The Foundation of Enkomi: A New Analysis of the Stratigraphic Sequence and Regional Ceramic Connections

Lindy Crewe

Introduction

The beginning of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus sees a range of dramatic changes in the settlement patterns and material culture of the island. These include the move from small inland to larger nucleated coastal settlements; the construction of a series of inland and coastal fortifications (Fig. 1); an increase in social stratification attested in the mortuary record; the first evidence for literacy; and cyprus beginning to take an active role in the exchange networks of the eastern Mediterranean. central to interpretations of the early Late Cypriot (LC) is the coastal settlement of Enkomi, both for the wealth of finds recovered and, importantly, the greater extent of excavation compared to other sites of the period. Due to incomplete publication and limited excavation of the earliest occupation levels, debate has cen-

Tred on the date of foundation of the site (MCIII or Lci), the extent of control Enkomi may have exercised over external trade relations and the role of the settlement in the development of polities on cyprus. Lci Enkomi has been interpreted as either the first state-like entity on the island (Peltenburg 1996; Webb 1999) and identified with Alashiya (cf. MUHLY 1989; Knapp 1996) referred to in contemporary external textual sources, or as one of a series of independent regional polities (Keswani 1993, 1996; Man ning and De Mita 1997). Problematically, the majority of evidence for the Late Cypriot period - including that from Enkomi - derives from LCIIC (c. 1340-1200 BCE). Architectural remains underlying LCIIC occupation are poorly preserved and we have little understanding of the processes of change which culminated in what may be broadly called urban centres during LCIIC (Negbi 1986). The focus of this

Fig. 2 Plan of Enkomi showing main excavation areas (after COURTOIS et al. 1986: 3, fig. 1; Dikaios 1969-71:pls. 243, 267)

Paper is on the period from which the evidence for

Interregional contacts increases dramatically (MCIII, commencing c. 1750 BCE) to the period immediately prior to the urban phase (LCIIA-B).

Although it is widely recognised that LCIA ceramics display pronounced regionalism, manifested in the appearance of new wares and developments from the preceding MC traditions, this regionalism is held to disappear by LCIB, when Cyprus is understood to have developed an island-wide material culture (cf. Merrillees 1971; Manning 2001). Central to this thesis is the widespread belief that ceramic wares developed in the northwestern and central regions became common at eastern Cypriot sites, including Enkomi, by this phase. The wares that ceramically define the beginning of the LC period, or LC1A1 (PWS, PBR and also Proto-Monochrome), developing into the mature versions of WS I, BR I and Monochrome by LCIA2 are all central and northwestern innovations and this has led to considerable ambiguity and confusion in the application of relative chronological phases to eastern Cypriot assemblages (Merrillees 1971; Manning 2001). Certain eastern wares, such as Bichrome Wheelmade and some of the later White Painted Handmade varieties, were initially dated to MCIII on the basis of their lack of association with the LC marker wares (cf. Dikaios 1969-71). It is now agreed that Bichrome dates to LCIA (cf. papers in ASTROM 2001), and that

White Painted V (WP V), White Painted Pendant Line Style (WP PLS) and White Painted Cross Line Style (WP CLS) were manufactured in the east of Cyprus in both MCIII and LCI (AsTROM 1966; Mer rillees 2002). The eastern Cypriot ceramic developments are no less striking (for example the Painted Wheelmade wares) but the majority of innovations are attested in the Plain wares (Plain White and Red/Black Slip), which have received little attention in the literature to date. My research suggests that the degree of cultural homogeneity on Cyprus during LCIB has been overestimated, primarily due to an early archaeological focus on mortuary rather than settlement material. LCIB is best viewed as a time of increasing intra-island contacts, with the different areas largely retaining their regional traits until the greater uniformity of the LCII period. This will be addressed below in relation to the Base Ring (BR) and White Slip (WS) wares in the stratified deposits at Enkomi. These two wares have been considered of paramount importance to researchers investigating cross-cultural interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, and have formed the focus of recent conferences and publications in association with the SCIEM project (AstrOm 2001a; Karageorghis 2001).

The basis for this paper is research undertaken for my PhD dissertation (Crewe 2004), the aim of which was primarily to investigate the introduction of wheelmade pottery on Cyprus within the context of the broader social and technological changes occurring during the early LC. Although a full stylistic analysis of the entire ceramic repertoire was beyond the scope of my study, one of the goals of my research was to provide a full publication of the ceramics at the site as this has not been undertaken to date. Before addressing the ceramics, I wish to briefly comment on the deposits relating to the earliest occupation at Enkomi and the sequences of occupation at the site.

Enkomi - Dikaios’ excavation areas

My study is concerned with the component of the site excavated by the Cypriot Department of Antiquities from 1948-58, under the direction of Por-phyrios Dikaios (Dikaios 1969-71). Dikaios’ excavation was concentrated in two areas, Area I and Area III (see Fig. 2), and was part of a joint excavation with a French team under the directorship of Claude Schaeffer (Schaeffer 1936, 1952, 1971). The French Mission provided funding and dictated the extent of the excavation to be undertaken by Dikaios in order to facilitate their own research aims. Dikaios (1969-71:5) states that these limitations had the

Advantage of allowing him to excavate a small area of the site in greater detail but certain research goals - such as extending trenches to define the extent of buildings and solving certain stratigraphic problems - could not be pursued. The French Mission exposed earlier remains only in soundings and the excavation remains incompletely published and the material dispersed. It is thanks to the highly professional and extremely thorough excavation and recording undertaken by Dikaios, and the later care taken by the Cypriot Department of Antiquities to ensure preservation of the material, that this study has been possible. All the sherdage, including non-diagnostic pieces, has been retained in the Larnaca and Nicosia Museums and detailed information concerning provenance is recorded within the trays, enabling a detailed reanalysis of the stratified deposits, greatly illuminating the sequences of construction, occupation and abandonment at the site.

The two areas, Area III and Area I, are not linked stratigraphically and my discussion below follows Dikaios’ strategy in treating them as separate entities, dividing the description into phasing by the ‘Levels’ assigned in each Area (see Table 1). ‘Level’ is the term used by Dikaios to signify an occupation phase and is based upon his interpretation of the sequences of construction, occupation and abandonment/destruction identified during excavation. ‘Level’ is also a designation that applies site-wide, as Dikaios (1969-71: 500-509) considered the broader occupation phases of the two areas to be contemporaneous. During the Levels relevant to my analysis (Levels A-IIA), each Area contained what Dikaios defined as a single ‘building’, comprising a series of rooms and courtyards forming a coherent architectural unit, surrounded by unoccupied space into which contemporary chamber tombs were dug. In Area I, Levels A-IB are linked strati-graphically and the Level IIA building was located in a previously unoccupied area of the trench. In Area III, the Level A building is not stratigraphically linked to the Level IA-IIA building. Both Areas were completely built over by LCIIC-IIIA architecture, which extends beyond the limits of the trenches and is associated with the gridded town plan and fortification wall seen in Fig. 2.

The integrity of the Enkomi deposits

Fine-scale phasing of Dikaios’ Levels was delineated by ‘floors’, both within the defined architectural boundaries of rooms and also the external spaces that formed part of the activity areas of the site. Therefore, a Level may comprise one or more episodes of floor construction, rebuilding and subsequent deposition of layers of cultural material. During Level A to Level IIA, built floors were rare and the term ‘floor’ usually signifies a surface on which either occupation was evidenced (in the form of built structures such as hearths or negative features such as postholes) or a levelling and compacting of the underlying deposit (not necessarily exhibiting evidence of occupation). On occasion a built floor was present (usually a layer of crushed limestone or mud plaster of up to 10cm thick) and these were isolated and excavated as discrete units, where recognised (although this often seems only to have occurred during later removal of baulks). Given the excavation technique of removing floor deposits as part of the underlying fill, it is important to remain aware that any analysis should be considered only to be of broad-scale chronological resolution. During Levels A and lA only a single ‘floor’ is assigned to each Level in each area. During Level IB, the Area III building exhibits a complex series of refurbishing and rebuilding episodes of up to six floors, whereas the majority of the Area I rooms contain only a single floor construction episode. Level IIA in Area I is more complex than Area III, where only single occupation floors are evidenced and a large proportion of the Level I building was in use as a central courtyard (Dikaios 1969-71:35-43).

Prior to undertaking the analysis of the ceramics, it was necessary to examine the integrity of the published deposits in order to be able to slot the unpublished material into the occupation sequence. The only contexts to be published by DIKAIOS were those relating to select sherds or small finds. By isolating the deposits relating to intentional floor construction episodes from those relating to the later deposition of material due to the collapse of the mudbrick superstructure within each level I have constructed a fine-scale phasing of the site which has helped to illuminate the internal sequences to a greater extent. This has also resulted in the exclusion of some of the deposits due to irresolveable conflicts between the published data and the material stored in the museums. Therefore, it should be stressed that although my study does not include all the material from Dikaios’ excavation areas, it does include all the material deemed to be from reliable contexts. The majority of material which was not included originated from areas extensively disturbed by pit digging (by earlier excavations, tomb looters or by the occupants of the site) or from external areas which were not fully investigated by DIKAIOS due to the imposed excavation limits discussed above.

The date of the foundation of Enkomi (Level A)

The Level A architectural remains in Area III consist of a single wall remnant, immediately underlying, and extensively disturbed by, LCIIC architecture. There is no stratigraphic relationship attested between the Level A and the Level IA buildings and the ceramic repertoire, including the presence of WP PLS, WP CLS, WP VI, Canaanite jar sherds and local wheelmade wares argues for an early LCI date for construction. The Level A material in Area I consisted of two contexts, one the fill of a foundation trench (Inv. 2191) dug for the Level lA building, and the other below a floor remnant preserved beneath the foundation trench cutting (Inv. 2192). As the foundation trench dates to construction of the Level I building it should be dated to LCIA. This deposit also contains WP VI and a Canaanite jar sherd. This unfortunately leaves only 19 poorly preserved sherds dating to Level A in Area I, none of which may be considered diagnostic of MCIII or LCIA occupation (including Red and Black Slip Handmade, White Painted, Composite Ware, Plain White Handmade and Red on Black). It should be noted however, that no wheelmade wares occur in this deposit. Whether MCIII occupation may be present in other areas of the site remains unknown but it would appear that the evidence from Dikaios’ excavation areas indicates that the site was not founded until early LCI.