Connectivity Through Pottery Horizons: Tracing Interactions in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus

(1)

CONNECTIVITY THROUGH POTTERY

HORIZONS

Tracing Interactions in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus

MARIA HADJIGAVRIEL

(2)

Figure on the cover: Drawing of ceramics created by Souzana Petri (Souzana Petri Crafts©)

(3)

1

Title: Connectivity Through Pottery Horizons: Tracing Interactions in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus Name: Maria Hadjigavriel

Student Number: s1632809 Supervisor: Dr. Bleda S. Düring

Course and Course Code: Research Master Thesis (4ARX-0910ARCH)

Specialisation: Research Master Town and Country in the Mediterranean Region and the Near East University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology

Leiden, 19th_{of March 2019}

(4)

(5)

3

Preface

This research would not have been possible without the support of several people and institutions. To begin with, my supervisor Dr. Bleda S. Düring guided me through this research. I can’t thank him enough for the endless feedback sessions, his honesty, and for believing that I am “too independent”, that my writing is “intelligent enough”, and I am “crazy enough” to love pottery. Besides all the above, he also gave me the opportunity to participate in his excavation in Chlorakas- Palloures, in Cyprus, enabling me to fall in love with the Chalcolithic material culture and study pottery from the site for this thesis.

I would also like to thank the members of the Palloures Project, for all the joys and stress we shared in the field, the long conversations and feedback. Especially our pottery specialist, Dr. Charalambos Paraskeva, who has provided me not only with the database I used for this study but also with his expertise on Cypriot Chalcolithic pottery. Working with him has taught me a great deal and challenged me to be as thorough and as critical as I can. For all the hours processing pottery, and for his generous support, I thank him, and I owe him a great deal.

Professor Diane Bolger kindly granted me access to the reference collections from Kissonerga-Mosphilia and Lemba-Lakkous. She has also been willing to discuss, give me advice and support. Her guidance has been a great honour for me.

The director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus has granted me access to the pottery datasets included in this study. Additionally, Professor David Frankel and Professor Jennifer Webb kindly gave me access to the pottery from Politiko-Kokkinorotsos, allowing this study to add a site from the central south lowlands of the island. I would like to thank them, as well as the staff members of the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia and the Archaeological Museum in Larnaca.

My research has been enriched a great deal by the inclusion of the pottery reference collection from Tepecik, Turkey, in my dataset. I want to thank Professor Mihriban Özbaşaran of Istanbul University, and Professor Marcella Franginpane of Sapienza University of Rome for granting me access to this material. Especially Professor Özbaşaran, for welcoming me to Istanbul University and doing everything in her power to facilitate my study there. My stay in Istanbul was made possible by a fellowship I was granted by the Nederlands Institute in Turkey (NIT), and I would like to thank all its staff members for their hospitality.

(9)

7

Besides all the above, I have had the help and encouragement of several friends. Souzana Petri, my favourite ceramicist, discussed with me clay properties and lent me her expertise, as well as the illustration on the cover of this thesis. Ermina Emmanuel digitalised my pottery drawings, and Anna Lipp created two of the maps used here.

My friends in Leiden, my family away from home, supported me and kept me sane. Especially Carla, Anna, Jeevan, Aris, Maria, Fotini, and Dasha.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Marios and Stella. They raised me to be who I am today, and always supported me, no matter how stubborn I have been over the years.

This work is dedicated to my grandmother, Elisavet Lantsia, one of the wisest women I know.

(10)

8

Chapter 1 Introduction

Tracing and understanding interactions between communities are arguably among the most vivid and tricky challenges in archaeological research. Especially in Prehistory, the archaeological record plays a pivotal role in understanding connectivity and regional patterns. This is also the case for Cyprus, an island situated at the edge of the Eastern Mediterranean, where archaeologists have observed regional diversity in all eras, including Prehistory (Peltenburg 1989, 2). Additionally, the nature and degree of interactions between the several communities across the island, but also between Cyprus and its neighbouring regions differ from time to time.

This research aims to shed light to intra-insular and extra-insular interactions during the first half of the 3rd_{millennium BC. As far as periodization of prehistoric Cyprus}

is concerned, the first half of the 3rd_{millennium BC is ascribed to the Late Chalcolithic}

period (ca.2900/2700-2400 BC), the latter phase of the Chalcolithic (ca. 3900-2400 BC). This period, in between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, is characterised by innovations and significant developments across the island (Steel 2004, 118).

Overall, when it comes to archaeological research, the Chalcolithic is a well-investigated period with plenty of sites and several well-conducted and extensive excavations. Nevertheless, certain aspects of it are still in need of closer examination. One of these aspects is the intra-insular and extra-insular contacts at the time. Most of the presently known Chalcolithic sites are situated in the west and southwest parts of the island, with a few sites in the central, northern and eastern regions, but the degree of interactions between the communities inhabiting these sites requires a closer look. Moreover, when it comes to contacts with the nearby mainlands, traditional views consider the island as being isolated during the Chalcolithic, with this isolation being broken with the emergence of the Bronze Age with the Philia Phase (ca. 2400-2250 BC) and the arrival of migrating populations from Anatolia. Nevertheless, recent finds, like a jar with a non-Cypriot copper axe discovered in Chlorakas-Palloures in 2016, challenge this image of insular isolation (Düring et al. 2018, 11).

(11)

9

1.1. Previous Research and Research Problem

Over the past few decades, excavations and survey projects have yielded hundreds of thousands of Chalcolithic sherds, and various scholars have studied the wares of this era extensively. The first classification was made by Porphyrios Dikaios when he excavated Erimi-Pamboula, while later on Jennifer Stewart and Diane Bolger established a more elaborate typology at Lemba-Lakkous and Kissonerga-Mosphilia respectively (Dikaios 1936, 1-81; Stewart 1985, 59-69; Bolger et al. 1998, 93-147). An overview of the Chalcolithic pottery, including wares and vessel shapes has been published by Diane Bolger and Jennifer Webb in the ARCANE (Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean) volume on Cyprus (Bolger and Webb 2013, 39- 127). Finally, Dr. Charalambos Paraskeva has re-examined all the available Chalcolithic assemblages of the island and made a new classification based on fabric composition (Paraskeva 2015).

However, although Chalcolithic pottery has been studied extensively, no comparative studies are focusing on one specific pottery type or ware from different sites. Moreover, although all the studies mentioned above include information about ceramic technology, no extensive studies on the ceramic technology in different sites have been carried out, perhaps because the majority of the available datasets consist of small-sized sherds. Such comparative and technological analyses could enrich our knowledge and understanding of interactions between the several communities that inhabit the island at the time. Furthermore, despite the flourishing of studies on Prehistoric Cyprus over the past few decades, little is known about regional and site-to-site variation before the Bronze Age (Clarke 2007, 5). Issues of regionalism, identity, interactions within the Near East, as well as the transfer of craft knowledge and technology are just recently starting to emerge in Cypriot Archaeology. This thesis is an effort to contribute to this, by investigating themes of intra-insular and extra-insular connectivity, regionalism, and transfer of technological knowledge in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus (ca. 2900/2700-2400 BC).

1.2. Research Questions

Contrary to the Middle Chalcolithic, pottery production in the Late Chalcolithic (ca. 2900/2700-2400 BC) is believed to be characterised by regional variations within Cyprus. Nevertheless, several red and/or black burnished pottery wares emerge across the island at the time (Peltenburg 1991b, 9). Scholars have suggested that these wares belong to the same red monochrome tradition and are related to the Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW) of the Kura-Araxes cultural horizon, and its Levantine variant, the Khirbet

(12)

10

Kerak Ware (KKW) (Bolger 2007, 164; Bolger 2013, 5; Bolger et al. 2014, 154-155; Peltenburg 2007, 141).

This research investigates red and/or black burnished wares of the Late Chalcolithic, in an attempt to shed light to intra-insular interactions at the time. Moreover, the possibility of extra-insular contacts is being examined, with the inclusion of a Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW) assemblage from Tepecik, Anatolia to the dataset.

Therefore, this thesis aims to answer the following questions:

Main research question

• What can a comparative study of red and/or black burnished wares from various sites across and outside Cyprus tell us about regionalism, connectivity and transfer of technological knowledge in the Late Chalcolithic?

Sub-questions

1. Can we see whether these Cypriot wares share the same technology of production across the island and whether they belong to the same pottery tradition?

2. What can different aspects of pottery production and use, technological and stylistic similarities and differences tell us about the nature and degree of interactions between potters, and therefore between different communities?

3. Is it possible that contacts with Anatolia and/or the Levant influenced the development of ceramic production in the island in the Late Chalcolithic as it has been suggested by scholars in the past?

1.3. Methodology

This thesis’ methodology is based on theoretical and methodological frameworks which argue that a systemic comparative analysis of different aspects of pottery production and technology, therefore of the chaȋne opératoire, can indicate different ways and degrees of interactions between communities. It attempts to address the above research questions by examining the relevant existing publications as well as available datasets of red and/or black burnished pottery assemblages from five sites across Cyprus, namely:

(13)

11

o Local variants of the Red and Black Stroke Burnished Ware (RB/B) from Lemba-Lakkous, Kissonerga-Mosphilia and Chlorakas-Palloures along the west coast o Red Lustrous and Red and Black Lustrous Wares (RL and RBL) from

Ambelikou-Agios Georghios in the northern part of the island

o Fabric A and Fabric E from Politiko-Kokkinorotsos in the central lowlands

A macroscopic study of the assemblages mentioned above is conducted, comparing them in terms of clay procurement and processing, firing, surface treatment and decoration, and vessel shapes. Following the same methodology, an assemblage of Red Black Burnished Ware (RBBW) from Tepecik, Anatolia is incorporated in this thesis’ dataset and compared with the Cypriot assemblages on the same aspects of the chaȋne opératoire. However, one needs to keep in mind that the inclusion of an assemblage from Anatolia does not aim to give a definitive answer to the possibility of relations between the pottery traditions in question. It functions merely as a pilot project, to see whether this hypothesis is indeed plausible and worthy of further investigation.

1.4. Structure

In order to create an adequate framework for this research, an overview of Chalcolithic Cyprus is presented in Chapter 2, including all aspects of material culture and a description of the sites in question for this study. Chalcolithic pottery, as well as the history of pottery studies on the island, is discussed in Chapter 3. Following, in order to address the critical issues of this research through an efficient theoretical and methodological framework, theories and concepts on cultural interactions, connectivity and insularity in the Mediterranean, as well as technological mobility, ceramic technology and cultural change in general and in the context of Late Chalcolithic Cyprus, and the methodology developed for this research are presented in Chapter 4.

The results of the comparative pottery analysis are presented in Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5 consists of the results of the analysis of the datasets from the sites within Cyprus, while Chapter 6 comprises of an overview of the Kura-Araxes cultural horizon, and the results of the study of the relevant assemblage from Tepecik, Anatolia. Finally, in Chapter 7, the research questions are addressed and discussed, leading to the conclusions of this research.

(14)

12

Chapter 2 Chalcolithic Cyprus: An Overview

2.1. Geography and Environment

Cyprus is situated in the Eastern Mediterranean, 70 km south of Turkey, 95 km west of Syria and 400 km north of Egypt. Its territorial extent is 9251 km2, and it is the third largest island in the Mediterranean, after Sicily and Sardinia (Knapp 2013, 3). Geophysical and geological research has shown that there was no land between the island and the Asiatic mainland after the Miocene epoch, and at least since the Pliocene, Cyprus has always been an island (Stanley-Price 1979, 1-5; Held 1989, 66-69). In terms of geology, the island consists of four terranes: the Keryneia terrane, the Troodos ophiolite complex, the Mamonia terrane and the Circum Troodos Sedimentary succession (www.moa.gov.cy; Figure 1). One of the main topographic features of the island is the ophiolite complex of Troodos, which also contained massive copper sulphide deposits. Copper production and trade have been central to the economy and socio-cultural development of the island from the Bronze Age onwards, and the name of the island became associated with the one of the metal¸ since the word “Cyprus” derives from the word “cuprum”, the Latin word for copper (Kassianidou 2014, 261; Düring et al. 2018, 11).

Figure 1: Geological Map of Cyprus (Geological Survey Department, Republic of Cyprus (http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/gsd/gsd.nsf/dmlGeoMap_en/dmlGeoMap_en?OpenDocument)

(15)

13

Although obtaining a complete picture of the climate in Prehistory is a difficult task, it is safe to assume that due to its geographical location and topography, Cyprus has been affected by climatic changes, like it is the case in the mainland (Stanley-Price 1979, 9). Some of these changes are evident in the archaeological record. For example, after the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 25000-18000 Cal BP), when increased rainfall and higher temperatures occurred, the island's climate turned from open woodland to full forest conditions (Knapp 2013, 6). In general, scholars have argued that the environment of the Mediterranean today is comparable with the one during the Early Holocene, or a bit dryer, characterized by prolonged drought in the summer and irregular rainfall in the winter (Butzer 2005, 1798). Nowadays, all freshwater sources on Cyprus stem from autumn or winter rainfall and winter snow in the mountains. Fluctuations in rainfall can be extreme, while rivers, such as the Pediaios River, are active only during very rainy winters (Stanley-Price 1979, 11; Knapp 2013, 7).

By the mid-3rd_{millennium BC, the Mediterranean climate is drier than the two}

previous millennia, and there are significant environmental changes. Unpredictable rainfall increases, bringing drought, floods or an intermediate situation. (Broodbank 2013, 257, 264). These changes, which are happening at the end of the earlier Holocene, resulting in a climate that is very similar to the Mediterranean climate we know today. Some researchers have attributed these changes to human expansion and the manipulation of the environment and the landscape by people (Nocete et al. 2005, 1566), recent research suggests that they were part of a worldwide shift towards drier climates, caused by changing solar radiation levels (Finné et al. 2011, 3170). Whatever the cause, one could argue that climate change went hand in hand with social changes since during the 3rd_{millennium BC, the Mediterranean basin was more densely populated than ever}

before (Broodbank 2013, 257, 263-265). Moreover, there was an increase in human activity and interaction, both via land and sea. As Broodbank vividly describes, "the sea itself would seem more alive, on a lucky day with a white flash of a sail catching the light in the eastern seas, paddled canoe surging its way over the waves, perhaps far out to sea between France and the peaks of Mallorca" (Broodbank 2013, 257).

When it comes to fauna and flora in prehistory, archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological research can provide us with useful information. The oldest faunal remains found on the island belong to dwarf elephants and pygmy hippopotamus, from the coastal site Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Simmons 1999). In Neolithic sites, such as Pereklissia-Shillourokambos and Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, remains of fallow deer, caprines,

(16)

14

cattle, sheep, goat, pig, domesticated dog and at least one domesticated cat were excavated (Vigne 2001, 55; Croft 2002, 174-175). Moreover, from the Neolithic onwards, domesticated cereals such as einkorn, emmer, wheat, and hulled barley were consumed, along with lentils, peas, vetch, olive, flax, fig, pistachio, plum, pear and grape (Hansen 1991, 233-234).

2.2. History of Research: Archaeology in Cyprus

Cypriot Archaeology emerged at the beginning of the 20th_{century, and it has been}

restricted and affected by the historical, political and cultural circumstances of the island at various times ever since. Fieldwork across the island began in the 1860s when Cyprus was part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not conducted by professional archaeologists, but by foreigners seeking for antiquities, like Luigi Palma di Cesnola, the American consul on the island, or Robert Hamilton Lang, the local manager of the Imperial Ottoman Bank. They, along with others, conducted large scale digs and sold Cypriot antiquities all over the world. For example, Luigi Palma di Cesnola became the first director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, after providing it with an enormous collection of Cypriot antiquities (Cesnola 1877; Knapp 2013, 20).

In 1878, Cyprus officially became a British colony, and unauthorized excavations were banned. British control initiated a new era in local archaeology, with mainly British institutes, like the British Museum, conducting projects on the island. At the beginning of the 20th_{century, scientific projects increased. Among them, the Swedish Cyprus}

Expedition, led by Einar Gjerstad, which took place from 1927 to 1931, conducting fieldwork at several sites (Gjerstad 1934). This project was pivotal for the study of Cypriot Prehistory, since it set the pattern for a culture-historical approach, confirmed the existence of the Neolithic and set up a useful chronology for the Bronze Age. Moreover, contributors like Sjöqvist and Furumark produced publications that situated Bronze Age Cyprus in its Mediterranean and Near Eastern context (Furumark 1944; Sjöqvist 1940).

In 1935, the local British government established the first Antiquities Law and the Cyprus Department of Antiquities. It is worth mentioning that this first Antiquities Law allowed to archaeological missions from abroad to extract some of their finds. Hence, as Karageorghis noted, vast amounts of antiquities kept leaving the island (Karageorghis 1987, 4; Knapp 2013, 21-22).

In 1960¸ Cyprus became an independent state. From then onwards, the Department of Antiquities and its directors, especially Porphyrios Dikaios (director in

(17)

15

1960-1963) and Vassos Karageorghis (director in 1963-1989), conducted numerous excavations and opened-up the door to multiple foreign missions. Among them, a French mission in Salamis working side by side with Karageorghis, a German dig at Tamassos, a German-Swiss project at Palaepaphos, Italian excavations at Ayia Irini, an Israeli fieldwork at Athienou and a Swedish expedition at Hala Sultan Tekke (Karageorghis et al. 1999; Bucholz and Untiedt 1996; Maier and Karageorghis 1984; Pecorella 1977; Dothan and Ben Tor 1983; Åström and Eriksson 1989).

In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and occupied 36% of the island ever since. Consequently, the occupied northern part of the island is inaccessible to research. Hence, existing projects ceased, some were relocated (e.g., the French expedition moved from Salamis to Amathus), and new sites in the south got attention and were excavated.

However, until the 1980s, most archaeologists working on the island were trained in the Mediterranean, Aegean or Near Eastern Archaeology, and the island's unique material culture was often considered inferior to its neighbouring regions, especially when compared to Greek Art. Moreover, according to Knapp, Cyprus was always seen concerning the Aegean or the Near East, and all cultural developments were attributed to external factors, such as invasions, migration, and colonization (Knapp 2013, 24,28). Nevertheless, since then, several archaeological projects have been carried out, and Cypriot Archaeology has developed and advanced. The foundation of the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus in 1991 was pivotal to the training and encouragement of local researchers. Furthermore, “a widespread concern for the detailed description, classification and chronological ordering of the Cypriot archaeological record, together with a well-established tradition of publishing final reports, have resulted in a relatively complete publication record of Cypriot sites “(Knapp 2013, 30). Additionally, many publications on Cypriot prehistory and protohistory have been published by Steel, Bolger, and Knapp (Steel 2004; Bolger 2003; Knapp 2013).

2.2.1. History of Research: The Chalcolithic

The first Chalcolithic site to be excavated was Erimi-Pamboula which was investigated by Porphyrios Dikaios in 1933-1935. Hence, he named the whole period "Erimi Culture" (Dikaios 1936; Dikaios 1962; Bolger 1988). In general, research has been focused on the southwest and south of the island, mainly due to the Lemba Archaeological Project, directed by the late Professor Edgar J. Peltenburg. The sites excavated by this project are the settlements of Kissonerga-Mosphilia, Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, and Lemba-Lakkous (Peltenburg 1985; 1998; 2003) and the cemeteries of Laona and

(18)

Souskiou-16

Vathyrkakas (Peltenburg 2006), while some of its members conducted surface surveys and traced sites in the Paphos district (Bolger 1987). Furthermore, Chalcolithic sites have been identified by the Polis Pyrgos Survey Project in the north-western part of the island (Maliszewski 2013). Some of these sites, such as Makounta-Voules are currently being reinvestigated by the Polis Region Archaeological Project, directed by Lisa Graham, Kate Grossman, and Andrew McCartney. Additionally, another Chalcolithic settlement in the Ktima Lowlands, Chlorakas-Palloures, is currently investigated by Bleda Düring and the University of Leiden (Düring 2016; Düring et al. 2015; 2018).

In the south, Ian Todd and Joanne Clarke have excavated the sites Kalavassos-Pamboules and Kalavassos-Ayious (Todd and Croft 2004; Clarke 2004). Meanwhile, in the central part of the island, Jennifer Webb and David Frankel excavated the Late Chalcolithic site of Politiko-Kokkinorotsos (Webb et al. 2009). Other Chalcolithic sites are only known through surface survey projects conducted over the past fifty years (Stanley-Price 1979; Held 1992; Given and Knapp 2003; Şevketoğlu 2000; Georgiou 2007), and small-scale excavations such as Lapithos-Alonia ton Plakon (Gjerstad 1934, 19-33), Karavas-Yrisma (Dikaios 1936, 74), Kythrea-Ayios Dhimitrianos (Gjerstad 1934, 277-301), and Ayios Epiktitos-Mezarlik in the north (Dikaios 1936, 74), Ambelikou-Ayios Georghios, Philia-Drakos and Kyra-Alonia in the north, and Nicosia-Ayios Prodromos in the central lowlands (Dikaios 1962, 141-155; Dikaios 1935, 12; Nicolaou 1967, 37-52).

Overall, it can be observed that most of the known Chalcolithic archaeological record comes from the southwest coasts of the island while our image of the northern and eastern parts of the island is limited. Therefore, our current understanding of the Chalcolithic is biased by the imbalanced provenance of data. The present thesis attempts to bridge this gap investigating regional variations and interactions while keeping those biases and restrictions under consideration.

2.3. Chronology and Periodization

The periodization of the island follows the three parts system of the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. In between the Stone and the Bronze Ages, there is the Chalcolithic period, a phase not present -or investigated, in all archaeological regions. The archaeology of Cyprus starts from ca.11000 BC, with the Late Epipaleolithic phase, since human presence in the Palaeolithic has not been contested so far. Besides some mentions of possible Middle or Upper Palaeolithic tools, this era remains terra incognita for the island, as Schaeffer noted in 1936 (Schaeffer 1936, 1; Knapp 2013, 43).

(19)

17

The Neolithic is ascribed to ca. 9000-4000 BC, followed by the Chalcolithic. Unlike other regions of the eastern Mediterranean, where the 3rd_{millennium is ascribed to the}

Early Bronze Age, the first centuries of the 3rd_{millennium in Cyprus belongs to the}

Chalcolithic, which dates to ca.3900/4000-2400 BC. The Bronze Age follows from ca. 2400 to 1100 BC (Knapp 2013, 27; Bolger and Webb 2013, 39; Peltenburg 2014, 253). A more detailed periodization of Cypriot prehistory and protohistory is attested in the table below (Table 1).

Table 1: Cypriot Prehistory Time Frame

(created by Maria Hadjigavriel after Knapp 2013, 27; Peltenburg 2013; Peltenburg 2014, 253)

Cypriot Prehistory Time Frame

Late Epipaleolithic ca. 11000-9000 BC

Neolithic

Aceramic Neolithic ca. 9000-7000/6800 BC

Ceramic Neolithic ca. 7000/6800-4000/3900 BC

Chalcolithic

Early Chalcolithic ca. 4000/3900-3600/3400 BC

Middle Chalcolithic ca. 3600/3400-2900/2700 BC

Late Chalcolithic ca. 2900/2700-2400 BC

Bronze Age

Philia Phase ca. 2400-2350/2250 BC

Early Cypriot ca. 2400- 2000/1850 BC

Middle Cypriot ca. 1850-1650 BC

Late Cypriot ca. 1650- 1050 BC

2.3.1. Periodization of the Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4000/3900-2400 BC)

As mentioned above, in between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, a period of change and reinvention is attested, the Chalcolithic, archaeologically visible mainly in the southwest coast. It was first identified by Porphyrios Dikaios at the site of Erimi-Pamboula and was named “Erimi Culture” (Dikaios 1936, 1-2). Dikaios initially divided the Chalcolithic into two sub-periods, Chalcolithic I and II (Dikaios 1962, 184-189). Further research resulted in a three parts division in Early, Middle, and Late (Steel 2004, 13, 83-118). Moreover, alternative names have been proposed, such as ‘Erimi Culture,' suggested by Knapp in the 1990s (Knapp 1990; 1994; Peltenburg 2014, 252). A more detailed classification of the Chalcolithic sites and their chronology is presented in the table underneath (Table 2).

(20)

18

Table 2:Periodization, primary sites, and publications of the Chalcolithic (created by Maria Hadjigavriel after the publications mentioned in the table)

(21)

19

2.4. The Chalcolithic Archaeological Record: An Overview

The passage from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic seems rapid and sudden, and various changes occur (Peltenburg 2014, 252; Knapp 2013, 195). Several sites of the Neolithic, such as Paralimni-Nissia were abandoned, while about 125 new sites emerge. It has been argued that it is marked with a demographic shift to the west of the island. Nevertheless, this conclusion is based on the fact that most of the to-the-day known Chalcolithic sites are situated in the west, which appears to be the most densely occupied area of the Chalcolithic. (Knapp 2013, 197; Peltenburg 2014, 253; Steele 2004, 83). Furthermore, curvilinear architecture is prevalent, in contrast to the sub-rectangular architecture of the Ceramic Neolithic (Knapp 2013, 195). Nonetheless, one should keep in mind that this image is biased by the history of research and the fact that the northern part of the island is inaccessible for research since 1974. Therefore, the transition to the Chalcolithic might not have been as sharp or as novel as it seems.

Moreover, in the Middle Chalcolithic, cemeteries occur for the first time, and variations in pottery and figurine production, social differentiation and increased symbolism and rituals are observed. Finally, the major step of the Chalcolithic is the emergence of copper metallurgy, which will later play a pivotal role to the economy and history of the island (Steel 2004, 83; Knapp 2013, 197; Peltenburg 2014, 253-254). A more detailed overview of the material culture and subsistence strategies of the Chalcolithic is presented in this chapter, besides pottery, which is presented in detail in Chapter 3.

2.4.1. Subsistence Strategies

Overall, Chalcolithic communities followed a dual subsistence strategy combining hunting and agropastoralism. In other words, they hunted animals but also herded livestock, and consumed both domesticated and wild plants and fruits. As Stanley-Price noted, dual strategies such as this permit very effective use of natural and social resources (Stanley-Price 1979, 75-77; Knapp 2013, 217).

Deer was the main meat supply during the Ceramic Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic. Limited data from Early Chalcolithic sites, mainly from Kalavassos-Ayious and Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, show that deer meat was the most popular for consumption, with a frequency of 63-78% in relation to other species (Keswani 1994, 264 Table 2). Additionally, there is no evidence of animals being associated with ritual practices during this period, besides deer antlers in graves at Erimi-Pamboula and Karavas-Gyrisma (Dikaios 1936, 12, 74; Toumazou 1987, 101, 104).

(22)

20

Moving towards the Late Chalcolithic, an apparent shift towards domesticated or herded animals such as pigs and ovicarpines is observed, while deer consumption declines. Pig’s remains comprise only around 22% in Early Chalcolithic contexts but reach 49% in Late Chalcolithic sites. Meanwhile, ovicaprines never surpass 10% (Croft 1991, 71 Table 3). These changes may reflect growing populations and higher nutritional demands. Moreover, as settlements became denser, the deer population might have been decreased because their natural habitat was limited (Croft 1991, 73).

As far as associations of animals with ritual activities in the Middle and Late Chalcolithic are concerned, some evidence points to that direction. For example, in Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, Kissonerga-Mosphilia, and Lemba-Lakkous, the ration of female to male caprines is almost equivalent, although this doesn’t correspond to efficient meat or milk production. According to researchers, the explanation might lie in the symbolic realm, since animals can be symbolically associated with social values. For example, male goat horns may have underlined the status and wealth of their owners (Croft 1991, 74; Keswani 1994, 267). Furthermore, Keswani suggested that the ritual consumption of animals would encourage the consumption of domestic livestock, which in turn, might be related to population increase. She argued that the growth and intensification of animal husbandry seem to have been accompanied by increased ritual activities (Keswani 1994, 265-267). Finally, as far as fish consumption is concerned, there is no evidence for deep-water fishing during the Chalcolithic, although they did exploit shallow-deep-water species (Steel 2004, 84).

When it comes to crops and vegetables, the paleobotanical record shows a variety of domesticated plants such as emmer, einkorn, bread wheat, peas, barley oats, and rye, as well as lentils, peas, chickpeas, vetch and grass pea. Moreover, both at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia and Kissonerga-Mosphilia there is evidence for possibly domesticated olive, grape, fig, and pistachio, as well as for consumption of wild grasses and fruits like juniper, berries, and capers (Murray 1998, 216 Table 11.1; Colledge 2003, 241-243).

2.4.2. Architecture

Overall, in the Chalcolithic, curvilinear architecture is prevalent, in contrast to the sub-rectangular architecture of the Ceramic Neolithic (Knapp 2013, 195). As far as the Early Chalcolithic is concerned, the available data are scarce. In Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, the Early Chalcolithic contexts consist of several pits with various types of fill. For example, in Pit 16, bone needles, antler beads, unfinished axes and other objects were found, indicating craft debris or a household midden (Peltenburg 2003, 264-266). The several

(23)

21

pits and postholes of the site have been interpreted as indications of ephemeral architecture, hence structures made of timber (Steele 2004, 83; Knapp 2013, 198-199; Peltenburg 2014, 254). For example, the stratigraphy of Building 200/Pit 3 has been interpreted as showing the continuous development from a pit to a semi-subterranean post-frame structure to a round house with stone foundations and walls made of mud (Croft and Thomas 2003, 123-132).

The Middle Chalcolithic is marked by the appearance of the "Chalcolithic house," which is circular and with stone foundations (Steel 2004, 88; Knapp 2013, 206; Peltenburg 2014, 256-257; Figure 2). Distinctive types of structures can be seen in the so-called Ceremonial Area of the Kissonerga-Mosphilia, which includes some of the most significant buildings known in prehistoric Cyprus (Peltenburg 1991a, 21-22; Peltenburg 1998, 243-245; Figure 3). This area is in a prominent location within the settlement, and it includes four structures with stone foundations, three round ones (Buildings 2, 4 and 205) and one rectangular (Building 1000) (Knapp 2013, 209; Steel 2004, 91). Inside, there are spaces distinguished by thick plaster floors, radial partition walls and rectangular hearths (Peltenburg 1998, pl. 5.1). The concentration of earth ovens and highly decorated open bowls for serving food and several holemouth jars in the buildings led the excavators to the suggestion that the area may have served as a space for ritual feasting (Peltenburg 1993, 14-15; Bolger et al. 1998, 118, 246; Steel 2004, 91).

Figure 2:Schematic plan of a typical Chalcolithic house (Steel 2004, 88)

(24)

22

Figure 3: Plan of Kissonerga-Mosphilia Period 3b showing the location of the building model and one of the figurines (Peltenburg 2014, 256)

Among them, Building 206, the so-called Red Building, stands out, because of its red-painted floors and walls. Peltenburg argued that it belonged to a high-status elite group, which distributed quantities of food during public feasting ceremonies. Bellow the floor of Building 994, which post-dates the Red Building two pits were excavated. One of them, Unit 1015, contained more than 50 objects, all packed in and around a Red on White bowl modelled in the form of a round house (Peltenburg 1991a, 23-26, 12-27 and 39-55). These objects include an anthropomorphic pottery vessel, a terracotta stool, a triton shell, several ground stone pebbles and tools, and 18 anthropomorphic figurines, ten made of stone and eight made of clay. All the pottery figurines represent female figures with elaborate painted decoration, and researchers believe that they were associated with childbirth and ceremonies to promote fertility (Peltenburg 1991a, 24; Bolger 1992, 155-156; Steel 2004, 105).

(25)

23 During the Late Chalcolithic, one building worth mentioning is the Pithos House, which dates to Period 4a of Kissonerga-Mosphilia and has a diameter of almost 10 metres (Figure 4). In this building, faience beads, triton shells, annular shell pendants, indications for working of shell, Picrolite and red pigment were found. Moreover, a cache of 47 stone axes and adzes, a concentration of conical stones, possible evidence of an oil press, vessels for food preparation and at least 37 storage vessels with a capacity of up to 4000 litres

(Peltenburg 1998, 37-43 and 252-254). Peltenburg suggested that the dense concentration of standardized bowls and small conical stones may have been associated with the redistribution of the surplus of agricultural products. Moreover, it has been suggested that the vast amount of deer antlers found in the Pithos House indicates a high social or political status of its residents (Peltenburg 1998, 213-14, 253). In contrast, Steel (2004, 112-113) argued that the Pithos House might have functioned as a social storage place, which would sustain the community in case of shortfalls in agricultural production and other difficulties.

In Period 4b, the Pithos House was destroyed, and several smaller structures were built on top of it. Among them, Building 706 where evidence for copper working has been found (Peltenburg 1998, 48-49). Overall, no communal facilities can be recognized during this period, while the settlement is separated into three distinct zones, each with independent households (Knapp 2013, 250).

2.4.3. Mortuary Practices

In contrast to the Ceramic Neolithic, mortuary practices are well attested in the Chalcolithic, with the most common way of burial being a simple pit grave without a capstone. In settlements, burials were closely associated with buildings, but only a few of them were placed inside them (Knapp 2013, 217). During the Middle Chalcolithic, burial practices start to diversify. For example, in Prasteio-Ayios Savvas tis Koronas a multiple burial of at least five individuals in an ossuary cut into a small gulley was uncovered (Rupp and D‘Annibale 1995, 39). Moreover, the excavations in Kissonerga-Mosphilia yielded 73

Figure 4: Reconstruction of the Pithos House (Steel 2004, 111)

(26)

24

intra-settlement burials, which can be categorized in five types: pit graves without capstones, pit graves with capstones, pot burials, scoop graves, and chamber tombs, although the last type has been found only in Period 4 (Peltenburg 1998, 64-92).

During the Middle Chalcolithic, the earliest cemeteries in the Cypriot archaeological record appear, 4 km from the southwest coast, in Souskiou, along with the Diarizos River valley. The Souskiou complex of sites includes four discrete cemeteries of the Middle Chalcolithic, one at Souskiou-Laona and three at Souskiou-Vathyrkakas. All four are physically isolated from the only known settlement nearby, Souskiou-Laona (Crewe et al. 2005, 43). The cemeteries consist of mainly multiple burials placed in shaft graves (Steele 2004, 95-98; Knapp 2013, 221; Peltenburg 2014, 258). Among the innovations observed at the cemeteries are elaborate tomb types, repeated use and reuse of shaft tombs over several generations, multiple inhumations, some secondary burial practices and large numbers of grave goods (Crewe et al. 2005, 43).

Moving to the Late Chalcolithic, group burials and multiple interments increase while grave goods decrease. In the cemetery of Souskiou-Laona multistage burial rites and possibly secondary treatment of the interred are observed (Crewe et al. 2005, 45). Furthermore, chamber tombs appear for the first time in Kissonerga-Mosphilia and adults and children are buried together in several sites, such as Lemba-Lakkous (Peltenburg 1998, 70-73; Bolger 2003, 153-155).

2.4.4. Metallurgy

Cyprus becomes famous for it is copper production and trade only in the Bronze Age since metallurgy on the island started later than in the neighbouring regions of Anatolia and the southern Levant. Scarce evidence suggests copper metallurgy before the Philia phase (ca. 2450-2550 BC) and its beginnings remain uncertain (Düring et al. 2018, 12).

The earliest attested use of copper on the island is traced back to the Middle Chalcolithic. In Souskiou-Laona and Souskiou-Vathyrkakas, two spiral ornaments, corroded pieces of copper, and a blade were found (Crewe et al. 2005, 51, 65, fig. 16.2; Peltenburg 2006, 99-100 pl. 10.5). Moreover, two needles and two uncertain metal pieces from Erimi-Pamboula probably date to this period (Bolger 1985, 180-186). In Late Chalcolithic contexts, the amount of metal finds increases. In Building 3 of Lemba-Lakkous, a chisel and two fragments that may be parts of a blade have been found. Furthermore, six metal objects have been found in Kissonerga-Mosphilia (Peltenburg 2011, 4 table 1.1; Knapp 2013, 256). Metal objects with parallels in other Late Chalcolithic

(27)

25

sites, such as a copper spiral and a snake/spiral-form pendant have been found in Chlorakas-Palloures, suggesting the circulation of metal objects already in the Late Chalcolithic (Düring et al. 2018, 19).

Additionally, the excavations at Chlorakas-Palloures have yielded a unique copper axe. The axe was found in a large jar that contained a collection of rare or unique artefacts, including four hooks made of pig tusks, a stone axe and a metal axe (Düring et al. 2018, 14; Figure 5). The type of the axe doesn't have evident intra or extra-island parallels besides an axe-butt fragment from Kissonerga-Mosphilia which seems to correspond in dimensions and shape (KM 457, Peltenburg 1998, 188-189). Chemical analysis with X-ray fluorescence spectrometer showed a small amount of tin in the axe, an element not present in copper ores from Cyprus (Düring et al. 2018, 19).

Figure 5:Collection of the artefacts found in the jar in Chlorakas-Palloures (Düring et al. 2018, 15)

Frankel and Webb have suggested that all metal objects found in Late Chalcolithic contexts might be associated with the movement of people from Anatolia during the Philia Phase (Webb and Frankel 2011, 29). On the other hand, Peltenburg argued in favour of the use of local copper in the Late Chalcolithic. For example, in Kissonerga-Mosphilia, the presence of a copper ore, two possible crucibles and two chisels in and around the Pithos House led him to suggest that local copper was processed already in Period 4a, before the first indications for foreign populations on the island (Peltenburg 2011, 7; Knapp 2013, 231). Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the casting of large and complex objects in moulds starts in the Philia phase (Manning 2014, 35).

(28)

26

It should be noted that several metal objects found outside of the island are reportedly made of copper consistent with Cypriot copper ores, in the time of transition from the Middle to the Late Chalcolithic. For example, an axe and two daggers found in Pella, Jordan, and a fish hook and an owl from Hagia Photia in Crete (Philip et al. 2003; Stos Gale and Gale 2003, 91-92 table 5). Although nothing in the archaeological record of the island indicates trade of copper during that time, that might be because our data comes from the south and west of the island, and not from the north, were most of the copper ores are (Peltenburg 2011, 6).

2.4.5. Picrolite Procurement, Figurines, and Symbolism

In the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, the use of picrolite in figurine production is observed. Picrolite is a soft blue-green rock that can be found mainly along the Kouris and Diarizos Rivers, where the sites of Souskiou-Laona, Souskiou-Vathyrkakas and Erimi-Pamboula are situated (Steel 2004, 93). Peltenburg proposed a link between early copper exploitation and picrolite procurement and suggested that a decentralized production of picrolite ornaments and figurines seems more likely than the establishment of exchange networks through which finished objects were moved (Peltenburg 1982b, 54-6; 2011, 6; Steel 2004, 5). Furthermore, Bolger argued for household production of picrolite artefacts and suggested that women were involved in the procurement of the material and the production of the figurines, as indicated by contextual evidence (Bolger 1994, 14-15).

Throughout the Chalcolithic, an interest in representing the human body in figurines is manifested (Steel 2004, 99). Although this tendency started in the Neolithic, it’s in the Early Chalcolithic that human features such as fingers and facial characteristics are depicted in

detail. The figurines depict mainly

anthropomorphic figures and are made of stone or terracotta, with rich painted decorations (Figure 6). By the Middle Chalcolithic, the repertoire of representation becomes wide, and figurines made of clay, limestone or picrolite are found across the island. They vary in size, from tiny pendants to

Figure 6: Drawings of Middle Chalcolithic figurines, two cruciform (1,2) and the Lemba Lady (Steel 2004, 100)

(29)

27

standing figures 40 cm high, like the Lemba Lady, a tall female figure made of limestone found at Lemba-Lakkous (Figure 6: 3).

These representations can be divided into four forms. The main one is cruciform, with elongated arms and neck, in a sitting position that may refer to childbirth. Because they were made of picrolite and are represented less often than clay or stone ones, it has been argued that they were exchanged as prestige goods. The other three forms of representation depict squatting figures, schematic figures with a triangular body and schematic plug-shaped figures. These figurines and the symbolic meanings behind them have been interpreted in various ways, such as symbolising a matriarchical society, a mother-goddess, or as cult objects (Steel 2004, 101).

2.5. Social Organization and Interactions in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus

Overall, scholars have argued that the Late Chalcolithic is characterised by arguably smaller structures, less cruciform figurines, a decline in the use of picrolite, increased standardization in pottery production, elaborate burials, the appearance of chamber tombs, intensified agricultural production and a possible increase of extra-insular contacts (Knapp 2013, 245-246). In terms of social organization and interactions, there seems to be an increased regionalism. According to Manning (1993), up until the Bronze Age, there was not one region of Cyprus that was consistently prominent, while the fluorescence of sites was usually followed by their abandonment. In the Chalcolithic, several clusters of sites emerge in the west and south of the island (Peltenburg 1993, 15-16; Knapp 2013, 243-245).

When it comes to the social organization within settlements, Peltenburg envisioned ongoing cycles of intensification and collapse of social inequality (Peltenburg 1993, 19-20). Based primarily on evidence from Lemba-Lakkous and Kissonerga-Mosphilia, Knapp argues in favour of wealth and social differentiation in the Late Chalcolithic. This evidence includes larger and better-built houses, rich burials within settlements, figurines and the house model that was found in Kissonerga-Mosphilia. Moreover, it has been argued that there's some competitive display at the cemeteries of Souskiou-Vathyrkakas and Souskiou-Laona, indicating towards social or economic ascendancy and differentiation. Finally, metal and faience artefacts are rare but present in both domestic and mortuary contexts and can be interpreted as indicators of the superior status of some of their owners. This image of social complexity and status differentiation is enforced by the presence of the Pithos House in Kissonerga-Mosphilia, which, as mentioned above, could be interpreted as an indicator of the high social or

(30)

28

political status of the residents, or as a communal storage space (Peltenburg 1998, 253; Steel 2004, 112-113).

2.6. The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age

The dawn of the Bronze Age in Cyprus and whether internal or external factors triggered it is a subject of discussion among scholars. The first attempt for the periodization of the Early Bronze Age dates back to the 19th_{century by John Linton Myres (Myres and}

Ohnefalsch-Richter 1989; Myres 1914). It was followed by a subdivision according to the Minoan paradigm by Einar Gjerstad in 1926, and it was further developed by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition (Gjerstad 1926; Dikaios 1962).

To begin with, the Bronze Age in Cyprus is considered, to start with, the Philia Phase (ca. 2400-2350/2250 BC), which follows the Late Chalcolithic. Dikaios coined it after the excavations of tombs at Philia in 1946, where he identified a distinct pottery type called Philia Red Polished, and therefore, a different culture, the Philia Culture (Dikaios 1962).

In general, the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age has been characterised by several changes such as the emergence of sub-rectangular architecture, the introduction of ploughs and equids, the reintroduction of cattle, as well as the increase of copper objects. Furthermore, deer exploitation declines and the population increases, arguably leading to the emergence of more sites (Keswani 1994; Knapp 2013, 263). It seems that Philia sites were mainly concentrated in the north of the island, close to the modern village of Vasilia. Unfortunately, Vasilia and other sites in the Ovgos Valley are inaccessible to research since 1974. However, research at other sites has improved our understanding of the Philia culture, while Morphou, Kyra, Philia and Deneia are likely to have been critical sites in the transportation of copper, from copper-rich areas to Vasilia, and to a nearby port from where it would be exported (Webb and Frankel 2013, 61).

Overall, the Philia phase is characterised by remarkable uniformity when it comes to pottery and material culture in general. This led researchers to conclude that all sites were regularly interacting with each other and distributed goods from site to site. Furthermore, recent research has shown that the Philia Red Polished was dispersed from villages in the north of the island, possibly in an exchange with copper producing sites (Dikomitou 2011, 39; Webb and Frankel 2013, 62). By the end of the Philia phase, this

(31)

29

uniform character broke down and gave way to the regionalism that characterises the Cypriot Bronze Age (Webb and Frankel 2013, 60).

According to researchers, the intensification of copper production and trade, along with the “secondary products revolution” would lead the island’s communities to a city-centred settlement scheme and increased extra-insular contacts, although the first cities of the island date nearly a millennium later, in the Late Bronze Age (Knapp 2013, 264). There is a great discussion among archaeologists concerning this transition and the involvement of migrant populations to this process.

The nature of the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age and how incoming migrant groups co-existed with the local populations is still the topic of a vivid debate (e.g., Manning 1993; Peltenburg 2007; Knapp 2008; Bolger 2007; Paraskeva 2015). The prominent interpretation in the 1960s was that a different culture substituted the local Chalcolithic cultures, while Dikaios argued for a peaceful migration of ‘superior’ Anatolian populations that substitute the ‘inferior’ Cypriot culture (Dikaios 1962). In the 1980s, Held ascribed the ‘delayed’ emergence of Bronze Age in the island to ‘cultural retardation’ due to insularity, while Knapp and Manning saw it as based on internal sociocultural evolution and competition (Held 1989; Manning 1993; Knapp 1994).

According to Peltenburg, the Chalcolithic material culture was already changing when migrant populations arrived, and after some time of co-existence, the Philia culture substituted the Chalcolithic one (Peltenburg 1998). Following the same line of thought, Bolger presented indications of complex regionalism, interactions, and emerging complexity already since the Late Chalcolithic (Bolger 2003; 2007). More recently, the two scholars reviewed their positions, supporting multiple regional variations of culture in the Late Chalcolithic and arguing that the emergence of the koine of the Early Bronze Age is the product of interactions between those regional cultures and the Anatolian migrants (Bolger 2007; 2013; Peltenburg 2007; 2018).

Meanwhile, Frankel, Webb and Kouka have argued for the enculturation of the Chalcolithic culture by Anatolian migrants and their way of life and that the Philia phase extends backward and overlaps with the Late Chalcolithic (Frankel et al. 1996; Webb and Frankel 2007; Kouka 2009). Additionally, Knapp has, in recent years, suggested that the interactions between the Philia and the Chalcolithic cultures reflect a hybridization process that resulted in a hybridized Early Bronze Age culture (Knapp 2008; 2013). Finally, according to Paraskeva, the indigenous populations reacted to the innovations brought

(32)

30

by the Philia culture in various and not uniform ways. It is, therefore, possible that these interactions also included episodes of violence and adoption of technologies but not style (Paraskeva 2015). Although the transition to the Bronze Age is not the topic of this thesis, the various debates need to be taken into consideration to better understand interactions in the Late Chalcolithic.

2.8. General Overview of the Sites Included in this Study

As mentioned already, regionalism is an essential feature of prehistory in Cyprus. Hence, pottery assemblages included in this study come from sites that were selected based primarily on their geographic location, to cover a broad spectrum of the island. Nonetheless, one must keep in mind the restrictions facing a study of regionalism in Chalcolithic Cyprus. To begin with, most of the known Chalcolithic sites are situated in the west and south-west coast of the island. Moreover, ever since 1974, 37% of the island, namely it is the northern part, is occupied by Turkey and thus inaccessible to research. Therefore, this study includes only one site from the north region of Cyprus, Ambelikou-Agios Georghios, and examines material that was excavated in the 1940s and 1950s and is now stored in the Cyprus Museum. The other sites included in this project are Kissonerga-Mosphilia, Lemba-Lakkous, and Chlorakas-Palloures in the west, and Politiko-Kokkinorotsos in the central lowlands (Figure 7). An overview of the region, time of occupation, periodization, and publications of each site is presented below in a table (Table 3).

(33)

31

Table 3:Overview of the sites included in this study

(created by Maria Hadjigavriel after the publications mentioned in the table)

2.6.1. Lemba-Lakkous

The settlement of Lemba-Lakkous dates to the Middle and Late Chalcolithic and is part of the cluster of sites investigated in the Ktima lowlands, in the Paphos region along the western coast of the island (Figure 8). Systematic excavations at the site were conducted by the Lemba Archaeological Project and Edgar Peltenburg for six seasons, starting with trial sections in 1976, after it was reported for the first time in 1975 (Stanley-Price 1979, 145; Peltenburg 1985, 3). The excavators have identified three periods of occupation: Period 1 (ca. 3500-3000 BC), Period 2 (ca. 3400-2800 BC), and Period 3 (2700-2400 BC) (Frankel et al. 2013, 25). Nevertheless, Peltenburg argued that there might be a gap between those periods and so the site might not have been occupied continuously (Peltenburg 1985, 18).

Two areas at the site were investigated: Area I in the west, and Area II in the east (Figure 9). It seems that these areas were occupied in different time periods, as Area I was occupied in Period 1, while most of the material coming from Area II dates to Period 3

Figure 8:The Chalcolithic sites of the Ktima Lowlands (Düring et al. 2018, 12)

(34)

32

(Peltenburg 1985, 18). As far as architecture is concerned, nine buildings that belong to Period 1 have been excavated; all positioned very close to one another (Knapp 2013, 211). When it comes to Period 2, one building stands out in Area I and has been interpreted as a cult place due to the discovery of the so-called Lemba Lady, an anthropomorphic limestone figurine ca. 40cm long that reminds cuneiform picrolite figurines (Peltenburg 1977, 141). In Area II, one building dates to Period 1, five buildings can be assigned to Period 2, and seven to Period 3 (Peltenburg 1985, 326).

Figure 9: Plan of the excavations in Lemba-Lakkous, indicating Area I and Area II (Peltenburg 1985, 333)

2.6.2. Kissonerga-Mosphilia

The site of Kissonerga-Mosphilia is situated close to the western coast of the island, 6km north of the modern-day city of Paphos. It is the biggest among the Chalcolithic sites investigated in Ktima lowlands, 1km away from Kissonerga-Mylouthkia and Lemba-Lakkous, and close to Chlorakas-Palloures (Peltenburg 1982a, 2; Knapp 2013, 208).

The earliest reference to the site can be traced back to the 1950s, and it was surveyed for the first time in the 1970s (Stanley-Price 1979, 143). It has been systematically excavated by the Lemba Archaeological Project led by the late Edgar Peltenburg from 1979 to 1992 (Peltenburg 1998, lxii). The excavators have divided the time span of occupation of the site in seven periods dating from the Late Neolithic period to the Early Bronze Age: Period 1A-B correspond to the Neolithic, Period 2 to the Early

(35)

33

Chalcolithic, Period 3 to the Middle Chalcolithic, Period 4 to the Late Chalcolithic and Period 5 to the Philia Phase (Peltenburg 1998, 8).

Two main areas of activities have been investigated at the site, the Upper Terrace and the Main Area (Bolger et al. 1998, 4). In terms of architecture, the excavations of Kissonerga-Mosphilia have uncovered an impressive cluster of buildings, the so-called Ceremonial Area, dating to the Middle Chalcolithic, and the Pithos House that dates to the Late Chalcolithic. These structures and their findings have been presented in detail above.

2.6.3. Chlorakas-Palloures

The site of Chlorakas-Palloures, also called Chlorakas-Vrysoudhia in literature, is situated on the west of the modern-day village Chlorakas, at the west coast of the island in the Paphos district (Düring et al. 2018, 12). It belongs to the series of Chalcolithic settlements excavated in the region of the Ktima lowlands, along with Kissonerga-Mosphilia and Lemba-Lakkous. It was first identified in the 1950s, and the first mention of it can be traced back in the Paphos District Survey, where it is described as a site of 3 hectares on a slope with a spring to its northeast (Düring et al. 2016). Later on, it was surveyed by Sophocles Hadjisavvas in 1975, by the Western Cyprus Survey in 1999, and several times by the Lemba Archaeological Project (Peltenburg 1979, 79; Düring et al. 2016).

In the 1970s, the site was severely damaged by a land consolidation program, while the cultivation of grapes, melon, and bananas took place on its premises. Moreover, several roads cut through the site and buildings have been built on top of it. Today, the accessible parts of the site are located in Plot 568 and Plot 355. In 2015, the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus and Edgar Peltenburg invited Bleda Düring and Leiden University to conduct rescue excavation in Plot 568, since it was scheduled for development. This resulted in a

Figure 10: Plan of the excavations in Chlorakas-Palloures (Düring et al. 2016)

(36)

34

three-year rescue excavation by the Palloures Archaeological Project. Meanwhile, the Paphos Museum conducted a small-scale rescue excavation in Plot 355 (Düring et al. 2016; 2018, 12-13). Currently, both plots are being confiscated by the Department Antiquities of Cyprus and will be investigated by the Palloures Archaeological Project in the near future.

The primary strategy of the rescue excavation carried out by the Palloures Archaeological Project was to expose as much of the settlement as possible. In total, 15 trenches of 5 x 10 metres have been excavated, revealing two clusters of buildings, one in the north and one in the south (Düring et al. 2018, 13) (Figure 10).

2.6.4. Ambelikou-Agios Georghios

Ambelikou-Agios Georghios is a site situated in the northern part of Cyprus, west of the Agios Liontis River and close to the modern-day village Ambelikou. Since the site is located at the part of the island occupied by Turkey, it has been inaccessible for research since 1974. It was named after a church nearby dedicated to Agios Georghios, and it was partially exposed during the construction of a road in the 1940s (Dikaios 1962, 141).

The data from the site are scarce as minimal archaeological work was conducted. To begin with, Dikaios led the excavation of a trial trench of 2m x 2m in 1942, from which a vast amount of pottery was collected. This trial pit revealed successive floors and layers of debris. In 1953 part of a round house was excavated at the area west of the road. Although most of this house was destroyed during the construction of the road, the excavator suggested that it is a circular house of Type IV of Erimi. Besides pottery, some ground stone and flint were recovered (Dikaios 1962, 141-143 and 147).

2.6.5. Politiko-Kokkinorotsos

Politiko-Kokkinorotsos is a small site in central Cyprus, situated in a stretch of the valley of Koufos River in the northern foothills of Troodos mountain range, 2km west of the modern-day village Politiko (Frankel and Webb 2007, 189; Webb et al. 2009, 190) It was occupied ca.2800-2670 BC, so during the Late Chalcolithic. It is the only known Chalcolithic site in the area, and it was first identified as Politiko-Fournia when it was surveyed by the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project in the 1990s (Given and Knapp 2003, 192-7, SCY 200, CS 2907). Later on, it was excavated by David Frankel and Jennifer Webb in 2006 and 2007 (Webb et al. 2009, 189). The excavations revealed ca. 550m2 and trial trenches suggest that the site doesn’t extend much further (Frankel, Webb and Pike-Tay 2013, 96)

(37)

35

There is no evidence of architecture, activity areas or burials, faunal remains indicate that fallow deer was the main meat consumed, the chipped stone fits a framework of intensive meat exploitation, while the plant remains, and ground stone tools indicate that several domesticated plants were processed and consumed at the site. All the above finds have led the excavators to conclude that the site functioned as a seasonal hunting station rather than a permanent residential settlement (Webb at all. 2009, 189; Frankel, Webb and Pike-Tay 2013, 94).

Connectivity Through Pottery Horizons: Tracing Interactions in Late Chalcolithic Cyprus