² Dever, W. G., ‘The chronology of Syria-Palestine in the second millennium BCE: a review of current issues“, BASOR 288 (1992), 1–25Google Scholar, at 16, for example, refers to the ‘easily recognizable Cypriot wares whose sudden and brief appearance [in Palestine] may be said to characterize “MB III/LB I A”“. The Cypriot imports and inspiration includes Bichrome Wheelmade ware, which is often cited as a key diagnostic: e.g. Oren, E., ‘The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom’, in Oren, E. D. (ed), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1997), 253–83Google Scholar, at 271. At inland sites the appearance of Chocolate and White Ware marks a related and largely contemporary horizon: see Fischer, P. M., ‘Chocolate-on-White ware: typology, chronology, and provenance: the evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley’, BASOR 313 (1999), 1–29Google Scholar; Bourke, S. J., ‘The transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age in Syria: the evidence from Tell Nebi Mend’, Levant, 25 (1993), 155–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Johnson, P., ‘The Middle Cypriote pottery found in Palestine’, Op. Ath. 14 (1982), 49–72Google Scholar; P Åström, ‘The chronology of the Middle Cypriote Bronze Age’, in id. (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colbquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987, Part 1, (SIMA Pocket-Book 56; Göteborg, 1987), 57–66; Maguire, L. C., ‘The circulation of Cypriot Pottery in the Middle Bronze Age’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁴ Merrillees, R. S., ‘Reflections on the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus’, Op. Ath. 6 (1965), 139–48Google Scholar; Merrillees 1971; id., ‘The absolute chronology of the Bronze Age in Cyprus: a revision’, BASOR 288 (1992), 47–52, at 47–8; Åström 1972a; Åström 1972b, 765; Stewart, J. R., Tell el Ajjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains (SIMA 38; Göteborg, 1974), 62–3Google Scholar; Knapp, A. B., ‘A re-examination of the interpretation of Cypriote material culture in the MC III-LC I period in the light of textual data’ (Ph.D. diss.; University of California, Berkeley, 1979), 19–26Google Scholar; Baurain, C., Chypre et la Méditerranée Orientale au Bronze Récent: synthèse historique (Études Chypriotes 6; Paris, 1984), 27–103Google Scholar; Herscher 1984; Hult 1992, 23–4.

The situation at the start of the LC period is often regarded as rooted in a perceived long-term E–W political division through the MC period (e.g. Åström 1972c, 275). The MC situation is, however, not conclusive and the case is largely based on minor differences in ceramic decoration. As Frankel has long argued, factors centred in local production, and small-scale, kin-based interaction, could successfully (even better) explain the MC ceramic style palimpsest, without resort to any putative higher-level socio-political organization: Frankel, D., Middle Cypriot White Painted Pottery: An Analytical Study of the Decoration (SIMA 42; Göteborg, 1974)Google Scholar; id., ‘Uniformity and variation in a Cypriot ceramic tradition: two approaches’, Levant, 13 (1982), 88–106; id., ‘Pottery production in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: assessing the problem’, Journal oj Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2 (1988), 27–55; id., ‘Inter- and intrasite variability and social interaction in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: types, ranges, and trends’, BASOR 292 (1993), 59–72. The situation is very different at the start of the LC period; this is not just an instance of asserting the conventional scholarly paradigm which regards regionalism as the de facto norm on prehistoric Cyprus (a position noted and questioned by Knapp 1997, 46 with refs.). In the case of ceramics, the issue is not merely different decorative motifs on essentially similar pottery, but quite differing overall assemblages, and regional introductions of key new wares. Ideas of regional and intra-regional distinctions are moreover largely supported by existing archaeometric data (Knapp and Cherry 1994, 158–61). And this is set within a framework of new settlement patterns with apparent territories forming in some areas, evidence of militarism and again likely territoriality in some areas, social change and the development of social stratification, and new trading systems. The LC I period marks a clear change from the previous status quo across Cyprus.

⁵ Quotations from Sjöqvist, E., Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age (Stockholm, 1940), 103Google Scholar; Stewart (n. 4), 63.

⁶ Merrillees 1971. The quote approving of the Merrillees analysis is from Muhly, J. D., ‘The Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: a 25 year retrospect’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985 (Nicosia, 1985), 20–46Google Scholar at 23. The following year Åström 1972a, 49 likewise wrote: ‘I would like to emphasize that, according to the archaeological evidence, the formative stages of these wares were not in the east, but in western Cyprus.“ He then developed this point (pp. 54–5): ‘What was the situation in eastern Cyprus in LC I A? There is very little Base-ring or Monochrome, whereas Red-on-Black and White Painted VI ware continue. There does not seem to be a gap in occupation, but rather it seems that Middle Cypriote traditions lingered on longer here.“

The evidence for LC I in the real ‘west“ of Cyprus is scant at present. It is evident that there was a significant site at Kouklia Palaepaphos: Maier, F. G. and Wartburg, M.-L. v., ‘Reconstructing history from the earth, c. 2800 BC–1600 AD: excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966–1984’, in Karageorghis, V (ed.), Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1984 (Nicosia, 1985), 142–72Google Scholar, at 146–9. But at present this is largely known only on the basis of tombs—and one important set of mortuary data has never been properly published: cf. H. W. Catling, ‘The St. Andrews-Liverpool Museums Kouklia tomb excavation’, RDAC 1979, 270–5, esp. 274–5. We therefore at present rely on the unstratified material from the tombs at Teratsoudhia: Karageorghis 1990, 3–71.

⁷ Merrillees, R. S., ‘A Late Cypriote Bronze Age tomb and its Asiatic connections’, in Tubb, J. N. (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell (London, 1985), 114–35Google Scholar, at 133. For Livadhia Kokotes Tomb 1, see P. Åström, ‘Livadhia, “Kokotes”, Tomb 1’, RDAC 1974, 51–9. For the ceramics from Maroni Kapsaloudhia, and the mixture of eastern WP, Red-on-Black, Bichrome Wheelmade wares, etc., and then other north-western linkages, see Herscher 1984, 25–7.

⁸ See references in n. 4 above, especially Merrillees 1971. An additional complication is that sometimes the allocation of objects to the various typological categories is problematic because the early LC period sees various transitional or hybrid objects, where shape and/or fabric do not necessarily conform to the standard definitions, e.g.: TTS 397–8; Eames, S. J., ‘A re-examination of the definition, distribution, and relative chronology of Proto Base Ring ware’, Mediterranean Archaeology, 7 (1994), 127–40Google Scholar, at 127–8. For a more significant monochrome tradition in NW Cyprus MC, than in east Cyprus, see e.g. Merrillees 1971, 56–7, 65. For the north-west as home to initial Monochrome development, see Pilides, D., ‘Monochrome Ware: its regional variation’, in Åström, P. (ed.), Acta Cypria: Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22–24 August 1991, Part 2 (SIMA Pocket-Book 120; Jonsered, 1992), 289–305Google Scholar. For Morphou Toumba tou Skourou, see TTS. For Stephania, see Hennessy, J. B., Stephania: A Middle and Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus (London, 1963)Google Scholar. The ceramic material from Toumba tou Skourou currently best articulates the NW developmental trajectory, from close of MC to early LC I A with Proto-LC wares, and then a transition into early WS I, BR I and so on. The initial LC developmental phase of the NW is also clearly evident in the early material from Kazaphani, confirming that the patterns evident at Toumba tou Skourou do have regional relevance: Nicolaou, I. and Nicolaou, K., Kazaphani: A Middle/Late Cypriot Tomb at Kazaphani-Ayios Andronikos: T.2A, B. (Nicosia, 1989)Google Scholar. For an example of a detailed analysis demonstrating the NW heartland of one of the set of new LC wares, PBR, see Eames op. cit., figs. 1–3. For discussion of the transition from PWS to early WS I, and a ‘transitional“ style, see M. Padgett in TTS 373–4.

⁹ For discussion of regional variations in early BR in the south, see Herscher, E., ‘Early Base Ring ware from Phaneromeni and Maroni’, in Åström, P. (ed.), The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware (Konferenser 54; Stockholm, 2001), 11–21Google Scholar. For the local PWS imitations at Episkopi Phaneromeni, see Swiny, S., ‘Southern Cyprus, c. 2000–1500 BC’ (Ph.D. diss., University of London), 237–9Google Scholar; Carpenter, J. R., ‘Excavations at Phaneromeni, 1975–1978’, in Biers, J. C. and Soren, D. (eds), Studies in Cypriote Archaeology (Monograph 18; Los Angeles, 1985) 59–78Google Scholar, at 64. In line with the Merrillees 1971 scenario (and the observations of Åström 1972a), PWS, PBR, ‘early-style“ WS I, and LC I A context BR I and Monochrome are noticeably rare at eastern sites, such as Kalopsidha (Åström 1966), Enkomi (Dikaios 1969–71), Nitovikla (Hult 1992), and Phlamoudi Vounari: Al-Radi, S. M. S., Phlamoudhi Vounari: A Sanctuary Site in Cyprus (SIMA 65; Göteborg, 1983)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For discussion of the evidence at Maroni Vournes, including mention of this sherd, see G. Gadogan, E. Herscher, P Russell, and S. Manning, ‘Maroni-Vournes: a long White Slip sequence and its chronology’, in Karageorghis 2001, 75–88; Herscher (n. 9). For the suggestion of Toumba tou Skourou developing the fabric, see Padgett in TTS, 374. One may note, in addition to the published Ends from Toumba tou Skourou, the report of much PWS and WS I at the nearby Toumba tou Tyllirou (TTS 15, 397). For instances of ‘early-style“ WS I at Hala Sultan Tekke, Enkomi and Milia, see e.g. Åström, E, Bailey, D. M. and Karageorghis, V, Hala Sultan Tekke I: Excavations 1987–1979 (SIMA 45/1; Göteborg, 1976), pl. 39. 33Google Scholar; Åström, P., Hala Sultan Tekke 8: Excavations 1971–1979 (SIMA 45/8; Göteborg, 1983)Google Scholar, figs. 245, 253, 361. b; id., Hala Sultan Tekke g: Trenches 1972–1987, with an Index For Volume 1–9 (SIMA 45/9; Göteborg, 1989), fig. 92 (with later, classic, examples also – hence early style but not necessarily early date in this case); Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjöqvist, E., and Westholm, A., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, i (Stockholm, 1934)Google Scholar, pl. 114 no. E19. 146 (= Popham 1972, fig. 80. 6); Popham 1972, 461 type I A δ“ no. 3.

Merrillees 2001, 93 suggests that the ‘early-style“ WS I as represented by the Thera WS I bowl derives from either the south coast of Cyprus, or the SW. This is possible. It should be remembered, as quoted earlier, that Merrillees (n. 7), 133 includes the south of Cyprus as ‘well within the western cultural zone during Late Cypriote I A“. The key point is that the area of origin is not eastern Cyprus. To the present authors, there seems a better case for NW Cyprus as the initial or primary home of ‘early-style“ WS I. But this point of variance in details has no impact on the overall ‘west-east“ case advanced in this paper.

¹¹ For the standard MC–LC I WP sequence, chronology, and finds, see Åström 1972c and 1972d; summary at 1972b, 700–1 chart. For the term ‘Eastern Mesoria Styles’, see Merrillees 1974, 53.

¹² Åström 1972b, 758 states that Bichrome Wheelmade ware is an indicator of earliest LC I. See also Merrillees 1971, 65, who argues that it does not occur before LC I A. Other scholars have in the past accorded it an initial ‘MC III“ appearance, but this was in eastern contexts where the relevant ‘MC III“ should in fact be considered as LC I A (see discussion in main text). For the eastern Cypriot provenance of Bichrome Wheelmade ware, see Artzy, L. M., ‘The origin of the Palestinian Bichrome ware’ (Ph.D. diss.; Brandeis University, 1972)Google Scholar; ead., ‘The Late Bronze Age “Palestinian” Bichrome ware in its Cypriote context’, in Hoffner, H. A. Jr. (ed.), Orient and Occident. Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22; Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973), 9–16Google Scholar; Artzy, M., Asaro, F., and Perlman, I., ‘The origin of the ‘Palestinian“ Bichrome Ware’, JAOS 93 (1973), 446–61Google Scholar; Artzy, M., Perlman, I., and Asaro, F., ‘Imported and local Bichrome ware in Megiddo’, Levant, 10 (1978), 99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; iid., ‘Cypriote pottery imports at Ras Shamra’, IEJ 31 (1981), 37–47; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 56. Indicative of the distinction between eastern Cyprus with its Bichrome Wheelmade ware, and NW Cyprus with its own styles, little Bichrome Wheelmade ware was found at Toumba tou Skourou, and the few examples present are considered as ‘imports“: TTS 385. A similar fall-off as one moves along the southern coast away from the east of Cyprus may be observed. By Maroni Vournes on the SE coast it is noticeable that, although present, Bichrome Wheelmade ware is much less prevalent than PWS: Cadogan et al. (n. 10).

¹³ R. S. Merrillees, ‘Pottery trade in Bronze Age Cyprus’, RDAC 1979, 115–34, developing initial observation in Merrillees 1971. Merrillees defines a regional grouping in the Karpass and the SE, and a more restricted presence in the west.

¹⁴ Merrillees 1971. See also Åslröm 1972a. For a subsequent review which supported this case, see various discussions within Baurain (n. 4), 27–103. Thirty years having passed since Merrillees's study was written, it is time now for him or someone else to undertake a comprehensive review of all the subsequent data. Detailed science provenance work is also required to test and refine the visual style characterizations on a regional or sub-regional basis within Cyprus (for a synthesis of science–provenance work to the early 1990s, see Knapp and Cherry 1994). It is not possible to attempt either of these tasks here, but in the interim we may regard the general patterns in material culture identified by Merrillees as remaining valid today. The major advance since he wrote has been in the acquisition of a more detailed knowledge of the south coast and western Cypriot assemblages.

Although Merrillees's attention solely on the ceramic-style evidence is clearly one-dimensional, and he does not consider the wider theoretical issues in his underlying assumption that pots are surrogates for people and social dynamics, his recognition of differing regional groupings in the material culture may reasonably be considered as identifying social groupings. While objects are mere markers for people, and so similarity and conservatism in material culture, or difference and change, may or may not represent change in population or social construction, it nonetheless is the case that objects and experience of them form part of the (reflexive) definition of self—see Dittmar, H., The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have is to Be (Hemel Hempstead, 1992)Google Scholar—and, overall, the historical construction of any community. Objects thus very much form part of Bourdieu's concept of the habitus: Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Nice, R. (Cambridge, 1977), 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Further, since any one object communicates very little information by itself, it is instead groupings of objects that come to form historically complementary sets which are recognized and intelligible to members of a community: in general, see McCracken, G., Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities (Bloomington, 1988)Google Scholar; Miller, D., Material Culture and Mass Consumption (Rev. repr.; Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar. The patterns Merrillees recognizes in the LC I period are therefore likely to be manifestations of such contemporary sets of objects common to closely interacting population groupings.

¹⁵ See in general Maguire (n. 3). See also Maguire, L. C., ‘The Middle Cypriot pottery from Tell el-Dab^ca, Egypt’ (M.A. diss.; Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, 1986)Google Scholar; id., ‘The classification of Middle Bronze Age painted pottery: wares, styles … workshops?’, in J. Barlow, D. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record (University Museum Monograph 74/University Museum Symposium Series, 2; Philadelphia, 1991), 59–66, at 64; Maguire, L. C., ‘A cautious approach to the Middle Bronze Age chronology of Cyprus’, Agypten und Levante, 3 (1992), 115–20Google Scholar, at 118; Maguire, L. C., ‘Tell el-Dab^ca: the Cypriot connection’, in Davies, W. V. and Schofield, L. (eds), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC (London, 1995), 54–65Google Scholar, at 54.

¹⁶ For the development of the archaic Enkomi polity or state including the apparent role of forts to protect copper production and distribution, see Peltenburg, E. J., ‘From isolation to state formation in Cyprus, c. 3500–1500 BC’, in Karageorghis, V and Michaelides, D. (eds), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day (Nicosia, 1996), 17–43Google Scholar, at 27–35. Although data are scanty, most scholarship on the topic has reached the view that Enkomi formed the heart of the first, and at the time perhaps only, state or polity of Cyprus, e.g. Muhly, J. D., ‘The organisation of the copper industry in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in Peltenburg, E. J. (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus (Edinburgh, 1989), 298–314Google Scholar, at 299; J. D. Muhly, R. Madden, and T. Stech, ‘Cyprus, Crete and Sardinia: copper oxhide ingots and the metals trade’, RDAC 1988, 281–98, at 294–5; A. Knapp, B., ‘Ideology, archaeology, and polity’, Man 23 (1988), 133–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knapp 1997, 65–6; Knapp and Cherry 1994, 137. Mortuary data (especially imported objects) attest the rise of new élite groupings from the LC I period, especially at Enkomi: Keswani, P. F. S., ‘Mortuary Ritual and Social Hierarchy in Bronze Age Cyprus’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1989), esp. 512–22Google Scholar; ead., ‘Dimensions of social hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: an analysis of the mortuary data from Enkomi’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2 (1989), 49–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Examples of the view correlating LC I A or (better) LC I A 2 with the 18th Dynasty, and not before, abound, and represent the conventional view in most scholarship until recently, e.g. Oren, E. D., ‘Cypriote imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I context’, Op. Ath. 9 (1969), 127–50Google Scholar; Oren 2001; Bietak, M. ‘The Late Cypriot White Slip I-Ware as an obstacle of the high Aegean chronology’, in Balmuth, M. S. and Tykot, R. H. (eds), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean (Studies in Sardinian Archaeology 5; Oxford, 1998), 321–2Google Scholar; Bietak 2000; Bietak and Hein 2001; Gittlen, B. M., ‘Cypriote White Slip pottery in its Palestinian stratigraphic context’, in Robertson, N. (ed.), The Archaeology of Cyprus: Recent Developments (Park Ridge, NJ, 1975), 111–20Google Scholar; id., ‘Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine’ (Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1977); id., ‘The cultural and chronological implications of the Cypro-Palestinian trade during the Late Bronze Age’, BASOR 241 (1981), 49–59; Eriksson 1992. A solid case for rejecting/modifying this view has existed since Merrillees 1971, but was largely ignored, or became bogged down in details.

Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware may be added as another Cypriot ware first invented in late LC I A, but typical of LC I B onwards on Cyprus, and first found in Egypt from early 18th Dynasty contexts: Eriksson, K. O., Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware (SIMA 102; Jonsered, 1993)Google Scholar. See however, Knappett, C., ‘The provenance of red lustrous wheel-made ware: Cyprus, Syria or Anatolia?’, Internet Archaeology, 9 (2000), http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue9/knappett_index.htmlGoogle Scholar.

An important ancillary issue is that different importers of Cypriot products desired different things. As Oren 2001, 140 discusses, at no time does Egypt appear particularly interested in open Cypriot ceramic shapes, such as WS bowls (although a caveat exists, since the majority of extant Egyptian contexts are funerary, which may explain the difference). Instead, they imported closed shapes and presumably the contents. In contrast, some group at Tell el-^cAjjul in Palestine seemed to like all ceramics of the open type from Cyprus, from Red-on-Black/Red to WS. But this did not necessarily apply to all Canaanites either (or they had no opportunity to indulge) since WS I is not common at major sites like Hazor, Lachish, and Megiddo. Presence/absence of certain types in Egypt thus cannot be used to determine the relative or absolute chronology of Cyprus. Indeed, except for Tell el-Dab^ca, PWS and WS I are hardly or not found in Egypt: Merrillees, R. S., The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt (SIMA 18; Göteborg, 1968), 168–9Google Scholar, though his data derive mainly from mortuary contexts, and settlement contexts may be different. And even the very Egyptianized Canaanite culture of Tell el-Dab^ca hardly over-dosed, given less than a score of finds in total from many years of work at this huge site from both settlement and mortuary contexts (Bietak and Hein 2001).

¹⁸ Some finds, and the patterns of correlations between Cyprus, Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean, confirm this: see Manning 1999, 107–92 for a detailed discussion. No one disputes that types first appearing in LC I A (and then typical through LC I A and into I B) such as PWS, Bichrome Wheelmade ware, and WP V–VI, occur in late MBA or late SIP contexts in the Levant and Egypt (see n. 17). The recent evidence from Tell el-Dab^ca has made this totally clear: Bietak, M., Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab^ca (London, 1996), 63Google Scholar. The question has concerned LC I A 2 and the first production of WS I and BR I. Thus, did initial LC I A just overlap with the end of the MBA/SIP (the conventional view), or instead did the entire of the LC I A period lie contemporary with the Levantine late MBA and the SIP of Egypt? An appreciation of the regionalism of LC I A Cyprus, and in export patterns of LC I products, and the review of the wider cultural connections at this time, demonstrate that the latter position is in fact correct. Confirmation appears to come from the site of Tell el-^cAjjul, where: (i) early-style (likely NW Cypriot origin), LC I A 1/2 to LC I A 2, WS I occurs in later MBA Palace I: Bergoffen 2001; ead., ‘Early Late Cypriot ceramic exports to Canaan: White Slip I’, in Ehrenberg, E. (ed.), Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald R Hansen (Winona Lake, 2002), 23–41Google Scholar; Manning 1999, 181–7; and (ii) BR I occurs in a tomb (Tomb 14) shown below a wall of the MB III (MB II C) City III on Petrie's plan: C. J. Bergoffen, ‘The Base Ring Pottery from Tell el-^cAjjul, in Åström 2001 (n. 9), 31–50, who also discusses a few other similarly early finds of BR I at the site. A find of what may be guessed to be early BR I, and so perhaps from NW Cyprus, from a SIP context at Memphis provides further support: see discussion and references in Manning 1999, 120 and nn. 552–7. See also n. 24 below. In reverse, some of the bone artefacts from Toumba tou Skourou offer evidence of Hyksos period associations for NW Cyprus: TTS 332–3.

¹⁹ Oren (n. 17); Oren 2001; Bergoffen 2001; ead., 2002 (n. 18); Gitden, all (n. 17); Åström 1972b; Merrillees 1971; Eriksson 1992.

²⁰ e.g. the Tell-el-Yahudiyeh and El-Lisht imports found in Cyprus: Negbi, O., ‘Cypriote imitations of Tell-el-Yahudiyeh ware from Toumba tou Skourou’, AJA 82 (1978), 137–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merrillees 1971, 73–4; id., 1974; Bietak (n. 18), fig. 48. b. Chocolate and White ware, or apparently derived styles, are another link between the east of Cyprus (Enkomi, Phlamoudhi Vounari) and the Levant: C. J. Bergoffen, ‘Two “Chocolate-on-White” vessels from Enkomi’, RDAC 1990, 51–4; Al-Radi (n. 9), 48; Fischer (n. 2).

²¹ In particular, local imitations of the Tell-el-Yahudiyeh juglet type: Negbi (n. 20). Also some worked bone with general Syrian-Egyptian or Hyksos connections: TTS 332–3. For the vase fragment with the cartouche of Ahmose from Palaepaphos, see G. Clerc in Karageorghis 1990, 95–103.

²² For likely examples of western/north-western LC I A Cypriot exports to the Levant, we can suggest on subjective art-historical grounds at least some of the instances of early imports there of Monochrome, PWS, PBR, and ‘early-style“ WS I and BR I: Bergoffen 2001; id., 2002 (n. 18). No relevant scientific provenance data have yet been published. A few likely LC I A imports from the Aegean are known in the north-west of Cyprus at Toumba tou Skourou (TTS 381–3), and it may be argued that a PWS sherd from Miletus (B. Niemeier and W.-D. Niemeier, ‘Milet 1994–1995. Projekt ≪Minoisch-mykenisches bis protogeometrisches Milet≫: Zielsetzung und Grabungen auf dem Stadionhugel und am Athena tempel’, AA (1997), 189–248, at 235 and fig. 66), and the WS I bowl from Thera (Manning 1999, 150–8 with refs.; Merrillees 2001), were western/north-western Cypriot exports into the Aegean.

²³ For the ‘early-style“ WS I and other Cypriot ceramic imports to Tell el-^cAjjul, see Bergoffen, C. J., ‘A Comparative Study of the Regional Distribution of Cypriote Pottery in Canaan and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age’ (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1989)Google Scholar; ead., ‘Overland trade in northern Sinai: the evidence of the Late Cypriot pottery’, BASOR 284 (1991), 59–76Google Scholar; Bergoffen 2001; ead. (both n. 18); Oren 2001, 133–40; Manning 1999, 182–5. For the site and its context among the emergent MB II–III urban centres of Canaan, see Oren (n. 2); Kempinski, A., Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB Zeit (1650–1570 v. Chr.) (Wiesbaden, 1983)Google Scholar.

²⁴ For the BR I sherd from Memphis, see Bourriau, J., ‘Memphis/Kom Rab^cia 1990’, Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe International d'étude de la Céramique égyptienne 15 (1990), 7–8Google Scholar; ead., pers. comm.; Eriksson 1992, 169; ead., pers. comm.; Merrillees 1992 (n. 4), 50–1. See discussion in Manning 1999, 120–1 and nn. 552–7. This vessel could be a NW Cypriot import, but it may also be noted that BR I appears slightly earlier than WS I at several eastern and SE sites on Cyprus: Åström 1972b, 675–6; Cadogan et al. (n. 10), 77. Hence this SIP export could also be an initial eastern Cypriot product, especially if late SIP in date.

²⁵ Catling, H. W., ‘Patterns of settlement in Bronze Age Cyprus’, Op. Ath. 4 (1962), 129–69Google Scholar; Merrillees, R. S., ‘Settlement, sanctuary and cemetery in Bronze Age Cyprus’, Australian Studies in Archaeology, I (1973), 44–57Google Scholar; Baurain (n. 4), 76–8; A. B. Knapp, ‘Settlement and society on Late Bronze Age Cyprus: dynamics and development’, in Åström and Herscher 1996, 54–80, at 58–60; Knapp 1997, 46–8.

²⁶ Important LC I ‘urban“ centres existed at Enkomi, Toumba tou Skourou, Hala Sultan Tekke, and (from LC I B) Episkopi Bamboula: O. Negbi, ‘The climax of urban development in Bronze Age Cyprus’, RDAC 1986, 97–121; Keswani 1996, 220–34. Although E. T. Vermeule, ‘Toumba tou Skourou’, in Åström and Herscher 1996, 50–3, at 50 downplays Toumba tou Skourou as ‘scarcely a town’, it is clear that the area remaining when her project carried out its excavation was ‘probably an outlying fragment of a lost Bronze Age town’ (TTS 397). Indications from earlier visits to the site, and pre-destruction accounts, confirm the significant status of the site (TTS 7, 14–16).

Enkomi and Toumba tou Skourou stand out. They were new foundations and appear to form centres of new geopolitical entities (see n. 27). Enkomi quickly gains monumental architecture, and it is likely that this was also originally present at the large, and only partially explored, site of Toumba tou Skourou. Other sites may be added with further research; for example, as discussed in this paper, it is increasingly clear that a significant LC I centre existed on the coast in the lower Maroni Valley (Maroni Vournes and Tsaroukkas). Another candidate is Kouklia Palaepaphos.

²⁷ See above (n. 16) for Enkomi. The full extent of the LC I site at Toumba tou Skourou is very imperfectly known. For the forts of the period, see Fortin, M., ‘Recherches sur l'architecture militaire de l'âge du bronze à Chypre’, Échos du monde classique/Classical Views 27 (1983), 206–19Google Scholar; id., ‘La soi-disant forteresse d'Enkomi I (Chypre) à la fin du bronze moyen et au début du Bronze récent’, in R. Laffineur (ed.), Transition: he monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la 2^e Rencontre égéene Internationale de l'Université de Liege, 18–20 avril 1988 (Aegaeum, 3; Liège, 1989), 239–49; Keswani 1996, 219. These forts or fortified settlements were usually dated to the MC period in older literature (e.g. Overbeck, J. C. and Swiny, S., Two Cypriot Bronze Age Sites at Kafkallia (Dhali) (SIMA 33; Göteborg, 1972), 25–8)Google Scholar, but, as in the detailed redating of the example at Nitovikla (Hult 1992 and R. S. Merrillees's review, Op. Ath. 20 (1994), 256–8Google Scholar), or the general reinterpretation by Merrillees 1971, 75, an initial LC date (or end MC to start LC I A date) is likely in most cases; see also Baurain (n. 4), 61–6, 80–7. For discussions of the changes in Cyprus at this time, see Merrillees 1971; Knapp (n. 4); id., ‘Alashiya, Caphtor/keftiu, and eastern Mediterranean trade: recent studies in Cypriote archaeology and history’, JFA 12 (1985), 231–50, at 247–50; id., ‘Production, exchange and sociopolitical complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus’, OJA 5 (1986), 35–60; id. (n. 16); Baurain (n. 4), 75–103; Keswani 1996, 219–20. Factors include regionalism, instability, militarism, the growth of urban centres, the rise of literacy, the development of intensive copper production, and participation in inter-regional exchange. Mortuary data attest the rise of new elite groupings from the LC I period: Keswani (n. 16).

²⁸ e.g. Knapp 1985 (n. 27); id., 1986 (n. 27); id., Copper Production and Divine Protection: Archaeology, Ideology and Social Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus (SIMA Pocket-Book 42; Göteborg, 1986); id. (n. 16); Knapp 1997; Muhly, J. D. ‘The role of Cyprus in the economy of the eastern Mediterranean during the second millennium BC’, in Karageorghis, V (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident’, Nicosia 8–14 September 1985 (Nicosia, 1986), 45–62Google Scholar; Keswani 1996, 219.

²⁹ See Keswani 1990, 219 with refs.

³⁰ Knapp 1985 (n. 27); Knapp, A. B. (ed.), Sources for the History of Cyprus, ii: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to the First Millennia BC (Altamont, 1996), 3–11Google Scholar; Keswani 1996, 219.

³¹ For the south coast as the preferred safe anchorage, see H. Georgiou, ‘Seafaring, trade routes, and the emergence of the Bronze Age: urban centres in the eastern Mediterranean’, Swiny et al. 1997, 117–24, at 121. For the previous work at the LC Maroni site, see: (i) for the 1897 British Museum activities, Johnson, J., Maroni de Chypre (SIMA 59; Göteborg, 1980)Google Scholar; and Cadogan, G., ‘The British Museum's work at Maroni’, in Ioannides, G. C. (ed.), Studies in Honour of Vassos Karageorghis (Nicosia, 1992), 123–6Google Scholar; (ii) for work at Maroni Vournes, G. Cadogan, ‘Maroni VI’, RDAC 1992, 51–8; G. Cadogan, ‘Maroni: change in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, in Åström and Herscher 1996, 15–22; and (iii) for the Tsaroukkas, Myceneans and Trade Project, S. W. Manning, ‘Tsaroukkas, Mycenaeans and Trade Project: preliminary report on the 1996–1997 seasons’, RDAC 1998, 39–54; id., ‘Changing pasts and sociopolitical cognition in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’, World Archaeology, 30 (1998), 39–58; Manning, S. W. and Monks, S. J., ‘Late Cypriot Tombs at Maroni Tsaroukkas, Cyprus’, BSA 93 (1998), 297–351Google Scholar; Manning, S. W. and Mitajr, F. A. De., ‘Cyprus, the Aegean, and Maroni Tsaroukkas’, in Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity: Proceedings of the International Conference Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity from the Prehistoric Period to the 7th Century AD, Nicosia 8–10 December 1995 (Nicosia, 1997), 103–41Google Scholar; S. W. Manning, D. Collon, D. H. Conwell, H.-G. Jansen, D. Sewell, L. Steel, and A. Swinton, ‘Tsaroukkas, Mycenaeans and trade project: preliminary report on the 1993 season’, RDAC 1994, 83–106. For the relative prominence of Maroni as a recipient of imports, see Portugali, Y. and Knapp, A. B., ‘Cyprus and the Aegean: a spatial analysis of interaction in the 17th–14th centuries BC’, in Knapp, A. B. and Stech, T. (eds), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (Monograph 25; Los Angeles, 1985), 44–78Google Scholar.

³² e.g. Leonard, J. R., ‘Evidence for Roman ports, harbours and anchorages in Cyprus’, in Karageorghis, V. and Michaelides, D. (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium, Cyprus and the Sea, Nicosia 25–26 September 1993 (Nicosia, 1995), 227–45Google Scholar; Hohlfelder, R. L. and Leonard, J. R., ‘Underwater explorations at Paphos, Cyprus: the 1991 preliminary survey’, American Schools of Oriental Research Annual, 51 (1993), 45–62Google Scholar; J. R. Leonard, R. K. Dunn and R. L. Hohlfelder, ‘Geoarchaeological investigations in Paphos Harbour, 1996’, RDAC 1998, 141–57, with further bibliography at p. 141 n. 1; C. Giangrande, G. Richards, D. Kennet, and J. Adams, ‘Cyprus Underwater Survey, 1983–1984: a preliminary report’, RDAC 1987, 185–97; Empereur, J.-Y. and Verlinden, C., ‘The underwater excavation at the ancient port of Amathus in Cyprus’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 16 (1987), 7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H. Hauben, ‘Cyprus and the Ptolemaic navy’, RDAC 1987, 213–26; Envig, O. T. and Beichmann, M., ‘Underwater activities and the situation at Cape Kiti, Cyprus’, Op. Ath. 9 (1984), 181–6Google Scholar; N. C. Flemming, ‘Report of preliminary underwater investigations at Salamis, Cyprus’, RDAC 1974, 163–73; Green, J. N., ‘An underwater archaeological survey of Cape Andreas, Cyprus, 1969–1970: a preliminary report’, in Blackman, D. J. (ed.), Marine Archaeology: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium of the Colston Research Society Held in the University of Bristol, April 4th to 8th, 1971 (London, 1973), 141–78Google Scholar.

³³ Respectively from Hauben (n. 32), 213 and Leonard (n. 32), 227. For discussion of the literary sources in general, see ibid., 230–4. For general reviews, see papers in Karageorghis, V. and Michaelides, D. (eds), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day (Nicosia, 1996)Google Scholar; and in Swiny et al. 1997.

³⁴ L. K. Blue, ‘Cyprus and Cilicia: the typology and palaeogeography of second millennium harbors’, in Swiny et al. 1997, 32–7. The Kition harbour is increasingly the exception, e.g. Morhange, C., Goiran, J.-P., Bourcier, M., Carbonel, P., Campion, J. Le, Rouchy, J.-M., and Yon, M., ‘Recent Holocene paleo-environmental evolution and coastline changes of Kition, Larnaca, Cyprus, Mediterranean Sea’, Marine Geology, 170 (2000), 205–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ For the division of the Late Cypriot sites into two main categories, (1) new settlements in coastal areas, and (2) continuing occupation in long-settled river valleys, see Keswani 1996.

³⁶ J.-C. Courtois, ‘A propos des apports Orientaux dans la civilisation du Bronze Récent à Chypre’, in Karageorghis (n. 28), 69–90, at 89; Hadjisawas, S., ‘Intervention’, in Åström, P. (ed.), Acta Cypria: Acts of an International Congress on Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22–24 August 1991, part 3 (SIMA Pocket-Book 120; Jonsered, 1992), 329Google Scholar. McCaslin 1980, 104 also hypothesises an anchorage at Maroni.

³⁷ Johnson (n. 31), 15 no. 15, 18–19 no. 60, pl. 9. 15, 16. 60; Wachsmann 1998, 63–6. See also Westerberg, K., Cypriote Ships from the Bronze Age to c. 500 HC (SIMA Pocket-Book 22; Göteborg, 1983), 13–14Google Scholar, fig. 7; and Karageorghis, V., The Coroplastic Art Of Ancient Cyprus II: LCII–CGII (Nicosia, 1993), 7Google Scholar4, fig. 62, pl. 32. 2–3. There is in addition the fragment from an imported Myccnean ship model found in British Museum Tomb 17 at the site: Johnson 1980, 23–4 no. 132, p. 25. 132; Wachsmann 1998, 185 and 187 fig. 8. 48. See FIG. 4. The complete boat (BM A49 = Johnson 1980, 15 no. 15, Pl. 9. 15), from British Museum Tomb 1, is made of a Plain White type fabric. It has a flat base, convex sides with four oar (?) holes, two in each side, and a small raised area in the middle, which most probably represents an installation for the mast. Small pierced holes line the rim edge, nineteen on each side. The larger boat from British Museum Tomb 7 (BM A50 = Johnson 1980, 18–19; no. 60; pl. 16. 60) is also made of a Plain White fabric. It is larger than the complete boat and is missing its base (sympathetically reconstructed in illustrations). It also has nineteen holes on each side and two pierced ledges half way along the interior of each side. Two narrow prongs are located at one end of the boat, perhaps acting as a rowlock for a steering device or rudder (?). The third fragment (see FIG. 4), a Late Helladic III A 2 boat model (BM C694 = Johnson 1980, 23–4 no. 132, pl. 25. 132) recovered from British Museum Tomb 17, consists of the stern end of a boat with a rudder attached. (Wachsman 1998, 187 argues that this represents a possible bird's head ornament topping a stern post. Johnson 1980, pl. 25. 132 appears to agree, since the sherd is shown with the protuberance pointing upwards. This orientation is possible, but leaves what appears to be a fish motif oriented somewhat oddly directly downwards. Having examined the object, and taking into account the nature and location of decorative motifs, it would seem that this is perhaps not the case, and that it is instead the stern end of a boat with rudder attached.) The fragment is decorated in black paint and depicts an oar and part of a fish (the depiction of the fish is very similar to that on the Proto-White Painted amphora from Vathyrkakas in Westerberg, fig. 12) towards the lower part of the boat fragment. A scale pattern near the rim gives the impression of waves and movement. Westerberg's study of Cypriot boats lists only seven examples belonging to the LBA. Four of these are of uncertain provenance, leaving the two examples from Maroni (excluding the Mycenaean example) and one from a tomb at Kazaphani: Nicolaou and Nicolaou (n. 8), 52 no. 249 + 377, fig. 14, pl. 34. 249 + 377. Westerberg regards the two Plain White boats as being large ocean-going vessels, with a socket for the mast (in one case), and pierced holes which represent oar-holes (in other words combining sailing and rowing). Wachsman 1998, 66 agrees, writing: ‘Therefore, I believe that the three models from Kazaphani and Maroni probably portray an indigenous class of spacious Late Cypriot seagoing merchant ship for which additional information is lacking at present.“ Furthermore, he suggests the boat models are so similar that, ‘they may have originated in the same workshop’ (ibid., 64).

³⁸ For the tombs, see Johnson 1980; Manning and Monks (n. 31). Helms, M. W., Ulysses' Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographical Distance (Princeton, 1988), 25Google Scholar remarks on the central role of the beach as the intermediary zone of interraction with ships, traders/foreigners, and so a liminal zone between local and foreign, known and unknown.

³⁹ Johnson 1980; Cadogan, G. ‘Maroni and the Late Bronze Age of Cyprus’, in Karageorghis, V and Muhly, J. D. (eds), Cyprus at the Close of the Late Bronze Age (Nicosia, 1984) 1–10Google Scholar; id., ‘The British …’ (n. 31); id., ‘Maroni VI’ (n. 31); id., 1996 (n. 31) with further refs.; Catling (n. 25), 148; Cadogan et al. (n. 10); Herscher 1984; S. W. Manning and D. H. Conwell, ‘Maroni Valley Archaeological Survey Project: preliminary report on the 1990–1991 field seasons’, RDAC 1992, 271–83, at 281-3; Manning et al. (n. 31) 89–92; S. W. Manning, D. Bolger, M. J. Ponting, L. Steel, and A. Swinton, ‘Maroni Valley Archaeological Survey Project: preliminary report on 1992–1993 seasons’, RDAC 1994, 345–67 at 347.

⁴⁰ Knowledge of the LBA coastline in the area is limited (and detailed specific study is required to further disentangle the processes of local coastline changes, caused by a variety of mechanisms, versus overall sea-level changes: e.g. Morhange et al. (n. 34) 223–9). Existing studies would indicate that the sea-level was either similar to, or a few metres below, present levels: Gifford, J. A., ‘Paleogeography of Archaeological sites of the Larnaca Lowlands, South-East Cyprus’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1978)Google Scholar; Flemming, N. C. and Webb, C. O., ‘Tectonic and eustatic coastal changes during the last 10000 years derived from archaeological data’, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Suppl.-Bd. 62 (1986), 1–29Google Scholar; Pirazzoli, P. A., World Atlas of Holocene Sea-Level Changes (Oceanography Series 58; Amsterdam, 1991)Google Scholar; Poole, A. J., ‘Sedimentology, Neotectonics and Geomorphology Related to Tectonic Uplift and Sea-Level Change: Quaternary in Cyprus’ (Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh University, 1992)Google Scholar; Kayan, I., ‘Holocene geomorphic evolution of the Beşik Plain and changes in environment of ancient man’, Studia Troica, I (1991), 79–92Google Scholar. In particular, the study of Kayan, offering the nearest available sea-level curve, estimates sea-level at -2.0 m for the relevant period about 3,500–3,000 years ago. The study of B. Gomez and P. P. Pease, ‘Early Holocene Cypriot coastal palaeogeography’, RDAC 1992, 1–8, based on a general review of the Cypriot data, modelled the seashore of Cyprus as largely similar to today's by 5000 BP. Their 5000 BP reconstruction would indicate a shoreline along the relevant area of the south coast only 100 m or so further out than today. The difference will have been smaller by the start of the LBA some c. 3600 years ago. To date only limited geomorphological consideration of the specific shoreline at Maroni Tsaroukkas has taken place, but an assessment by Dr Martin Bell (pers. comm.) in 1999 including coring to 3 m depth, leads to the view that some 30+ m of coastline, including an LC anchorage area, has very likely been lost to erosion.

⁴¹ The presence of fishermen and recreational divers in the area, and the visibility of our diving a short distance off the coast, presented a concern. We did not wish to promote the disturbance and removal of antiquities.

⁴² Underwater photography was carried out by E. A. Sewell, using a Nikonos V underwater camera with a 20 mm lens and a strobe SB103. Underwater recording was done by writing/drawing on mylar sheets with pencil. Whilst every effort was made to ensure accuracy, the recording process was made difficult by wave action because of the shallowness of the remains, their proximity to land, and changing sea conditions, which affected visibility as well as the stability of the divers.

⁴³ A motorized boat was available only for some work in 1995. In its absence, work was limited on safety grounds to no more than c. 300 m from the coastline.

⁴⁴ For Cypriot LBA stone anchors in general, see Frost 1963; Frost 1970; ead., ‘Bronze-Age stone-anchors from the Eastern Mediterranean: dating and identification’, The Manner's Mirror, 56 (1970), 377–94Google Scholar; ead., ‘Appendix 1: the Kition anchors’, in Karageorghis, V. and Demas, M. (eds), Excavations at Kition V.1: the Pre-Phoenician levels, Areas I and II (Nicosia, 1985), 281–321Google Scholar; McCaslin 1980; Wachsmann 1998, 273–4. For a general review of Bronze Age anchors, see Wachsmann 1998, 255–93. For a review of Bronze Age ships in the east Mediterranean, see ibid., esp. 61 7 on Cypriot ships.

For terrestrial uses and contexts of larger pierced stones/anchors, other than at Maroni Tsaroukkas or nearby Maroni Vournes (e.g. a medium-sized single-hole pyramidal pierced stone found at the latter believed to have been rebuilt into a LBA wall: G. Cadogan, ‘Maroni I’, RDAC 1983, 153–62, at 161), we note the following instances to support the statements in the text: (i) instances of pierced stone weights (LBA and later) of various shapes and sizes for use in the production of olive oil (Hadjisavvas, S., Olive Oil Processing in Cyprus: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period (SIMA 99; Nicosia, 1992)Google Scholar, or for that matter for production processes for metals, wine, textiles, grain, etc.; (ii) instances of LBA anchors reused in LBA buildings from the Levant to the Aegean, e.g. Frost 1970; ead., 1970 (n. 44); Shaw, J. W., ‘Two three-holed stone anchors from Kommos, Crete: their context, type and origin’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 24 (1995), 279–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wachsmann 1998, 255–81; and (iii) instances of LBA stone anchors, sometimes broken, associated with LBA tombs and/or ritual loci on Cyprus and elsewhere in the LBA east Mediterranean, e.g. Frost, H., ‘The stone anchors of Ugarit’, in Schaeffer, C. F.-A. (ed.), Ugaritka VI (Paris, 1969), 235–45, at 242Google Scholar; Åström et al. (n. 10), 72, 78; Wachsmann 1998, 258–9, 271, 273, 279, 281, 292–3.

⁴⁵ The smaller examples were thought to be in danger of being removed by others, since they could be raised easily, and so were recovered for further study. One of the larger anchors was also lifted as it was particularly visible. The anchors were lifted using air bags and were then towed to shore. We thank Stuart and Phillip Swiny for their help with this operation, and Helena Wylde Swiny for organizing assistance from the Dckclia Diving Club, including the lifting equipment.

⁴⁶ The Maroni Vrysoudhia site, west of Maroni Tsaroukkas, was recognized by MVASP: Manning ct al. (n. 39), 347, pl. 89. 1; see also Manning, S. W., Manning, A., Monks, S. J., Tomber, R., Sewell, D. A., Ponting, M. J., and Ribeiro, E. C., The Late Roman Church at Maroni Petrera: Survey and Salvage Excavations 1990–1997, and Other Traces of Roman Remains in the Lower Maroni Valley. Cyprus (Nicosia, 2002)Google Scholar. Much of the site lies on the property of, or under, a modern building. Some of the site has been destroyed by bulldozing, in order to create a small marina and mole at the back of the modern building.

⁴⁷ For more information on LRA1 from the coastal area around Maroni and Zygi, see S. W. Manning, S. J. Monks, D. A. Sewell, and S. Demesticha, ‘LRA1a production at the Late Roman site of Zygi-Petrini, Cyprus’, RDAC 2000, 233–57.

⁴⁸ There are two known Roman sites eroding into the sea along this general region of the Cyprus coast: Maroni Vrysoudhia (n. 46), and Zygi Petrini, just west of the modern town of Zygi: Manning et al. (n. 47).

⁴⁹ Hadjisavvas (n. 44), 66–8, nos. 10–14, figs. 123–7, 141.

⁵⁰ See Manning et al. (n. 46) for further details.

⁵¹ Similar conditions are recorded by Engvig, O. T. and Åström, P., Hala Sultan Tekke II: The Cape Kiti Survey: An Underwater Archaeological Survey (SIMA 45/2; Göteborg, 1975)Google Scholar, figs. 15–17.

⁵² Manning and Monks (n. 31), esp. tombs 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10.

⁵³ Cf. Frost 1963, ead., 1985 (n. 44); ead., ‘Anchors sacred and profane (Ugaritic anchors revised and compared)’, in Yon, M. (ed.), Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI: arts et industries de la Pierre (Paris, 1991), 355–410Google Scholar; Nibbi, A., ‘Stone anchors: the evidence re-assessed’, The Mariner's Mirror, 71 (1993), 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kingsly, S. A. and Raveh, K., ‘Stone anchors from Byzantine contexts in Dor Harbour, Israel’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 24 (1994), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wachsmann 1998, 258–92.

Most problematic are examples of small pierced stones, which have been recovered from the seabed by excavation and survey. Many of these are too small to be classified as anchors and are therefore deemed to be weights. Weights would have been required in, among other things, the textile industry (for stretching and holding down cloth, and keeping looms firm), olive oil (Hadjisavvas [n. 44]) and wine processing, and metal-working (for crushing ore). Furthermore, they could also act as fishing-net weights. The wide range of shapes, sizes, and placement of the hole, means that standardized properties were not important to whatever function they served.

The problem of definition is also applicable to some of the larger pierced stones. These have a number of possible uses apart from as anchors, the most obvious being press weights or tethering stones. Seabed context, and similarity to other pierced stones interpreted as anchors, support the anchor interpretations in the present cases.

⁵⁴ McCaslin 1980, fig. 25 category 3 illustrates similar two-hole anchors from the site of Athlit in Israel. The absence at MTSB Site 1 of this type might lend support to a hypothesis that they are a later development from the LBA one- or three-hole types. Cf. also Käpitan, G., ‘Ancient anchors: technology and classification’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 13 (1984), 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 34, fig. 2.

⁵⁵ Frost 1963; McCaslin 1980.

⁵⁶ A number of different terms have been used to describe the different types of anchors. McCaslin 1980 uses the terms ‘weight’, ‘sand’, and ‘composite“ anchor as the main means of classification. See also Moll, E., ‘The history of the anchor’, The Mariner's Mirror, 13 (1927), 93–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nibbi (n. 53). Galili, E., Sharvit, J. and Artzy, M., ‘Reconsidering Byblian and Egyptian stone anchors using numerical methods: new finds from the Israeli coast’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 23 (1994), 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar have attempted to classify LBA one-hole stone anchors according to their shape/dimensions. We have not attempted to analyse the Maroni anchors in this way as the majority of our one-hole anchors are only roughly worked. Maroni weights are also unknown in most cases, as the anchors were not lifted.

⁵⁷ McCaslin 1980, 19.

⁵⁸ Nicolaou, K. and Catling, H. W., ‘Composite stone anchors in Late Bronze Age Cyprus’,Antiquity, 42 (1968), 225–9Google Scholar; see also Frost, H., ‘Where did Bronze Age ships stow their stone anchors?’, in summaries of lectures of Third Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity (Athens, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Nibbi (n. 53), 10, fig. 8.

⁶⁰ Wachsmann 1998, 289, 291, fig. 12. 56.

⁶¹ McCaslin 1980, 19, figs. 3 b, 7 b; Green (n. 32), 170, lig. 30.

⁶² For the ware in general, see Popham, M. R., ‘The Proto White Slip pottery of Cyprus’, Op. Ath. 4 (1962), 277–97Google Scholar; Popham 1972, 431–6, 458–60.

⁶³ For a colour picture of the sherd, see Manning 1999, front cover. Unfortunately it did not react well to attempted conservation. The decoration is no longer visible, just the white slip. The drawings and photos of the sherd just after recovery in 1995 and during desalination offer the available evidence. We thank Vassos Karageorghis for visiting Maroni to examine the sherd before conservation, and for confirming the PWS identification.

⁶⁴ Cf. Popham 1972, fig. 79. 3, from Akhera Tomb 1; Dikaios 1969–71, pl. 56. 9–11, 15, from Enkomi Level I; Popham (n. 62), fig. 5, from Tell el-^cAjjul, T 1463.

⁶⁵ On the origins of PWS, see Popham (n. 62); Manning 1999, 170–3; K. O. Eriksson, ‘Cypriot Proto White Slip and White Slip I: chronological beacons on relations between Late Cypriot I Cyprus with contemporary societies of the eastern Mediterranean’, in Karageorghis 2001, 51–64. See Popham 1972, 436 for views on distribution.

⁶⁶ For Tell el-^cAjjul: Popham (n. 62), 296–7; Stewart (n. 4), 91, fig. 2: 31; Bergoffen 1989 (n. 23); Bergoffen 2001; Oren 2001, 133–40. For Tell el-Dab^ca: Karageorghis, V., ‘Relations between Cyprus and Egypt—Second Intermediate Period and XIIIth Dynasty’, Ägypten und Levante 5 (1995), 73–9Google Scholar, fig. 6; Bietak and Hein 2001. Note, as Merrillees, R. S., ‘The Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Cypriote White Painted Pendent Line Style’, BASOR 326, 1–9Google Scholar, at 2, points out, that PWS ‘… a diagnostic Late Cypriote pottery class … occurs only in pre-18th Dynasty deposits at Tell el-Dab^ca“. It is important to stress that PWS occurs on Cyprus in LC I A 1, LC I A 2 and even in LC I B: see Åström 1972b, esp. 700–1; R. S. Merrillees in Karageorghis 2001, 159. A find overseas does not necessarily date to LC I A 1. Moreover, PWS exports could have occurred over quite a long period of time: at a minimum from LC I A 1 to LC I A 2, and possibly even into LC I B.

⁶⁷ Niemeier and Niemeier (n. 22), 235, fig. 66.

⁶⁸ Maguire 1995 (n. 15); Merrillees (n. 17); Bergoffen 1991 (n. 23); Gittlen 1981 (n. 17).

⁶⁹ S. M. L. Admiraal, ‘Late Bronze Age tombs from Dromolaxia’, RDAC 1982, 39–59, at 53–7.

⁷⁰ Following the analysis of Åström 1972c, 197.

⁷¹ Åström 1972d, 53–69.

⁷² Åström 1966, 92–2, fig. 105.

⁷³ Although designated WP V, the Tangent Line style seems to appear most frequently in early LC contexts, especially when the lines are of equal width: Åström 1966, 45, 89–90, 92, figs. 102, 105.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 89–90.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 45.

⁷⁶ Maguire (n. 3). Both styles are, of course, characteristic also of LCI: Merrillees (n. 66); Åström 1972c, 700.

⁷⁷ Åström 1972c, 171.

⁷⁸ Merrillees (n. 7), pls. iv, v.

⁷⁹ Bikai, P. M., The pottery of Tyre (Warminster, 1978), 43, pls. lii. 3, liii. 3, 4Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Schaeffer, C. F. A., ‘Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Neuvième campagne (printemps 1937)’, Syria, 19 (1938), 193–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 19. k.

⁸¹ Epstein, C., Palestinian Bichrome Ware (Leiden, 1966), 126Google Scholar.

⁸² Cf. Bietak (n. 18), pl. 26 a, in Pendent Line style, from Stratum E/i.

⁸³ Cf. Åström 1972c, fig. 37. 6; Åström 1966, fig. 51, rows 3 and 4.

⁸⁴ Åström 1972c, 125; Åström 1966, 68–9.

⁸⁵ The Monochrome/WP III composite ware, with exterior decoration, from Dhenia (Åström 1972c, 123; Åström, P. and Wright, G. R. H., ‘Two Bronze Age Tombs at Dhenia in Cyprus’, Op. Ath. 4 (1962), 225–76, 251Google Scholar) is different from MTSB.125 in both shape and fabric.

⁸⁶ Åström 1972c, 171; Åström 1966, 68–9.

⁸⁷ Dikaios 1969–71, 223–4, pl. 54. 21.

⁸⁸ Åström 1983 (n. 10), 61, figs. 203, 218; Åström 1989 (n. 10), 59, 66.

⁸⁹ Åström 1972c, 229.

⁹⁰ M. Artzy and E. Marcus, ‘Stratified Cypriote pottery in MB Ila context at Tel Nami’, in Ioannides (n. 31), 103–10, at 105, fig. 4. 1.

⁹¹ Åström, P., ‘Red-on-Black Ware’, Op. Ath. 5 (1964), 59–88Google Scholar; Åström 1972c, 108–18, 225–8.

⁹² Åström 1966, 49–54, 77, 139; Dikaios 1969–71, 223–4.

⁹³ Åström (n. 91), 80–1; Williams, D. P., The Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age II Period from the “500” Cemetery at Tell Fara (South) (London, 1977), 31Google Scholar, fig. 13: 17; Koehl, R. B., Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X. The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon (Beirut, 1985), 69–70Google Scholar; Johnson (n. 3), 66.

⁹⁴ Johnson (n. 3), 54, 60, figs. 6. Q1, 7. I1, I2, N22.

⁹⁵ Åström 1972c, 89–104.

⁹⁶ E. Herscher, ‘A Potter's error’, RDAC 1972, 22–33.

⁹⁷ Similar scraping marks have been recorded on the interior of a Black Slip (Reserved Slip) jug from Hala Sultan Tekke: Åström 1983 (n. 10), fig. 241.

⁹⁸ e.g. Gjerstad, E., Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus (Uppsala, 1926), 135Google Scholar, jug 4, probably from Kalopsidha; Åström 1972c, 225; Åström 1966, 40–7, 63–4; Dikaios 1969–71, pl. 54. 33, from Enkomi Level I.

⁹⁹ TTS 53, 363.

¹⁰⁰ Åström 1983 (n. 10), 61–4, figs. 227, 248; Åström 1989 (n. 10), 21, 57–67, figs. 19, 95, 112.

¹⁰¹ Åström 1966, fig. 31 row 2: 2.

¹⁰² Dikaios 1969–71, pl. 54. 26–7.

¹⁰³ e.g. Åström and Wright (n. 85), pl. vi. 3, from Dhenia T. 6; cf. Åström 1972c, pl. xxiii. 6; Courtois, J.-C., Alasia II: les tombes d'Enkomi, k mobilier funéraire (fouilles C.F.-A. Schaeffer 1947–1965) (Mission Archéologique d'Alasia, 5; Paris, 1981)Google Scholar, figs. 69–70.

¹⁰⁴ Åström 1972c, 195.

¹⁰⁵ Dikaios 1969–71, 349, pl. 197. 27.

¹⁰⁶ Pearlman 1985, 171–3, fig. 2. 2, pl. xxii. 2.

¹⁰⁷ Merrillees 1974, figs. 29. 8, 36.

¹⁰⁸ Petrie, W. M. F., Ancient Gaza III. Tell el Ajjul (London, 1933)Google Scholar, pl. xxxix. 68 r; Johnson (n. 3), 52, fig. 8. C17; Åström 1972c, 225; Stewart (n. 4), 91, fig. 2. 30. The items are also in Bergolfen 1989 (n. 23), nos. 343–8.

¹⁰⁹ A similar but better preserved jar from Kalopsidha, no. 1030, was 74 cm high: Åstrtöm 1966, 43.

¹¹⁰ MTSB.122, with the incomplete continuation of the cross lines, demonstrates well the carelessness of this decoration: perhaps its purpose was less decorative than signatory, in the manner of potmarks.

¹¹¹ Åström 1972c, fig. ii A. 1–3, 5–6, 9–11; Åström 1966, 42 no. 1027, pl. 13, figs 29 a–b; cf. Pilides, D., ‘Storage jars as evidence of the economy of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age’, in Karageorghis, V and Michaelides, D. (eds), The Development of the Cypriot Economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day (Nicosia, 1996), 107–24Google Scholar, at 108–10.

¹¹² Dikaios 1969–71, 228–9, pl. 58. 19–25; pl. 119. 1–9.

¹¹³ Ibid., pl. 119. 1, 6.

¹¹⁴ Hult 1992, 60, figs. 38. 1–3.

¹¹⁵ Maguire 1995 (n. 15), pl. 5. 4.

¹¹⁶ Leonard, A. Jr., ‘“Canaanite jars” and the Late Bronze Age Aegeo-Levantine wine trade’, in McGovern, P. E., Fleming, S. J., and Katz, S. H. (eds), The Origins and Ancient History of Wine (New York, 1996), 233–54Google Scholar; Åström, P., ‘Canaanite Jars from Hala Sultan Tekke’, in Gale, N. H. (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1889 (SIMA 90; Jonsered, 1991), 149–51Google Scholar; id., ‘Problems of definition of local and imported fabrics of Late Cypriot “Canaanite” ware’, in J. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record (University Museum Monograph 74/University Museum Symposium Series, 2; Philadelphia, 1991), 67–72. That at least some ‘Canaanite“ jars actually came to Cyprus from Canaan, at least by LC II, has been demonstrated in one case by neutron activation analysis Gunneweg, J., Perlman, I., and Asaro, F., ‘A Canaanite Jar from Enkomi’, IEJ 37 (1987), 168–72Google Scholar), but others are known to be locally made in Cyprus: Åström ‘Problems’ (n. 116), with references.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Raban, A., ‘The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence for Interconnections Amongst the Biblical Lands’ (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1980), 4–5Google Scholar; Zemer, A., Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade (Haifa, 1977), 7Google Scholar, pl. I. 1; Amiran, R., Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (New Brunswick, 1970)Google Scholar, pls. 31. 4, 43. 1; Grace, V. R., ‘The Canaanite jar’, in Weinberg, S. S. (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of Her Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Locust Valley, 1956), 80–109Google Scholar, earliest type: fig. 5.1; Leonard (n. 116), 239; Cole, D. P., Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery (Winona Lake, 1984), 73Google Scholar; Pearlman 1985, 171.

¹¹⁸ Guy, P. L. O., Megiddo Tombs (Chicago, 1938)Google Scholar, pl. 24, T. 43: 7.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Guy (n. 118), pl. 24, T. 44: 6, T. 51: 19; pl. 27, T. 253: 4; pls. 41, T 77: 26; pl. 44, T. 855: 4; pl. 47, T. 1100: 5–6; pl. 49, T. 1141: 6; pl. 50, T. 1145A: 2; pl. 52, T. 1145B: 2.

¹²⁰ Cf. Petrie, W. M. F., Ancient Gaza I. Tell el Ajjul (London, 1931)Google Scholar, pl. xlvi (lower right); Petrie (n. 108), pl. xxxvii (lower left); Grace (n. 117), fig. 5. 1.

¹²¹ Cole (n. 117), 73–6, pl. 35. Type J1 of MB II B date had round or flattened bases and various rim profiles.

¹²² Williams (n. 93), 106–8, fig. 75. 3.

¹²³ Bikai (n. 79), 6, 43, pl. lii. 13, 15, 19.

¹²⁴ Anderson, W. P., Sarepta I: The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon (Beirut, 1988), 367–9Google Scholar, pls. 20. 13–14, 21. 5 and 7.

¹²⁵ Schaeffer (n. 80), 213–22, figs. 17, 19–22; cf. Epstein (n. 81), 121–4.

¹²⁶ McGovern, P. E. and Harbottle, G., ‘“Hyksos” trade connections between Tell el Dab^c a (Avaris) and the Levant: a neutron activation study of the Canaanite jar’, in Oren, E. D. (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1997), 141–57Google Scholar, fig. 5. 1.

¹²⁷ C. Doumas, ‘Ανασκαϕή Ακρωτηριόυ Θήρας’, PAE 1994, 155–66, pls. 83 β, 84 β; id., ‘Aegeans in the Levant: myth and reality’, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem, 1998), 129–37, figs. 1-2; Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera VII (Athens, 1976)Google Scholar, pl. 49 b.

¹²⁸ Åström ‘Problems’ (n. 116); cf. id., ‘A handle stamped with the Cartouche of Seti I from Hala Sultan Tekke’, Op. Ath. 5 (1964), 115–21, 120.

¹²⁹ Åström (n. 128), 120, figs. 3–4; Merrillees 1974, 47, 75, figs. 29. 5, 35.

¹³⁰ Pearlman 1985. A Cj from Enkomi in the Bichrome technique, apparently from a tomb, had no other objects associated with it, but is of the early type (although the rim is not preserved): Courtois (n. 103), 37, fig. 15. 3.

¹³¹ Åström 1966, 43, no. 1028.

¹³² Ibid., 44, fig. 31 row 5. 1–2. Gjerstad (n. 98), 36 reported ‘great quantities of Syrian ware’, including Ganaanite jars, from this excavation of a house at Kalopsidha; for additional occurrences at the site, cf. Åström 1966, 9, 76, 139.

¹³³ Most notably in Trench 15, F3019, where Cj sherds were associated with PWS ware, Composite ware, and a BSHM II jug handle like MTSB.004; cf. Åström 1989 (n. 10)> 49, 59–60 fig. 111.

¹³⁴ Cf. Pilides (n. 111), 109 for discussion of the connection between trade and the distribution of PWHM storage jars concentrated in the eastern part of the island in late MC III and LC I.

¹³⁵ Pearlman 1985, 170–1.

¹³⁶ The Cypriots were not alone: local Egyptian imitations of Canaanite jars are known as early as the MBA: Leonard (n. 116), 254 n. 11. Hadjicosti, M., Jones, R. E., and Vaughan, S.J., ‘Appendix IV “Canaanite” Jars from Maa-Palaeokastro’, in Karageorghis, V and Demas, M., Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–1986 (Nicosia, 1988), 340–98Google Scholar, at 341, however, consider the early examples in Cyprus to be imported.

¹³⁷ In the opinion of EH, the fabric appears Cypriot.

¹³⁸ Åström and Wright (n. 85), 270.

¹³⁹ Cf. Åström 1972c, 223; Åström (n. 128), 120.

¹⁴⁰ Åström 1922c, fig. 18. 10.

¹⁴¹ No. 1073: Åström 1966, 45, fig. 30.

¹⁴² Cf. Johnson (n. 3), 60, fig. 5. O3.

¹⁴³ For genuine Canaanite jars with this neck type, see e.g. Amiran (n. 117), pl. 43. 1; Åström 1966, fig. 31, row 5. 2.

¹⁴⁴ Åström 1972c, fig. 23. 7; Hennessy (n. 8), 28, pl. xlvi. 1.

¹⁴⁵ Such as Guy (n. 118), pl. 48. 7 of similar small scale.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Åström 1972c, fig. 39. 7. 8.

¹⁴⁷ Peltenburg, E. J., A Catalogue of Cypriot Antiquities in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery (Birmingham, 1981), 32Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁸ Åström 1972d, 232.

¹⁴⁹ Cf. Åström 1972c, 84–8.

¹⁵⁰ Åström 1966, 44.

¹⁵¹ Ibid., 42, fig. 31, row 6. 1 and 2.

¹⁵² Cf. e.g. Grace (n. 117), 88; Guy (n. 118), pl. 27, T. 253. 4; Merrillees 1974, 47, fig- 29.5.

¹⁵³ Åström 1972c, 170; Åström 1966, 43; Pearlman 1985, 168, fig. 2.

¹⁵⁴ Respectively, Åström 1972c, 170–1; and Åström 1966, 40–7.

¹⁵⁵ Ibid., 47.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid., 10.

¹⁵⁷ Ibid., 49–52, 139–40, and n. 7.

¹⁵⁸ Åström 1972c, 164, 195; Dikaios 1969–71, 441–2.

¹⁵⁹ Åström (n. 128), 119; Åström 1989 (n. 10), 49–50, 57–67.

¹⁶⁰ Hult 1992, 22.

¹⁶¹ Herscher 1984, 25–7; Cadogan (n. 44); Cadogan et al. (n. 10). This is also the same time as the reoccupation of Tyre and Sarepta, where in the earliest levels, dated to MB IIC-LB I, ‘Canaanite jars“ comparable to those from the Maroni seabed were found in association with Late Cypriot I pottery: Bikai (n. 79), 6; Anderson (n. 124), 369.

¹⁶² Åström 1966, 40–7, fig. 21.1

¹⁶³ Gjerstad (n. 98), 34–6. The economic and political significance of storage vessels, including PWHM jars, has recently been discussed by Pilides (n. 111).

¹⁶⁴ Åström 1972c, 170–1.

¹⁶⁵ Åström 1966, 48–110.

¹⁶⁶ Taylor, J. du Plat, Myrtou Pighades: A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, figs. 14. 48, 23. 319, 24. 336–40.

¹⁶⁷ Åström 1972d, 683.

¹⁶⁸ Hult 1992, 22–3, tables 9, 10. Johnson (n. 3).

¹⁶⁹ Merrillees 1974, figs. 29. 8, 5.

¹⁷⁰ Pearlman 1985, fig. 2.

¹⁷¹ Herscher 1984, 25–7, figs. 3–4, pl. vii.

¹⁷² Merrillees 1974, 75.

¹⁷³ Admiraal (n. 69).

¹⁷⁴ Epstein (n. 81), 126; e.g. Maguire 1995 (n. 15), fig. 12; Johnson (n. 3).

¹⁷⁵ Although WPHM juglets with a broad neck and pinched rim are not totally unattested abroad: cf. e.g. Bietak (n. 18), pl. 26 a; Merrillees (n. 7), 121.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Åström 1972c, fig. 37. 6.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. ibid., fig. 23. 6; Åström 1966, fig. 31 row 2. 2.

¹⁷⁸ Cf. ibid., row 5. 2; Amiran (n. 117), pl. 31. 4.

¹⁷⁹ See G. Cadogan and M. Domurad, ‘Maroni V’, RDAC 1980, 77–81, pl. vii for in situ ashlar blocks at Vournes. Of course, similar ashlars were also employed at other periods, and instances in the Maroni Valley are known from Late Roman sites, for example.

¹⁸⁰ On the mortar types, see Buchholz, H.-G., ‘Steinerne Dreifußschalen des ägäischen Kulturkreises und ihre Beziehungen zum Osten’, Jdl 78 (1963), 1–77Google Scholar; id., ‘Some observations concerning Thera's contacts overseas during the Bronze Age’, in C. Doumas (ed.), Them and the Aegean World, ii (London, 1980), 227–40, at 228–9. For the provenance of the vesicular basalt, see Williams-Thorpe, O., Thorpe, R. S., Elliot, C., and Xenophontos, C., ‘Archaeology, geochemistry, and trade of igneous rock millstones in Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age to Roman periods’, Geoarchaeology, 6 (1991), 27–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸¹ Examples of other mortars from the terrestrial excavations at Tsaroukkas include: MT.601, which is a fragment of a small basalt tripod mortar; and MT.365, which is an olivine vesicular basalt pestle which comes from Building 1. A decorated, footed, mortar was recovered during the British Museum excavations at Tsaroukkas in 1897: Johnson 1980, 24, pl. 26, Tomb 17 no. 137.

¹⁸² Manning and Conwell (n. 39), pl. 93. 3; Manning et al. (n. 46), MVASE 189.

¹⁸³ A very similar example is among the finds in the Petrie collection (catalogue no. 4385), now held by the Science Museum, London. The object is labelled a 200-beqa weight and is believed to have been excavated by Petrie in Egypt in the 1930s. The weight has a slightly larger base, with two conical breasts and nipples preserved on top. It is also made of white marble. We thank Kevin Johnson, associate curator of astronomy and mathematics at the Science Museum, for this information. Such weights are best known from the Roman period: Forsén, B., ‘Marmorne Gewichtsteine aus Thera’, Op. Ath. 20 (1994), 43–9Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ Bietak (n. 17).

¹⁸⁵ Bietak and Hein 2001.

¹⁸⁶ M. H. Wiener, ‘The White Slip I of Tell el-Dab^ca and Thera: critical challenge for the Aegean long chronology,“ in Karageorghis 2001, 195–202.

¹⁸⁷ Bietak 2000, 187 n. 3 towards end.

¹⁸⁸ Åström 1972b, 765.

¹⁸⁹ Following the standard definitions: Åström 1972b; Åstrom 1972d. The very beginning of the WS I style (‘early style“ WS I), which emerges from a transition phase from PWS (of the LC I A 1 period) may, of course, in its very first appearances even creep over the border into the previous period. Following such logic, Bergoffen 2001, 155 has recently mooted the idea that the ‘early-style“ of WS I began in late LC I A 1.

¹⁹⁰ Åström 1972d, 700–1. Two interrelated issues are involved. First, there are the important regional trends: see Merrillees 1971. Second, there is the key point that the defined Cypriot ceramic wares and fabrics are independent of the broader stratigraphic and chronological periods. Thus, for example, there is no such thing as MC wares and fabrics: nearly all the ceramic wares and fabrics typical of late MC contexts continue throughout LC I A, but with differing regional patterns (see also Merrillees n. 66, 2). And various new wares/fabrics appear: in broad, general terms, in LC I the BR-WS-Monochrome tradition develops in or from the west, while the Bichrome Wheelmade, and perhaps PW, WP Wheelmade, and BS–RS Wheelmade traditions develop in the east.

¹⁹¹ Åström 1966, 56.

¹⁹² Ibid., 50–7.

¹⁹³ Åström 1972b, 678.

¹⁹⁴ Dikaios 1969–71, 226 and 224 respectively and also see pp. 442–3, where WS I is found from the time of the Level I buildings of LC I A (and not before). The specific WP III–IV PLS sherds cited come from Area III Level I A (pl. 53/7, Inv. 2392/1, see p. 548 for context) of LC I A date, and Area I, Level I B (pl. 53/27, Inv. 2157/2, see p. 545 for context) of LC I B date. WS I sherds of Level I A and I B date from Areas I and III are shown in pl. 56. Instances of WS I from Area III, Level I A, coeval with the first WP sherd above are: pl. 56. 35 and p. 553 Inv. 4670/1, pl. 56. 21 and p. 547 Inv. 2303/4, and pl. 56. 26 and p. 551 Inv. 3781/1. Instances from Area I, Level I B date coeval with the second WP sherd are: pl. 56. 16 and p. 545 Inv. 2134/1, pl. 56. 17 and p. 545 Inv. 2162/1, pl. 56. 15 and p. 546 Inv. 2205/1. The overlap of WP V with (mature) WS I is not an issue, and is also nicely shown in the earliest layer in Tomb 10: pp. 358–60, 389–91.

¹⁹⁵ Ibid., 223–4, 442–4. See also 420 and n. 314: ‘MC pottery types persist in LC I and even II … Their persistence has also been observed in our tombs and especially in the stratified deposit in our Areas I and III“.

¹⁹⁶ Merrillees 1971. Re-study of the Enkomi LC I assemblage and contextual data by Lindy Crewe, as part of her Edinburgh University Ph.D. project, will provide important new evidence and interpretation in due course.

¹⁹⁷ Gjerstad et al. (n. 10), pl. 114 no. E19. 146 = Popham 1972, fig. 80. 6.

¹⁹⁸ Merrillees 2001, 93 with refs.

¹⁹⁹ Gjerstad et al. (n. 10), pl. 91 row 10 six in from left, pl. 109. 3; Åström 1972c, 64.

²⁰⁰ Pace arguments of, e.g., Bietak and Hein 2001, 172, 174.

²⁰¹ The general pattern in the NW is that in late MC contexts there is local WP III–IV (including PLS), e.g. Toumba tou Skourou Tomb V: TTS 294 T V 40 P 979 Ch. 1. 40; p. 301 T V. 101 P 1020 Ch. 2. 49; T V. 109 P 1026 Ch. 2. 57, and some co-occurs with PWS in initial LC I A, e.g. Pendayia Mandres Tomb 1: V. Karageorghis, Nouveaux Documents pour l'étude du Bronze Récent à Chypre (Etudes Chypriotes 3; Paris, 1965), pp. 47–8, 49–51, but during LC I A it is becoming rarer or absent, replaced by both the regional versions of WP V and VI, and especially by the new“ PWS WS I, PBR-BR I and Monochrome family wares, e.g. the other, later, tombs at Toumba tou Skourou, or Tomb 1 at Akhera: Karageorghis (n. 200), 80–111. Some of this initial NW PWS shows dose affinities to WP forms and decoration, e.g. ibid., 50, fig. 11 nos. 21, 54, 72, fig. 12 = Popham 1972, fig. 47. 7, indicative of the regional fusion that created the new ‘L C wares. For ‘early-style“ WS I, see the Appendix. The earlier material in Kazaphani Ayios Andronikos Tomb 2A covers this period, and either shows the progressive change, or perhaps the final occurrences of local WP III–IV (nos. 191, 299 and 300), just continuing long enough to co-occur with the onset of the new ‘LC“ types: Nicolaou and Nicolaou (n. 8). However, in a significant contrast, in the east of Cyprus the new PWS–WS I, PBR–BR I, and Monochrome wares are relatively rare until LC I B, and instead the eastern WP traditions continue and predominate in LC I A: Merrillees 1971.

²⁰² Bietak and Hein 2001, nos. 8894 E [correcting ‘F“ in Manning 1999, 163], 8205 M, 8441 R.

²⁰³ Bergoffen 2001.

²⁰⁴ Dikaios 1969–71, 419–20.

²⁰⁵ For the ‘high“ chronology in general, see Manning 1999. For the details of the 1650–1630 BC date range, see the main text below in this section.

²⁰⁶ Bietak 2000, 190.

²⁰⁷ Bietak and Hein 2001.

²⁰⁸ Manning 1999, 161–4.

²⁰⁹ Bietak and Hein 2001, 179.

²¹⁰ Manning 1999, 162; Bergoffen 2001, 150; Bergoffen 2002 (n. 18), 29; Eriksson (n. 65), 60.

²¹¹ Bergoffen 2001, 155.

²¹² Bergoffen 2001; ead., 2002 (n. 18).

²¹³ In the NW there is also local variation. No PWS or ‘early-style“ WS I was found in the tombs at Stephania published by Hennessy (n. 8), although they span the close of the MC through early LC periods. The earlier LC I tombs, such as Tomb 12, dated LC I A 2–I B 1 by Åström 1972b, 831; LC I A by Hennessy (n. 8), 52, have Black Slip III, WP V, WP Wheel-made, PBR, BR I and already classic, mature, WS I. The PWS and then PWS–WS I transition/‘early-style“ WS I phases have occurred elsewhere, between Stephania Tomb 10 of either latest MC date or LC I A 1 date (for dating, see Åström 1972c, 191; Åström 1972b, 676 n. 7; Merrillees 1971), and Tomb 12.

²¹⁴ Åström 1972b, 765.

²¹⁵ Cf. Merrillees 1971; Åström 1972b, 679–80, 763–7; 1972a.

²¹⁶ Merrillees 1971, 74.

²¹⁷ Based, unless noted otherwise, on the sequence in Bietak 2000, fig. 1; and Bietak and Hein 2001.

²¹⁸ Maguire 1995 (n. 15), 55.

²¹⁹ Bietak and Hein 2001, 171.

²²⁰ Åström 1972c, 163–99, 276–7.

²²¹ Åström 19726, 700–1. The situation is well summarized and illustrated by Merrillees in Karageorghis 2001, 217–8: ‘… nearly all of the fabrics of MC III continue throughout LC I A. All of the White Painted Cross Line Style, Pendent Line Style, White Painted V, Red-on-Black, Black Slip (Reserved Slip) wares, indeed all of the characteristic and diagnostic ceramic features of MC III, continue almost unceasingly throughout the whole of LC I A and only begin to die out in LC I B…. If you then try to say that Middle Cypriote fabrics never occur with PWS, that is, of course, in terms of the Cypriot relative chronology, a nonsense, because PWS in Cyprus occurs very irregularly in many contexts in LC I A and the overwhelming masses of pottery in both stratigraphic and funerary contexts are all what is called Middle Cypriote …’ (see also Merrillees n. 66, 2).

²²² Bietak, M., ‘Die Chronologie ägyptens und der Beginn der Mittleren Bronzezeit-Kultur’, Ägypten und Levante 3 (1992), 29–37Google Scholar; id., ‘Avaris, capital of the Hyksos kingdom: new results of excavations’, in E. D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1997), 87–139. The start of D/3 is shown as just before 1590 BC in Bietak 2000, fig. 1, which we regard as 1600/1590 BC.

²²³ W. G. Dever, ‘Settlement patterns and chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age’, in Oren (n. 222), 285–301, at 295 fig. 9. 4; Manning 1999, 86–8, 328, figs. 36 and 62.

²²⁴ Dikaios 1969–71, 225–6; Eriksson (n. 65), 56.

²²⁵ Åström 1972c, 163–99, 276–7; 1972b, 700.

²²⁶ Ibid., 163; Baurain (n. 4), 54–8, 79.

²²⁷ Bietak 2000, fig. 1, or maybe even about one line's worth before the start of Stratum D/3 if the figure is closely examined.

²²⁸ Maguire 1992 (n. 15), fig. 2.

²²⁹ Åström 1972c, 277.

²³⁰ Åström 1972b, 700.

²³¹ In an interesting revision to past statements, Bietak 2000, fig. 1, carefully shows PWS, WP VI, and Bichrome Wheelmade ware as first appearing just before the end of Stratum D/3, rather than with the start of Stratum D/2.

²³² This follows, but slightly modifies, S. W. Manning, ‘The chronology and foreign connections of the Late Cypriot I period: times they are a-changin' ’, in Åström 2001 (n. 9), 69–94, to reflect the increased possibility of a c. 1650/1645 BC date for the Thera eruption—see below this section. In particular, revising the discussion p. 71, it seems now unlikely that the ice-core evidence c. 1645 BC can be correlated with the tree-ring event attested 1628/1627 BC in various northern hemisphere tree-ring sequences. If the Aegean Bronze–Iron dendrochronology reflects the Thera eruption via the unique growth anomaly starting in relative ring 854, as suggested in previous publications, then the latest evidence and analyses indicate a date of 1650 BC +4/-7 years (and not 1628 BC): see Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Kuniholm, P. I., and Newton, M. W., ‘Anatolian tree-rings and a new chronology for the east Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages’, Science, 294 (2001), 2532–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Alternatively, the eruption is most likely at another date in the mid-later 17th c. BC: see note 245 below.

²³³ TTS 381–3; Cadogan, G., ‘Thera's eruption into our understanding of the Minoans’, in Hardy, D. A., Doumas, C. G., Sakellarakis, J. A., and Warren, P. M. (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, i: Archaeology (London, 1990), 93–7, at 95Google Scholar.

²³⁴ Ahmose acceded c. 1550 or 1540 BC after respectively J. von Beckerath, , Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten. Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. (Mainz, 1997)Google Scholar; and Kitchen, K. A., ‘The historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment’, Act. A. 67 (1996), 1–13Google Scholar. The conquest of Avaris = Tell el-Dab^ca is dated between Ahmose years 7–18: see Redford, D. B., History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto, 1967), 48Google Scholar; Bietak, M., ‘Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age’, BASOR 281 (1991), 27–72, 48Google Scholar; Bietak 2000, 190 n. 20.

²³⁵ Manning 1999, 204 and n. 972, based on literature cited there, argued that the cup from this deposit was latest LH II A at the earliest. However, Macdonald, C. E, ‘Chronologies of the Thera eruption’, AJA 105 (2001), 527–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 530 states (without explanation, or correcting authorities cited by Manning) that the relevant alabastron and cup are both ‘classic LH II A, contemporary with LM I B“. I adopt this view as the minimum position. For the Egyptian date, see the references in Manning 1999 cited above. Macdonald notes the new Egyptian context dating, but also says that the book by Warren and Hankey in 1989 offered a different, lower, date and so leaves the matter apparently open. This is inappropriate. Macdonald is ignoring the fact that leading Egyptologists have revised the date for specific reasons since Warren and Hankey wrote, and so retrospective citation is not a sufficient counter.

²³⁶ For discussion ofliterature up to 1999, see Manning 1999.

²³⁷ Clausen, H. B., Hammer, C. U.Hvidberg, C. S., Dahl-Jensen, D., Steffensen, J. P., Kipfstuhl, J., and Legrand, M., ‘A comparison of the volcanic records over the past 4000 years from the Creenland Ice Core Project and Dye 3 Greenland ice cores’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (1997), 26707–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hammer, C. U., ‘What can Greenland ice core data say about the Thera eruption in the second millennium BC?’, in Bietak, M. (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schlo ß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May 1998 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, 1; Vienna, 2000), 35–7Google Scholar. For the Dye 3 acid signal, see Hammer, C. U., Clausen, H. B., Friedrich, W. L., and Tauber, H., ‘The Minoan eruption of Santorini in Greece dated to 1645 BC?’, Nature, 328 (1987), 517–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³⁸ Hammer (n. 237), 37. SWM thanks Professor Claus Hammer for information and discussion. Data on the chemical profile of these shards compared to Thera Minoan eruption volcanic glass was shown by Professor Gero Kurat in Vienna on 24 January 2002 after a seminar by Manning at the VERA laboratory. Manning thanks Professor Kurat. Recent work has greatly refined the characterisation of Minoan Bo eruption volcanic glass (e.g. Pearce, N.J.G., Eastwood, W.J., Westgate, J.A., and Perkins, W.T., ‘Trace-element composition of single glass shards in distal Minoan tephra from SW Turkey’, Journal of the Geological Society, London, 159 (2002), 545–56)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; this should permit tighter comparison of distal tephra found in polar ice versus candidate source eruption. It may also be noted that there is so far no record of a large southern hemisphere volcanic eruption at this time on the basis of Antarctic ice-core records, see Cole-Dai, J., Mosley-Thompson, E., Wright, S. P., and Thompson, L. G., ‘A 4100-year record of explosive volcanism from an East Antarctica ice core’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105 (2000), 24, 431–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thus we must look for a northern hemisphere candidate.

²³⁹ Some readers may wonder about the GISP2 ice-core: Zielinski, G. A., Mayewski, P. A., Meeker, L. D., Whitlow, S., Twickler, M. S., Morrison, M., Meese, D. A., Gow, A. J., and Alley, R. B., ‘Record of volcanism since 7000 BC from the GISP2 Greenland ice core and implications for the volcano-climate system’, Science, 264 (1994), 948–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This ice-core does not offer satisfactory correlation with the replicated Dye 3/GRIP sequence in the mid second millennium BC, and thus has a significant dating uncertainty: see Clausen et al. (n. 237), 26713–14; Hammer (n. 237); and (postscript) now especially the analysis of Southon, J., ‘A First Step to Reconciling the GRIP and GISP2 Ice-Core Chronologies, 0–14,500 yr BP’, Quaternary Research, 57 (2002), 32–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which he presents a cogent case that the so-called c. 1695 BC volcanic signal in the GISP2 ice-core should be correlated with (and dated by) the 1636 = 1644 BC volcanic signal in the GRIP/Dye 3 ice-cores. Among others, any of the major volcanic signals dated c. 1623 BC, c. 1669 BC or c. 1695 BC in the GISP2 ice-core could be Thera (see esp. Southon, loc. cit). Moreover, Hammer (n. 237), 36 in fact argues that the GISP2 ice-core simply failed altogether to record the major volcanic signal c. 1645 BC in the Dye 3 and GRIP ice-cores (and now North GRIP ice-core). It was of course claimed that the signal c. 1623 BC in the GISP2 ice-core was not Thera: Zielinski, G. A. and Germani, M. S., ‘New ice-core evidence challenges the 1620s BC age for the Santorini (Minoan) eruption’, JAS 25 (1998), 279–89Google Scholar; iid., ‘Reply to: Correction. New GISP2 ice-core evidence supports 17th century BC date for the Santorini (Minoan) eruption’, JAS 25 (1998), 1043–5. Even if a valid claim, this left the 1669 BC and 1695 BC signals as potential and plausible Thera candidates. However, as argued in Manning 1999, 288–300, the papers of Zielinski and Germani do not make a clearcut or sound case. Their characterization data do not really rule out a Thera provenance, and, indeed, careful examination would indicate that their characterization data are incorrect and require ‘calibration’, since their measurements of samples from Thera fail to match other analyses of the Minoan eruption products: see Manning 1999, 291, fig. 54 b. It is important to note that this rejection of the claims of Zielinski and Germani is supported by recent research on the subject of the characterization of Theran versus other Aegean volcanic products: Peltz, C., Schmid, P. and Bichler, M., ‘INAA of Aegaean pumices for the classification of archaeological findings’, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 242 (1999), 361–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and especially Schmid, P., Peltz, C., Hammer, V. M. F., Halwax, E., Ntaflos, T., Nagl, P., and Bichler, M., ‘Separation and analysis of Theran volcanic glass by INAA, XRF and EPMA’, Mikrochimica Acta 133 (2000), 143–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schmid et al. simply state (p. 148) of the claim of Zielinski and Germani that ‘This suggestion is not supported by the results obtained from the separated glass fraction’. Schmidt et al. make two points very clear: first, within measurement errors, only potassium is slightly different for the volcanic glass shards from the c. 1623 BC layer of the GISP2 ice-core when compared with Thera eruption glass; and, second, in rigorous overall terms, the volcanic glass found in the c. 1623 BC layer of the GISP2 ice-core cannot be distinguished from Thera eruption volcanic glass. Thus we are left with a less than useful ice-core that does not correlate with the Dye 3 and GRIP records for the mid-second millennium BC, and from which either (i) any of three (or more) volcanic signals could be Thera, or (ii) no signal equals Thera for unexplained reasons: Hammer (n. 237), 36.

²⁴⁰ Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S. and Devine, J. D., ‘Assessment of mass, dynamics and environmental effects of the Minoan eruption of Santorini volcano’, in Hardy, D. A., Keller, J., Galanopoulos, V. P., Flemming, N. C. and Druitt, T. H. (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, ii: Earth Sciences (London, 1990), 100–12Google Scholar; Pyle, D. M., ‘The application of tree-ring and ice-core studies to the dating of the Minoan eruption’, in Hardy, D. A. and Renfrew, A. C. (eds), Thera and the Aegean World III, iii: Chronology (London, 1990), 167–73Google Scholar.

²⁴¹ There is a published case and claim by Michaud, V., Clocchiatti, R., and Sbrana, S., ‘The Minoan and post-Minoan eruptions, Santorini (Greece), in the light of melt inclusions: chlorine and sulphur behaviour’, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 99 (2000), 195–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is also an as yet unpublished case arguing for a significant increase in eruption scale (and hence sulphur production) based on field observations by Professor R. S. J. Sparks (pers. comms., 2001–2002). But (postscript), perhaps most important of all, is the conclusion drawn from a decade of study prompted by the great 1991 Pinatubo eruption. Here, as at El Chichón in 1982, volatiles (CO₂, H₂O and SO₂ were present far in excess of saturation and so far in excess of any estimates made by petrologic analyses of the erupted products. These volatiles were in a discrete bubble phase. This bubble phase formed at least 5–10 km below the ground (at depth) and not merely in the top few kilometres of the Earth's crust and contained very large amounts of volatiles. Is this a common phenomenon? In a 10 years on from Pinatubo perspective article Newhall, C. G., Power, J. A., and Punongbayan, R. S., ‘To make grow’, Science, 295 (2002), 1241–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed conclude yes, writing on p. 1241 that ‘Work since the Pinatubo eruption suggests that many, perhaps all, large explosive eruptions are of magma that contains a substantial bubble phase at depth’. If so, this should include Thera (and the work of Michaud et al. indicates this). Thus the very small estimates of volatile yield for the Thera eruption made in the 1980s on the basis of petrologic analyses are very likely massive underestimates and totally irrelevant. Instead, the eruption must have produced a significant volatile yield. Within the period c. 1700–1450 BC, only the large volcanic acid signal dated c. 1644 BC in the Dye 3 ice-core, which equals and better dates the signal at c. 1636 BC in the GRIP ice-core, could thus plausibly represent the Thera eruption, see Clausen et al. (n. 237); and Manning (n. 232), fig. 1 (mistakenly printed as fig. 2 on p. 85) with text pp. 73–4 and caption p. 75. For the reasons outlined in n. 239, the GISP2 ice-core is not discussed at present.

²⁴² Michaud et al. (n. 241).

²⁴³ Druitt, T. H., Edwards, L., Mellors, R. M., Pyle, D. M., Sparks, R. S. J., Lanphere, M., Davies, M., and Barreirio, B., Santorini Volcano (Memoir of the Geological Society, 19; London, 1999)Google Scholar. The main Minoan erupted magma is low in sulphur as determined in previous studies: e.g. Sigurdsson et al. (n. 240).

²⁴⁴ Gerlach, T. M., Westrich, H. R., and Symonds, R. B., ‘Preemption vapor in magma of the climactic Mount Pinatubo eruption: source of the giant stratospheric sulphur dioxide cloud’, in Newhall, C. G. and Punongbayan, R. S. (eds), Fire and Mud: Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (Seattle, 1996), 415–33Google Scholar.

²⁴⁵ Manning, S. W., Ramsey, C. B., Doumas, C., Marketou, T., Cadogan, G., and Pearson, C. L., ‘Evidence for early date of Aegean Late Bronze Age and Thera eruption’, Antiquity, 76 (2002), 733–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Further analysis and data are in press and/or progress. See also Marketou, T., Facorellis, Y., and Maniatis, Y., ‘New Late Bronze Age chronology from the Ialysos Region, Rhodes’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, I (2001), 19–29Google Scholar.

²⁴⁶ SWM thanks Professor Claus Hammer for several personal communications on the topic over 1999–2001.

²⁴⁷ e.g. LaMarche, V. C. Jr. and Hirschboeck, K. K., ‘Frost rings in trees as records of major volcanic eruptions’, Nature, 307 (1984), 121–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baillie, M. G. L. and Munro, M. A. R., ‘Irish tree rings, Santorini and volcanic dust veils’, Nature, 332 (1988), 344–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. G. L. Baillie, ‘Irish tree rings and an event in 1628 BC’, in Hardy and Renfrew (n. 240), 160–6; id., A Slice Through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating (London, 1995); Grudd, H., Briffa, K. R., Gunnarson, B. E., and Linderholm, H. W., ‘Swedish tree rings provide new evidence in support of a major, widespread environmental disruption in 1628 BC’, Geophysical Research Letters, 27 (2000), 2957–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that the dramatic tree-ring growth anomaly in the Aegean Dendrochronology, which was previously associated with the 1628 BC event (Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini, C. E., and Bruce, M. J., ‘Anatolian tree-rings and the absolute chronology of the east Mediterranean 2220–718 BC’, Nature, 381 (1996), 780–3)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is now no longer so dated, see Manning et al. (n. 232).

²⁴⁸ Hughes, M. K., ‘Ice layer dating of the eruption of Santorini’, Nature, 335 (1988), 211–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baillie, M. G. L., ‘Extreme environmental events and the linking of the tree-ring and ice-core records’, in Dean, J. S., Meko, D. M. and Swetnam, T. W. (eds), Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 17–21 May, 1994 (Tucson, 1996), 703–11Google Scholar; Manning 1999; Manning (n. 232).

²⁴⁹ New evidence indicates that the extraordinary tree-growth anomaly in the Anatolian tree-ring data, which has been argued perhaps to reflect the regional impact of the great Thera eruption (Kuniholm et al. (n. 247); Manning 1999), may offer a possible or potential association with the Dye 3/GRIP ice-core evidence: Manning et al. (n. 232). The date for this unique tree-ring growth anomaly is now placed at c. 1650 BC +4/−7 years (at approx. 95% confidence). The ice-core date is c. 1645 BC ± 7 years (see n. 237).

²⁵⁰ Manning 1999.

²⁵¹ e.g. Warren, P., ‘Aegean Late Bronze 1–2 absolute chronology—some new contributions’, in Balmuth, M. S. and Tykot, R. H. (eds), Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean (Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, 5; Oxford, 1998), 323–31Google Scholar; Warren, P., ‘LMIA: Knossos, Thera, Gournia’, in Betancourt, P. P., Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D., Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum 20; Liège and Austin, 1999), 893–903Google Scholar; id., review of Jan Driessen and Colin MacDonald, The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete Before and After the Santorini Eruption: AJA 105 (2001), 115–18. Even more impossible is the date range between 1515 and 1460 BC proposed by Bietak 1997 (n. 222), 125.

²⁵² Manning 1999, 116–19, 126–7, 135, 150–92; Graziadio, G., ‘Egina, Rodi e Cipro: rapporti inter-insulari agli inizio del Tardo Bronzo?’, SMEA 36 (1995), 7–27Google Scholar.

²⁵³ Demonstrated by the find on Thera in 1870 of the now infamous, and subsequently lost, WS I bowl: Manning 1999, 150–8 with refs.; Merrillees 2001.

²⁵⁴ See Manning 1999, subject to the new information outlined in Section IX of the main text above. For post-1999 information, revisions and updates to Manning 1999 see http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lasmanng/testoftime.html.

²⁵⁵ The sudden emergence of complex society on LC Cyprus appears to be an instance of secondary state formation, with the emergent élite (as typical in such a case) employing elements of the symbolism from the surrounding established state societies in their own ideology.

²⁵⁶ Cf. Popham 1972, 433.

²⁵⁷ Ibid., 440.

²⁵⁸ Ibid., 440.

²⁵⁹ e.g. ibid., figs. 48. 9 and 10, 80. 6; TTS, pl. 162 nos. TI. 105 P61, TI. 295 P223, TIV. 32 P708.

²⁶⁰ e.g. TTS TII. 9 P558, TI. 99 P56, pl. 162 TI. 295 P223; Karageorghis 1990, pl. 18 no. K41 + T. 105/B. 12.

²⁶¹ e.g. Popham 1972, fig. 49. 10 = Johnson (n. 31), pl. 52. 209; TTS pl. 160 a and b; Karageorghis 1990, pl. 18 no. K. 40.

²⁶² e.g. see M. Padgett in TTS 373–4 (quotation from p. 373); Manning 1999, 172–3.

²⁶³ Stewart (n. 4), 62. See also Bergoffen 2002 (n. 18), 26–27.

²⁶⁴ And Bergoffen 2001, 155 recently even speculates that ‘early style“ WS I was perhaps first produced and exported in LC I A 1 during the ‘late PWS phase“.

²⁶⁵ Manning 1999, 155–6; for sherd, see Karageorghis (n. 201), pl. 14. 1 row 2 third from left.

²⁶⁶ e.g. Popham 1972, fig. 80. 2–5.

²⁶⁷ TTS 374. See also the further brief discussion in n. 10.

²⁶⁸ Bergoffen 2001; ead., 2002 (n. 18); Manning 1999, 119–29, 150–87.

²⁶⁹ Merrillees 2001; Manning 1999, 150–6.

²⁷⁰ e.g. Rhodes: Manning 1999, 162 and refs.; Ayia Irini Tomb 3, where all WS I bowls are of the classic, or mature, WS I style—nos. 24, 37, 38, 61, 107, 110, 126, 127, 128 and 129–and there are also two LH II A imports, nos. 16 and 29: Pecorella, P. E., Le lombe dell'età“ del bronze tardo delta necropolis a mare di Ayia Irini ‘Pakokastro’ (Biblioteca di antichità cipriote 4.1; Rome, 1977Google Scholar.

²⁷¹ TTS 371–6.

²⁷² Al-Radi (n. 9), pl. 33. 4–14, cf. ibid. 44: WS I ‘appears towards the end of Late Cypriot I A or the beginning of I B on Vounari, whereas it began somewhat earlier in the western part of the island’.

²⁷³ Dikaios 1969–71, pl. 56. 14, 19–24, 26–37.

²⁷⁴ Ibid., 225–6.

²⁷⁵ Manning 1999, 179 and refs.; or e.g. Lagarce, J. and Lagarce, É., Alasia IV. Deux Tombes du Cypriote Récent d'Enkomi (Chypre). Tombes 1851 et 1907 (Mission Archéologique Françhise d'Alasia Tome VII; Paris, 1985)Google Scholar, where there is no PWS and the WSI in classic parallel line and framed wavy line style as characteristic of LCIB. Although Eriksson (n. 65), 56 suggests that Schaeffer, C. F. A., Missions en Chypre 1932–1935 (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar, fig. 33 tomb 4 top row bottom right numbered 1 is PWS, presumably because circles not dots are shown in the decoration, but this vase looks to us much more WS I, with an open, clean and vertical style of linear decorative scheme, and the rest of the tomb contents, see pp. 136–7, suggest a LC I B date for the vessel.

²⁷⁶ Gjerstad et al. (n. 10), pl. 114 no. E19. 146 = Popham 1972, fig. 80. 6

²⁷⁷ Åström (n. 7).

²⁷⁸ Admiraal (n. 69).

²⁷⁹ Pearlman 1985.

²⁸⁰ Benson, J. L., ‘The White Slip sequence at Bamboula, Kourion’, PEQ 93 (1961), 61–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. 5. 1–4, 6. 1, 7.

²⁸¹ Karageorghis 1990, 3–71.

²⁸² Including two Black Slip jugs (K. 14 and K. 27) and two possible (?) PBR items (K. 11 and K. 34; cf. Karageorghis 1990, 60 with entries pp. 29 and 30).

²⁸³ K. 40 and K. 41, see Karageorghis 1990, pl. 18.

²⁸⁴ Karageorghis 1990, pls. vii–viii nos. ii–viii.

²⁸⁵ e.g. Tomb 104 chamber E, contrasting ‘early-style“ E. 11 with classic style E. 6 and E. 9.

²⁸⁶ See TTS. References to vessels are to the TTS publication.