valley. The most frequently represented wares in the necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia42 (Group A) and in the necropolis of Kissonerga-Kambos tis Appis43 (both Group C) are local productions, such as DP and RP, but connections with other parts of the island are suggested by the presence of RP III. The possible presence of PBR in the cemetery of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia suggested by Lisa Graham is striking.44 Although this case is not enough to suggest a chronological redefinition of PBR, the possible presence of a ware that is commonly dated to the LC IA:1 in a reliable MC III context highlights the complexity of the chronological – and typological – identification of ‘transitional’ wares such as PBR.45 Most of the MC III funerary and settlement contexts in this region are located along the Ezousa Valley and are mostly documented by survey46 (Group C). Sites belonging to Group A are limited to a couple of tombs from rescue excavations at Mesoyi Katarrakis47 and Anarita.48 RP IV is the most common ware in these contexts, while the DP is limited to the Mesoyi Katarrakis tomb. Imported wares found in all these contexts (Groups A and C), include RP III and RP Punctured, which suggest connections with the north and the Limassol region. Middle Cypriot III – Late Cypriot I

The analysed contexts of this transitional phase are mainly located along the Ezousa and Dhiarizos valleys. The settlement of Kissonerga-Skalia, the excavations of

126  Elena Peri which are ongoing, is the only MC III–LC I context (Group C) in proximity to the modern village of Kissonerga.49 Most common are the locally produced DP and RP, the fabrics of which could have connections with nearby KissonergaAmmoudhia.50 Connections to the north are suggested by the presence of RP III,51 but also by that of RP IV, which has several parallels at northern sites such as Pentageia, Akhera, and Deneia. The large Plain White Handmade/Wheelmade (PWHM/ PWWM) pithoi found at the site are very interesting since the spread of the ware during this early stage is limited to eastern Cyprus offering important evidence of exchange with that part of the island.52 The contexts in the Ezousa Valley are scarce and mainly concentrated towards the coast. They comprise both excavated and surveyed settlements53 and tombs.54 Information about wares at these sites is not particularly rich, but local products, i.e. DP and RP IV, are found in association with new wares, such as PWS, ‘possible’ PBR,55 WS I and BS III typical of LC I. During MC III–LC I, a systematic occupation began along the Dhiarizos River. Most of the data come from field surveys,56 but excavations have been conducted at PrasteioLakries57 (Group C), Kedhares-Skales58 (Group A) and in several areas59 of the modern centre of Kouklia, ancient Palaepaphos. Material found in these areas suggests the foundation of Palaepaphos in the MC III–LC I transitional phase. Wares of Middle Cypriot tradition are mainly WP III, WP IV, and BS III in Evreti B, while RP IV, DP, and BS along with RP III, RP Mottled, RoB, and WP are more common in Group C contexts. Late Cypriot wares include WS I, BR I, PWS, PWWM, and WP Wheelmade, extending the date of the contexts to at least LC IA.60 Late Cypriot I

Excavated funerary contexts in this phase are mainly located in the Ezousa Valley and in Kouklia, while a tomb has been excavated in the Mavrokolimpos Valley. Settlement data are limited to two sites surveyed in the Ezousa Valley.61 During this period, the population progressively abandoned the Kissonerga area, p­ robably to move towards Kouklia and Toumba tou Skourou.62 In fact, the only known Late Cypriot context of this area is the Yiolou-Moutti tou Kleovoulou tomb in the ­Mavrokolimpos Valley.63 During LC I, the percentage of Late Cypriot wares ­ increases in all the valleys and contexts, especially that of WS I and BR I. However, Middle Cypriot wares, such as RP IV, RP Punctured and DP, are still represented in significant percentages. RP IV and RP Punctured, for example, are the most common wares in Khoulou-Stazondas.64 Conclusions The dynamics of settlement relations, continuity and change in the period from MC III to LC I as reflected in the pottery are complex. However, we may observe two main tendencies: the first concerns the short and the middle range relations. Wares of Middle Cypriot tradition are most relevant to understand the connections between the regions. DP is the most common ware in the Limassol district during the MC III and the MC III–LC I period; it is replaced by BR I during LC

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  127 I. In contrast, RP are the most common wares in the Paphos region in MC III and MC III–LC I; they are replaced by WS I and BR I during LC I. Contacts between Limassol and Paphos were probably significant, as suggested, for example, by the case of the DP from the MC III tomb of Mesoyi Katarrakis, which has numerous typological comparisons with the RP IV, the DP and the PWS found in EpiskopiPhaneromeni and in Kissonerga-Ammoudhia.65 Additional validation comes from stylistic comparisons between RP IV pithoi in Kissonerga-Skalia with those found in Episkopi-Phaneromeni,66 and from local DP imitations and imports in ErimiLaonin tou Porakou from western Cyprus.67 In both districts, the most common wares are imports from other parts of Cyprus, which indicate an opening of these regions towards the rest of the island already in the final stage of the Middle Cypriot period. Connections between the Paphos region with the northwestern part of the island are significant, especially with the Morphou and Lapithos area. However, interrelations with the eastern part of Cyprus are not to be underestimated, as confirmed by the presence of PWWM in Kissonerga-Skalia and PWWM and RoB at Erimi-Kafkalla that have close parallels with eastern Cypriot products. The second tendency that emerges from a diachronic study of the ceramic corpus concerns the differences between the Middle and the Late Cypriot periods. Middle Cypriot wares strongly persist at least until the initial stage of the Late Cypriot period; this is especially obvious in the local RP in the Paphos region and with DP, RP III, and RP IV in the Limassol district. The ‘Proto’ wares, usually considered crucial for the identification of MC III–LC I contexts, are not particularly common in the Limassol and Paphos districts and are present also in purely Late Cypriot contexts. It is necessary to underline the possible presence of PBR in the MC III necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia and the ‘possible’ PBR in ­Kissonerga-Skalia. PW (Wheel and Handmade) is the only ware found in both regions and exclusively in transitional contexts. Plain White is a complex ware that needs further studies. Therefore, its occurrence at MC III–LC I sites could indicate a possible ‘key’ to understanding the transitional contexts. In addition to the present study, which is an evaluation of pottery from published excavation reports, petrographic analyses and other analytical approaches may help to identify clay provenance, production centres and the distribution of these wares. However, this reappraisal has demonstrated that especially the ‘Proto’ and Plain White wares may provide crucial information for understanding the ceramic industry during the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition on Cyprus. Ongoing excavations, such as at Kissonerga-Skalia and Erimi-Laonin tou Porakou in western Cyprus, but also ongoing research in other regions of the island, will certainly add to our knowledge of this dynamic and complex period. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Teresa Bürge and Lærke Recht for inviting me to participate in the ICAANE 2021 and to contribute to this volume. I would like to express my gratitude to Teresa Bürge for her comments and discussion. Furthermore, I wish to sincerely thank Lindy Crewe for her constructive suggestions and comments to the text.

128  Elena Peri Notes 1 Manning (2007). 2 Knapp (2008) 132. 3 For example, Negbi (2005); Fisher (2014); Manning et al. (2014) 6; Andreou (2019) 298–9; Webb and Knapp (2021) 206. 4 Knapp (2013). 5 Crewe (2007a). 6 Swiny (1981) 52–5. 7 Crewe (2017) 140–1. 8 Webb (2014) 221. 9 Eriksson (2007) 22. 10 Eriksson (2007) 53. 11 Eriksson (2007) 51. 12 Maguire (2009) 35–7. 13 As Sanidha, on the southern foothills of Troodos; see Todd and Pilides (2001); Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 223. 14 Crewe and Georgiou (2018) 54. 15 Herscher (2001) 11. 16 Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 24. 17 Eames (1994) 127–8. 18 Crewe (2007b) 37. 19 Crewe (2009) 86. 20 Crewe (2009) 79. 21 Crewe (2009) 79; Crewe and Georgiou (2018) 61. 22 Crewe (2009) 86. 23 Herscher and Swiny (1992) 77–8; Violaris et al. (2013) 331–3. 24 Swiny (1981) 55. 25 Flourentzos (1991) 1–15; Bombardieri and Chelazzi (2015) 120. 26 The origin of this ware from western Cyprus is suggested both by the fabric and the predominance of DP in the region. DP, however, was likely also produced in the south coast region, for example, at Erimi, Sotira and in the Episkopi area – see Graham (2012) 40; Webb (2017) 180–3; Crewe and Georgiou (2018) 58. Even if differences in fabric and decoration occurred (Graham [2012] 40), the identification of a western or southern production of the DP can be complex (Webb [2017] 182–3). Since in publications, the production area is not always defined or is treated together (Webb [2017] 183), in this study, if not otherwise specified, DP is reported as an indication of ‘possible’ connection with the western region, notwithstanding that more analysis would be necessary to assert this statement. 27 RP III is characterised by a fine, soft, and light-coloured fabric identified in the north of the island – see Webb (2014) 220; (2017) 172. 28 BS has a wider distribution in northern Cyprus while it is quite rare in the south – see Webb (2017) 130–1. 29 Webb (2017) 133–7. 30 Group B: Paramali-Mandra tou Pouppou (settlement and necropolis) (Swiny [1981] 67–8; Herscher and Swiny [1992] 76). Group C: Paramali-Lakho (necropolis) (Herscher and Swiny [1992] 75–6); Paramali-Pharkonia (cemetery) (Swiny [1981] 68); Herscher and Swiny [1992] 73–5). 31 Group B: Anoyira-Livadhia (settlement) (Swiny [1981] 76); Evdhimou-Beyouk Tarla (necropolis and settlement) (Swiny [1981] 73–4); Evhimou-Shilles (necropolis and settlement) (Swiny [1981] 68–9). Group C: Anoyira-Livadhia (necropolis) (Swiny [1981] 76). 32 Christofi et al. (2012) 161–3. 33 Swiny (1981) 63–4; Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 53–4, 121–2.

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  129 34 Herscher and Swiny (1992) 75–6. 35 T23d, T25c, T25d. Carpenter (1981) 60, 64–5. 36 T70 and T96. Karageorghis (1969) 489–91; Karageorghis and Violaris (2012) 32–3, 76–8, 81–3. 37 Swiny (1979) 358. 38 PWS and PBR from Episkopi-Phaneromeni seems to be quite different from the standard PWS and PBR. It is possible that Episkopi-Phaneromeni artisans were trying to produce their own version of this ware (Crewe, personal communication, 20 June 2023). 39 The tombs are: Limassol T7 (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 25, 59–60); Ayios Athanasios (T8, T9) (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 25, 27, 60–70); Germasogeia T11 (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 27–8, 70–3); Katholiki (T128) (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 36–7, 89–90); Ayios Ioannis (T272) (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 41, 93–4); Enaerios Area III (Karageorghis and Violaris [2012] 47–52, 105–6). 40 Both Erimi-Pitharka and Episkopi-Bamboula are sites that develop later in time, but have their first, yet scarce, evidence in LC I–II. Rescue excavations in Erimi-Pitharka between 2007 and 2012 by the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus unearthed LC I–II architectural remains associated with WS I and BR I, and two tombs with one PBR bowl, and few BR I vessels (Papanikolaou [2012] 311). Traces of LC I Episkopi-Bamboula come both from architectural remains and tombs (Benson [1972] 5; Crewe [2007b] 45). 41 Benson (1972) 67–72; Merrillees (1974) 303; Herscher (2001) 19. Karagheorghis and Violaris (2012) 221–3 add a fragment of PBR. 42 Graham (2013). 43 Maliszewski (2018) 65. 44 It is necessary to stress the fact that Graham talks about juglets and jugs in DP that could also be PBR – see Graham (2012) 45. 45 Herscher (2001) 20 note 7. 46 Kritou-Marottou Pyknopitia (settlement and necropolis) (Maliszewski [2018] 61, 63) and Ayia Marinoudhia-Akoni A (settlement) (Maliszewski [2018] 74, 88). 47 Karageorghis (1989) 793; Herscher and Fox (1993) 70–5. 48 Christou (1996) 1061–2; Maliszewski (2018) 65. 49 For further information about Kissonerga-Skalia see Johnston et al. and Crewe and Souter in this volume. 50 Crewe et al. (2008) 112; Crewe (2013) 55. Macroscopic and microscopic analyses have been conducted at Kissonerga-Skalia in relation to RP, DP, and Proto BR sherds and further research is ongoing – see Johnson et al. (this volume). 51 Crewe et al. (2008) 115. 52 Crewe (2013) 51, 53. 53 Ayia Varvara-Teratsin A and Nata-Plevra tou Petrovounou (Group C, surveys). Maliszewski (2018) 67–8. 54 Timi (Group A). Maliszewski (2018) 69; Georgiou (2019) 204. 55 ‘Possible’ BR has been identified in Kissonerga-Skalia – see Johnson et al. (this volume). 56 Surveyed settlements (Group C) are: Arminou-Argaki tis Kortilou, Salamiou-Kokkina, Soskiou-Grijellati A, Kedhares-Franjika, Kedhares-Soumajera, Kedhares-Alonia A, Kedhares-Pouspoutis, and Kouklia-Ainikoloudhia A (Maliszewki [2018] 66–9). 57 McCarthy et al. (2010) 7, 9–10. 58 Christou (1996) 1061–3; Georgiou (2019) 205–6. 59 The areas taken into account for this research, dated between MC III and LC I are: Group A: Evreti B (necropolis), see Catling (1968), (1979). Group B (deposits, hills and wells): Evreti A, see Maier and von Wartburg (1985) 104–5, 119; Marcello, see Georgiou (2015) 48; (2019) 198; Laona, see Georgiou (2019) 198–9. 60 Maier and von Wartburg (1985) 104–105, 110, 119; von Rüden (2016) 23; Georgiou (2015) 48; (2019) 195–6, 198–9. 61 Group B: Khoulou-Stazondas: see Sørensen (1983) 290; Group C: Ayia Varvara-Hadjiyiannoukoudhes: see Maliszewski (2018) 73.

130  Elena Peri 62 63 64 65 66 67

Crewe (2013) 55. Karageorghis (1960) 264. Sørensen (1983) 290. Herscher and Fox (1993) 72–4. Crewe (2013) 51, 53. Bombardieri (2017) 361; Webb (2017) 195.

Bibliography Andreou, G.M. (2019), ‘Socioeconomics of Agrarian Production: Considering Rural Cooperatives in the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean through the Lens of 2nd Millennium BCE Cyprus’, World Archaeology 51.2, 291–310. Barlow, J.A. (1991), ‘New Light on Red Polished Ware’, in J.A. Barlow, D. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Records. University Museum Monograph 74. 51–8. Philadelphia. Benson, J.L. (1972), Bamboula at Kourion: The Necropolis and the Finds Excavated by J. F. Daniel. The Haney Foundation Series 12. Philadelphia. Bombardieri, L. (2017), Erimi Laonin tou Porakou: A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus, Excavation 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 145. Uppsala. Bombardieri, L. and F. Chelazzi (2015), ‘Land Use and Settlement Patterns in the Kourion Region: A Cross Analysis of the MC–LC Topography and Pottery Evidence’, in A. Jacobs and P. Consyns (eds), PoCA 2008, Cypriot Material Culture Studies from Picrolite Carving to proskynitaria Analysis: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology Conference Held in Honour of the Memory of Paul Åström at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels (Belgium), 27th–29th November 2008. 113–39. Brussels. Carpenter, J. (1981), ‘Excavations at Phaneromeni, 1975–1978’, in J.C. Biers and D. Soren (eds), Studies in Cypriote Archaeology. UCLA Monograph 18. 59–78. Los Angeles. Catling, H.W. (1968), ‘Kouklia: Evreti, Tomb 8’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 92, 162–9. Catling, H.W. (1979), ‘The St. Andrews-Liverpool Museum Kouklia Tombs Excavations’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 270–5. Christofi, P., E. Stefani, and L. Bombardieri (2012), ‘Bridging the Gap: Long Term Use and Re-Use of the Bronze Age Funerary Area at Ypsonas-Vounaros and Erimi Laonin tou Porakou’, in M. Hartmut, B. Morstadt, and C. Vonhoff (eds), PoCA 2012 (Post Graduate Cypriot Archaeology). 130–69. Cambridge. Christou, D. (1996), ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1995’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 120, 1051–100. Crewe, L. (2007a), ‘Sophistication in Simplicity: The First Production of Wheelmade Pottery on Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20.2, 209–38. Crewe, L. (2007b), Early Enkomi: Regionalism, Trade, and Society at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus. BAR International Series 1706. Oxford. Crewe, L. (2009), ‘Regionalism and the First Appearance of Plain White Hand-Made Ware in Middle Cypriot Bronze Age’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C. Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 4th Cypriological Congress, May 2nd 2008, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 79–90. Vienna. Crewe, L. (2013), ‘Regional Connections during the Middle–Late Cypriot Transition: New Evidence from Kissonerga-Skalia’, Pasiphae VII, 47–56.

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  131 Crewe, L. (2017), ‘Interpreting Settlement Function and Scale during MC III–LC IA Using Old Excavations and New: Western Cyprus and Kisonerga (Kissonerga) Skalia in Context’, in D. Pilides and M. Mina (eds), Four Decades of Hiatus in Archaeological Research in Cyprus: Towards Restoring the Balance: Proceedings of the International One-Day Workshop, Held in Lefkosia (Nicosia) on 24th September 2016, Hosted by the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Κυπριακά – Forschungen zum antiken Zypern 2. 140–52. Vienna. Crewe, L., P. Croft, L. Graham, and A. McCarthy (2008), ‘First Preliminary Report of Excavations at Kissonerga-Skalia 2007’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 105–19. Crewe, L. and A. Georgiou (2018), ‘Settlement Nucleation at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: The Evidence from Palaepaphos’, in L. Hulin, L. Crewe, and J.M. Webb (eds), Structures of Inequality on Bronze Age Cyprus: Studies in Honour of Alison K. South. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-book 187. 53–70. Nicosia. Eames, M.J. (1994), ‘A Re-Examination of the Definition, Distribution, and Relative Chronology of Proto-Base Ring Ware’, Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 127–40. Eriksson, K.O. (2001), ‘Cypriote Proto White Slip and White Slip I: Chronological Beacons on Relations between Late Cypriot I Cyprus and Contemporary Societies of the Eastern Mediterranean’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia 29th–30th October 1998. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. 51–64. Vienna. Eriksson, K.O. (2007), The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Account of Archaeological Importance of White Slip Ware. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 10. Vienna. Fisher, K.D. (2014), ‘Making the First Cities on Cyprus: Urbanism and Social Change in the Late Bronze Age’, in A.M.T. Creekmore III and K.D. Fisher (eds), Making Ancient Cities: Space and Place in Early Urban Societies. 181–219. Cambridge. Flourentzos, P. (1991), Excavations in the Kouris Valley, Vol. I: The Tombs. Nicosia. Frankel, D. and J.M. Webb (2007), The Bronze Age Cemeteries at Deneia in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 135. Sävedalen. Georgiou, A. (2015), ‘Palaepaphos during the Late Bronze Age: Characterizing the Urban Landscape of a Late Cypriot Polity’, in T. Polychroniadis, Z. Evely, and D. Evely (eds), Aegis, Essays in Mediterranean Archaeology Presented to Matt Egon by the Scholars of the Greek Archaeological Committee UK. 45–56. Oxford. Georgiou, A. (2019), ‘Tracing the Foundation Horizon of Palaepaphos: New Research on the Early History of the Paphos Region’, in C. Kearns and S.W. Manning (eds), New Directions in Cyprus Archaeology. 190–218. Ithaca. Graham, L. (2012), ‘The Necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia: New Ceramic Evidence from the Early–Middle Bronze Age in Western Cyprus’, in A. Georgiou (ed.), Cyprus: An Island Culture. Society and Social Relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian Period. Annual Conference in Postgraduate Cypriot Archaeology 9. 38–47. Oxford. Graham, L. (2013), The Necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia: Techniques of Ceramic Production in Early-Middle Bronze Age Western Cyprus. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburg) Edinburgh. Herscher, E. (1976), ‘South Coast Ceramic Styles at the End of the Middle Cypriote’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 11–19. Herscher, E. (1981), ‘Southern Cyprus: The Disappearing Early Bronze Age and the Evidence from Phaneromeni’, in J.C. Biers and D. Soren (eds), Studies in Cypriote Archaeology. UCLA Monograph 18. 79–85. Los Angeles.

132  Elena Peri Herscher, E. (1991), ‘Beyond Regionalism: Toward and Islandwide Early and Middle ­Cypriot Sequence’, in J.A. Barlow, D. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Records. University Museum Monograph 74. 45–50. Philadelphia. Herscher, E. (2001), ‘Early Base Ring Ware from Phaneromeni and Maroni’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 11–22. Stockholm. Herscher, E. and S.C. Fox (1993), ‘A Middle Bronze Age Tomb from Western Cyprus’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 69–80. Herscher, E. and S. Swiny (1992), ‘Picking Up the Pieces: Two Plundered Bronze Age Cemeteries’, in G.C. Ioannides (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageoghis: Kypriakai Spoudai 54–55 (1990–1991). 68–86. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. (1960), ‘Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1959’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 84, 242–99. Karageorghis, V. (1969), ‘Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1968’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 93, 431–569. Karageorghis, V. (1989), ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1987’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 113, 789–853. Karageorghis, V. and Y. Violaris (2012), Tombs of the Late Bronze Age in the Limassol Area, Cyprus (17th–13th Centuries BC). Nicosia. Knapp, B. (2008), Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity. Oxford. Knapp, B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge. Maier, F.G. and M.-L. von Wartburg (1985), ‘Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos): Thirteenth Preliminary Report: Season 1983 and 1984’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 100–25. Maguire, L. (2009), ‘Design Execution Sequences in White Painted, Proto White Slip and White Slip Pottery’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd millennium B.C. Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 4th Cyprological Congress, May 2nd 2008, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 39–48. Vienna. Maliszewki, D. (2018), Western Cyprus in the Bronze Age: Terra Inhabitata?. Mediterranean World Archaeology 3. Warsaw. Manning, S.W. (2007), ‘Clarifying the “High” v. “Low” Aegean/Cypriot Chronology for the Mid Second Millennium BC: Assessing the Evidence, Interpretive Frameworks, and Current State of the Debate’, in M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 -2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003. Contributions to the chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. 101–38. Vienna. Manning, S.W., G.M. Andreou, K.D. Fisher, P. Gerard-Little, C. Kearns, J.F. Leon, D.A. Sewell, and T.M. Urban (2014), ‘Becoming Urban: Investigating the Anatomy of the Late Bronze Age Complex Maroni, Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27, 3–32. McCarthy, A., B. Blackeman, D. Collard, P. Croft, L. Graham, C. MC Cartney, and L. Stork (2010), ‘The Prasteio-Mesorotsos Archaeological Expedition: Second Preliminary Report of the 2009 Excavations’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 53–76. Merrillees, R.S. (1974), ‘Review of: J.L. Benson, Bamboula at Kourion. The Necropolis and the Finds. Excavated by J.F. Daniel; and J.L. Benson, The Necropolis of Kaloriziki

Intraregional and interregional connections on Cyprus  133 Excavated by J.F. Daniel and G.H. McFadden for the University Museum. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia’, American Journal of Archaeology 78.3, 302–3. Negbi, O. (2005), ‘Urbanism on Late Bronze Age Cyprus: LCII in Retrospect’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337, 1–45. Papanikolaou, K. (2012), ‘Erimi-Pitharka: A Late Bronze Age Settlement in the Kourion Area’, in V. Karageorghis and Y. Violaris, Tombs of the Late Bronze Age in the Limassol Area, Cyprus (17th–13th Centuries BC). 310–16. Nicosia. Sørensen, L.W. (1983), ‘Canadian Palaepaphos Survey Project: Preliminary Report of the 1980 Ceramic Find’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 283–99. Swiny, S. (1979), Southern Cyprus, 2000–1500 BC. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London) London. Swiny, S. (1981), ‘Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in Southwest Cyprus’, Levant 13, 51–87. Todd, I.A. and D. Pilides (2001), ‘The Archaeology of White Slip Production’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware in Late Bronze Age in Cyprus, Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia, 29th–30th October 1998. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. 27–43. Vienna. Violaris, Y., C. Scirè Calabrisotto, M. Fedi, I. Caforio, and L. Bombardieri (2013) ‘The Bronze Age Cemetery at Lofou Koulaouzou (Cyprus): Toward a Cross-Analysis of Radiocarbon Data and Funerary Assemblages from Burial Context’, in L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, and S. Valentini (eds), SOMA 2012, Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. BAR International Series 2581. 331–42. Oxford. von Rüden, C. (2016), ‘The Wells and Their Excavations’, in C. von Rüden, A. Georgiou, A. Jacobs, and P. Halstead, Feasting, Craft and Depositional Practice in Late Bronze Age Palaepaphos: The Well Fillings of Evreti. Bochumer Forschungen zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 8. 23–39. Rahden. Webb, J.M. (2014), ‘Pottery Production and Distribution in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: The Long Road from Measurement to Meaning’, in J.M. Webb (ed.), Structure, Measurement and Meaning: Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Frankel. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 143. 213–28. Uppsala. Webb, J.M. (2017), ‘The Pottery’, in L. Bombardieri, Erimi Laonin tou Porakou: A Middle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus, Excavations 2008–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 145. 129–206. Uppsala. Webb, J.M. and A.B. Knapp (2021), ‘Rethinking Middle Bronze Age Communities on Cyprus: ‘Egalitarian’ and Isolated or Complex and Interconnected?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 29.2, 203–53.

8

Innovation and adaptation Ceramic development across the Middle to Late Cypriot horizon Christine Johnston, Lindy Crewe and Artemios Oikonomou

Introduction This paper presents the preliminary results of research looking at socio-economic change across the transition from the Middle to Late Cypriot Bronze Age (MC III–LC IA, ca. 1650 BCE). During this transition, we see significant shifts in settlement patterns and inter-island connectivity,1 after which time Cyprus became integrated within the highly connected Eastern Mediterranean exchange system of the Late Bronze Age. Though the Late Cypriot period has received considerable attention, this project examines this process from the end of the Middle Cypriot period, focusing on shifts in ceramic production communities and the development of new, dark-faced, pottery styles related to Proto Base Ring ware at the site of Kissonerga-Skalia in western Cyprus. The transition to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus is one of relative social upheaval. Many earlier settlements were abandoned or destroyed, and new coastal settlements were established.2 Increases in social complexity and wealth inequality become evident through this period, especially in the circulation and consumption of luxury goods.3 A plethora of new ceramic traditions developed at this time, reflecting changes in production techniques, forms, and styles. Particularly important is the shift from distinct regional profiles over MC III–LC IA to the dominance of island-wide shared ceramic traditions by LC IB, ca. 1550 BCE.4 In the subsequent Late Bronze Age, Cyprus became an important nexus in the political and economic networks connecting neighbouring regions, enabling the movement of luxury goods and commodities between powerful polities.5 There has been excellent – and increasingly frequent – work on the Middle Cypriot period;6 however, there are two primary issues that have served to limit our understanding of the end of the Middle Cypriot period and transition into the Late Cypriot period. First, there are very few stratified settlement contexts on Cyprus that continue across this transition;7 sites that do contain excavated evidence are identified on the map shown in Figure 8.1. The other confounding issue has been the exaggerated role assigned by previous research to external factors in cultural and political change on Cyprus. In these previous studies, influence and interference from neighbouring societies that were deemed more complex (e.g., wealthy and highly-centralised expansionist states) was seen as the driving force of change DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-8

Innovation and adaptation  135

Figure 8.1 Map of Cyprus highlighting sites yielding MC III–LC I transitional material (map prepared by L. Crewe).

on Cyprus.8 While external influences and foreign imports certainly impacted society on Cyprus, this study will focus on indigenous agency in changes in ceramic production practices during the final Middle Cypriot and early Late Cypriot periods, as potters adjusted to shifting markets and consumer demands across an increasingly expanding economic landscape. One of the hallmarks of the transition from the Middle to Late Cypriot period for archaeologists has been the appearance of Base Ring (BR) ware. It is still unclear where this style first developed.9 In the Late Cypriot period, BR production quickly spread across the island, and Base Ring I and II style pottery (BR I and BR  II) became the most popular Cypriot ceramic export of the Late Bronze Age.10 The appearance of BR ware coincides with emerging social change – first with shifts like greater monumentality in construction and nucleation in settlement, followed by the appearance of urbanism in the Late Cypriot II period.11 It is therefore an important lens through which we can examine changes in economies of production and exchange. Occupation at Kissonerga-Skalia This chapter presents research examining changes in pottery manufacture at the site of Kissonerga-Skalia in western Cyprus (Fig. 8.1). This settlement is one of the few sites with well-stratified contexts excavated that date to the Middle–Late Cypriot transition, although the site is also abandoned just into LC IA. This ended a long history of occupation dating from at least the start of the Early Cypriot Bronze Age, succeeding the neighbouring prehistoric site of Kissonerga-Mosphilia. The

136  Christine Johnston et al. current work at Skalia is directed by Dr Lindy Crewe and is primarily focused on exposing a large complex from the final phase of occupation, which overlies Early to Middle Cypriot domestic structures. This complex, outlined in black on the plan shown in Figure 8.2, has yielded evidence of industrial pyrotechnical features situated within open courtyards and enclosed spaces.12 Construction of the complex took place during MC III and the space saw a short occupation phase with a maximum span of roughly 1750–1600 BCE. Around twothirds of our study sample were selected from sherds recovered from the courtyard of this industrial complex in Area B, with the rest from neighbouring areas of the complex.13 The contexts from which sherds were selected for analysis were those with material lying on and just above the floors of the ‘Final-Phase Complex’.

Figure 8.2  Excavation plan of Kissonerga-Skalia (plan by L. Crewe).

Innovation and adaptation  137 The focus of the research project discussed here is the connection between Red and Drab Polished ceramics (RP and DP) – the predominant Bronze Age wares of western Cyprus – and Proto Base Ring ware (PBR). This includes assessment of raw material acquisition and preparation, firing technology, and vessel form and decoration. Examining the connection between local Middle Cypriot ceramic traditions and BR ware addresses two important and connected topics: when and where did BR ware develop, and how did potting traditions spread across Cyprus.14 One of the proposed origins for BR ware has been western Cyprus,15 and this research aims to directly test this hypothesis. The pXRF results presented in this chapter represent the first phase of work on this project. Ceramic sample The study sample includes 65 sherds excavated from Kissonerga-Skalia (see Appendix 8.1, supplementary online material). This includes sherds from both open and closed vessels of the primary ware types under evaluation, as well as sherds believed to be of non-local origin, such as sherds of Red Polished IV vessels (RP IV), most likely imported from the northwest or south coast of the island. The sample group is representative of the fabric, form, and firing types common to these ware groups. The focus of this study is the vessels identified as sharing strong macroscopic affinities with PBR ceramics. PBR ware represents the developmental stage of BR ware, held to appear at the beginning of Late Cypriot IA and, along with Proto White Slip ware, considered to be a primary marker for differentiating between the relative chronology of MC III and LC IA assemblages.16 Despite the later popularity of this ware, it is still unclear where this style first developed. Connections have been variably made between BR and other Cypriot wares, including Black Slip and Monochrome wares.17 Many early studies of BR place it within the ceramic traditions in the Morphou Bay region of northwest Cyprus, particularly the Black Slip style.18 However, studies by Sarah Vaughan and Ellen Herscher have connected BR to early southern and western Cypriot traditions,19 including RP and DP ware (specifically the region of Episkopi-Phaneromeni in the case of Herscher).20 Like the later BR I and BR II vessels, the ceramics identified as possible PBR at Kissonerga-Skalia are thin-walled (1–3 mm) and hard fired with the characteristic metallic clink of BR.21 Fabrics are fine to slightly gritty with lime, mineral, and mica inclusions and organic voids. Surfaces are matte to slightly lustrous in colours ranging from salmon-pink to dark brown/black,22 with dark or blue cores. The typical pocked surface from lime spalling is also present, as are typical PBR relief decoration on the neck and body walls. It should be noted that if these sherds had been retrieved from a Late Cypriot site (versus the slightly earlier context here), their appearance would allow no hesitation in classifying them as either PBR or BR I. Since we currently lack clear diagnostic typological features from the PBR stage of the ware, for example, flat bases or trumpet mouths,23 our attribution remains tentative and we have retained the designation ‘Possible PBR’.

138  Christine Johnston et al.

Figure 8.3  Drab Polished (a) and Red Polished (b) sherds from the study sample.

The main ceramics of this study are RP and DP wares, the dominant local wares of the Early–Middle Cypriot period on the west coast (see Fig. 8.3).24 These ceramics are characterised by a matte to medium lustrous slip with light burnishing, ranging in colour from various shades of red, in the case of RP, and buff to light reddish brown, in the case of DP.25 Fabrics can range in hardness but are typically very hard and generally include moderate amounts of tiny, small, and medium-sized inclusions of lime and Argillaceous Rock Fragment (or ARFs).26 The group macroscopically associated with later BR technologies is the type hard fired and characterised by a pocked surface with a grey to blue-grey core.27 The sample also includes sherds thought to be produced locally but innovative in style. This group includes the new Middle Cypriot variants that appear in a range of different fabrics around the island at this time: the Black Slip and RP IV wares. It should be noted that other innovative wares, not included in this study, also occur at

Innovation and adaptation  139 the site, such as Plain White Handmade ware.28 Black Slip ceramics are handmade with variable fabric preparation techniques and inclusion types. Surface colour can range from red to black, which may be a function of firing conditions.29 The slip itself is matte or smoothed to a light luster and is often thin and worn (leading to the possible misidentification of sherds as Plain White Handmade ware).30 Vessel walls are often very thin, approaching the quality typical of PBR ware – this is one reason for the original connection made by Paul Åström between BR and Black Slip wares (i.e., the so-called Red and Black Slip Proto Base Ring ware).31 Although the Black Slip and Red Slip traditions of the Middle Cypriot share morphological and decorative affinities with BR ware, Vaughan’s comprehensive analysis of BR fabrics demonstrated that Black Slip/Red Slip wares were markedly different in both material and firing.32 The RP IV found at Kissonerga-Skalia is distinct, with thin walls and hard firing, with a dark brown grit-tempered fabric.33 Examples from Kissonerga-Skalia also include the shallow incised decoration executed with a multi-pronged tool common to RP IV. Macroscopic examination of Skalia sherds indicates two distinct variants and RP IV style vessels were both imported from elsewhere on Cyprus and produced in local clays. pXRF results Non-invasive X-ray fluorescence analysis (or pXRF) was performed in situ on 65 pottery samples.34 Spectra were acquired with a Bruker Artax 200 instrument using unfiltered radiation (Mo target tube) at 25 kV, 1000 μΑ, with a 1.5 mm collimator for 60 seconds live-time acquisition. Individual data were recorded as spectra, with individual elements quantified by their net peak area. No mass quantification (wt%, mg/kg) for individual constituents was attempted as subsequent geochemical lab-work will be undertaken using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Measurements were taken on fresh surface breaks in areas where no typological characteristics were altered, and the area of analysis was kept as flat as possible. For each sample, at least three measurements were taken in different areas to mitigate for the heterogeneous nature of the ceramics; subsequently, mean values of the data were calculated for each individual sherd. Detected elements are shown in Table 8.1. To isolate different groups of samples, a semi-quantitative approach was applied. Semi-quantitative methods were selected because no certified reference materials have yet been included because of the planned SEM analysis. The spectral data of the samples were compared to each other to obtain information regarding the relative concentrations of elements from sample to sample. This method was used to ascertain relative element concentrations between sample pairs instead of absolute concentration values. In addition, ratios of specific elements were also used.35 The samples from Kissonerga-Skalia can be clearly divided into two groups. In the graph shown in Figure 8.4, Group A shows lower relative values of both the rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) ratio and the titanium/chromium (Ti/Cr) ratio compared to Group B samples. Similar distinctions are seen in the second biplot

140  Christine Johnston et al. Table 8.1 Elements detected by Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of KissonergaSkalia sherds pXRF elements detected Aluminium (Al) Silicon (Si) Potassium (K) Calcium (Ca) Titanium (Ti) Chromium (Cr) Manganese (Mn) Iron (Fe) Nickel (Ni) Copper (Cu) Zinc (Zn) Rubidium (Rb) Strontium (Sr) Zirconium (Zr)

Figure 8.4 Correlation between the ratios rubidium/strontium (Rb/Sr) and titanium/chromium (Ti/Cr) (Oikonomou 2020, fig. 2).

(Fig. 8.5). Group A samples appear to have a rather constant and low ratio of iron/ manganese (Fe/Mn) and a higher ratio of calcium/potassium (Ca/K). Three samples of Group B (the points in the centre of the plot) show the same values of Ca/K as Group A samples, but their iron/manganese (Fe/Mn) levels are elevated, as is more typical for Group B samples. The analysis indicates that the selected elements and their ratios are diagnostic of the composition of the clays used and that there is high confidence that the two groups of samples were made with clays from two different sources.

Innovation and adaptation  141

Figure 8.5 Correlation between the ratios calcium/potassium (Ca/K) against iron/manganese (Fe/Mn) (Oikonomou 2020, fig. 3).

The resulting ceramic groups map largely onto the local and non-local ware groups as determined by initial macroscopic analysis. Group A is predominantly comprised of non-local ceramics, namely RP IV (Fig. 8.6a). Group A also includes three sherds that had initially been thought to be local imitations of Black Slip ceramics (Fig. 8.6b); however, the clay was determined by the pXRF analysis to align with the Group A samples, distinct from the local group. The larger group, Group B, includes the ceramics thought to be of local manufacture based on macroscopic analysis (Fig. 8.7). This includes the local RP and DP wares typical of Middle Cypriot ceramic technologies of the west coast (Fig. 8.7a), as well as some of the sherds thought to represent local imitations of nonlocal types (RP IV and Black Slip). Importantly, this group also includes all 14 sherds identified as representative of PBR, as well as three of the four sherds of approximate PBR type, which were tentatively grouped based on macroscopic assessment with the local imitations of Black Slip (Fig. 8.7b, c). Conclusions The preliminary results of this study support the initial hypothesis that local traditions of dark-faced pottery styles related to PBR ware developed at the site of Kissonerga-Skalia in western Cyprus at the transition to the Late Bronze Age.36 The strong similarities in fabric, identified visually and demonstrated geochemically, suggest significant continuity in potting communities at the site from earlier occupation into the construction and use of the Final-Phase Complex, corresponding to the transition from the Middle to Late Cypriot periods. This occurs in tandem

142  Christine Johnston et al.

Figure 8.6 Group A sample sherds as identified through pXRF analysis, including sherds identified macroscopically as imported RP IV (a) and Black Slip local imitation wares (b).

Innovation and adaptation  143

Figure 8.7 Group B sample sherds as identified through pXRF analysis. Sherds were identified macroscopically as examples of local Drab ware vessels (A: KS_pXRF_9) and local Proto Base Ring ware (B: KS_pXRF_22; C: KS_pXRF_24). Section images by Sergios Menelaou.

with the introduction to Kissonerga-Skalia of other island-wide pottery styles that became popular across Cyprus at this time. The initial pXRF results will be assessed through future mineralogical and geochemical analyses including petrography and Scanning Electron Microscopy. By combining mineralogical (petrographic) and geochemical (pXRF and SEM) analyses to evaluate changes in pottery production techniques, we can

144  Christine Johnston et al. capitalise on the strengths of each method.37 This next stage of research will begin with this initial study sample and then will be expanded to include additional materials from Kissonerga-Skalia, as well as sherds from other sites in western and southern Cyprus, with the goal of eventually incorporating samples from across the island. This next stage of research will look in particular at fabric and vessel preparation and firing technology, again using petrography and SEM.38 This ongoing research will continue to assess the social and economic contexts of pottery production in western Cyprus at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, when Cypriot potters were introduced to new regional and foreign styles and faced increasing demand for their products. The ceramic material from KissonergaSkalia demonstrates continuation in communities of practice, as well as experimentation with new techniques in vessel preparation and firing. The results of the macroscopic and pXRF analyses presented here, though preliminary, suggest that a PBR style developed at the site from local RP and DP potting traditions at the transition from the Middle to Late Cypriot period. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the volume editors and reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Thank you to the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, for granting an excavation licence for Kissonerga-Skalia, and thank you to the Science and Technology in Archaeology Research Center (STARC) of The Cyprus Institute for conducting in-field analysis of the study sample. Notes 1 See Webb (this volume) for a discussion of shifting patterns of connectivity in the preceding Early and Middle Cypriot periods. 2 Merrillees (1971); Cadogan (1993) 92; Steel (2004) 149; Georgiou (2007); Crewe and Georgiou (2018). Georgiou notes that the decline in sites through this transition in the northern and southern parts of the island is not seen in the Mesaoria or along the west and northwest, where the number of sites increased ([2009] 66). New sites founded along the coast include Enkomi, Kition, Hala Sultan Tekke, Maroni, Episkopi, Kouklia in the south and east, and Morphou Toumba tou Skourou in the northwest (Webb [2009] 33–6). 3 Keswani (2004) 80, 85; Steel (2010) 107. In the LC II period, this included the restricted circulation of both gold and imported luxury goods such as jewellery from Egypt and the Near East (Antoniadou [2005] 75). These hierarchical distribution patterns contrast to those of the Early and Middle Cypriot periods, in which prestige goods were more widely circulated (Keswani [2004]). 4 Merrillees (1971); Åström (1972a) 274–9; Crewe (2007a, b); Horowitz (2007); Frankel (2009); Steel (2010). For a survey of ceramic styles across this transition, see Manning ([2001] 80–2), who places the adoption of a shared island-wide assemblage in the LC IB. See Peri (this volume) for an assessment of regional assemblage profiles in southwestern Cyprus during the Middle and Late Cypriot periods. 5 Johnston (2016). Foreign interest for copper drew the island to some degree into the larger political arena of the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean (Steel [1998] 288);

Innovation and adaptation  145 however, the catalyst for the development of coastal emporia, enhanced social hierarchy, and economic production intensification in the Late Cypriot period can be understood in part as occurring within the context of competitive consumption of luxury goods by the emergent elite already in the Middle Cypriot period (Knapp [1996] 60; Keswani [2005] 394). For a discussion of Aegean and Cypriot pottery circulation in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, see contributions by Clark, Zeman-Wiśniewska, and Kostopolou in this volume. For Cypriot connections to the west with Crete and Sardinia, see Porta and Cannavò. 6 See, for example, numerous contributions in Kearns and Manning (2019), as well as Webb and Knapp (2020). 7 Crewe (2013, 2017). 8 Merrillees (1971); Knapp (2013). For a recent re-evaluation of Middle Cypriot complexity, see Webb and Knapp (2020); Recht and Bürge (this volume). For interconnectivity and cultural entanglements with neighbouring regions in the earlier Neolithic period, see the contributions by Clarke and Wasse (this volume). 9 Vaughan (1987, 1991); Åström (2001). 10 Johnston (2016). For the overlap between different BR groups, see Eames (1994) 138; Eriksson (2001) 51–2. The technology employed in the production of BR vessels share affinities with other Cypriot wheel-made groups, including Red Lustrous and Red Polished; similarities are also visible with Red Lustrous fabric (Vaughan [1987] 283; Artzy [2007] 14). 11 Knapp (1992) 60; Keswani (2004) 84. 12 Crewe (2017) and see Crewe and Souter (this volume) for further discussion of activities in the final-phase complex. 13 Forty-four samples came from area B, eight from area G, three from area G2, two from area P, five from area D, and one from area N. 14 Vaughan (1991); Crewe (2007b). 15 See infra n. 19. 16 Åström (2001). 17 Bergoffen characterises BR vessels as belonging in finish and appearance to lustrous style Cypriot wares (Bergoffen [2007] 27). The similarities in shape and decoration between PBR and earlier RP traditions were noted by Åström ([1972b] 130), while technical aspects of BR traditions, including surface decoration, have been tied to earlier RP production (Vaughan [1991] 122). 18 Some of the earliest PBR and BR vessels appear around the Morphou Bay area and are similar in fabric and shape to the earlier Middle Cypriot Black Slip tradition (Hennessy [1963] 48; Vaughan [1991] 126; Crewe [2007b]; Bushnell [2013] 239). 19 Vaughan (1991); Herscher (2001). The Mamonia Complex of western Cyprus is one of the regions identified by Vaughan as producing low-grade metamorphic clay with the good thixotropic properties needed to produce the thin walls and complex profiles of BR vessels ([1991] 121). Mamonia outcrops lie within 5km of Kissonerga-Skalia in the Mavrokolymbos River valley. 20 Herscher (2001) 16. The connection between Drab Polished blue-core styles and BR was also noted by Newton et al. (2007). 21 A metallic precedent for BR vessels has been suggested based on morphological features, such as ‘rivets’; however, this is difficult to verify due to the scarcity of surviving metal vessels (Bergoffen [2007]; Merrillees [1982]). 22 See Åström (1972b) 126. According to Vaughan’s analysis, matte fabrics remained more common in BR vessels from the west, while lustrous fabrics predominated in the Ovgos Valley, central Mesaoria, and the south coast (Vaughan [1991] 123). 23 Herscher (2001) 11–13. 24 Barlow (1991); Crewe (2013). 25 Åström (1972a) 78–84; Barlow (1991).

146  Christine Johnston et al. 26 Graham (2013) 101–21, 285–97. 27 Herscher (2001) 16–19. 28 Crewe (2013). 29 Bushnell (2013) 44. 30 Åström (1972b) 75. 31 Åström (1972b) 80. See also Merrillees (1971) 56–72. 32 Vaughan (1991) 126. 33 Åström (1972a) 78; Graham (2013) 120. 34 Analysis was undertaken by Dr Artemios Oikonomou, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Cyprus Institute. 35 For relative element concentration of four or more elements in pXRF analysis of ceramics, see Frankel and Webb (2011). 36 This corroborates the findings by Graham (2013) of stylistic connections between DB and early potential PBR wares in tombs at Kissonerga-Ammoudhia. 37 Tite (1999); Quinn et al. (2010); Day et al. (2011). 38 Future analysis may employ refiring experiments, in which samples are gradually heated until changes in the clay composition are detected using SEM. For an overview of this method, see Daszkiewicz and Maritan (2016).

Bibliography Antoniadou, S. (2005), ‘The Impact of Trade on Late Cypriot Society: A Contextual Study of Imports from Enkomi’, in J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, Council for British Research in the Levant, Levant Supplementary Series. 66–77. Oxford. Artzy, M. (2007), ‘On the Origin(s) of the Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference Vienna 5–6th Nov. 2004. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. 11–18. Vienna. Åström, P. (1972a), The Middle Cypriote Bronze Age, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV:1B. Lund. Åström, P. (1972b), The Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Architecture and Pottery, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV:1C. Lund. Åström, P. (2001), ‘The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Proto White Slip Ware.’ In V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in Honour of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia, 29th–30th October 1998. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. 49–50. Wien. Barlow, J. (1991), ‘New Light on Red Polished Ware’, in J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. 51–7. Philadelphia. Bergoffen, C. (2007), ‘Reflections on Two ‘Lustrous’ Base Ring I Kraters from Alalakh’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean: Papers of a Conference Vienna 5–6th Nov. 2004. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. 25–36. Wien. Bushnell, L. (2013), The Socio-Economic Implications of the Distribution of Juglets in the Eastern Mediterranean During the Middle and Late Bronze Age. (PhD dissertation, University College London) London. Cadogan, G. (1993), ‘Cyprus, Mycenaean Pottery, Trade and Colonisation’, in C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder (eds), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. 91–9. Amsterdam.

Innovation and adaptation  147 Crewe, L. (2007a), ‘Contextualizing the Lustrous Wares at Enkomi: Settlement and ­Mortuary Deposition during Late Cypriot I–IIB’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean: Papers of a Conference Vienna 5–6th Nov. 2004. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. 43–50. Vienna. Crewe, L. (2007b), Early Enkomi: Regionalism, Trade and Society at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus, BAR 1706. Oxford. Crewe, L. (2013), ‘Regional Connections during the Middle–Late Cypriot Transition. New Evidence from Kissonerga-Skalia’, Pasiphae 8, 47–56. Crewe, L. (2017), ‘Interpreting Settlement Function and Scale during MC III–LC IA Using Old Excavations and New: Western Cyprus and Kisonerga (Kissonerga) Skalia in Context’, in D. Pilides and M. Mina (eds), Four Decades of Hiatus in Archaeological Research in Cyprus: Towards Restoring the Balance. Proceedings of the International One-Day Workshop, Held in Lefkosia on 23 September 2016. 140–53. Vienna. Crewe, L. and A. Georgiou (2018), ‘Settlement Nucleation at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: The Evidence from Palaepaphos’, in L. Hulin, L. Crewe, and J.M. Webb (eds), Structures of Inequality on Bronze Age Cyprus: Studies in Honour of Alison K. South. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PB 187. 53–70. Nicosia. Daszkiewicz, M. and L. Maritan (2016), ‘Experimental Firing and Re-firing’, in A.M.W. Hunt (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis. 487–508. Oxford. Day, P.M., P.S. Quinn, J. Rutter, and V. Kilikoglou (2011), ‘A World of Goods: Transport Jars and Commodity Exchange at the Late Bronze Age Harbor of Kommos, Crete’, Hesperia 80.5, 511–58. Eames, S.J. (1994), ‘A Re-Examination of the Definition, Distribution, and Relative Chronology of Proto Base Ring Ware’, Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 127–40. Eriksson, K. (2001) ‘Cypriot Ceramics in Egypt During the Reign of Thutmosis III’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheelmade Ware. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 31–50. Stockholm. Frankel, D. (2009), ‘What Do We Mean by ‘Regionalism’?’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C. Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 15–27. Vienna. Frankel, D. and J.M. Webb (2011), ‘Pottery Production and Distribution in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: An Application of pXRF Analysis’, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1380–7. Georgiou, G. (2007), The Topography of Human Settlement in Cyprus during the Early and Middle Bronze Age. (PhD thesis (in Greek), University of Cyprus) Nicosia. Georgiou, G. (2009), ‘The Dynamism of Central Cyprus during the Middle Cypriot III: Funerary Evidence from Nicosia Agia Paraskevi’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C.: Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Age, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 4th Cyprological Congress, May 2nd 2008, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 65–78. Vienna. Graham, L. (2013), The Necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia: Techniques of Ceramic Production in Early-Middle Bronze Age Western Cyprus. (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh) Edinburgh. Hennessy, J.B. (1963), Stephania: A Middle and Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus. London.

148  Christine Johnston et al. Herscher, E. (2001), ‘Early Base Ring Ware from Phaneromeni and Maroni’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. Kungliga ­Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 11–21. Stockholm. Horowitz, M.T. (2007), Monumentality and Social Transformation at Late Bronze I Phlamoudhi-Vounari, Cyprus. (PhD dissertation, Columbia University) New York. Johnston, C.L. (2016), Networks and Intermediaries: Ceramic Exchange Systems in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. (PhD dissertation, University of California, Los ­Angeles) Los Angeles. Kearns, C. and S.W. Manning (2019), New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology. Ithaca. Keswani, P.S. (2004), Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 9. London. Keswani, P.S. (2005), ‘Death, Prestige, and Copper in Bronze Age Cyprus’, American Journal of Archaeology 109.3, 341–401. Knapp, A.B. (1992), ‘Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East, Part I’, Biblical Archaeologist 55.2, 52–73. Knapp, A.B. (1996), ‘Settlement and Society on Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Dynamics and Developments’, in P. Åström and E. Herscher (eds), Late Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus: Function and Relationship, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature: Pocket-book 126. 54–80. Jonsered. Knapp, A.B. (2013), ‘Revolution within Evolution: The Emergence of a ‘Secondary State’ on Protohistoric Bronze Age Cyprus’, Levant 45.1, 19–44. Manning, S.W. (2001), ‘The Chronology and Foreign Connections of the Late Cypriot I Period: Times They Are A-Changin’’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheelmade Ware. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 69–94. Stockholm. Merrillees, R.S. (1971), ‘The Early History of the LCI’, Levant 3, 56–79. Merrillees, R.S. (1982), ‘Metal Vases of Cypriot Type from the 16th to the 13th Centuries B.C.’, in J. Muhly (ed.), Early Metallurgy in Cyprus. 4000–500 BC: Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Larnaca, Cyprus, 1–6 June 1981. 233–50. Larnaca. Newton, G.W.A., J. Bourriau, E.B. French, and A.J.N.W. Prag (2007), ‘INAA of Archaeological Samples at the University of Manchester’, Archaeometry 49.2, 289–99. Quinn, P., P. Day, V. Kilikoglou, E. Faber, S. Katsarou-Tzeveleki, and A. Sampson (2010), ‘Keeping an Eye on Your Pots: The Provenance of Neolithic Ceramics from the Cave of the Cyclops, Youra, Greece’, Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1042–52. Steel, L. (1998), ‘The Social Impact of Mycenaean Imported Pottery in Cyprus’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 93, 285–96. Steel, L. (2004), Cyprus before History, From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age. London. Steel, L. (2010), ‘Late Cypriot Ceramic Production: Heterarchy or Hierarchy?’, in L. Maguire and D. Bolger (eds), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg. 106–16. Oxford. Tite, M.S. (1999), ‘Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption: The Contribution of the Physical Sciences’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 181–233. Vaughan, S.J. (1987), A Fabric Analysis of Late Cypriot Base Ring Ware. (PhD dissertation, University College London) London. Vaughan, S.J. (1991), ‘Material and Technical Classification of Base Ring Ware: A New Fabric Typology’, in J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. 119–30. Philadelphia.

Innovation and adaptation  149 Webb, J.M (2009), ‘Deneia: A Middle Cypriot Site in Its Regional and Historical Context’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C. Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 20. 27–38. Vienna. Webb, J.M. and A.B. Knapp (2020), ‘Rethinking Middle Bronze Age Communities on Cyprus, “Egalitarian” and Isolated or Complex and Interconnected?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 29, 203–53.

9

Cypriot connections through the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition in the Western Galilee A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv Brigid Clark

Introduction Excavations at Tel Achziv (Arabic Az-Zeeb) from 1963 to 1964, directed by Moshe Prausnitz, revealed a large assemblage of Middle and Late Cypriot imported ceramics.1 The 88 Cypriot sherds from Tel Achziv are rivalled only by the finds at Tell el-‘Ajjul, where 115 Cypriot sherds have been identified.2 The Middle Bronze Age Western Galilee contains crucial sites with significant evidence of interactions with Cyprus, including Tel Akko, Tel Kabri, and Tel Nahariya. Examining the Cypriot evidence from sites such as Tel Achziv on the Southern Levantine coast can provide evidence for the integration of coastal communities into the extensive economic and social networks of the Eastern Mediterranean. The arrival of Cypriot imports in the Southern Levant is a well-documented phenomenon in the Late Bronze Age, and the origins of this exchange can be traced to many Middle Bronze Age sites, with Cypriot imports appearing in indiscriminate contexts concentrated in the urban Coastal Plain sites, likely congruent with anchorage sites.3 The Middle Bronze Age marks a new era of complex society and urbanisation in the Southern Levant that continued into the Late Bronze Age.4 This transition in social, economic, and political complexity is discussed at length in other chapters of this volume.5 Within the Levant, this period was characterised by an increased integration of Levantine centres into Mediterranean economic, political, and social networks.6 It is with this increase in connectivity that the first rise of interregional maritime trade is seen, setting the stage for the growth of the expansive exchange and diplomatic networks of the Late Bronze Age.7 The region of the Western Galilee, in which Tel Achziv is a major coastal site, represents a clearly defined Mediterranean microregion.8 This area is defined by both geographic and political borders, including the sea to the west, the Meiron/Upper Galilee Mountains to the east, the Sulam/Rosh Haniqra Ridge to the north, and the boundary of the polity of Tel Akko to the south.9 As such, the Western Galilee microregion provides a unique case study for the expansion of Middle Bronze Age international relations in connection with the rise and demise of palatial Tel Kabri.10 The fortified site of Tel Achviz, located 14 km north of Tel Akko, 4 km north of the modern city of Nahariya and 5.5 km northwest of Tel Kabri, was potentially the main harbour site of the polity.11 DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-9

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  151 Table 9.1 Chronological comparisons between Levantine and Cypriot phases mentioned in the text (all BCE) Levantine phase

Dates

Cypriot phase

Dates

MB I

2000 (1900)–1800/1750 (1850/1800) 1800/1750(1850/1800) –1650 (1700) 1650 (1700)–1550 (1600) 1550 (1600)–1400

MC I

1950–1850

MC II

1850–1750

MC III LC I

1750–1650 1650–1425

MB II MB III LB I

Cypriot absolute dates are based on the chronological schemes of Merrillees (1992) and Manning et al. (2001). Levantine dates are based on traditional chronology by Dever (1992), with updated radiocarbon dates provided in parenthesis. For a discussion of absolute dates, see Höflmayer (2017). MB/LB = Middle/Late Bronze; MC/LC = Middle/Late Cypriot.

The aim of this study is to present a previously unpublished collection of Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv, and to assess the transformations of maritime trade with Cyprus between the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1950–1550 BCE; see Table 9.1) and into the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550–1200 BCE).12 The assemblage is composed of commonly imported Middle Cypriot (MC) and Late Cypriot (LC) wares, including White Painted (WP) Pendent Line Style (PLS), WP Cross Line Style (CLS), WP Tangent Line Style (TLS), White Painted V, White Painted Composite, Red-on-Red/Black (RoR/RoB), White Slip (WS), Base Ring (BR) and Bichrome. Other imported Cypriot wares mentioned here are WP Alternating Broad Band and Wavy Line Style (ABBWLS), Black Lustrous Wheelmade (BLWM), Proto White Slip (PWS), Black Slip, and Monochrome. The period represents a crucial sociopolitical transitional period on Cyprus (see Table 9.1 for chronological synchronisms), and consistent amounts of Cypriot imports in the Western Galilee indicate increased and stable connectivity between Cyprus and the Levant throughout these transitions. It is likely that both Cypriot producers and Levantine consumers benefited from this connectivity in unique ways. The Moshe Prausnitz excavations at Tel Achziv Excavations at Tel Aczhiv were conducted from 1963 to 1964, directed by Prausnitz, yet the full results of the excavations remain unpublished. Area D, at the eastern edge of the tell, was opened in order to provide a stratigraphic section of the site. The area was supervised during the 1963 season by Kempinski,13 who also wrote the stratigraphic conclusions to this area, which formed the basis for the preliminary publication of Prausnitz’s Achziv fortification system.14 The area of the stratigraphic section continued to be excavated in 1964, re-named as Area C.15 The stratigraphic results of this season were never published, though the pottery from the area received preliminary publication by Oren,16 who, however, did not include in his study the locus numbers or the baskets from which the pottery originated. Additionally, the project included the excavation of various cemeteries, directed by Prausnitz.17

152  Brigid Clark The publication of the 1963–1964 seasons was entrusted to Yasur-Landau at the University of Haifa, with most stratigraphic data relating to the Iron Age.18 The collection of 88 Cypriot imports published here are of Middle and early Late Bronze Age date and were found as residual sherds in Iron Age contexts by Prausnitz. As the pottery was not found in chronological context, it has scientific value similar to that of pottery found in field survey and can therefore illuminate the period in which Bronze Age interaction took place. Furthermore, these imports indicate that the builders of the Iron Age monumental architecture disturbed Middle and Late Bronze remains on the tell, which was not indicated in stratigraphic excavation. The importance of this assemblage is in its high number of imports covering the transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, postdating the demise of the Tel Kabri palace, while indicating the considerable maritime connectivity of Tel Achziv and its anchorage. Tel Achziv The site is located on a coastal kurkar (local aeolianite deposits) ridge near what was likely the largest bay north of Akko (Fig. 9.1), which may account for the importance of Tel Achziv from MB I onwards.19 The earliest evidence from Tel Achziv consists of limited exposures dated to the beginning of MB I. Occupied from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, Tel Achziv saw significant growth in late MB I or MB II, along with other coastal sites of the region like Tel Kabri.20 A fortification was first exposed by Prausnitz in the 1963–1964 seasons,21 composed of a beaten earth rampart, a revetment containing several layers of earth, and a glacis made of a stone wall coated with clay, with typical MB II pottery found in the area.22 The Tel Achziv fortification is constructed with large limestone and kurkar retaining walls, as well as an earthen rampart covered by a stone glacis. Recent excavations conducted by Thareani of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology and Jasmin and Abrahami of the University of Lille have distinguished two main phases: an initial phase of establishment and use of the fortification, dated to MB II (Phase N4) and a second construction dated to the transitional MB III to LB I period (Phase N3).23 There was also notable destruction, with remains of conflagration identified on the northeastern part of the fortification, dated to MB III or beginning of LB I.24 The construction of this fortification took advantage of the natural fortifications, including the tell to the west, the bay to the south, and Khziv Stream to the north. At the foot of the glacis, a deep fosse was dug to protect the approach to the city, connecting the Khziv Stream with the bay and essentially turning the city into an island surrounded by a rampart.25 In addition, there are several reported tombs of the Middle and Late Bronze Age connected with Tel Achziv. The cemetery on the mound contained tombs dating to the Middle Bronze Age, and the eastern cemetery yielded cist tombs dating to LB II.26 The 1988 to 1990 expedition directed by Mazar also found a damaged pit grave dated to MB II in Area B.27 While the exact location of the Tel Achziv anchorage is still unknown, it is likely to be located either immediately north of the site in the estuary of Nahal

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  153

Figure 9.1 Tel Achziv and the nearby associated sites, adapted from Yasur-Landau et al. (2008) fig. 2.

Khziv or immediately south at the estuary of Nahal Sha‘al.28 Further, half a kilometre south, another small anchorage is located at el-Buqbaq that has yielded MB I and II cooking pots. This anchorage may be connected to the settlement or, similar to the situation at Tel Nahariya, represent an anchorage associated with a coastal fort or shrine.29 The unpublished Cypriot material from Tel Achziv Previous publication of Cypriot finds from Tel Achziv

Louise Maguire’s30 extensive catalogue of Middle Bronze Age Cypriot material in the Levant documents three sherds (one WP PLS closed body sherd and two RoR/ RoB rim sherds from bowls) from the Tel Achziv Glacis, dated to MB I/II and originally published by Oren.31 Two sherds, a body sherd of a bowl, and a spout of a spouted bowl were previously published by Oren and come from Locus 906.32

154  Brigid Clark This locus is a fill within the fosse east of the rampart, containing MB II pottery and sealed below Locus 905, also a fill containing MB II pottery. Another RoB/RoR or Red Polished IV sherd is a rim of a bowl from Locus 305.33 It was found within the stone revetment of the glacis and is likely connected with the MB II construction.34 In addition, LB II Cypriot material, including WS II and BR II bowls and shaved juglets were found in tombs in the eastern cemetery.35 The unpublished Tel Achziv material

Some 88 sherds of Cypriot pottery have been identified to date, including 23 sherds of WP, 42 sherds of RoR/RoB, 7 sherds of WS, 14 sherds of Bichrome wares, and 2 BR sherds. A full catalogue of these sherds can be found in Appendix 9.1 (supplementary online material; catalogue numbers below refer to this). The overall chronology of the sherds suggests a date beginning in late MB (II or III?), into the transition between MB/LB and into LB I, with a few outliers going into LB II. Many of the ware types, including the later WP sherds, a single PWS sherd and the Bichrome sherds, strongly suggest that the bulk of the assemblage belongs to MB III to LB I. White Painted (WP)

The material consists of 23 sherds of Cypriot ‘Middle Cypriot’ WP, representing 26 per cent of the assemblage (Fig. 9.2). Two sherds (Cat. Nos. 15 and 70) represent open vessels, while the other 21 sherds represent closed vessels, likely juglets or jugs. Two sherds of WP III–IV PLS (Cat. Nos. 3 and 5) were identified. Catalogue numbers 6, 9, 17, and 21 may represent WP IV–VI. One sherd (Cat. No. 15) is a WP Composite example, with parallels from Tel Megiddo.36 WP wares are among the earliest imports to the Southern Levant, beginning in MB I, largely at coastal sites, and continuing throughout LB IIA.37 Imports occur mostly in closed forms, and all decoration types (PLS, CLS, TLS, and Composite) appear simultaneously during this earliest import horizon in Canaan.38 In the transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age, WP V and VI supersede these wares as the most common WP types in Canaan.39 WP III–IV PLS, originating in the east of Cyprus, has a known manufacture date of MC II–III (1750–1650 BCE) and LC IA (1650–1550 BCE), corresponding to MB II and MB III (MB IIB and MB IIC, respectively) on the mainland.40 The vessels are found mainly as round and oval jugs, characterised by alternating groups of four to seven vertical straight lines and one to four wavy lines decorated on the body. The ware has been found at Kalopsidha, Enkomi, Alambra, Yeri, Ayia Paraskevi, Dhiorios, Politiko-Lambertis and Kythera in the Karpas Peninsula, among other places.41 In the Levant, the ware is associated with dates ranging from MB I to MB III (MB IIA to MB IIC)42 and has been documented at Tell ‘Arqa,43 Sidon,44 Sarepta,45 Dhahrat el-Humraiya,46 Tel Kabri,47 Tel Megadim,48 ‘Atlit,49 Tel Megiddo,50 and Tel Gezer.51

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  155

Figure 9.2  Various White Painted Wares from Tel Achziv (prepared by author).

Composite ware combines black slipped and burnished surfaces on the exterior and WP motifs on the interior and comes only in hemispherical bowls.52 It is generally believed this ware originated in eastern Cyprus,53 and while Åström dated it to MC/MB II,54 recent scholarship suggests that it continued to be exported during MB III and LB I.55 During the renewed excavations at Tel Megiddo, WP wares belonging to the WP IV–VI style were recorded in Levels K-10 (MB III–LB I) and H-15 (LB I).

156  Brigid Clark WP IV–VI juglets are found primarily in funerary contexts and are diagnostic as LB IA wares.56 WP IV–VI ware is often found as handmade juglets with globular bodies and trefoil rims, often with loop handles.57 Catalogue numbers 6, 9, and 18 represent similar loop handles. The presence of WP PLS strongly suggests activity in at least as early as MB III, possibly earlier, as indicated by the presence of WP imports in MB I and II phases at Tel Kabri. A significant portion of the assemblage, 4 out of 23 sherds, may represent later WP IV–VI wares and suggests a continuation into at least LB IA. Red-on-Red/Red-on-Black (RoR/RoB)

RoB/RoR sherds comprise about 48 per cent (42 sherds) of the total number of MC and LC Cypriot imports to the site (Figs 9.3 and 9.4), suggesting strong parallels to the consumption patterns at Tell el-‘Ajjul. All but three of the sherds from the Tel Achziv assemblage belong to open vessels, likely bowls. Imported Cypriot RoB/RoR ware is usually associated with MB II–III to LB I contexts in the Southern Levant, equivalent to approximately MC III/LC I in Cyprus, suggesting a range of 1700–1400 BCE for importation. Examples can be seen at Tel Megiddo Strata X and IX,58 Tel Mevorakh Strata XII,59 Tel Mor Strata VII, XI, and XII60 as well as MB III–LB I contexts at Tel Lachish.61 The largest assemblage of RoR/RoB is known from Tell el-‘Ajjul, where the MC and LC I repertoire is composed of over 100 examples, beginning in the MB III period and continuing into the Middle/Late Bronze Age transition at the site.62 This pattern is very different than that seen at Middle Bronze Tell el-Dab‘a, where RoR/RoB is quite rare, with 10 specimens.63 Tell el-‘Ajjul is somewhat of an oddity, as the Cypriot assemblage is composed of over 50 per cent bowls, whereas Cypriot closed vessels usually dominate Levantine Middle Bronze sites (usually WP open shapes). While this discrepancy may be a result of Tell el-‘Ajjul’s place as a powerhouse of trade in the Middle/Late Bronze transition, the comparison between high amounts of RoB/RoR at both Tell el-‘Ajjul and Tel Achziv is notable. White Slip (WS)

The Tel Achziv assemblage consists of a small WS contingency of seven sherds (8 per cent) (Fig. 9.5). This is typical of any Levantine site occupied in the Late Bronze Age.64 One notable sherd, catalogue number 63 (Fig. 9.5.1), has been identified as Proto WS (PWS), a notably rarer and chronologically significant ware. This ware is dated to within the sixteenth century, specifically the late Hyksos period (Phase D/2) and the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Phase D/1), and it is found in Tell el-Dab‘a Strata f, e/2 and e/1,65 as well as Stratum X at Tel Megiddo.66 Across the Levant, Aegean, and entire Eastern Mediterranean, the vast majority of Late Bronze Age sites contain at least one WS sherd, usually numbering in the hundreds. Due to their vast life span of approximately 400 years with minor but distinct variations, both WS and BR act as chronological and cultural indicators.67 At the start of the Late Bronze Age, Cyprus sees the creation of monochrome surfaces

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  157

Figure 9.3  Selection of RoB and RoR rims from Tel Achziv (prepared by author).

Figure 9.4  Various RoB and RoR sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author).

derived from local Middle Cypriot styles, which become the typical Late Cypriot wares of WS and BR. PWS, the earliest representative of the WS family, is found in late Hyksos period contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a (Stratum D/2), predating the Eighteenth Dynasty and the Late Bronze Age in the Levant, and is documented in the Levant at the end of MB III.68 PWS is identifiable by its very white or grey-white

158  Brigid Clark fabric, with diagnostic decorations such as the ‘eye and nose decoration’ as seen in catalogue number 63.69 Its presence outside Cyprus is rare, with the largest assemblage found at Tell el-‘Ajjul.70 The use of PWS continues into the Late Bronze Age, but it is largely replaced by WS I at the beginning of LC IA.71 The presence of PWS attests to the Middle Cypriot nature of this assemblage, as PWS is documented in the Levant at the end of MB III.72 WS I is usually found at sites along northern and southern coastal routes leading inland. The transition from WS I to WS II occurred sometime after the death of Thutmosis III, with the first WS II appearing in Egypt in the reign of Amenhotep III (Tell el-Dab‘a, Amarna, Memphis),73 and oftentimes the arrival of WS II is seen as a chronological signpost of the development of Cyprus, associated with LC IIA. WS II is characterised by a variety of shapes, with the latter iterations of WS II ware demonstrating mass production indicated by simpler decoration, a wide area of distribution, and disregard for quality of slip and fabric.74 WS ware fulfilled a need for finer table wares, and throughout its development, bowls, jugs, and tankards became the dominant shapes.

Figure 9.5  Various White Slip sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author).

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  159 Base Ring (BR)

Two BR sherds (Cat. Nos. 86 and 87) were identified in the Tel Achziv assemblage. They were not identifiable as either BR I or II, and therefore the chronological implication ranges from LC IA through to LC IIC/IIIA.75 In Cyprus, BR I first appears in LC IA contexts, peaking in LC IB, related to the massive increase in trade with the Eastern Mediterranean during this time.76 BR II is found in contexts dated to LB IIA, including in Levels K-8 and H14 at the renewed expedition to Tel Megiddo,77 and in Stratum C/2 in Tell el-Dab‘a .78 The chronological range of BR II is broad, and its latest appearance may be as late 1200 BCE 79 – much later than other traditional Late Cypriot wares. Bichrome

Fourteen sherds of Bichrome ware were identified in the assemblage (Fig. 9.6). Of these, four are rim pieces and the rest are body sherds. Two sherds (Cat. Nos. 74 and 75) can be clearly identified as bowls. Open shapes are quite rare in the export traditions of Bichrome ware, but shallow, round-sided bowls with horizontal handles (similar to WP and WS bowls) do exist.80 The rest of the vessels are likely closed jugs or tankards. It is possible that the assemblage at Tel Achziv represents a Cypriot ‘drinking set’, comprising common Levantine forms of kraters, juglets and bowls. Such forms are common at export centres such as Alalakh, Ras Shamra, Tel Akko and Tell el-‘Ajjul.81 Four sherds (Cat. Nos. 76, 81, 82, and 84) have identifiable evidence of wheel marks on the interior. This does not mean the other 10 sherds are handmade, but their technology is harder to distinguish. Cypriot Bichrome wheelmade ware is regarded as a Late Cypriot ware and is present in contexts from the end of the Middle Bronze Age.82 It was produced in the eastern part of the island, with some production identified in northern areas.83 Originally, Bichrome was thought to be a diagnostic ware of LB I and LC IA on the island,84 but more recent research has established an MB III date for its first appearance in the Levant.85 This phenomenon is especially clear in sites which have sequences continuing from MB III to LB I, such as Tel Megiddo.86 Within Cyprus, handmade Bichrome ware is dated to the later Middle Cypriot period and early LC IA:1 and wheelmade Bichrome ware is dated to LC IA:1, along with WP V.87 The fact that the decorative elements in the Tel Achziv examples are only geometric and not figurative may have chronological implications, as the appearance of figurative decoration is attributed a later, post-MB III phase of Bichrome.88 The unpublished Tel Achziv assemblage seems to chronologically cover the range between MB III to LB I, with a few outliers that may date as early as MB II and as late as LB II. The size of the Cypriot late Middle Bronze and early Late Bronze Age assemblage at Tel Achziv is comparable only to that from Tell el‘Ajjul, where 115 sherds were identified.89 Considering the strength of nearby Tel Kabri as an international magnet in the Middle Bronze Age, it is possible Tel Achziv represents the first identified Mediterranean coastal gateway on the Western Galilee littoral. Large stone anchors were also uncovered in the sea near Tel

160  Brigid Clark

Figure 9.6  Selection of Bichrome sherds from Tel Achziv (prepared by author).

Achziv90 and while the dating of these is not precise, similar specimens are known from Middle Bronze Age contexts in Ugarit and Byblos.91 The large amount of closed Cypriot vessels, such as WP jugs/juglets, were likely appreciated not only for their contents or aesthetic value, but may have transported a unique Cypriot perishable commodity, and therefore had a utilitarian use.92 The Bronze Age in the Western Galilee Understanding the importance of the imported Tel Achziv assemblage to connections between the Southern Levant and Cyprus requires placing it in the context of known Cypriot imports to the Western Galilee, the territory of the polities of Tel Kabri and Tel Akko (Fig. 9.7).

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  161 Tel Akko (Tell Akka)

Tel Akko is one of the largest sites on the northern Coastal Plain, resting on the mouth of the Akko River. Tel Akko is a fortified centre, located 13 km north of Haifa.93 The coastline of the Southern Levant offers very little opportunity for natural anchorages and Akko Bay provides the largest safe harbour of the northern region. Its location next to the natural bay of Haifa and the junction of the coastal highway and a lateral road from the Mediterranean to Syria and the Transjordan secured its position as a principal coastal city in the Bronze Age. The tell itself is 700 metres from the Mediterranean, on the northern bank of Nahal Na‘aman. It also lies in proximity to a lush agricultural zone to the southeast and northeast (the fertile plain east of the kurkar ridge), although very little is known of the agricultural economy of the site.94 The southern part of the tell was destroyed or damaged from plundering and intensive agricultural activities, limiting excavation of the site.95 Tel Akko was established as a fortified site early, during MB I, and came to dominate the mostly small, numerous sites near the coast.96 In MB I, a piered gate system was constructed.97 The currently known Middle Bronze Age Cypriot assemblage from Tel Akko is quite small. Moshe Dothan published pottery from the MB II layers, including Cypriot pottery from Tomb 664, which contained a WP V–VI juglet with a close parallel at Tel Kabri.98 Maguire more closely examined this material and found 19 WP sherds (4 WP PLS, 3 WP CLS, 2 WP ABBWL, 2 WP Composite, 8 WP various), mostly dated to MB I from the glacis.99 In fact, 16 of the total 18 sherds come from fortification contexts, and only two sherds100 from settlement contexts (M/9 and Area C, respectively). Thirty-three sherds were published by Be’eri101 and examined by Maguire. The recent excavations are as of yet unpublished but should logically reveal more Cypriot imports given Akko’s position as a Middle Bronze maritime power. Maguire also refers to ‘200 sherds of various WP and RoB styles’ in an unpublished MB I–II collection at Haifa University.102 While the number may be reasonable for a Middle Bronze Age coastal hub, the assumption that these 200 unexamined sherds from insecure contexts date to the Middle Bronze Age at a site that includes Late Bronze Age levels is hasty at best.103 Salz104 also reported over 200 examples of MC pottery, but only 17 were published.105 It is unclear if these sherds are the same ones referenced by Maguire. In Area F, a few Middle Cypriot WP sherds were identified.106 The amount of Middle and transitional Middle/Late Bronze Age material at Tel Akko suggests a firm Cypriot maritime connection. While Akko certainly functioned as a Middle Bronze Age coastal hub, it has been suggested that the site existed in conjunction with Tel Kabri, the largest MB II site in the Akko plain. While Tel Akko may have been the ideal site for the arrival of imported ceramics and is in fact the leading candidate for a Middle Bronze Age harbour site for Cypriot connections, there is nothing to suggest that Tel Akko maintained the political, economic, or social power in the Middle Bronze Age that would have granted them control of maritime trade. Samet has suggested that Tel Akko or Tel Achziv was perhaps Tel Kabri’s harbour town – a Minet Kabri of sorts.107 Of course, this picture

162  Brigid Clark was subject to change following the collapse of Tel Kabri during MB II, when Tel Akko likely became the dominating power in the Akko plain and perhaps even the Western Galilee. Tel Kabri (Tell al-Qahweh)

Tel Kabri, inhabited continually throughout MB I–II, was the largest site in the Western Galilee, and the only palatial site in the area excavated to date. Tel Kabri is 44 ha in size and lies 5 km east of modern Nahariya and the sea. The tell is surrounded by four springs (Ein Shefa, Ein Giah, Ein Tzuf and Ein ha-Shayara) that likely attracted people to the site from the Neolithic period onwards. The Canaanite city was first discovered in 1961, when pipe laying works by the Mekorot Water Company revealed an earthen ramp encircling the mound of a lower city and evidence of a monumental building.108 Several Middle Bronze Age tombs were excavated in 1969 by Ben-Yosef but never published. Excavation resumed in 1976 by Prausnitz and Kempinski in cooperation with Amiran, on behalf of the Department of Antiquities and Tel Aviv University, in order to explore Neolithic habitation (Area A), MB I–II tombs (Area B), and the rampart and adjacent houses and burials (Area C). Large-scale excavations were continued from 1986 to 1993 during eight consecutive seasons, directed by Kempinski and Niemeier, who continued ­excavation in the previous areas as well as in the area of the Middle Bronze Age palace (Area D).109 Renewed excavations at Tel Kabri began again in 2005, under the direction of Yasur-Landau and Cline, with the aim of clarifying the­ chronological sequence of the palace from the pre-palatial stages to its abandonment in MB II.110 The earlier excavations at Tel Kabri, conducted by Kempinski from 1986 to 1993, uncovered 20 WP and BLWM sherds,111 which were catalogued extensively by Maguire.112 Furthermore, a salvage expedition conducted in the 1960s and 1970s by Prausnitz recovered an additional 26 sherds and vessels of WP ware.113 Bergoffen published the material from the renewed excavation’s 2005–2011 seasons, consisting of 18 sherds of WP sherds (3 CLS, 1 PLS, 7 WP V and 7 WP indeterminate), 7 RoR/RoB, 1 Black Slip, and 1 Monochrome sherd.114 Materials from the most recent seasons (four seasons since 2011) include 138 WP (22 PLS, 6 CLS, 3 WP IV, and 107 WP indeterminate), and 2 sherds of RoR/RoB.115 Overall from Tel Kabri, this totals 215 sherds from Middle Bronze Age contexts.116 It is evident that Tel Kabri represents a Cypriot trade hub in the Mediterranean Middle Bronze Age, benefitting from its strategic location and proximity to major coastal sites.117 The 215 sherds and vessels documented at the site (including 169 pieces from the renewed excavations, 20 pieces uncovered by Kempinski, and 26 sherds and vessels unpublished from the salvage expedition of Prausnitz) hail from secure loci in palatial, domestic, and funerary contexts. It is also significant that there is no firm connection between palatial consumption and Cypriot wares, and it is likely that also non-elites of Tel Kabri appreciated and used the imports to confirm its ‘international character’.118

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  163 Tel Nahariya (Khirbet Kabarsa)

Tel Nahariya is located south of Nahal Ga’aton, 300 m east of the Mediterranean coast, on the shore of a small bay. Archaeological finds from Tel Nahariya were revealed during developmental work but never properly published, except for a damaged tomb and duck bill axe published by Miron.119 Systematic, yet limited salvage excavations carried out by Yogev in 1980 and 1982 produced only a short preliminary report. Trial pits have found pottery dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age,120 while three strata were identified on the northern slopes of the tell: Stratum III divided into IIIA–C, dated to MB I; Stratum II dated to MB II;121 and Stratum I dated to the Late Bronze Age.122 The earliest floors identified date to MB I.123 Notable finds include the massive MB II wall (Stratum II), potentially representing a fortification or city wall. Additional salvage excavation was conducted on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, directed by Amitzur, Be’eri and Getzov. They confirmed that the limited Middle Bronze Age remains at the site represent a stronghold rather than a fortification of the city. Late Bronze Age architectural remains were also identified, including a large building with various destructions that dates to LB II (Strata VII–IV). According to an analysis conducted by Peilstöcker,124 the settlement begins in MB II, with parallels to Tel Kabri’s Stratum V, developed into a fortified MB II settlement in Stratum II, contemporary with Tel Kabri’s Stratum III, and continued into the Late Bronze Age as a smaller site after the fortifications fell out of use. It is likely the site served its ‘capital’ Tel Kabri during MB II but avoided suffering from the demise given its continued existence into the Late Bronze Age. The coast of Nahariya is not suitable for a harbour, but the existence of imported Middle and Late Bronze pottery (mainly Cypriot) indicates that the maritime activity extends beyond that of a fisherman’s anchorage. Cypriot pottery was found across all three strata, from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age. Peilstöcker125 and Samet126 documented the Cypriot finds from the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The earliest pottery found was dated to MB I and includes Cypriot WP,127 although WS II exists in the same locus. Typical Late Cypriot wares are common throughout Phase I and II, including WS II ‘milk bowls’.128 The 2015 salvage excavations uncovered many imported Cypriot vessels in Stratum V, including WS II. Nahariya Cult-Place

Ben-Dor excavated the Nariyah Cult-Place as early as 1947,129 with work being continued by Dothan in 1954 and 1955 (published as two preliminary reports in 1956); however, a final report was never published. Three main phases were distinguished. Finds include two cutaway neck jugs of Cypriot or Anatolian origin.130 Dothan published only a single possible Middle Bronze Cypriot jug handle in his report,131 but does reference ‘the numerous Cypriote sherds found of great interest’.132 Although exact counts are not provided, the majority are of supposedly BR ware with a few belonging to WS and WP wares. These and the presence of Bichrome sherds found in upper levels (Phase C) allowed the excavator to date the

164  Brigid Clark last occupation of the site to the second half of the sixteenth century BCE.133 These sherds connect the site to the very end of the Middle Bronze Age with continued use in the Late Bronze Age, approximately the same period indicated by the Tel Achziv assemblage.134 Tel Bira/Birwe (Bir el-Gharbi)

Tel Bira, located in the lowlands of the Akko plain and situated on a natural low hill at the eastern border of an alluvial plain, has (along with Tel Kabri) been suggested to equate to ‘Arhabum/Rehhob, an important MB II site. The tell was occupied during MB I and II, and LB, and contains an upper and lower city, possibly fortified; cemeteries have been found east and north of the tell. Excavations, mostly salvage, were conducted by Prausnitz and published only in preliminary reports. These excavations were carried out in the eastern cemeteries of the site and the area of the lower city, as well as through some trial trenches on the mound proper.135 Tombs dated to MB II were found in both the eastern cemetery (Area C) and Area T in the lower city. Area T consists of several architectural elements and installations. The foundational date of the city glacis is unclear, but likely dates to MB II.136 The eastern cemetery (Area C) was excavated by Prausnitz in 1959 and 1962 and contained no complete tomb assemblage as the area was robbed in antiquity. Various intra- and extra-mural tombs were made in the Intermediate Bronze Age and continued to be used in the Middle Bronze Age. Additionally, MB II pottery was found in all areas excavated by Prausnitz.137 Samet’s 2016 review of Middle Cypriot pottery in the Levant detailed four closed vessels.138 However, the overall total may be five identified pieces. Middle Cypriot pottery from Tel Bira includes two fragments of WP CLS juglets with pinched rims from Area T. Tomb 1003 contained two unidentified Cypriot vessels. T26/27, multiple burial tombs starting in the late MB I or transitional phase, contained a Cypriot jug.139 Tel Keisan

Tel Keisan is located in the plain between Nahal Tavor and Nahal Qosmat.140 It is 8 km from the sea and 8 km to the southeast of Tel Akko, in the central basin of the Akko Coastal Plain, located near a natural pass leading from the coast to the Lower Galilee.141 The site was first occupied in EB I and continued through EB II–III. While there is no MB I evidence from the site, there is MB II occupation and an MB II cemetery consisting of three graves and various infant jar burials. The graves are scattered over a large area, so it is difficult to ascertain the cemetery’s boundaries.142 Samet documented 14 Middle Bronze Age closed-shape Cypriot sherds,143 originally published by Abu-Hamid.144 While it is not stated, these are likely to be WP wares.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  165 Mi‘ilya

Mi‘ilya is part of a concentration of sites in the highlands east of Tel Kabri, on the east and northeast side of Mount Meiron. At 24 ha, it is the largest of the sites and was initially occupied in MB II, outlasting the collapse of Tel Kabri.145 The KAP regional survey, led by Yasur-Landau, Cline, and Pierce, uncovered an unclear number of Late Cypriot wares, including Bichrome and BR I.146 Not only does this provide evidence that Mi‘ilya outlasted the collapse of Tel Kabri, but it again suggests that importation of Cypriot wares continued throughout this transition. Further research is necessary to understand how the collapse of Tel Kabri in the later part of MB II affected the distribution network of Cypriot goods, but the continued appearance of such wares at LB I Tel Akko and Tel Achziv suggests continued appreciation in the Upper and Western Galilee. Additional evidence

Further examples of Cypriot imports can be found sprinkled throughout the Lower and Western Galilee. This demonstrates the consistent and widespread distribution to non-urban, agricultural sites throughout the region. The importation and appreciation of Cypriot goods were not limited to coastal sites or to people inhabiting elite urban centres. Nazareth, in the Upper Galilee, produced four burial caves, with salvage excavation carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority, directed by Alexandre. In situ Middle Bronze Age burials in Caves A, B, and C indicated caves reused during the whole Middle Bronze Age. Finds from the caves include one Cypriot PLS jug. This find indicates that rural sites of the Galilee had an interest in and access to imported

Figure 9.7  Map of sites mentioned in the text (prepared by the author).

166  Brigid Clark Cypriot goods. The Nazareth burial cave site is associated with a yet undiscovered rural site,147 showing that future work is yet to be done in elucidating the Bronze Age rural sites of the Galilee. Similar evidence of smaller rural locations with Cypriot goods comes from sites located throughout the northern coast, the Akko plain, and the Upper and Lower Galilee. These include Tel Kurdane (Ras el-‘Ain) with one Middle Cypriot WP ABBWLS sherd148 and Yiftahel (Khalet Khalladiyiah) with three Middle Cypriot vessels (one closed and two open) and three Late Cypriot monochrome bowls.149 Discussion During MB II, the Western Galilee and the Akko plain were dominated by Tel Akko in the south (20 ha) and the larger site of Tel Kabri in the north (34 ha). Tel Kabri served as a large gateway for international contact and trade, including connections with the Aegean, Cyprus, the Lebanese coast, and even Anatolia. The large number of Cypriot imports to Tel Kabri, possibly second only to Tell el-‘Ajjul, indicates that it was a key polity to interactions with Cyprus in the Southern Levant. With the demise of Tel Kabri during the end of MB II, the power vacuum in the Western Galilee was filled by Tel Akko.150 Evidence from the secondary and tertiary sites in the region indicates that some sites did survive the collapse of Tel Kabri, including the mountain site of Mi‘ilya, Tel Nahariya, its possible temple and Tel Achziv.151 The unpublished Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv surpasses the number and variety of the known assemblages in the Western Galilee during MB II–LB I. In terms of functional groups, the prevalence of open forms at Tel Achziv, such as the RoR/RoB bowls and Bichrome bowls and kraters, i.e., imported tableware, is telling. In other Western Galilee sites, the assemblage is dominated by closed forms. It may reflect a ‘down the line’ trade in Cypriot imports: the open shapes are consumed by the port site, while the containers continue inland. In Fischer’s 2004 study regarding ceramic developments in coastal Tell el-‘Ajjul versus inland Tell Abu al-Kharaz in central Jordan, he proposes several theories for large coastal assemblages of Cypriot imports. Local ceramic traditions at Tell el-‘Ajjul deteriorated in the Late Bronze Age, with low proportions of decorated, slipped and burnished wares, while at Tell Abu al-Kharaz they remain steady. Fischer suggests traders had no need to produce local fine tablewares when high-quality, highly desired versions could be acquired from Cyprus alongside oil.152 He also suggests Cypriot ceramics were possibly too expensive to have been imported in larger amounts to inland sites and notes the high amounts of Palestinian Chocolate-onWhite ware as a ‘local’ substitute.153 The strong distribution along the coast and the varied assemblages may present evidence of coastal-hopping, as individual ships or merchants engage with local demand, a distribution method suggested for LB II and previously discussed in regards to the Middle Bronze Age data.154 Limited distribution inland, represented mostly by closed containers, demonstrate that while certain larger inland hubs receive a greater number of imports, trade was largely tied to coastal sites and harbours.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  167 Debates on whether Cypriot trade was privately controlled or regulated by a central authority are not yet solved. It is possible that Bronze Age palatial polities controlled all incoming traffic, and therefore purchased Cypriot imports and their contents and then transferred it to urban and rural populations alike, where it was valued for both its contents and as exotica, but evidence of palatial control of Cypriot imports is negligible. The most popular theory regarding the coastal distribution of Cypriot wares is Michal Artzy’s model of sailor’s trade, which theorises that since Late Cypriot wares (WS II bowls), with their association with ritual or elite consumption, were part of ‘sailor’s trade’. Since these imports have no known ideological importance in Levantine contexts and are disconnected from palatial economies, Artzy’s model suggests that they were produced and traded as part of a private enterprise of smaller shipments amongst larger cargoes initiated by individual shippers or even sailors for additional income.155 The model relies on the presumed instability of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean, which may have driven individuals to engage in diverse income tactics.156 Samet concludes that this private entrepreneurship was not limited to economically unstable periods and believes such models also apply to the Middle Bronze Age,157 in which many enduring social processes began.158 The idea of Cypriot merchants as active participants within trading systems has been discussed before,159 but currently, there is no way to determine where the agency within such a trading system lies. The presence of open vessels, both in the Middle and Late Bronze, indicates an appreciation for exotic foreign vessels beyond their contents. It is evident that contact between Cyprus and the Western Galilee was limited but consistent. Distribution appears to have been concentrated along the coast, but imports penetrated inland to urban centres as well as to small rural sites. The large quantity and wide distribution of Cypriot pottery throughout the northern part of the Southern Levant points to the privileged role the island held in the development of Late Bronze Age maritime trade, yet the social and economic nature of this relationship is still under question. One of the strongest identities of imports is the ‘otherness’, and use of imported, exotic commodities, such as imported pottery, in the construction of cultural identities.160 It has been proposed by Artzy, Stidsing, and Salmon that these ceremonial Cypriot tableware vessels were the banquet ware of the sub-elites, whereas the elites (such as the pharaohs of the Amarna texts) used metal vessels.161 Cypriot wares would have been a more accessible alternative that fulfilled the same functional need, while still symbolically suggesting the foreign connections of the elite and the wealthy.162 However, the palaces of the Southern Levant display no literate administration or proven capacity to collect significant surplus for distribution, so a costly maritime enterprise seems far-fetched and probably not a viable economic option for the Canaanite coastal polities.163 While Tel Achziv was not the largest nodal point of Cypriot trade, it played an important role in the region, acting as a gateway community for imports. The relatively large quantity of Cypriot pottery ascribed to Middle or Late Bronze Age contexts suggests that the establishment of important maritime trade routes in the Eastern Mediterranean included Tel Achziv as early as the Middle Bronze Age. The presence of Cypriot imports in secondary depositions

168  Brigid Clark shows a local appreciation for goods within the population of the site, as anything of extreme value would not have been so casually discarded. The transition from the Levantine Middle to Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550/1600 BCE), occurred at a time of increasing Cypriot integration with the wider Mediterranean worlds (MC III–LC IA, ca. 1750/1700–1550 BCE). It is in this phase that Cyprus transitions from an agro-pastoral, village-based society to a socially stratified, international locale with urban centres, based largely on the successful extraction, production and trade networks of copper and other resources.164 Scholars debate the exact nature of this change, but in general, it appears to have been the result of insular development on Cyprus with perhaps motivation and inspiration from Levantine, Mesopotamian and Aegean elites, resulting in the construction of new Cypriot identities.165 Even prior to the centralised production and exportation of Cypriot copper in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE,166 Cyprus demonstrates increased willingness and/or ability to participate in interregional trade and Mediterranean networks with other goods (i.e. pottery). Louise Steel relates these socio-political changes on Cyprus to the changing dynamics of the pottery manufacture, and notes increasing specialisation in regional workshops occurring throughout the MC III–LC I phase.167 Even the earliest production of Late Cypriot fine wares appears to have begun as highly specialised, with WS, BR, and Monochrome manufacture in the northwest and centre of the island and RoB/RoR and Bichrome in the east.168 The analysis provided by Johnston, Crewe, and Oikonomou169 approaches the role of certain ware types which offer insight into the transition from local to regional ceramic networks, with an emphasis on innovation in style in the early periods. The continued arrival of Cypriot wares through the Middle/Late Bronze transition suggests that exportation of Cypriot pottery to the Western Galilee predates the standardisation and distribution of pottery styles within Cyprus and that it occurred throughout the development of social hierarchy on Cyprus. This assemblage also demonstrates that while Tel Achziv was likely the main harbour of the palace of Tel Kabri, its abandonment did not create visible or longterm disruption in trade or in settlement continuity in the region. Furthermore, the same pottery, despite originating from secondary contexts, is a firm indication of the existence of this port town during the latest MB phase and the transition to LB I, as indicated by the PWS and Bichrome sherds. Further excavations and geoarchaeological studies are needed to locate the exact location of the Tel Achziv port, as well as its history of use, but the presence of Cypriot pottery supports the idea that it was a place of maritime activity throughout the Middle Bronze Age. Such trade likely had bilateral benefits: the people of Achziv were able to purport a cosmopolitan, elite identity, and Cypriot producers (and possibly merchants) were able to integrate themselves into Mediterranean networks and participate in the connectivity of Bronze Age exchange systems. Notes 1 This study was supported by a grant from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications. The permission to publish this material in preliminary form was given by Prof. Assaf Yasur-Landau, University of Haifa.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  169

2 Maguire (2009) 186–201. 3 Maguire (2009) 47; Artzy (2019a) 145; Artzy (2019b) 342–3. 4 Greenberg (2019); Yasur-Landau (2019). 5 For example, Johnston et al., Chapter 8; Crewe and Souter, Chapter 10. 6 Broodbank (2013) 355–72; Knapp (2018) 81–97; Sherratt and Sherratt (1998); YasurLandau (2019). 7 Broodbank (2013) 344–56; Knapp (2018) 115–51; Samet (2016) 171. 8 Horden and Purcell (2000). 9 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008); Yasur-Landau et al. (2014). 10 Yasur-Landau et al. (2015); Yasur-Landau and Cline (2020). 11 Prausnitz (1993a) 32–6. 12 This study is conducted as part of the author’s PhD dissertation, entitled: ‘Social, Economic, and Political Aspects of Maritime Connectivity in Cyprus and the Southern Levant in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages’. 13 Kempinski (1963a, b). 14 Prausnitz (1975); Prausnitz (1993a). 15 Matson (1964). 16 Oren (1975). 17 Prausnitz (1993a) 32–6. 18 Yasur-Landau et al. (2016); Edrey et al. (2018). 19 Prausnitz (1993a); Raban (1985) 18–19, Raban (1986); Marcus (1998) 126. 20 Greenberg (2019) 235; Peilstöcker (2005); Prausnitz (1993a); Yasur-Landau et al. (2008). 21 Prausnitz (1993a) 32. 22 Oren (1975). 23 Thareani and Jasmin (2017) 2–3. 24 Thareani and Jasmin (2017) 41; Prausnitz (1993a) 32. 25 Prausnitz (1993a) 32. 26 Abu ‘Uqsa (2013); Abu-Hamid (2021). 27 Prausnitz (1993a) 32–3. 28 Yasur-Landau (2019) 558. 29 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008) 71. 30 Maguire (2009). 31 Oren (1975). 32 Oren (1975) fig. 4.88. 33 Oren (1975) fig. 4.75. 34 For a detailed discussion of the rampart’s date, see Oren (1975). 35 Abu ‘Uqsa (2013); Abu-Hamid (2021). 36 Loud (1948) pl. 19:15, 119:1l; Åström (1972) fig. XXXVII:6. 37 Artzy (2019a) 145; Maguire (2009) 26–7; Clark, Samet, Yasur-Landau and Cline (in preparation). 38 Bergoffen (2014) 657. 39 Bergoffen (2014) 657. 40 Charaf (2013) 149–59; Merrillees (1971) 72. 41 Courtois and Velde (1981) 16; Burdajewicz (2020) 16. 42 Johnson (1982) 64. 43 Charaf (2013) 149–50, fig. 4. 44 Doumet-Serhal (2008) 16, fig. 16. 45 Koehl (1985) fig. 1:3–4; Anderson (1988) pls 21:5, 7; 29:1. 46 Ory (1948) pl. xxxii: 6, 8, 9, 19–21. 47 Kempinski et al. (2002) 118. 48 Wolff and Bergoffen (2012) fig. 3:1–7. 49 Mazar and Ilan (2014) 122, fig. 10:4–5. 50 Loud (1948) pls 26:16; 46:11.

170  Brigid Clark

51 Macalister (1912) 172. 52 Charaf (2013) 154. 53 Åström (1972) 229. 54 Åström (1972) 276. 55 Charaf (2013) 154. 56 Clark and Yasur-Landau (2022). 57 Artzy (2019a) 145–6; Artzy (2019b) 339. 58 Åström (1966) 88; Loud (1948) pls 26.14, 123.6, 14.3, 38.1; Oren (1969); Spigelman (2015) 582. 59 Saltz (1984) pl. 44:6. 60 Barako (2007) 168; Spigelman (2015) 586. 61 Maguire (2009) 40; Singer-Avitz (2004) 919–20; pls 16.29.5, 16.37.1; Spigelman (2015) 588; Tufnell et al. (1940) 81; Tufnell (1958) 247–8, 281–5; pl. 79.816. 62 Fischer and Sadeq (2000) 224; (2002) 128–9; Oren (2001) 140. 63 Maguire (2009) 155–7. 64 Artzy (2019b) 342; Eriksson (2007a) 51–2. 65 Fuscaldo (2009) 127. 66 Loud (1948) pl 45:21; Oren (2001) 130, fig. 2. 67 Karageorghis (2001) 9. 68 Fuscaldo (2009) 129. 69 Fuscaldo (2009) 128. 70 Artzy (2019b) 342. 71 Fuscaldo (2009) 129. 72 Fuscaldo (2009) 129; Oren (2001) 127–44; Karageorghis (2001). 73 Eriksson (2007b) 135. 74 Artzy (2019b) 343. 75 Åström (1972) 700; Bürge and Fischer (2018) 246. 76 Bergoffen (2001) 32; Eriksson (2001) 65–6; Herscher (2001) 11. 77 Clark and Yasur-Landau (2022). 78 Maguire (2009) 40, table 2. 79 Åström (1972) 700; Bürge and Fischer (2018) 246; Eriksson (2007b) 153. 80 Artzy (2019b) 340. 81 Artzy (2019b) 340. 82 Charaf (2013) 154. 83 Artzy (2001) 160. 84 Åström (2001); Oren (1969) 128. 85 Artzy et al. (1978) 107; Charaf (2013) 155. 86 Clark and Yasur-Landau (2022) 753. 87 Artzy (2019b) 340; Åström (2001) 88 Artzy (2019b) 339; Gadot et al. (2006) 187. 89 Maguire (2009) 186–201. 90 Assaf Yasur-Landau (personal communication). 91 Wachsmann (1998) 11. 92 Samet (2016) 194. 93 Greenberg (2019) 209. 94 Marcus (1998) 135–6. 95 Goldman (1993) 17–18. 96 Greener (2015) 195. 97 Greener (2015) 195–6. 98 Dothan (1976) fig. 8. 99 Maguire (2009) 201–2; Dothan (1976) fig. 8. 100 Maguire (2009) 202. 101 Be’eri (2008) 282–97. 102 Maguire (2009) 202.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  171 103 Samet (2016) 195. 104 Saltz (1977) 57. 105 Dothan (1976) 9, figs 8–10; Johnson (1982) 50. 106 Raban (1991) 25. 107 Samet (2016) 195–6. 108 Prausnitz and Kempinski (1977) 166; Kempinski (1987) 3. 109 Kempinski et al. (2002) 5. 110 Samet (2016) 29–30; Yasur-Landau et al. (2014); Yasur-Landau and Cline (2020). 111 Maguire (2009) 210–12, nos. KAB 717–34; Kempinski, Gershuny and Scheftelowitz (2002) 117–20. 112 Maguire (2009). 113 Clark, Samet, Yasur-Landau, and Cline (in preparation). 114 Bergoffen (2020). 115 Clark (in press). 116 Bergoffen (2020) 183; Clark (in press); Samet (2014) 381–4; Samet (2016) 193–6, table 5.1. 117 Clark, Samet, Yasur-Landau, and Cline (in preparation); Clark, Yasur-Landau and Cline (in preparation). 118 Cline and Yasur-Landau (2007) 163–4; Cline et al. (2011) 258; Yasur-Landau et al. (2021); Niemeier and Niemeier (2002). 119 Miron (1985). 120 Yogev (1993). 121 Yogev (1993) 1089. 122 Yogev (1993) 1089; Peilstöcker (2005) 344. 123 Peilstöcker (2005) 344. 124 Peilstöcker (2005) 362–3. 125 Peilstöcker (2005) 338–9. 126 Samet (2016) 218. 127 Peilstöcker (2005) pls 6.28:23, 6.31:14–16. 128 Peilstöcker (2005) 6.15–16; 6.33:18; 6.43:2. 129 Ben-Dor (1950). 130 Ben-Dor (1950) fig. 25. 131 Dothan (1956) fig. 7. 132 Dothan (1956) 22. 133 Dothan (1956) 22. 134 Peilstöcker (2005) 338–9. 135 Prausnitz (1993b) 163. 136 Prausnitz (1993a). 137 Peilstöcker (2005) 299–303. 138 Samet (2016) table 5.1. 139 Peilstöcker (2005) pls 6:18: 7, 6:20. 140 Humbert (1993) 862. 141 Greener (2015) 294. 142 Humbert (1993) 863. 143 Samet (2016) 217. 144 Abu-Hamid (2010). 145 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008). 146 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008). 147 Alexandre (2018) 40. 148 Maguire (2009); Peilstöcker (2005) 297. 149 Barda and Braun (2003) 82–3. 150 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008); Yasur-Landau et al. (2015); Yasur-Landau and Cline (2020). 151 Yasur-Landau et al. (2008).

172  Brigid Clark 152 Fischer (2004) 261. 153 Fischer (2004) 262. 154 Artzy (2006). 155 Artzy (2001) 113; (2006) 24. 156 Samet (2016) 264. 157 Samet (2016) 264–5. 158 Knapp (1998) 76–87; Crewe (2004). 159 See Hirschfeld (1992); Artzy (1997, 2016); Manning and Hulin (2005); Knapp (2018). 160 Thomas (1992) 36; Howes (1996) 8; Knapp (1998) 195; Steel (2002) 26. 161 Artzy et al. (2013) 181. 162 Bergoffen (2007) 33. 163 Yasur-Landau et al. (2015). 164 Keswani (1996); Knapp (2013) 348; Webb (2005). 165 For in depth discussions, see Knapp (2013); Peltenburg (1996); Crewe (2007); Merrillees (1992); Keswani (1996), amongst others. 166 Knapp (2013) 406–16. 167 Steel 2010. 168 Merrillees (1971); Knapp (2013) 402–3. 169 Johnston et al. (this volume, Chapter 8).

Bibliography Abu-Hamid, A. (2010), MB Fortification at Tel Kison (Kisan) as Observed in the (2006) Salvage Project. (MA thesis, University of Haifa) Haifa. Abu-Hamid, A. (2021), ‘Gesher Ha-Ziv’, Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel/‫תויגולואיכרא תושדח‬: ‫ לארשיב םירקסו תוריפח‬133. Available at: [Accessed 3 July 2023]. Abu ‘Uqsa, H. (2013), ‘The Late Bronze Age II “Fisherman’s Grave” from Akhziv’, ‘Atiqot 74, 1–7 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 241). Alexandre, Y. (2018), ‘Burial Caves from the Intermediate Bronze, Middle Bronze and Iron Ages at Nazareth’, ‘Atiqot 93, 1–44. Anderson, W.P. (1988), ‘Sarepta 1: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y’, in W.P. Anderson (ed.), Sarepta: The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon. 152–7. Philadelphia. Artzy, M. (1997), ‘Nomads of the Sea’, in S. Swiny, R.L. Hohlfelder, and H.W. Swiny (eds), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. 1–16. Nicosia. Artzy, M. (2001), ‘White Slip Ware for Export? The Economics of Production’, in V. ­Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference in Honour of Malcolm Wiener. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. 107–16. Vienna. Artzy, M. (2006), ‘The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343, 45–64. https://doi.10.1086/BASOR25066964. Artzy, M. (2016), ‘Distributers and Shippers: Cyprus and the Late Bronze II Tell Abu Hawam Anchorage’, in S. Demesticha and A.B. Knapp (eds), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze–Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature PB 183. 97–110. Uppsala.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  173 Artzy, M. (2019a), ‘Middle Bronze Age II Cypriot Imports’, in S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age. 145–50. Jerusalem. Artzy, M. (2019b), ‘Late Bronze Age I–II Cypriot Imports’, in S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors from the Middle Bronze Age Through the Late Bronze Age. 339–79. Jerusalem. Artzy, M., I. Perlman, and F. Asaro (1978), ‘Imported and Local Bichrome Ware in Megiddo’, Levant 10, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.1978.10.1.99. Artzy, M., R. Stidsing, and Y. Salmon (2013), ‘Market Strategy – Cypriot Bichrome WheelMade Ware for Export’, in A.B. Knapp, J. Webb, and A. McCarthy (eds), JRB Stewart: An Archaeological Legacy. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 139. 175–84. Uppsala. Åström, P. (1966), Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 2. 234–51. Lund. Åström, P. (1972), The Swedish-Cyprus Expedition, Vol IV Part 1B: The Middle Cypriot Bronze Age. Lund. Åström, P. (ed.) (2001), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19, 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. Stockholm. Barako, T. (2007), Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations 1959–1960. Jerusalem. Barda, L. and E. Braun (2003), ‘Tomb 1 of the Second Millennium BCE at Yiftahe’l, Lower Galilee’, ‘Atiqot 44, 67–95. Be’eri, R. (2008), Tel Akko and the Urbanization in the Plain of Akko in the First Half of the Second Millennium BCE. (PhD dissertation, University of Haifa) Haifa. Ben-Dor, E. (1950), ‘A Middle Bronze Age Temple at Nahariya’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 14, 1–4. Bergoffen, C. (2001), ‘The Base Ring Pottery from Tell el-‘Ajjul’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 31–50. Stockholm. Bergoffen, C. (2007), ‘Reflections on Two Lustrous Base Ring I Kraters from Alalakh’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. 25–36. Vienna. Bergoffen, C. (2014), ‘Imported Cypriot and Mycenaean Wares and Derivative Wares’, in D. Ben-Shlomo and G.W. Van Beek (eds), The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990. 657–720. Washington, D.C. Bergoffen, C. (2020), ‘Cypriot Pottery’, in A. Yasur-Landau and E.H. Cline (eds), Excavations at Tel Kabri: The 2005–2011 Seasons. 180–6. Leiden. Broodbank, C. (2013), The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London. Burdajewicz, M. (2020), ‘Cypriot Pottery from the Second Millennium BCE at Tell Keisan in the Lower Galilee (Israel)’, in A. Gilboa and A. Yasur-Landau (eds.), Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages. 81–104. Leiden. https:// doi.org/10.1163/9789004430112_008. Bürge, T. and P.M. Fischer (2018), ‘The Pottery’, in P.M. Fischer and T. Bürge, Two Late Cypriot City Quarters at Hala Sultan Tekke: The Söderberg Expedition 2010–2017. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 147. 187–416. Uppsala.

174  Brigid Clark Charaf, H. (2013), ‘Cypriot Imported Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon’, Berytus 53–4, 147–65. Clark, B. (in press), ‘Chapter 9: The Cypriot Pottery’, in E.H. Cline, A. Ratzlaff, and A. Yasur-Landau (eds), Kabri III: The 2013–2019 Seasons. Leiden. Clark, B., I. Samet, A. Yasur-Landau, and E.H. Cline (in preparation), ‘Tel Kabri as a Gateway Community: The Evidence of the Cypriot White Painted Pottery’. Clark, B. and A. Yasur-Landau (2022), ‘The Late Bronze Cypriot Pottery from Areas H and K’, in I. Finkelstein, M.A.S. Martin, and M. Adams (eds), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 Seasons. 750–62. University Park Lake. Clark, B., A. Yasur-Landau, and E.H. Cline (in preparation), ‘Early Appearance of Red-onRed/Black Wares in Kabri and Achziv?’. Cline, E.H. and A. Yasur-Landau (2007), ‘Poetry in Motion: Canaanite Rulership and Aegean Narratives at Kabri’, in S. Morris and R. Laffineur (eds), Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology, Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles, UCLA-The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20–23 April 2006. 157–65.‫ ‏‬Liège. Cline, E., A. Yasur-Landau, and N. Goshen (2011), ‘New Fragments of Aegean-Style Painted Plaster from Tel Kabri, Israel’, American Journal of Archaeology 115.2, 245–61. Courtois, L. and B. Velde (1981), ‘Petrographic and Electron Studies of Cypriot White Slip Ware (Late Bronze Age)’, ArchéoSciences, revue d’Archéométrie 1.1, 37–43. Crewe, L.A. (2004), Social Complexity and Ceramic Technology on Late Bronze Age Cyprus: The New Evidence from Enkomi. (PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh) Edinburgh. Crewe, L.A. (2007), Early Enkomi: Regionalism, Trade and Society at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus. Oxford. Dever, W.G. (1992), ‘The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium BCE: A Review of Current Issues’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288.1, 1–25. Dothan, M. (1956), ‘The Excavations at Nahariya, Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal 6, 14–25. Dothan, M. (1976), ‘Akko: Interim Excavation Report. First Season, 1973–4’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224, 1–48. Doumet-Serhal, C. (2008), ‘The Kingdom of Sidon and Its Mediterranean Connections’, in C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.), Networking Patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant: The Lebanon and Its Mediterranean Connections. 1–70. Beirut. Edrey, M., E. Arie, H. May, and A. Yasur-Landau (2018), ‘The Iron Age IIA Tombs of Area E, Tel Achziv: Between Local Traditions and the Consolidation of the Tyrian Polity’, Israel Exploration Journal 68, 150–81. Eriksson, K.O. (2001), ‘Cypriot Ceramics in Egypt during the Reign of Thutmosis III: The Evidence for Synchronizing the Late Cypriot Cultural Sequence with Egypt at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age’, in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 51–68. Stockholm. Eriksson, K.O. (2007a), ‘Using Cypriot Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware to Establish Cultural and Chronological Synchronisms during the Late Bronze Age’, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 13. 51–60. Vienna. Eriksson, K.O. (2007b), The Creative Independence of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Account of the Archaeological Importance of White Slip Ware. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 10. Vienna.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  175 Fischer, P.M. (2004), ‘Coast Contra Inland: Tell el-‘Ajjul and Tell Abu al-Kharaz during the Late Middle and Late Bronze Ages’, Levant 14, 249–63. https://doi.org/10.1553/ AEundL14s249. Fischer, P.M. and M. Sadeq (2000), ‘Tell el-‘Ajjul 1999: A Joint Palestinian-Swedish Field Project: First Season Preliminary Report’, Egypt and the Levant 10, 211–26. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4511.3201. Fischer, P.M. and M. Sadeq (2002), ‘Tell el-‘Ajjul 2000: Second Season Preliminary Report’, Egypt and the Levant 12, 109–53. https://doi.org/10.1553/AEundL12s109. Fuscaldo, P. (2009), ‘The White Slip Wares from Tell el-Dab‘a from the Palace District at ‘Ezbet Helmi (Areas H/III and H/VI)’, Egypt and the Levant 19, 127–38. Gadot, Y., A. Yasur-Landau, and D. Ilan (2006), ‘The Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I Pottery from Areas F and N’, in I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, and B. Halpern (eds), Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. 173–92. Tel Aviv. Goldman, Z. (1993), ‘Akko’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. 24–32. Jerusalem. Greenberg, R. (2019), The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. Cambridge. Greener, A. (2015), Late Bronze Age Imported Pottery in the Land of Israel: Between Economy, Society and Symbolism. (PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University) Ramat Gan. Herscher, E. (2001), ‘Early Base Ring from Phaneromeni and Maroni,’ in P. Åström (ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser 54. 11–22. Stockholm. Hirschfeld, N. (1992), ‘Cypriot Marks on Mycenaean Pottery’, in J.P. Olivier (ed.), Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 2–6 octobre 1990). 315–19. Paris. Höflmayer, F. (2017), ‘A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant’, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 13, 20–33. Horden, P. and P. Purcell (2000), The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford. Howes, D. (1996), ‘Introduction: Commodities and Cultural Borders’, in D. Howes (ed.), Cross-Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. 1–16. London. Humbert, J.B. (1993), ‘Tel Keisan’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. 833–73. Jerusalem. Johnson, P. (1982), ‘The Middle Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine’, Opuscula Atheniensia 14, 49–72. Karageorghis, V. (ed.) (2001), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Honour of Malcom Wiener, Nicosia 29–30th October 1993. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 2. Vienna. Kempinski, A. (1963a), ‘Excavation Diary Section D, Area E, Beginning in 28.7.1963’, Unpublished, IAA Archive. (dates from 28.8.1963 to 2.9.1963). Kempinski, A. (1963b), ‘Graphic Diary and Basket List Achziv Excavations 1963’, Unpublished, IAA Archive. (dates from 9.7.1963 to 15.9.1963). Kempinski, A. (1987), Excavations at Kabri, 1: Preliminary Report of the 1986 Season. Tel Aviv. Kempinski, A., L. Gershuny, and N. Scheftelowitz (2002), ‘Pottery III: Middle Bronze Age’, in A. Kempinski, Tel Kabri. The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. 109–75. Tel Aviv.

176  Brigid Clark Keswani, P.S. (1996), ‘Hierarchies, Heterarchies, and Urbanization Processes: The View from Bronze Age Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9.2, 211–50. https:// doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v9i2.211. Knapp, A.B. (1998), ‘Mediterranean Bronze Age Trade: Distance, Power, and Place’, in E. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Aegaeum 18. 193–207. Liège. Knapp, A.B. (2013), The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge and New York. Knapp, A.B. (2018), Seafaring and Seafarers in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. Leiden. Koehl, R.B. (1985), ‘Sarepta 3: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X’, Sarepta: The University Museum of University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon. Publications de l’Université Libanaise, Section des Etudes Archeologiques II. Beirut. Loud, G. (1948), Megiddo: Seasons of 1935–39, by the Megiddo Expedition. Chicago. Macalister, R.A.S. (1912), Excavations of Gezer 1902–1905. 2 vols. London. Maguire, L. (2009), Tell el-Dab‘a XXI: The Cypriot Pottery and Its Circulation in the Levant. Vienna. Manning, S.W. and L. Hulin (2005), ‘Maritime Commerce and Geographies of Mobility in the Late Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean: Problematizations’, in E. Bale and A.B. Knapp (eds), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. 270–302. New York. Manning, S.W., B. Kromer, P.I. Kuniholm, and M.W. Newton (2001), ‘Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze – Iron Ages’, Science 294.5551, 2532–5. Marcus, E. (1998), Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period. (PhD dissertation, University of Oxford) Oxford. Matson, A. (1964), ‘Top Plans of Area C’, Unpublished, IAA Archive. (dates: from 22.7. 1964 to 6.8.1964). Mazar, E. and D. Ilan (2014), ‘A Middle Bronze Age Tomb at ‘Atlit’, ‘Atiqot 79, 111–30. Merrillees, R.S. (1971), ‘The Early History of Late Cypriote I’, Levant 3.1, 56–79. https:// doi.org/10.1179/lev.1971.3.1.56. Merrillees, R.S. (1992), ‘The Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age in Cyprus: A Revision’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288.1, 47–52. https://doi. org/10.2307/1357230. Miron, E. (1985), Axes and Adzes in Israel and Its Surrounding from the Beginning of the Metallurgical Era till the Appearance of Iron Technology. (MA thesis, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Niemeier, B. and W.D. Niemeier (2002), ‘The Frescoes in the Middle Bronze Age Palace’, in A. Kempinski, Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 20. 254–98. Tel Aviv. Oren, E.D. (1969), ‘Cypriote Imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I Context’, Opuscula Atheniensia 9, 127–50. Oren, E.D. (1975), ‘The Pottery from the Achzib Defense System, Area D: 1963 and 1964 Seasons’, Israel Exploration Journal 25, 211–25. Oren, E.D. (2001), ‘Early White Slip in Canaan: Spatial and Chronological perspectives’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia; in Honour of Malcom Wiener. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern ­Mediterranean 2. 127–54. Vienna.

A review of residual Cypriot pottery from Tel Achziv  177 Ory, J. (1948), ‘A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahrat el Humraiya’, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 13, 75–92. Peilstöcker, M. (2005), The Plain of Akko from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the End of the Middle Bronze Age – A Historical Geography of the Plain of Akko from 3500–1550 BCE: A Spatial Analysis. (PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Peltenburg, E. (1996), ‘From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus c. 3500–1500 BC,’ in V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides (eds), Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day. 17–44. Nicosia. Prausnitz, M. (1975), ‘The Planning of the Middle Bronze Age Town of Achzib and Its Defences’, Israel Exploration Journal 25, 202–10. Prausnitz, M. (1993a), ‘Achzib’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. 32–5. Jerusalem. Prausnitz, M. (1993b), ‘Tel Bira’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1. 262–3. Jerusalem. Prausnitz, M.W. and A. Kempinski (1977), ‘Kabri 1975’, Israel Exploration Journal 27, 165–6. Raban, A. (1985), ‘The Ancient Harbours of Israel in Biblical Times’, in A. Raban (ed.), Harbour Archaeology: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caesarea Maritima 24–28.6.83. BAR International Series 257. 11–44. Oxford. Raban, A. (1986), ‘Akko’s Harbors’, in M. Yedaya (ed.), The Western Galilee Antiquities. 180–207. Haifa (In Hebrew). Raban, A. (1991), ‘The Port City of Akko in the MB II’, Michmanim 5, 17–34. Saltz, D.L. (1977), The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote Period. Nicosia. Saltz, D.L. (1984), ‘Imported Cypriote Pottery from the Middle Bronze Age Strata’, in E. Stern, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973–1976), Part Two: The Bronze Age. 58–9. Jerusalem. Samet, I. (2014), ‘The Chrono-Typological Pottery Sequence from the Middle Bronze Age Palace at Kabri: Some Preliminary Results’, Egypt and the Levant 24, 365–95. https://doi. org/ 10.1553/AEundL24. Samet, I. (2016), Pottery Consumption and International Trade in Middle Bronze Age Kabri and Other Canaanite Palatial Polities. (PhD dissertation, University of Haifa) Haifa. Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt (1998), ‘Small Worlds: Interaction and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean’, in E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Aegaeum 18. 329–43. Liège. Singer-Avitz, L. (2004), ‘The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas D and P’, in D. Ussishkin, The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol III. 900–65. Tel Aviv. Spigelman, M. (2015), Red-on-Black Style Ceramics: Production and Trade in Bronze Age Cyprus. (PhD Dissertation, New York University) Ann Arbor. Thareani, Y. and M. Jasmin (2017), ‘Tel Achziv: Preliminary Report 2017, The Fourth Season of Excavations (No. G-64/2017)’, Unpublished. Thomas, N. (1992), ‘Politicised Values: The Cultural Dynamics of Peripheral Exchange’, in C. Humphrey and S. Hugh-Jones (eds), Barter, Exchange and Value: An Anthropological Approach. 21–41. Cambridge. Tufnell, O. (1958), Lachish IV (Tell ed-Durveir) The Bronze Age. Oxford. Tufnell, O., C.H. Inge, and L. Harding (1940), Lachish II (Tell ed Duweir). Oxford. Wachsmann, S. (1998), Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station.

178  Brigid Clark Webb, J.M. (2005), ‘Ideology, Iconography and Identity: The Role of Foreign Goods and Images in the Establishment of Social Hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in J. Clarke (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Levant Supplementary Series 2. 176–82. Oxford. Wolff, S.R. and C. Bergoffen (2012), ‘Cypriot Pottery from MB IIA Loci at Tel Megadim’, in M. Gruber, S. Aḥituv, G. Lehmann, and Z. Talshir (eds), All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren. 419–30. Göttingen. Yasur-Landau, A. (2019), ‘The Middle Bronze Age Canaanite City as a Domesticating Apparatus’, in A. Yasur-Landau, E.H. Cline, and Y.M. Rowan (eds), The Social Archaeology of the Levant from Prehistory to the Present. 224–44. Cambridge and New York. Yasur-Landau, A. and E.H. Cline (2020), Excavations at Tel Kabri. The 2005–2011 Seasons. Leiden and Boston. Yasur-Landau, A., E.H. Cline, and N. Goshen (2014), ‘Initial Results of the Stratigraphy and Chronology of the Tel Kabri Middle Bronze Age Palace’, Egypt and the Levant 24, 355–64. https://doi.org/10.1553/s355. Yasur-Landau, A., E.H. Cline, A.J. Koh, D. Ben-Shlomo, N. Marom, A. Ratzlaff, and I. Samet (2015), ‘Rethinking Canaanite Palaces? The Palatial Economy of Tel Kabri during the Middle Bronze Age’, Journal of Field Archaeology 40.6, 607–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00934690.2015.1103628. Yasur-Landau, A., E.H. Cline, S. Manning, and G. Artioli (2021), ‘An Anatolian-Style Lead Figurine from the Assyrian Colony Period Found in the Middle Bronze Age Palace of Tel Kabri’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 385.1, 87–97. https://doi. org/10.1086/711885. Yasur-Landau, A., E.H. Cline, and G.A. Pierce (2008), ‘Middle Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Western Galilee, Israel’, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 59–83. https://doi. org/10.1179/009346908791071330. Yasur-Landau, A., M.D. Press, and E. Arie (2016), ‘Rethinking Tel Achziv: An Iron II Architecture and Ceramic Sequence from Southern Phoenicia’, Tel Aviv 43.2, 192–224. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2016.1215541. Yogev, O. (1993), ‘Nahariya: Excavations on the Mound’, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, 1088–90.

10 Strategies for success during the transition to the Late Bronze Age at Kissonerga-Skalia Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter

Introduction Beginning during the Middle Cypriot Bronze Age, and increasing during the ­transitional Middle Cypriot to Late Cypriot Bronze Age (MC III–LC IA, ca. 1750–1550 BCE), new types of non-domestic structures and complexes of ‘monumental’ scale were constructed on the island. Some have been identified as fortifications and others as workspaces or community gathering areas, contemporary with abandonments of older settlements and the establishment of new ones, both inland and on the coast.1 One of these construction programmes is a large industrial complex with monumental aspects at Kissonerga-Skalia, situated on the west coast of Cyprus to the north of Paphos.2 The complex was constructed and occupied for only a short period of time, perhaps one or two generations, before the site was abandoned at the very beginning of LC IA. The scale of the building programme suggests that the entire community was involved; whether this was as equal participants or through coercion by sectors of the population remains unknown. Within the final phase complex are large installations associated with pyrotechnical activities, as well as evidence for processing of materials and assumed production and storage of one or more commodities. Ongoing excavations at the site have also revealed a series of unusual deposits related to the construction of the building, to the possible inauguration of individual features, or to actions undertaken upon abandonment. Evidence for this type of structured deposition3 has rarely been identified at contemporary sites on Cyprus. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to consider the evidence from Kissonerga-Skalia, in tandem with the little evidence we possess from other sites, to assess whether we might be able to identify foundation deposits, offerings or some form of ritual behaviour associated with ensuring the success of the complex or the products produced therein. Foundation deposits are defined as ‘votive offerings placed in, or beneath, the foundations or in the immediate vicinity of a building prior to the start of construction or during the marking and laying out of the foundations’.4 Their purpose was to protect the structure and the inhabitants, to ensure longevity or success, to lay claim to land, or to avert misfortune.5 Foundation deposits occur commonly in domestic, palatial, funerary and ­temple contexts from the late Middle Kingdom to the end of the Second Intermediate DOI: 10.4324/9781003320203-10

180  Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter Period at Tell el-Dab‘a, often including miniature vessels with valuable materials, royal or religious objects, and animal bone.6 They occur within and alongside walls and doorways, along with associated offering pits, and the introduction of this practice is attributed to Near Eastern influences and population influx into the Delta at this time.7 The involvement of the east of Cyprus with Second Intermediate Period Egypt, particularly Tell el-Dab‘a, during MC III–LC I has been extensively documented.8 Although there is no evidence for the types of imported goods seen in the east at Kissonerga-Skalia, a number of innovations in pottery styles and technologies9, including a locally-manufactured, wheel-formed ‘Canaanite jar’, 10 signify that knowledge of innovations, alongside people, circulated around the island. As domestic foundation deposits are a new phenomenon in the Delta at this time, and given their absence at contemporary coastal Levantine sites,11 it seems that if we were to seek a source for their introduction to Cyprus, it should be Tell el-Dab‘a. This may be simplistic however, and we know too little about the construction of Cypriot Bronze Age structures to rule out that this was also a local tradition, albeit one that was apparently not widespread. Before turning to examine the contemporary evidence on Cyprus for ritual deposition, we first describe the evidence from the final phase complex at Kissonerga-Skalia. The industrial complex at Kissonerga-Skalia The final phase complex at Kissonerga-Skalia covers around 1600 m2. As the area was subject to extensive machine terracing and ploughing in the early 1970s, we cannot be certain if the complex originally extended across a greater area but it is considered likely. Despite the disparate wall alignments and architectural styles shown in Figure 10.1, the areas are connected by a series of trampled mud plaster and lime plaster surfaces across the spaces. As seen at other sites across Cyprus at this time, significant planning and preparation of the land surface took place prior to construction.12 At Kissonerga-Skalia, this entailed truncating and levelling of earlier occupation deposits in the north and dumping fill layers to raise the area to an approximately equal level in the south. The unusual alignment and variability in style of some of the smaller stone wall footings may be partially explained as the retention of earlier walls, representing regular Early–Middle Cypriot multi-roomed agglutinative structures, as shown to the south in Figure 10.1. Some of these footings are level with and partially overlain by the latest floors and others seem to have been incorporated into the new structures. Traces of a mudbrick superstructure overlay sections of the walls, and this, combined with partial mudbricks in debris and slopewash allow us to assume that the upper walls were mudbrick across much of the site, although in some areas stone building extends to 1 m high. The floor surfaces of the initial construction phase are generally hard-trampled and well-preserved but a final refurbishment phase prior to abandonment indicates a more haphazard series of floor repairs that saw less traffic. An important feature during the latest occupation phase, postdating the construction of curvilinear Wall 67/407 and associated floors, is a series of

Strategies for success  181

Figure 10.1  Plan of Kissonerga-Skalia showing the final phase complex and earlier ­structures (prepared by L. Crewe).

large stone-filled pits dug into the initial built floor along the eastern face of Walls 67/407 and in the entranceway between them. Shown highlighted on Figure 10.1, this alignment of features at the higher eastern elevation of the excavation area is interpreted as a strategy to alleviate a problem of flooding or water runoff from upslope through the creation of sump or soak pits. Why the site was abandoned just into the beginning of the Late Cypriot is uncertain; it may have been a gradual abandonment with the site falling into decline, although ongoing excavation in the northern areas may indicate at least local conflagration and destruction of walls. All occupation evidence is non-domestic in nature and appears to comprise a series of pyrotechnical features and working areas equipped with processing facilities, with the exception of Room 954, discussed below. A special space in an industrial complex: Room 954 Room 954 lies at the western edge of the excavation area, immediately to the west of, and sharing its eastern and southern walls with, L-shaped Courtyard 613

182  Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter (see Fig. 10.1), in the southwestern area of the complex. The stone foundations of the walls that bound Courtyard 613 (the western Walls 224 and 703 are shown on Figs 10.2 and 10.3) are one to two courses high and made from large chalk slabs, some of which are roughly shaped, constituting the largest building stones used at Kissonerga-Skalia. Courtyard 613 (Fig. 10.1) is also one of the largest built spaces known from the MC III–LC IA period (currently 75 m2) and has previously been interpreted as a working area for processing and cooking foodstuffs within the large domed oven structure (Feature 33), and particularly the production of beer.13 Excavation is ongoing in the northern part of Room 954 but deposits have been exposed relating to the construction of the room in the southern two-thirds and the latest pre-abandonment deposits across the entire area (as seen on Figs 10.2 and 10.3). Bounded space in Room 954 forms a parallelogram with an interior space of 6.5 m × 4 m. Running along the three substantial walls (Walls 224, 703, and 802) are interior benches constructed with a base of small stones and an upper packing of mudbrick or mud plaster, faced with mud or lime plastering. The western wall (Wall 913) encloses only the northern third of the room and postdates the construction of the benches. It can be speculated that this later addition was not intended as an enclosing wall but served as an additional bench: further excavation in the north of Room 954 may resolve this question. Aerial photographs from 1963, predating the machine terracing of the area, place Room 954 at the western edge of the field marking the location of the final phase complex, with a view above terraced fields sloping gently down to the sea, 500 m hence. Again, it remains speculative as to whether a clear view to the sea was possible in the Bronze Age but in tandem with the bench arrangement, not attested elsewhere on the site, and the nature of the material found within the room (discussed below) we may suggest that Room 954 served as an area for conviviality or other non-work-related activities. In addition to the interior benches, a mud plaster pot emplacement (Feature 880) was located in the northern corner of the room. Room 954 also exceptionally includes three floor phases, an additional subphase of refurbishment compared to the remainder of the complex, possibly indicating the special nature of the space. Later surfaces were built up against the base of the benches, indicating that they also saw several phases of use. The upper deposits in Room 954 are extensively disturbed by ploughing, insect action, and water channelling creating erosion gullies in this downslope western area of the site, as well as pits of probable Roman date. Despite this disturbance, it is clear that during the final pre-abandonment use of the room, large amounts of fine ware pottery and faunal remains were dumped. Two complete sets of deer antlers, with the frontal part of the skull still connected, were found alongside a worked antler tine and partial jugs, juglets, and bowls with fresh breaks from ploughing, including a near-complete juglet (KS512 on Figs 10.2 and 10.4a). This is the only area in which we find such an assemblage. Faunal remains are uncommon on surfaces in other parts of the complex, and preservation is generally poor. Whilst complete vessels are found frequently (for example Fig. 10.4b), sometimes crushed by wall collapse or plough-damaged, in no other area do we find a similar dump of material. In addition, lying on the exterior of Wall 913 was an exceptionally

Strategies for success  183 preserved boar mandible which, judging from its position, had most likely been originally mounted as a display item. It is probable that Room 954 was out of use for some time prior to the final floor refurbishment and dumping phase as erosion gullies are attested in the underlying patchily preserved but well-constructed lime plaster surface (1085), associated with the original construction of the room and shown on Figure 10.3.

Figure 10.2  Final pre-abandonment surfaces and deposits in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter).

Figure 10.3 Initial surfaces and features in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter).

184  Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter

Figure 10.4 a. Juglet KS512 from Room 954 (photograph by I. Cohn). b. Juglet KS221 from Courtyard 613 (photograph by L. Crewe).

Figure 10.5 Skull-filled Pit 1161 underlying Surface 1085 in Room 954 (prepared by E. Souter).

Lying upon Surface 1085 are additional finds. These include ground stone tools, large pottery sherds, animal bone and a cache of limpet shells. Caches of limpet shells have also been found on floors in other areas of the complex, including in neighbouring Courtyard 61314. Their use is uncertain but the small size and their deposition in caches may suggest stockpiling an ingredient, rather than casual snacking. In order to examine the relationship of the benches to the initial construction of Room 954, a sounding was excavated adjacent to Wall 224, through Benches 801

Strategies for success  185 and 883. Surface 1085 ran beneath the benches and lipped up against Wall Facing 1083, associated with the initial construction of Wall 224. Upon removal of Surface 1085 adjacent to Wall 224, faunal remains were revealed, lying within a shallow, oval pit with a rounded base (Fig. 10.5). The pit appears to have been dug immediately following or contemporary with the construction and facing of Wall 224, to have then been filled to overflowing with animal remains and sealed by Surface 1085, over which the benches were then built. It is this sequence of events, along with the contents of the pit, which leads to the interpretation of these remains as a possible foundation deposit. Within the pit were found a minimum of five partial cattle skulls, which were coherent upon exposure (see Fig. 10.6) but became extremely fragmented when removed. The cattle remains consist almost entirely of fragments of the front (facial portion) of skulls, including horncores. There are no mandibles present. Although the absence of any teeth within the pit precludes ageing or sexing, it supports the conclusion that these were purposefully trimmed-down skulls of cattle. Additionally included were the incomplete right horncore of a goat and a possible additional cattle horncore.15 Preservation of the skulls does not permit any conclusion of whether the skulls may have been shaped to wear as masks or were modified for mounting as display items. Before turning to the significance and possible meaning of the skull-filled pit associated with construction of the final phase complex, the next section will briefly turn to other evidence for structured deposition or unusual material culture within the final phase complex at Kissonerga-Skalia.

Figure 10.6 a. Upper level of skull-filled Pit 1161 b. Lower level of skull-filled Pit 1161 (photograph by L. Crewe).

186  Lindy Crewe and Ellon Souter Miniatures and their contexts at Kissonerga-Skalia A miniature, loosely defined as ‘a small object with a similar, larger counterpart’16 may be variously interpreted as a votive, toy or model used to reference the fullscale object.17 Whilst miniature vessels appear infrequently but consistently at the majority of Bronze Age Cypriot settlements, such as Marki-Alonia and elsewhere,18 it is rare that they occur in high numbers. The only two sites with evidence for extensive manufacture and use of miniature pottery vessels, both partially contemporary with Kissonerga-Skalia, have been identified as probable cultic centres by Webb, connected with overland routes between copper sources and the coast.19 The Trench 9 deposits at Kalopsidha-Koufos,20 dating primarily from MC III–LC IIA, contained large numbers of low-fired and roughly made miniature juglets and cups (with an average height of 6 cm), alongside significant quantities of animal bone.21 The other site is Athienou-Bamboulari tis Koukounninas. The LC I level, Stratum IV, consists of four shallow pits or depressions containing pottery and cut into sterile soil.22 The main period of cult use began during LC IIA (Stratum III) with the majority of occupation during LC IIC and it is during this period that large quantities of miniature vessels were produced, both roughly formed and in fine types of the major wares.23 Whilst not comparable to the quantities of miniatures found at Kalopsidha or Athienou, Kissonerga-Skalia nonetheless has produced a significant number of miniature vessels. They appear consistently, associated with the final phase complex or the overlying ploughzone, particularly in the areas of Courtyard 613 and Room 954. The majority are small bowls and cups, manufactured as standard fine wares (Fig. 10.7a, b) and also in roughly formed, low-fired versions (Fig. 10.7c is manufactured from cookpot ware), often with a plain white surface (Fig. 10.7d–g). Although juglets are not generally included in the category of ‘miniature’, they are unusually common in the Kissonerga-Skalia pottery assemblage and smaller than at the majority of sites (Fig. 10.4). They also occur frequently at the associated Kissonerga-Ammoudhia cemetery where juglets (closed vessels