# **Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities

Marialucia Amadio

**2**

**BUILDING IN PREHISTORIC CYPRUS**

Studi ciprioti 2

e-ISSN 2724-3648

ISSN 2724-279X

Building in Prehistoric Cyprus

### Studi ciprioti

Collana diretta da Luca Bombardieri Tommaso Braccini Lorenzo Calvelli Luigi Silvano

2

### Studi ciprioti

#### Direttori

Luca Bombardieri (Università degli Studi di Torino, Italia) Tommaso Braccini (Università degli Studi di Siena, Italia) Lorenzo Calvelli (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Luigi Silvano (Università degli Studi di Torino, Italia)

#### Comitato scientifico

Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv University, Israel) Anna Cannavò (Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, France) Annemarie Weyl Carr (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA) Jody Michael Gordon (Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, USA) Gilles Grivaud (Université de Rouen, France) Robert Holland (School of Advanced Study, London, UK) Maria Iakovou (University of Cyprus, Cyprus) Bernard Knapp (University of Glasgow, UK) Demetrios Michaelides (University of Cyprus, Cyprus) Tassos Papacostas (King's College, London, UK) Eirini Papadaki (University of Cyprus, Cyprus) Brigitta Schrade (Freie Universität Berlin, Deutschland) Theoharis Stavrides (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)

e-ISSN 2724-3648 ISSN 2724-279X

URL https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/collane/studi-ciprioti/

# Building in Prehistoric Cyprus

Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities

Marialucia Amadio

Venezia **Edizioni Ca' Foscari** - Venice University Press 2023

Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

© 2023 Marialucia Amadio for the text © 2023 Edizioni Ca' Foscari for the present edition

### cb

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale

Any part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission provided that the source is fully credited.

Qualunque parte di questa pubblicazione può essere riprodotta, memorizzata in un sistema di recupero dati o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma o con qualsiasi mezzo, elettronico o meccanico, senza autorizzazione, a condizione che se ne citi la fonte.

Scientific certification of the Works published by Edizioni Ca' Foscari: the essay published has received a favourable evaluation by subject-matter experts, through a double-blind peer review process under the responsibility of the Advisory Board of the series. The evaluations were conducted in adherence to the scientific and editorial criteria established by Edizioni Ca' Foscari, using a dedicated platform.

Certificazione scientifica delle Opere pubblicate da Edizioni Ca' Foscari: il saggio pubblicato ha ottenuto il parere favorevole da parte di valutatori esperti della materia, attraverso un processo di revisione doppia anonima, sotto la responsabilità del Comitato scientifico della collana. La valutazione è stata condotta in aderenza ai criteri scientifici ed editoriali di Edizioni Ca' Foscari, ricorrendo all'utilizzo di apposita piattaforma.

The making of this book was financially supported also by the Erimi Archaeological Project and the Rotary Milan.

Edizioni Ca' Foscari Fondazione Università Ca' Foscari Venezia Dorsoduro 3246 | 30123 Venezia edizionicafoscari.unive.it |<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
1st edition October 2023 ISBN 978-88-6969-685-5 [ebook] ISBN 978-88-6969-686-2 [print]

Cover design: Lorenzo Toso

Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities / Marialucia Amadio — 1. ed. — Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari, 2023. — viii + 188 p.; 23 cm. — (Studi ciprioti; 2). — ISBN 978-88-6969-686-2.

URL https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/libri/978-88-6969-686-2/ DOI http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-685-5

#### **Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

### Abstract

The study of architecture, from the selection, procurement and processing of raw materials, to the construction and use of buildings as spaces of action and interaction, can provide major insights into the social organisation of ancient communities. Architecture, as a way of organising space and encoding meaning, plays an active role in structuring movement and socio-cultural identities and provides a range of potential avenues for exploring social motivations and rationales in particular contexts and environments, both at the individual and community levels.

This book examines 'architecture' as key media for analysing socio-cultural narratives in prehistoric Cyprus and exploring the formation, reproduction and development of early Cypriot communities. In particular, the volume aims at moving beyond the classification of architectural forms and functions and exploring the social, ideological, economic and political transformations that characterised the Cypriot prehistory from the late Aceramic Neolithic until the advent of the Late Bronze Age (7000/6800-1750/1700 Cal BC) by using architectural evidence as the focal analytical data-set. The interest of this study is not only in how people constructed buildings but also in how buildings contributed to the construction and definition of new socio-cultural and economic identities during Cypriot prehistory. Through a detailed review of the existing architectural data-set available for prehistoric Cypriot settlements, the book aims to understand how the development of new concepts of architecture, and the increasing appearance of social, cultural and economic forms of complexity are mutually constituted.

**Keywords** Built environment. Architecture. Prehistoric Cyprus. Multiscalar analysis.

#### **Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

### Table of Contents

### Building in Prehistoric Cyprus

Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities

"What this clay hides and shows is the passage of a being through time and space, the marks left by fingers, the scratches left by fingernails, the ashes and charred logs of burned-out bonfires, our bones and those of others, the endlessly bifurcating paths disappearing off into the distance and merging with each other. This grain on the surface is a memory, this depression the mark left by a recumbent body. The brain asked a question and made a request, the hand answered and acted" (Saramago, J. *The Cave.* London: The Harvill Press, 2002, 68)

**Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

# Preface

The present volume is the result of the research interests developed throughout my academic experience as a student and researcher. The arguments exposed in the three core chapters of the book are partially based on my doctoral thesis at the University of Reading entitled *Architecture and Urbanisation in Bronze Age Cyprus: Local and Regional Innovation in Materials, Technology and Social Representation*. In this thesis, I examined how the development of new forms and concepts of architecture and the increasing appearance of social, cultural and economic forms of complexity at the end of Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus, are mutually constituted. In this book, I have decided to expand the discussion presented in my doctoral research and include in my analysis the examination of the social and architectural transformations of the early communities in Cyprus from the Late Aceramic Neolithic until the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The idea, when I set up the arguments of the volume, was following the process of building construction, starting from the examination of building activities as key indicators of social practices until the analysis of building forms and settlement spaces as loci of encounters and interaction between social agents.

The discussions presented in this volume represent elements of a work in progress and should be considered a starting point more than a conclusive study of the built and social environment of prehistoric Cyprus. What it is important to stress is that architectural evidence has not been examined only as a collection of shapes and design. Instead, every section of the volume was animated by questions about social structures and domains of relationships between individuals and the natural and social environment they interacted with. As a cultural artefact, architecture was treated as a metaphor for human engagement and communication.

For the accomplishment of this book, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my PhD supervisors, Wendy Matthews and Roger Matthews, for the fruitful discussion and their constructive feedback. Thanks to my PhD programme at the University of Reading I expanded the horizon of my research and I developed a strong interest in the study of the ancient built environment. My sincere thanks go to Luca Bombardieri, who encouraged me to complete this work and has supported my research since the very beginning of my academic experience. Thanks also to the members of the Erimi Archaeological project and to the colleagues and friends I met in Cyprus during these years; many ideas embedded in this volume have been stimulated by informal discussions with them. I am very grateful to the two reviewers who greatly helped to improve the arguments presented in the volume. I would like to thank Lindy Crewe, in particular, for having accepted to review the volume despite her work appointments. I am grateful to the community of scholars and researchers working in Cyprus, in particular to Jenny Webb, Diane Bolger and Stuart Swiny, who supportively granted me permission of using some of the photographs included in the book. I would like to thank also the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, particularly the director Marina Solomidou-Ieronimdou. This book could not have been accomplished without the financial support of the Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Torino and the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, Università di Pisa, where I am currently working as a post-doc fellow. Finally, my sincere acknowledgements to the staff of the book series *Studi Ciprioti*, Edizioni Ca' Foscari, who assisted me in the making of this book.

#### **Abbreviations used throughout the volume:**

LAN = Late Aceramic Neolithic CN = Ceramic Neolithic EChal = Early Chalcolithic MChal = Middle Chalcolithic LChal = Late Chalcolithic EC = Early Cypriot (Early Bronze Age Cyprus) MC = Middle Cypriot (Middle Bronze Age Cyprus) **Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

# 1 Introduction

**Summary** 1.1 Establishing the Contexts. – 1.1.1 The Theoretical Context. – <IP_ADDRESS> Architecture and Social Reproduction. – <IP_ADDRESS> The Social Lives of Buildings. – <IP_ADDRESS> Households and Communities. – <IP_ADDRESS> The Built Environment in Cypriot Studies. – 1.1.2 The Chronological Context. – 1.2 The Volume in Context.

#### 1.1 Establishing the Contexts

The study of architecture, from the selection, procurement and processing of raw materials to the construction and use of buildings as spaces of action and interaction, can provide major insights into the social organisation of ancient communities. Architecture, as a way of organising space and encoding meaning, plays an active role in structuring movement and socio-cultural identities (Giddens 1984; Fisher 2007, 1-3; Robb 2007, 76) and provides a range of potential avenues for exploring social motivations and rationales in particular contexts and environments, both at the individual and community level (Steadman 2010). This book examines 'architecture' as key media for analysing socio-cultural narratives in prehistoric Cyprus and exploring the formation, reproduction and development of early Cypriot communities. In particular, the volume aims at moving beyond the classification of architectural forms and functions and exploring the social, ideological, economic and political transformations that characterised Cypriot prehistory from the Late Aceramic Neolithic until the advent of the Late Bronze Age (7000/6800-1750/1700 cal BC) by using architectural evidence as the focal analytical dataset. The interest of this study is not only in how people constructed buildings but also in how buildings contributed to the construction and definition of new socio-cultural and economic identities during Cypriot prehistory. Through this approach, the intangible aspects of society can be analysed beyond the examination of structural forms and designs (Given 2004, 105; Love 2010, 1). Architectural forms, in fact, are dictated by the social conventions and practical needs of their occupants and cannot be effectively treated as spatial, rather than social relations (Goodman 1999, 145).

Prehistoric and protohistoric Cypriot architecture has been often discussed in terms of its stylistic, functional, technological and chronological attributes and less as the product of human action and intention (cf. Karageorghis 1982; Hult 1983; Wright 1992). However, the agent-centred research applied to the study of ancient Cyprus over the last decades greatly contributed to overcoming the tradition of the culture-historical approach and to opening new research directions in support of the study of early communities on the island (cf. Bolger 2003; Fisher 2009b; 2014a; see also § 1.1.2). Following this research trajectory, this book aims to understand how the development of new forms and concepts of architecture, and the increasing appearance of social, cultural and economic forms of complexity during prehistoric Cyprus are mutually constituted. To accomplish this, I examine the role of architecture and material culture as media for expressing social reproduction and as the context for social action and interaction, through a multi-scalar and interdisciplinary analysis of architectural materials, forms and practices, and concepts and representations of built space. This will provide data to analyse the social, cultural and economic trajectories of prehistoric communities on the island.

In what follows, I examine the theoretical background through a review of previous approaches to the study of the built environment, with a particular focus on agent-centred theory as the built environment is a lived space imbued with identities and memories that acts as an active contributor in the production and reproduction of socio-cultural relationships and identities (Hodder 1992; Dobres 2000; Dobres, Robb 2000; Robb 2010). I then introduce the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the built environment in Cypriot regional studies to evaluate the strengths and limitations of previous research and to identify possible directions for further development. This is followed by a schematic presentation of the chronological context of this study. I finally describe the multiscalar structure of this book, by briefly summarising the main arguments examined and discussed.

#### **1.1.1 The Theoretical Context**

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Architecture and Social Reproduction

The terms 'architecture' and 'built environment' are generally interchangeably used in archaeological research. However, the latter describes more precisely the inter-relationship between humans and the environment and refers to any physical alteration of the natural environment. Hence, built environment is employed as an abstract concept to define all products of human building activity (Lawrence, Low 1990, 454).

Because built environments are viewed at a variety of scales, ranging from single buildings to neighbourhoods and settlements, the theoretical and analytical approaches to the study of built environments encompass both the concept of 'households' and 'community' and include the analysis of individuals and societies.

The following section is not intended to be an exhaustive review of studies on 'architecture' but rather a brief examination of previous approaches to framing the theoretical basis of this study, which recognises the built environment as a primary means by which social transformations occurred in past societies (Fisher 2009a; Parker Pearson, Richards 1994; Smith 2003).

#### <IP_ADDRESS> The Social Lives of Buildings

Looking at built environments as lived spaces that play an active role in expressing and structuring social relationships, implies a divergence from the art historical approach, which tends to describe 'architecture' as an accumulation of materials, shape and design (Given 2004, 105) and to define buildings as static entities, characterised by stylistic features, construction techniques and functions (Fisher 2007, 3-4); 2023, 56‑79). The stylistic classification of buildings, which is applied in studies that retain a predominant art-historical focus, in some cases does not fully acknowledge the dynamic role of the built environment as a socially constructed and meaningful context of human action and experience.

As advocated by Rapoport (1980; 1990) and Preziosi (1983) the relationship between human actions and their built environment is essentially dynamic and reflexive. According to this view, the built environment encodes and communicates meanings through variations in building forms and constitutive elements of architecture; therefore, it plays a fundamental role in structuring and routinising human practices and behaviour (Rapoport 1990). Buildings are constructed with purpose, intention and consideration of histories and are much more than an adaptation to the environment (Rapoport 1969). The relationship between human actions and the built environment is also complex as the effects of the environment are not direct, passive nor readily predictable (Parker Pearson, Richards 1994, 2). Social theorists such as Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1984) introduced a fundamental conceptual approach, by recognising the dialectical relationship between social structure and human actions (see Robb 2010, 494-6). Giddens' structuration theory retained the linkage between routine action and social reproduction developed by Bourdieu but expanded the concept of *habitus* (Bourdieu 1977), which refers to the routine actions of daily life within which people create and are at the same time structured by institutions and beliefs beyond their direct control. Giddens highlighted that human beings are knowledgeable agents, who have particular perceptions of the condition and consequences of their actions. By introducing the concept of *locale*, which is defined as "the intersection of the social, spatial and physical" (1984, 118), Giddens emphasised the central role of architecture in social reproduction, and as the context of social actions and interactions. As a result of structuration theory, spatial structures are not merely identified as areas in which social life unfolds, but rather as media through which social relations are produced and reproduced (Gregory, Urry 1985, 3).

The increasing recognition of the active role of material culture in the production of social life has stressed the importance of buildings in affecting human action and interaction.1 Studies of Environmental Psychology further emphasised this concept, by demonstrating the importance of the affective relationships that people develop with places in which they live and have recognised the significant role of place attachment in identity formation and social reproduction (cf. Altman, Low 1992). According to this view, buildings have a social life that contributes and responds to the strategies and desires of individuals and communities (see Kearns 2011, 151). They are active creations that allow human possibilities for interaction, and that change over time as they are constructed, maintained and abandoned (Fisher 2007; 2009a). Like human actors, each building is characterised by a life history (Tringham 1995) or biography (Kopytoff 1986; Gosden, Marshall 1999), which is constituted in the meaning accumulated over the duration of building existence and in the memories held by its human occupants.

As stated by Fisher (2009a; 2014a), the recognition of built environments as active agents implies the distinction between 'space', as a static physical setting, and 'place', as a dynamic, socially constructed and meaningful context of human actions and experience. Built places are contexts for many fields of action, and, most impor-

1 Hodder 1982; 1992; 2012; Dobres 2000; Dobres, Robb 2000; Latour 2005; Robb 2010; Smith 2003.

tant, they are projects, which involve the engagement of individuals and communities and create an "exercise of social relatedness and endorsement" (Robb 2010, 509). Hence, built environments are lived spaces imbued with identities and memories that make them both products and facilitators of social life (Fisher 2014a).

Social approaches to the study of the built environment have stressed the fundamental role that small-scale everyday activities and routines have in social action and reproduction, as opposed to largescale processes (Hodder 2005b; Kuijt 2000). As a consequence, houses and households have become the primary context to examine the everyday practices, experiences, ideologies, symbolism and economic and environmental contexts, and to analyse the formation of socioeconomic relations and cultural identities at individual and community levels.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Households and Communities

There is broad recognition in archaeological studies of the complex relationships between what people do in the small space of their daily lives and the larger-scale dynamics of the social unit whether a family, household, neighbourhood or community (Matthews 2012, 560). As argued by Parker:

households are not passive and static entities. Instead, they are the loci of actions where personal identities and economic, social and ideological interests of family groups intersect with and shape the trajectory of the communities, conditioning community participation in broader social process. (2012, 291)

Therefore, the analysis of households provides evidence with which not only to examine daily practices and everyday life but also to study wider social trends and the interplay between individual and communal concerns in any society or community.

Lévi-Strauss (1983), by introducing the 'house society' model, stressed the importance of the house as a form of spatial organisation. House members are bound together through their daily work and activities that contribute to the sustenance of the house and its members. According to this view, daily activities constitute both social and economic relationships within and between houses or other groups in the community. As Chesson (2003, 82) claims, drawing on Joyce's arguments (2000, 190), "viewing social relations as constituted through cooperative actions recognizes contemporary anthropological concerns of agency and practice".

Within the social archaeology framework, households are identified not only as analytical units representative of some set of behaviours but also as the result of social relations and interaction between individuals and larger social forms (cf. Dobres, Robb 2000; Hendon 2004). According to this view, the study of household production and social relations consists not only in the examination of household functions, but also in the analysis of practices carried out by humans and material agents, which contribute to shaping and embodying social identities and roles. In this perspective, the material form of households needs to be studied as a dialectic relation between material production and social reproduction (Dobres 2000, 126). Often, when we talk about archaeological records, including structures and buildings, objects and artefacts, we exclude individuals from the discourse (Tringham 1991). To avoid such a generalised approach, it is important to distinguish between the household 'type', which is a static category related to household forms, and the household 'phase', a dynamic concept which consists of the different phases of construction, maintenance, destruction, rebuilding during the entire household lifetime (Goodman 1999, drawing on Fortes 1958).

In this regard, structural remains have to be seen as participating in and reflecting the lives of prehistoric people. Within buildings and settlement, in fact, there is a "maze of spatial conventions" (Carsten, Hugh-Jones 1995, 4) through which economic and social relationships and organisation are represented and re-negotiated during the lifecycle and history of the settlement and each inhabitant (Parker Pearson, Richards 1994; see also Matthews, French 2005). Architectural forms and spaces, including buildings design, size, placement, are powerful media through which social relationships are expressed and materialised (Hendon 2004, 276; De Marrais et al. 1996). Similarly, architectural materials, as well as floors, occupation surfaces, furniture and artefactual and bioarchaeological remains, create and embody socio-cultural and political settings, boundary and events within buildings and the life histories of the individuals, household and communities associated with them (Matthews 2005a; Matthews et al. 2013; La Motta, Schiffer 1999).

According to this view, the household provides an effective framework that permits us to analyse a wide range of social processes, such as the definition of social identities and memories through the daily repetition of practices (cf. Hodder 2005b; Kuijt 2000; Tringham 2000), the creation of engendered activities and relations (cf. Kent 1990a; Meskell 1998; Webb 2002; Bolger 2003), the construction of rituals and symbolism in the deposition of household material culture, including symbolic closure of buildings (cf. La Motta, Schiffer 1999, 23‑4; Stevanovic 1997; Cessford, Near 2005), the development of social complexity and socio-economic inequalities (cf. Chapman 2007; Knapp 1993). Therefore, the analysis of household contexts allows us to reconstruct complex social dynamics within buildings and settlements, by looking both at the self and at society at the same time (Souvatzi 2008, 39).

An additional consideration included in this volume is the manner in which individual and household actions are coordinated within communities over the long term, through the maintenance of common ways of creating and using settlement space. Households within a community must share a common ideology, which is shaped and created through patterned activities, including house building, maintenance practices and abandonment processes. For such patterns to be preserved over time the common knowledge of a community must be expressed in ways that serve to link household groups through consensual actions. In this way, acts are repeated not only within individual households but also in the social space between them (Hodder 1990; Goodman 1999, 151). Therefore communities, as well as households, are dynamic as their members are involved in diverse social relations that serve to structure and define the community identity, its economic base and its political organisation (Knapp, van Dommelen 2014, 395).

To analyse the social practices and relations within households and communities, it is essential to consider the interplay between micro- and macro-analytical levels (Birch 2013, 7-10; Düring 2006, 26-31). A multi-scalar approach would enhance and support the understanding and the resulting interpretation of the social aspects of the architectural units. The application of multi-scalar approaches, which are based on the integration of micro-scale analysis within buildings to study everyday practices and activities, meso-scale analysis of buildings' structural elements to study the meaning embedded in people movements and interactions within the built space, and macro-scale analysis of use and concept of buildings and settlement space to study social organisation and interconnections between the social agents, contributes to the production of more multi-proxy results with which to interpret and reconstruct the complex social dynamics of households and communities in any geographical and historical context (Matthews 2005a; 2005b; Boivin 2000).

#### <IP_ADDRESS> The Built Environment in Cypriot Studies

Before the 1990s, the architecture of buildings and settlements had rarely been explored in the analyses conducted by archaeologists working in Cyprus. Tombs and sanctuaries were the primary focus in archaeological examinations (cf. Lang, Poole 1878; Casson 1937; on this subject, see Fisher 2007, 35‑8). Under the influence of the culture-historical and art-historical approaches, the first attempts in the analysis of the built environment and architecture of ancient Cyprus were based on the classification and description of architectural forms, building structures and settlement layout. These studies were characterised by a strong focus on the stylistic, morphological, and functional properties of buildings with little consideration of the complex interplay between society and space. As these examinations of ancient Cypriot architecture principally focused on chronological consideration and technological aspects of constructions, resulting analyses were descriptive rather than explanatory (cf. Hult 1983; Negbi 1986; Cook 1991). Buildings were considered static entities, and transformations and changes in building forms and layout as well as in social structure and organisation were typically described as unilinear processes.2 In the first comprehensive survey of ancient Cypriot architecture by Dikaios (1961), the built environment was identified as the space in which socio-political actions occurred, and not as an active contributor and facilitator of social actions and relations. Under a similar perspective, Wright wrote the two volumes of *Ancient Building in Cyprus* (1992). By collecting a diverse range of data, including descriptions of building materials, construction techniques and architectural forms, the author presented an exhaustive account of ancient Cypriot architecture from the Aceramic Neolithic to the Roman Period. However, even in this case, the social significance of the transformations in materials, techniques and architectural forms identified and well-illustrated by the author was scarcely addressed. Early attempts to analyse the built environment in social terms have been conducted by Swiny in his paper "From Round House to Duplex" (1989). The architecture and spatial organisation of Early and Middle Bronze Age settlements in Cyprus were analysed in a preliminary attempt to examine and discuss transformations in the household organisation of prehistoric Cypriot Bronze Age societies.

As a result of post-processual critiques (see Knapp 1985), which emphasised the necessity to move beyond the limitation of functionalist-processual approaches, a growing emphasis in Cypriot archaeology is on social agency and on the role of the built environment as an active mediator of social relationships.3 More recent studies on Cypriot architecture and the built environment have shifted the attention from buildings and settlements as standardised socio-cultural entities to households as dynamic agents, which are viewed as the basic socio-economic unit of societies and *loci* of actions, where personal identities and economic, social and ideological interests are reproduced and negotiated.4 According to this research direction, households are not only functional units but also places of social relations, which are created through practices and interaction (Fisher 2014a, 400-2; see also Meskell 1998; Hendon 2004).

2 Cf. Jefferey 1918; Catling 1962; Astrom, Astrom 1972; few exceptions are represented by Stanley Price 1979 and Knapp 1986.

3 Cf. Peltenburg 1993; 1996; 2003; Webb, Frankel 1995; Bolger 2003; Knapp 2009.

4 Cf. Frankel, Webb 2006, 305‑20; 2012; Webb 1999; 2009; Fisher 2007; 2009a; 2014a; 2014b; Kearns 2011; Manning et al. 2014; Papaconstantinou 2010.

Moving beyond the description and classification of art-historical approaches or the functionalism that often characterised processualbased investigations, the study of ancient Cypriot architecture – over the last decade – has seen an infusion of new data thanks also to the interdisciplinary scientific analyses applied to the study of the past built environment. Analyses based on high-resolution geoarchaeological techniques and archaeometric methods have significantly supported the study of ancient Cypriot societies through examinations of building materials and techniques as indicators of social organisation and political-economic transformations.5 These analytical approaches have also supported the analysis of activities and the use of space within buildings and settlement areas as indicators of continuity and change in the use and perception of the built space.6

At a larger scale, the analyses conducted on settlements and regional contexts by Knapp (2003; cf. Knapp, Ashmore 1999) and Manning (cf. Manning, Crewe, Sewell 2006; Manning et al. 2014) have stressed the need of viewing built environments as part of the cultural landscape. According to this perspective, settlements are *loci* of social action, where identities, roles and statuses were negotiated and displayed. In their analysis of urban built environments, both Knapp and Manning identify urban structures and monumental architecture as active entities, which contribute to the structuration of social life and its reproduction (Knapp 1997; 2009; Manning 1998; Manning et al. 2014). Driven by analogous premises, Fisher (2007; 2009a; 2009b; 2011; 2014a; 2014b; 2023) analyses Late Cypriot urban architecture by applying an agent-centred approach. Fisher uses an integrative approach – based on access analysis and the examination of geometric, stylistic and symbolic characteristics of the built space – in order to examine how buildings structure movement and encounters, and, therefore, play a fundamental role in the organising and routinising of embodied practice through which the structural properties of the social system are produced, reproduced and transformed (Fisher 2014a, 400).

In the discussion concerning the built and social environment of ancient communities in Cyprus emerging and engaging topics are represented by the notion of 'community', which involves not just a specific space or settlement, but includes affiliations and relationships that engage the community in social negotiations within a broader framework of place (cf. Knapp 2003); the role of rural areas and non-elite population in the analysis and definition of the socio-economic and political dynamics of prehistoric and protohistor-

5 Cf. Thomas 2005a; 2010; Philokyprou 2012a; 2012b; Lorenzon, Iacovou 2019.

6 Cf. Mylona 2018; Mylona et al. 2017; 2021; Amadio 2018; Amadio et al. 2021; Dalton 2019; Gkouma et al. 2021; Klinkenberg 2021; Kulik 2021.

ic Cyprus (cf. Andreou 2018; 2019) as well as the role of gender and engendered practices in the Cypriot prehistoric built environment (cf. Smith 2002; Papaconstantinou 2002; Bolger 2003; Webb 2016). In these gender-centred researches, space is seen as a critical dimension of gender, and the built environment both shapes and is shaped by the society that produces it.

The brief overview presented in this section is indicative of the several approaches, which are being applied in studies of Cypriot ancient architecture, from contextual analysis at the household scale to the larger-scale analysis of settlement layout and regional contexts. Promising directions are emerging for the investigation of the ancient Cypriot built environment, which are bringing vital supporting data to the study of ancient communities and societies on the island.

#### **1.1.2 The Chronological Context**

The chronological span embraced by this research includes the period that goes from the Late Aceramic Neolithic, when the first evidence of more solid architectural structures appeared on the island (c. 7000 cal BC), until the very outset of the Late Bronze Age (Middle Cypriot III-Late Cypriot I, c. 1650 cal BC) **[tab. 1.1]**. The research does not include the architectural record pertaining to the first occupants of Cyprus, because of the more ephemeral nature of Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic structures on the island, which limits the possibility to explore the potential of buildings and built forms as indicators of socio-cultural identities and roles.

The chronological span included in this research represents a crucial period during which Cypriot communities were transformed from small egalitarian villages to larger and more complex urban centres. The Late Bronze Age period (Late Cypriot I-III, c. 1700-1050 cal BC) **[tab. 1.1]** – which marks the end of the prehistoric period and the advent of the Protohistoric Bronze Age on the island (ProBA; Knapp 2013) – has been excluded by this study as it represents a period of profound and complex social transformations, which would deserve a separate analysis and discussion.

Prehistoric Cypriot society (focus of the narrative presented in this volume) was formed of relatively small, village-based subsistence-level communities. Although no marked evidence of social differentiation appeared in the structure and organisation of these agro-pastoral villages over the course of the prehistoric period – with few exceptions, e.g. Middle Chalcolithic Kissonerga-*Mosphilia* (Peltenburg et al. 1998a, 233‑60) –, gradual socio-economic changes can be identified in households and communities' structure, in the material culture and in the systems of production and exchange. Relevant changes, especially from the Middle/Late Chalcolithic onwards, include the intensification of agricultural practices and metalworking – involving progressive exploitation of the island's rich copper resources – and the gradual specialisation of other productions, notably pottery and textile. This suggests organisational changes in society and political economy on the island thanks also to the increasing contacts and exchanges, in particular with the cultures of the Anatolian mainland, but also with the Levant and the Aegean (Knapp 2008, 350; 2013, 324). Archaeological data further attest to an increasing difference in wealth and prestige competition that becomes apparent in the mortuary record of newestablished extramural cemeteries at the beginning of the Philia period **[tab. 1.1]**. 7 Social and economic changes are also indicated by the emergence of a transformative built environment characterised by the introduction of free-standing structures and multicellular architecture. Traditional roundhouse construction was abandoned and replaced by settlement plans comprising networks of rectangular buildings. This different spatial and social organisation of households and settlements reflects the gradual appearance of more complex social and economic relations. It is in the making of this built and social environment that new identities were created and reproduced, gradually transforming the household-based society of prehistoric Cyprus.

The main socio-economic features and changes in Cyprus from the Late Aceramic Neolithic until the end of the Middle Bronze Age are briefly addressed in this section.8

#### Late Aceramic Neolithic (LAN)

This phase, also known as Khirokitia culture/phase, stands at the end of the Aceramic Neolithic sequence and extends over a period of c. 1600 years **[tab. 1.1]**. Of the c. 30 sites attributed to this phase, Khirokitia-*Vouni* and Cape Andreas-*Kastros* are the most extensively investigated. Most of the LAN sites are distributed in territories, which guaranteed primary subsistence supplies (see § 4.1.1). LAN sites are regarded as agricultural villages, based on farming, herding, fishing and hunting.

Settlements and architecture: LAN villages are characterised by curvilinear or circular dwellings made of stone and earth. Evidence from Khirokitia-*Vouni* suggests that several of these curvilinear units could have formed a nuclear-family compound around unroofed courtyards, where grinding and other daily activities were conducted (Le

7 Keswani 2004, 83; Knapp 2008, 350; Manning 1993, 45‑9; Peltenburg 1993, 20.

8 For a thorough discussion of the archaeology of prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, see Knapp 2013; for a detailed review of Middle Bronze Age Cyprus, see Webb, Knapp 2021.

Brun 2001, 115; 2002, 25). The presence of a substantial circuit wall at Khirokitia provides further evidence of changes in building technology and in the organisation of the settlement space (see Knapp 2013, 122-7).

Mortuary record: Burials occurred more frequently underneath the floor or occasionally out of doors. Typically, single inhumations in a contracted position were interred in shallow pits beneath the floors. Once the body was in place, the pit was filled with earth and covered with a layer of plaster, sometimes serving as a living floor (Le Brun 1994; 1997, 27-8).

Subsistence: The economy of LAN communities in Cyprus was based on domesticated sheep, goats and pigs. Cattle, which were present in the earlier prehistoric phases, had possibly died out during this period. Hunting deer continued to be practised and provided an important source of meat. Domesticated plants included wheat, hulled barley and pulses. Wild fruit and nuts were also part of the diet.

Material culture: Especially rich during this period, it includes – in addition to the repertoire of ground and chipped stone tools – ground stone vessels carved with elaborated geometric designs, several schematic anthropomorphic figurines carved in stone, picrolite, and fragments of painted plaster of the wall of some buildings at Khirokitia (Hadjisavvas 2007, 49).

#### Ceramic Neolithic (CN)

The emergence of pottery-producing cultures on the island and the extent of the Ceramic Neolithic in Cyprus (also known as 'Late Neolithic' or 'Sotira culture') present problems due to discontinuities in settlement patterns and occupation (see Knapp 2013, 158-62). Dates currently available suggest a duration of about 1000 years, from c. 5200/5000 to 4100/4000 cal BC.

Settlements and architecture: Buildings of Ceramic Neolithic settlements diverged from the circular plan of the dwellings constructed and occupied during the previous phase. The small Ceramic Neolithic villages were characterised by sub-rectangular, single-room structures. However, some of the Ceramic Neolithic settlements were constructed with different architectural characteristics. The structures of these settlements (e.g. Kalavassos-*Kokkinoyia*) consist of numerous pits and subterranean features (see Clarke 2007c).

Mortuary record: Limited, if compared to the richer evidence of the earlier Aceramic phase. Burials tended to occur in separate spaces outside buildings, in contrast with the practice of intramural burials.

Subsistence: Economic patterns based on the domestication of sheep, goats and pigs, the hunting of wild deer and the cultivation of cereals continued without consistent changes during the Ceramic Neolithic. Communities living along the coasts exploited marine resources also, as attested at Paralimni-*Nissia* (Flourentzos 2008). The abundant finds of mortars, pestles, pounders and grinders from Sotira-*Teppes* (Peltenburg 1978, 64), indicate that grain harvesting was a major occupation during this period.

Material culture: Similar types of stone and bone objects occurred commonly at various sites, including ground stone and chipped stone tools, stone bowls, and bone tools and ornaments. The initial pottery production ranges from a locally produced Coarse Ware to a dark and/or red burnished monochrome ware, to a ware with painted designs on a white background (Red on White) and to one with combed decoration (Combed ware). Pottery shapes and manufacturing techniques show close similarities in all excavated sites (Clarke 2007a, 100-1; Knapp 2013, 181). Figurines are rare and quite schematic, as the two phallic shape figures from Sotira-*Teppes* and Ayios Epiktitos-*Vrysi* (Knapp 2013, fig. 47; Peltenburg 1982, fig. 5.15).

#### Chalcolithic Period

The Chalcolithic period embraces a long-time span of the Cypriot prehistory from c. 4000/3900 to 2500/2400 cal BC. Throughout its long duration, the Chalcolithic communities on the island remained rural and self-sufficient. However, from the mid-4th millennium BC signs of social differentiation started to emerge, as demonstrated by data from the excavation conducted in the West of the island by the Lemba Archaeological Project (Peltenburg et al. 1985; 1991; 1998a; 1998b; 2003; 2019). The results coming from these analyses and the investigations conducted in other regions of the island (cf. Todd 1987; Todd, Croft 2004) have led to the division of the Chalcolithic into Early, Middle and Late phases (Bolger 2003, 219-20).

#### Early and Middle Chalcolithic

Settlements and architecture: During these phases, settlements in Cyprus expanded considerably. Site locations became much more diverse, especially in the south and southwest regions of the island, and most of the settlements were long-lived, e.g. Kissonerga-*Mosphilia* and *Mylouthkia*, Lemba-*Lakkous*, Erimi-*Pamboula*. The most significant change in architecture is the introduction of semi-subterranean structures during the Early Chalcolithic phase, as attested at Kissonerga-*Mylouthkia* in the West and at Kalavassos-*Ayious* in the South (cf. Knapp 2013, 199-204; Clarke 2007c, 124-6). Simultaneously, curvilinear/circular buildings with well-defined internal divisions of spaces diffused during this period and became the *loci* for new social practices (Peltenburg et al. 2003).

Mortuary record: Burial customs represent a continuation of earlier prehistoric traditions. However, the discovery of a cemetery separated from the settlement at Souskiou-*Laona* indicates profound changes within the social system of Chalcolithic communities (Peltenburg et al. 2019; 2006; see also Crewe et al. 2005).

Subsistence: Deer continued to be exploited and hunted during the Early Chalcolithic. However, in the Middle Chalcolithic phase, there is a rise in the consumption of pig at the expense of deer, and more generally a shift towards domesticated or herded livestock, which possibly reflects the increasing nutritional demand of an expanding population (Croft 1991, 71-3).

Material culture: Early phases of Chalcolithic represent a period of impressive developments in pottery production. The ceramic tradition involved the production of Red on White pottery executed in finer linear-based motifs. New forms were manufactured, including flasks with pointed bases and tubular spouted vessels. More important is the first recorded evidence of metalworking on the island (cf. Peltenburg et al. 2019, 231-2; Kassianidou, Charalambous 2019, 279-81). The extraction and crafting of picrolite increased during these early Chalcolithic phases. Anthropomorphic figurines and pendants were largely produced, especially in the Southwest of the island. Rich evidence comes from the site of Souskiou-*Laona*, indicating the 'specialised' character of this site, which was possibly a centre of production of picrolite objects (Peltenburg et al. 2019). The first evidence of whorls is attested in Middle Chalcolithic contexts (Muti 2020).

#### Late Chalcolithic

Settlements and architecture: This time is characterised by a general re-organisation of settlements. New buildings were constructed, still circular in plan, but smaller in size and with no or limited internal spatial division. At Kissonerga-*Mosphilia* evidence of social differentiation is attested in the so-called 'Pithos House' (Building 3), possibly an elite residence with bulk storage facilities (Peltenburg et al. 1998a, 252-4).

Mortuary record: Changes are evident in the mortuary practices of the Late Chalcolithic communities, including the appearance of chamber tombs, a decline in grave goods, and an increase in multiple interments and group burials (Knapp 2013, 258).

Subsistence: Agricultural production intensified, as attested by the large number of stone tools recovered within buildings – most of which were used in food production –, by evidence of pig-rearing and possibly by the appearance of centralised storage.

Material culture: Red on White pottery disappeared during this phase and a new standardised type of pottery was produced, the Red and Black Stroke-Burnished ware (Bolger 2007, 173), especially in the Southwest of the island. Elsewhere on the island, pottery types known as Red or Red and Black Lustrous were in use. Evidence of metal smelting is attested (on this point see Düring et al. 2021). The production of picrolite figurines declined.

Early Bronze Age (EBA)

Contacts between Cyprus and mainland Anatolia intensified at the end of the Chalcolithic period and influxes of foreign groups to the island during the second half of the third millennium BC appear to be attested in the archaeological record. Transformations in the economic practices – what has been termed the Secondary Product Revolution – are indicated by evidence attesting to the introduction of plough and traction animals. New technologies appeared during the beginning of Early Bronze Age Cyprus, including a new range of vessel shapes and increasing metallurgical developments. Substantial changes in architecture and buildings' spatial organisation characterised the settlements of this period. These technological innovations belong to a cultural phase defined as the 'Philia culture', which spans from c. 2400/2350 to 2250 cal BC (Webb, Frankel 2007, 193-204). The succeeding Early Bronze Age or Early Cypriot period (EC, 2250-1750/1700 cal BC) marks the beginning of what has been defined as the 'Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus' (Knapp 1994; 2013), a period of profound socio-economic transformations.

Settlements and architecture: Settlements expanded into areas which were less populated in the previous period. This is thanks to the new possibility given by the cattle plough of cultivating also marginal soils. The circular building module completely disappeared and it was replaced by a rectilinear multi-roomed architecture, with structures built of mudbricks on stone footings or walls made mostly of local stones, with semi-enclosed rectangular courtyards. The new architectural model is well represented by the buildings of Marki-*Alonia*, one of the most extensively investigated settlements of the Early Cypriot period (Frankel, Webb 1996; 2006a).

Mortuary record: Changes in mortuary practices include the appearance of large extramural cemeteries. Pit or rock-cut chamber tombs were the most common burial type. Burial goods were dominated by pottery – including small, finely decorated vessels –, shells or – less frequently – metal pendants, spindle whorls, and copperbased objects. Based on evidence recorded in many burial contexts of this period, it is possible to suggest that cemeteries became the focal point for competitive display, especially in settlements of the north region of Cyprus (Keswani 2005, 348-9).

Subsistence: Evidence indicates a decline in the exploitation of deer, a rise in the use of cattle, the introduction of screw-horned goats and a general change in the way animals were integrated into the island's ideology and economy (Knapp 2013, 263; Keswani 1994). In addition, a large number of querns, grinders and pounders within courtyards and buildings and an increase in household storage capacity point to an intensification of an agro-pastoral economy over the course of the Early Bronze Age Cyprus. The use of the plough in agriculture produced more extensive cultivation and possibly resulted in an increase in settled areas within the island.

Material culture: The archaeological record attests to a rich production of diverse material types, *in primis* the introduction of new pottery production, the Red Polished ware, the most characteristic ceramic style of the Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. A wide range of fabrics and many different types and shapes of vessels characterise this hand-made production. More particular shapes include bowls or jugs decorated with scenic compositions, zoomorphic vessels and elaborate composite vessels. Plank figurines of various types became the most common way of representing the human figure during Early Bronze Age Cyprus. Plank-shaped figurines are flat and rectangular, with a roughly human shape and a recognisable face, but often lack sexual characteristics (Campo 1994). The growing use of spindle whorls and loom weights (Crewe 1998) during this period indicates new types of textile production. Similarly, a variety of mould-cast copper tools, weapons and ornaments testify to increasing metallurgical production.

Middle Bronze Age (MBA)

Middle Bronze Age Cyprus or the Middle Cypriot (MC) period (c. 2100/2050-1690/1650 cal BC) has long been considered a period of 'stagnation' and 'isolation' from the more dynamic Eastern Mediterranean region. However, new ongoing excavations and a re-reading of legacy data are showing that a more transformative socio-cultural environment characterises the last phase of Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. As recently argued by Webb and Knapp (2021), during this period, Cyprus was far from being egalitarian and isolated.

The growth in foreign demand for Cypriot copper and its intensified production, together with the appearance of prestige goods within the political-economic and ritual spheres resulted in new social dynamics of interaction and communication. (Webb, Knapp 2021)

The social transformations that mark this phase, therefore, have to be seen as the antecedents of the profound socio-economic and political changes that characterise the Late Cypriot urban society.

Settlements and architecture: Middle Cypriot settlements still remain limited in number. There are no more than 11 sites, but only six of them have exposure of over 500 m2 (Webb, Knapp 2021). While the majority of these Middle Bronze Age settlements were agropastoral in nature, resembling in part the architecture of the Early Cypriot sites, some of them show evidence of innovation in their spatial organisation, which reflects a renovated economic and ideological social structure. New formal workspaces or 'workshops' were established at Ambelikou-*Aletri* (Webb, Frankel 2013b), Erimi-*Laonin tou Porakou* (Bombardieri 2017), Kissonerga-*Skalia* (Crewe 2013; 2017; Crewe, Hill 2012), and presumably Pyrgos (Belgiorno 2000; 2004). These spaces involved a certain degree of organised labour and technical knowledge and contributed to promoting and sustaining wider social networks (cf. Bombardieri 2013; Webb 2012, 49-58; Crewe 2017).

Mortuary record: Most settlements during this phase were associated with multiple burial grounds, suggesting that burial location was always linked with subgroup affiliation (see Webb 2018). Larger and richer tombs are attested at many sites, e.g. Politiko, Pyrgos, Erimi, Lapithos and Deaneia, which may be interpreted as evidence of social differentiation. At Lapithos – in the north region of Cyprus –, the elaboration of tombs and of mortuary assemblage suggests a significant increase in wealth. Furthermore, some of these tombs appear to have been used after the final burial as a private space for ritual activities (Webb 2019).

Subsistence: Communities of skilled producers (of copper, pottery, textile etc.) distinguished by planned use of resources, a skilled labour force, and production and distribution networks embedded in wider systems of demand and exchange, characterised the economy of the Middle Cypriot period. According to Webb and Knapp (2021), exploitation and distribution of localised resources appear to have been crucial to sustaining small communities alongside larger entities located in more agriculturally productive areas.

Material culture: Many types of productions are attested during the Middle Cypriot period. Red Polished ware remained widely used during this period along with the increasing production and circulation of the White Painted ware (especially in the northern region of the island; see Knapp 2013, 323).

**Table 1.1** Traditional and revised chronologies for Cypriot prehistory and protohistory

#### 1.2 The Volume in Context

Approaching prehistoric architecture necessarily implies considering different scales: the micro- and meso-scale of building construction practices and of building use and perception of spaces at the household level, and the macro-scale of settlement patterns and interaction at the wider-communal level. Giving attention to the different scales of the built environment contributes to a less static understanding of prehistoric architecture. A multi-scalar analytical approach provides, in fact, a more holistic framework, with which to examine patterns of architectural variability and constancy and to compare evidence from different spatial and temporal contexts. It is only by integrating insights from multiple spatial and temporal scales that it is possible to understand the relationship between long-term processes of social and cultural change and the lived experience of everyday life (Birch 2013, 8; Kuijt 2000; Trigger 1967).

By using this multi-scalar framework, this volume aims at examining the architecture of prehistoric Cyprus from the perspective that the built environment plays a direct and active role in the construction and reproduction of social relations and identities. The volume is articulated in three macro-sections. The role of architecture as media for expressing social reproduction and as the context of social actions and interaction is examined through increasing scales of analysis, from the microscopic analysis of buildings and households to the macro-analysis of settlements and communities. This structure is designed to examine arguments from smaller to larger research themes. The data are discussed presenting analogies and differences between architectural evidence from different prehistoric Cypriot contexts. Analyses and arguments presented in this volume are focused exclusively on settlements and building architecture. Funerary architectural evidence is excluded from the discourse presented because it would deserve a different discussion space.

In defining the way architectural materials and design encode meaning and express socio-cultural and economic relationships, the volume examines the following points.

In Chapter 2, building materials and techniques are analysed at the micro-scale. The evidence presented provides crucial data to discuss aspects of continuity and transformation in the inter-relationship human-environment; to analyse individual/communal choices in the selection, use and perception of natural materials; to examine aspects of labour organisation and technological development and related socio-cultural and economic practices (cf. Love 2013a; 2013b; Matthews et al. 2013).

The aim, in Chapter 3, is to conduct meso-scale examinations of architectural forms and installations within the built space of prehistoric settlements in Cyprus in order to analyse the formation of spatial conventions within households and communities of the island and to evaluate how these conventions may influence social actions and reproduction (Boivin 2000; Matthews 2005a; Souvatzi 2008).

Chapter 4 includes a macro-scale analysis of settlement layout and variation in the role and representation of settlement areas to examine the built environments of prehistoric Cyprus as spaces of action and interactions. The organisation of neighbourhoods, streets and open spaces is also taken into account in the larger-scale analysis of spatial conventions, in order to contribute to the identification of elements of transformation over the course of prehistoric Cyprus and therefore, to analyse related socio-cultural implications (Cutting 2003; Düring 2006; Fisher 2007; 2009a).

These discussion chapters are provided with supplementary boxes which have been included to give additional information to the reader about specific methodological and practical topics mentioned in the text.

The present book is not intended to be an exhaustive collection of data about the building tradition in prehistoric Cyprus, but a preliminary discussion structured in different themes, which can be used in support of future analysis and that can hopefully open further research directions in the study of ancient architecture in Cyprus.

**Building in Prehistoric Cyprus** Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities Marialucia Amadio

# 2 Shaping the Built Environment **Transformations in Building Materials and Techniques**

**Summary** 2.1 The Built Environment at the Micro-Scale. – 2.2 Environment, Ecology and Material Engagement. – 2.2.1 Climate, Environmental Changes and Building Tradition. – 2.2.2 Natural Environment and Procurement Strategies. – 2.3 Integrating Analysis of Socio-Economic and Technological Choices and Practices in Building Construction. – 2.3.1 Earthen Architecture Practices. – 2.3.2 Plaster Production and Pyrotechnology. – <IP_ADDRESS> Carving and Dressing Stone. – 2.4 Who Were the Actors? Labour Organisation, Gender and Social Agency

#### 2.1 The Built Environment at the Micro-Scale

The act of building implies the choice of transforming the natural environment into a constructed environment. This means that a series of actions and processes are deliberately undertaken by social agents to shape their own living space. It is clear, therefore, that this 'space' reflects ideas, ideologies and relationships of individuals and communities, and it represents the arena within which social, economic and political relations are played out. This act of shaping the built environment is crucial for understanding the relationship between human actors and the physical environment they operated in. The built environment is an integral portion of the culture, and it represents not only the physical context within which the social interactions are enacted, but is also an active agent which contributes to structure social life.

Watkins (2004; 2009) affirms that the built environment as a cultural construct emerged in Southwest Asia at the end of the Epipalaeolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic with the appearance of "villages with architecture". However, it is important to underline that the creation of a built environment does not imply necessarily an act of construction *sensu-stricto* – as a long-lasting project aimed at building permanent architectural forms (e.g. buildings, villages, necropolis etc.). Instead, it necessarily encompasses an act of transformation, which is aimed at modifying the physical environment to adapt it to human exigences. In this regard, open areas, cultivated fields or natural shelters can be classified as built environments (Lawrence, Low 1990).

The built environment – in all its forms – is highly informative of past societies that shaped and interacted within and with it. Therefore, shaping the built environment is an act of place-making, because the actions and interactions of individuals who built, organise and use that space contribute to making it a dynamic context of experience and memories (cf. Fisher 2009a; Ramussen 1962; Rapoport 1969; 1990).

To understand the processes that generated and created the built environment, we have to analyse and reconstruct its *chaîne opératoire*. The first step of this process includes those actions aimed at transforming the natural environment by interaction with the local physical environment, by selection and transformation of local resources and by use of specific expertise and application of certain technologies. In this chapter, this first step is examined by analysis of aspects of continuity and transformation in the use of building materials and techniques applied in the construction of prehistoric households and settlements in Cyprus, from the selection of raw materials to the construction of buildings as spaces of action and interaction. The aim is to discuss the way architecture configured social practices and enacted the formation, reproduction and transformation of identities, roles and statuses over the course of Cypriot prehistory in different regional contexts.

In Cyprus, the natural environment has always offered a vast range of materials and resources that have been exploited since early Prehistory. The construction of prehistoric building spaces on the island was presumably based on a well-defined set of technological principles which were most likely shared amongst the community and passed down from generation to generation, largely as technical knowledge (Clarke 2007c, 125). Despite close analogies in materials and techniques applied in houses and settlements construction can be noted in the architectural tradition of prehistoric Cyprus, transformations appear in the way prehistoric communities of the island organised and shaped their built environment through time. This is because changes in 'architecture' do not exist in a vacuum, but are inextricably linked to the dynamics of social interaction. In analysing aspects of continuity and change in the built environments of Cypriot prehistory, it is important to look at them as dynamic contexts and to examine transformations in the social environment, not as a unilinear process. Differences can be observed between sites, suggesting that communities in different parts of the island structured their social and economic practices in distinctive ways.

In this chapter, these aspects of continuity and transformation are analysed according to three lines of evidence, which have been organised into three discrete sections. In the first section, the role of the natural environment in the construction of the built space is analysed. The aim is to explore how natural environment and environmental changes have affected or constrained building practices and traditions. Raw materials procurement is examined, seeking to understand the local physical environment and how local and regional resources were selected and exploited. The second section is aimed at examining the paramount importance of technological processes in building construction in the analysis of the socio-cultural choices operated by individual and communal agents. Earthen materials and technologies, pyrotechnology of plaster materials, stone carving and dressing activities are taken into consideration as principal natural agents in the construction of the Cypriot prehistoric built environment. A final section is dedicated to the examination of gendered practices and strategies in technological and labour organisation, in order to analyse and discuss the role and involvement of men, women and other community members in the operation of buildings and settlements construction.

#### 2.2 Environment, Ecology and Material Engagement

In this section, the relationship between climatic and environmental settings and the use of specific building materials and technology is explored in order to analyse the role of the natural environment in the formation and reproduction of socio-cultural identities and the wider ecological and social implications of this in the practice of building construction.

#### **2.2.1 Climate, Environmental Changes and Building Tradition**

The actual environmental condition of Cyprus, characterised by a summer-dry Mediterranean-type climate (Pantelas 1996; Androu, Panagiotou 2004), only partially corresponds to conditions characterising the island during prehistory. Paleoclimatic proxies from the Eastern Mediterranean point to a clear interruption of the warm and humid Early Holocene climate at about 6500 BP, when a process of aridification increasingly affected the entire region. Despite a possible phase of moister climate around 5000 BP, a long-term trend towards drier conditions possibly prevailed and a severe drought has been recorded at about 3200 BP in the whole Eastern Mediterranean (Robinson et al. 2006; Roberts et al. 2011). This period corresponds to the end of the Bronze Age and many authors have related this climatic shift to the Late Bronze Age crisis (Clarke et al. 2016, with references; see also Scirè-Calabrisotto et al. 2017). Following this climatic framework, we may assume that the recorded fluctuations between dry and wetter periods have strongly impacted on environmental conditions in the island and related socio-cultural and economic practices, including building construction activities.

In his analysis on cultural responses to aridity in the Middle Holocene, Brooks (2006) notes that there is widespread evidence that increases in social complexity during this period coincided with climatic and environmental deterioration. Far from arguing in favour of environmental determinism, he adopts a coevolutionist approach and sees the natural environment as the context within which social change occurs, providing both opportunities and constraints on social, cultural, economic and technological innovation (30). In the last few years, paleoenvironmental studies conducted in the Mediterranean region1 have attributed to the Holocene natural environment a dynamic role, in contrast to the previously established view of a more stable and passive setting to cultural change.

The evidence available nowadays for Cyprus suggests that the entire archaeological record developed within a dynamic context of recurrent climatic and environmental change (Wasse 2007, 47-8; Hazell et al. 2022).

The more stable social and economic strategies between the 7th and the 5th millennium BC (Peltenburg 2004), changed at the end of the 5th millennium. According to Clarke (2007b) and Todd and Croft (2004), changes in climatic conditions might have been partially responsible for an interruption of the existing environmental condition, favouring social transformations and an increasing necessity of innovation and re-adaptation.

But how these climatic and environmental changes and related social dynamics have impacted on the prehistoric architecture of Cyprus? Is it possible to recognise any change of adaptation to new environmental conditions in the archaeological record of prehistoric Cyprus?

1 Cf. Bini et al. 2019; Burstyn et al. 2019; Dean et al. 2015; Kaniewski et al. 2018; Palmisano et al. 2019; Roberts et al. 2008.

A preliminary assumption is that changes in building materials and techniques are more gradual than in other evidence of material culture (cf. Clarke 2007c). This happens because knowledge of building construction becomes embedded in social practices, and it is perpetuated across generations in the long term with little variation (Gieryn 2002).

To examine the relationship between climate and the built environment in prehistoric Cyprus I apply a framework developed by Jennifer Moody (2009) for Aegean Bronze Age architecture, based on an earlier work by Baruch Givoni (1969) on architecture and climate. The framework is based on five variables: ventilation, insulation, shade, artificial heat, artificial cooling. Each of these variables may give indications to assess the climate suitability of ancient architecture. For example, the presence of multiple windows and doors can contribute to good ventilation within buildings (Givoni 1969), and it is a preferred building attribute in hot-humid environments, less in hot-arid ones where ventilation is undesirable as it brings hot air inside the structures; whitewashing exterior walls can reduce the absorption of thermal radiation by 85% and therefore it is desirable in buildings of hot and arid climates **[tab. 2.1]**.

A number of prehistoric Cypriot sites – from the Aceramic Neolithic until the Middle Bronze Age – are reviewed under this perspective by a collection of the building's main attributes, including the topographical position of the settlement, building form, building orientation and occurrence of doors and windows, wall thickness, building materials used etc. **[tab. 2.2: 'Attributes']**. Each of these attributes contributes to giving information on choices operated by prehistoric Cypriot communities when shaping their built environment by interacting with an existing natural environment. Therefore, any aspects of continuity or change in architectural materials and techniques applied in the contexts analysed can be indicative of possible changes in environmental and social settings.

**Table 2.1** Architectural variables taken into consideration in the analysis of the prehistoric Cypriot built environment and their related building attributes and benefits

Analytical limitations are given by the fact that archaeological data available from prehistoric Cyprus are not always homogeneous. Some important sites were excavated in the mid- and post-war years and, despite these analyses were excellent for that time, they lacked details and quality of data of modern and contemporary examinations. Furthermore, for sites of the north region of Cyprus, we rely almost exclusively on data from excavations conducted prior to 1974 (cf. Clarke 2007c, 113). The second issue consists in the fact that at most sites only the ground floor of buildings is preserved and most walls stand less than one meter high, making the reconstruction of windows and roofs problematic.

Table 2.2 reports the main data collected in this analysis. For each of the six archaeological periods analysed – Aceramic Neolithic, Ceramic Neolithic, Early Chalcolithic, Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age – two representative settlements have been selected **[tab. 2.2]**.

#### **Table 2.2** Building attributes analysed in the prehistoric Cypriot settlements examined, and evaluation of five variables

#### **Amadio 2• Shaping the Built Environment**

Data collected point to a consistency in building materials and techniques over the course of Cyprus prehistory with no abrupt change. On the basis of the five variables analysed, the solutions adopted for the construction of these prehistoric settlements are those typically used in construction techniques in Mediterranean hot-arid climate areas (Givoni 1969, 328-40).

In Cyprus, where hot days alternate with cool nights, a characteristic building form is one that takes advantage of the heat-retention qualities of heavy masonry (Philokyprou 2015). As we can see from table 2.2, the insulation rate in all the settlements analysed ranges from moderate to good **[tab. 2.2]**. Prehistoric buildings in Cyprus were constructed with thick walls of 0.40-0.50 m, with few rare exceptions as at Cape Andreas-*Kastros*, where wall footings are reported to be less than 0.40 cm in width (Le Brun 1985). The hypothesised thick flat roofs made of layers of reeds and mud (cf. Thomas 1995) further contributed to insulating the structures. Roof, in fact, is the building element that mostly receives the impact of the midday sun and therefore construction techniques were adopted in the past to permit the roof to have heat-retention characteristics similar to the walls (Lapithis 2018, 97-8). The application of layers of white plaster or whitewash in the interior and exterior wall surfaces of buildings in most of the settlements analysed **[tab. 2.2]**, and the frequent use of white calcareous stones for the construction of buildings wall bases – especially in those settlements located in the Circum-Troodos Sedimentary Succession region, where calcareous stones are abundant, such as the Neolithic Sotira-*Teppes* and the Early Bronze Age Sotira-*Khaminoudhia* and Middle Bronze Age Erimi-*Laonin tou Porakou* (henceforth Erimi-*LtP*) **[fig. 2.1]** – also contributed to maintaining internal spaces well insulated from the hot air of the day. A concomitant factor ensuring thermal comfort to buildings was the recurrent presence of shades, obtained by the construction of narrow passageways between structures and presumably roofed courtyards

Ventilation instead was not taken into great consideration. In fact, according to archaeological reconstructions, most of the prehistoric buildings in Cyprus were presumably constructed with one main door and small windows. However, it is important to underline that data concerning original building openings are only hypothesised.

While no direct evidence of artificial cooling solutions can be identified based on available data, the presence of indoor and sometimes outdoor fire installations in most of the contexts examined is indicative of the importance of a heating source for food processing but also for warming up.

Temperature fluctuations across the entire prehistoric period on the island might have favoured adaptations in the materials and techniques used in building construction. As indicated by data collected in table 2.2 and as also suggested by Thomas (1995, 178), it is possible that the increasing use of stone and the decreasing use of timber – especially from the Late Chalcolithic onwards – may reflect denudation of the landscape both for erosion by human use and climate change, and maybe restricted access to local resources (see also Peltenburg et al. 2003, 273) **[tab. 2.2]**.

Data analysed indicates that at the transition between the Ceramic Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic, there is a shift to timber-frame semi-subterranean structures, as shown by evidence from Early Chalcolithic Kalavassos-*Ayious* and Kissonerga-*Mylouthkia*. Similar postframe subterranean structures have been also identified at the Ceramic Neolithic Kalavassos-*Kokkinoyia* (Clarke 2004; 2007b; 2016) and Philia*-Drakos* (cf. Knapp 2013, 171, with references). This shift, which represents just a short parenthesis in the stone and mud building tradition of prehistoric architecture in Cyprus, has been interpreted by Peltenburg as a practical solution to the emergence of new settlements in heavily wooded environments (Peltenburg et al. 2003, 272-5). Clarke, instead, suggests that the shift to timber-frame subterranean structures was favoured by climatic deterioration (2007b). This may have led to deep changes in social practices, possibly introducing a change to a more mobile existence based on hunting and the concomitant transition to less complex building methods.

In this regard, it is interesting to mention a study by Zhai and Previtali (2010) on the environmental evaluation of vernacular architecture in different locations and climates around the world. The study reveals that fully or partially subterranean dwellings are more frequently observed in cold and hot climates, never in humid climates; the total absence of ventilation in subterranean structures would cause excessive dampness in humid-climate areas creating an uncomfortable and unhealthy building space. Among the advantage reported by Malaktou et al. (2016) in a study on thermal assessment of vernacular sub-terranean dwellings in Cyprus, this type of building requires minimum maintenance, and guarantees higher static performances during earthquake events and better thermal behaviour (a difference of 4.5 °C, according to Kharrufa 2008) compared to above-ground structures.

Looking at the Early Chalcolithic contexts, it is possible to argue that the shift to semi-subterranean structures may be possibly seen as a tentative adaptation to a more arid climate, as a consequence of the increasing drying after ~7000 cal. yr. BP (Palmisano et al. 2021; Clarke et al. 2016; Wasse 2007). The appearance of these subterranean structures in the architectural record of prehistoric Cyprus presumably responded to changes in social strategies and use of space; changes that were possibly driven also by different climatic and environmental patterns on the island (for a detailed discussion on this point see Knapp 2013, 192-4).

The second major change identified in the prehistoric archaeological record examined is represented by the passage to rectilinear and then rectangular architecture, which completely replaced the circular architectural module at the beginning of Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. This fundamental shift in building technology reflects crucial transformations in household and community structure during the Early and Middle Bronze Age periods, and possibly was favoured by more stable climatic and environmental conditions on the island, as reported by paleoclimatic proxies from the Eastern Mediterranean (Palmisano et al. 2021). Local communities became more adaptive to climate change thanks also to technological advancement, subsistence strategies and social organisation. The rectangular model therefore evolved 'naturally' from the climate conditions, the needs of the household and the social structure of the community (see also § 3.1.1). A representative element of this gradual transformation of the building form is the courtyard, which became a constitutive component of the 'house' in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus. The 'courtyard house', which Gjerstad (1926) first identified at Alambra in 1924, become progressively more common from the Philia period onward, as attested at Early Bronze Age Marki-*Alonia* and Middle Bronze Age Alambra-*Mouttes*, Erimi-*LtP*, Kalopsidha (Webb 2009). Courtyards have social but also ecological functions. They guarantee additional space for activities and interaction in the building structure and offer a sense of enclosure to the household members (Abass et al. 2016). In this perspective, the courtyard works as an extension of the house, and – as underlined by Webb (2009) – the different use and functions of courtyards during the occupation of Early Bronze Age Marki-*Alonia* reflects the transformation of household groups and their dynamic relationships during the entire settlement lifespan. In this discussion, it is important to underline that courtyards provide also climatic benefits. According to studies on the Mediterranean vernacular architecture, they are microclimate changers due to their ability to mitigate high temperatures, channel breeze and adjust the degree of humidity within buildings (Philokyprou, Limbouri-Kozakou 2012). Courtyard houses possibly responded also to the exigence of improving the thermal efficiency of the structures; a fundamental benefit that was not fully provided by circular buildings of the early prehistoric period (on the thermal efficiency of circular *vs.* rectangular structures, see Sok Ling et al. 2007; Raof 2017). The use of lime plaster materials also contributed to reducing humidity levels within buildings, and this would have guaranteed better preservation conditions for stored products within rectangular structures (Amadio 2018; see also Duru et al. 2021). This would have had implications for building longevity.

#### **2.2.2 Natural Environment and Procurement Strategies**

This section aims to analyse the relationship between the natural environment and the practice of selection and procurement of building materials; in particular, the intention is to discuss and understand if the natural environment dictated the choice of building materials or if culture had an impact on selection processes. Analyses of prehistoric architecture sustain the existence of a direct relationship between the availability of natural resources and the choice and use of specific building materials (cf. Braidwood, Braidwood 1982; Duru 2002; Woldring 2002). However, more recent studies on prehistoric earthen architecture (Love 2013a) have demonstrated how, in some cases, informed choices prevailed over pragmatic explanations for the selection of building materials. By analysing a group of prehistoric Anatolian contexts, Love suggests that materials employed in construction are not only indicative of what resources were available in the local natural environment, but also illustrate how culture has a significant impact on the choice of materials.

In studies of prehistoric Cypriot architecture, the common assumption is that the types of materials and technologies used in building construction are a direct result of the local environment.2 This is certainly correct, since the selection and use of materials for

2 Cf. Wright 1992; Coleman et al. 1996, 23‑4; Mantzourani 2003; Swiny, Rapp, Herscher 2003, 59; Frankel, Webb 2006a, 7.

buildings construction, both in antiquity and in vernacular traditional architecture, mostly respond to functional and practical drives (Oliver 2006, 129-40). Nevertheless, archaeological examples illustrate that the choice of building materials is not only environmentally determined by resource availability. In some cases, accessible materials were just one of the factors which determined the set of possibilities available to the builders.

The selection and procurement of materials for building construction in Cyprus was favoured, since the early prehistory, by a geological diversity and variable geomorphology, both of which created a unique landscape and natural environments. The Troodos Mountain Range is the main geomorphological feature of the island **[fig. 2.1]**. This area forms the central bedrock unit of Cyprus – the Troodos zone –, which consists of a stratified ophiolite complex, characterised by a sequence of plutonic rocks (i.e. basalt, gabbro and dolerite), overlaid by a sheeted dike complex and pillow lavas topped with iron and manganese-rich sediments (Zomeni 2012a). Available raw materials used in construction practices from the prehistory until the present days include a range of volcanic and metamorphic rocks, notably harzburgite, diabase and gabbro (Philokyprou 2015, fig. 2), and deposits of bentonitic clays (sodium montmorillonite; cf. Atalar, Kilic 2006), along with several pigments applied as ancillary decorative materials in building surfaces, including umber, ochre and terra verte (Cullis 1924). Around the Kyrenia mountains outcrops – in the Northeast of the island –, the so-called 'Pantadaktylos Zone' consists of gravel, conglomerates, marl, and mostly abyssal turbidites with shallow environmental chalk, marl, limestone, and gypsum finishing. In this area, dolomitic limestone and gypsiferous bentonite have been the most exploited materials in construction activities. The Mesaoria Group is located between the Kyrenia and Troodos ranges and consists of rocks of the deep and shallow marine environment of marl, sandy marl, conglomerates of gypsum and fluvial deposits. Swelling clays of the Mesaoria Group also occur as a result of the alteration of the Troodos ophiolite. Holocene alluviums, which are widespread in the Mesaoria plain, and at the east and west coasts as well as at the stream beds all over the island, contain gravel, sand, and silt – which have been largely used as aggregates materials in the manufacture of different products, including mudbricks – as well as alluvial montmorillonite clays. In the Southwest part of the island, the Mammonia terrane represents a complex of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Limestone, mudstone, quartzitic sandstone, together with rich clay melanges have always represented important sources of raw materials. In the South of Cyprus, sedimentary rocks, ranging in age from Upper Cretaceous to Miocene, are extensively exposed in an area extending between the south of the Troodos ophiolite and the south coast from Larnaka in the east to Paphos in the west. This

**Figure 2.1** Geological map of Cyprus with the sites analysed and mentioned in the text

zone is composed of mostly chalks, marl and gypsum and montmorillonite clays. These carbonates have been source rocks for building materials on the island since Early Prehistory (Zomeni 2012b).

As illustrated in figure 2.2, almost all the prehistoric Cypriot settlements were constructed exploiting the natural bedrock, both by using it as a stable foundation for the upper-standing structures or by using its derived materials – field stones and stone blocks – to construct wall footings and walls **[fig. 2.2]**. Few exceptions are represented by the Neolithic sites of Khirokitia-*Vouni* (henceforth Khirokitia), where structures could also be entirely of mudbricks, by rare examples of mud architecture with post-infrastructure as at House 24 in Sotira-*Teppes*, and by the timber-framed semi-subterranean structures of the Early Chalcolithic sites of Kalavassos-*Ayious* and Kissonerga-*Mylouthkia*. Locally available stone materials were preferred for building construction – e.g. diabase and other igneous and metamorphic rocks were chosen in settlements at the foothills of the Troodos, calcarenites and limestones were adopted in settlements of the Circum Troodos Sedimentary Succession region – in order to limit the effort and labour necessary to transport heavy stone materials from a distant location. However, according to Peltenburg (1998, 244), the footings of the buildings of the Ceremonial Area at Chalcolithic Kissonerga-*Mosphilia* (Buildings 2, 4, 100, 206) were built with imported calcarenites, and not with local fieldstone. Possibly, Buildings 1, 2, 3 at Late Chalcolithic Chlorakas-*Palloures* were constructed with imported calcarenites as well (Schubert 2018, 77-8). Similarly, at the Early/Middle Cypriot site of Marki-*Alonia*, large cal-

#### **Amadio 2• Shaping the Built Environment**

**Figure 2.2** Building materials and techniques in analysed prehistoric contexts

carenite blocks were used for footing, mostly in the later stage of construction at the site. These blocks were brought from a considerable distance. According to Xenophontos, they derive from the Athalassa formation exposed some 10 km north and northeast of Marki (Xenophontos 1996, 18; Frankel, Webb 2006a, 7).

Considering that this coarse-grained yellowish stone is not of particularly high quality and does not weather well (Frankel, Webb 1996, 56), and assuming that other stone materials were easily available in the surrounding landscape at these sites, the preference in the selection of this material for footing construction must have been based on cultural factors rather than on functional choices.

The primacy of material choices and agency over resource availability is further attested at Sotira. Both the Neolithic settlement (*Teppes*) and the Early Bronze Age site (*Kaminoudhia*) are located close to water springs. Calcareous colluvial soils are also plentifully available in the settlements' area. However, unlike the majority of the prehistoric settlements in Cyprus, mudbricks and mud walls are scarcely attested. The limited occurrence of earthen materials in these contexts has to be primarily related to erosion and preservation issues – which generally affect semi-arid areas in the Mediterranean region (Friesem et al. 2011) –; however, comparing the architecture of Sotira-*Teppes* and *Kaminoudhia* with those of other prehistoric Cypriot contexts, appear evident that, in these two settlements, building with stone prevailed over building with earth. Selection dictated by socially constructed choices is also indicated by the fact that coeval settlements located in the same region with similar resources available, may adopt different materials and techniques in building construction. Neolithic Sotira-*Teppes* and Kandou-*Koufouvounos*, are less than 8 km distant from each other and are characterised by similar morphological and geological formations, dominated by chalk and marl **[fig. 2.1]**. Despite the similarities in natural resources, the two sites were constructed using different materials and techniques. At *Teppes*, most walls were founded directly on bedrock or on sterile eroded material overlying the latter. Calcareous fieldstones were the principally attested material in wall construction (Dikaios 1961, 155-6). At *Koufouvounos*, instead, earthen materials and mudbricks appear to have been more largely employed (Mantzourani 2000; 2003; 2009, 221-3).

Also interesting is the permanence, within circumscribed regional contexts, of specific building techniques adopted over a long-time span, suggesting that technical knowledge was possibly circulating between community groups over the course of generations, possibly fostered by marriages and trade contacts. This was identified in the Kouris Valley area, where settlements adopted the techniques of building walls by carving the calcareous bedrock floor in order to obtain semi-sunken buildings with stable foundations. This foundation type is scarcely attested in other contexts with similar geomorphological characteristics, except for a few buildings at Chalcolithic Souskiou-*Laona* ('dished hollow' foundation type; cf. Peltenburg et al. 2019, 76-8). The described technique has been observed at Chalcolithic Erimi-*Pamboula* (Diakaios 1961; Bolger 1988), at Middle Bronze Age Erimi-*LtP* and at the Late Bronze Age *Pamboula*. Here Weinberg (1983, 54) reported that structures were constructed almost entirely into the bedrock floor "leaving a base where the wall foundation was laid" (pl. 12 a). The choice of building structures by carving the bedrock to create semi-sunken floors to provide an integral wall base for wall superstructure might be interpreted in practical and ideological terms. From a functional point of view, the technique of construction using the limestone bedrock as foundation provided greater stability to the structures and improved insulation against hot summer temperatures, water ingress and dampness and humidity during rainy winters, increasing life-quality conditions (Thomas 2005b, 187). From an ideological perspective, the practice of constructing on the calcareous bedrock is likely to have contributed to creating a sense of immutability, which possibly fostered the formation of community identity and memory (Knapp 2009). In addition, as stone embodies permanence, the community likely used this to communicate social order and to negotiate power (Fisher 2009b, 192-3; Bukach 2003, 21). The recurrence of this practice might suggest that – within regional contexts – communities developed knowledge across generations about landscape advantages and limitations, and selected materials and techniques according to the perception of the natural environment, cultural choices, and social restraints (Arnold et al. 1991, 88; Neupert 2000). Available building materials were considered as a set of resources, not as a set of limitations (Johnson 2010).

#### 2.3 Integrating Analysis of Socio-Economic and Technological Choices and Practices in Building Construction

Understanding the technology of building construction is fundamental to the analysis of the socio-cultural choices operated by individual and communal agents and therefore to reconstructing the socio-cultural context in which these agents acted and influenced (Sillar, Tite 2000). The recognition of the active role of material culture in the construction and reproduction of social relations and cultural values has the potential to enhance the analysis of past societies, through the examination of material choices, labour investment, craft specialisation and level of technical knowledge (Bourdieu 1977; Hodder 1986; Lemonnier 1992; van der Leeuw 1993). Analysing the choices involved in architectural material manufacture enhances the knowledge of the social processes involved in house construction. Even in environments where there are limited choices and resources, materials will gain significance from the specific circumstances of their selection, manufacture and placement. Building materials express and materialise social relationships (De Marrais, Castillo, Earle 1996; Hendon 2004, 276; Matthews 2012, 183-5), therefore their analysis and the resulting examination of practices related to their selection, procurement and processing may offer interesting insights into the interrelation of past societies with their natural environment, and may contribute to shed new light into the socio-cultural developments behind the complex organisation of architectural practices.

#### **2.3.1 Earthen Architecture Practices**

Earthen architecture is one of the most impressive expressions of the human ability to create a unique built environment from modest natural resources. Because earthen building forms and materials are the results of assimilation between the natural and built environment, their analysis may shed light on community strategies of adaptation to natural resources and their transformation into material culture. In prehistoric Cyprus both the favourable climatic condition – characterised by mild winters and hot summers – and the abundance of natural resources, including water, wood and suitable soil sources, certainly supported the development of an earthen architecture tradition. However, the identification of earthen products in archaeological contexts of prehistoric Cyprus may be challenging. Earthen architectural products are sun-dried, therefore when a building is abandoned, they progressively degrade and dissolve in earthen debris. Only in some exceptional instances, when fire destruction occurs, substantial remains or earthen walls are preserved (Friesem et al. 2011; 2014; Lorenzon 2021). Due to their limited preservation, earthen materials are often dismissed from systematic studies on Cypriot architecture and are barely mentioned in excavation reports and publications. Even though they rarely receive as much attention as other material assemblages, such as ceramic or lithics, there is growing recognition in geoarchaeological studies on the island of the importance of earthen materials in the analysis and reconstruction of archaeological contexts.3

In prehistoric Cypriot architecture, destruction layers generally comprise different types of evidence illustrating the various uses to which earth was put in construction techniques **[box 2.1]**. These include intact, fragmented or degraded mudbricks; fragments of roofing materials and samples preserving the impression of wooden elements – possibly related to roofing structures, door or window infrastructures, and shelves – and mud coating. Given the limited data available, the discussion in this section will be mostly based on mudbrick materials, since these are the most easily identified and recorded materials in prehistoric contexts of the island.

In Cypriot prehistoric architecture mud or mudbrick walls are generally laid on top of a stone footing made of rubble or blocks of local stones **[fig. 2.2]**. This technique prevents erosion and protects mud of mudbricks superstructure from potential floods. Wall erosion is also prevented by the coating of the wall with mud plaster and by its regular maintenance (Aurenche 2003; Wright 2005; Devolder, Lorenzon 2019). Rarely the stone socle is absent; in this case, the earthen wall is set directly on a low foundation course as attested at Late Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia (Le Brun 1984, 20-3).

The first point of discussion pertains to the appearance of mudbrick technology in Cyprus. One common assumption is that mudbrick production progressively emerged in the passage from circular to rectangular architecture, which in Cyprus occurred at the beginning of the Philia phase. In examining the architecture of prehistoric Cyprus, Wright (1992) argues that the transition from circular to rectangular structures afforded a change in building materials. However, recent studies on near eastern and Anatolian architecture indicate that the shift from circular structures to rectangular does not directly correlate with the adoption of mudbrick technology (Aurenche 1993; Love 2013a). As argued by Rapoport (1969), construction and materials have relatively little effect on the ultimate form

3 Cf. Thomas 2005b; Mylona et al. 2017; Philokyprou 2016; Lorenzon, Iacovou 2019; Amadio, forthcoming.

of a building. In Cyprus, this is well demonstrated by the early production and use of mudbricks – despite being hand-made – in the Early Aceramic Neolithic circular structures at Kalavassos-*Tenta* (Todd 1987) and Akanthou-*Arkosykos* (Sevketoglu, Hanson 2015), and successively in the Late Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia (Le Brun 1984, 23) and Cape Andreas-*Kastros* (Le Brun 1981; 1985).

Hand-shaped mudbricks coexisted – well into the Chalcolithic period – with mud wall construction; a technique consisting in the super-imposition of successive layers of mud fashioned directly in position on the wall (also known as 'cob', see Wright 2005; this technique is frequently confused with *pisè*, see Thomas 2005a, 22) **[box 2.1]**. 4 According to the analysis conducted by excavators, these early mudbrick prototypes were characterised by an irregular loaf shape and inconsistent proportions (Le Brun 1984, 31; 1981, 81) **[tab. 2.3]**. Local calcareous sediments were used in their manufacture; calcium carbonate represents the principal component in these early bricks (Le Miere 1984). The addition of vegetal matter is also attested in all the mudbricks recorded in these Neolithic contexts (Le Brun 1984, 31; 1981, 81), possibly to compensate for the low malleability of these high calcareous sources and to prevent shrinkage during drying (cf. Amadio 2018). It is important to stress that vegetal tempers are key components in the *chaîne opératoire* of mudbrick manufacture. They play a structurally important role with regard to material performance and preservation (Lorenzon 2021). Vegetal inclusions – straw especially – help to conduct water out of the brick matrix and to distribute stress over the whole material (Devolder 2009).

Mud wall constructions occurred throughout the entire Chalcolithic period in Cyprus. The choice of building with mud instead of mudbricks, however, should not be seen as an involution but as a choice dictated by cultural and functional reasons. As argued by Thomas (2005a, 186-7), mud-built walls were not simple achievements. They required high expertise and skills, as demonstrated by the well-built structures of Kissonerga-*Mosphilia* (e.g. B3 or B206; Peltenburg 1998) or by the mudwall houses of Area 1 at Lemba and roundhouses of Souskiou-*Laona* (Peltenburg 2019, 76-80). The shift to a built-stone foundation and mudwall during the passage to the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, may also be seen as a form of improvement in which greater care and skills are being expressed and demonstrated (Thomas 2005a, 187).

Mudbrick technology was more widely adopted at the beginning of the Philia period and mostly during the Prehistoric Bronze Age. The diffusion of mould-shaped prototypes is attested at many Early and Middle Bronze Age sites, including Marki-*Alonia* (Frankel, Webb 2006a, 7; 1996, 55-6), Alambra-*Mouttes* (Coleman 1985, 132;

4 See also Thomas 1995, 23‑5 and Philokyprou 2016.

Coleman et al. 1996, 24-5), Politiko-*Troullia* (Fall et al. 2008), Erimi-*LtP* (Bombardieri 2017, 11; Amadio 2017, 265; Amadio, forthcoming), Ambelikou-*Aletri* (Webb, Frankel 2013b, 184‑5, fig. 8.15) and possibly Kissonerga-*Skalia* (Crewe 2013; 2014) and Sotira-*Kaminoudhia* (Swiny, Rapp, Herscher 2003, 59). Where intact mudbricks were recovered, the consistency in size and shape suggested that wooden forms were used for their manufacture (Frankel, Webb 2006a, 8; Bombardieri 2017, 11) **[tab. 2.3]**.

At Erimi-*LtP*, I conducted a more in-depth study of mudbricks recovered at the site in order to collect data about the manufacturing processes applied for the production of these building materials. Philokyprou (2016) reports two methods in the manufacture of mould-shaped mudbricks, which were used both in ancient and traditional architecture. The first involved placing the mould on the ground, which was then filled with clay, smoothing the upper surface, and leaving the mixture to dry; the second involved placing an amount of wet mixture by hand on the ground, before pressing a rectangular mould on top of it to remove the extra material. Intact mudbricks examined at Erimi-*LtP* show a typical section characterised by a pinched edge in the upper surface and a rounded profile in the basal edge **[fig. 2.3]**. This specific morphology may be indicative of the practice of patting mud into the mould and not completely filling the right-angle corners at the bottom (cf. Nordarou et al. 2008), hence suggesting that the first method described by Philokyprou was used. The length, height and width of intact mudbricks analysed are consistent. Macroscopic observations indicate that they measure 40 × 14 × 12 cm, with minor variations of 1-2 cm **[tab. 2.3]**. Considering that the width of the limestone wall bases in the buildings analysed at Erimi-*LtP* is approximately 50 cm, it is possible that mudbricks were laid with their long axis transverse to the wall in order to make a thick structure with a single set of bricks (Nodarou et al. 2008). Furthermore, examinations of intact portions of collapsed limit walls indicate that mudbricks were laid according to the running bond technique (Lorenzon, Iacovou 2019; Wright 2005, 104). In a single case, the English bond technique was noted in a small partition wall of Area A (Building-Unit SA IV-Area A) **[fig. 2.4]**.

So far, fired bricks are attested at Early Bronze Age Marki-*Alonia*, presumably pertaining to a building of Phase C, corresponding to the Early Cypriot I-II or Philia occupation phase (Frankel, Webb 2006a, 8), and Middle Bronze Age Ambelikou-*Aletri* (Webb, Frankel 2013, 185). They are characterised by smaller sizes than sun-dried prototypes **[tab. 2.3]**. The lack of pyrotechnological prototypes at other Prehistoric Bronze Age Cypriot contexts should not be connected to the lack of technological skills, as developments in technology are not necessarily of unilinear evolution (Matthews et al. 2013, 125‑8), but may be affected by many variables including social, environmental and technological choices (Arnold 2000, 361-5). This lack may be explained by the fact that there was no need for baked mudbricks as sun-dried materials were resistant enough (Rosenberg et al. 2020). The choice of producing sun-dried mudbricks had advantages, including saving energy required for fuel collection and the burning, but also disadvantages, *in primis* the necessity of regular maintenance practices including frequent re-plastering of walls external surfaces to prevent decay (Keefe 2005).

**Figure 2.3** Example of intact mudbrick recovered at Middle Bronze Age Erimi- LtP from the destruction sequence of building-unit SA XII- Workshop Complex. Note the pinched edge and the rounded profile visible in the section (Photograph by the Author)

**Figure 2.4** Mudbrick masonries identified at Erimi-LtP

**Table 2.3** Mudbricks technologies and measures at prehistoric Cypriot settlements

Data available for prehistoric earthen architecture in Cyprus indicate that raw materials used for mud walls and mudbricks manufacture were preferentially selected locally (Thomas 2005a, 186-7). Micromorphological analysis conducted on mudbrick samples from Erimi-*LtP* suggests that sediments and tempers were selected by builders on the basis of expertise and perception of practical and functional choices (cf. Amadio 2017, 225-6; Amadio, forthcoming; for general references, see Arnold 2000, 341-57; Sillar, Tite 2000). For instance, red-brown calcareous soil – formed by the slow weathering of limestone with enrichment of Fe2O3 – was selected for mudbricks production as naturally rich in carbonate rock inclusions, which contribute to preventing cracks and rapid degradation (Hoard et al. 1995). This aspect demonstrates a profound knowledge of the local material properties and an engagement with the natural resources, validating the idea of the established human-environment interrelationship. The dataset examined at Erimi-*LtP* further revealed that mudbricks were manufactured according to different recipes (cf. Amadio 2017), and these different mudbrick types were recurrently used in many buildings of the Workshop Complex and of the domestic units. Considering this, one possible explanation would be that mudbrick production and construction was a communal task where recipes were shared by the whole community and possibly perpetuated by transmission (Rosenberg et al. 2020); alternatively, this may possibly indicate that different groups of builders prepared mudbricks according to their knowledge and experience, then these multiple batches were used for communal constructions (Lorenzon, Iacovou 2019).

The limited data available for prehistoric earthen architecture in Cyprus does not make it possible to assess the scale of production of these products. That prehistoric people were well acquainted with earthen building techniques seems clear – this is well demonstrated by the large production of earthen products and the expert use of earthen building techniques –, but it is not possible to infer whether or not they were specialists. Extensive use of mudbricks, especially during the Prehistoric Bronze Age period, must have contributed to the development amongst community groups of the practical knowledge necessary to produce structurally efficient mudbrick walls, skills that were possibly acquired through the observation and direct participation in building projects (Devolder, Lorenzon 2019; Palyvou 2005).

The production of earthen materials, mudbricks mostly, was very presumably a part-time occupation for these prehistoric communities; especially because the production could have been conducted only in certain periods of the year – mainly during hot and less-rainy summers (Norton 1986). However, it is further possible that – with the emergence of supra-household forms of labour organisation during Middle Bronze Age Cyprus (cf. Webb, Knapp 2021; Crewe 2017, 149) – this production could have become a full-time or semi-full-time occupation for a sector of the population. Data from Erimi-*LtP* demonstrate that – at least for the construction of the communal productive area of the settlement, the so-called 'Workshop Complex' (Bombardieri 2017) – the mudbrick manufacture was at supra-household level, possibly conducted by semi-specialised workers, as indicated by the circulation of recipes and the consistency in shape and size of mudbricks recovered and analysed at the site (Amadio 2017; Amadio, forthcoming).

#### **Box 2.1** The Earthen Architecture Tradition in Mediterranean Prehistory

Earth is the most accessible and versatile resource used in architecture. For its easy accessibility and the low energy consumption required for its extraction, earth has been chosen by ancient communities to create and shape their built environment since the first appearance of more permanent settlements (Berge 2009, 120). Depending on its natural characteristics, earth can be sourced, manipulated and transformed into a building material (Keefe 2005, 51-8; Norton 1987, 9-19). However, the diverse use of available natural resources is the result of human choices, based on practices and experiences. It is the synergic action of exogenous and endogenous factors, given by a combination of environmental settings and socio-economic conditions, which contributes to creating the basis of empirical knowledge and generates a variety of earthen products and earthen building techniques.

The favourable climatic conditions of the Mediterranean region have favoured the development of building techniques based on the manipulation of raw earth. On one hand, the hot summer sun helps the earth product to easily indurate; on the other hand, the mild winters limit the erosive process of heavy rains and winds, consequently reducing time-consuming maintenance activities and ensuring good preservation to earthen structures. The tradition of building with earth in the Mediterranean region has endured since the prehistoric period, and it is so deeply rooted in the Mediterranean culture that it has become part of the local identity (Pica 2017; Guillaud, Alva 2003).

Used mainly as a solid constructional element in the formation of building walls, earth can be manipulated and shaped according to different methods and technologies. This variety illustrates the many properties and potentialities that this material can offer. Before discussing the various methods and products of earth construction, it is useful to briefly mention the main practices operated by builders to give the necessary strength to this material.

a) Dry Earth Construction: The simplest way to give earth some coherence is by compacting and compressing it. This practice contributes to diminishing the volume of the material and increasing its density. Denser and more compact the earth is, stronger and more coherent the earthen product will be (Wright 2005, 86-7; Norton 1986, 24).

b) Mud Construction: Earth can be consolidated to a greater or less degree by using water. The practice of mixing earth with water brings the clay particles close together. While the water remains in the mixture, the aligned clay particles slide easily across one another conferring plasticity to the earthen product (Wright 2005, 86-7). When the earthen product is subjected to heat, the water evaporates, the aligned clay particles bond together and the material hardens. If the mixture is burnt at high temperature, the water is driven out and chemical reactions, including the melting of some elements, contribute to transforming the mixture into a strong solid product (for an in-depth explanation of transformations occurring on heated clay materials, see Weiner 2010, 92-7, 194-206).

#### **a. Dry Earth Construction**

#### *Pisè de terre/Rammed Earth*

The term *pisè* is frequently employed – erroneously – by archaeologists to indicate any kind of mud superstructure (Aurenche 2004, 138-9; Wright 2005, 87-8; Thomas 2005a, 19-21). However, the etymological sense of the French words is 'to tamp/ ram' (to compress) and this is the valid use of the term. The basic procedure of *pisè* includes the compaction of earth in a dry or very low humid state, between two pieces of wooden forms which are held firmly in position upon the wall being constructed (Gandreau et al. 2021, 6). Each time the space between the forms is filled up with earth and compacted, the formwork is dismantled and moved to the next section of the wall to be built **[fig. 2.1.1]**. Rammed earth walls are monolithic. The width of the wall may vary according to the intended height of the wall and the quality of the soil (Norton 1986, 35). However, generally, walls are between 0.40 and 0.50 m in thickness, as this seems an optimum width which is both thick enough to provide a large mass of earth for compaction to be achieved, but not so thick as to produce internal stress and collapse (Thomas 2005b, 21-5). This is a technique that certainly requires skills and equipment, more than mudbrick manufacture for example. In archaeological contexts, the identification of rammed earth constructions may be challenging. Prehistoric structures in rammed earth are better preserved in arid and semi-arid areas of the Mediterranean region (Friesem et al. 2011).

#### **b. Mud Construction**

The difference with the previous method consists in the addition of water to form the mud.

#### *Wattle and Daub*

This is one of the simplest and cheapest forms of wall construction. The structure of the wall is provided by a framework of vertical posts set into the ground. Branches or reeds are woven horizontally between the posts to form a lattice. Mud is applied to the framework on both the inside and the outside, at a sufficiently wet consistency for the mud to be applied between the branches **[fig. 2.1.1]**. Mud is applied in layers, and cracks which can occur in earlier layers during construction can be subsequently filled in. A range of different aggregates can be mixed to the soil to improve its binding properties; these may include vegetal fibres, straw, animal hair (Norton 1986, 25). Walls are usually thin, < 0.50 m. This technique has many advantages: little skills are required; relatively small amounts of earth are needed, making it a technique suitable also in contexts where suitable soil is not available on-site; framework can be obtained also with irregular pieces of wood; the framework provides resistance to the collapse in case of earthquakes. Wattle and daub walls, however, require constant maintenance. Unfortunately, evidence for the use of daub on most sites is very poor. In archaeological contexts, it is more frequent to find deposits of degraded clay materials in the abandonment layers of the structure. More fortunate situations are represented by contexts destroyed by fire: in this case, it is possible to retrieve heat-consolidated daub fragments which preserve the impression left by the wooden post **[fig. 2.1.2]**.

#### *Mudwall/Cob*

One of the lesser-known methods of wall construction. Present in many parts of the world, it is often confused with rammed earth constructions. The characteristic feature of a mud wall is that it is a monolithic construction fashioned directly in position on the wall. Earth, in a plastic state, is piled, shaped and compacted by hand without the use of any framework **[fig. 2.1.1]**. The materials from which mud wall is constructed vary considerably from region to region and through time. Clay is an important component in providing the cohesion and stability of the structure. Aggregates also play a fundamental role in ensuring strength to the final product. Despite the simplicity of this technique, its major disadvantage is represented by the fact that large quantities of earth and water are needed. If the wall is not preserved *in situ*, it is extremely difficult to identify it in archaeological contexts.

#### *Mudbricks/Adobe*

Mudbricks represent one of the most versatile ways of using earth for construction. Mudbricks have been used since early prehistory to build almost every type of domestic and public building. The earliest type of mudbricks was hand-modelled out of plastic earth in the proportion of 40-75% sand, 10-30% silt, 15-30% clay (Norton 1986; Keefe 2005). Mould shaped mudbricks are contemporary to the first type. In this case, mud is pushed or thrown into a mould; the mould is then removed and the brick is left to sun-dry **[fig. 2.1.1]**. The size of the mudbrick is chosen to suit the way brick material will be used in the wall. Mudbricks can be square or rectangular, according to local building tradition and practical and functional choices. An advantage of mudbricks is that they can be made directly at the source of raw materials and then moved to the building site; this is much more economical than moving loose earth and water. Another advantage includes the fact that a minimum of equipment is required to produce high-quality mudbricks. Finally, they allow great flexibility in the size and shape of the walls. The identification and excavation of mudbricks in archaeological contexts can be difficult, often requiring a good knowledge of local sediments and environmental conditions. This is even more problematic for early prehistoric architecture, in which sun-dried and irregularly shaped bricks were being used (Thomas 2005, 23-5).

**Figure 2.1.2** Fragments of clay applied on the roofing structures in Building SAIII-Workshop Complex at Middle Bronze Age Erimi. Impressions left by wooden posts are evident

Several research programmes and platforms have been set up in order to disseminate scientific data, research initiatives and information about earthen architecture, focused both on archaeological and vernacular structures. Here is a list of the main European associations and platforms:

#### **2.3.2 Plaster Production and Pyrotechnology**

The analysis of plaster making, including the selection and use of materials and the technology applied in plaster manufacture, has been shown to provide key evidence with which to examine the social processes involved in building construction and maintenance.5 The examination of plaster manufacture, likewise mudbricks production, represents a significant source of data to reconstruct individual and communal practices in prehistoric communities and to study processes of social, cultural and economic transformations.

When we refer to plaster, we indicate a prepared plastic product which is applied in the construction of horizontal (floors) and vertical (walls) surfaces, but also as coating of installations such as basins and channels. In Cypriot prehistory, a range of different products was used in plaster production, notably mud and/or dung, lime and gypsum. Mud plasters and lime/gypsum plasters existed side by side since early prehistory. They both served the same functions of protecting vulnerable building elements, providing durable floor surfaces and enabling more elaborate architectural detailing. However, the preparation of these products required different technologies. While mud plasters were easily produced by combination and mixing of clay-rich sediments, aggregates of organic (i.e. dung, chaff, straw) and inorganic origin (i.e. sand-size rocks, sand-seize quartz) and water, the production of plasters made of lime or gypsum involved more sophisticated technologies, based on different stages of preparation and pyrotechnological processes (Wright 2005, 143-50; Artioli 2010) **[box 2.2]**. The knowledge to produce these synthetic materials is one of the several important trajectories in the technological evolution of human history (Friesem et al. 2019). The conditions for producing lime and gypsum plasters differ radically, and each of these methods has advantages and limitations. Temperatures ranging from 800‑1000 °C are required to produce lime plaster. This implies a good supply of fuel and preferably some arrangements to conserve the heat generated. Gypsum, instead, can be burned at lower temperatures of 100‑200 °C. The produced plastic materials differ in their mode of setting: gypsum set very quickly, lime – instead – takes considerably longer to set and shrinks during the process. The final products are obviously different. Lime plaster is a hard and durable material, while gypsum plaster is less resistant and more subjected to degradation and dissolution in water (Wright 2005, 143-5; Thomas 2005a, 26-7).

As Thomas (2005a, 25-6) claimed, it is extremely important to understand the nature of plaster materials in order to examine their

5 Cf. Clarke 2012; Garfinkel 1987; Goshen et al. 2017; Karkanas, Efstratiou 2009; Miriello et al. 2011; Matthews et al. 2013; Philokyprou 2011.

socio-cultural significance. Achieving a complete characterisation of plaster products in archaeological contexts may be challenging, and without micro-analytical examinations it is difficult to recognise lime and gypsum plasters and distinguish them from mud plaster materials **[box 2.2]**. Given this difficulty, references to plaster or lime plaster in reports and descriptions of prehistoric Cypriot architecture are sometimes vague, because they are based only on generic observations conducted in the field with the naked eye. Furthermore, the attested use – both in ancient and traditional architecture (Thomas 2005b; Ionas 1988) – of plasters made of pulverised chalk or local *havara* mixed with water makes the identification even more complicated. In fact, the resulting plaster material shows the same morphological (colour and strength) and chemical composition as lime plasters (when referring to lime plasters. The definition 'lime plaster' is used in this volume to indicate a material produced by a pyrotechnological process. Only the combination of macroscopic and microscopic analyses can support a valid examination and characterisation of these materials **[box 2.2]**. For this reason, the present discussion will be mostly based on data deriving from more detailed analyses, which integrate macro-examinations and micro-analytical techniques.

#### **Box 2.2**

The Lime Cycle. Analytical Techniques to the Study of Ancient Plaster Materials

'Plaster' is a general term that refers to prepared plastic products which can be made of mud, dung, gypsum, lime or mixtures of these materials (Goshen et al. 2017). While mud and dung attain plasticity when wet without specific pre-treatment, gypsum and lime acquire plasticity following specific pyrotechnological processes that include heating, slaking, aging and application (Artioli 2010). The production of these pyrogenic products requires organisation strategies and investment of work for quarrying of raw materials, fuel supply and craft expertise, therefore – in archaeological contexts – plasters are considered key materials to study evolution in technology, production and labour organisation in early communities (cf. Clarke 2012; Thomas 2010; Matthews, French 2005). In Cypriot prehistoric architecture, mud, gypsum and lime plasters were extensively used since the Neolithic (Philokyprou 2012a), and were produced either for building purposes (for the construction of floors, for coating walls and installations) and for decoration. According to Philokyprou (2012b), lime is the preferred pyrotechnological product used in the production of plaster materials in Cyprus since early prehistory. This is possibly due to the fact that, despite the production of lime plaster requires more sophisticated procedures – including higher firing temperatures –, the end-product is much more resistant than gypsum plaster (Wright 2005; Artioli 2010).

**Figure 2.2.1** Lime cycle showing the processes of calcination, hydration and carbonation and the relative chemical reactions which occur during these three processes (re-adapted after Thomas 2010; Leslie, Hughes 2002)

From a technological point of view, lime plaster is the result of chemical reaction of heated calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) – generally limestone, marl or chalk – which is fired at high temperatures (700-900 °C) for a prolonged time, transformed into calcium oxide (CaO), and slaked with water forming a putty of calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH2 ]) in order to produce a material that, once dried under atmospheric condition, re-establishes the same morphological, chemical and mineralogical composition of the parent material (Thomas 2010, 117-18; Leslie, Hughes 2002; Philokyprou 2012a) **[fig. 2.2.1]**. However, while geogenic calcium carbonate of the parent material is characterised by atomic ordered calcite, the rapid formation of pyrogenic calcium carbonate results in a microcrystalline and highly atomic disordered calcite (Chu et al. 2008; Kingery, Vandiver, Prickett 1988; Poduska et al. 2011; Regev et al. 2010; Shoval, Yofe, Nathan 2003; Shoval, Yadin, Panczer 2011; Weiner 2010). Thus, the atomic order/disorder of calcite serves as an important indicator for the formation processes of the calcite and offers reliable data to study the pyrotechnology involved in the production of calcite-based plaster materials.