Version classiqueVersion mobile


Jan Driessen

18. A Picture is Worth a Thousands Words: Pictorial Pottery as a Marker for Socio-Economic Entanglements between the Coast and Hinterland

The Case of Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia in South-East Cyprus

Melissa Samaes, Jan Coenaerts et Karin Nys

Texte intégral

1An in-depth analysis of Late Bronze Age bull protome imagery in the Tremithos river valley in south-east Cyprus can shed light on the socio-economic entanglements between sites with different positions within the local site ranking. The material assemblage and the topographical position of Klavdhia, a hinterland site, reveal a less hierarchical relationship with its coastal centre at Hala Sultan Tekke. Our aim is to provide insights in the complexity of their socio-economic relations and their involvement within the East Mediterranean exchange networks. More specifically, we apply a methodological framework drawing on visual anthropology and sociology, in which we will compare iconography, production, use, consumption, and the materiality and agency of bull protome paintings on imported Late Helladic III ceramic vessels deposited in tombs at Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia. Additional interpretations will be derived by confronting the patterns observed from the visual research with a topographic and settlement pattern analysis in the Tremithos area.

1. Images as archaeological evidence

2A wide range of disciplines uses visual research to investigate the connections among people, discourses, and objects. In this respect, Pink (2003) wrote an interesting paper in which she reviews the “interdisciplinary agendas in visual research”. Visual research has its roots in visual anthropology and sociology, and has since been explored by other disciplines (Pink 2003: 179-187). She argues for an integrated approach involving the four scopes of visual interpretation: “(a) the context in which the image was produced; (b) the content of the image; (c) the contexts in, and subjectivities through, which images are viewed; and (d) the materiality and agency of images” (Pink 2003: 187). In this way, she states that the “visual meanings will often lie at the intersection of these different areas of interpretation, rather than being ‘revealed’ by just one approach” (Pink 2003: 187).

3Even though Pink makes no specific reference to our discipline, her integrated approach can be adapted into a valuable methodological tool for archaeologists dealing with images. For archaeologists, material culture forms the key concept in their attempt to reconstruct past societies and human behaviour (Knapp 2008: 402). Accordingly, the focus of the archaeologists lies not solely on the visual representation an sich, but rather on the image as a part of a whole (artefact or building), even if the image is – for whatever reason – divided from its substrate. In this respect, images representing things, actions, or ideas and executed on a wide range of material culture provide a primary source of evidence for insights into ancient societies with predominantly illiterate populations. Accordingly, it is beneficial for archaeologists dealing with images to implement Pink’s approach. We will elaborate a tool to thoroughly analyse archaeological images in a case study about Late Bronze Age bull protome imagery in the Tremithos river valley in south-east Cyprus.

4Knapp (2008: 199) argues that “inland production sites or distribution nodes were not involved in equal but rather in subordinate exchange relationships, even if some individuals occasionally were buried with higher order valuables”.

5In this respect, the relationship between coastal urban sites and hinterland sites is generally considered to be hierarchical. This presumption is mainly based on the amount of prestige and/or imported artefacts found in tomb deposits such as gold, silver, ivory, or faience objects, as well as seals and pictorial pottery.

6Klavdhia-Tremithos (henceforth Klavdhia), located in the hinterland of Hala Sultan Tekke (Dromolaxia-Vyzakia) and concentrated around the Larnaca Salt Lake and the Tremithos river valley, has an abundant Late Cypriot IIC mortuary assemblage, in contrast to the other hinterland sites of Hala Sultan Tekke, i.e. Arpera, Kalochorio, and Laxia tou Rhiou (Malmgren 2003; Kiely 2011b). Furthermore, Klavdhia’s tomb assemblage can be better equated with those from the coastal urban sites. The high occurrence of prestige artefacts at Klavdhia should therefore be considered as belonging to the mortuary display of a group of elite burials. This implies a more complex and less hierarchical socio-economic entanglement between the hinterland and coastal urban sites.

7Within this framework, visual research of Late Helladic III pictorial pottery offers additional insight into the intricate parts of the relationship between Klavdhia and Hala Sultan Tekke. Pictorial pottery forms a specific group within the wide range of the imported Late Helladic III ceramics (Furumark 1972: 430). Late Helladic Ill pictorial paintings are mainly found on kraters and bowls (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 395- 410). Pictorial vessels were exported widely to Cyprus, where they even exceed their counterparts from the Greek mainland (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 8). Even so, in Cyprus, the pictorial kraters are still a small fraction among the Late Helladic III imports. They are especially found at the coastal urban centres. They are almost absent from sites maintaining a lower position within the local site hierarchy (Steel 2004: 71; 2013: 210). In particular, the coastal sites in south-east Cyprus show a remarkably high number of Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial pottery in their predominantly mortuary assemblages (Steel 2004: 72). Yet, Klavdhia’s Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial pottery assemblage is comparable to the pictorial pottery group from Hala Sultan Tekke (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 417; Steel 2004: 71). Pictorial pottery has also been found at the other hinterland sites in south-east Cyprus but never in such numbers as in Klavdhia (Coenaerts 2016).

8The images depicted on Klavdhia’s pictorial vessels elucidate the socio-economic entanglements between Klavdhia and Hala Sultan Tekke, as well as the former’s position within the local site hierarchy. Hence, it seems expedient to confront the imagery of Klavdhia with their counterparts at Hala Sultan Tekke. In our case study, we highlight the image of bull protomes decorating the Late Helladic pottery found at both sites.

9Building on Pink’s approach of visual interpretation, we will analyse the bull protome images using the following research scopes:

  • An iconographic analysis of the image, including the description, identification and interpretation of the content. For archaeologists, iconography cannot be disconnected from the object (cf. supra);

  • A discussion of the production context gives insight into ‘where’ and ‘how’ images were manufactured. Production also includes attribution or the identification of painters or workshops. Attribution must be actively used as a tool to understand distribution patterns and interactions within a chronological boundary (Morris 1993);

  • The use context exposes the purpose of the image/object, hence expressing the effect of the image/object on people. The consumption context, as part of the use context, gives insight into a group of people expressing their social behaviour and, with this, creating their world and their self (Miller 2005);

  • Reflecting about the iconography, production, distribution, and use/consumption discloses the materiality and agency of the images/objects.

2. Two bull protome vessels at Klavdhia: a visual interpretation

10The Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial imports of Klavdhia primarily depict bulls, chariot scenes, birds, and to a lesser extent, fish (Malmgren 2003: 83-96; Kiely 2011b). All together, they are not that different from the mainstream iconography on Late Helladic III pictorial pottery in Cyprus during Late Cypriot IIB-C (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982; Steel 2013: 213).

11In the following case, we will examine bull protomes or painted busts of bulls, which are a part of the bull iconography. Bull protomes are particularly found in Late Cypriot IIC coastal urban sites in south-east Cyprus on vases of different shapes.

12Two vessels from Klavdhia (Figs 18.1-18.2), retrieved during excavations by the British Museum in 1899, are decorated with bull protomes. We find four bull protomes painted on the belly of a tall stirrup jar (FS 167); the bulls are separated by paneled patterns and antithetic spirals (Malmgren 2003: 46-47, 93, pl. 26: 83). Bull protomes also line the inside of an FS 296 shallow bowl, with dotted circles painted between them (Malmgren 2003: 50, 94, pl. 30: 92; Kiely 2011b: A14.2).

Fig. 18.1. Stirrup jar with bull protomes from Klavdhia (GR 1899.1229.117, AN512579001) (courtesy of the British Museum)

Fig. 18.2. Shallow bowl with bull protomes from Klavdhia (GR 1899.1229.124, AN847358001) (courtesy of the British Museum)

13The British Museum excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke revealed two FS 139 trefoil-mouthed jugs depicting three bull protomes on the shoulder, with two crossing their horns (Bailey 1976: 11, 13, pls V-VI, XII; Kiely 2011a, IV.2, IV.9) (Fig. 18.3). Both jugs might have formed a set (Immerwahr 1956: 139; Kiely 2011a: IV.9, curator’s comments; contra Bailey 1976: 13).

Fig. 18.3. Trefoil-mouthed jug with bull protomes from Hala Sultan Tekke (GR 1898.121.227, AN927226001) (courtesy of the British Museum)

14Almost identical shallow bowls with bull protomes alternating with dotted circles on the inside are known from Kition (Karageorghis 1974: 31, 50, pls XXXV, LXI) and Pyla-Verghi (Dikaios 1971: 917-918, pl. 299: 4-5; Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: V.93). In east Cyprus, bull protomes have been found among the pictorial repertoire of Enkomi: one has been painted together with a bird on a trefoil-mouthed jug (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: V.88), and we also find them depicted on two jugs (Dikaios 1969: pl. 214: 2; Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: V.81, V.85).

15Fragmentary evidence of bull protome decorations has also been excavated in the Argolid. Shoulder fragments of trefoil-mouthed jugs with bull protomes painted on their shoulder were excavated from Berbati (Åkerström 1987: 111) and Tiryns (Slenczka 1974: 91-92; Güntner 2006: 55-56, fig. 18). They are very good parallels for the Hala Sultan Tekke jugs.

16In sum, a very distinct iconography of bull protomes can be recognised on mainly jugs and bowls – shapes typically used for drinking and serving practices. They occur in south-east Cyprus, Enkomi, and the overseas Argolid. Their distribution pattern leads us to the issue of production.

17Archaeological and provenance research using NAA indicates places of manufacture for the pictorial pottery at Berbati and Tiryns in the Argolid, through which Berbati seems to dominate as the production place in the samples taken from the pictorial pottery found all over the Eastern Mediterranean (Åkerström 1987; Mommsen & Maran 2000-2001). Both Argolid sites have bull protome fragments among their pottery evidence, indicating that the potters were familiar with and skilled in this kind of iconography.

18Regarding potters, two individual hands have been recognised in the repertoire of vessels depicting painted bull protomes. Protome Painter A (Immerwahr 1956; Benson 1961: 338-339) is particularly recognisable in his representation of the bull’s muzzle, ears, and horns (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 174). A possible imitator, called Protome Painter B, was mainly recognised in a series of FS 296 shallow bowls painted with bull protomes. Both painters probably had their workshop in the Argolid. Immerwahr (1956: 140) argued that Protome Painter A’s workshop was in the Argolid based on the “excellent and standard Mycenaean” fabric of his vases. Additional evidence can be found in the potter kilns excavated from Berbati, indicating a pictorial pottery workshop (Immerwahr 1956: 137; Åkerström 1987). She opposes Sjöqvist, Stubbings, and Furumark, who point to Cyprus as the place of production. Their opinion is supported by the occurrence of most of Protome Painter A’s creations in Cyprus and the Levanto-Helladic shapes of some of his vases (Sjöqvist 1940: 70-73, 92-97; Stubbings 1951: 45-52; Furumark 1972: 462-465). Immerwahr (1956: 140) observed the influence of Protome Painter A in the Levant, where an atelier of an imitator – Painter B – was active “later in the century”. Benson (1961: 340) finds additional evidence for a production workshop in the Levant based on a Levanto-Helladic chalice decorated with bull protomes and attributed to Protome Painter B by Karageorghis. However, a Cypriot/Levantine production workshop is rejected by recent NAA research indicating the Aegean as the exporting pottery production place for Levanto-Helladic style pottery (Mountjoy & Mommsen 2015: 467-470). Accordingly, pottery provenance research using NAA points to Berbati as the exporting production place of pictorial pottery to Cyprus and the Levant (Mommsen & Maran 2000-2001).

19Vessels painted by the Protome Painters are documented in the pottery assemblages of Klavdhia and Hala Sultan Tekke. Klavdhia’s stirrup jar with bull protomes has been attributed to Protome Painter A (Immerwahr 1956: 137-138; Benson 1961: 338; Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 176, V.89), while its bull protome bowl is ascribed to Protome Painter B (Benson 1961: 340; Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 176, V.91). The earmark of Protome Painter A has also been recognised in the trefoil-mouthed jugs from Hala Sultan Tekke (Immerwahr 1956: 139; Benson 1961: 338-339; Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 176, V.82-83).

20Other vases by ‘ these hands ’ have been documented at Kition, Pyla, and Enkomi, and in the Argolid. A bowl from Minet el Beida exemplifies their influence in the Levant (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 176, V.92).

21Whether the bull protome vessels are the work of one, two, or more painters remains a matter of debate. However, if we accept Morris’s (1993: 47) idea on attribution studies, the bull protomes can be defined as “belonging to an ‘analytical individual’”. In this way, we agree that “they are similar enough that one person ‘could’ have made them, and that the degree of similarity indicates an intense level of artistic interactions, and that on an archaeological timescale the works are contemporary”.

22A noteworthy chronology for the bull protome vessels can be found in a fragmentary bull protome bowl attributed to Protome Painter B from Kition. It was excavated in the lower burial of Tomb 9, providing a rare stratigraphic tomb context. Despite the controversy about the dating of Tomb 9’s upper burial, it is agreed that the lower burial dates to Late Cypriot IIC or, in absolute terms, before 1200 BC (Karageorghis 1974: 93-94; Kling 1989: 75-77). In this way, the bull protome group in south-east Cyprus should be dated to Late Cypriot IIC (Late Helladic IIIB in Aegean typo-chronological terms).

23Furthermore, Levanto-Helladic shapes, such as trefoil-mouthed jugs (FS 139) and shallow bowls (FS 296), are typical products for Late Cypriot IIC and were no longer in use during Late Cypriot IIIA. This pottery style was not used in mainland Greece but particularly produced for the export market (Mountjoy & Mommsen 2015: 467-470). An exchange network from the Argolid to south-east Cyprus becomes particularly visible in the trefoil-mouthed jugs with bull protomes found at Hala Sultan Tekke, Berbati, and Tiryns. Additional evidence for this network might be found in the potmarks painted on the bases of the two Hala Sultan Tekke jugs and the stirrup jar from Klavdhia. According to Hirschfeld (2006), potmarks on pictorial pottery should be related to Cypriot merchants.

24The evidence of the potmarks, together with the production in the Argolid and the distribution pattern in south-east Cyprus – in particular, between Hala Sultan Tekke and its hinterland site at Klavdhia – let us conclude that the latter also took part in overseas exchange networks. But who purchased these vases and for what purpose were they used? Possible answers will be revealed in the following discussion about the use and consumption contexts.

25Both Klavdhia and Hala Sultan Tekke mainly have Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial imports in tomb contexts. They occur together with common wheelmade Late Helladic III and handmade Cypriot vessels. Antoniadou (2004: 161-163) has suggested that Late Helladic imports and local Cypriot wares appearing in the same contexts share a common usage (Knapp 2012: 36). However, Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial imports occur less frequently than the more common Late Helladic Ill imports, suggesting a high social status and an alternative practice or elite behaviour. Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial vases occur together with other precious exotic goods and gold, the latter representing the acme of wealth (Keswani 2004: 119-121). At Klavdhia, pictorial imports have been found together with objects made of gold and other precious metals, faience, glass, ivory, and stone (Malmgren 2003: 96-109; Merrillees 2003).

26In this way, the bull protome vases attributed to the same ‘analytical individual’ (Protome Painters A and B) are considered to be a homogeneous pictorial group materialising social elite behaviour at the coastal urban sites in south-east Cyprus and in the Levant (the latter attested by the example found in the harbour town of Ugarit). A selected group of people at Klavdhia obtained pictorial vases displaying a similar imagery to express their alignment with the upper social classes from the coastal urban centres and, in particular, with the high elite from Hala Sultan Tekke. As follows, the bull protome stirrup jar and shallow bowl from Klavdhia designate an emerging elite group involved in overseas exchange networks.

27Finally, the materiality and agency of Klavdhia’s bull protome images on Late Helladic vessels can be inferred from the iconography, production, distribution, and a use/consumption analysis.

28The bull protome iconography in south-east Cyprus was mainly painted on drinking and serving vessels, i.e. jugs and bowls. The stirrup jar at Klavdhia, as an unguent container, seems to be a rare shape for the bull protome iconography. Moreover, this type of stirrup jar (FS 167) is not generally adorned with pictorial images (Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982; Malmgren 2003: 93).

  • 1 The stirrup jar is heavily restored.

29The people obtaining Klavdhia’s stirrup jar preferred a container vessel instead of the usual tableware with bull protomes. It is not clear from the remains1 whether the stirrup jar – probably containing oil or wine – was initially used in banquets, for example, before it was deposited into a tomb. We can assume that someone – male or female – obtained precious content in a precious pictorial vessel. Nevertheless, we can only speculate on how the bull protome stirrup jar came to Klavdhia:

  • It might have been conceptualised by an Argolid potter who decided from a commercial point of view to load it on a ship, to be sold in the harbour of Hala Sultan Tekke, where an attendant in Klavdhia purchased it;

  • It might have been conceptualised and ordered by an inhabitant of Klavdhia;

  • It might have been part of a gift exchange between inhabitants of Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia.

30Whatever option one prefers, each implies a seaborne network linking the Argolid – Hala Sultan Tekke – Klavdhia, implying emerging elite behaviour in Klavdhia and a strong position in the site hierarchy with regard to Hala Sultan Tekke and the other hinterland sites.

3. Topography and settlement pattern in the Tremithos area

31Klavdhia’s Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial vessels with bull protomes – which are considered to be part of a very distinct iconographic group produced in the Argolid and exported to the south-east Cypriot coast, where they were deposited in high-status tombs – indicate elite behaviour and social interaction with the coastal urban sites, particularly with Hala Sultan Tekke during Late Cypriot IIC. In order to elucidate the socio-economic entanglement between Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia, we propose a study of the topography and Late Cypriot settlements in the Tremithos area.

32The Tremithos river valley is situated in the heart of South-East Cyprus (Fig. 18.4). The intermittent and heavily meandering Tremithos is one of the largest Cypriot rivers, connecting the copper-rich Troodos foothills with the sea. The Tremithos river wells up at two different sources, both near what are assumed to be Late Cypriot copper mining areas. The eastern branch shows no evidence of Late Cypriot occupation. Four sites are located along the western branch. Late Cypriot traces have been found near Ayia Anna. Both river branches join immediately north of Klavdhia. From here, the river runs in the direction of Arpera and curves in a south-western direction to Kiti village and then south-east toward the Mediterranean, where it ends in a fan. The larger part of the current river still follows the same course as during the Late Cypriot period, except for the river mouth (Gifford 1978: 141, 167). An older river branch connected the eastern Tremithos arm with the coast, diverting into the direction of the Larnaca Salt Lake (Coenaerts 2016). Geomorphological research (Gifford 1985: 46, fig. 2; Devillers et alii 2015: 73-80) indicates that the Salt Lake was a lagoon or marine embayment during Late Cypriot IL Hala Sultan Tekke is located on the western shore of this ancient lagoon. Following the discovery of numerous stone anchors reused in the walls and tombs, the lagoon may have been a navigable harbour (Åström 1986: 68). The inlet to the main Larnaca Salt Lake presumably silted around the end of Late Cypriot (Gifford 1978: 168), instigating the end of Hala Sultan Tekke as a harbour.

33From Middle Cypriot III to Late Cypriot 1, Hala Sultan Tekke developed as a coastal centre on the western shores, with one of the finest sheltered lagoons of the island facilitating seaborne activities. This occurred together with the emergence of a hinterland system along the Tremithos river, as a consequence of the foreign demand for Cypriot copper and the participation of Cypriot sites in international trade networks. Four hinterland sites were located in the Tremithos river valley: from north to south, Ayia Anna, Arpera Chiftlik-Ayios Andronikos and –Mosphilos, and the newly founded Klavdhia-Tremithos. Two hinterland sites – Kalokhorio and Larnaca-Laxiaton Rhiou – were located north of Hala Sultan Tekke, on the northern bank of an old Tremithos river branch of the ancient lagoon.

Fig. 18.4. Map of south-east Cyprus (drawn by Jan Coenaerts)

  • 2 The spatial layout of Hala Sultan Tekke during Middle Cypriot-Late Cypriot I is not well known. Cur (...)

34Based on the site’s coastal location, the intra-site organisation2, and its rich mortuary assemblages, Hala Sultan Tekke can be identified as the major site within the Tremithos area from Middle Cypriot III to Late Cypriot IIC.

35The locations of Hala Sultan Tekke and its hinterland sites in the Tremithos drainage indicate the connectivity of the river and the importance of internal communicat ion and trade. Copper was mined in the source area of the river along both of its arms. Obviously, the transportation of goods also implies that imported commodities or goods produced in the coastal area were brought up to the mining areas using the same routes. As a result, the Tremithos drainage represented a trade route between the mining area and Hala Sultan Tekke.

36The close proximity and overlapping catchment areas of Arpera and Klavdhia (Leonard 2004) indicate a close association between both sites. The development of the hinterland system along the Tremithos as a consequence of participation in copper exploitation and international exchange networks initiated the need for establishing a site, i.e. Klavdhia, at the strategic conjunction of the two Tremithos arms, probably to manage all movement along the river (Coenaerts 2016).

37The material culture also indicates a difference in ranking among the south-east Cypriot hinterland sites. Arpera and Klavdhia might have occupied higher positions than the other hinterland sites, in view of their rich material assemblages that reflected the wealth of the coastal urban centres and their strategic positions in the Tremithos valley (Samaes & Coenaerts 2011). Their higher status can be explained by the early involvement of Arpera in the development of the Tremithos hinterland system and the strategic topographical position of Klavdhia. Larnaca-Laxia ton Rhiou and Kalokhorio may occupy a lower rank due to having less rich and varied mortuary assemblages (Keswani 2004: 131).

38By the end of Late Cypriot IIC to the beginning of Late Cypriot IIIA, the Hala Sultan Tekke hinterland disintegrates, with the abandonment of Arpera, Klavdhia, Ayia Anna and Kalokhorio.

4. Pictorial pottery as a marker for socio-economic entanglements

39The locations of Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia around the Larnaca Salt Lake and the Tremithos valley can be regarded as an interrelating micro-region within south-east Cyprus. The socio-economic entanglement between both sites can be observed in the Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial imagery representing bull protomes at both sites.

40The pivotal role of Klavdhia at the joint of two river branches, controlling and distributing the copper coming down and the commodities leading up along the Tremithos river, can be corroborated by the Late Helladic IIIA-B pictorial pottery. The parallel imagery shown on the elite pottery deposits in tombs confirms that the interaction between Hala Sultan Tekke and Klavdhia was not at all hierarchical and that elite groups in Klavdhia displayed their wealth and emergent social status by following the iconographic style with bull protomes from the coastal urban sites.

41Bull protomes are considered to be a distinct group among the wide range of Late Cypriot II bull representations on pictorial pottery. They were especially favoured by elite groups in south-east Cyprus displaying their economic wealth. The vessels were made in the Argolid and shipped to the south-east Cypriot Tremithos area. The two bull protome vessels in the pottery repertoire of Klavdhia can be considered the result of their involvement in the seaborne exchange network connecting south-east Cyprus with the Argolid and the Levantine coast. This is also maintained by the potmarks painted on the bases of the Hala Sultan Tekke jugs and the Klavdhia stirrup jar with bull protomes.

42The bull protome vessels of Klavdhia are just a part of a larger pictorial assemblage and are thus to be considered on the level of a few individuals, expressing entanglement within an elite group and – who knows – perhaps kinship to elite members of Hala Sultan Tekke displaying very parallel images/objects.



▪ Åkerström 1987 = Å. Åkerström, Berbati 2. The Pictorial Pottery (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, 36: 2), Stockholm (1987).

▪ Antoniadou 2004 = S. Antoniadou, The Impact of Trade on the Society of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age: Settlements, Artefacts and Social Change, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh (2004).

▪ Åström 1986 = P. Åström, Hala Sultan Tekke. An international harbour town of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Opuscula Atheniensia 16 (1986), 7-17.

▪ Bailey 1976 = D. M. Bailey, The British Museum excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke in 1897 and 1898: the material in the British Museum, in Hala Sultan Tekke 1. Excavations 1897-1971, edited by P. Åström, D. M. Bailey & V. Karageorghis (SIMA 45: 1), Göteborg (1976), 1-30.

▪ Benson 1961 = J.L. Benson, Observations on Mycenaean vase-painters, AJA 65: 4 (1961), 337-347.

▪ Coenaerts 2016 = J. Coenaerts, Sites, Hinterland and Rivers: Exploring Site Organisation and Interaction in Southeastern Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age, Unpublished PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (2016).

▪ Devillers, Brown & Morhange 2015 = B. Devillers, M. Brown & C. Morhange, Paleo-environmental evolution of the Larnaca salt lakes (Cyprus) and the relationship to second millennium BC settlement, JAS: Reports 1 (2015), 73-80.

▪ Dikaios 1969 = P. Dikaios, Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958 3a. Plates, Mainz am Rhein (1969).

▪ Dikaios 1971 = P. Dikaios, Appendix VIIA. A Late Cypriote tomb and other remains at Pyla-Verghi, in Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958 2. Chronology, Summary and Conclusions, Catalogue, Appendices, by P. Dikaios, Mainz am Rhein (1971), 913-925.

▪ Furumark 1972 = A. Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery 1. Analysis and Classification (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, 20: 1), Stockholm (1972).

▪ Gifford 1978 = J.A. Gifford, Palaeogeography of Archaeological Sites of the Larnaka Lowland, Southeastern Cyprus, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Minnesota (1978).

▪ Gifford 1985 = J.A. Gifford, Palaeogeography of ancient harbour sites of the Larnaca Lowlands, southeast Cyprus, in Harbour Archaeology. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours Caesarea Maritima, edited by A. Raban, Oxford (1985), 45-58.

▪ Güntner 2006 = W. Güntner, Mycenaean pictorial vase-painters: a view from Tiryns, in Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, edited by E. Rystedt & B. Wells (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, 53), Stockholm (2006), 51-61.

▪ Hirschfeld 2006 = N. Hirschfeld, Vases marked for exchange: the not-so-special case of pictorial pottery, in Pictorial Pursuits. Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, edited by E. Rystedt & B. Wells (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4°, 53), Stockholm (2006), 83-96.

▪ Immerwahr 1956 = S. A. Immerwahr, The protome painter and some contemporaries, AJA 60: 2 (1956), 137-141.

▪ Karageorghis 1974 = V. Karageorghis, Excavations at Kition 1. The Tombs, Nicosia (1974).

▪ Keswani 2004 = P.S. Keswani, Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 9), London & Oakville (2004).

▪ Kiely 2011a = T. Kiely, Hala Sultan Tekke, in Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum (online) (2011a). http:// research catalogues/ancient cyprus british museum. aspx (29 January 2016).

▪ Kiely 2011b = T. Kiely, Klavdia-Tremithos: a Bronze Age community in south-east Cyprus, in Ancient Cyprus in the British Museum (online) (2011b). research catalogues/ancient cyprus british museum.aspx (29 January 2016).

▪ Kling 1989 = B. Kling, Mycenaean IIIC: 1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus (SIMA 87), Göteborg (1989).

▪ Knapp 2008 = A. B. Knapp, Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity, Oxford & New York (2008).

▪ Knapp 2012 = A. B. Knapp, Matter of fact: transcultural contacts in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean, in Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, edited by J. Maran & P.W. Stockhammer, Oxford & Oakville (2012), 32-50.

▪ Leonard 2004 = A. Leonard, The Larnaca hinterland project, in La céramique mycénienne de l’Egée au Levant. Hommage à Vrowny Hankey, edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Montchambert & S. Müller-Celka (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Mediterranee 41), Lyon (2004), 87-96.

▪ Malmgren 2003 = K. Malmgren, Klavdhia-Tremithos. A Middle and Late Cypriote Bronze Age Site (SIMA and Literature Pocket-Book 159), Jonsered (2003).

▪ Manning et alii 2014 = S.W. Manning, G.M. Andreou, K.D. Fisher, P. Gerard-Little, C. Kearns, J.F. Leon, D.A. Sewell, T.M. Urban, Becoming urban: investigating the anatomy of the Late Bronze Age complex, Maroni, Cyprus, JMA 27: 1 (2014), 3-32.

▪ Merrillees 2003 = P. H. Merrillees, Appendix 2. Klavdhia Glyptic, in Malmgren 2003, 138-153.

▪ Miller 2005 = D. Miller, Materiality: an introduction, in Materiality, edited by D. Miller, Durham (2005), 1-50.

▪ Mommsen & Maran 2000-2001 = H. Mommsen & J. Maran, Production places of some Mycenaean pictorial vessels. The contribution of chemical pottery analysis, Opuscula Atheniensia 25-26 (2000-2001), 95-106.

▪ Morris 1993 = C. Morris, Hands up for the individual! The role of attribution studies in Aegean prehistory, CAJ 3: 1 (1993), 41-66.

▪ Mountjoy & Mommsen 2015 = P.A. Mountjoy & H. Mommsen, Neutron activation analysis of Aegean-style IIIC pottery from 11 Cypriot and various near eastern sites, Ägypten und Levante 25 (2015), 421-508.

▪ Pink 2003 = S. Pink, Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: re-situating visual anthropology, Visual Studies 18:2 (2003), 179-192.

▪ Samaes & Coenaerts 2011 = M. Samaes & J. Coenaerts, Exchange between southeastern Cyprus and the surrounding regions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, in Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterreanean, edited by K. Duistermaat & I. Regulski (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202), Leuven (2011), 401-416.

▪ Sjöqvist 1940 = E. Sjöqvist, Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, Stockholm (1940).

▪ Slenczka 1974 = E. Slenczka, Figürlich bemalte mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns (Tiryns Forschungen und Berichte 7), Mainz am Rhein (1974).

▪ Steel 2004 = L. Steel, A reappraisal of the distribution, context and function of Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus, in La céramique mycénienne de l’Egée au Levant. Hommage à Vrowny Hankey, edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Montchambert & S. Müller Celka (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 41), Lyon (2004), 69-85.

▪ Steel 2013 = L. Steel, Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean, New York & London (2013).

▪ Stubbings 1951 = F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant, Cambridge (1951).

▪ Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982 = E. Vermeule & V. Karageorghis, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, Cambridge, MA & London (1982).


1 The stirrup jar is heavily restored.

2 The spatial layout of Hala Sultan Tekke during Middle Cypriot-Late Cypriot I is not well known. Current evidence points to dispersed occupation zones with intermediate open spaces, suggesting a fairly large site (Coenaerts 2016). This pre-urban site Iayout is visible in other Late Cypriot sites, e.g. Maroni (Manning et alii 2014).

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 18.1. Stirrup jar with bull protomes from Klavdhia (GR 1899.1229.117, AN512579001) (courtesy of the British Museum)
Fichier image/jpeg, 17k
Légende Fig. 18.2. Shallow bowl with bull protomes from Klavdhia (GR 1899.1229.124, AN847358001) (courtesy of the British Museum)
Fichier image/jpeg, 23k
Légende Fig. 18.3. Trefoil-mouthed jug with bull protomes from Hala Sultan Tekke (GR 1898.121.227, AN927226001) (courtesy of the British Museum)
Fichier image/jpeg, 15k
Légende Fig. 18.4. Map of south-east Cyprus (drawn by Jan Coenaerts)
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k

© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2016

Conditions d’utilisation :

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search