multiple mediterranean realities

MULTIPLE MEDITERRANEAN REALITIES
MITTELMEERSTUDIEN
Herausgegeben von
Mihran Dabag, Dieter Haller, Nikolas Jaspert
und Achim Lichtenberger
BAND 6
Achim Lichtenberger, Constance von Rüden
(Eds.)
MULTIPLE
MEDITERRANEAN
REALITIES
Current Approaches to Spaces, Resources, and
Connectivities
Wilhelm Fink | Ferdinand Schöningh
Titelfoto: Constance von Rüden
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über
http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Dieses Werk sowie einzelne Teile desselben sind urheberrechtlich
geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen ist ohne
vorherige schriftliche Zustimmung des Verlags nicht zulässig.
© 2015 Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn
(Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Jühenplatz 1, D-33098 Paderborn)
Internet:
www.fink.de | www.schoeningh.de
Einbandgestaltung: Evelyn Ziegler, München
Printed in Germany
Herstellung: Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Paderborn
ISBN 978-3-7705-5740-0 (Fink)
ISBN 978-3-506-76638-0 (Schöningh)
CONTENTS
Preface ............................................................................................................. 7
Introduction: Multiple Mediterranean Realities. Spaces, Resources
and Connectivities ........................................................................................... 9
CONSTANCE VON RÜDEN and ACHIM LICHTENBERGER
Spaces
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction? .......................................... 17
A. BERNARD KNAPP
Making the Way through the Sea. Experiencing Mediterranean
Seascapes in the Second Millennium B.C.E.................................................... 31
CONSTANCE VON RÜDEN
Opportunity in Scarcity: Environment and Economy on Aegina .................... 67
GUDRUN KLEBINDER-GAUß and WALTER GAUß
Multiple Mediterranean Forces: Guido von Kaschnitz Weinberg’s
Mediterranean Art.......................................................................................... 93
ACHIM LICHTENBERGER
Schizophrenic Urban Reality. The Changing Urban Landscapes of
the Mediterranean Region and Developmental Influences ............................ 105
LORRAINE FARRELLY and ANDREA VERNINI
Resources
Mineral Resources and Connectivity in the Mediterranean and
its Hinterland ...............................................................................................121
THOMAS STÖLLNER
The Trojan Palladion – Visual Expression of a pan-Mediterranean
Identity in Antiquity?....................................................................................149
STEFAN RIEDEL
Perpetration and Perpetuation: The Persistence of Reciprocal
Stereotypes in the Geo-Politics of Mediterranean Cuture ..............................169
MICHAEL HERZFELD
Mittelmeer-Blues. Musik und postkoloniale Melancholie ..............................185
IAIN CHAMBERS
Connectivities
Crossing the Sea – The Translation of Relics to and from
North Africa .................................................................................................207
STEFAN ALTEKAMP
Some Thoughts on the Carolingians and the Mediterranean –
Theories, Terminology and Realities .............................................................223
SEBASTIAN KOLDITZ
The Return of Ulysses. Varieties of the ‘New Mediterranean’
between Mediterraneanism and Southern Thought .......................................259
MARTIN BAUMEISTER
Transnational Mobilities, Digital Media and Cultural Resources...................273
HEIDRUN FRIESE
PREFACE
This collection of essays is the result of an international conference which took
th
th
place at Ruhr University Bochum from April 26 –28 2012. It was hosted by the
Zentrum für Mittelmeerstudien (Centre for Mediterranean Studies) which is
funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. We would very much
like to express our gratitude to the Ministry for its financial support. One of the
aims of the conference was to foster critical approaches to Mediterranean Studies
and thus we invited several scholars of Mediterranean Studies with different disciplinary backgrounds to discuss current problems relating to spaces, resources
and connectivities in the Mediterranean.
During the conference we received much logistical support from the members
of the Centre for Mediterranean Studies and we would particularly like to single
out Eleni Markakidou, Christoph Kremer, Anne Riedel and Stefan Riedel. Editorial work of this volume was considerably supported by Anne Riedel to whom we are
very grateful. Further, Matthias Bley, Andreas Eckl and Stefan Riedel contributed
to the editing of this volume. We would also like to thank all contributors to the
conference and all panel chairs and discussants, of whom we would especially like
to mention Johannes Fabian who chaired the final discussion and gave stimulating input to the conference.
Achim Lichtenberger and Constance von Rüden
Bochum, October 2014
CONSTANCE VON RÜDEN AND ACHIM LICHTENBERGER
Introduction:
Multiple Mediterranean Realities. Spaces, Resources and
Connectivities
Despite its arbitrary delineation of space, the idea of a unified and homogenous
Mediterranean continues to be the subject of numerous historical, political and
social constructions. A huge variety of images of the Mediterranean emerged during history and more are still being constructed today. In few cases, these realities
might simply coexist, but mostly they are shaped and influenced by each other or
are competing for interpretative hegemony.
The well-known and often cited Roman expression “mare nostrum” is one of
the earliest evidence in support of such an idea and can be regarded as an attempt
to propagate in one or the other way imperial dominance in that area 1; a dominance whose material expression might be seen in an almost limitless amount of
Roman architectural remains. 2 These ruins are even today used as a characteristic
to define the Mediterranean landscape, for example by Takis Theodoropoulos
and Rania Polycandrioti in their book La Méditerranée grecque:
“il [la Méditerranée] s’ arrête là où je vois se dresser la dernière colonne dans le paysage nu, en partant de Baalbek au Liban jusqu‘ au Volubilis au Maroc“ (Theodoropoulos, 2000, pp.26-27)
Of course the concept of a ‘mare nostrum’ was gratefully taken up by imperial
th
th
powers in the 19 /20 century. Both the Italians and the French referred to
‘their’ respective Roman heritage and attempted to ‘Latinize’ North Africa. This
development can be seen as an alternative model to that of the central and western European colonial powers, but surely also as a means of distinction from the
Arab population, which was considered to be non-local and whose right to live
on these shores was challenged by this scheme (Altekamp, 2000). The almost exclusive excavation and display of Roman monuments during this period may be
regarded as the Mediterranization of the Libyan landscape. When NATO put the
protection of the archaeological sites in Libya on their agenda while they were
1
2
On the term ‘mare nostrum’ cf. Burr, 1932.
Seeing Roman architectural styles in the Mediterranean as the expression of Roman imperial rule
is of course misleading, since the processes through which such styles were adopted within the
Roman empire were more complex and not simply a top-down phenomenon. There has been an
abundance of scholarly debate about ‘Romanization’ in recent decades. Cf. e.g. Millett, 1992;
Woolf, 2000; Schörner, 2005.
10
Constance von Rüden and Achim Lichtenberger
bombing the country in 2011 – clearly to enhance the image of their military
campaign – it was very evocative of the colonial history of Europe and its use of
archaeological heritage in North Africa.
Was the colonial period perhaps the moment when the concept of the Mediterranean – not in a geographical, but in a socio-political sense – entered the academic discourse? In any case the academic world seems to have been inspired by
the term and the Mediterranean started to be considered more intensively as a
possible category for social and historical study. Among the representatives of the
L’École des Annales Fernand Braudel’s ‘Mediterranée’ had an immense impact:
By advocating a distinctiveness of the Mediterranean geography, his concept of a
longue durée entailed a deterministic image of its land- and seascapes (Braudel,
1949; 1958). To a certain degree he considered, for example, pastoralism as a lifestyle determined by arid regions of the Mediterranean, while seafaring and trade
was seen by him as the natural mode of subsistence of coastal populations.
Whether or not it was Braudel’s intention, his longue durée concept paved the
way for an ahistorical understanding of the Mediterranean and of the sea itself as
the main actor for interregional contact through the ages.
Subsequent research such as that of Peregrine Horden and Nicolas Purcell
modified Braudel`s general approach by emphasizing the diversity of Mediterranean landscapes and its different resources as important factors for the formation
of interregional connectivity (Horden and Purcell, 2000). In spite of their interesting emphasis on the diversity of microregions, they maintain a certain environmental determinism by considering the high variability of food production
and the danger of even complete harvest failures within the micro-regions to be a
main reason for interactions with the outside world. This is an appealing idea that
is certainly worthy of discussion, but as with Braudel’s opus, it entails the risk of
diminishing the importance of human agency and of human choices. It is obvious that Horden and Purcell’s model of closely connected diverse Mediterranean
microregions could only be developed in the age of globalization, and globalization is undoubtedly the subtext of Mediterranean connectivity (Morris, 2003).
A recent book by David Abulafia on the other hand places very strong emphasis on human actions within the Mediterranean without adequately considering
Mediterranean landscapes (Abulafia, 2011). He shows very nicely how connectedness and unity are manmade and subject to historical situations. His neglect of
the environmental conditions of the sea and its landscapes however is striking.
Thus the question remains: how can we incorporate space and landscape without
falling into the trap of determinism? How can we sufficiently include daily activities and praxis and the generation of knowledge as a result of experiencing a specific landscape within people’s lifeworlds, without arguing in an ahistorical way?
Yet another aspect is emphasized by Braudel, Horden/Purcell and Abulafia: trade
and ‘connectivity’, whatever may be meant by connectivity (Malkin, 2011). In
their concepts it is even crucial for survival in the Mediterranean. But in their desire to trace evidence for trade and contact they are not alone: for example, research of the Mediterranean Bronze Age has focused on this issue for several dec-
Introduction
11
ades now. Although the emphasis on economic ideas was probably most prominent in the 1980s and 90s, it still remains en vogue today; its inspiration is sometimes not very difficult to spot: Here again, in the age of globalization and globalization theory academic research can perhaps be expected to follow a similar path.
This approach has helped us to overcome traditional divisions in archaeological
research. But to reduce exchange in the past to neoliberal economic ideas and
functionalism probably does not help us understand its complexity and might
even provide modern neoliberal politics with the legitimacy of an assumed long
history. Research in the last few years shows that to understand the various forms
of entanglement between the different regions of the Mediterranean the word
‘connectivity’ is far too broad and undifferentiated and can, therefore, easily imply a Mediterranean unity. Until we understand this complexity, we will be unable to say if the so-called ‘connectivity’ in the Mediterranean was a reason for the
assumed similarities in later periods. Thus, we prefer to speak of ‘connectivities’
rather than of ‘connectivity’ because this widens the scope for discussion and
helps to better understand the diversity of possible ways, extents and dimensions
of connectivity within the Mediterranean.
To the link between modern economics and academic research we of course
have to add politics: In 1995 the EUROMED partnership was created. Initially
and up to 2010 it seems to have focused on the establishment of a neoliberal free
trade zone, behind the façade of noble aims such as the creation of a peaceful and
stable Mediterranean. To understand the essence of this enterprise: 90 per cent of
the programme’s financial means supported the economic and financial partnership, whereas other aims such as, for example, reciprocal understanding, human
rights and democracy seem to have been given short shrift. The established free
trade zone of course sets limits on North African products like olive oil (Sadiki,
2008, p.128), while in a later stage of the project, now known as Union for the
Mediterranean, it paved the way for German and French interests to establish the
project Desertec and the Mediterranean Solar Plan (European Commission,
n.d.), to exploit mainly the North African sun to help resolve European energy
problems. The sequence of the words ‘Euro-Mediterranean’ might unmistakeably
spell out the aims of the undertaking. It will be interesting to examine who and
what is allowed to cross the Mediterranean – and who and what is not, which
leads us to the huge topic of migration and the so-called boat people. Here the
question arises: for whom is the Mediterranean a border, and who took that decision? And why does historical research focus mainly on connectivity? – Is this
what Walter Benjamin called “Historicism” and the “empathy” of the Historian
for the victor (Benjamin, 1992, pp.141-154)?
We should not forget that the Union for the Mediterranean emerged out of
the election campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, and it is thus not surprising
that probably his biggest cultural prestige object is the Musée des Civilisations de
l’Europe et de la Méditerranée in Marseille, which recently opened. It remains to
be seen what impact this has on the cultural and academic reality and on
knowledge production.
12
Constance von Rüden and Achim Lichtenberger
Images of the Mediterranean as a homogenous cultural area have also been and
th
continue to be prominent in the popular imagination. Since the 18 century the
bourgeoisie of Central and Western Europe has felt a longing for the Mediterranean, especially for Greece and Italy, to escape their strict and narrowing social
world (Aldrich, 1993). Seemingly modern phenomena such as the penchant of
homosexuals for this region usually associated with places like Mykonos seem to
have their starting point in this period. Social and sexual freedom – an image of
allure and desire which still sells in modern travel advertising. Furthermore, the
western and northern life style is also undergoing Mediterranization: Mediterranean food (Helstosky, 2009), the desire for a more relaxed life and sensual pleasures are positive stereotypes to be found in nearly all urban areas of Northern and
Western Europe. A Mediterranean ‘feel’ is expressed in things such as terracotta
pots planted with herbs on the tables of ‘Mediterranean’ restaurants in the socalled Western world. In 2010 Mediterranean diet was even inscribed in the
UNESCO list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (UNESCO, n.d.).
Mediterranean here means primarily Spain, Italy and Greece, while North Africa
and Western Asia are less associated with it. Marocco alone is one of the four
countries that applied for inscription in the list, the others being Spain, Greece
and Italy. Is the Mediterranean thus a mainly European/Western construct? Is
this the reason why it is so difficult to find researchers in Arab countries, not educated within so-called Western systems, who are interested in this topic?
While the Mediterranean has a positive image in the cities of the ‘North’, it
can quickly change to a series of negative stereotypes about the mentality of the
‘Mediterranean people’. Such stereotypes have recently experienced an unprecedented revival following the economic crisis in Spain, Greece and Italy, a development with strong cultural deterministic or even racist tendencies.
In the light of all these difficult and at times politically dangerous realities of
the Mediterranean we inevitably come to the question Christian Bromberger and
Jean-Yves Durand asked at the conclusion of the conference L’anthropologie de
la Mediterranée: “Faut-il jeter la Méditerranée avec l’eau du bain?” (Blok, Bromberger and Dionigi, 2001). In the end, they are rightly against such a radical
measure by saying that the Mediterranean after all can be thought of as a space of
dialogue (see also Albèra, 1999), where the identities of the one and the other are
defined in a game of mirrors. But that is not the only reason the Mediterranean
should be studied intensively. There is something specific about the Mediterranean; it carries a lot of historical and political weight as a research area. People have
used and abused the Mediterranean in so many different ways both in modern
politics and in history, and we should, therefore, not leave it to them, but rather
apply a critical approach to it. We hope that the questions and the selection of
different Mediterranean realities sketched in this introduction have made this obvious. And there is another important aspect in constructing the Mediterranean:
It can serve as a model and counterpoint against nationalism, and against ethnic
and religious cleansings. Thus, it is clear that constructing and deconstructing the
Mediterranean is done with different intentions and with various – expected and
Introduction
13
unexpected – results. Looking at different Mediterranean realities may contribute
to an awareness of such processes.
The conference aspired to shed light on this range of diverse and often conflicting or contradictory realities, some of which were produced materially and
some non-materially. The essays in this volume aim at analyzing how these realities are interrelated, both in scholarly knowledge production and in the public
imagination.
14
Constance von Rüden and Achim Lichtenberger
Bibliography
Abulafia, D., 2011. The Great Sea: A Human History. London: Lane.
Albèra, D., 1999. The Mediterranean as an Anthropological Laboratory, Anales de la
Fundación Joaquín Costa 16, pp.215-232.
Aldrich, R., 1993. The Seduction of the Mediterranean: Writing, Art and Homosexual
Fantasy. London: Routledge.
Altekamp, S., 2000. Rückkehr nach Afrika: italienische Kolonialarchäologie in Libyen
1911–1943. Cologne, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.
Benjamin, W., 1992. Über den Begriff der Geschichte. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Blok A., Bromberger C. and Dionigi, A., eds., 2001. L’anthropologie de la Mediterranée.
Anthropology of the Mediterranean Collection. L'atelier méditerranéen. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose-MMSH.
Braudel, F., 1949. La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II.
Paris: Colin.
Braudel, F., 1958. Histoire et Science Sociale. La longue durée. Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations. 13e année, no.4., pp.725-753.
Burr, V., 1932. Nostrum Mare. Ursprung und Geschichte der Namen des Mittelmeeres
und seiner Teilmeere im Altertum. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
European Commission, n.d. Energy from Abroad, European Commission [online]. Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/energy/international/euromed_en.htm> [Accessed 2 July
2014].
Helstosky, C., 2009. Food Culture in the Mediterranean. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Horden, P. and Purcell, N., 2000. The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Malkin, I., 2011. A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Millett, M., 1992. The Romanization of Britain. An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, I., 2003. Mediterranization, Mediterranean Historical Review 18, pp.30-55.
Pitt-Rivers, J.A., 1963 Mediterranean Countrymen: Essays in the Social Anthropology of
the Mediterranean. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Sadiki, L., 2008. Engendering Citizenship in Tunisia: Prioritizing Unity over Democracy.
In: Zoubir, Y.H. and Amirah, H., eds., 2008. North Africa: Politics, Region, and the
Limits of Transformation. London: Routledge, pp.109-132.
Schörner, G., ed., 2005. Romanisierung – Romanisation. Theoretische Modelle und
praktische Fallbeispiele. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Theodoropoulos, T., 2000. La Méditerranée grecque. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.
UNESCO, n.d. Mediterranean Diet, UNESCO [online]. Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/RL/00884 [Accessed 2 July 2014].
Woolf, G., 2000. Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spaces
A. BERNARD KNAPP
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
Abstract
The eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus has long held a strategic position in
the protracted prehistory and history of the Mediterranean world and throughout
that time has had a major cultural and economic impact on the region. One result is that, in literature both academic and popular Cyprus is typically referred to
as a ‘crossroads of civilisations’. This is especially the case for the period of time
that encompasses the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (between ca. 1700 and 1100
BC). But how accurate is this essentially popular image, promoted as much by
travel agents and merchandisers as by scholars? By assigning the island an intermediary role as a ‘crossroads’, archaeologists and ancient historians are prone to
view political, economic and even artistic development and change on the island
as linked to external forces – invasions, migrations, colonisation, diffusion – based
in scholarly preconceptions that expect to encounter Aegean or Near Eastern cultural influences. Such an approach is not only inadequate but also tends to render
mute the indigenous inhabitants of Cyprus. In this paper, I consider how mobility and connectivities between Cyprus and overseas polities – which have changed
noticeably through time – impacted on the development of a more complex social
system during the earliest stage of the Late Bronze Age.
Introduction
Cyprus’s position in the long prehistory and history of the Mediterranean world
has often been a strategic one. One consequence is that in literature both academic and popular, the island is frequently referred to as a ‘crossroads’ of interaction or
of ‘civilisations’ (e.g. Karageorghis 1986; 2002). This is especially true for the period encompassing the late Middle and Late Bronze Ages (between ca. 1700 and
1100 BC), but it certainly holds true for the Iron Age, the Hellenistic and Roman
th
st
eras, the Medieval period, even the 20 –21 centuries AD, albeit in very different
ways.
But how accurate is this generalising image, promoted as much by travel
agents and merchandisers as by scholars? By assigning to the island an intermediary role as a ‘crossroads’, archaeologists and historians have tended to view political,
economic and even artistic development and change on the island as linked to external forces – invasions, migration, colonisation, diffusion – based in scholarly
18
A. Bernard Knapp
preconceptions that (1) expect to encounter Aegean or Near Eastern cultural influences, and (2) see Cyprus only through Aegean- or Levantine-coloured lenses.
Hector Catling (1979), for example, a British scholar who was closely involved
with the archaeology of Cyprus as well as the complex political situation of British archaeologists on Cyprus during the 1960s, argued that – during the early
second millennium BC – ‘revitalisation’ and ‘stimulation’ from overseas was crucial for reversing the ‘cultural stagnation’ that he read into the island’s material
culture. Steeped in culture history, neither historically contingent nor politically
sustained, and informed by an ‘ex occidente lux’ point of view (i.e., all good
things come from the Greek world), such an approach seems entirely inadequate
today and tends to render the indigenous inhabitants of Cyprus mute and invisible.
In this paper, I question the passive and ahistorical role that Cyprus has been
assigned as a ‘crossroads of culture’ and argue that certain people on Cyprus during the transition to the Late Bronze Age (between ca. 1700 and 1400 BC) became active agents in the interregional exchange systems that characterised this
era. It was a time when increased mobility and connectivity between Cyprus and
the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia and the Aegean impacted noticeably on a changing,
increasingly complex society and an emerging elite identity, all reflected in new
social practices and new materially-produced realities on Cyprus itself (Knapp,
2013a).
Cyprus: Identity and Connectivity
th
th
During the 17 –15 centuries BC, people involved in both the internal and external aspects of production and trade on Cyprus established an elite identity
based on their associations with foreign polities and on the consumption, use and
conspicuous display of foreign goods. They constructed an ideology partly rooted
in the localised production and exchange of copper, and partly based on concepts
drawn from foreign, especially Near Eastern, sources (Knapp, 2013b, pp.428429).
Webb (2005, pp.180-181) has argued that the luxury items Cypriot elites acquired from abroad, primarily in return for Cypriot copper, offered ideal sources
for display, whilst foreign models of political ideology provided a ‘blueprint for
domination’ that had never been developed in local iconographic traditions. The
use of such prestigious goods and symbols would have reflected the pomp and
circumstance of foreign potentates. In several instances they also demonstrate
clearly the impact of hybridisation practices on the culture and material culture of
Late Bronze Age Cyprus (Voskos and Knapp, 2008; Knapp, 2008, pp.252-280).
Prestige-bearing foreign goods functioned as material markers of a new Cypriot
elite identity: they helped to consolidate Cypriot power structure(s) and to integrate
Cypriot merchants and their products into the iconographic and ideological koine
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
19
that typified and motivated elites throughout the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean
world.
Cyprus: Late Cypriot 1 (ca. 1700–1450 BC)
Let us now look more closely at the materiality of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and
how it may be related to an emerging elite identity and ideology. Pottery imports
at this time include Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware, Syrian Black Burnished and Plain
wares and Canaanite jars (Merrillees, 2007; Georgiou, 2009; Crewe, 2012). It is
also widely acknowledged that certain Plain White and Bichrome Wheelmade
wares exhibit a range of forms and features new to the Cypriot repertoire and are
broadly similar to Middle Bronze Age Levantine-style pottery and wheel technology (Artzy, 2002). Nearly all Late Cypriot IA wheelmade vessels may be defined
as either communal (kraters and large jugs) or individual (small cups and bowls)
serving vessels (Crewe, 2007a, p.228; Steel, 2010, pp.108-109). Such vessels may
well indicate an emulation of Levantine feasting and/or drinking practices.
During the Late Cypriot I period, several prominent new settlements were established on or very near the coasts of Cyprus: Toumba tou Skourou, Kourion,
Kouklia Palaepaphos, Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke (see fig.1 for locations).
Excavations at these sites reveal a range of imports from the surrounding polities
in Egypt, the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean (Keswani, 1996; Knapp, 1997,
pp.46-48). Along the north coast, east of Kyrenia, some limited evidence from sites
like Kazaphani and Phlamoudhi indicates that foreign commercial traffic also
touched these shores (Nicolaou and Nicolaou, 1989; Smith, 2008). Elsewhere,
along the northern and eastern rim of the Troodos, evidence old and new reveals
the productive sector of society in smaller agricultural settlements or mining sites
– e.g. Ambelikou Aletri, Apliki, Politiko Phorades, Aredhiou Vouppes and
Analiondas Paleoklisha (Webb and Frankel, 1994; Knapp and Kassianidou,
2008; Steel and Thomas, 2008; Frankel and Webb, 2012). In the south and
southwest, new sites arose around Maroni and Kalavasos, and along the Kouris
River Valley (e.g. Episkopi Phaneromeni , Alassa Palaeotaverna) (Knapp, 2008,
pp.136-137 for refs.; see also Bombardieri, et al., 2011 for Erimi Laonin tou Porakou, and Vassiliou and Stylianou, 2004 for Erimi Pitharka).
20
A. Bernard Knapp
Fig.1: Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text.
The overall constellation of sites and the array of imported and local materials
found within them suggest that a maritime location, the intricacies of political alliances and an emerging overseas market orientation had become at least as important as resource orientation in social development and change during the Late
Bronze Age (similarly Crewe, 2012). These sites – along with the rich and diverse
types of material found in them – attest to the motivation of Cypriot elites in establishing political, economic and ideological alliances with more powerful polities or factions in the eastern Mediterranean.
Enkomi in Late Cypriot I
Peltenburg (1996, pp.27-28, pp.36-37) long ago argued for the emergence during the Late Cypriot I period of a secondary state on Cyprus, at the same time
qualifying his statement by adding that there may have been “regional control of
its resource base” and “a period of centralized control, if not necessarily of the
whole island”. He highlighted a series of fortified sites along the northern flanks
of the Troodos and southern flanks of the Kyrenia ranges, which most likely had
been established by Enkomi as part of a security system designed to procure copper and to prevent north coast sites from doing so. He regards Enkomi’s large
(600 sq m) ‘fortress’, with its very early evidence of large-scale copper production
(Dikaios, 1969, pp.21-24), as a major labour investment under the control of centralised authority closely concerned with copper production and distribution.
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
21
Even Keswani (1996, p.222), no champion of centralised organisation on Late
Bronze Age Cyprus, acknowledges Enkomi’s prominence and suggests it may have
been involved in centralised exchange transactions. At least one mortuary deposit
(Enkomi Tomb 1851, Late Cypriot I in date) just outside the fortress contained evidence – a balance pan, a rock crystal weight, an ‘exotic’ ostrich egg – that directly
relates the production of metals to luxury imports (Lagarce and Lagarce, 1985,
p.8, pp.47-48).
Crewe (2007b, pp.65-66) questioned Enkomi’s primary role in exporting copper, suggesting that the distribution of the forts could signal a series of regional
responses to both external and internal pressures. Such an interpretation supports
her wider thesis that no single site (in particular Enkomi) established centralised
control over the island’s production and distribution system(s) during Late Cypriot I. Based on her extensive reanalysis of handmade and wheelmade pottery from
Enkomi, the eastern Mesaoria and the Karpass peninsula as well as imports into
those areas, Crewe does allow that Enkomi may have served as a ‘gateway’ town for
exports to and imports from the Levant and Egypt during the Late Cypriot 1 period (see also Bell, 2005, p.366, p.368). But she feels it could not have acted as a
unifying force on the island before about 1450 BC. In fact, Crewe seems to question earlier viewpoints not just on Enkomi’s primacy but also on matters ranging
from the emergence of social complexity to state formation. Her close reliance on
pottery analyses to reach conclusions about social organisation, however, takes too
little account of other relevant aspects of the material record.
Contrasting opinions such as these (see also Webb, 1999, pp.305-308; Keswani,
2007, p.514) make it uncertain whether Enkomi’s authority or influence extended to the entire island at this time. Yet it is clear that whoever controlled the polity centred at Enkomi was instrumental in developing foreign trade during Late
Cypriot I and played a key – even if not exclusive – role in the intensified mining,
transport, refining and export of Cypriot copper. When we move beyond the material evidence of settlements, fortifications and pottery, a different picture of Enkomi emerges.
Webb (2002, pp.139-140), for example, points out that with its more than
200 cylinder seals and many more stamp and signet rings, Enkomi has the only
substantial claim to being a centre of glyptic production throughout the Late
Bronze Age. As mobile devices produced by specialists and distributed by central
authorities, such seals and the symbols imprinted on them served as mechanisms
for ideological and organisational control (Knapp, 2013b, pp.433-447), whether
centralised or regionally based. We might also note at this point the first use of
the Cypro-Minoan script, also at Enkomi (Dikaios, 1969, pp.22-23; 1971,
p.882, p.315 fig.10). As Ferrara (2012, p.53, p.64) points out, this earliest attestation of writing on Cyprus in a context of intensive metallurgical production is
‘intriguing’ and most likely indicates the existence of a highly specialised, decision-making organisation.
22
A. Bernard Knapp
Cyprus: An Archaic State?
Despite recent as well as on-going concerns about the definition of a ‘state’ (e.g.
Yoffee, 2004; Peltenburg and Iacovou, 2012; Redmond and Spencer, 2012; Urban
and Schortman, 2012, pp.123-132), let us simply accept that there is no single
factor that universally underpins the process of state formation, and that no matter how we define it, there is no doubt that a socially complex polity emerged on
th
th
Cyprus during the 17 –16 centuries BC. The emergence of what I will term an
archaic state on Late Bronze Age Cyprus was an abrupt process, triggered by profit-motivated long-distance trade in Cypriot copper and foreign exotic goods, including maritime transport amphorae and their contents (Knapp, 2013a; Crewe,
2012). Elites at Enkomi not only dominated the local production and overseas
distribution of copper, but also had direct access to foreign markets, merchants
and the luxury goods that began to trickle into the island at this time. Such direct
interactions with overseas polities, communities or individuals helped to establish
a distinctive new identity for the island’s elite(s) and to legitimise and enhance
their authority.
The increased interaction between Cyprus and other contemporary state-level
polities has other material reflections. During the Late Cypriot I period, new social groups began to define themselves with elaborate and unprecedented types of
military equipment and imported goods. Amongst them were metal weapons –
e.g. bronze ‘warrior’ belts and narrow-bladed shaft-hole axes, both common in Levantine burials and found in mortuary deposits at various Cypriot sites. Such
bronzes may have been produced locally but were clearly inspired by Near Eastern prototypes (Philip, 1991; 1995). Equid burials may also reflect the impact of
Near Eastern ideas and ideologies (Keswani, 2004, p.80). Syrian and Old Babylonian cylinder seals, imported faience ornaments, worked bone and ivory, ostrich eggs, gold jewellery and other precious metal objects, and semi-precious
stones first appeared during Late Cypriot I (Courtois, 1986; Keswani, 2004,
p.136). Such objects served as (1) important markers of status, and (2) exotica
used to negotiate new island identities.
In terms of mortuary practices, some of the large extramural cemeteries of the
Middle Cypriot period continued in use (e.g. at Deneia see Frankel and Webb,
2007, and at Katydhata see Åström, 1989), while several new ones were established (e.g. at Ayia Irini Paleokastro see Pecorella, 1977; Myrtou Stephania see
Hennessy, 1964; and Akhera Çiflik Paradisi see Karageorghis, 1965a). Older
practices of secondary treatment and collective burial persisted throughout the
Late Bronze Age, but on a much larger scale (e.g. at Enkomi see Gjerstad, Lindos,
Sjöqvist and Westholm, 1934, pp.491-497, pp.546-549), Ayios Iakovos Melia
see Gjerstad, Lindos, Sjöqvist and Westholm, 1934, pp.325-355, and Pendayia
Mandres see Karageorghis, 1965b). One definitive change from earlier periods is
the multiplicity and variability in tomb construction, evident not only between
sites, but even within sites, the latter best exemplified at Enkomi: chamber tombs,
four or five tholos tombs, five rectangular ashlar-built tombs (Late Cypriot II in
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
23
date), pit graves, infant burials in pots, and Late Cypriot III shaft graves
(Keswani, 2004, and passim). Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the Late
Cypriot mortuary record is the use of intramural tombs in diverse residential,
administrative or even workshop contexts (Keswani, 2004, p.85, pp.87-88).
The prominence of luxury goods, imported or locally made, in Late Cypriot
tombs all over the island indicates that mortuary practices continued to serve an
important function for establishing social hierarchies, consolidating individual or
group identity and maintaining the memory and power of ancestral groups
(Keswani, 2005, pp.348-349, p.363, pp.388-389, p.392). From lavish arrays of
gold jewellery to other metal goods and a range of exotica, we can understand
how bodily ornaments, dress and serving paraphernalia enhanced elite images
within society and served as an important means of constructing elite identity.
In terms of monumentality (Knapp, 2009a), the overlay of later constructions
makes it difficult to trace the full extent of architectural elaboration in Late Cypriot I buildings at sites such as Alassa Paleotaverna, Maroni Vournes, Myrtou Pigadhes or Kouklia Palaepaphos. The increasingly prominent use of ashlar masonry in monumental buildings, however, echoes its earlier usage in the Levant and
Anatolia. The monumental, free-standing ‘fortress’ at Enkomi, erected at the
Middle Cypriot III-Late Cypriot I transition, flourished throughout Late Cypriot
I (Peltenburg, 1996, p.29; Pickles and Peltenburg, 1998) and served as an economic and administrative centre.
To organise control over an island where authority had always been decidedly
local in scope and purpose, emergent elites erected unprecedented, elaborate
monumental structures and adopted diverse insignia (seals, Cypro-Minoan writing, metal goods) that enabled them to co-opt goods and labour for their own
economic and ideological ends. During the Late Cypriot I period on Cyprus, elite
identity and ideology were closely linked to monumentality, mortuary ritual and
the consumption of exotica. Moreover, much of the symbolism we see – on figurines, seals, metal items and pottery – relates to the production and distribution
of copper (Knapp, 1986).
On the basis of the Late Bronze Age archaeological record as it exists today,
th
th
most scholars have concluded that, during the 17 –16 centuries BC, a single
pre-eminent polity emerged at Enkomi on the east coast of Cyprus, ideally situatth
ed for foreign trade with the Levant and Egypt. Moreover, from the late 17
th
through the mid-14 centuries BC, when cuneiform documents make clear that a
single king ruled Cyprus (Knapp, 2008, pp.335-336), Enkomi offers sound and
extensive evidence for intensified, uninterrupted copper production, and for the
consumption and emulation of imported prestige goods from Egypt and the Levant.
Having established, then, that Cyprus emerged as a powerful independent polity intimately engaged in international trade with both the Aegean in the west and
the Levant in the east, what can be said of its purported role as a ‘crossroads of civilisation’?
24
A. Bernard Knapp
Discussion
In a recent paper, Adams (2010) sought to determine how or if we might view
the sites of Knossos on Crete and Enkomi on Cyprus as ‘capital cities’ of their respective polities. Viewing islands once again as ‘stepping stones, hubs, melting
pots or crossroads’, the most apt question she asks (but fails to answer) is why the
Minoans ‘advanced’ to statehood some 400 years before the Cypriots. Adams
finds this situation peculiar, for two reasons: (1) because Cyprus is larger than
Crete, with more natural resources (especially the copper so much in demand
during the Bronze Age), and (2) because it is “located at the maritime crossroads
of the Egyptian, Near Eastern and Anatolian civilizations” (Adams, 2012, p.4).
Similarly, Panagiotopoulos (2011, p.37) states:
“It’s rather hard to explain why Cyprus, a large island, very centrally located in the
Eastern Mediterranean web of cultural exchange and possessing the richest copper
resources, only made the decisive step to a high culture some centuries later than
Minoan Crete.”
There is much to admire in both of these papers. Adams, for example, seeks to
look beyond static economic models to consider ‘agency’ (although ‘urbanism’
seems to be the main agent). But there is also much to criticise, in particular the
attempt to consider what happened on Late Bronze Age Cyprus by looking eastward from the Aegean, by comparing sites and cultures that are in fact incomparable, at least as far her questions are concerned (similar problems abound in
some of the papers recently published in Cadogan, Iacovou, Kopaka and Whitley,
2012).
In fact, one might well agree on some levels that certain aspects of ‘statehood’
or ‘high culture’ seen in the material culture of the Aegean, Anatolia, the Levant
and Egypt (e.g. palaces, urban centres, developed systems of writing or intensive
th
involvement in long-distance trade) had little impact on Cyprus before the 17
century BC. However, material as well as social developments on Cyprus are too
often seen as timeless processes, interrupted only by invasions, migration or even
‘stimulation’ from afar, all of which are seen as crucial for cultural innovation or
change (as in Catling, 1979, already noted above). Consequently the material
markers of social development and economic change are far too often associated
with external forces in the eyes of scholars who anticipate Aegean or Near Eastern
cultural influences.
To respond to such views, it must be pointed out, first, that with respect to its
abundant copper resources, Cyprus’s copper ore deposits are sulphidic (not oxidic) in nature. Thus their exploitation came late in comparison with, for example,
Anatolia. Only when the technology of treating these sulphide ore deposits became more proficient during the Middle Cypriot period (Knapp, 2012) did Cyprus emerge as one of the most important sources of copper throughout the Mediterranean (Constantinou, 1982, pp.18-22).
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
25
Secondly, throughout Cypriot prehistory and protohistory, the island’s material
culture contrasts repeatedly and markedly with that of the surrounding regions.
With certain exceptions during the Late Epipalaeolithic and Aceramic Neolithic
(Knapp, 2013b, chapters 3 and 4), there is very limited evidence for foreign contacts until the Bronze Age, after about 2500/2400 BC. Thus it is crucial, in the
first instance, to view Cypriot prehistory in terms of internal developments and
change, rather than through expectations that follow from material and social
changes in the surrounding regions. To emphasize this point, I give Iacovou
(Peltenburg and Iacovou, 2012, p.352) the last word:
“Trying to define Cyprus’s development by comparing it to the continental city
states of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC is an archaeological approach that has served
its purpose well but has persisted for too long. Nowadays, it achieves little other
than to underestimate the island by continuing to focus on what has come to be
considered as Cypriot shortcomings. The time is ripe for the development of alternative approaches that attempt to understand Cyprus from inside and define its ‘robust island identity’.”
Of course, the discontinuities seen in the Cypriot archaeological record equally
demand that we try to interpret internal developments within the context of the
wider worlds of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. In this respect, we may
take some inspiration from the paper by Panagiotopoulos (2011). In his view, encounters between foreign peoples, their beliefs and their material goods generate a
new awareness that goes far beyond the purely economic. The interest in exotica
and foreign products generally is highly conspicuous in archaeological, documentary and pictorial evidence. The material and cognitive aspects of foreign goods,
and the ways in which they were experienced and used by all the people involved,
demonstrate what he calls their ‘transcultural attitude’.
Many of the goods exchanged in the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean also
reveal what art historians term a ‘hybrid imagery’ (e.g. Kantor, 1947; Vercoutter,
1956; Smith, 1965; Crowley, 1989). I see them, however, as the outcome of hybridisation practices, and I have written and discussed such practices and their
meanings at length elsewhere (e.g. Voskos and Knapp, 2008; Knapp, 2009b).
Suffice it to say that I see the materiality, and in particular the foreign goods that
turn up on Cyprus during the earliest phase of the Late Bronze Age, as reflecting
the meetings and mixings of people involved in situations of contact and connectivity, in the process transforming themselves, their material culture and their
identity.
The intermixing of diverse elements – human and material – from different
cultural traditions, however, did not necessarily target a network of political elites
seeking to share a common material culture or cultural identity. In my view, the
rich harvest of material excavated in Enkomi and the other primary coastal towns
of the Late Bronze Age demonstrates unequivocally that they were oriented towards the sea and to overseas connectivities. The acquisition and display of prestigious Levantine, Egyptian and Aegean goods on Cyprus not only helped elites
26
A. Bernard Knapp
to establish a distinctive identity within the island but also served (1) to enhance
their status, (2) to secure their control over copper production, distribution, and
other facets of overseas trade, and (3) to make their authority manifest through
(often foreign) material and ideological constructs and ideas.
Conclusion
For the first 8000 years of its prehistory, we certainly cannot talk of Cyprus as a
‘crossroads’ of interaction, civilisation or anything else. With respect to the earlier
stages of the Bronze Age (Philia phase, Early-Middle Cypriot), if the number of
goods imported to Cyprus is a ‘valid proxy’ (Keswani, 2005, pp.387-391 and table
13), the scale of long-distance trade can only be regarded as ‘more sporadic than
systematic’. Even during the earliest phase of the Late Bronze Age, the remarkable
increase in the amount of foreign goods and exotica on Cyprus cannot be seen as
evidence that the island served as a ‘crossroads’ of interaction, or a fulcrum balancing an international artistic and iconographic koine. Instead, such goods represent
the material expression of an elite desire to cross the borders of their own culture
and their own identity, in the process fostering a new social and material reality.
The material practices we see on Cyprus during the Late Cypriot I period and
in particular at Enkomi – e.g. the use of seals and figurines, the adoption of writing, the output of metallurgical workshops, the erection of monumental buildings and ancestral tombs, the presence of faience ornaments, ivory, gold jewelry,
semi‐precious stones – all point to a social desire to consume the materiality of
different cultures in a local context. This is how people negotiated their differing
interests, exchanged goods and ideas, and cultivated a cosmopolitan lifestyle. This
is how they manipulated their social and spatial worlds, in the process formulating a uniquely Cypriot island identity.
th
Before the 14 century BC (Late Cypriot II), there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest that any merchant or even monarch would have regarded
Cyprus as a crossroads or even a stopover between their point of origin and their
destination; it was, primarily and above all else, an irreplaceable source of the
copper widely in demand throughout the Mediterranean. Indeed, beyond Mycenaean pottery in the Levant (Leonard, 1992; Steel, 2004) or the Babylonian cylinder seals that passed through Cyprus en route to Thebes (Porada, 1982), there is
th
th
precious little material from the 14 –13 centuries BC that could substantiate
such an intermediary role for the island.
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
27
Bibliography
Adams, E., 2010. Centrality, “Capitals” and Prehistoric Cultures: A Comparative Study of
Late Bronze Age Crete and Cyprus. Cambridge Classical Journal 56, pp.1-46.
Artzy, M., 2002. The Aegean, Cyprus, the Levant and Bichrome Ware: Eastern Mediterranean Middle Bronze Age Koine?. In: Oren, E. and Ahituv, S., eds., 2002. Aharon
Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Ben
Gurion University, Be’er-Sheva 15. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University of Negev Press,
pp.1-20.
Åström, P., 1989. Katydhata. A Bronze Age Site in Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 86. Gothenburg, Sweden: P. Åström’s Förlag.
Bell, C., 2005. Wheels within Wheels? A View of Mycenaean Trade from the Levantine
Emporia. In: Laffineur, R. and Greco, E., eds., 2005. Emporia: Aegeans in the Central
and Eastern Mediterranean. Aegaeum 25 (1), Liège, Austin: Université de Liège, University of Texas at Austin, pp.363-370.
Bombardieri, L., Scirè Calabrisotto, C., Albertini, E. and Chellazi, F., 2011. Dating the
Contexts (or Contextualising the Dating?): New Evidence from the Southern Cemetery
at Erimi Laonin tou Porakou (EC–LC I). Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 41,
pp.87-108.
Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J., eds., 2012. Parallel Lives: Ancient
Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus. British School at Athens, Studies 20. London:
British School at Athens.
Catling, H.W., 1979. Reflections upon the Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence
for the History of Cyprus. In: Karageorghis, V., ed., 1979. Studies Presented in
Memory of Porphyrios Dikaios. Nicosia: Lion’s Club, pp.194-205.
Constantinou, G., 1982. Geological Features and Ancient Exploitation of the Cupriferous
Sulphide Orebodies of Cyprus. In: Muhly, J.D., Maddin, R. and Karageorghis, V., eds.,
1982. Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000–500 BC. Nicosia: Pierides Foundation, pp.1324.
Courtois, J.-C., 1986. A propos des apports orientaux dans la civilisation du Bronze Récent
à Chypre. In: Karageorghis, V., ed., 1986. Acts of the International Archaeological
Symposium: Cyprus between the Orient and Occident. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, pp.69-87.
Crewe, L., 2007a. Sophistication in Simplicity: The First Production of Wheelmade Pottery on Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20, pp.209238.
– 2007b. Early Enkomi. Regionalism, Trade and Society at the Beginning of the Late
Bronze Age on Cyprus. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1706. Oxford: Archaeopress.
– 2012. Beyond Copper: Commodities and Values in Middle Bronze Cypro-Levantine
Exchanges. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31, pp.225-243.
Crowley, J.L., 1989. The Aegean and the East: An Investigation Into the Transference of
Artistic Motifs Between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Pocketbook 51. Jonsered: P. Åström’s Förlag.
Dikaios, P., 1969–1971. Enkomi. Excavations 1948–1958. 3 vols. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Ferrara, S., 2012. Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions 1: Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Frankel, D. and Webb, J.M., 2007. The Bronze Age Cemeteries at Deneia in Cyprus.
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 135. Sävedalen: P. Åström’s Förlag.
28
A. Bernard Knapp
Georgiou, G., 2009. The Dynamism of Central Cyprus during Middle Cypriot III: Funerary Evidence from Nicosia Agia Paraskevi. In: Hein, I., ed., 2009. The Formation of
Cyprus in the Second Millennium BC: Studies in Regionalism during the Middle and
Late Bronze Ages. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 52. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp.65-78.
Gjerstad, E., Lindos, J., Sjöqvist, E. and Westholm, A., 1934. Swedish Cyprus Expedition
I, II: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931. Stockholm: Swedish
Cyprus Expedition.
Hennessy, J.B., 1964. Stephania: A Middle and Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus.
London: Bernard Quaritch Ltd.
Kantor, H.J., 1947. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B.C. Archaeological Institute of America, Monograph 1. Bloomington, Indiana: Archaeological Institute of America.
Karageorghis, V., 1965a. Fouilles des tombes du Chypriote Récent à Akhera. In: Nouveaux Documents pour l‘Étude du Bronze Récent à Chypre. Études Chypriotes 3. Paris:
E. De Boccard, pp.71-156.
– 1965b. Une nécropole du Chypriote Récent à Pendayia. In: Nouveaux Documents pour
l‘Étude du Bronze Récent à Chypre. Études Chypriotes 3. Paris: E. De Boccard, pp.2-70.
– 1986. Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium: Cyprus Between the Orient
and the Occident. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
– 2002. Early Cyprus: Crossroads of the Mediterranean. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Keswani, P.S., 1996. Hierarchies, Heterarchies, and Urbanization Processes: The View
from Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, pp.211-249.
– 2004. Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 9. London: Equinox.
– 2005. Death, Prestige, and Copper in Bronze Age Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology 109, pp.341-401.
– 2007. Beyond Emulation and Hierarchy: Diverse Expressions of Social Identity in Late
Cypriot Mortuary Ritual. In: Antoniadou, S. and Pace, A., eds., 2007. Mediterranean
Crossroads. Athens, Oxford: Pierides Foundation, Oxbow Books, pp.509-535.
Knapp, A.B., 1986. Production, Exchange and Socio-Political Complexity on Bronze Age
Cyprus. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5, pp.35-60.
– 1997. The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The Study of Settlement,
Survey and Landscape. Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, Occasional
Paper 4. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
– 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, Insularity and Connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
– 2009a. Monumental Architecture, Identity and Memory. In: Kyriatsoulis, A., ed.,
2009. Proceedings of the Symposium: Bronze Age Architectural Traditions in the East
Mediterranean: Diffusion and Diversity. Weilheim: Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der Hellenischen Geschichte, pp.47-59.
– 2009b. Migration, Hybridisation and Collapse: Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern
Mediterranean. Scienze dell’antichità: Storia archeologia antropologia 15, pp.219-239.
– 2012. Metallurgical Production and Trade on Bronze Age Cyprus: Views and Variations. In: Kassianidou, V. and Papasavvas, G., eds., 2012. Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.14-25.
– 2013a. Revolution within Evolution: The Emergence of a ‘Secondary State’ on Protohistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. Levant 45, pp.19-44.
Prehistoric Cyprus: A ‘Crossroads’ of Interaction?
29
– 2013b. The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knapp, A.B. and Kassianidou, V., 2008. The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Copper
Production: Politiko Phorades on Cyprus. In: Yalçin, Ü., ed., 2008. Anatolian Metal
IV: Frühe Rohstoffgewinnung in Anatolien und seinen Nachbarländern. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 21. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum 157. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, pp.135-147.
Lagarce, J. and Lagarce, E., 1985. Alasia IV. Deux tombes du Chypriote récent d‘Enkomi.
Tombes 1851 et 1907. In: Mission Archéologique d’Alasia 7. Recherches sur les Civilisations, Mémoire 51. Paris: ADPF.
Leonard, A., Jr., 1992. Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus and Syria-Palestine. In: Åström,P.,
ed., 1992. Acta Cypria: Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology
held in Göteborg. Gothenburg, Sweden 22-24 August 1991. Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology and Literature, Part 2, Pocketbook 117. Jonsered, Sweden: P. Åström’s
Förlag.
Merrillees, R.S., 2007. The Ethnic Implications of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware for the History of the Middle to Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. Cahier du Centre d’Études Chypriotes
37, pp.87-96.
Nicolaou, I. and Nicolaou, K., 1989. Kazaphani: A Middle/Late Cypriot Tomb at Kazaphani-Ayios Andronikos: T.2 A, B. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
Panagiotopoulos, D., 2011. The Stirring Sea: Conceptualising Transculturality in the Late
Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. In: Duistermaat, K. and Regulski, I., eds., 2011. Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202.
Louvain: Peeters, pp.31-51.
Pecorella, P.E., 1977. Le Tombe dell’Età del Bronzo Tardo della Necropoli a Mare di Ayia Irini ‘Paleokastro’. Biblioteca di Antichità Cipriote 4. Rome: Consiglio nazionale
delle ricerche, Istituto per gli studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici.
Peltenburg, E., 1996. From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus, c. 3500–1500 B.C.
In: Karageorghis, V. and Michaelides, D., eds., 1996. The Development of the Cypriot
Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day. Nicosia: Bank of Cyprus,
University of Cyprus, pp.17-44.
Peltenburg, E. and Iacovou, M., 2012. Crete and Cyprus: Contrasting Political Configurations. In: Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J., eds., 2012. Parallel
Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus. British School at Athens, Studies
20. London: British School at Athens, pp.35-63.
Philip, G., 1991. Cypriot Bronzework in the Levantine World: Conservatism, Innovation
and Social Change. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4, pp.59-107.
– 1995. Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from
Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria-Palestine. In: Campbell, S. and Green, A., eds.,
1995. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxbow Monograph 51.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.140-154.
Pickles, S. and Peltenburg, E.J., 1998. Metallurgy, Society and the Bronze/Iron Transition in the East Mediterranean and the Near East. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1998, pp.67-100.
Porada, E., 1982. The Cylinder Seals Found at Thebes in Boeotia. Archiv für Orientforschung 28, pp.1-70.
Redmond, E.M. and Spencer, C.S., 2012. Chiefdoms at the Threshold: The Competitive
Origins of the Primary State. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, pp.22-37.
Smith, J.S., ed., 2008. Views from Phlamoudhi, Cyprus. Annual of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 63. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
30
A. Bernard Knapp
Smith, W.S., 1965. Interconnections in the Ancient Near East: A Study of the Relationships between the Arts of Egypt, the Aegean, and Western Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steel, L., 2004. A Reappraisal of the Distribution, Context and Function of Mycenaean
Pottery in Cyprus. In: Balensi, J., Monchambert, J.-Y. and Müller-Celku, S., eds.,
2004. La Céramique Mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant. Tavaux de la Maison de l’Orient
41. Lyon: Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient, pp.69-85.
– 2010. Late Cypriot Ceramic Production: Heterarchy or Hierarchy? In: Bolger, D. and
Maguire, L., eds., 2010. The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient
Near East. Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg. British Association for Near Eastern
Archaeology 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.106-116.
Steel, L. and Thomas, S., 2008. Excavations at Aredhiou Vouppes (Lithosouros): An Interim Report on Excavations 2005–2006. Report of the Department of Antiquities,
Cyprus 2008, pp.227-249.
Urban, P.A. and Schortman, E., 2012. Archaeological Theory in Practice. Walnut Creek,
California: Left Coast Press.
Vassiliou, E. and Stylianou, E., 2004. Dropping in on Late Bronze Age Erimi, Erimi
Pitharka, Preliminary Excavation Report. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp.181-200.
Vercoutter, J., 1956. L’Egypte et le monde égéen Préhellenique. Bibliothèque des Études
22. Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie orientale.
Voskos, I. and Knapp, A.B., 2008. Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and
Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization?. American Journal of Archaeology 112,
pp.659-684.
Webb, J.M., 1999. Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot
Bronze Age. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocketbook 75.
Gothenburg, Sweden: P. Åströms Förlag.
– 2002. Device, Image and Coercion. The Role of Glyptic in the Political Economy of
Late Bronze Age Cyprus. In: Smith, J., ed., 2002. Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the
Bronze and Iron Ages. Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference
Papers 4. Boston: American Institute of Archaeology, pp.111-154.
– 2005. Ideology, Iconography and Identity: The Role of Foreign Goods and Images in
the Establishment of Social Hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. In: Clarke, J., ed.,
2005. Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture
in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.176-182.
Webb, J.M. and Frankel, D., 2013. Ambelikou Aletri: Metallurgy and Pottery Production
in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 138. Uppsala: P.
Åström’s Förlag.
Yoffee, N., 2004. Myths of the Archaic State: The Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States,
and Civilisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.