Leriou Locating Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean. the Case of Hellenized Cyprus, 2007

7/27/2019 Leriou Locating Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean. the Case of Hellenized Cyprus, 2007

1/33

MEDITERRANEANCROSSROADS

Edited bySophia Antoniadou

and Anthony Pace

Athens

Pierides Foundation


2/33

Copyright Pierides Foundation and the authors 2007

ISBN 978-9963-9071-6-8

Front cover image:work by Lia Lapithi.

Part of the series 330 o nM, The Ionian Sea.

This book is distributed by Oxbow Books, 10 Hythe Bridge Street,Oxford OX1 2EW (Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Book Company PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA(Phone:860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

and

via the websitewww.oxbowbooks.com

Printed in Greece by Scriptsoft, Athens

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission

from the publisher.


3/33


4/33

563LOCATING IDENTITIES IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN

22. Locating identities in the Eastern Mediterraneanduring the Late Bronze geEarly Iron Age: thecase of hellenised Cyprus

a nastasia l eriou

a c

This paper arises from the theoretical problems that emerged during a systematic re-assessment of the widely established Mycenaean colonisa-tion (hellenisation) of Cyprushypothesis. Besides various classi catoryinconsistencies and misunderstandings, the main problem seems to bethe direct association of ethnic identities with groups of artefacts/mate-rial culture. Since the infamous equation between pots (static excavated remains) and peoples (elusive and uid concept of identity) has beenlong ago proven methodologically invalid, the present paper investigatesalternative ways to employ the archaeological record, so as to identifythe cultural groups that constituted the population of Cyprus during the

LCIII-CGII period. The new approach is based on conclusions reached by both social anthropologists and archaeologists researching ethnic

groups. Its key element lies within the tendency of ethnic groups to use

categories of artefacts (emblemic indicia) in a way similar to languageand religion in order to underline their boundaries and set themselvesapart from the rest of the population, particularly when their collectiveidentity is undermined or threatened.

i d c

Though still retaining its position as a widely established archaeologicalnarrative (Leriou 2002: 3), the hypothesis that Cyprus was hellenised


5/33

564 ANASTASIA LERIOU

by large numbers of Aegean settlers during the 12th and 11th centuriesBC (Iacovou 1999; Karageorghis 1997: 249-85; 2002: 71-141; Leriou2002: 4-5; Steel 2004: 187-213), has recently been criticised by a steadi-ly increasing number of researchers. Demands to reassess the hypothesishave resulted from the many problems of classi cation, from contradic -tions and inconsistencies, and from the acknowledgment that it includesa number of factoids (Muhly 1980; Hult 1983: 62, 88-90; Maier 1986;Kling 1984; 1989a; 1989b; 1991; 2000; Sherratt 1991; 1992; 1994; 1998;Pilides 1991; 1992; 1994; Swinton 1996: 16-23; Kieley 1998; Niklas-son-Snnerby1999; Webb 1999; 2001; Hitchcock 2000a; 2000b; Leriou2002: 6-7; 2005) that is to say, historical reconstructions based on themanipulation of data, as well as speculations or misunderstandings thatare taken for incontrovertible, historical facts due to their frequent and/or systematic repetition (Maier 1985: 32; Goring 1995: 103).

These problems have been attributed to the narratives theoretical basis: the now outdated culture historical approach towards the archae-ological record, which can be effectively summarised in the infamousequation between pots and peoples (Leriou 2002: 6-7). Consequently,the principal objection is of a theoretical character and lies in the use of certain groups of artefacts, pottery in particular, of Aegean origin and/or inspiration as de ning criteria for the presence of a group of Aegean peoples in 12th and 11th century Cyprus (Karageorghis 2000; 2002a: 84-113, 119-41). Since the 1950s, however, archaeologists and social an-thropologists have demonstrated that it does not really take a Mycenaeanto use or even to produce a Mycenaean pot. Excavated remains are frag-mentary and static, while the concept of ethnic identity is uid and par -ticularly elusive. Ethnic and cultural boundaries are socially constructedand, therefore, dynamic, in nitely variable and not always archaeologi -

cally tangible. Thus, it is entirely possible for cultural contacts, including processes such as migrations and invasions, to occur with virtually no perceptible change in the material record (Sherratt 1992: 318-35; Hall1997: 111-42).

What follows is an attempt to provide a new, theoretically up-to-datemethodological framework for the systematic reconsideration of thehellenisation of Cyprus hypothesis. The rst section of the discussionincludes a brief investigation of the reasons that led researchers aroundthe end of the 19th century to adopt the culture historical approach to-


6/33


wards the archaeological record of LBA-EIA Cyprus and the circum-stances that contributed to maintaining this approach until the presentday, despite the signi cant developments in archaeological thought dur -ing the second half of the 20th century. The second section contains asummary of the recent theoretical trends in the study of ethnicity in the

elds of both social anthropology and archaeology, in combination witha proposal for their effective application to the problematic archaeologi-cal narrative of the hellenisation of Cyprus.

th c h c pp ch w d h ch g c c df lba-eia Cyp

The current application of the culture historical approach towards thearchaeological record of LBA-EIA Cyprus by the majority of archaeolo-gists is related to general developments in European and North-Ameri-can archaeological thought during the late 19th and 20th centuries as wellas to the development of Cypriot archaeology, in particular, during thesame period. Moreover, both these factors should be examined in closeassociation with the politics that have regulated the islands history fromthe middle of the 19th century to the present day (Hunt 1990: 255-94;Knapp and Antoniadou 1998; Given 1998; Leriou 2002; 2005: 25-92).

The roots of culture historical archaeology lie in the development of the European nation state and its corporate identity (ethnic, linguistic andcultural) during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The growing national-ism and emphasis on ethnic identities led European archaeologists tofocus on the geographical distribution of distinctive types of artefactsand artefact assemblages (archaeological cultures) in a systematic effortto associate them with prehistoric peoples, who could usually be viewedas the ancestors of modern nations. Consequently, the determination of the geographic distribution of a particular archaeological culture wouldequal the identi cation of the area that was occupied by the correspond -ing population (Renfrew and Bahn 1991: 32, 407). Moreover, the identi-

cation of elements of a foreign archaeological culture within a speci cregion would be regarded as evidence for a migration or invasion of theethnic group associated with the culture (Trigger 1989: 161-86; 1995:266-70; Sherratt 1992: 316-17; Shennan 1994: 5-11; Diaz-Andreu andChampion 1996; Diaz-Andreu 1996; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996;


7/33


Hides 1996; Jones 1997: 15-26; Hall 1997: 128-31; Leriou 2002: 6).Trigger (1995; 269) maintains that:

European archaeologists wanted to lengthen the pedigrees of their own national or ethnic groups and to glorify these groups by com- parison with neighbouring peoples. Usually this took the form of identifying a particular people with a succession of speci c ar -chaeological cultures leading into the remote past and drawing at-tention to the special achievements of these cultures.

Culture historical archaeology was introduced to Cyprus during thelast decades of the 19th century, particularly after 1878, when Great Brit-

ain undertook the administration of the island. This resulted in the pro-motion of excavation from legalised treasure hunting to an organisedand systematic enterprise and the consequent establishment of Cypriotarchaeology as a scienti c discipline (Leriou 2002: 10). In 1894 the HighCommissioner (the British Governor) asked the British archaeologistJohn Linton Myres to classify and organise the ever growing collectionsof antiquities in the Cyprus Museum. The latter had been founded asearly as 1883. Myres produced the very rst systematic classi cationof Cypriot antiquities and subsequently reconstructed the islands his-tory on that basis. Thus both culture historical archaeology and the ar-chaeological narrative of the hellenisation colonisation of Cyprus wereintroduced in the newly established eld of Cypriot archaeology (Leriou2002: 11-12)

Besides culture historical archaeology, Myres was deeply affected bythe idealisation of ancient Greece, which was a major academic trendamong European scholars during the late 19th-early 20th century. The at-tribution of the foundation of the Iron Age Cypriot kingdoms to the an-cient Greeks through the process of colonisation (hellenisation) madethe latter look even more impressive and added considerable prestigeto the study of Cypriot antiquities. Moreover, it was consonant with thecolonial authoritys initial intention to emphasise the close connections between Greece and Cyprus and thus establish a good rapport with theislands population (Leriou 2002: 9-14).

The culture historical approach towards the archaeological recordwas rmly established around forty years later by Einar Gjerstad andhis legendary Swedish Cyprus Expedition, who employed it in order


8/33


to classify and interpret the numerous nds from the excavations theyconducted throughout the island. Not only did the Swedes con rm thehellenisation hypothesis, they also used culture historical archaeologyto reconstruct the Eteocypriots the native population who, after theadvent of the Aegeans concentrated in an ethnic pocket in the city of Amathus. This development also agreed with the colonial authoritysinterest in minimising the connection between Cyprus and the Greek world, as a result of the growing Cypriot nationalism and the increasingdemand for enosis with Greece (Leriou 2002: 14-16).

The culture historical approach towards material culture character-ised European and North American archaeological thought until themid-20th century. Its association with Nazi ideology through Kossinasnationalistic research on the origins of the German population led to itsdismissal by many archaeologists and social anthropologists after WorldWar II (Trigger 1989: 163-67; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996: 2-4; Jones1997: 2-5; Hall 1997: 1-2, 129). Furthermore, culture historical archae-ology was discarded due to the development of processual archaeology,commonly known as New Archaeology, which shifted the disciplinesfocus from the description (when and where) of ancient cultures andtheir movements to the explanation (how and why) of cultural change(Trigger 1989: 294-312; Renfrew and Bahn 1991: 411-13; Bahn 1996:67-70). Archaeological theorists have nowadays accepted the practicaluse of archaeological cultures as tools for the comprehension and or-ganisation of the material remains of the past, but they have completelydismissed their equation with historical, political, linguistic or racialentities. This conclusion was reached through numerous anthropologi-cal and archaeological studies which have demonstrated that materialculture is not necessarily ethnically diagnostic (Shennan 1994: 11-14;

Hall 1997: 129-31).Despite these theoretical developments, culture historical archaeol-ogy remains the dominant attitude towards ancient material culture inmany countries. Peoples, whose past has been neglected or denigrated by a colonial approach towards archaeology and history (Trigger 1989:205) employ culture historical archaeology to promote self-determina-tion, develop a national identity and promote national unity (Trigger 1984: 358-60; 1989: 174-86, 205; 1995: 268-72; Skeates 2000: 90-92;Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002: 2-5). According to Trigger (1989: 174):


9/33


the culture-historical approach can be used to bolster the pride andmorale of nations or ethnic groups. It is more often used for this purpose among peoples who feel thwarted, threatened, or deprivedof their collective rights by more powerful nations or in countrieswhere appeals for national unity are being made to counteract seri-ous internal divisions.

On this basis, the systematic use of the culture historical approach bycontemporary Cypriot archaeologists is hardly surprising, given the is-lands long history of successive occupations and invasions (Knapp andAntoniadou 1998: 19-23). The urge to emphasise their Greek identity,which is evident in the majority of Cypriot archaeologists but particular-ly obvious in the case of Vassos Karageorghis (Karageorghis 2002b: 31;Leriou 2002: 17-18), should be examined against the background of theOttoman (1151-1878) and British occupations (1878-1960) and, mostimportantly, the Turkish invasion (1974-present). These have endowedCypriot archaeology with a strongly political character. Consequently,subjective interpretation, which is inherent in nationalistic archaeology(Trigger 1995: 273-77; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002), is one of themajor problems of the hellenisation narrative.

It should be emphasised, nevertheless, that the culture historical approach is also employed by most of the international scholars research-ing ancient Cyprus. The great impact of Gjerstads research and authori-tative publications, in combination with general conservatism of Cypriotarchaeology, is most probably responsible for the current situation (Rupp1993: 2-3; 1997: 69-71; Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 30-32).

P -h v v h c c c

The very rst step towards the effective reconsideration of the hellenisa -tion narrative is shifting the focus of attention from the detailed recon-struction of the historical events that supposedly took place during the12th and the 11th century in Cyprus to the evaluation of the post-helleni-sation archaeological record. This is particularly so as, regardless of thetheoretical approach chosen, the relevant archaeological record has been proven too limited and fragmentary to allow historical reconstruction. Itsdetailed survey showed that the evidence is fragmentary and thus highlyinconclusive, while many classes of it require further study. The latter


10/33


have either been neglected due to exaggerated emphasis on the Aegeanand/or Aegeanising material (for example the local Late Cypriot IIIAwares), or their current classi cation and chronology are closely related,and sometimes directly dependent upon, the historical events assumedto have occurred in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after thefall of the Mycenaean palaces (for example the Handmade BurnishedBarbarian ware, various elements of palatial architecture etc.). Studiessimilar to Barbara Klings reconsideration of the typology, chronologyand historical implications of the locally produced Mycenaean IIIC:1b

pottery, which is generally considered as the Aegean settlers ngerprintin the material culture of the island during the 12th century (Kling 1984;1989a; 1989b; 1991; 2000), are by all means necessary. Additionally,much further publication work remains to be carried out before any at-tempt at a new reconstruction of the LCIII-CGI period is undertaken(Leriou 2005: 93-94).

Since the conditions that might enable the reconstruction, or moresimply the direct veri cation or rejection of the hellenisation narrativedo not currently exist, it is preferable to accept the narrative as a work-ing hypothesis and concentrate primarily on the evaluation of its results.Consequently, the arrival of people from the Aegean during the 12th-11th centuries will be provisionally accepted as a series of truly historicalevents. Further, the question that will be asked is whether the post-hel-lenisation material culture of Cyprus re ects the enduring impact of thisarrival. In other words, does the post-hellenisation material cultureof Cyprus support the presence of a distinct group of people from theAegean among the native population? Thus, research should concentrate,at least at the moment, primarily on the identi cation of the possible eth -nic groups which constituted the population of Cyprus during the period

in question and, consequently, touch upon the widely discussed but stillcomplicated issue of archaeologys capacity to contribute to questionsof ethnicity in the past. Focusing on the resulting situation instead of theactual process will enable the present discussion to avoid repeating themistake of equating pots and material culture with peoples, as it allowssigni cantly more space for theoretical experimentation.


11/33


e h c ym d d

On the basis of ethnographic parallels, social anthropology has estab-lished that an ethnic group is a social rather than a biological category,characterised by remarkable uidity and dynamism evidenced mainly inits interaction with other ethnic groups (situational ethnicity). Ethnicityis all about group self-recognition and self-identity, thus involving thenotions of construction and choice (Barth 1969; Banks 1996; Renfrew1998: 275; Malkin 2001: 12-15). Hence Jones de nitions (1997: xiii):

Ethnic group is any group of people who set themselves apartand/or are set apart byothers with whom they interact or co-exist

on the basis of their perceptions of culturaldifferentiation and/ or common descent.Ethnic identity is the aspect of a persons self-conceptualisationwhich results from identi cation with a broader group in opposi -tion toothers on the basis of perceived culturaldifferentiation and/or common descent (italics mine).

As ethnic identity is socially constructed and subjectively perceived(Hall 1997: 19), the mere presence of characteristics (similarities) of a

biological, linguistic, religious and cultural nature does not suf ce for ethnic status determination. On the other hand, social anthropologists aswell as archaeologists have concluded that such characteristics do indeed play an important role in the maintenance of ethnic groups, as they canact as emphasising symbols of ethnic identity, particularly when the latter is under serious threat by one or more antagonistic ethnic groups. Con-sequently, it seems that research focusing on the identi cation of bound -aries between different ethnic groups instead of attempting to decodeand subsequently organise the members general characteristics withina scholarly construction of piloting value (de ning criteria) is consider -ably more fruitful, not to mention worthwhile. According to Barth thefocus of the investigation of ethnicity should be the ethnic boundarythat de nes the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses (Barth 1969:15). This is particularly so regarding archaeological research, where theavailable evidence is limited and, most importantly, fragmentary. As aresult of the dynamic character of situationally constructed ethnicity, eth-nic groups are not monolithic entities with impermeable boundaries butelastic and negotiable, thus possibly elusive (Barth 1969; McGuire 1982;


12/33


Jenkins 1997: 9-15, 90-91; Jones 1997: 59-60, 72-74; Hall 1997: 19-26;Knapp 2001: 32).

Hall, who has effectively applied recent sociological and anthropo-logical theories in the study of ethnic identity in Greek antiquity, main-tains that material culture together with biology, religion and languagecannot be classi ed as ethnic criteria; instead, they should be viewed asmere ethnic indicia (Hall 1997: 19-26). This conclusion stems from the

belief that ethnicity is constructed and in nitely renegotiated primarilythrough written and spoken discourse (Jones 1998: 272). In other words,the identities people construct through words have de nite precedence

over those they establish by means of manipulating their material culture(Morris 1998: 270). Ethnic groups can be distinguished from other socialcollectivities mainly on the basis of their notion of common descent andkinship and their association with a primordial territory. Thus, the set of conditions for ethnic group membership (ethnic criteria) is usually asso-ciated with ones ability to claim common descent and kinship as well asthe connection to a primordial territory (Hall 1997: 25, 36; Malkin 2001:9-12, 15-19). Consequently, literary evidence should constitute the rstand nal frame of analysis in the study of past ethnic groups (Hall 1995;

1997: 182).The prioritisation of literary remains, the restrictive implications of which for the study of prehistoric ethnic groups are quite obvious, has been criticised by both social anthropologists and archaeologists. Jones,in her review of Halls Ethnic Identity in Greek Ethnicity (1997), argues(1998: 272-73):

Many instrumentalist approaches, however, such as that proposed by Hall see ethnic identity as originating in discursive strategiesformulated in the pursuit of speci c interests. Cultural, linguisticand religious dimensions of ethnicity become situated as second-ary products of this process. The problem with this approach isthat it fails to explainhow people come to recognise commonali-ties and shared interests in the rst place. If culture is reduced toan arbitrary secondary role in the construction of ethnic identitythen it is impossible to explain how newly formulated discursiveconstructions of identity gain their power.

The relationship between culture and ethnicity is much deeper and


13/33


more complex than Hall and other researchers have suggested. Socialanthropologists have established that cultural practice motivates the rec-ognition of commonalities of experience and interest in other words,the factor triggering the generalisation of ethnic consciousness (Morris1998; Jones 1997: 94-96; 1998). Thus, we return to Jones de nitions of the terms ethnic group and ethnic identity cited above that employ thenotion of both kinship/common descent and cultural differentiation. Theadoption of these de nitions in the present discussion should be empha -sised, so as to avoid projecting modern ideas onto past societies, or beinggenerally unclear whenever using these terms (Renfrew 1998).

l k g f h c ym d d lba-eia Cyp

The complexity of the relationship between the archaeological recordand past ethnic groups is a commonplace (Shennan 1994: 11-14; Hall1997: 128-31; Knapp 2001). Elucidating the active role played by mate-rial culture in the generation of past ethnic identities is almost impossiblewithout access to their verbal means of construction. In historical ar-chaeology, written and spoken discourse (literary remains) and materialculture (archaeological record) should be viewed as equally importantelements that could be fully exploited through the methods of contrastand correlation (Morris 1998: 270; Andrn 1998: 157-175; Jones 1999).The situation in prehistoric archaeology seems more dif cult, as one of the two basic components for the reconstruction of ethnic identity hasnot survived to the present day. This is more or less the case with LBA-EIA Cyprus, where the relevant written sources are limited and datefrom considerably later periods (Gjerstad 1944; Demetriou 1989: 88-93;Leriou 2005: 25-26).

However, the potential of material culture to be employed symboli-cally in the reinforcement of ethnic boundaries in a process of activeethnic advertisement similar to biology, language and religion (post- processualists active role of material culture/symbols) cannot be over-looked (Jones 1997: 112-115). Such phenomena are very common inmulti-ethnic antagonistic situations that render the dynamic expressionof ethnicity essential (Hall 1997: 131-36; Malkin 2001: 7-9). Thus, onewould expect that such advertising would have been essential in (pre-Phoenician) EIA Cyprus, the population of which, according to the pre-


14/33


vailing hellenisation narrative (Leriou 2002: 3-6), must have consistedof at least two distinct ethnic groups, the Aegeans and the native Cyp-riots. What remains for us is to identify are the means through whichethnic advertisement was achieved.

Ethnic groups select certain elements of their material culture and employ them as emblemic indicia of their differentiation from other groups(boundaries). These choices have a purely symbolic nature and are thusextremely dif cult to reconstruct, especially in prehistoric contexts. Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish instances of active emphaticuse from their passive behavioural counterparts in the archaeologicalrecord by identifying cases of strong differentiation from the norm.Thus, it is necessary to examine

the context of an archaeological phenomenon, since it is only byforming a picture of how a particular community typically usesvarious elements of material culture that one can discern apparentdeviations from the norm. (Hall 1997: 136; italics mine)

Furthermore, the examination should be as diachronic as possible andfocus on various classes of the archaeological record, as

it is far more likely that artefacts or cultural forms selected for theactive marking of boundaries will possess a short-term rather thana long-term diacritical value, and the choice of medium for thatexpression will change over time. (Hall 1997: 136; italics mine)

Consequently, we need to thoroughly examine the overall materialculture repertory of Cyprus in pursuit of instances of cultural differentia-tion, which would signify ethnic signalling (emblems) and, therefore,the existence of more than one distinctive ethnic group. In chronologicalterms, this study should include a period of time after as well as beforethe advent of the Aegeans on the island.

The identi cation of emphasised cultural boundaries, however, im - plies a strong group identity but not necessarily differentiation of ethniccharacter. The de nition of the term ethnic group adopted in the presentstudy distinguishes it from other social collectivities by means of culturaldifferentiation and common descent. Thus, it is reasonable to expect thatthe choice of material employed in the construction of boundaries wouldresult from some kind of strategy aiming to establish links with themythical ancestors. Hall has provided plenty of examples of ancestral-


15/33


ising strategies observed in the Geometric and Archaic material fromthe Argolid, namely EIA cult practice in areas of LBA activity or burialsites, as well as re-use of Late Helladic chamber tombs for Iron Ageinhumations. It should be emphasised once more, however, that thesedifferentiating archaeological phenomena acquire ethnic signi canceonly when set against the context of a discursively constructed ethnicitysubstantiated by means of literary evidence (Dowden 1992: 74-80; Hall1997: 137-40; Malkin 1998; 2001).

In the case of EIA Cyprus, the myths attesting to the foundation of the Cypriot kingdoms by Greek heroes on their way home after the

Trojan War seem to provide researchers with an excuse for initiatinga thorough investigation for cultural boundaries, although their muchlater date, limited number, Greek origin and association with ancientGreek political propaganda signi cantly undermines their position in thediscursive construction of Cypriot ethnic identity (Gjerstad 1944; Deme-triou 1989: 88-93; Leriou 2002: 5; Karageorghis 2004).

If, however, we accept that the fragmentary information in the foun-dation myths does indeed re ect the generation of ethnic identity, wewould expect to distinguish in the post-hellenisation EIA archaeologi-cal record of Cyprus, emblemic formations implying or demonstrating acontinuity of the pre-hellenisation LC cultural traditions and/or a break from them. The former would have been created by the native populationand the latter by the newcomers from the Aegean, who may generally beconsidered as a distinctive ethnic group (see below). What follows is anattempt to provide an example of what one should expect when initiatingsuch an investigation. For the sake of clarity and effective illustration,the discussion of the case study is generalised and rather sketchy.

The Mycenaean-style chamber tombs with long dromoi and squarishchambers that appeared on the island during the LCIIIBCGII period areregarded by most archaeologists as one of the most important groups of evidence substantiating the presence of Aegean settlers on the island. Inorder to characterise the introduction and use of this tomb type as active boundary signalling, one or more of the following conditions is expectedto be also present:

a) the total abandonment of older tomb types, that is to say, the cham-


16/33


ber tombs with irregular chambers and short dromoi that werecommon all over Cyprus during the entire LBA period.

b) the predominance of Mycenaean-style chamber tombs in certainareas and LC tombs in other areas of the island.

c) the co-existence of older and new types in the same areas, thoughin clearly separated burial grounds, in other words, the establish-ment of special cemeteries containing exclusively Mycenaean-style or traditional LC chamber tombs.

Nevertheless, none of these conditions can be identi ed in the LCIIIB -CGII archaeological record. Their total absence in association with the

development of a hybrid tomb type morphologically combining the newMycenaeanising type with the traditional LC chamber tomb (roughlysquarish chambers and short and wide dromoi) blunts considerably thesharpness of the cultural boundary maintained through this particular ar-chaeological phenomenon (Karageorghis 1975: 26; Iacovou 1989: 55-56).

Extending this investigation to the tomb contents might underminefurther the role of Mycenaean-style chamber tombs in active ethnicsignalling; alternatively it might demonstrate that this process wasgenerated in association with the burial furniture rather than the tombsarchitectural form. The materials thorough investigation demonstratedthat the former hypothesis is valid, as very similar collections of objectsare associated with both tomb-types (Leriou 2005: 159-64, 226-31, 234-35, 265-66).

Hybridisation re ects cultural assimilation, a complicated phenom -enon that may result from a large number of social processes associatedwith peoples contact, among which are migration and colonisation. Our study should be focusing on its direct opposite, however, in other words,on peoples conscious determination to avoid hybridisation and to main-tain or even to demonstrate their cultural peculiarities, in order to under-line their differentiation. Thus, the statistical analysis of the intrusivecultural elements in relation to their native counterparts is pointless.The degree of assimilation, if any, is directly dependent on the frequencyof cultural boundaries in the archaeological material under examination.To put it simply: the more boundaries identi ed, the less the assimilation/interconnection between the various groups that constituted the LCIII-


17/33


CGII population. Dichotomies in the LCIII-CGII material culture analo-gous to those described above would more or less attest to the validityof the hypothesis of the Mycenaean colonisation of the island. That is tosay, after their movement to Cyprus, the Aegean people maintained their identity and emphasised it through their material culture. A failure tolocate ethnic boundaries, on the other hand, would mean that during thisearly period the Cypriot population did not contain antagonising ethnicelements (see below).

One last issue to be addressed is the ethnic uniformity of the popu-lation that moved to Cyprus, according to the hellenisation narrative.The degree of ethnic uniformity characterising the population of theAegean during the LBA is a rather complicated subject that remains to be researched both archaeologically and anthropologically. Neverthe-less, its fragmented political organisation implies some kind of culturaldifferentiation. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that nocommon name for the Mycenaean Greeks existed, and people seem tohave named themselves after their town/polity; this is evident in boththe Linear B tablets as well as the Homeric epics (Vasilikou 1995: 379-8; Thomas 1995; Muhly 1999: 521; Sherratt 1992: 317-18). Moreover,the plethora of references to variousethne /groups of people in Iron Ageliterary sources such as the works of Herodotus and Thucydides, andthe multi-ethnic character of the pre-Archaic Greek society, on the other hand, provide further support to the above hypothesis (Coldstream 1979:314, 369; Snodgrass 1971: 416-36; 1980: 42-44; Sherratt 1992: 326;Dowden 1992: 60-65, 79-80; De Polignac 1995: 151-76; Hall 1997: 34-66; Malkin 2001; Morgan 2001; McInerney 2001; Whitley 2001: 150-56). Therefore, and always according to the hellenisation narrative,they should rather be referred to as a cultural group, on the basis of their

material culture that can be described as distinctively non-Cypriot andquite homogenous. Furthermore, even if the migrants cannot be con-sidered as a tightly cohesive ethnic group, their relatively distant placeof geographical origin implies a certain degree of differentiation, uponwhich the extent and sharpness of the boundaries between the migrantsand the native Cypriot population directly depends.


18/33


r d c c

The systematic re-examination of the Cypriot material culture duringthe 12th, 11th and 10th centuries within the theoretical framework outlinedabove, which I undertook during my doctoral research, demonstrates thatonly a very limited number of possible cultural boundaries can be iden-ti ed. The inconclusive situation in regard to the Mycenaean chamber tombs should be considered as quite typical, since analogous hybridisa-tion can be observed in relation to most Aegean or Aegeanising elements.The archaeological record in question was investigated both vertically andhorizontally. The vertical investigation had a diachronic character aimingat the detection of signi cant cultural differentiation between the pre-hel -lenisation and the post-hellenisation material, while its horizontal coun-terpart aimed at the identi cation of boundaries within a speci c site or between sites throughout Cyprus during a particular time period.

The results of both the horizontal and the vertical examination will be discussed in detail elsewhere. Here, the discussion must remain re-stricted to merely mentioning that the former yielded extremely fewindisputable instances of active ethnic signalling, associated mostly withthe Phoenician presence in the EIA levels. The vertical examination, onthe other hand, demonstrated that the Cypriot material culture is char-acterised by greater continuity than so far suggested. In regard to theinstances of indisputable break and change, such as the formal closureof the sanctuaries at Enkomi and the island-wide shift of burial groundsto extramural areas, there is usually more than one explanation possible.Consequently, these phenomena should not necessarily be viewed as theresults of conscious boundary-construction (Leriou 2005: 295-315).

The failure to locate cultural boundaries among the Cypriot populationduring 1200-900 clearly suggests lack of antagonising ethnic elements.This phenomenon may be explained through the hypothesis that after theAegeans settled in Cyprus, the level of familiarity between the newcom-ers and the natives was so advanced that neither group was interested inemphasising their distinctive cultural identity by means of employingmaterial culture in processes of active ethnic signalling. Alternatively,it might be suggested that no Aegean settlement ever occurred. In thiscase, the working hypothesis adopted at the beginning of this discussionshould be completely rejected.


19/33


While it has been established that the occurrence of Aegean culturalelements cannot be employed as a de ning criterion for the presenceof an Aegean group of people among the population of Cyprus, the in-creased occurrence of such elements in the LCIII material culture cannot be overlooked (Karageorghis 2000). When set against the turbulence at-tested at almost all LCIIC-LCIIIA settlements and also the general up-heaval and population movement observed in the Aegean and the coun-tries of the Eastern Mediterranean from as early as the last decades of the13th and throughout the course of the 12th century (Ward and Joukowsky1992; Vasilikou 1995: 395-411; Gitin, Mazar and Stern 1998; Oren 2000;Karageorghis 2002a: 71-84), these archaeological phenomena render thehypothesis of an Aegean group of considerable size or a series of Aegeangroups establishing themselves in Cyprus highly probable. Consequent-ly, it is essential to re-examine the character of this establishment, as theantagonism/opposition between the newcomers and the natives proposed

by the of cial narrative cannot be substantiated archaeologically (Leriou2005: 316-17).

When thwarted, deprived of their collective rights or under seriousthreat by other, usually more powerful, groups the members of a par-ticular ethnic group reinforce their identity by employing emphasisingsymbols, usually of a biological, linguistic, religious and cultural na-ture. Thus, the absence of cultural boundaries observed throughout theLCIIC-CGII archaeological record implies that neither the newcomersnor the natives felt the need to emphasise their distinctive identity bymeans of material culture manipulation. The Aegean newcomers had notcome as subjugators, while their numbers must not have been very large.Consequently, they did not seem threatening to the locals. Furthermore,they must have felt quite at home in Cyprus, while the native population

did not regard them as intrusive or alien.The reasons and circumstances that led to the signi cant level of pre-hellenisation familiarisation between the Aegeans and the Cypriotsshould be associated with the systematic trading activity and multifac-eted contact between the Aegean and Cyprus since the 14th century, if notearlier (Tatton-Brown 1997: 13-14, 38-40; Karageorghis 1997: 239-46,249-59; 2002a: 11-25, 42-47; Leriou 2005: 317-20). Furthermore, these processes should be viewed against the wider web of multiple links andinterconnections that had been established along the coasts of the East-


20/33


ern Mediterranean during the second millennium and constitutes a vastresearch eld for archaeology and social anthropology. Reviewing the

problems and dif culties associated with the deconstruction of the eth -nic groups constituting the Cypriot population during the LBA-EIA hascon rmed the suspected uidity of ethnic/cultural identities within thecomplex structure of the social and economic interdependencies in theEastern Mediterranean. It has also cast some light on the intricate sub- jects of their development, maintenance and differentiation and renderedthe systematic attempts of various 20th century archaeologists to identifythe nationality of the Uluburun shipwreck utterly pointless.


21/33


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the Greek Archaeological Committee (UK), the BritishAcademy, the Council for British Research in the Levant and the Foun-dation Anastasios G. Leventis for sponsoring my doctoral research, uponwhich the present paper is largely based. Special thanks are due to MattiEgon for the immense encouragement and support, nancial and other -

wise, she gave me throughout the course of my research. For their aca-demic guidance and invaluable advice I am indebted to Professor Nicho-las Coldstream, Professor Vassos Karageorghis, Professor Nota Kourou,Professor Maria Iacovou and Dr Susan Sherratt. Furthermore, I wouldlike to thank my thesiss examiners, Professor Anthony Snodgrass andDr Gillian Shepherd, for their constructive criticism and advice. Last butnot least, I owe many thanks to my supervisor, Dr Ken Wardle, for theconstant guidance, encouragement and support he has been generouslyoffering me since my doctoral research began.


22/33


AbbreviAtions

CG Cypro-GeometricEIA Early Iron AgeLBA Late Bronze AgeLC Late Cypriot


23/33


reFerenCes

Andrn, A.1998 Between Artefacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global

Perspective . Trans. A.Crozier. New York: Plenum Press.

Bahn, P.1996 Archaeology, a Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.Banks, M.1996 Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions . London and New York:

Routledge.

Barth, F.1969 Introduction. In G. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and B oundaries:

the Social Organisation of Cultural Difference , 9-38. Boston: Lit-

tle Brown.Coldstream, J.N.C.1979 Geometric Greece . London: Methuen.

Demetriou, A.1989 Cypro-Aegean Relations in the Early Iron Age . Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology 83. Gteborg: P.strms Frlag.

De Polignac, F.

1995 La naissance de la cit grecque; cultes, espace et socit, VIII e

-VII e sicles . Paris: ditions la Dcouverte.

Diaz-Andreu, M.1996 Constructing identities through culture: the past in the forging

of Europe. In P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.),Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of Europeancommunities , 48-61. London and New York: Routledge.


24/33


Diaz-Andreu, M. and T.Champion1996 Nationalism and archaeology in Europe: an introduction. In M.

Diaz-Andreu and T.Champion (eds.), Nationalism and Archaeol-ogy in Europe , 1-23. London: UCL Press.

Dowden, K.1992 The Uses of Greek Mythology . London and New York:

Routledge.

Gitin, S., A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.)1998 Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth

Centuries BCE . Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.Given, M.1998 Inventing the Eteocypriots: imperialist archaeology and the ma-

nipulation of ethnic identity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeol-ogy 11(1): 3-29.

Gjerstad, E.1944 The colonisation of Cyprus in Greek legend.Opuscula Archaeo-

logica 3: 107-23.

Goring, E.1995 The Kourion sceptre: some facts and factoids. In C. Morris (ed.),

Klados. Essays in Honour of J.N.Coldstream . Bulletin of the In- stitute of Classical Studies Supplement 63: 103-10. London: Insti-tute of Classical Studies.

Hall, J.1995 The role of language in Greek ethnicities. Proceedings of the

Cambridge Philological Society 41: 83-100.Hall, J.1997 Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Hides, S.1996 The genealogy of material culture and cultural identity. In P.

Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.),Cultural Identity


25/33


and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities ,25-47. London and New York: Routledge.

Hitchcock, L.A.2000a Cyprus between East and West: exploring interconnections in

Aegean and Cypriot architecture. Paper presented at the CyprusAmerican Archaeological Research Institute on 11.05.2000.

2000b One cannot export a palace on board a ship. Studying Aegean ele-ments in Cypriot Late Bronze Age architecture. Backdirt (elec-tronic journal issued by the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology atUCLA): www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ioa/pubs/backdirt/fall00/cypriot.html.

Hult, G.1983 Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean . Studies

in Mediterranean Archaeology 66. Gteborg: Paul strms Frlag.

Hunt, D.1990 Footprints in Cyprus, an Illustrated History . London: Trigraph.

Iacovou, M.1989 Society and settlements in Late Cypriot III. In E.Peltenburg (ed.),

Early Society in Cyprus , 52-59. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

1999 The Greek exodus to Cyprus: the antiquity of Hellenism. Mediter-ranean Historical Review 14 (2): 1-28.

Jenkins, R.1997 Rethinking E thnicity: Arguments and Explorations . London:

Sage.

Jones, S.1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past

and Present . London and New York: Routledge.1998 Ethnic identity as discursive strategy: the case of the ancient

Greeks. Review of J. Hall, Ethnic Idenity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Cambridge Ar-chaeological Journal 8 (2): 271-73.


26/33


Jones, S. and P. Graves-Brown, P.1996 Introduction: archaeology and cultural identity in Europe. In P.

Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.),Cultural i dentityand Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities , 1-24. London and New York: Routledge.

Karageorghis, V.1975 Alaas, a Protogeometric Necropolis in Cyprus . Nicosia: Depart-

ment of Antiquities, Cyprus.1997 . In T. Papadopoulos (ed.),

. Vol. I, . Part A, -, , , 237-85.

Nicosia: III.2000 Cultural innovations in Cyprus relating to the Sea Peoples. In D.E.

Oren (ed.),The Sea Peoples and Their World: a Reassessment .University Museum Monograph 108: 255-79. Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

2002a , ,1600-500.. Athens: Kapon Editions.

2002b Hellenism beyond Greece: Cyprus. InGreek Archaeology without Frontiers . Open Science Lecture Series, 31-43. Athens: The Na-tional Hellenic Research Foundation and the A.G.Leventis Foun-dation.

2004 Herodotus and Cyprus. In V.Karageorghis and I.Taifacos (eds.),The World of Herodotus . Proceedings of an international confer-ence held at the Foundation Anastasios G.Leventis, Nicosia, Sep-tember 18-21, 2003 and organised by the Foundation Anastasios

G. Leventis and the Faculty of Letters, University of Cyprus, 1-7. Nicosia: Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis.

Kieley, T.1998 Burial and ethnicity in Cyprus at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

Paper presented at the Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeol-ogy (SOMA), Edinburgh University-Department of Archaeology20-22 February1998.


27/33


Kling, B.1984 Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery in Cyprus: principal characteristics

and historical context. In V. Karageorghis and J.D. Muhly (eds.),Cyprus at the Close of the Late Bronze Age , 29-38. Nicosia: TheA.G. Leventis Foundation.

1989 a Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Related Pottery in Cyprus . Studies inMediterranean Archaeology 87. Gteborg: P. strms Frlag.

1989b Local Cypriot features in the ceramics of the Late Cypriot IIIA period. In E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus , 160-170.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

1991 A terminology for the matte-painted wheelmade pottery of LateCypriote IIC-IIIA. In J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger and B. Kling(eds.),Cypriote Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record . Uni-versity Museum Monograph 74: 181-84. Philadelphia: UniversityMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Penn-sylvania.

2000 Mycenaean IIIC:1b and related pottery in Cyprus: comments onthe current state of research. In E.D. Oren (ed.),The Sea Peoplesand Their World: a Reassessment . University Museum Mono-

graph 108/ University Museum Symposium Series 11: 281-95.Philadelphia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropol-ogy, University of Pennsylvania.

Knapp, A.B.2001 Archaeology and ethnicity: a dangerous liaison. Archaeologia

Cypria 4: 29-46.

Knapp, A.B. and S. Antoniadou1998 Archaeology, politics and the cultural heritage of Cyprus. In L.

Meskell (ed.), Archaeology Under Fire , 13-43. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Leriou, A.2002 Constructing an archaeological narrative: the Hellenisation of

Cyprus. Stanford Journal of Archaeology 1. Internet edition:http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/leriou/paper. pdf.


28/33


2005 The Aegean presence in Cyprus during the period 1200-900 BC:a reassessment. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bir-mingham, Birmingham.

Lyons, C.L. and J.K. Papadopoulos2002 Archaeology and colonialism. In C.L. Lyons and J.K. Papadopou-

los (eds.),The Archaeology of Colonialism , 1-23. The Getty Re-search Institute: Los Angeles.

Maier , F.G.1985 Factoids in ancient history. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 32-

39.1986 Kinyras and Agapenor. In V.Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the In-ternational Symposium Cyprus between the Orient and the Oc-cident, Nicosia 814 September 1985, 311-20. Nicosia: Depart-ment of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Malkin, I.1998 The Returns of Odysseus. Colonization and Ethnicity . Berkeley,

Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

2001 Introduction. In I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Eth-nicity , 1-28. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies Trus-tees for Harvard University.

McGuire, R.1982 The study of ethnicity in historical archaeology. Journal of An-

thropological Archaeology 1: 159-78.

McInerney, J.2001 Ethnos and ethnicity in early Greece. In I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient

Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity , 51-73. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University.

Morgan, C.2001 Ethne, ethnicity and early Greek states, ca. 1200-480 BC: an ar-

chaeological perspective. In I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptionsof Greek Ethnicity , 75-112. Washington, DC: Center for HellenicStudies Trustees for Harvard University.


29/33


Morris, I.1998 Words and things. Review of J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek

Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Cam-bridge Archaeological Journal 8 (2): 269-70.

Muhly, J.D.1980 Bronze gurines and Near Eastern metalwork. Israel Exploration

Journal 30: 148-61.1999 The Phoenicians in the Aegean. In P.P. Betancourt, V. Kara-

georghis, R. Laf neur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata.Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65 th Year . Aegeum 20: 517-26. Lige: Universitde Lige.

Niklasson-Snnerby, K.1999 Late Cypriote III pit and shaft graves: explaining the phenom-

enon. In K. Niklasson-Snnerby (ed.),Cypriote Archaeology inGteborg. Papers presented at a symposium on Cypriote Archae-ology held in Gteborg 20 May 1998. Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology and Literature Pocket-book 157: 97-98. Jonsered: P.

strms Frlag.Oren, E.D.2000 Introduction. In E.D. Oren (ed.),The Sea Peoples and Their

World: a Reassessment . University Museum Monograph 108:xvii-xx. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Pilides, D.1991 Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age: toward a

clearer classi cation system. In In J. Barlow, D.L. Bolger and B.Kling (eds.),Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record.University Museum Monograph 74: 139-50. Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

1992 Handmade Burnished ware in Cyprus: an attempt at its interpreta-tion. In G.C. Ioannides, (ed.),Studies in Honour of Vassos Kara-

georghis , 179-89. Nicosia: Etaireia Kypriakon Spoudon.


30/33


1994 Handmade Burnished Wares of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus .Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 105. Jonsered: P. strmsFrlag.

Renfrew, C.1998 From here to ethnicity. Review of J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek

Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Cam-bridge Archaeological Journal 8 (2): 275-77.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn1991 Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice . London: Thames

and Hudson.Reyes, A.T.1994 Archaic Cyprus: a Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evi-

dence . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rupp, D.W.1993 Aspects of social complexity in Cyprus: socioeconomic interac-

tion and integration in the fourth through second millennia B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292: 1-8.

1997 Constructing the Cypriot Iron Age: present praxis; future pos-sibilities. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 69-75.

Shennan, S. J.1994 Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In

S.J. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Iden-tity, 1-32. London and New York: Routledge.

Sherratt, E.S.1991 Cypriot pottery of Aegean type in LCII-III: problems of classi -

cation, chronology and interpretation. In J. Barlow, D.L. Bolger and B. Kling (eds.).Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric

Record. University Museum Monograph 74: 185-98. Philadel- phia: University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania.

1992 Immigration and archaeology: some indirect re ections. In P.strm (ed.), Acta Cypria II . Acts of an International Congress


31/33


on Cypriot Archaeology held in Gteborg on 22-24 August 1991.Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 120: 316-47. Jonsered: P. strms Frlag.

1994 Commerce, iron and ideology: metallurgical innovation in the12th-11th century Cyprus. In V.Karageorghis (ed.), Proceedingsof the International Symposium Cyprus in the 11 th Century BC, Nicosia 30-31 October, 1993, 59-107. Nicosia: A.G. LeventisFoundation.

1998 Sea people and the economic structure of the late second millen-nium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E.Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth toearly Tenth Centuries BCE , 292-313. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-tion Society.

Skeates, R.2000 Debating the Archaeological Heritage . London: Duckworth.

Snodgrass, A.1971 The Dark Age of Greece; an Archaeological Survey of the Elev-

enth to Eighth Centuries BC . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.1980 Archaic Greece. The Age of Experimentation . London, Melbourneand Toronto: Dent.

Steel, L.2004 Cyprus Before History. From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the

Bronze Age . London: Duckworth.

Swinton, A.1996 Religion and ancient society: the development of public cult on

Cyprus from Late-Cypriot I to Cypro-Archaic I. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Tatton-Brown, V.1997 Ancient Cyprus . London: British Museum Press.

Thomas, C.G.1995 The components of political identity in Mycenaean Greece. In R.


32/33


Laf neur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia. Society and Statein the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th InternationalAegean Conference, Univeristy of Heidelberg, ArchologischesInstitut, 10-13 April 1994. Aegeum 12: 349-54. Lige: Universitde lEtat Lige.

Trigger, B.G.1984 Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.

Man 19: 355-370.1989 A History of Archaeological Thought . Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press.1995 Romanticism, nationalism, and archaeology. In P.L. Kohl and C.

Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archae-ology , 263-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vasilikou, D.1995 .Athens:

.

Ward, W.A. and M.S. Joukowsky (eds.)

1992 The Crisis Y ears: the 12th

Century BC. From Beyond the Danubeto the Tigris . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Webb, J.M.1999 Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriot

Bronze Age . Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and LiteraturePocket-Book 75. Jonsered: P. strms Frlag.

2001 The sanctuary of the Ingot God at Enkomi. A new reading of itsconstruction, use and abandonment. In P. Fischer (ed),Contribu-tions to the Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Agesin the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of Paul strm, 69-82. Wien: sterreichisches Archologisches Institut.

Whitley, J.2001 The Archaeology of Ancient Greece . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.


33/33


Documents

Leriou Locating Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean. the Case of Hellenized Cyprus, 2007