The Earlirst Prehistory of Cyprus Chapter 1

THE EARLIEST PREHISTORY OF CYPRUS FROM COLONIZATION TO EXPLOITATION PREFACE N othing short of a revolution has overtaken Cypriot prehistoric studies in the past decade. The movement began with excavations at that enigmatic site of Akrotiri Aetokremnos and proceeded, almost on cue, with equally unexpected discoveries at Parekklisha Shillourokambos and then Kissonerga Mylouthkia. The extent to which the picture has changed may be gauged by reading the first chapter in Vassos Karageorghis’ standard survey of early Cypriot history, From the Stone Age to the Romans, published in 1982, where the earliest human presence on the island was dated to around 7000 B.C.E. This so-called Khirokitia culture with its massive circular structures, fine stone bowls (but no pottery) and pedestrian chipped stone industry had an agro-pastoral economy heavily dependent on herding caprovids and pigs as well as hunting fallow deer. Cattle were notably absent from the faunal assemblage. Although my Cypriot archaeological research has tended to focus on the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, as Director of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute from 1980 to 1995, I was able to follow closely and even on occasion participate in the fascinating discoveries taking place at the major early prehistoric excavations on the island, whose often exotic names like Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Parekklisha Shillourokambos, Kissonerga Mylouthkia, Khirokitia Vouni and Kalavasos Tenta now enrich the vocabulary of Mediterranean studies. After taking up a teaching position at the University at Albany it seemed opportune in 1998 to gather together, for the first time, the scholars most actively engaged in redrawing the picture of early Cyprus. Expedition Directors Jean Guilaine, Alain Le Brun and Alan Simmons were invited along with colleagues Julie Hansen, David Reese and Jean-Denis Vigne who were working on specific material from their sites. To fully place Cyprus within the context of eastern Mediterranean prehistory “a view from the mainland” was imperative, and Ofer Bar-Yosef graciously accepted to provide that insight. Most of the papers published in this volume were presented at the Round Table discussion entitled “The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus: Recent Developments” held at the University at Albany on the 16th of November 1998. It was only in the following summer that I learnt of new discoveries made at Kissonerga Mylouthkia which were relevant to the Round Table theme. As a result, Edgar Peltenburg and his colleagues were also invited to contribute to the publication. In order to include papers from all the major figures in the field, I also enquired whether Ian Todd would like to reassess the role of Kalavasos Tenta, and to my pleasure he accepted. It should be noted, however, that when the original participants of the Round Table submitted their manuscripts for publication, they were, obviously, unaware of the discussions presented by Edger Peltenburg and Ian Todd which they did receive at a later date. The three papers by French scholars have been published in English in order to reach a broader readership, and I thank them for their efforts and understanding. Readers not specifically versed in prehistoric studies may wonder about the terminological differences between “Aceramic Neolithic” and “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” used by different authors in this publication. The terms are synonymous, and at the cost of total consistency I have retained the personal choice of the individual authors. Likewise, a variety of chronological conventions, terms and chronologies are to be found in the literature; in order to clarify their usage, I have asked Alan Simmons to write a Note on Dating to be found as an Appendix on page 167. The aim of the present publication is to provide in a timely manner an easily accessible, comprehensive review of the recent and remarkable developments in Cypriot prehistory. In light of the information presented here, the island should no longer be viewed as an isolated backwater with no impact on the development of civilization in the Near East, but instead it now emerges as a dynamic partner in the process. Appropriately enough, the reassessment of the earliest human presence on the island began with the excavations at Akrotiri Aetokremnos. In this connection the sub-title of the present volume should have read “From Exploration to Colonization and Exploitation” since the occupants of the Aetokremnos rock shelter came as inquisitive hunter gatherers rather than colonists! Although Alan Simmons’ final excavation report has appeared since the Round Table was held, the issue of a cultural or natural origin for the massive pygmy hippopotamus bone deposit still remains controversial. In this volume David Reese presents some new material pending the final publication of the faunal assemblage from the site. One thing is clear, however: Aetokremnos is the earliest archaeological site on the island and its excavation has caused a major reassessment of issues connected with Pleistocene faunal extinctions and island colonization world-wide. The discovery of Parekklisha Shillourokambos by the Amathus archaeological survey project, directed by Catherine Petit for the French School at Athens, and subsequent excavation by Jean Guilaine, has helped fill in the yawning gap between the occupation at Aetokremnos in the 10th millennium B.C.E. and the canonical Aceramic Neolithic as represented at Khirokitia Vouni. The early radiocarbon dates, relative abundance of obsidian and an unusually sophisticated tool kit - for Cyprus - in one clean sweep brought the island into line with developments on the mainland and helped dispel the long accepted “backwater” syndrome. To this scenario was added, perhaps most remarkably of all, the presence of cattle, so conspicuously absent from the archaeological record in the mainphase Neolithic. The excavations are still in progress and each season brings new insights, but it has already added another dimension to our knowledge of the Cypriot Neolithic. As noted by Jean-Denis Vigne, the faunal remains from Shillourokambos transcend Cyprus and are of importance to our comprehension of animal domestication in the ancient Near East. Our understanding of this evidence is reinforced by the interpretative contribution of Edgar Peltenburg and his colleagues. The discoveries of early Neolithic material at Kissonerga Mylouthkia adds flesh to the finds at Shillourokambos, and the careful wide ranging analysis of Neolithic chipped stone by Carole McCartney along with the material presented by François Briois help the jigsaw fit together. Issues surrounding the origins of the Aceramic Neolithic culture are brought into focus by Julie Hansen’s review of the botanical evidence. In view of the finds at Shillourokambos, an Anatolian origin seems more likely, whereas it had previously been suggested that the presence of Mesopotamian fallow deer indicated a Levantine staging point; but this question if far from being resolved. To this day Khirokitia boasts the largest exposure of architectural remains and one of the most comprehensively studied Aceramic Neolithic settlements in the eastern Mediterranean. Although Alain Le Brun has diligently published the results of his excavations at Khirokitia over the years, his paper presents important new insights of a social and cultural nature, demonstrating the potential, thus importance, of systematic long-term investigations at a single site, even if much about it is already presumed known. The view from Khirokitia represents the flowering of the development which began at Mylouthkia, Shillourokambos and also, so Ian Todd informs us in his paper, at Kalavasos Tenta. “The World Around Cyprus” by Ofer Bar-Yosef is a magisterial mise au point of the emergence of civilization in the eastern Mediterranean. He outlines the cultural and ecological factors which favored, if not prompted, the colonization of Cyprus and clearly presents his material within a refined and detailed chronological framework that enables the reader to better appreciate developments on the island. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support and encouragement received from the President of the University at Albany, Dr. Karen Hitchcock, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Judy Genshaft, and the Chair of the Department of Classics, Professor Louis Roberts. Thanks are due to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Richard Hoffmann, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Department of Classics for financial support. I am particularly pleased to recognize Ms. Linda Sajan, the Secretary of the Department of Classics, who, as always, helped in so many ways, ranging from complicated interdepartmental financial transfers to ensuring that the catering arrived on time. As a relative newcomer to the university I was grateful for the interest and support of all my colleagues in the Department, especially Professors Richard Gascogne, Louis Roberts, Paul Wallace and Michael Werner who provided accommodation for the visitors. Michael and Bauba Werner organized with their usual flair and bonhomie a wonderfully Mediterranean dinner party for a cold November night. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge Mr. Dimitris Michael, the owner of Metro 20 where everybody enjoyed an excellent meal. The world is indeed small, for Mr. Michael, an alumnus of the University at Albany, is a proud Khirokitian! Two graduate students in the Department of Classics assisted greatly with the preparation of the manuscripts for publication. Ms. Jessica Fisher Neidl diligently proofed each paper and Mr. Barry Dale was responsible for formatting the texts and especially the bibliographies—as well as making corrections where required. Ms. Carole McCartney kindly agreed to check the lithics terminology in my translation of J. Guilaine and F. Briois’ paper. I am grateful to Mrs. Kathy Mallak for twice proofreading the entire manuscript in its final form, and for her help with the index. I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Gloria London, editor of the American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports series, for expediting the publication process and also to Dr. Billie Jean Collins for her advice and timely assistance, which, in my opinion, went well beyond the call of duty. As usual, I owe much to my wife Helena Wylde Swiny who was involved in the Round Table proceedings from beginning to end. She opened our home in Massachusetts to three jetlagged participants and made sure that all ran smoothly in Albany. Finally, the presence of two seasoned Cyprus hands, Professor Anita Walker and Ms. Lydie Shufro, as well as Mme. Christiane Guilaine and Dr. Renee Corona Simmons, further helped to create the congenial atmosphere which made us all feel a little closer to that remarkable island in the eastern Mediterranean. Map of Cyprus showing sites of the Akrotiri, Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and Khirokitian phases (map prepared by Peltenburg et al. for “Well-Established Colonists: Mylouthkia 1 and the Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B,” this volume). THE FIRST HUMANS AND LAST PYG MY H I PPO POTAM I OF CYPRUS Akrotiri Aetokremnos is the earliest indisputable site on Cyprus, dating to the 10th millennium B.C.E Aetokremnos has been a controversial site, due both to its early date and, perhaps more significantly, due to the association of cultural materials with extinct endemic Pleistocene fauna, notably the pygmy hippopotamus. This paper summarizes major findings from the site, but directs most of its attention towards addressing the controversial issues surrounding Aetokremnos. Specific points of contention are examined and refuted. I conclude the paper with a discussion of the broader significance of Aetokremnos. “Heaven knows how true all this was … the bibliography of Cyprus is so extensive and detailed that the truth must somewhere be on record …. Oddly enough, too, their stories provided true sometimes when they sounded utterly improbable; Andreas, for example, in describing ancient Cyprus to me produced a home-made imitation of a hippopotamus walking around and browsing in my courtyard which was worthy of Chaplin. It was nearly a year before I caught up with the report of the dwarf hippopotamus which had been unearthed on the Kyrenia range: a prehistoric relic. It was only justice, I suppose, that I myself should be disbelieved by them …” (Durrell 1986 [originally 1957], Bitter Lemons of Cyprus, pp. 94–95). S ometimes, good things come in small packages. In archaeology, this can be reflected in the often surprising information that can be retrieved from small, innocuous looking sites. This paper is about one such site, which has revolutionized our understanding of the initial human occupation of Cyprus. Archaeologists working in the Mediterranean traditionally have believed that islands, including Cyprus, were first inhabited by humans relatively late, during the Neolithic period around 6,500–7,000 B.C.E. (Cherry 1990; Le Brun et al. 1987). Researchers also believed that when these early colonists arrived, they did not encounter any of the islands’ unique native mammals, such as pygmy hippopotamus or dwarf elephants. These island-adapted species were felt to have gone extinct long before the arrival of humans, probably as a result of deteriorating climatic conditions. Recent multidisciplinary excavations on the Akrotiri Peninsula along the southern coast of Cyprus at Akrotiri Aetokremnos—or “Vulture Cliff” in Greek1 —(fig. 1) have challenged these traditional sce1 The first references to the site incorrectly translated Aetokremnos as “Eagle Cliff” or “Eagles Cliff” instead of “Vulture Cliff.” See Swiny (1995: 9, n. 11). Fig. 1. Location map of Akrotiri Aetokremnos. narios (Simmons 1988, 1991a, 1999). This essay addresses some of the controversial aspects of Aetokremnos. My intention here is not to provide detailed information, which may be found in Simmons (1999); rather, I wish to address the broader significance of Aetokremnos as it relates to the first humans to occupy Cyprus. This will be accomplished by first examining the research context within which Aetokremnos was investigated. This is followed by a brief summary of the excavations, and then by a more detailed examination of why we argue that the site is indeed cultural. I then conclude with a few comments on Aetokremnos’ significance. R E S E A R C H B A C K G R O U N D A N D P R O B L E M F O R M U LAT I O N To fully understand the significance of Aetokremnos, one must realize that for many years there have been claims for early (that is, pre-Neolithic) human occupation of many of the Mediterranean islands, including Cyprus. These are well-summarized by Cherry (1990, 1992). Despite such claims, Cherry has convincingly demonstrated that there are few, if any, compelling arguments for people being on most of the Mediterranean islands during the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene. Many researchers have noted that in proving a claim of antiquity, especially one that is contrary to consensus opinion, certain conditions must be established that are beyond what is required under “normal” archaeological circumstances (e.g., Cherry 1990: 201–3, 1992: 36; Grayson 1984; Meltzer and Mead 1985). In order for antiquity to be well-established, rigorous scientific archaeological methods must be applied, and certain criteria should be met. These “must include sound stratigraphy coupled with a series of chronometric determinations of artifacts indisputably of human manufacture in direct association—i.e., artifacts, stratigraphy and dates” (Cherry 1992: 36). Cherry (1992) shows that in nearly every instance in the Mediterranean these criteria cannot be met, thereby refuting claims for early antiquity. I am in complete agreement with Cherry on this issue. I also am convinced that Aetokremnos meets and exceeds these criteria. Aetokremnos notwithstanding, Cyprus has not been immune from claims for early antiquity (e.g., Adovasio et al. 1975; Stockton 1968; Vita-Finzi 1973). While these are intriguing declarations, they cannot be well-supported using the rigorous methods outlined by Cherry. Until the excavation of Aetokremnos, there were simply no convincingly documented sites that predate the Aceramic Neolithic. Indeed, the Aceramic Neolithic has, until the important new discoveries from Shillourokambos (Guilaine et al. 1995 and elsewhere in this volume), and Mylouthkia (Peltenburg et al. 2000; this volume), been dated relatively late in the Near Eastern Neolithic sequence. Perhaps even more intriguing than its antiquity, Aetokremnos also has considerable bearing on the topic of extinctions of megafauna at the end of the Pleistocene period, roughly some 12,000–10,000 years ago. Researchers have long debated whether the massive global faunal extinctions at the end of the last ice age, best studied in North America, were caused by humans or environmental change (Diamond 1989; Grayson 1991; Martin and Klein 1984). Although a contentious issue with no final resolution, compelling archaeological evidence indicating that humans were the principal culprits in these extinction episodes is rare. While demonstrating that human-induced extinctions dating back into the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene is difficult, it is well-documented that humans have caused fairly rapid extinctions in island contexts during more recent time periods. These usually have been associated with food producing, or Neolithic, economic strategies, rather than with hunter-gatherers (e.g., Anderson 1991; Steadman 1995). Thus, we know that humans can cause rapid island extinctions—there is abundant “recent” evidence for this. Aetokremnos has now shed new light on this controversial topic by suggesting an extinction scenario dating back to the Early Holocene by peoples who were essentially practicing a hunting (primarily) and gathering economy. Within both a regional and wider context, then, Aetokremnos is significant from at least two perspectives. First, it is one of the oldest well-documented sites on any of the Mediterranean islands. Second, it suggests that humans may well have been responsible for the extinction of endemic fauna, notably the Cypriot pygmy hippopotamus, Phanourios minutus. E X CAVAT I O N S U M MARY When initially discovered by amateur archaeologists, Aetokremnos did not appear promising. The collapsed rockshelter contained a surface scatter of bones identified as belonging to pygmy hippopotami, a layer of marine shell, and a few chipped stone artifacts. The likelihood of intact materials appeared slight, and there was no compelling evidence to suggest that the artifacts were contemporaneous with the bones. Radiocarbon determinations on surface bone suggested a date of ca. 8-9,000 B.C.E., but these were equivocal since others indicated a more recent occupation. Despite its innocuous appearance, the early dates at Aetokremnos caused some contention, since they pre-dated the Neolithic. Even more tantalizing was the possible association of cultural remains with animals thought to have gone extinct far earlier. Although numerous fossil sites throughout Cyprus and other Mediterranean islands contain pygmy hippopotami (Reese 1989; Sondaar 1986; Swiny 1988), never before has an association with humans been clearly documented. Thus, although both the chronology and the association of extinct animals with the cultural materials at Aetokremnos were questionable, the site generated enough interest to warrant scientific excavation. Adding to the urgency for immediate study was Aetokremnos’ location, perched as it was on the edge of a precipitous cliff some 40 meters above the Mediterranean Sea (fig. 2). With each winter, more and more of the site was eroding into the waters below. SOME COMMENTS ON THE AKROTIRI AETOKREMNOS FAUNA The recently published final report on the excavations at Akrotiri Aetokremnos (Simmons 1999) includes short reports on the faunal remains. A separate volume will discuss this material in detail. Here a few of the these topics are addressed, such as the butchered and burnt bones, the comparison of Aetokremnos with other Cypriot Late Pleistocene fossil sites, the fauna from features and from above the rock-shelter floor as well as the excavated pygmy elephant remains. I n 1999, the final report on the excavations of the pre-Neolithic eroded rock-shelter of Akrotiri Aetokremnos in southern Cyprus was published (Simmons 1999). The volume included abbreviated studies on the mammals and invertebrates recovered, although the bird bones were fully described by Mourer-Chavurié (1999). The faunal analysis was not completed when the volume was prepared for publication; furthermore, there was inadequate space to include a proper study of the fauna. For these reasons a separate publication is currently being prepared that focuses solely on the faunal remains. Most researchers now agree (Patton 1996: 69–71; Dermitzakis et al. 1997: 14; Martin and Steadman 1999: 19, 42, 43; Hadjisterkotis et al. 2000: 600–603; Sondaar 2000: 205–8; Sondaar and van der Geer 2000: 67–68; Todd this volume; Mavridis in press) that this site does exhibit human association with the extinct endemic Cypriot pygmy hippopotamus (Phanourios minutus) and pygmy elephant (Elephas cypriotes). However, some researchers still have problems with our work. Bunimovitz and Barkai (1996) were the first to publish an article suggesting that Aetokremnos was a typical Late Pleistocene Cypriot fossil mammal deposit with a later prehistoric archaeological site situated directly above. Since then, Simmons (1996, 1999, this volume) and I (Reese 1996) have attempted to demonstrate that there is strong evidence for this association, although three recent researchers, Olsen (1999), Grayson (2000) and Binford (2000), consider that Bunimovitz and Barkai were indeed correct, and that the lowest, Stratum 4, bones are a natural accumulation. In the present paper several topics of the faunal analysis are addressed in order to answer questions concerning the finds at Aetokremnos. The lack of butchered bones, but high frequency of burnt bone is discussed along with a comparison of Aetokremnos with other Cypriot Late Pleistocene fossil sites, in order to emphasize the differences between these and the Akrotiri deposit. Also included is detailed information on the faunal remains from the excavated “special deposits” or features, followed by a discussion of the bones discovered just above the rock-shelter floor (Stratum 4C) and a description of all the pygmy elephant remains from the site. BUTCHERY AND BURNING Olsen, an expert on butchered animal bones, was particularly troubled by the lack of cut/butchery marks on the bones , which is a question that has been addressed fully by Simmons in this volume and elsewhere (1996: 100–101; 1999: 292–95). Olsen was also concerned by the extent of burning, an issue discussed by Simmons (1996: 98–99, 1999: 289–92). Burnt bones are very rarely noted as present in the Cypriot Neolithic faunal collections. However, at Aceramic and Ceramic Neolithic Dhali Agridhi, 118, or 17.7 % of the 665 bones found in the 1972 season were burnt (Schwartz 1974: 104ff.). It is interesting that neither Carter (1989) nor Croft (1989) mention any burnt bones when they later studied this collection; some researchers simply do not record burning information. Two prehistoric sites in Jordan offer useful comparanda. The Mushabian (ca. 14,500–12,500 B.P.) site of Syria in the Wadi Hisma of southern Jordan produced a very high incidence of burnt bones, 562 of 1,640 bones or 34.3%, including 35.3% of all Gazella, 32.6% of caprines, and 31.8% of equids (Klein 1995: 416). Burnt bones are also common at PPNB Ain Ghazal, from both the larger mammals as well as foxes and hares (Köhler-Rollefson et al. 1988: 424). Thus, the Aetokremnos bone assemblage, with over 29% of the bones burnt, is not unique. AE T O K R E M N O S C O M PAR E D W I T H LAT E PLEISTOCENE CYPRIOT SITES I have personally examined all the extant pygmy mammal sites of Cyprus and the bones from these deposits (Reese 1989; 1995). Of thirty-three Late Pleistocene sites, the four largest bone collections come from: Akanthou Arkhangelos Mikhail (2,599 fragments, 30+ MNI), Ayia Irini Pervolia (2,076 bones, including material studied in Stockholm after Reese 1995 was published), Kissonerga Kleiotoudes/Ayios Phanentos (1,549 bones, 40+ MNI), and Ayia Irini Dragontovounari (1,329 bones, 22+ MNI). The four largest collections together produced less than half the number of bones from Aetokremnos Stratum 4C. Also, while Aetokremnos Stratum 2 has much fewer Phanourios bones (3,966 bones from 29 MNI, with 46.3% burnt) than Stratum 4, this stratum alone has more bones than any single Late Pleistocene Cypriot hippopotamus site. The overall faunal picture at Aetokremnos is very different from the other sites—a single coastal cave deposit has a handful of marine shells (Aetokremnos has over 21,500 individuals), only two have a total of four or five bird bone fragments (Aetokremnos has 3,205), none exhibit snake remains (Aetokremnos has 232 bones), and one has yielded a few possible tortoise remains (Aetokremnos has evidence for over 14 individuals). One of the fossil sites has a single burnt bone (Reese 1995: pl. 29) in a collection of about 2,600 fragments. And, equally significant, the other sites are lacking in chipped stone, picrolite and shell ornaments, or a worked calcarenite disk. FA U NA F R O M F EAT U R E S The eleven cultural features at Aetokremnos have been discussed by Simmons and Reese (1999: 95–112). Here I wish to highlight the faunal remains from these special deposits and provide some more detailed information (Table 1). Note that Binford (2000) is incorrect in stating that “It is very significant that no documented features originate within the bone bed.” Features 2 (casual hearth), 3 (burnt fauna concentration) and 9 (casual hearth) are all well within the Stratum 4 bone bed (Simmons and Reese 1999: 100–103, 110; Reese 1996:107–8). The suggested age for Phanourios is based on pig (Sus scrofa) aging information. Table 1. Faunal remains from Aetokremnos features. (Abbreviations: MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals; mo(s) = months; yr(s) = years) FEATURE 1 (Ash heap/hearth area) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 95–100) IN AND SOUTH OF FEATURE 1 (Str. 2A-B) 224 Phanourios bones (125 burnt, 55.8%), 2 MNI (one over 3.5 yrs) 193 bird bones (44 burnt, 22.8%) –7 MNI: 3 Otis (2 female, male), 3 Anser sp., 1 mid-sized Anseriform 668 Monodonta (149 burnt, 22.3%), 17 Patella (5 burnt), 10 Columbella (1 bead, 8 stringable, 1 unstringable, 3 burnt), 5 Dentalium (3 beads, 1 burnt grey), 3 Conus (3 holed at apex), 1 Glycymeris (burnt fragment), 1 operculum, 2 Helix AROUND FEATURE 1 (Strs. 2A/4) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 98) 1,656 Phanourios bones (545 burnt, 35%), 7 MNI (one under 1 yr and six over 3 yrs [one over 3.5 yrs]) Monodonta (uncounted and used for 14C date) FEATURE 2 (Casual hearth; Str. 4B) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 100–101) 44 Phanourios bones (39 burnt/partly burnt, 88.6%), 2 MNI 24 Monodonta (3 burnt), 6 Helix FEATURE 3 (Burnt fauna concentration; Str. 4A-B) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 101–2) 62,587 Phanourios bones (55,457 burnt, 88.6%), 50 MNI (15 MNI under 1 yr [four over 1 mo but under 6 mos], 32 over 3.5 yrs) (Reese and Roler 1999: 161) 5 Elephas bones: distal radius epiphysis, probably partly burnt; vertebra centrum (UF), 3 ?ribs 47 bird bones (6 burnt) – 2 MNI: 1 Otis (female), 1 Athene 5 Vipera vertebrae (2 samples) ?Geochelone s.l. hands/feet of young with coracoid (stout) and tibia (stout), metatarsus (stout), caudal vertebrae, ?fragment of caudal vertebrae, burnt green (3 samples); ?Testudo carapacial fragments, fragment of peripheral, diaphysis of left femur 195 Monodonta (45 burnt, 23.1%), 12 Patella (5 burnt), 2 Columbella (2 holed), 1 Dentalium (has some orange color on it) FEATURE 4 (Hearth, activity area) ACTUAL FEATURE 4 (Str. 2A) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 102–3) 108 Phanourios bones (104 burnt, 96.3%), 2 MNI (one subadult, one adult) 300 bird bones (103 burnt/charred, 34.3%) – 7 MNI: 3 Otis (male, female [burnt]), 3 Anser sp. (1 burnt), 1 Anas; eggshell 440 Monodonta (135 burnt, 30.7%), 22 Patella (13 burnt), 2 Dentalium (1 bead) MIXED AND PERIPHERAL TO FEATURE 4 (Str. 2A) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 103) 123 Phanourios bones (80 burnt/partly burnt, 65%), 2 MNI (one over 3 yrs) 1 Sus phalanx 3 - partly burnt 68 bird bones (14 burnt, 20.6%) – 5 MNI: 2 Otis (male [burnt], female), 1 Anser sp. (burnt), 1 Anas, 1 Phalacrocorax (burnt) 1,813 Monodonta (339 burnt, 18.7%), 46 Patella (6 burnt), 3 Columbella (2 open apex, 1 unmodified), 3 Dentalium (3 beads), 3 Conus (3 holed), 2 Glycymeris (1 holed, 1 burnt), 1 Cerithium (holed) OVER FEATURE 4 (Strs. 1/2A) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 103) 43 Phanourios bones (30 burnt/partly burnt, 72%), 1 MNI (adult) 71 bird bones (27 burnt, 38%) – 1 MNI: Otis (female, burnt) 4 Vipera vertebrae 706 Monodonta (96 burnt, 13.6%), 27 Patella (10 burnt), 3 Dentalium (1 bead), 1 Columbella (open apex), 1 Conus (unmodified) FEATURE 5 (Shell concentration) (Str. 2A) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 105–7) 217 Phanourios bones (54 burnt, 24.9%), 2 MNI (one over 3 yrs) 184 bird bones (34 burnt, 18.5%) – 8 MNI: 5 Otis (3 male, 2 female [1 burnt]), 2 Anser sp., 1 Anseriform; eggshells 1,874 Monodonta (188 burnt, 10%), 48 Patella (8 burnt), 1 Columbella (open apex), 1 Dentalium MIXED FEATURE 5 (Strs. 2A/4, section collapse) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 106) 1,405 Phanourios bones (251 burnt, 17.9%), 4 MNI (one under 1 yr and two over 3.5 yrs) 9 Elephas bones - 6 tusk fragments, vertebra, 2 ribs 69 bird bones (33 burnt, 47.8%) – 4 MNI: 3 Otis (2 male [1 burnt], 1 female), 1 Anser sp. 1 Vipera vertebra (burnt) ?Geochelone s.l. ?carapacial and plastral fragments 292+ Monodonta (33+ burnt, 11.3%), 5+ Patella (3 burnt), 2 Dentalium (1 D. rubescens/vulgare bead) JUST BELOW FEATURE 5 (Str. 2A lower) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 105–6) 24 Phanourios bones (14 burnt/partly burnt), 1 MNI (adult) 105 bird bones – 9 MNI: 8 Otis (6 male, 2 female), 1 Anser anser/A. fabalis 74 Monodonta (12 burnt, 16.2%), 2 Dentalium FEATURE 6 (Casual hearth, stone-lined) (Strs. 1/2 + 2 lower) PROBABLE TOP OF FEATURE 6 (Str. 2A lower) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 107) 14 Phanourios bones (3 burnt/partly burnt), 1 MNI 53 bird bones (1 burnt) – 3 MNI: 1 Otis (male), 1 Columba, 1 Corvus; eggshell 2 Vipera vertebrae 573 Monodonta (88 burnt, 15.4%), 12 Patella, 2 Columbella (2 holed apex and on body), 2 Dentalium (1 bead), 1 Conus (holed apex) ACTUAL FEATURE 6 (Str. 2A lower) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 107) 8 bird bones - unidentifiable (1 burnt); eggshell 150 Monodonta (12 burnt, 8%), 3 Patella (2 burnt) BOTTOM OF FEATURE 6 OR TOP OF FEATURE 7 - N95E90 (Str. 2A lower) (Simmons and Reese 1999: 107) 21 Phanourios bones (16 burnt), 2 MNI (one young, one adult) 4 bird bones – 2 MNI: 2 Otis (male, female) 2 Vipera vertebrae 404 Monodonta (39 burnt, 9.7%), 7 Patella (1 burnt), 1 Columbella (holed upper body) PAR E K K LI S H A S H I L L O U R O K A M B O S: AN EAR LY N E O LITH I C S ITE IN CYPRUS The site of Parekklisha Shillourokambos has for the first time in Cyprus provided concrete evidence for an early phase of the Aceramic Neolithic, belonging to the second half of the 9th millennium cal. B.C.E. This arrival of agro-pastoralists on the island is thus contemporary with the early PPNB of the northern Levant. Interaction with the neighboring continent in the spheres of lithic technology, the transfer of ritual and the exchange of ideas relating to agriculture and animal husbandry is obvious. Shillourokambos has two main periods of occupation: The Early Phases A and B (8200–7500 B.C.E.) are characterized by deep wells, large wooden enclosures probably for livestock, the gradual evolution from wattle and daub to the use of stone and mud, the choice of translucent chert for projectile points and elements in sickles, as well as quantities of imported Anatolian obsidian. The Middle and Late Phases (from 7500 B.C.E.) show considerable evolution and the appearance of typically Cypriot cultural traits, such as the use of local opaque chert, the production of robust blades, the development of harvesting knives that replace the multiple elements for sickles, and a paucity of obsidian. A large depression contained a contracted burial and a range of artifacts, and the building tradition is characterized by massive circular structures of canonical Khirokitia Culture type. The site is reoccupied during the Ceramic Neolithic Sotira Culture or the Early Chalcolithic. T he site of Shillourokambos near Parekklisha village 6 km east of Limassol in southern Cyprus, has yielded evidence of several periods of occupation belonging to the earliest known phases of the Cypriot Neolithic. A series of calibrated 14C determinations suggests that occupation of the site began towards the end of the ninth millennium B.C.E. and continued throughout the eighth millennium, thus lasting more than one thousand years. This time span corresponds to the development of features which were to become characteristic of the main-phase Khirokitia Culture attributed to the seventh millennium B.C.E. Evidence for this stage of development was little known prior the excavations at Parekklisha Shillourokambos (hereafter Shillourokambos) with the exception of a small area investigated by Ian Todd at Kalavasos Tenta (hereafter Tenta).1 This consisted of a series of post holes cut into the bedrock Fig. 1. Site plan of Parekklishia Shillourokambos. North to top of plan. Scale: each grid square measures 1 x 1 m. that belong to the earliest phase of occupation and yielded several intriguing dates. One early 14C determinatin (Kt18: 9240 ± 130 b.p. or, after calibration, ca. 8100 B.C.E.) was, unfortunately, weakened by the presence of several other dates with unacceptably large standard deviations from the same deposit. Our knowledge of this early phase is incomplete because it has only been recorded at a single site with a complex taphonomy, namely Shillourokambos, a site which is currently under excavation. Despite this caveat, the information that can be obtained from Shillourokambos is sufficient to tackle the issues central to any discussion on the early prehistory of Cyprus. These concern the manner of the transfer of the subsistence economy from the mainland and the possibility of detecting cultural traits connected with this colonization. When we began our investigations in 1992 there were numerous questions surrounding the issue of early human occupation in Cyprus. The main ones are commented on below, along with our responses: 1. Why was the canonical 7th millennium cal. B.C.E. Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus so late, and thus contemporaneous with the last phase of the PPNB? Indeed, pottery appears on the mainland, from Cilicia to Byblos, around 7000 B.C.E. while Cyprus failed to adopt the use of fired clay. It is now possible to state with little doubt that the neolithization of Cyprus began much earlier, in the second half of the 9th millennium B.C.E., a time which corresponds to the transition from early to middle PPNB. Thus the Khirokitia Culture settlements studied to date belong to a developed, later stage, of the Cypriot Neolithic. 2. The second issue concerns the lack of projectile points in the Khirokitia Culture, whereas they are common on the mainland. The answer to this question is in fact quite simple: when Cyprus was first colonized by agro-pastoralists a number of PPNB techniques also make their appearance on the island, specifically the knowledge of bi-polar blade production. This technique is used for the manufacture of blades intended as projectile points which are diagnostic of the earlier levels at Shillourokambos, but then disappear in the middle phases, around 7500 B.C.E. Such a pattern of development would explain why projectile points no longer occur during the canonical Khirokitia Culture. During this early phase at Shillourokambos overseas contacts were frequent as proven by over 300 small blades of Anatolian obsidian; in the later phases of the Aceramic Neolithic such imports are rare. 3. Why was the Near Eastern subsistence economy based on domesticated caprovids, pigs and cattle, which was transmitted by diffusion to the surrounding regions, so radically different in Cyprus? Indeed, prior to the excavations at Shillourokambos none of the previously known Aceramic Neolithic settlements had provided evidence for cattle. Our work at Shillourokambos has demonstrated that cattle were in fact present in the earliest Cypriot Neolithic, but for unknown reasons the species died out in the 8th millennium B.C.E. 4. Finally, why did the Cypriot Aceramic develop such a unique architectural tradition based on stone or pisé circular structures, some of which have abnormally thick walls in relation to the enclosed space, whereas contemporary traditions from Anatolia to Palestine have all adopted a rectilinear module? To this question we cannot provide an answer, but it should be noted that in the earliest phase at Shillourokambos, when wooden structures alone were recorded, circular ground plans already seem to be in use. The site chosen for Shillourokambos was a plateau rising slightly above the surrounding plain which trends gently south. The more escarped southern edge of the settlement has a more pronounced 1 At the time of writing nothing had been published on the early material from Kissonerga Mylouthkia. LAR G E MAM MALS O F EAR LY ACERAMIC NEOLITHIC CYPRUS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM PAR E K K LI S HA S H I L L O U R O K A M B O S The Preliminary results of archaeozoological analysis of the 9th-8th millennia B.C.E. Aceramic site of Parekklisha Shillourokambos are summarized. They indicate that fox, domestic dog, cat, domestic pig, Mesopotamian fallow deer and “predomestic” sheep, goat and cattle were introduced to the island at that time. These data shed light on both the history of man/animal relationships on Cyprus and on the first steps of animal domestication and its spread in the Near East. R ecent excavations directed by Jean Guilaine in the Limassol District have uncovered Parekklisha Shillourokambos, the earliest known large Neolithic site on Cyprus. It testifies to the presence on the island of true Aceramic cultures very similar to the PPNB of the mainland (Guilaine et al. 1995; 2000 with references), one millennium earlier than the well-known Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia Vouni and Kalavasos Tenta cultures (Le Brun et al. 1987; Todd 1987). Shillourokambos was inhabited from the end of the 9th millennium to the second half of the 8th millennium cal B.C.E., during a long Aceramic phase, perhaps contemporaneous with the end of the Early PPNB, and certainly overlapping with the Middle and Late PPNB of the Near East. It yielded a wide range of cultural remains, including numerous animal bones, the study of which is in progress. Nevertheless, more than 6200 animal bones have already been studied, and it is possible to summarize here the preliminary results (see more details in Vigne et al. 2000). G E N E RAL C HARAC T E R I S T I C S AN D O R I G I N S O F T H E FAU NA All phases of occupation at the site yielded faunal remains, although they vary in quantity: Early Phase A (Late 9th millennium B.C.E., with 220 identifiable bones), Early Phase B (first half of the 8th millennium B.C.E., with 1100 identifiable bones), Middle Phase (middle of the 8th millennium B.C.E., with 3300 identifiable bones) and Late Phase (second half of the 8th millennium B.C.E., with 1640 identifiable bones). Generally speaking, shell, fish, bird and small mammal remains are very rare, which probably indicates that marine resources and small game were of lesser importance to the subsistence economy. Already in Early Phase A, large mammal assemblages consist of pig (then dominant), Mesopotamian fallow deer, sheep, goat and cattle. Dog and the European fox are attested from Early Phase B. Cat is represented by only one definite humerus shaft from the Middle Phase. Cattle are very scarce in the Middle Phase, and are absent from the Late Phase. There are absolutely no remains attributed to, or even suggesting the presence of the Cyprus autochthonous endemic mammal species (dwarf hippopotamus and pygmy elephants and the genet; Boekschoten and Sondaar 1972; Reese 1995, 1996a), which, therefore, were probably extinct by that time. At the Late Pleistocene site of Akrotiri Aetokremnos (10th millennium B.C.E.), Reese (1999) recorded 14 pig phalanges and metapodials, and interpreted them as the remains of wild boar hides brought by hunters from the mainland, rather than as evidence for the presence of pigs inhabiting the island at that time. Four other pig phalanges from the same site were incorrectly attributed to fallow deer (Reese 1999). Radiocarbon dating of these bones is currently in progress. Thus, none of the species recorded at Shillourokambos is attested in the Pleistocene autochthonous faunal assemblages of Cyprus, which suggests that they were introduced to Cyprus by the Aceramic inhabitants. A similar origin for the fauna of Khirokitia was suggested by Davis (1984). Shillourokambos strengthens his argument and shows that the arrival of these species took place as early as the end of the 9th millennium cal B.C.E., which is an important contribution to the knowledge of early navigation in the eastern Mediterranean (Vigne 1999). It is also a significant development in the history of the relationship between early Neolithic humans and animals in the Near East, since their appearance on Cyprus testifies to the fact that each of the introduced species enjoyed a privileged status, either economic or symbolic, in the societies where domestication was emerging. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully examine on the basis of archaeozoological data the possible status of each species at Shillourokambos. S TAT U S O F T H E S PE C I E S R E C O R D E D AT S H I LLO U R O KAM B O S From their very first appearance at Shillourokambos, dog (Canis familiaris) and pig (Sus scrofa) are of such small size that they must have been domesticated. Selective kill-off patterns of pig during Early Phase B suggest strict annual and seasonal managing and strengthen the evidence for domestication. In contrast, the skeletal characteristics of the European fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) do not differ from present day wild populations. In all phases at Shillourokambos, with the exception of the latest ones, sufficient amounts of deer bones suggest that animals were killed and butchered far from the site. This kill pattern is indicated by a consistent and significant absence of bones of the head, including antlers, as well as a lack of vertebrae and limb extremities (metapodials and phalanges), all of which deliver little or no meat. Moreover, both sexes seem to have been killed equally, and the distribution of age classes argues for hunting of groups of females and young, rather than for husbandry. Therefore deer, which dominate the faunal assemblage of Early Phase B, seem to have been hunted and not herded. The robust skeletal size of sheep and goat is identical to those of their wild counterparts on the mainland, respectively the Oriental moufflon (Ovis orientalis) and the Bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus). Their horn cores and sexual dimorphism do not differ from those of the wild species, except perhaps for small variations in the shape of some male sheep horn cores. However, by comparison with the fallow deer, adult female ovis and capra are significantly more numerous than males and the presence of all parts of the skeleton, without any significant absence of bones which bear little meat, suggest that animals were killed and butchered near to or on-site. Mortality profiles indicate selective slaughtering of young adult males, which seems more in agreement with husbandry than hunting. All these observations argue for selective breading of caprovids, and also suggest that their morphology had not been modified by comparison with that of their wild ancestors. We propose to name them “predomestic” sheep and goat (Vigne and Buitenhuis 1999). There are only 115 cattle bones attributed to the three earlier phases of the site, which precludes discussion of sex ratios or kill-off patterns. However, since all parts of the skeleton were represented, including bones with little flesh, it appears that cattle actually lived on the island and were not imported as butchered joints of meat. The evidence suggests that cattle were slaughtered and butchered on-site or nearby. Eighteen metric measurements seem to indicate that the skeletal size was similar to that of wild cattle (Bos primigenius) in the Near East, although some individuals might have been more diminutive than the smaller specimens on the mainland. Thus, although poorly documented, the status of cattle at Shillourokambos seems to be nearer to sheep and goat than to that of deer. Cattle were probably bred as a “predomestic” species. These observations cast a new light on the history of cattle in Cyprus, since the species was thought to have been introduced very late to the island, not before the Early Bronze Age (Croft 1991; Reese 1996b). One may also question why the species disappeared only a few centuries after its first introduction to the island during the early Aceramic phase, and why it remained absent from Cyprus for four millennia during the remainder of the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, in spite of frequent intercommunication with the mainland. Shillourokambos provides information on this issue, since the disappearance of cattle during the Middle Phase is associated with significant changes both in lithic technology and animal husbandry. The origins of these changes are thus more likely to have been caused by cultural rather than natural factors. Nevertheless, it appears that all the ungulates introduced to Cyprus by early Aceramic people at the end of the 9th millennium cal B.C.E. were herded to varying degrees, either as domestic (pig) or as “predomestic” (i.e. morphologically unmodified sheep, goats and cattle) animals. The only exception seems to be the Mesopotamian fallow deer, which was probably a game species throughout the 8th millennium, though it cannot be excluded that it had been tentatively herded at the time of the island’s initial colonization. These observations provide significant information on the beginning of husbandry in the Near East. CYPRUS AND THE BEGINNING OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY IN THE NEAR EAST Until recently, it was accepted that animal husbandry in the Near East was not initiated prior to the beginning of the Middle PPNB (i.e. early 8th millennium B.C.E.), and did not spread westward beyond its place of origin in southeastern Anatolia before the Late PPNB (second half of the 8th millennium B.C.E.). Moreover, only sheep and goat were considered to have been herded during the Middle PPNB, domestic pig and cattle having emerged during the Late PPNB (Helmer 1992; Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Legge 1996). However, studies recently published (Saña 1997; Horwitz and Ducos 1998; Rosenberg et al. 1998; Peters et al. 1999; Zeder and Hesse 2000) suggest that sheep and goat were domesticated slightly earlier, together with pig and perhaps cattle, and that the spread of these domesticates from their area of origin took place as early as the Middle PPNB. Preliminary results from Shillourokambos suggest that by the end of the 9th millennium, all four species were in some way herded on the mainland and spread far enough from their point of origin to be transported to Cyprus by sea. The Shillourokambos assemblage also demonstrates that these animals, only recently herded, may have maintained the same skeletal morphology as their wild ancestors (i.e. that of “predomestic” animals) for a long time. This explains why they cannot be recognized as domesticates from bone assemblages on the mainland, where the remains of both hunted wild and “predomestic” herded animals are indistinguishable and often found mixed together. Consequently, the preliminary results from Shillourokambos suggest that researchers should re-examine Early and Middle PPNB bone assemblages and give greater importance to non-morphological criteria for recognizing early husbandry as recently did Zeder and Hesse (2000). The Cypriot material discussed here suggests that it would be profitable to reconsider the first stages of animal husbandry with less W E LL- E STAB LI S H E D C O LO N I STS : MYLOUTHKIA 1 AND THE CYPRO-PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B During the 1990s, excavations at Kissonerga Mylouthkia, western Cyprus, yielded datarich fills of well shafts and other features that provide startling new evidence for human occupation on the island during the 10th and 9th millennia B.P. Radiocarbon dates from short-lived cereal and other plant taxa enable us to contextualize the site in terms of Cypriot prehistory and the precocious migration of farmers, probably from the Levantine mainland. This newly unfolding testimony indicates that immigrant groups with links to the later Khirokitian had colonized Cyprus long before that classic phase, thus providing support for the antecedent development hypothesis. Insular traits such as the adaptations to local chert resources, and mainland diagnostics such as special skull treatments typify Mylouthkia assemblages. They point to one or more influxes of colonists with PPNB traditions and to a prolonged development which culminated in the emergence of the distinctively Cypriot Khirokitian Neolithic. The term Cypro-PPNB is proposed in order to convey salient characteristics of this hitherto unknown period in Cypriot prehistory. T he last decade of the 20th century has witnessed startling developments in our understanding of the beginnings of human settlement in Cyprus. Only ten years ago, in a contribution to Néolithisations, Alain Le Brun justifiably stated that “as there is no clear evidence of human presence in Cyprus before the sudden appearance, at the beginning of the 6th millennium, of a civilization of farmers to whom pottery was unknown, the Neolithization of the island as well as the origin of the [Khirokitian] culture are problematic” (Le Brun 1989a: 95). He was reflecting a well established, consensual view, since claims for earlier, Pre-Neolithic occupation were widely regarded as ambiguous at best (e.g. Cherry 1990: 151–52; Simmons et al. 1999: 21–25). Yet, in the late 1980s, Aetokremnos was starting to yield more compelling evidence for just such an occupation. This enabled Held to refine the consensual position by stating that “the conundrum of the immediate predecessor of the island”s Aceramic settlement has remained unsolved” (Held 1989: 8). For Held, as for others, the Akrotiri Phase occupants of the Aetokremnos rock shelter represent utilization rather than colonization of the island, whether by seasonal visitors or more regularly settled hunter-gatherers. They have no discernible links with the Khirokitian about three millennia later (Held 1992: 119–20; Simmons et al. 1999: 323). Thus, while Aetokremnos provides challenging evidence for early sea navigation, island utilization and man”s role in megafaunal extinctions, it has not had a direct bearing on the critical issues of colonization and the successful establishment of sedentary farmers on Cyprus. As shown in recent chronological charts of the island”s prehistory (e.g. Knapp et al. 1994: 381, fig. 1), this has resulted in a chronological gap from ca. 8500 to 7000/6500 cal. B.C.E. The gap, or before that the complete absence of sustainable evidence for pre-Khirokitian occupation, did not prevent prehistorians from essaying models for this stage of Cypriot prehistory. Chief amongst these were the antecedent and the Khirokitian colonization models. The former postulated that since the Aceramic Neolithic as it was then known was such a fully developed sui generis phenomenon with only a few much earlier mainland traits, intermediate precursors must exist on the island for what was termed the “Para-Neolithic” (Watkins 1973). The latter accepted the evidence as it was and posited dual colonizing processes to account for the unique character of the Khirokitian: a loss in transmission of certain cultural features and an elaboration of other features. Demographic stress was the trigger for migration, and it was couched in terms of a 7th–6th millennium cal B.C.E. settlement regression model on the mainland (Stanley Price 1977). The debate has many ramifications on how archaeologists perceive culture change and colonizing processes, but it lacked empirical evidence. This crucial evidence has now started to emerge as a result of lithic studies (McCartney 1998, in press a), excavations of Kissonerga Mylouthkia (from 1989), Parekklisha Shillourokambos (from 1992) (henceforth Mylouthkia and Shillourokambos), reconsideration of Kalavasos-Tenta (below) and perhaps the site of Akanthou Arkosyko (see Frontispiece for these and other Aceramic sites). DAT I N G T H E CYPR O – PPN B Radiocarbon dates confirming the existence of human occupation during this seminal period of ca. 1500 years come from at least three excavated sites. Those from Shillourokambos and Tenta are published elsewhere (Briois et al. 1997; Todd 1987: 174–78). Further dates from Shillourokambos will provide a more secure and refined chronological framework (Vigne et al. 2000; Guilaine and Briois this volume). The Mylouthkia dates have not been published before. They are presented here and will be treated in more detail in the Lemba Archaeological Project-Vol. III.1(LAP III.1). A coherent set of AMS dates (Table 1) come from charred seeds in the abandonment fills of two discrete wells, 116 and 133, described below. They suggest that the wells, which belong to Mylouthkia Periods 1A and 1B respectively, are separated by about a millennium, a separation that corresponds with the typological development of associated chipped stone and the fall-off rate of obsidian. Deposits in the wells were compact with rubble voids, undisturbed and with little evidence for root, animal or water action. The 14C samples from earlier well 116 come from the main and second last, ca. 1.7 and 3.7 m below the extant rim of the well. Those from well 133 are derived from seeds located almost 2 m below the surviving lip of the well. Turning to chronometric data from other sites belonging to the Table 1. Kissonerga-Mylouthkia Period 1 radiocarbon (AMS) date list. Period Years bp delta 13C Cal BC from Oxcal 1 sigma 2 sigma C482 barley 9315±60 -23.0% 8,430–8,200 8,590–8,090 AA-33128 C481 grain 9235±70 -21.4% 8,350–8,090 8,410–8,080 Well 116.124 AA-33129 C482 grain 9110±70 -23.4% 8,330–8,030 8,340–8,000 Well 133.264 OxA-7461 C531 Pistaca 8185±55 -23.1% 7,260–7,040 7,420–7,030 Well 133.264 AA-33130 C531 Lolium sp 8025±65 -22.9% 7,040–6,760 7,250–6,600 Context Code Well 116.124 OxA-7460 Well 116.123 Sample Material period ca. 9500–8000 B.P., Table 2 shows that well 116 is contemporary with Shillourokambos Early A and part of Tenta Period 5. Well 133 should be contemporary with Shillourokambos Late Phase and Tenta top of the site. There are no deposits in these wells or other excavated Mylouthkia components that equate with Shillourokambos Early B and Middle. With the possible exception of Tenta, we lack settlement plans of this period, and our evidence comes mainly from fragmentary, though impressive, negative features. The possibility that the hierarchical settlement plan of Tenta top of site belongs to this epoch merits further consideration (see also Todd, this volume). “Top of site” here refers to the solid architecture starting with Str. 36 and not the underlying Period 5 timber phase. The excavator, Todd, stated that there was no stratigraphic evidence against a sequence in which the discrete top of site was early, but he concluded it belonged to the much later, penultimate period of the site (Todd 1987: 177; cf. Knapp et al. 1994, 385). On the other hand, the radiocarbon evidence points unambiguously to the 9th millennium B. P. All securely associated determinations are contemporary with Mylouthkia 1B and Shillourokambos (Middle)–Late Phase (Table 2). The small set of dates is consistent: there are no anomalies. The four other pre-8000 B.P. dates come from the Lower South Slopes where there is a concentration of later dates, but two of these (shown on Table 2) antedate structures there and the other two are from open air hearths in areas where there had been earlier timber structures (cf. re-deposition/ burning of old wood). So, radiocarbon determinations indicate that the remarkably well-defined plan of a topographically and architecturally dominant structure surrounded by rows of smaller buildings belongs to the Cypro-PPNB and that some settlements of the period consisted of communities with communal/public(?) structures. The genesis of the social organization expressed by this distinctive spatial arrangement may exist at such sites as Pre-Pottery Neolithic A(PPNA) Jerf el Ahmar, a settlement with similar hierarchical plan (Stordeur 1999: 142, fig. 8).