Agro-Pastoralist Colonization of Cyprus in the 10Th Millennium BP: Initial Assessments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285891107 Agro-pastoralist colonization of Cyprus in the 10th millennium BP: Initial assessments Article in Antiquity · December 2000 DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X0006049X CITATIONS READS 100 48 6 authors, including: Sue Colledge Paul Croft University College London University of Cyprus 67 PUBLICATIONS 3,166 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 363 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Carole J. Mccartney University of Cyprus 9 PUBLICATIONS 240 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Chlorakas-Palloures, Leiden University View project Cultivating Societies: Assessing the Evidence for Agriculture in Neolithic Ireland View project All content following this page was uploaded by Sue Colledge on 07 December 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Agro-pastoralist- colonization of Cyprus in the loth millennium BP: initial assessments EDGARPELTENBURG, SUE COLLEDGE, PAUL CROFT, ADAMJACKSON, CAROLEMCCARTNEY & MARYANNE MURRAY* Unexpectedly early evidence for the precocious spread of farming has recently emerged in Cyprus. It is argued that the transmission occurred as a result of migration related to ecosystem stress in the Levant. So strong are the connections of the colonists with the mainland that we suggest the term Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B to describe what has hitherto been a major lacuna in Cypriot prehistory. Consistent dates from key sites and the evolution of material culture indicate that this Cypro-PPNB sequence represents the hitherto elusive ancestry for the Khirokitian. Key-words: burial, colonization, Cyprus, domestication, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, wells A startling variety of new evidence from Cy- Aetokremnos (Simmons et al. 1999) and the prus demonstrates that the introduction of the 8thhth-millennia BP Khirokitian might be found Neolithic occurred in the loth millennium BP, on low visibility sites that had escaped detec- over a millennium earlier than often assumed tion. Such sites have recently come to light. in studies of Mediterranean island coloniza- The earliest, and currently the most informa- tions (e.g. Stanley Price 1977; Cherry 1990). On tive sites, Kissonerga-Mylouthkia (hereafter the basis of evidence summarized below, we Mylouthkia) and Parekklisha-Shillourokambos propose that the introduction of agro-pastoral- (hereafter Shillourokambos), were founded in ism was by migration rather than a result of the second half of the loth millennium BP (FIG- adaptations by indigenous foragers. The proc- URES 1, 2). ess does not fit the wave of advance model used Mylouthkia is a multi-period coastal site in to account for the spread of farming in Europe the southwest of the island. Lemba Archaeo- (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984), nor its logical Project excavations from 1989 to 2000 modification, jump dispersal (Van Andel & revealed five wells, a semi-subterranean struc- Runnels 1995),but is the outcome of regional ture and three pits belonging to the Aceramic environmental change. All dates in this paper Neolithic. Period 1A well 116 has a coherent are uncalibrated BP. set of three later 10th-millennium BP AMS dates from barley and other short-lived cereal grains Low visibility sites of agro-pastoralist (FIGIJRE2). AMS results from charred seeds in colonists Period 1B well 133 date it to the late 9th mil- The origins of the Aceramic Neolithic lennium BP. The wells are thus amongst the Khirokitian culture have long been debated earliest known in the world. Details are reported (Held 1992; LeBrun 1989; Stanley Price 1977; in Peltenburg et al. in press; forthcoming a; Watkins 1973). Cherry (1990: 194) suggested forthcoming b. that relevant evidence belonging to the period Since 1992, Jean Guilaine’s excavations at between the 11th-millennium BP foragers of Shillourokambos have also yielded mainly * Peltenburg & Jackson, Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Old High School, Edinburgh EH1 ILT, Scotland. E.PeltenburgQed.ac.uk AjacksonBhsyl.ssc.ed.ac.uk Colledge & Murray, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WClH OPY, England. S.ColledgeQucl.ac.uk [email protected] Croft, Leniba Archaeological Research Centre, 8260 Lernba, Paphos District. Cyprus. Pau1croftQcytanet.com.cy McCartney, 8 Metamorphosios, 8574 Kissonerga, Paphos District, Cyprus. CaroleQnautilus.spidernet.net Received 5 April 2000, accepted 31 May 2000, revised 18 July 2000 ANTIQUITY74 (2000): 844-53 AGRO-PASTORALIST COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS IN THE lOTH MILLENNIUM BP 845 Suberde A r *Can Hasan A /j Arkosyko 0 ? Abu Hureyra 0 A Asprakremnos *A nny,ou*h~Kalavasos Tenfa rn *A Shillourokambos R @A Site 23@? / MEDITERRANEAN SEA Ghoraife 0 A *Aswad 0 Ramad A 0 250km FIGLJRE1. Distribution of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in Cyprus and the adjacent Asiatic mainland. negative features including probable wells, pits Shillourokainbos Middle/Late Phase (FIGURE2). and posthole alignments (Briois et al. 1997; Its hierarchically organized settlement plan was Guilaine et al. 1998; 2000). Thirteen charcoal- ultimately derived from PPNA Syria (Todd 1987: derived I4C dates belonging to the loth-9th figure 20; cf. Stordeur 1999: 142, figure 8b). millennium BP point to a long continuity of Other southwest Asiatic introductions, some occupation which the excavators have divided discussed below, concern symbolic behaviour into four periods (FIGURE2 and Vigne et al. in (maceheads, engraved pebbles, figurative art- press). Of particular note are a 76-sq. m enclo- work and skull treatments) and the economic sure defined by palisade trenches and a feline sphere (an unalloyed Neolithic subsistence head sculpted in serpentine. Upstanding cur- package of plants and animals). The integrity vilinear stone architecture appears at least by of what is essentially a PPN economic and cul- the Late Phase, dated to the end of the 9th mil- tural system point strongly to a transfer of EPPNB lennium BP. agro-pastoralists from southwest Asia. There As argued elsewhere (Peltenburg et al. forth- are no signs of restructuring by putative indi- coming b), four other sites shown on FIGURE1 genes to suit their own ideology. may now also be considered as pre-Khirokitian. In order to assess this case for migration, we Kalavasos-Tenta (henceforth Tenta) 'top of site' comment on salient features of the new se- has dates consistent with Mylouthkia 1B and quence: water wells, the chipped stone, mor- 846 PELTENBURG, COLLEDGE, CROFT, JACKSON, MCCARTNEY & MURRAY Mylouthkia I Shillourokambos Tents LEVANT 9500 I PPNB Early 9300 ----- 91 00 Middle 8900 n. rn f 8700 ----- 9 8500 8300 Late aidp __________________-_"-----I-- ----- 7900 Site Contexts FIGURE2. Radiocarbon I4C determinations (single s.d.1 from sites of the Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, c. 9500-8000 BP. Dates from Guilaine et al. 2000; Peltenburg et al. forthcoming a; Todd 1987. Column on right shows conventional mainland PPNB phase divisions. Note: Relevant dates from four other sites are excluded from this diagram. One Khirokitia date, 88505650 (Ly 47851, may prove significant but its large range does not inspire confidence and it lacks supporting evidence; at a single s.d., two other dates from this site extend into the late 9th niillennium BP. Akrotiri Site 23 produced a date of 8350_+250(UCL-307, shell, uncorrected for reservoir effect); it seems a multi-component, but disturbed site with earlier and later material. At a single s.d., Dhali-Agridhi P-2775, and at two s.d. Ais Yorkis DRI-3441, also extend into the late 9th millennium BP. It should be noted that there are many more relevant dates from Shillourokambos (see Vigne et al. in press]. tuary practices, flora and fauna. To provide a wells 116 and 133, consist of cylindrical shafts framework for discussion, we use the term a minimum of8 and 7 m deep with handlfoot- Cypro-PPNB shown in the proposed chrono- holds cut into unweathered shaft walls to fa- logical scheme of FIGURE3. It emphasizes the cilitate climbing in and out (FIGURE41. In well combined insular and southwest Asiatic char- 133, the 43 preserved examples are systemati- acteristics of the period (cf. Peltenburg et al. cally distributed in fairly vertically aligned, in press). approximately opposed ranges. Both wells are cut into the soft, homogeneous bedrock to tap Wells the flow of small underground watercourses Of the features belonging to the earliest traces (now dry) which flowed in pipe-like channels of Cypriot farming communities, the wells are some 20-40 cm in width towards the seashore most extraordinary. Two Mylouthkia examples, (FIGIJRE5). Subterranean stream channels at least AGRO-PASTORALIST COLONIZATION OF CYPRUS IN THE 10TH MILLENNIUM BP ti47 Stage Phase Dates BP Dates cal BC Populations Exploration: Akrotiri 10,665' 9703* Hunter-gatherer visitors Colonisation: Cypro-PPNB Early ?-goo0 ?-8000 First agro-pastoral settlers Cypro-PPNB Middle 9000-8500 Consolidation: 8000-7500 Establishment of farmers Adaptation: Cypro-PPNB Late 8500-8000 7500-7000 Distinctive economy Development: Khirokitian 8000-6500 7000/6500-5800/5500 Efflorescence of Aceramic Neolithic * average of large series of dates (Simmons 1999) FIC~JKE3. Chronological scheme for the Aceramic Neolithic and Akrotiri phases of Cyprus. Upper shafl destroyed by quarrying and erosion I I. I - 9235370bp -. S NE 9315i60bp 8185k55bp 9110t70bp 8025i65bp Handifootholds on section Calcareous sediment Calcareous rack :: t: 1'