Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros54Comptes rendusMarialucia Amadio, Building in Pr...

Comptes rendus

Marialucia Amadio, Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities

Rafael Laoutari
p. 510-516
Référence(s) :

Marialucia Amadio, Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities, Studi ciprioti 2. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, Venice, 2023. 185 pp., 46 figs., 11 tables –ISBN 978‑88‑6969‑686‑2. E‑book:
http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-685-5.

Texte intégral

1Marialucia Amadio’s monograph brings forward one of the most ubiquitous, highly discussed, and yet mostly under-theorised aspects of Cypriot prehistory, that of buildings and their role in the formation of society. As the author rightfully acknowledges since the beginning, prehistoric Cypriot architecture “has been often discussed in terms of its stylistic, functional, technological and chronological attributes and less as the product of human action and interaction” (p. 6). As a result, and following the most recent research trajectories, primarily applied on building remains of the subsequent Late Bronze Age, the author attempts to shift the focus away from the traditional approach of buildings and to introduce a much-needed agent-centred perception on this class of archaeological data. The aim is “to understand how the development of new forms and concepts of architecture, and the increasing appearance of social, cultural and economic forms of complexity during prehistoric Cyprus are mutually constituted” (p. 6). To achieve this, Amadio undertakes an inter-disciplinary and, as she claims, multi-scalar analysis of architectural materials, forms, practices, concepts and representations of built space.

  • 1 M. Amadio, Architecture and Urbanisation in Bronze Age Cyprus: Local and Regional Innovation in Mat (...)

2This publication presents an amalgamation of the main arguments developed through the author’s PhD thesis,1 which focused on the end of the Prehistoric Bronze Age (ca 1750/1700 BC), with a more expanded dataset spanning from the Late Aceramic Neolithic (ca 7000/6800-5200 BC) to the aforementioned terminus. As admitted, this book “is not intended to be an exhaustive collection of data about the building tradition in prehistoric Cyprus, but a preliminary discussion structured in different themes” (p. 24), which are elaborated in the three core chapters of this study. These comprise a discussion on human-environment interaction, material choices, technologies, and labour organisation linked to building resources and techniques (Chapter Two), on the architectural configuration and permanent installations of buildings (Chapter Three), and on settlement layout (Chapter Four). These topics are introduced in Chapter One with a short discussion on some key theoretical concepts of this study, followed by a historical overview of the previous approaches on prehistoric Cypriot buildings, and an outline of her ‘multi-scalar’ approach, while the final remarks of her work are very briefly presented in Chapter Five.

3Although the shortest of all chapters – excluding the three pages of “Concluding Remarks” – the twenty pages of “Introduction” (Chapter One) are crucial for the overall understanding of the book, and, therefore, particular emphasis is placed on them by this review. Here, Amadio highlights the ‘spirit’ of this study, which intends to see “architecture and material culture as media for expressing social reproduction and as the context for social action and interaction,” which will allow a synthesis of the “social, cultural and economic trajectories of prehistoric communities on the island” (p. 6). This is facilitated by her attempt to provide a theoretical framework, by discussing the concepts of ‘built environment’, ‘household’ and ‘community’.

  • 2 For an overview, see N. Macsweeney, Community identity and archaeology. Dynamic communities at Aphr (...)

4Through touching on post-processualism, structuration- and practice-theory, environmental psychology, and the agency of things, the author argues for the dynamic role of the built environment in forming and framing social meanings and action. In a similar manner, households are also perceived as dynamic entities, ideal for analysing the interplay of individuals and society, although it is often unclear whether these refer to social (e.g., “representative of some set of behaviours [...] social relations and interaction” [pp. 9‑10]) and/or physical/spatial (“household ‘type’ [...] household ‘phase’ [p. 10]) organisational units, or how these two can be linked and defined. In spite of the relatively large volume of literature available (e.g., geographic communities, imaginary communities, ethnic communities, communities of practice, etc.),2 the reader would have also greatly benefited from a more elaborate definition of the concept of ‘community’, which moves beyond the unclear disclaimer that “the notion of ‘community’ [...] involves not just a specific space or settlement, but includes affiliations and relationships that engage the community in social negotiations within a broader framework of place” (p. 13).

  • 3 One such example is the statement that “the most significant change in architecture is the introduc (...)
  • 4 For an overview, see A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus. From earliest prehistory through the B (...)

5Although of paramount importance for the reader, it is a shame that more space could not have been allocated to “The Chronological Context” of Chapter One, which can be perceived as the backbone of the subsequent analysis. In the author’s attempt to keep this section short, over-generalised descriptions of the main examined periods of Cypriot prehistory (i.e., Late Aceramic Neolithic, Ceramic Neolithic, Early and Middle Chalcolithic, Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age) were presented, which, on some cases, contradict the more detailed information provided in the core analytical chapters of this book.3 Moreover, some of the presented information appears slightly misleading. For instance, the Early Aceramic Neolithic wells at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, the ‘communal building’ and its surrounding ones at Agios Tychonas-Klimonas, the buildings at Kalavasos-Tenta (period 2) and the large oval-shaped built platforms at Kritou Marotou-Ais Giorkis,4 which date before the Late Aceramic Neolithic, comprise significant human efforts in constructing a built environment, which cannot be considered ephemeral (p. 14), despite the possible use of some of them on a seasonal setting.

  • 5 See A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus (cit. n. 21), pp. 263‑277.
  • 6 Ibid., p. 263; see also her own Table 1.1.
  • 7 See A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus (cit. n. 21), pp. 333‑344; D.‑L. Knox, Making sense of f (...)

6Furthermore, the long-lasting debate linked to the transition from the Chalcolithic to Bronze Age is missing, even though some of its main components (i.e., the appearance of rectangular, multi-cellular, mudbrick houses) are central to the topic of this study.5 Other topics that need to be addressed include the dating of Early Bronze Age or Early Cypriot to 2250–1750/1700 cal. BC (p. 19) instead of its narrower range of ca 2250-2000 cal. BC (which is in fact reported on her Table 1.1), the claim that the Prehistoric Bronze Age period starts with the Early Bronze Age (p. 19), while it is, in fact, generally agreed that it does with the ‘Philia culture/phase’6 and the association of scenic compositions, zoomorphic vessels and plank-shaped figurines solely with the Early Bronze Age (p. 20), while they are, in reality, only linked to the very end of this period, and mostly to the subsequent Middle Bronze Age.7 Lastly, the overall biases linked to the extent and geographic distribution of the archaeological exposure of each period (especially when it comes to excavated settlements) are absent, thus creating an illusion of comparable samples and uniform social developments across the island, especially in the case of the pre-Bronze Age periods.

  • 8 For an overview, see C. Knappett, An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material c (...)

7Another point that needs to be clarified in Chapter One is found in the last section, “The Volume in Context”, where the ‘multi-scalar’ approach of this study is explained. Multi-scalar approaches have by now a long history in archaeology, and essentially aim to understand the relationships of people across different spatial, temporal and/or social scales.8 Although Amadio defines three heuristic scales in her study, namely “micro-”, “meso-” and “macro-scale” (pp. 11, 23‑24), there is no unified principle among them (e.g., space and movement, frequency/nature of interaction, familiarity, time), to qualify this approach as a multi-scalar one. Her “micro-scale”, which focuses on the analysis of building materials and techniques, addresses questions that are associated with individual/household and community choices. Her “meso-scale” deals with choices linked to architectural configuration of features and installations related to buildings, which are assumed to be directly linked to households throughout prehistory, but also reveal wider communal trends. Lastly, her “macro-scale” deals with the settlement layout, focusing on community-specific questions related to spatial organisation. In other words, only two spatial/social analytical units can really be identified, namely the household and the community, which, depending on the research question, can be linked to only the micro-scale or the micro- and meso-scale of interactions.

8Being aware of the above, the three analytical chapters that follow provide a range of interesting social insights into the choices associated with the examined attributes of the prehistoric Cypriot built environment. In Chapter Two, Amadio adopts the chaîne opératoire approach and focuses on resource procurement and construction technologies for tracing continuities and innovations linked to social choices, with an additional interesting, although unsubstantiated, discussion on the role of women in these activities. On a diachronic scale, the topics discussed comprise choices of material and building techniques in association with environmental/climatic parameters, but also the identification of individual and/or communal ‘cultural’ choices, the trajectory of mudbrick production and use as well as the diversity of plasters and their associated technology, and, lastly, the use of stones in building practices and the early stages of stone ‘masonry’.

  • 9 More interestingly and passed unnoticed, the period following ca 5050 BC (ca 7000 BP) is linked to (...)

9From this discussion, some key topics are worth mentioning. For instance, the shift to timber-framed, mud, subterranean structures attested during the Early Chalcolithic is interpreted as an adaptation to the climate deterioration observed in the Eastern Mediterranean paleo-environmental proxies after ca 5050 BC (or 7000 BP; pp. 34‑35) – aligned, therefore, with the interpretations of other scholars working on this period.9 Less clearly qualified is the view on the shift from round to rectangular mudbrick houses with a courtyard, attested during the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Philia culture/phase (pp. 35‑36). Despite the ongoing debate on this transition, this study perceives it as the “natural” product of “more stable climatic and environmental conditions” combined with the “technological advancement”, “subsistence strategies” and “social organisation” of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Other intriguing patterns include the exclusive use of stones in building practices at the known Ceramic Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites of Sotira, and the technique of carved building foundations on bedrock attested at the known Chalcolithic, Middle Bronze, and Late Bronze Age sites of the Kouris Valley (pp. 38‑40). These choices are presented by the author as cultural communal decisions, transcending space and time and demonstrating long-lived community identities.

10Chapter Three, “Experiencing the Built Environment. Transformations in Architectural Forms and Installations”, turns the emphasis towards the performance and social role of buildings. In this chapter, Amadio focuses on four datasets, namely the shape of individual built units, their doorways, fire-installations and floors, and perceives them as “indicators of social practices and choices” (p. 71). For all of them, she provides a detailed diachronic overview, discussing their social implications, based on the systematic selection of some of their attributes.

  • 10 Interestingly, the first occurrence of sub-rectangular buildings in the Ceramic Neolithic, seen as (...)

11Certain interesting topics emerge from this endeavour. First, the persistence of circular buildings throughout the Neolithic and their progressive enlargement and compartmentalisation during the Chalcolithic (often using different floor-types and kerbs) are seen as reflections of the social reality of these periods (e.g., social and economic stability of the Neolithic and increasing social complexity of the Middle/Late Chalcolithic; pp. 74‑76) – aligning, therefore, herself with other scholars writing on the matter.10 Second, although thematically not clearly belonging to this chapter, the Early Chalcolithic practice of making subterranean houses and their restricted domestic inventory, which suggest more activities performed outside, are considered emergent communal mechanisms of cooperation, seen as “the first step towards a more communal way of living” (p. 79) – despite the presence of public works and domestic activities performed outside during the earlier Neolithic period (as identified by the author in Chapter Four). Third, the consistent doorway orientation of the transitional Middle/Late Chalcolithic buildings, unique in Cypriot prehistory, is intriguingly viewed as “an indication of an important transition towards an increased communal decision-making and a higher level of social organisation” (p. 76) – although other interpretations (e.g., individual choices based on the same point of interest) cannot be excluded. Lastly, the absence of hearths and more so ovens in certain Early and Middle Bronze Age buildings is perceived as an indication of inter-household cooperation and shared facilities or diverse building functions during a period of progressive household privatisation (pp. 81, 102, 148). Still, as indicated in the next chapter, this pattern is also attested in Ceramic Neolithic Sotira (p. 145).

  • 11 Take for example the Late Aceramic Neolithic wall and discrete shared working platforms at Khirokit (...)
  • 12 Think of the Early and Middle Bronze Age buildings comprising inter-linked private rooms, the share (...)

12The last analytical chapter of this book, “Interacting with the Built Environment. Transformation in Settlement Organisation and Concept of Space”, takes a step back and reports the diachronic patterns on a settlement level. Emphasis is placed on the topography and environmental setting of settlements, followed by a space syntax analysis of buildings – which may have aligned more clearly with the objectives of the previous chapter – as well as an identification of the social role of public works (i.e., open spaces, roads/paths, walls) and distribution of buildings within settlements. Through the chronologically arranged discussion of these parameters, interesting insights on mechanisms of cooperation, socio-economic communal choices and an evolutionary narrative of the development of more complex building and settlement configurations, reflecting more complex social relationships, emerge. Still, this narrative tends to downplay the social significance of Neolithic private and public works,11 while similar attributes12 are presented as indications of more complex community-oriented social relationships during the Middle Bronze Age.

  • 13 It should also be mentioned that the identification of an ‘organised’ or ‘regular’ settlement layou (...)

13Throughout the three analytical chapters of this book, the Middle Bronze Age settlement at Erimi-Laonin tou Porakou acquires a central role in the discussion, naturally due to the personal involvement of the author in its investigation. In‑depth analysis using diverse macroscopic and microscopic methods performed there, often minimally applied elsewhere, provides a great range of information about this community. Through her own work, Amadio offers insightful details about the standardised production and wide distribution of mudbricks and plaster surfaces, both of which indicate diverse recipes, as well as the processing of the local bedrock (with an excellent analysis of tool marks). The latter was carved for the foundation of the diverse spaces of this community and was also exploited for providing large stones used as thresholds. All this evidence combined with their presence in the “communal workshop complex” found on the highest plateau of this settlement are interpreted as indicators of somewhat specialised production administered by an authority acting on a supra-household level. Such an interpretation is further supported by the author through the identification of a preconceived settlement plan associated with the foundation of this community, which achieved some form of control in accessing the aforementioned complex and aligned the more irregularly structured domestic units along the slope. Still, this “preconceived settlement plan” hardly stands out from the available site-plan drawing, illustrated on Figure 4.8.13

14The “Concluding Remarks” of this monograph are rather brief. The reader would have benefited from a deeper discussion bringing together all the different strands of data and interpretations of the previous three core chapters, and from reading a synthesis where the author highlights the “dynamic role” of the built environment in the diverse social processes throughout the prehistory of Cyprus. Instead, Amadio concludes by stating that this study has not “exhausted the subject” (p. 157), although it has demonstrated the value of such an approach or, in her own words, that “buildings and agglomerations [...] were implicated in a dynamic process and were an integral part of the spatiality of early communities of the island” (p. 156). Simultaneously, the traditional evolutionary narrative of increasing complexity during the course of Cypriot prehistory is reiterated and further backed up by the facets of the built environment that, for Amadio, point towards the emergence of specialisation and supra-household labour organisation during the Middle Bronze Age.

  • 14 Citations appear both in text and as footnotes.
  • 15 For some examples, see pages 35‑36, 37‑38, 40‑41, 58‑59, 100‑101, 102‑104, 135‑136, 144‑145.
  • 16 The cover of this book, which discusses issues linked to the prehistoric Cypriot built environment, (...)

15The monograph is equipped with a series of high-quality figures and tables, which greatly support their associated arguments, as well as clearly articulated and exceptionally informative text boxes, explaining some of the highly specialised techniques and analytical tools used by the author. It is a pity that editorial standards were not higher as several issues are identified, including inconsistency of citations14 and chapter sub-division, some extremely long and difficult to follow paragraphs,15 and the choice of a highly appealing, but thematically dubious, cover.16

16Overall, as demonstrated here, this monograph provides some thought-provoking discussions on the prehistoric trajectory of the Cypriot built environment by primarily presenting a selected overview of previous literature, divided into extremely interesting thematic topics. Admittedly, it would have greatly benefited from, at least, a more extensive discussion, integrating the diverse observations and interpretations of the author, which would have provided the space for Amadio to clearly demonstrate her viewpoint into the transformative role of buildings and settlements in the writing of the prehistoric Cypriot social archaeology. Although it does not always persuasively indicate the dynamic role of the built environment into the social negotiations of the approximately five and a half millennia-long period under examination, the volume does bring forward a much-neglected aspect of the Cypriot prehistoric studies, setting a precedence for future work.

Haut de page

Notes

1 M. Amadio, Architecture and Urbanisation in Bronze Age Cyprus: Local and Regional Innovation in Materials, Technology and Social Representation. PhD Thesis, University of Reading, 2017.

2 For an overview, see N. Macsweeney, Community identity and archaeology. Dynamic communities at Aphrodisias and Beycesultan. Ann Arbor, 2011, pp. 9‑41.

3 One such example is the statement that “the most significant change in architecture is the introduction of semi-subterranean structures during the Early Chalcolithic phase”, which appears in this section (p. 17), while later on the ‘subterranean features’ of the earlier Ceramic Neolithic (p. 16) become ‘the antecedents’ of the Early Chalcolithic buildings (p. 77), and even further along, “at Ayios Epiktitos-Vrysi [Ceramic Neolithic], buildings were constructed within deep hollows carved into the calcareous bedrock floor” (p. 133) – a piece of information missing from the overall ‘Chronological Context’.

4 For an overview, see A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus. From earliest prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge, 2013, pp. 96‑122. See also: A. H. Simmons, K. DiBenedetto, L. Keach, “Neolithic Kritou Marotou‑Ais Giorkis, Cyprus – Living in the uplands”. BASOR 379, 2018, pp. 171‑195; J. D. Vigne, F. Briois, T. Cucchi, Y. Franel, P. Mylona, M. Tengberg, R. Touquet, J. Wattez, G. Willcox, A. Zazzo, J. Guilaine, “Klimonas, a late PPNA hunter-cultivator village in Cyprus: new results”. J.‑D. Vigne, F. Briois, M. Tengberg (eds.), Nouvelles données sur les débuts du Néolithique à Chypre. Paris, 2017, pp. 21‑45.

5 See A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus (cit. n. 21), pp. 263‑277.

6 Ibid., p. 263; see also her own Table 1.1.

7 See A. B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus (cit. n. 21), pp. 333‑344; D.‑L. Knox, Making sense of figurines in Bronze Age Cyprus. A comprehensive analysis of Cypriot ceramic figurative material from EC I–LC IIIA (c.2300BC-c.1100BC). PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 2012, pp. 137‑156.

8 For an overview, see C. Knappett, An archaeology of interaction: network perspectives on material culture and society. Oxford, 2011; B. P. C. Molloy, “Introduction: thinking of scales and modes of interaction in prehistory”. B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys and oddities. Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours. Oxford & Philadelphia, 2016, pp. 9‑28; J. Robb, T. R. Pauketat, “From moments to millennia. Theorizing scale and change in human history”. J. Robb, T. R. Pauketat (eds.), Big histories, human lives: tackling problems of scale in archaeology. Santa Fe, 2013, pp. 3‑33.

9 More interestingly and passed unnoticed, the period following ca 5050 BC (ca 7000 BP) is linked to the Cypriot Ceramic Neolithic – also partly characterised by subterranean buildings – with the Early Chalcolithic only appearing around a millennium later, based on the very limited current evidence (see Table 1.1).

10 Interestingly, the first occurrence of sub-rectangular buildings in the Ceramic Neolithic, seen as strategies for enlarging the built space (p. 74), and the occurrence of private annexes linked to some of these houses, further contributing to the compartmentalisation of the built space (pp. 132‑133), are identified by the author, but are not considered dynamic social patterns worth of discussing.

11 Take for example the Late Aceramic Neolithic wall and discrete shared working platforms at Khirokitia, as well as the shared mud-plastered productive areas at Cape Andreas, coupled with the Ceramic Neolithic distinct sectors, with quantitative material differences, at Agios Epiktitos and the buildings with private annexes at Sotira.

12 Think of the Early and Middle Bronze Age buildings comprising inter-linked private rooms, the shared ‘productive’ courtyards at Middle Bronze Age Politiko and Erimi, and the large wall at the Middle Bronze Age Erimi and Kissonerga.

13 It should also be mentioned that the identification of an ‘organised’ or ‘regular’ settlement layout associated with the Middle Bronze Age settlements at Politiko and Alambra (pp. 141‑142) cannot be substantiated due to the very little archaeological exposure at these sites. For Politiko, see S. Falconer, P. L. Fall, “Household and community behavior at Bronze Age Politiko-Troulia, Cyprus”. Journal of Filed Archaeology 38, 2013, figs. 4, 6 and 8; for Alambra, see A. Sneddon, L. Graham, T. Rymer, G. Deftereos, The Middle Bronze Age Settlement at Alambra in Cyprus. Excavations 2012-2016, SIMA 153. Nicosia, 2022, fig. 1.4.

14 Citations appear both in text and as footnotes.

15 For some examples, see pages 35‑36, 37‑38, 40‑41, 58‑59, 100‑101, 102‑104, 135‑136, 144‑145.

16 The cover of this book, which discusses issues linked to the prehistoric Cypriot built environment, depicts the top side of two decorated Prehistoric Bronze Age spindle whorls, drawn in orange, within a dark green background.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Rafael Laoutari, « Marialucia Amadio, Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes, 54 | 2024, 510-516.

Référence électronique

Rafael Laoutari, « Marialucia Amadio, Building in Prehistoric Cyprus. Tracing Transformations in the Built and Social Environment of Early Cypriot Communities »Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes [En ligne], 54 | 2024, mis en ligne le 30 octobre 2024, consulté le 10 mars 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cchyp/1525 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/12lsh

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search