Version classiqueVersion mobile

Les royaumes de Chypre à l’épreuve de l’histoire

 | 
Anna Cannavò
, 
Ludovic Thély

Partie I – De la transition Bronze/Fer aux royaumes du premier millénaire

Ceramic Fluidity and Regional Variations: Elucidating the Transformed Ceramic Industry of Finewares in Cyprus at the Close of the Late Bronze Age

Artemis Georgiou

Résumé

L’effondrement des entités politiques palatiales de l’Égée, d’Anatolie et de la côte levantine, aussi bien que la chute du système économique de l’époque du Bronze Récent à l’aube du xiie s. av. J.-C. ont eu des répercussions à Chypre. L’horizon de la « crise » méditerranéenne correspond à la restructuration du système d’établissements chypriote et à la transformation de sa civilisation matérielle. Les processus vigoureux qui ont suivi pendant les années critiques de 1200 env. av. J.-C. sont très bien illustrés par les transformations dans l’artisanat de la céramique de l’île. Par le biais d’une approche macro-historique et holistique, cette contribution éclaire les développements qui aboutissent à l’abandon des techniques séculaires de fabrication manuelle dans l’île, et vise à clarifier les ambiguïtés de la recherche récente qui présente l’introduction de la céramique fine égéenne à Chypre comme la vaisselle de table par excellence dans l’île.

Texte intégral

Cyprus and the Breakdown of the “Age of Internationalism”1

  • 1 Killebrew 2014, p. 595.
  • 2 Following Renfrew’s and Tainter’s models of “Systems-Collapse” and the collapse of complex politica (...)
  • 3 Sherratt 2000, p. 82; Sherratt 2003, p. 50-51; Bell 2006, p. 111-113; Killebrew 2014, p. 595-596; K (...)
  • 4 Iacovou 2013b, p. 22-23.

1The spectacular “Systems collapse”2 of the eastern Mediterranean at the dawn of the 12th century BC, which corresponds to the eradication of the palace-based polities in the Aegean, Anatolia and part of the Syro-Palestinian coast, the succumbing of Egypt into decline and the breakdown of the overtly centralised economic system,3 did not leave Cyprus unaffected (fig. 1). Considering how the economic floruit of the Late Cypriot (LC) polities relied heavily on the external demand for the island’s metalliferous wealth, the devolution of the land-based political authorities in the eastern Mediterranean and the disintegration of the Late Bronze Age intricate economic structure had a pronounced effect on the island.4 However, it should not be predetermined that the series of events taking place in Cyprus were aligned to episodes observed elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

Fig.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text, indicating the upper and lower pillow lavas, the Arakapas Formation and the distribution of ancient slag heaps.

Fig.1 — Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text, indicating the upper and lower pillow lavas, the Arakapas Formation and the distribution of ancient slag heaps.

Map drafted by the author, digital data courtesy of the Cyprus Department of Geological Survey.

  • 5 Peltenburg 1996, p. 37.
  • 6 Keswani 1996, p. 217-219; Keswani 2005, p. 392-393; Knapp 2013a, p. 36-37.
  • 7 Georgiou G. 2007, p. 457; Crewe 2007a, p. 41-47.
  • 8 Discussed thoroughly in Knapp 2013b, p. 348-349.
  • 9 Iacovou 2007b, p. 17-18; Iacovou 2013b, p. 22-23; Satraki 2012, p. 140-153.
  • 10 Keswani 2004, p. 154; see also discussion in Peltenburg 2012; Knapp 2013a, p. 35-38; Knapp 2013b, p (...)
  • 11 Iacovou 2013b, p. 21-22.

2The island’s response to the critical aftermath of the 12th century BC was dictated by its idiosyncratic political geography and economic structure. Cyprus emerged as a significant component within the eastern Mediterranean trading network only by the end of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1700-1650 BCE).5 During this decisive and transformative era, the island’s settlement pattern underwent substantial transformations to accommodate the needs of the incipient economic basis that centred on the procurement of copper and the metal’s extra-insular transhipment to other Mediterranean regions.6 The foundation of new settlements by or near the coast epitomises the transformed settlement pattern at the inception of the Late Bronze Age.7 During the course of the period, such settlements developed urban characteristics,8 and functioned as the administrative centrepieces, in charge of an extended periphery that must have undoubtedly included metalliferous and agricultural zones, as well as a port-of-export.9 Admittedly, we are far from comprehending the regional modes by which these polities were established, how the resources were managed and the territorial expansion of their hinterland. Regardless, the extant archaeological remains present unequivocal evidence for the segmentation of the island into a series of distinct political entities, with regional elements in their material culture and diverse “patterns of urbanization and internal organization”.10 The distribution of the cupriferous formations – the lifeblood of the Cypriot economy – all around the Troodos Mountain (fig. 1) did not encourage the consolidation of a robust island-wide authority to administer the copper industry and exploit Cyprus’ natural assets.11

  • 12 For a general overview see Georgiou 2011; Georgiou 2012a, p. 89-114; Iacovou 2013a, p. 593-606.
  • 13 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 89-92, 170-172 and 451-453.
  • 14 Ibid., p. 120-129; Courtois, Lagarce, Lagarce 1986, p. 1-40; Webb 1999, p. 192-213.

3It is precisely because of the island’s segmented politico-economic landscape, and the apparent absence of a strong central state, that the turbulent events of ca. 1200 BC impacted differently on each of the regional Late Cypriot polities.12 Based on present evidence, the only site whose 13th-to-12th century horizon has been linked to a rather extensive destruction episode is that of Enkomi.13 However, the conflagrations reported by the Cypriot Mission in two distinct areas of the town (Areas I and III) did not result in the settlement’s abandonment. Enkomi managed to reinstate its political authority and economic floruit, as evidenced by the strengthening of the town’s fortification wall in a monumental fashion and the refurbishing of edifices, some in a lavish fashion that incorporated ashlar blocks.14

  • 15 South 1989, p. 322; Cadogan 1996; Hadjisavvas 1989, p. 41.
  • 16 Fisher K. 2014, p. 173.
  • 17 Knapp 1997, p. 68.
  • 18 Iacovou 2008a, p. 626-627; Iacovou 2013b, p. 25-26.

4The abandonment of the primary urban centres at Maroni-Vournes and Kalavasos-Agios Dimitrios by the end of the 13th century, and that of Alassa-Palaiotaverna during the course of the 12th, epitomises the effect of the Mediterranean-wide economic breakdown on Cyprus. In all three instances, the inhabitants appear to have peacefully deserted their settlements, leaving behind the still-standing, monumental, ashlar-built structures,15 which constituted the hub of administrative activities for the polities’ peripheral zones.16 Evidently, the abandonment of these south-central sites, together with their respective regional administrative systems was a conscious decision. It ensued from the curtailment of external demand for Cypriot copper,17 which brought about the disintegration of the polities’ economic fabric.18

  • 19 Fischer, Bürge 2013, p. 59; Fischer, Bürge 2014, p. 72 and 80. According to recent fieldwork at the (...)
  • 20 Iacovou 2008a, p. 638; Iacovou 2013b, p. 26.
  • 21 Temple 1 at Kition: Karageorghis, Demas 1985, p. 92-93; Sanctuary I at Palaepaphos: Maier, Karageor (...)

5Despite the evident decrease in the number of the Late Cypriot urban centres, the 12th century horizon in Cyprus does not correspond to a breakdown of urbanism or the collapse of the island’s idiosyncratic political structure. In addition to Enkomi, continuity within the urban environment of the Late Cypriot polities is evidenced at Hala Sultan Tekke and Kition on the southeastern coast and Palaepaphos on the southwestern. Hala Sultan Tekke continued to function as a cosmopolitan emporium in the 12th century BC, judging by the plethora of exotica, including the largest accumulation of the so-called “Canaanite Jars”, that is transport amphorae used for the maritime transport of goods across the Mediterranean.19 For Kition and Palaepaphos, the 12th century horizon corresponds to a period of unprecedented flourishment. Amidst an otherwise critical era on a pan-Mediterranean level, the political authorities of Kition and Palaepaphos undertook the task of constructing the first truly monumental edifices on the island, enhanced by the abandonment of the territorial polities in between them.20 Both Temple 1 of Kition and Sanctuary I at Palaepaphos were constructed in the name of the sacred, and are distinguished by the megalithic size of their ashlar blocks.21

  • 22 Sherratt 2003, p. 42-44; Bell 2006, p. 105.
  • 23 Cf. Rutter 1992, p. 64.
  • 24 Morpurgo-Davis, Olivier 2012; Iacovou 2013c, p. 136-138.
  • 25 Hirschfeld 1992; Iacovou 2008a, p. 632.

6Evidently, the breakdown of the Late Bronze Age economic order at the close of the 13th century BC evoked a variable impact on the island’s territorial polities. The Cypriot coastal emporia that made it unscathed into the 12th century BC partook in the decentralised commercial strategies that characterised the Mediterranean following the devolution of the strictly organised state-level trade.22 The uninterrupted use of the Cypro-Minoan script, the indigenous scribal tool that emerged together with the earliest political forms on the island at the dawn of the Late Bronze Age, exemplifies the level of continuity bridging the ante- and post-crisis eras in Cyprus. Unlike Linear B, the written expression of the Mycenaean palaces which died out together with the highly bureaucratic system it had served,23 the indigenous syllabic script of Cyprus boasts an incredibly long duration, considering how the adapted Iron Age version of the Cypro-Minoan script, known as the Cypriot Syllabary, endured to the very end of the Classical period.24 Cypro-Minoan managed to survive because it was by no means confined to a palace-based guild of scribes. The script was widely used for commercial activities, mostly with regards to the marking of vessels and other artefacts.25

The Transformed Ceramic Industry at the Close of the Late Bronze Age

  • 26 Explicit traces on the inside surface of some Base-ring vessels, however, denote the limited use of (...)
  • 27 See Åström 1972, p. 137-197; Popham 1972; Karageorghis 2001 for the general characteristics of thes (...)
  • 28 Kling 2000, p. 282.
  • 29 Sherratt 2013, p. 640.

7In addition to the restructuring of Cyprus’ settlement pattern, the 12th century BC coincides with a period of transformations in the island’s material culture. These are best seen in the ceramic industry, specifically with regards to the production of finewares. The Late Cypriot ceramic industry of tablewares was dominated by a couple of pottery types, known as Base-ring and White Slip ware, distinguished by their handmade manufacture26 and the popularity they attained in both intra- and extra-island contexts.27 The final stages of the 13th century BC and the inception of the 12th marked the dramatic decrease in quantitative and qualitative terms of the centuries-old Base-ring and White Slip wares. At the same time, decorated finewares of wheelmade manufacture, which largely – though not exclusively – draw inspiration from the Mycenaean production, were gradually established as the island’s principal tableware pottery. These finewares are, as a general rule, distinguished by their matt slip and matt colour of the paint,28 which sets them apart from the lustrous slip and paint that typify ceramic production in the Aegean. Though this concept stands true for most cases, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to distinguish between the two spheres of production, as the variations in the quality and execution of the painted decoration from both areas proliferate.29

A perplexed terminology and other research problems

  • 30 See discussion in Maier 1985, p. 122, n. 1; Åström 1972, p. 276; Cadogan 1993, p. 96.
  • 31 Furumark 1944, p. 202; Furumark 1965, p. 114.
  • 32 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 249-252.
  • 33 Ibid., p. 20-22, pl. 66; p. 23, pl. 67.
  • 34 Sjöqvist 1940, p. 208-209; Furumark 1965, p. 111-112; Catling 1975, p. 207-209.

8The series of events that resulted in the eventual overthrow of the handmade finewares and the establishment of Aegean-style wheelmade ceramics remain a much perplexed matter. This perplexity owes a great deal to the complicated terminology that was used to designate this pottery class.30 The local production of Aegean-style finewares was originally referred to as “Mycenaean IIIC:1b”, a term introduced by Arne Furumark to describe the material he had unearthed at the site of Sinda.31 In the exemplarily prompt publication of Enkomi, Porphyrios Dikaios used the term “Mycenaean IIIC:1b” to describe the Aegean-style fineware pottery that was excavated in his Level IIIA which, according to him, represented the rebuilding activities of Mycenaean populations.32 Locally made Aegean-style pottery was already present at the site of Enkomi (Level IIB), in the form of shallow carinated and conical bowls, bell kraters and jugs,33 but Dikaios distinguished this class of material as “Late Mycenaean IIIB”. In this context, the occurrence of deep bowls was considered the marker for the initiation of the “Mycenaean IIIC:1b” ware. This doctrine provided grounds to the misconception that locally produced Aegean-style pottery appeared suddenly in Cyprus at the beginning of the 12th century BC and was explicitly equated to the establishment of peoples of Mycenaean origin on the island.34

  • 35 Discussed in Kling 1991; Kling 2000, p. 281-282; Sherratt 1991, p. 186-187; Sherratt 2013, p. 622-6 (...)
  • 36 See the variable use of these terms by Sjöqvist 1940, p. 73-74; Åström 1972, p. 276, fig. 76-77; Fu (...)

9Over the years, scholarship has struggled to comprehend the distinction that is implicated by the term “Mycenaean IIIC:1b” and its differentiation to “Late Mycenaean IIIB”.35 Additional attempts to categorise the production of decorated wheelmade fine-wares in Late Bronze Age Cyprus generated an abundance of perplexed nomenclature that borders arbitrariness. Terminologies such as “Levanto-Helladic”, “Decorated Late Cypriot III”, “Quasi-Mycenaean Linear”, “Local Mycenaean IIIC:1b”, “Submycenaean” and “Painted ‘Submycenean’ ware” are mere additions to an already labyrinthic state of affairs.36

  • 37 Åström 1972, p. 276.
  • 38 Also discussed in Fischer 2012, p. 78-79; Jung 2012, p. 83-84.

10With the aim of eradicating the biased and complex terminology that has burdened a comprehensive understanding of the local production of Aegean-style pottery in Cyprus, most scholars nowadays opt for the term “White Painted Wheelmade III ware”, when referring to the production of wheelmade finewares in 13th and 12th century Cyprus. It was first introduced by Åström, attempting to bring all the terminologies used to describe the local production of wheelmade finewares in Cyprus under one umbrella.37 This terminology, which tends to become universal, undoubtedly eradicates the historical connotations that are implied by other terms, while stressing the continuity in the Cypriot sequence. As a nomenclature, however, it is not without flaws. First of all, the numerical “III” imposes an erroneous exclusive association with the LC III period. Secondly, this descriptively objective term overlooks the impact of the Aegean production, which is certainly not exclusive, but it is indisputably decisive.38

Unravelling the thread: a longue durée approach

  • 39 Steel 2004, p. 70.
  • 40 Keswani 2004, p. 126-127.
  • 41 South, Russell 1993.
  • 42 Leonard 1981, p. 91-96.
  • 43 Steel 1998, p. 287.
  • 44 Jones 1986, p. 791-792.
  • 45 Steel 1998, p. 291; Knapp 2013b, p. 421-422.

11If we were to start the study of Aegean-style wheelmade pottery production in Cyprus with a blank paper today, it would undoubtedly be much more straightforward, evading the unnecessarily perplexed terminology and the biased interpretative load. Taking a macro-historic and contextual view in our attempts to elucidate the transformations of Cyprus’ ceramic industry at the close of the Late Bronze Age, we ought to start from the earlier part of the period. During the course of the 15th century BC, and mostly during the 14th and early 13th centuries BC, the Cypriots became exceedingly fond of imported Mycenaean pottery.39 Mycenaean vessels are found by the hundreds on the island, deposited in their vast majority in mortuary contexts.40 The most prevalent Mycenaean shapes are stirrup jars and kraters.41 While stirrup jars found their way in Cyprus in the name of their contents – oils, unguents or other precious liquids42 – Mycenaean kraters were evidently appreciated by the Cypriots as ceramic vessels per se.43 Indeed, Mycenaean pottery, especially of the Late Helladic IIIA2-IIIB1 periods (roughly the mid-14th to mid-13th centuries BC), reached an unsurpassable level of quality in terms of the clay’s purity and the luster of the slip and paint.44 As an essential implement for feasting activities, Mycenaean kraters with their exceptionally lustrous paint, exotic origin, and impressive pictorial scenes featured at the centre of social gatherings. Such elaborately decorated vessels served to promote and enhance the owner’s social prominence and were thus pivotal for ascertaining the status of Cypriot social elites.45

  • 46 Mountjoy 1993, p. 73; Immerwahr 1993, p. 218-219.
  • 47 Steel 1998, p. 287; see also Sherratt 1994b, p. 36; Dabney 2007, p. 191-192.
  • 48 Hirschfeld 1992, p. 316.
  • 49 Sherratt 1998, p. 296.

12Mycenaean kraters in Cyprus were imported in both the bell- (FS 281-282) and the larger amphoroid-type (FS 53-55). While the latter form proliferates in Cypriot and Levantine contexts, it was – paradoxically – an exceptionally rare shape in Mycenaean Greece.46 This phenomenon outlines the economic strategies employed by the Mycenaean palatial system for a “specifically targeted export market” towards Cyprus and the Levant.47 On the other hand, the individual marks (or very short inscriptions) associated with the Cypro-Minoan script found inscribed or painted on Mycenaean vessels from Cypriot, as well as Levantine, contexts disclose the involvement of Cypriot merchants in the commercial distribution of Mycenaean pottery in the eastern Mediterranean.48 This is further corroborated by the fact that the distribution pattern of Aegean wares in Syro-Palestinian sites practically overlaps that of the Cypriot handmade finewares.49

  • 50 Vermeule, Karageorghis 1982, p. 59-60; Yon 2004a.
  • 51 Cadogan 1993, p. 94; Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015, p. 470-471.
  • 52 E.g. Enkomi Tomb 110: Courtois 1981, p. 159; Graziadio 2017.

13From as early as the 14th century BC, ceramic forms that typify the Mycenaean sphere were being locally produced in Cyprus.50 Of the earliest Mycenaean forms reproduced locally in Cyprus are small-scale and miniature three-handled piriform jars (known as types FS 46 and FS 47).51 Judging by their fabric and characteristic decorative treatment, that is typified by short-term spirals around the shoulder zone and below the handles, this particular class appears to have been locally produced following the Mycenaean prototypes. Examples of such vessels are limited and were found deposited in LCIIA-B mortuary contexts.52

  • 53 Furumark 1941, p. 465.
  • 54 See Karageorghis 1965, p. 231-259; Vermeule, Karageorghis 1982, p. 59-68, fig. VI:1-62.
  • 55 Anson 1980.

14Other Mycenaean shapes that were introduced in the local ceramic production early in the 13th century BC are amphoroid and bell pictorial kraters decorated in a distinctive fashion that was termed “Rude Style”. This designation was used to denote the inferior quality of such kraters when compared to the mainland vessels.53 This pottery class is also known as “Pastoral Style”, owing to the predominance of pastoral compositions portrayed, depicting bulls, birds and other animals.54 Scientific studies have corroborated that the vast majority of this particular pottery class was locally produced on the island.55

  • 56 Kling 1989a, p. 170; Kling 1989b, p. 164.
  • 57 Sherratt 1994b, p. 36.
  • 58 Dikaios 1969-1971, 5563/1 (pl. 66:21), 1344/1 (pl. 66:30, 67:22), 726/1 (pl. 66:27), 1978/1 (pl. 66 (...)
  • 59 South, Russel, Keswani 1989, K-AD 536, 1041, 1042A-B, 1045, 1052 (pl. 5 and 13), K-AD 2247 (South 1 (...)
  • 60 Ibid., K-AD 1036, 1037 (fig. 12), K-AD 1851 (South 1988, fig. 3).
  • 61 E.g. South 1988, K-AD 321 (fig. 3).
  • 62 South, Russel, Keswani 1989, K-AD 1053-1055 (pl. 5) and K-AD 1080 (fig. 14).
  • 63 Ibid., K-AD 15, K-AD 1043-1044 (fig. 15).
  • 64 Cadogan 1984, p. 8.
  • 65 Cf. Kling 1989b, p. 160-162, fig. 20.2 a-b.

15During the course of the 13th century BC, the corpus of locally made wheelmade vessels of Aegean inspiration augments. New shapes include shallow bowls of varying forms (i.e. carinated, conical, etc.) and handle types (strap, loop, wishbone, etc.), as well as a limited range of closed vessels, such as jugs and stirrup jars.56 At Enkomi, the percentage of locally made Aegean-style pottery for Level IIB, which largely corresponds to the LC IIC period (13th century BC) reaches up to 9% of the ceramic assemblage.57 The corpus incorporates shallow bowls, bell kraters and jugs.58 At Kalavasos-Agios Dimitrios, which was abandoned before the close of the 13th century BC, Aegean-style pottery includes bell kraters,59 shallow bowls with two horizontal strap handles,60 cups,61 globular jugs62 and stirrup jars.63 Shallow bowls are also mentioned from the settlement at Maroni-Vournes,64 which shared the same fate as Kalavasos-Agios Dimitrios. Wheelmade feeding bottles, which comprise jugs with a short tubular spout, were also produced during the LCIIC period.65

  • 66 Sherratt 1994b, p. 38.

16The production of Aegean-style ceramics on the island witnesses an exponential increase by the end of the 13th and the inception of the 12th century BC, at the expense of the traditional production of the handmade Base-ring and White Slip wares. At Enkomi, for instance, the percentage of locally produced Aegean-style pottery rises from 9% in Level IIB to 46% in Level IIIA.66 By the middle of the 12th century BC, the ceramic industry of the island was entirely transformed, with the centuries-old production of handmade wares completely overthrown in favour of the Aegeanised wheelmade finewares.

  • 67 Sherratt 1991, p. 190-191.
  • 68 Kling 1989a, p. 94-108.
  • 69 Early forms of deep bowls were found at Palaepaphos-Mantissa (Karageorghis 1965, p. 161), Kition To (...)
  • 70 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297-298.
  • 71 See Kling 1989a, p. 94-125 and 171.

17In the 12th century BC, the deep bowl (occasionally referred to as a skyphos) was established as the open shape par excellence within the sequence of tableware pottery (fig. 2-3).67 The deep bowl is typified by a bell-shaped body with two horizontal loop handles that flank linear or elaborate compositions.68 The shape was introduced already during the close of the 13th century BC, albeit in extremely limited numbers and in rather awkward forms.69 The establishment of the deep bowl as the prevailing eating and drinking vessel, to the detriment of shallow bowls with varying profiles, is indicative of the standardisation processes characterising the LC ceramic industry during this period.70 In addition to the dramatic rise in the popularity of Aegean-style finewares during the course of the 12th century BC, there was an augmentation of the array of shapes produced on the fast wheel. Forms that were newly introduced or gained popularity are neck-handled amphorae, strainer jugs, hydriae, kylikes (of both the short- and the long-stem variation), amphoriskoi, mugs, and piriform jars.71

Fig.2 — Deep bowl from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 23.

Fig.2 — Deep bowl from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 23.

Georgiou 2016, fig. 11; photo by the author.

18 

Fig.3 — Deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.

Fig.3 — Deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.

Published by Karageorghis, Demas 1988, no 385; photo by the author.

  • 72 Cf. Yasur-Landau 2010, p. 243-255 with further references.
  • 73 Janeway 2011, p. 177; Killebrew 2014, p. 598.
  • 74 Neutron activation analyses have corroborated that Aegean-style pottery found at Tarsus, Tel Dor, T (...)
  • 75 Mountjoy 2011, p. 181-185.

19Aegean-inspired pottery was also produced at other areas of the eastern Mediterranean during the 12th century BC, and particularly in the area of southern Levant.72 Recent studies have shown that a significant number of fineware vessels produced at Levantine and Anatolian sites betray stylistic affinities with the Cypriot production, rather than the Mycenaean sphere directly.73 It was also demonstrated by means of scientific analyses that Mycenaean-style pottery locally produced in Cyprus was traded to other areas of the eastern Mediterranean, judging by the excavation of such vessels at Anatolian, Egyptian and Levantine contexts.74 In their vast majority, Cypriot-made ceramic vessels of Mycenaean type found abroad during the late 13th and 12th century BC entail stirrup jars, suggesting that they were probably traded for their contents, although a few open vessels were also included in these assemblages.75

“Unclassified horrors”:76 a time of experimentation

  • 76 From Sherratt 1991, p. 187.
  • 77 Sherratt 1991, p. 186-187; Kling 2000, p. 282.
  • 78 Maier, Wartburg 1985a, p. 110-113.
  • 79 von Rüden et al. 2016.
  • 80 Georgiou 2016, p. 98; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 80-81; von Rüden et al. 2016, p. 419-423.

20The pottery wares that are collectively known by the term “White Painted Wheelmade III” ware indicate a period of experimentation and ceramic fluidity, corresponding to the dynamic osmosis of shapes, decorative-patterns and techniques deriving from the Aegean and the local Cypriot production.77 The most comprehensive evidence illustrating these forceful processes was contained within two wells at the locality Evreti, situated at the urban nucleus of the Paphian polity. The wells were excavated by Franz Georg Maier78 and the long overdue eventual publication of their contents sheds light on the island’s transformative material culture79. Considering the large number of fineware drinking vessels discarded within these contexts, as well as the proliferation of ivory artefacts and ivory flakes, the Evreti well deposits are interpreted as the residue of residential and workshop activities.80

  • 81 Georgiou 2016, p. 90 et p. 106, fig. 30.

21Bowl No. 28 from Evreti Well III (fig. 4a-b) is an eloquent example of the dynamic nature of the Cypriot ceramic industry during the 13th-to-12th century BCE transition. The vessel follows the fabric and wheelmade technique of the Aegean-style vessels, but is shaped and decorated as a typical White Slip II-late example.81 The wells contained additional examples unveiling the integration of White Slip elements in the repertoire of White Painted Wheelmade III, including a fragmentary bowl that preserves part of its wishbone handle and decoration in sets of vertical bands (TE III 69A).

Fig.4 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware in White Slip decoration from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 28.

Fig.4 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware in White Slip decoration from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 28.

Georgiou 2016, fig. 30 and 75; photo and drawing by the author.

  • 82 Åström 1972, p. 175-178, pl. LII.
  • 83 Sherratt [à paraître].

22TE III 199 (fig. 5a-b) also depicts the amalgamation between the Aegean and the Cypriot spheres of pottery production. It represents the wheelmade version of a typical Y-shaped bowl in Base-ring shape,82 in the characteristic fabric of White Painted Wheelmade III vessels. It is covered by a light orange/brown wash, presumably to simulate the metallic texture of Base-ring vessels. An identically shaped wheelmade Y-shaped bowl, this time in Plain ware, was unearthed during the excavations conducted by the Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project at the locality of Marchello.83

Fig.5 a-b — Y-shaped bowl in White Painted Wheelmade III fabric from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 199.

Fig.5 a-b — Y-shaped bowl in White Painted Wheelmade III fabric from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 199.

Georgiou 2016, fig. 197; photo and drawing by the author.

  • 84 Mountjoy 1993, p. 84, fig. 213 and p. 253; Mountjoy 1999, fig. 37:277 and 95:184.
  • 85 E.g. South, Russel, Keswani 1989, fig. 46 and fig. 8, K-AD 960-961; Keswani 1991, p. 101.

23Bowl No. 14 from the Evreti wells is a hemispherical vessel with a very low-ring base and a lug-handle attached on the rim, covered inside out by a thin brown wash (fig. 6a-b). The application of lug-handles is a very peculiar feature for the ceramic repertoire of the Greek mainland;84 it is, however, very much in place within the LC ceramic industry, particularly with regards to bowls of Plain ware and the so-called Monochrome ware.85

Fig.6 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with lug handle from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 14.

Fig.6 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with lug handle from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 14.

Georgiou 2016, fig. 31 and 61; photo and drawing by the author.

Regional variations

  • 86 Cf. Frankel 2009 on the notion of regionalism.
  • 87 E.g. Schaeffer 1952, fig. 91; Dikaios 1969-1971, 2822/6 (pl. 73:19), 4476/11 (pl. 81:20), P1137 (pl (...)
  • 88 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 487-489.
  • 89 Ibid., p. 490.
  • 90 Mountjoy 1999, p. 77-78.
  • 91 Kling 1989a, p. 124; Mountjoy, Gowland 2005, p. 156.
  • 92 E.g. Furumark, Adelman 2003, Px105, P31, Px103-104, Px106-112 (pl. 10, 14, 16 and 17).

24In addition to a highly experimental character, the transformation of the island’s ceramic industry betrays a remarkable level of regional variability, in terms of local preference to particular shapes, idiosyncratic features and/or decorative treatment.86 Regional idiosyncrasies identified in the production of wheelmade finewares at Enkomi include the popularity of elaborately decorated and densely filled surfaces, particularly on bell-kraters, strainer jugs and stirrup jars. This decorative treatment features elaborately drawn friezes filled with dense ornamentation and/or intricate stemmed spirals with ancillary motifs.87 Such intricately decorated examples first appear in Level IIIA, but proliferate during Level IIIB.88 Dikaios has referred to this type of decoration as “Close Style”,89 associating it with the homonymous decorative class that characterises the Argive production during the Late Helladic IIIC middle phase.90 As it has been rightly pointed out by a number of scholars, the elaborate style of Enkomi with its heavily drawn ornaments does not follow the Close Style of the Greek mainland, characterised by packed miniature motifs.91 The elaborate decorative style is also popular at Sinda with numerous examples of kraters bearing intricate spiral decorations and metopes.92

  • 93 Crewe 2007a, fig. A1.
  • 94 Karageorghis 1974, p. 87, pl. CLVIII:72, pl. CLIX:94 and 96-98.
  • 95 Karageorghis, Kanta 2014, pl. 8:63.
  • 96 Fischer, Bürge 2013, fig. 12. See also Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015, fig. 11, S34 for an additional examp (...)

25Bichromity in the production of White Painted Wheelmade III is a very rare feature; it is, however, better represented in the south-eastern part of the island. The bichrome effect is achieved by the intentional application of two different colours of paint, black and reddish/orange, on the same vessel. This decorative technique draws from either the Bichrome ware of the earlier Late Cypriot traditions93 or it was produced under renewed influence by the Levantine coast. Several shallow bowls with a bichrome effect were found at Kition Tomb 9 Upper Burial.94 These are decorated with thin horizontal bands on the inside and outside of both red and black colour. The bichrome technique is also represented on a shallow conical bowl from Pyla-Kokkinokremos, whose inner surface is decorated by horizontal bands in black paint, while the spaces in between are covered with reddish paint (fig. 7).95 A three-handled piriform jar from Hala Sultan Tekke, embellished by lopsided triangular patches on the shoulder-zone, is also decorated with a bichrome technique, the distinction between the two colours truly standing out.96

Fig.7 — Shallow bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with bichrome decoration from Pyla-Kokkinokremos.

Fig.7 — Shallow bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with bichrome decoration from Pyla-Kokkinokremos.

Published by Karageorghis, Kanta 2014, no 63.

  • 97 Cf. Benson 1972, B497-522, p. 83-84.
  • 98 Benson 1972, pl. 21.
  • 99 E.g. Kaminia: Goring 1988, p. 70, no 75; Teratsoudia: Karageorghis 1990, N26, pl. XLVIII.

26The area of Episkopi was the home of a peculiar type of bowl that consists of a very shallow, conical body with an exaggeratedly raised handle featuring a knob on the top, apparently in imitation of the raised wishbone handle that is customary in the local ceramic repertoire.97 The typical decoration comprises sets of vertical panels filled with linear motifs.98 Comparable examples were also found at the neighbouring settlement of Palaepaphos.99

  • 100 E.g. Evreti wells: Georgiou 2016, p. 85-86; Maier, Wartburg 1985a, fig. 8; Marchello: Maier 2008, p (...)
  • 101 Kling 1988, p. 334.
  • 102 E.g. Georgiou 2016, p. 99, TE III 23, 26 and 50; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, fig. 41-42; Karageorghis(...)

27The area of Paphos presents the largest array of regional idiosyncrasies in terms of the production of Aegean-style fineware ceramics. The popularity of solid dark paint on the interior of deep bowls is considered as a regional feature of southwestern Cyprus, with plentiful examples from the Kouklia localities100 and also Maa-Palaeokastro.101 The two settlements also share a distinctive fabric characterised by whitish slip and very dark paint creating a contrasting effect.102

  • 103 Karageorghis 1965, nos 9-10 and 19, fig. 159.
  • 104 Maier 2008, p. 208, fig. 256:26, p. 210, fig. 258:36A.
  • 105 Georgiou 2016, p. 91-92, TE III 1, 2, 8, 61, 65, 72, 215 and 217.
  • 106 Karageorghis, Demas 1988, nos 414, 573-574; Georgiou 2012a, table 26.

28A shape that is particularly popular in the region of Paphos is the one-handled bowl (fig. 8), either with a conical, or more commonly with an angular profile. Bowls with a single horizontal loop handle proliferate from sites within the urban core, such as Mantissa,103 Marchello104 and Evreti105 and from the short-lived settlement of Maa-Palaeokastro.106

Fig.8 — One-handled bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 1.

Fig.8 — One-handled bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 1.

Georgiou 2016, fig. 34 and 50; photo by the author.

  • 107 From Evreti: Georgiou 2016, p. 88, TE III 280A, 283 and 590; from Mantissa: Karageorghis 1965, form (...)
  • 108 Karageorghis 1960a, nos 6 and 8, fig. 89 and 91; Tomb 9, Upper Burial: Karageorghis 1974, p. 86, pl (...)

29Other regional characteristics of the Paphian production include the “notched” rim on shallow conical bowls, created by the addition of a ridge projection below the rim forming a “step”.107 This distinctive rim type, which is at all times associated with handle-less vessels, is also encountered at Kition.108

  • 109 Georgiou 2016, p. 89-90, TE III 474, 630, 631 and 641; TE III 464 and TE VIII 14.
  • 110 Karageorghis 1965, nos 15, 26 and 66, fig. 38.
  • 111 Tomb KA T.I: Maier 2008, p. 200, fig. 252:7, fig. 256:20 and 30A; Tomb KA T.II: Maier 2008, fig. 26 (...)
  • 112 Karageorghis 1990, pl. 87, nos 29, 42 and 53. See also Maier 1985, p. 124-125.

30Finally, a regional idiosyncrasy of the Aegean-style production at Paphos is the hemispherical bowl with a rounded base and a circular impression below (fig. 4). Examples of this shape were found at various localities within the Palaepaphos nucleus, for instance at Evreti,109 Mantissa,110 Marchello111 and Eliomylia.112 Rounded bases typify White Slip bowls and it is not unlikely that this feature derives from the Cypriot tradition. The small circular indentation on the underside of the base is a novel feature that evidently reflects the potters’ attempt to create a base for what was previously a base-less type of bowl.

Towards an interpretative framework

  • 113 Scholars warn against a priori associations of the material culture to ethnic groups. See Hides 199 (...)
  • 114 Morpurgo-Davies 1992, p. 422.
  • 115 Iacovou 2008a, p. 633.

31While we may suspect the infiltration of Aegean populations in Cyprus during the 12th century BC in connection to the transformed ceramic industry and the prevalence of Aegean-style finewares on the island, nevertheless the simplistic equation of ceramic transformations to population movements cannot be firmly maintained.113 The presence of migrants from the Aegean in Cyprus during the LBA horizon becomes unequivocal when considering that the island’s readable texts during 1st millennium BC record a dialectal form of the Greek language, which – according to linguists – correlates to the language recorded in the Mycenaean Linear B tablets.114 This momentous change in the island’s linguistic landscape corroborates the penetration of Greek speaking populations at the close of the Late Bronze Age.115

  • 116 Furumark 1965, p. 111-112; Catling 1975, p. 207-209.
  • 117 Sherratt 1991, p. 193, fig. 19:4; Sherratt 1994b, p. 38-39.
  • 118 Sherratt 1991, p. 195; Kling 1989b, p. 164.

32The straightforward paradigm propagated in the early work of researchers, whereby Aegean migrant populations were to be held responsible for uprooting the island’s material culture and imposing their own,116 cannot be substantiated by means of a holistic and contextual view. As I have elaborated above, wheelmade vessels of Aegean inspiration were produced in Cyprus long before any postulated exodus of Mycenaean people on the island. Secondly, while the main source of inspiration for the matt-painted wheelmade finewares that dominate the island’s ceramic production of the 12th century BC can be undeniably traced to the Mycenaean world, the Cypriot industry does not reproduce the ceramic tradition of a single centre or region of the Aegean. Instead, White Painted Wheelmade III production eclectically incorporates elements from various production centres in the Argolid, and also betrays strong contact with the elaborate style of the Dodecanese and other islands of the Aegean.117 In addition, the ware assimilates elements of shape and decoration that directly link to the centuries-old production of the Base-ring and White Slip handmade wares, while introducing components from the Levantine world.118

  • 119 Mountjoy 1993, p. 92 and 97.
  • 120 See for instance French, Tomlinson 1999, p. 260; Shelton 2010, p. 195-196; Jung 2011a, p. 121-123.
  • 121 E.g. Palaepaphos-Eliomylia, Tomb 119/57: Sherratt 1990, p. 157; Maa-Palaeokastro: Karageorghis, Dem (...)

33The Cypriot and Aegean ceramic industry present fundamental differences in terms of the appreciation and use of undecorated finewares. In the Aegean, undecorated tableware pottery, characterised by smoothed and heavily slipped lustrous surfaces, is well represented in the Late Helladic IIIC phase,119 although undecorated vessels become less common compared to the popularity they attained in the previous phases.120 Conversely, undecorated tableware pottery from Late Cypriot contexts is extremely limited, and concerns exclusively kylikes and carinated bowls with horizontal strap handles (fig. 9).121 Evidently, the Cypriot potters’ intent was not to reproduce the complete array of the Mycenaean ceramic production.

Fig 9 — Undecorated carinated bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.

Fig 9 — Undecorated carinated bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.

Published by Karageorghis, Demas 1988, no 703; photo by the author.

  • 122 Crewe 2007b, p. 210.
  • 123 Crewe 2007b, p. 223; Pilides 2005, p. 177.
  • 124 Iacovou 2012a, p. 218.
  • 125 Cf. Stoddart 1998, p. 928.
  • 126 Roux V. 2003.
  • 127 Georgiou [à paraître].
  • 128 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297.

34Especially with regards to the introduction and adoption of the potters’ wheel on the island, it should be underscored that Cyprus constitutes a unique case on a pan-Mediterranean level.122 While the know-how of wheelmade technology was instated on the island from as early as the 17th century BC,123 the production of Cypriot finewares even during the latter part of the Late Bronze Age continued to defy the convenience afforded by this technique. The persistence to handmade manufacture is accounted for neither ignorance nor conservatism. Rather, the production of Base-ring and White Slip vessels was a highly successful industry that was sustained by both internal and external demand. The establishment of wheelmade ceramics in the 12th century BC corresponds to the transformed politico-economic landscape of the island and the empowerment of the urban centres by internal and external migrations.124 Fast-wheel technology implicating full-time craft specialisation and mass production125 is associated with simplification in the production and standardization of forms126 which befitted the highly urbanized environment of the Cypriot polities in the 12th century BC.127 The establishment of “White Painted Wheelmade III” as the predominant fineware of Cyprus was not the earliest attempt of the Cypriot potters to expedite their ceramic production. In the LC II period, Base-ring vessels were decorated with painted decoration, instead of the relief embellishments that characterised Base-ring jugs and bowls of the LC I era. In this context, the Cypriot potters abandoned the laborious and time-consuming application of relief decoration and replaced the vessel’s decorative treatment with the more efficient application of white paint, to coin a similar effect.128

  • 129 Steel 1998, 291.
  • 130 Sherratt 1998, p. 298; Sherratt 2003, p. 45.
  • 131 Bell 2006, zone 1, p. 41, 91-92. See, however, some form of continued connections with other zones (...)
  • 132 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297; see Gittlen 1981; Bergoffen 1991 for the distribution of Late Cypriot ceram (...)
  • 133 Sherratt 1991, p. 191; Sherratt 1998, p. 298.

35Our attempts to disentangle the Late Cypriot ceramic industry amidst the “crisis years” should consider three parameters that cumulatively dictated its re-organisation. First of all, the loss of the Mycenaean palaces at the end of the 13th century signified a major loss of the procurement of Mycenaean fine-ware ceramics, an essential apparel in the circles of Cypriot elites129. The need to fill the void that was generated by the collapse of the Mycenaean political authorities, which administered the bulk transfer of pottery vessels to the eastern Mediterranean, may be, at least partly, responsible for the intensification of the local production of Aegean-style wares in Cyprus.130 Secondly, the destruction and abandonment of Ugarit and a number of other city-states of the northern Levantine coast131 signalled a substantial market-loss for the diffusion of the Late Cypriot handmade ceramics eastwards,132 again requiring from the ceramic industry to adjust to this new era. And thirdly, the wheelmade character of this production agreed with the demands of the increasingly centralized urban centres of Cyprus in the LC IIIA period.133 All three parameters ignited the substantial transformations seen in the island’s ceramic industry.

  • 134 Karageorghis 2000a.
  • 135 Georgiou 2012a, p. 299-301; Georgiou 2015, p. 137.
  • 136 Iacovou 2013a, p. 616-617.
  • 137 Iacovou 2013a, p. 611.
  • 138 Georgiou 2015, p. 137.

36In addition to Aegean-style pottery locally produced in Cyprus, a number of other archaeological remains have been considered intrusive and were taken as indications for the presence of Aegean immigrants on Cyprus. Such elements include among others fortification walls of the so-called “Cyclopean” type, ashlar masonry, central hearths, clay bathtubs, vessels of Handmade Burnished ware and many others.134 Examining these features applying a holistic and macro-historic framework, we observe first of all that some were in fact not newly introduced in the 12th century BC horizon (e.g. ashlar masonry, clay bathtubs etc.), while others present a negligible geographical distribution and numeric presence on the island (e.g. Handmade Burnished Ware vessels, shaft graves, Naue II swords).135 More importantly, these elements do not occur homogeneously or consistently at any site or context.136 They entail varied and diversified phenomena and correspond to “a short-term lack of cultural balance”;137 as such, their value as indicators of dislodged populations on the island is nominal.138

  • 139 Jung 2011b, p. 69-70.
  • 140 See Pilides 2005, p. 174-175; Spagnoli 2010, p. 99-100; Yasur-Landau 2010, p. 338-340.
  • 141 These include the co-occurrence of wheelmade cooking pots and handmade cooking vessels and trays; E (...)
  • 142 Examples of wheelmade cooking vessels with rounded bases were found at Hala Sultan Tekke (Åström et (...)

37The prevalence in LC IIIA contexts of coarse ware cooking pots of Aegean inspiration, that is to say of wheelmade globular vessels typified by disc-shaped bases – compared to the handmade vessels with rounded bases that, as a rule, characterize the LC production – has again been considered as an indication for dislodged populations from the Aegean.139 This is advocated on the basis that cooking vessels reflect particular dietary regimes, which are in turn associated with distinctive patterns of behaviour.140 While the evidence provided by cooking vessels again allows us to suspect the infiltration of Aegean populations in the LC urban centres, who would – among others – impact on practices involving the preparation and consumption of food, nonetheless, the co-existence of a variety of handmade and wheelmade forms of cooking vessels in the LC IIC-IIIA contexts,141 and the occurrence of several examples illustrating the merging of the Aegean and Cypriot traditions (in the form of wheelmade examples with rounded bases and handmade examples with flat bases)142 highlight the divergent cooking traditions characterizing the 13th-to-12th century horizon, and advise caution when attempting to explicitly trace distinct ‘ethnic’ elements within the highly experimental and fluid material culture of Cyprus in this period.

Conclusions

38The macrohistoric and contextual view of Cyprus’ material culture at the dawn of the 12th century BC, beyond biased terminologies and modern preconceptions, discloses a remarkable level of continuity bridging what was previously considered a vast gap. The establishment of Aegean-inspired ceramics as the predominant fineware fabric on the island constituted but a stage in the forceful processes of industrializing the Cypriot ceramic industry, characterised by the integration of shapes, decorative-patterns and techniques from various stimuli, appropriated to suit the LCIIIA urban environment. I am convinced that the abundance of terms and distinctions describing what essentially comprises Aegean-style wheelmade fine-ware vessels reflects the endeavours of previous scholars to rationalise and classify this experimental, variable and highly regional ceramic production into strictly defined groups.

  • 143 Georgiou 2012a, p. 299-301.

39The infiltration of new “ethnic” elements in 12th century Cyprus cannot be substantiated on the basis of ceramic grounds alone, and conversely, population movements cannot exclusively account for the varied phenomena in Cyprus’ material culture during the critical years of the 12th century BC.143 While the migration of Aegean populations on the island on a substantial scale during the 13th-to-12th century BC transit may have encouraged and stimulated the local production of Aegean-style finewares, the simplistic equation of the transformed ceramic industry with the presence of Mycenaean peoples on the island disregards the intricate social, political and economic structure of Cyprus amidst the critical years of the 12th century BC.

  • 144 Iacovou 2013a, p. 587.
  • 145 Iacovou 1988, p. 1; Sherratt 1991, p. 193.
  • 146 Iacovou 1991, p. 202.

40The process culminates with Proto-White Painted ware, the characteristic ware of the succeeding LCIIIB phase, which despite its name is better suited as the inception of the Early Iron Age on the island.144 Proto-White Painted constitutes the successor of White Painted Wheelmade III and the precursor of White Painted ware that characterises the Cypro-Geometric ceramic production. Proto-White Painted ware with its sharp wheelmade technique is considered as the first truly industrial ware on the island.145 The augmentation of the ceramic repertoire of the distinctive 11th century BC Proto-White Painted ware to include specialized vases such as kernoi, zoomorphic vases and bird-shaped askoi146 found within the long-dromos chamber tombs, insinuates that funerary rituals were taking place in the mortuary environment of 11th century. Such vessels with their exaggerated spouts and elaborate plastic and painted decoration would create a dramatic effect that was appropriated by the Cypriot elites within the social environment of the Early Iron Age.

Notes

1 Killebrew 2014, p. 595.

2 Following Renfrew’s and Tainter’s models of “Systems-Collapse” and the collapse of complex political structures: Renfrew 1987, p. 133; Tainter 1999.

3 Sherratt 2000, p. 82; Sherratt 2003, p. 50-51; Bell 2006, p. 111-113; Killebrew 2014, p. 595-596; Knapp, Manning 2015, p. 99-100.

4 Iacovou 2013b, p. 22-23.

5 Peltenburg 1996, p. 37.

6 Keswani 1996, p. 217-219; Keswani 2005, p. 392-393; Knapp 2013a, p. 36-37.

7 Georgiou G. 2007, p. 457; Crewe 2007a, p. 41-47.

8 Discussed thoroughly in Knapp 2013b, p. 348-349.

9 Iacovou 2007b, p. 17-18; Iacovou 2013b, p. 22-23; Satraki 2012, p. 140-153.

10 Keswani 2004, p. 154; see also discussion in Peltenburg 2012; Knapp 2013a, p. 35-38; Knapp 2013b, p. 354-355.

11 Iacovou 2013b, p. 21-22.

12 For a general overview see Georgiou 2011; Georgiou 2012a, p. 89-114; Iacovou 2013a, p. 593-606.

13 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 89-92, 170-172 and 451-453.

14 Ibid., p. 120-129; Courtois, Lagarce, Lagarce 1986, p. 1-40; Webb 1999, p. 192-213.

15 South 1989, p. 322; Cadogan 1996; Hadjisavvas 1989, p. 41.

16 Fisher K. 2014, p. 173.

17 Knapp 1997, p. 68.

18 Iacovou 2008a, p. 626-627; Iacovou 2013b, p. 25-26.

19 Fischer, Bürge 2013, p. 59; Fischer, Bürge 2014, p. 72 and 80. According to recent fieldwork at the site, Hala Sultan Tekke was abandoned in the middle of the 12th century BC after a destruction episode (Fischer, Bürge 2015, p. 51-52).

20 Iacovou 2008a, p. 638; Iacovou 2013b, p. 26.

21 Temple 1 at Kition: Karageorghis, Demas 1985, p. 92-93; Sanctuary I at Palaepaphos: Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 91-96; for a general discussion see Webb 1999, p. 61-62.

22 Sherratt 2003, p. 42-44; Bell 2006, p. 105.

23 Cf. Rutter 1992, p. 64.

24 Morpurgo-Davis, Olivier 2012; Iacovou 2013c, p. 136-138.

25 Hirschfeld 1992; Iacovou 2008a, p. 632.

26 Explicit traces on the inside surface of some Base-ring vessels, however, denote the limited use of turntables for secondary forming procedures, such as scraping and smoothing, and occasionally also for the compaction of the vessels’ surfaces for reducing wall width or for the fashioning of bases and rims (Vaughan 1991, p. 122; see also Georgiou [à paraître]).

27 See Åström 1972, p. 137-197; Popham 1972; Karageorghis 2001 for the general characteristics of these wares and their distribution.

28 Kling 2000, p. 282.

29 Sherratt 2013, p. 640.

30 See discussion in Maier 1985, p. 122, n. 1; Åström 1972, p. 276; Cadogan 1993, p. 96.

31 Furumark 1944, p. 202; Furumark 1965, p. 114.

32 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 249-252.

33 Ibid., p. 20-22, pl. 66; p. 23, pl. 67.

34 Sjöqvist 1940, p. 208-209; Furumark 1965, p. 111-112; Catling 1975, p. 207-209.

35 Discussed in Kling 1991; Kling 2000, p. 281-282; Sherratt 1991, p. 186-187; Sherratt 2013, p. 622-624; Iacovou 2013a, p. 608-609.

36 See the variable use of these terms by Sjöqvist 1940, p. 73-74; Åström 1972, p. 276, fig. 76-77; Furumark, Adelman 2003, p. 91-103.

37 Åström 1972, p. 276.

38 Also discussed in Fischer 2012, p. 78-79; Jung 2012, p. 83-84.

39 Steel 2004, p. 70.

40 Keswani 2004, p. 126-127.

41 South, Russell 1993.

42 Leonard 1981, p. 91-96.

43 Steel 1998, p. 287.

44 Jones 1986, p. 791-792.

45 Steel 1998, p. 291; Knapp 2013b, p. 421-422.

46 Mountjoy 1993, p. 73; Immerwahr 1993, p. 218-219.

47 Steel 1998, p. 287; see also Sherratt 1994b, p. 36; Dabney 2007, p. 191-192.

48 Hirschfeld 1992, p. 316.

49 Sherratt 1998, p. 296.

50 Vermeule, Karageorghis 1982, p. 59-60; Yon 2004a.

51 Cadogan 1993, p. 94; Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015, p. 470-471.

52 E.g. Enkomi Tomb 110: Courtois 1981, p. 159; Graziadio 2017.

53 Furumark 1941, p. 465.

54 See Karageorghis 1965, p. 231-259; Vermeule, Karageorghis 1982, p. 59-68, fig. VI:1-62.

55 Anson 1980.

56 Kling 1989a, p. 170; Kling 1989b, p. 164.

57 Sherratt 1994b, p. 36.

58 Dikaios 1969-1971, 5563/1 (pl. 66:21), 1344/1 (pl. 66:30, 67:22), 726/1 (pl. 66:27), 1978/1 (pl. 66:20; 87:37), 2754/8 (pl. 67:23), 2889/3 (pl. 67:26), 4085/1 (pl. 64:6).

59 South, Russel, Keswani 1989, K-AD 536, 1041, 1042A-B, 1045, 1052 (pl. 5 and 13), K-AD 2247 (South 1997, fig. 9), K-AD 1488 (South 1991, fig. 2).

60 Ibid., K-AD 1036, 1037 (fig. 12), K-AD 1851 (South 1988, fig. 3).

61 E.g. South 1988, K-AD 321 (fig. 3).

62 South, Russel, Keswani 1989, K-AD 1053-1055 (pl. 5) and K-AD 1080 (fig. 14).

63 Ibid., K-AD 15, K-AD 1043-1044 (fig. 15).

64 Cadogan 1984, p. 8.

65 Cf. Kling 1989b, p. 160-162, fig. 20.2 a-b.

66 Sherratt 1994b, p. 38.

67 Sherratt 1991, p. 190-191.

68 Kling 1989a, p. 94-108.

69 Early forms of deep bowls were found at Palaepaphos-Mantissa (Karageorghis 1965, p. 161), Kition Tomb 9 (Karageorghis 1974, p. 86) and Hala Sultan Tekke (Åström, Bailey, Karageorghis 1976, p. 71-89). For general discussion see French, Åström 1980.

70 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297-298.

71 See Kling 1989a, p. 94-125 and 171.

72 Cf. Yasur-Landau 2010, p. 243-255 with further references.

73 Janeway 2011, p. 177; Killebrew 2014, p. 598.

74 Neutron activation analyses have corroborated that Aegean-style pottery found at Tarsus, Tel Dor, Tel Keisan, Akko, Beth Shan and Qantir were manufactured by a number of different workshops in Cyprus, cf. Mountjoy, Gowland 2005; Mountjoy 2011; Master, Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015; Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015.

75 Mountjoy 2011, p. 181-185.

76 From Sherratt 1991, p. 187.

77 Sherratt 1991, p. 186-187; Kling 2000, p. 282.

78 Maier, Wartburg 1985a, p. 110-113.

79 von Rüden et al. 2016.

80 Georgiou 2016, p. 98; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 80-81; von Rüden et al. 2016, p. 419-423.

81 Georgiou 2016, p. 90 et p. 106, fig. 30.

82 Åström 1972, p. 175-178, pl. LII.

83 Sherratt [à paraître].

84 Mountjoy 1993, p. 84, fig. 213 and p. 253; Mountjoy 1999, fig. 37:277 and 95:184.

85 E.g. South, Russel, Keswani 1989, fig. 46 and fig. 8, K-AD 960-961; Keswani 1991, p. 101.

86 Cf. Frankel 2009 on the notion of regionalism.

87 E.g. Schaeffer 1952, fig. 91; Dikaios 1969-1971, 2822/6 (pl. 73:19), 4476/11 (pl. 81:20), P1137 (pl. 81:13, 220:5), 4478/45 (pl. 81:14), P1137 (pl. 81:13, 220:5), 3130 (pl. 75:43-44), 3170/1 (pl. 75:25), 3170/3 (pl. 75:40).

88 Dikaios 1969-1971, p. 487-489.

89 Ibid., p. 490.

90 Mountjoy 1999, p. 77-78.

91 Kling 1989a, p. 124; Mountjoy, Gowland 2005, p. 156.

92 E.g. Furumark, Adelman 2003, Px105, P31, Px103-104, Px106-112 (pl. 10, 14, 16 and 17).

93 Crewe 2007a, fig. A1.

94 Karageorghis 1974, p. 87, pl. CLVIII:72, pl. CLIX:94 and 96-98.

95 Karageorghis, Kanta 2014, pl. 8:63.

96 Fischer, Bürge 2013, fig. 12. See also Mountjoy, Mommsen 2015, fig. 11, S34 for an additional example of an Aegean-style vessel with a bichrome effect.

97 Cf. Benson 1972, B497-522, p. 83-84.

98 Benson 1972, pl. 21.

99 E.g. Kaminia: Goring 1988, p. 70, no 75; Teratsoudia: Karageorghis 1990, N26, pl. XLVIII.

100 E.g. Evreti wells: Georgiou 2016, p. 85-86; Maier, Wartburg 1985a, fig. 8; Marchello: Maier 2008, p. 115-122, fig. 273.

101 Kling 1988, p. 334.

102 E.g. Georgiou 2016, p. 99, TE III 23, 26 and 50; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, fig. 41-42; Karageorghis, Demas 1988, nos 91, 600 and 705.

103 Karageorghis 1965, nos 9-10 and 19, fig. 159.

104 Maier 2008, p. 208, fig. 256:26, p. 210, fig. 258:36A.

105 Georgiou 2016, p. 91-92, TE III 1, 2, 8, 61, 65, 72, 215 and 217.

106 Karageorghis, Demas 1988, nos 414, 573-574; Georgiou 2012a, table 26.

107 From Evreti: Georgiou 2016, p. 88, TE III 280A, 283 and 590; from Mantissa: Karageorghis 1965, form A1, nos 35 and 37, fig. 38; from Eliomylia: Karageorghis 1990, nos 18, 48 and 52, pl. LXXXVII.

108 Karageorghis 1960a, nos 6 and 8, fig. 89 and 91; Tomb 9, Upper Burial: Karageorghis 1974, p. 86, pl. LXX and CLX, nos 6, 17, 41, 112, 118, 135, 207, 209, 263, 302, 311, 322-324, 331 and 341.

109 Georgiou 2016, p. 89-90, TE III 474, 630, 631 and 641; TE III 464 and TE VIII 14.

110 Karageorghis 1965, nos 15, 26 and 66, fig. 38.

111 Tomb KA T.I: Maier 2008, p. 200, fig. 252:7, fig. 256:20 and 30A; Tomb KA T.II: Maier 2008, fig. 265:2.

112 Karageorghis 1990, pl. 87, nos 29, 42 and 53. See also Maier 1985, p. 124-125.

113 Scholars warn against a priori associations of the material culture to ethnic groups. See Hides 1996; Hall 1997, p. 129-130, 135. See also Iacovou 2013a, p. 607-610.

114 Morpurgo-Davies 1992, p. 422.

115 Iacovou 2008a, p. 633.

116 Furumark 1965, p. 111-112; Catling 1975, p. 207-209.

117 Sherratt 1991, p. 193, fig. 19:4; Sherratt 1994b, p. 38-39.

118 Sherratt 1991, p. 195; Kling 1989b, p. 164.

119 Mountjoy 1993, p. 92 and 97.

120 See for instance French, Tomlinson 1999, p. 260; Shelton 2010, p. 195-196; Jung 2011a, p. 121-123.

121 E.g. Palaepaphos-Eliomylia, Tomb 119/57: Sherratt 1990, p. 157; Maa-Palaeokastro: Karageorghis, Demas 1988, nos 84, 136, 359, 584, 590 and 703; Palaepaphos-Evreti: Georgiou 2016, p. 95, TE III 16 and 43; Sinda: Furumark, Adelman 2003, pl. 11: Px60; Athienou: Dothan, Ben-Tor 1983, p. 111, fig. 50:1-2; Enkomi: Dikaios 1969-1971, 270/1 (pl. 95:10) and 5808/1 (pl. 78:8); Kition: Karageorghis, Demas 1985, pl. CXCIX:2403; Hala Sultan Tekke: Åström 1998b, fig. 40 and 42.

122 Crewe 2007b, p. 210.

123 Crewe 2007b, p. 223; Pilides 2005, p. 177.

124 Iacovou 2012a, p. 218.

125 Cf. Stoddart 1998, p. 928.

126 Roux V. 2003.

127 Georgiou [à paraître].

128 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297.

129 Steel 1998, 291.

130 Sherratt 1998, p. 298; Sherratt 2003, p. 45.

131 Bell 2006, zone 1, p. 41, 91-92. See, however, some form of continued connections with other zones of the Levant in Bell 2006, p. 94.

132 Georgiou 2012a, p. 297; see Gittlen 1981; Bergoffen 1991 for the distribution of Late Cypriot ceramics in Levantine contexts prior to the 12th century BC.

133 Sherratt 1991, p. 191; Sherratt 1998, p. 298.

134 Karageorghis 2000a.

135 Georgiou 2012a, p. 299-301; Georgiou 2015, p. 137.

136 Iacovou 2013a, p. 616-617.

137 Iacovou 2013a, p. 611.

138 Georgiou 2015, p. 137.

139 Jung 2011b, p. 69-70.

140 See Pilides 2005, p. 174-175; Spagnoli 2010, p. 99-100; Yasur-Landau 2010, p. 338-340.

141 These include the co-occurrence of wheelmade cooking pots and handmade cooking vessels and trays; Enkomi (e.g. Dikaios 1969-71, pl. 121 with numerous examples), Kition (e.g. Area I, Floor IV: No. 3457 [Karageorghis, Demas 1985, p. 89, pl. CVII]), Maa-Palaeokastro (Georgiou 2012a: Table 15.12), Sinda (Furumark, Adelman 2003, p. 173). See also Pilides 2005, p. 176; Spagnoli 2010, p. 101, 106.

142 Examples of wheelmade cooking vessels with rounded bases were found at Hala Sultan Tekke (Åström et al. 1983, Tomb 22, p. 152, fig. 409) and Maa-Palaeokastro (Karageorghis, Demas 1988, No. 358). Specimens of handmade manufacture with a flat base were excavated at Kition (Floor III: No. 3443 [Karageorghis, Demas 1985, pl. CXXVI, CXCIX]). See also Spagnoli 2010, p. 106.

143 Georgiou 2012a, p. 299-301.

144 Iacovou 2013a, p. 587.

145 Iacovou 1988, p. 1; Sherratt 1991, p. 193.

146 Iacovou 1991, p. 202.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text, indicating the upper and lower pillow lavas, the Arakapas Formation and the distribution of ancient slag heaps.
Crédits Map drafted by the author, digital data courtesy of the Cyprus Department of Geological Survey.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 2,2M
Titre Fig.2 — Deep bowl from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 23.
Crédits Georgiou 2016, fig. 11; photo by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 394k
Titre Fig.3 — Deep bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.
Crédits Published by Karageorghis, Demas 1988, no 385; photo by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 3,3M
Titre Fig.4 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware in White Slip decoration from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 28.
Crédits Georgiou 2016, fig. 30 and 75; photo and drawing by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 447k
Titre Fig.5 a-b — Y-shaped bowl in White Painted Wheelmade III fabric from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 199.
Crédits Georgiou 2016, fig. 197; photo and drawing by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 235k
Titre Fig.6 a-b — Hemispherical bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with lug handle from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 14.
Crédits Georgiou 2016, fig. 31 and 61; photo and drawing by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 351k
Titre Fig.7 — Shallow bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware with bichrome decoration from Pyla-Kokkinokremos.
Crédits Published by Karageorghis, Kanta 2014, no 63.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 4,5M
Titre Fig.8 — One-handled bowl of White Painted Wheelmade III ware from Palaepaphos-Evreti, Well TE III, no 1.
Crédits Georgiou 2016, fig. 34 and 50; photo by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 1,2M
Titre Fig 9 — Undecorated carinated bowl from Maa-Palaeokastro.
Crédits Published by Karageorghis, Demas 1988, no 703; photo by the author.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/2926/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 1,9M

Auteur

My thanks go to Anna Cannavò and Ludovic Thély for the invitation to contribute to the conference and the edited volume, and to Stella Diakou for reading my text. I am also grateful to Professor Maria Iacovou and to Dr Constance von Rüden for the permission to mention and illustrate material from the projects they direct. All photos are published with the kind permission of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. The author is a Marie Curie Fellow (Career Integration Grants) at the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus, for the Project “ARIEL” (Archaeological Investigations of the Extra-Urban and Urban Landscape in Eastern Mediterranean centres: a case-study at Palaepaphos, Cyprus). The project is funded from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/under REA grant agreement no 334271.

© École française d’Athènes, 2018

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search