Anadolu / Anatolia 30, 2006 M. Şevketoğlu CYPRO-ANATOLIAN RELATIONS IN THE 9TH MILLENIUM BC: AKANTHOU*/TATLISU RESCUE EXCAVATION Müge ŞEVKETOĞLU Keywords: Cyprus, Anatolia, Aceramic, Neolithic, Obsidian Anathtar Kelimeler: Kıbrıs, Anadolu, Akeramik, Neolitik, Obsidyen Abstract In the last decade archaeological research has resulted in advances to our knowledge of Cypriot Prehistory. The results of recent excavations particularly corroded the thoughts and theories of the 1930’s. The former description of Cypro – Anatolian relations as a ‘slight possibility’ is no longer tenable. Two important sites which have played a role in this change are Parekklisha-Shillourokambos and Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatlısu-Çiftlikdüzü) (Fig. 1). Both sites have exclusive discoveries: they are the first two sites where cattle bones and, more importantly, a large number of obsidian blades were found alongside particular styles of picrolite artefacts (Fig. 2). The geographical position of Akanthou/Tatlısu, the site with the largest number of obsidian blades so far discovered in Cyprus, on the northern coast proves to have played a very important role in Cypro-Anatolian relations during the 9th millennium BC. Prehistoric Archaeology in Cyprus excavations; the Enkomi Late Bronze Age tombs; the Nitovikla fortress; and The first scientific archaeological the Lapithos Bronze Age cemetery. The excavations to push the island’s historical Swedish Cyprus Expedition members, past back before the Archaic Greeks to the first to investigate a Neolithic site on the Neolithic period, were carried out by Cyprus, excavated two important Einar Gjerstad, the leader of the Swedish Neolithic settlements. One of these sites Cyprus Expedition in Cyprus between is located off the western end of the 1927-1931. This first scientific research Morphou bay, 100 metres from the coast project, a milestone in the history of on Petra tou Limniti (the Rock of archaeology on the island, included such Limniti), a small island 150 metres long, sites and discoveries as the treasures of 30 metres wide and only 50 metres high. the Vouni palace; large human and The island is clearly visible from the animal terracotta figurines discovered at Vouni palace and attracted the attention the temple of Ayia Irini; the Idalion of the team members during the excava- 119 Anatolia and Cyprus relations in the 9th millenium B.C.: Akanthou/Tatlısu rescue excavation tions carried out at this site1. One Sunday techniques were used, Vounastiri had morning, when the expected rental boat longer and straight walls with right angled did not turn up for the appointment, corners5. team members swam to the island and The printed results of the Swedish Expe- discovered the Neolithic site. According dition at the end of their excavations be- to Gjerstad, the place was riddled with came the first scientific publication on rats and dust so that in two weeks he the archaeology of Cyprus. The 12 vol- concluded the excavation and returned to umes of this work span the long Cypriot the civilisation of the Vouni palace. chronology, from the Neolithic to the “After two weeks of digging during which we Roman period. The photographs, line fought against rats and Stone Age dust the work drawings and reports set Cypriot archae- on Petra tou Limniti was finished. Alfiros put ology on a solid foundation and contrib- on a clean, white shirt. Lazaros sounded his uted to the establishment of the expected shell for the last time and once again attached his high standards competing with today’s whistle to his watch chain. We left Petra tou work. Although the Swedish Cyprus Ex- Limniti, pioneers in a prehistoric wilderness, and pedition’s volumes have not been up- returned to the palatial civilisation of Vouni.”2 dated since their publication, they have Einar Gjerstad, in his book Ages and Days never lost their undisputed importance (1980) refers to the chapter on Petra tou and are still quoted as the core source for Limniti as the ‘Awakening of the island.’ many other works. For these reasons they Yet, this work was not only the awaken- are regarded as the bible of Cypriot ar- ing of the island but also the awakening chaeology. Gjerstad was the first scholar of the undiscovered Neolithic period and to explain to his colleagues working in the prehistory of Cyprus. In 1924 Einar Cyprus that long before the Greek civili- Gjerstad had excavated at Frenaros3- sation on the island there were Neolithic Vounastiri, a site 10 km south of Fama- inhabitants, possibly arriving from Ana- gusta, before the beginning of the Swed- tolia because of the obsidian of Anatolian ish Cyprus Expedition. Due to the lack of origin he discovered at Petra tou Limniti. ceramic evidence and other artefact as- His pioneering work encouraged the be- semblages, Gjerstad dated both Petra tou ginning of serious excavations in the Limniti and Frenaros to the Neolithic pe- Neolithic period on the island, making riod4. The only difference he discerned Gjerstad the seminal scholar conducting between the two sites was that although research on prehistoric Cyprus. the same building materials and 5 Recent research demonstrates that round houses in * All the earlier records and publications of the site Neolithic Cyprus indeed had a rectangular ancestor uses the name of the village Akanthou. In order to as evidenced at Akanthou-Arkosyko/Tatlısu- avoid confusion the most commonly published and Çiftlikdüzü and Frenaros. The latter deserves to be used name of the site is used here alongside its investigated again under this light, since new present name Tatlısu. evidence suggests that the early Cypriot architectural 1 Gjerstad 1980, 16. plan may not be round. The possibility of other 2 Gjerstad 1980, 23-24. early sites also having this type of architecture may 3 Frenaros is also written as Phenaros. result in the discovery of the original or the ancestor 4 Gjerstad 1980, 22. of Cypriot architectural form. 120 Anadolu / Anatolia 30, 2006 M. Şevketoğlu After Gjerstad, the second most impor- Khirokitia 7000 B.C. tant person undertaking research on the Khirokitia culture, first dated to 3700- Cypriot Neolithic was Porphyrios Di- 3400 B.C.7 and later to 70008 B.C., repre- kaios. Trained in France, a country where sents the developed culture, architecture, world prehistory was written, Dikaios domesticated animal bones, plants, and was the discoverer and the first director representative stone tool assemblages of of the excavations at Khirokitia. The site the Aceramic period. This assemblage in- is now a UNESCO world heritage site, dicates the possibility that the developed and his name is forever chiselled as one Khirokitia culture could have originated of the pioneers of research on the Ace- from the neighbouring countries of the ramic Neolithic. His discoveries not only Near East.9 The dozen obsidian blades established Khirokitia as an important discovered at Khirokitia were thought to settlement of the Aceramic period, but be of Anatolian origin, arriving via an in- also contributed the name ‘Khirokitia cul- direct route from Syria/Palestine to Cy- ture’ to the people of this era. Unlike prus, eliminating the possibility of direct Gjerstad, Dikaios claimed that the Khi- contact with Anatolian Neolithic cultures. rokitia culture originated from the Levan- Comparisons were made between the ar- tine coast. He further claimed that the chitectural traditions of Khirokitia and roofs of Khirokitia were domed (thus Jericho and for 70 years the first Cypriot calling the buildings tholoi), similar to the settlers were widely accepted to have cultures of various sites such as Tepe come from the Levantine coast. During Gawra, Tell Halaf, Arpachiyah, Jericho that time, the cultural differences be- and Byblos6. tween Anatolia and Cyprus were used as Results of the work carried out on the evidence against links and therefore ori- Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods be- gins; however, while the Anatolian differ- tween the dates of 1924 and 1936 ences were stressed, often the same valid reached us unchanged until the 1990’s. cultural differences for the Near Eastern The changes were due to the new discov- cultures were ignored. In the last 70 years eries at the sites of Parekklisha- there have been no discoveries to predate Shillourokambos located on the southern the Khirokitia culture. Because of this, part and Akanthou-Arkosyko or Tatlısu- the fully developed Khirokitia culture was Çiftlikdüzü on the northern coast of the thought to be a migrant arrival rather island. The excavation of these two sites than a locally developed Cypriot Neo- unearthed new and important discover- lithic culture. This assumption has been ies, pushing the evidence of settled hu- dramatically altered by recent discoveries. man existence a thousand years earlier The high interest in research of the rich than previously thought and renewing the cultural remains of the Bronze Age and earliest prehistoric chronology of the is- the civilisations of later periods in Cy- land. 7 Dikaios 1953, 341. 8 Le Brun 2001, 109. 6 Dikaios 1953, 339. 9 Dikaios 1953, 339. 121 Anatolia and Cyprus relations in the 9th millenium B.C.: Akanthou/Tatlısu rescue excavation prus, their temples, tombs (with their Parekklisha-Shillourokambos, Kalavassos- valuable contents), and above ground Tenta, and one in north Cyprus, remains naturally attracted much more at- Akanthou/Tatlısu, are dated roughly to tention than these early settlers producing 8200 B.C. and have brought to light evi- stone tools. dence that will close the gap between Ak- rotiri and Khirokitia. Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (9300 B.C.) The early phase of Shillourokambos, dated In 1980, under the direction of Alan to 8200 B.C., includes evidence for semi- Simmons and with the financial support domesticated pigs, goat, sheep, cattle and of the National Geographic Society, ex- other animals, as well as over 400 obsid- cavations on the Akrotiri peninsula re- ian blades12. The existence of earlier sites, vealed bones belonging to the first resi- and particularly Shillourokambos, have dents of the island: pigmy hippos and shown that the Khirokitia culture could dwarf elephants.