Figurine Makers of Prehistoric Cyprus: Settlement and Cemeteries at Souskiou

By Edgar Peltenburg

The Chalcolithic period in Cyprus has been known since Porphyrios Dikaios’ excavations at Erimi in the 1930s and through the appearance in the antiquities market of illicitly acquired anthropomorphic cruciform figures, often manufactured from picrolite, a soft blue-green stone. The excavations of the settlement and cemetery at Souskiou Laona reported on in this volume paint a very different picture of life on the island during the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC. Burial practices at other known sites are generally single inhumations in intramural pit graves, only rarely equipped with artifacts. At Souskiou, multiple inhumations were interred in deep rock-cut tombs clustered in extra-mural cemeteries. Although the sites were also subjected to extensive looting, excavations have revealed complex multi-stage burial practices with arrangements of disarticulated and articulated burials accompanied by a rich variety of grave goods. Chief among these are a multitude of cruciform figurines and pendants. This unusual treatment of the dead, which has not been recorded elsewhere in Cyprus, shifts the focus from the individual to the communal, and provides evidence for significant changes involving kinship group links to common ancestors. Excavations at the Laona settlement have furnished evidence suggesting that it functioned as a specialised center for the procurement and manufacture of picrolite during its early phase. The subsequent decline of picrolite production and the earliest known occurrence of new types of ornaments, such as faience beads and copper spiral pendants, attest to important changes involving the transformation of personal and social identities during the first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, a topic that forms a central theme of this final report on the site.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Jul 31, 2019
• ISBN: 9781789250206

Book preview

Chapter 1. Introduction

Edgar Peltenburg

1.1 Background to current research

Souskiou is the name given to a complex of sites comprising a settlement and four discrete cemeteries, all dating to the Chalcolithic period (Pl. 1.1–2) located to the SW of the modern (now abandoned) village of that name. Souskiou has been known to looters since at least the middle of the last century when it first came to the attention of Iliffe and Mitford (1952), who were working in the village of Kouklia, 2.5 km to the south. It was not until 1972 that Maier (1973, 193–194; 1974, 41) noted the ‘discovery’ of the Laona cemetery and reported 14 visible and empty tombs. The sites are especially important for the range and quality of cruciform figurines, the iconic images of the MChal for which the southwest of Cyprus is well known (Crewe et al. 2002; 2005; Vathyrkakas, 1–2). Fig. 1.1 shows the looting damage inflicted by the early 1970s. Prior to recent excavations at the site, first by the Department of Antiquities at Souskiou Vathyrkakas in the 1990s (see Vathyrkakas, chap. 1 for a summary of the work of previous archaeological missions at the Souskiou sites) and from 2001–2011 by the Edinburgh team at Laona (for preliminary reports, see Crewe et al. 2005 and Peltenburg et al. 2006a), little was known about the contexts of these distinctive objects; and even less was known about the remains of the Chalcolithic settlement at Laona, which was not heavily looted but was presumed to be badly eroded due to its location on a steep slope above the Vathyrkakas gorge.

Local informants hold that the residents of the village of Souskiou, abandoned since the Turkish invasion of 1974, had been responsible for looting at the site (see Hadjisavvas 2001, 137), but it became apparent that, facilitated by the isolated rural location of the site, looting had been ongoing. On three occasions during our six seasons at the Laona cemetery, looting attempts were made, necessitating camping teams overnight on site during the season and disguising some tombs with debris when we were absent. Current land use around the cemetery is cultivation of crops for animal fodder, and the outcrop itself is traversed by herds of goats accompanied by their herder. The number of recently deposited goat carcasses found within looted tombs (see Chap. 8 Catalogue entries) signals that goats either frequently fall in and have been unable to extricate themselves or that herders use the tombs as a convenient dumping area for dead beasts. The area is also a designated wildlife conservation zone, but rifle shells attest to regular illegal activity during the hunting season. Current looting attempts appeared therefore to be opportunistic but had certainly been undertaken more systematically during the 20th century. There is also evidence for disturbance during the Bronze Age and Late Roman periods (see Chap. 20 for a discussion of post-Chalcolithic finds).

Initial assessments on the current state of preservation of the cemetery during survey undertaken in 1999 as part of the Lemba Archaeological Project (LAP) Western Cyprus Survey (Bolger et al. 2004) led to the conclusion that the outcrop was only sparsely populated with tombs and had been thoroughly looted by this point. These assessments were also based on brief mentions in the archaeological literature made by earlier archaeological missions working in the area. Despite the early awareness of the presence of the cemetery, and the series of investigations at the nearby and contemporary Vathyrkakas cemeteries, no verification could be obtained that formal archaeological excavations had previously been undertaken in any tombs at Laona. Despite the extensive looting activity, individual looting episodes were largely haphazard and less than thorough. In some cases, this has resulted in preservation of the basal deposits, and it is reasonable to suppose that a visibly looted tomb would act as a deterrent to further looting. Looters, quite naturally, appear to have had no interest in human bone and indeed no compunctions about crushing and destroying the interments to obtain the grave goods. Therefore, the possibility remains that some of the deep tombs that appeared to have been emptied yet entirely lacked fragmentary human bone in the basal deposits may have been explored by earlier archaeological missions. The alternative explanation is that these tombs were originally prepared for interments but not utilised (see Chap. 8). Both explanations may be valid.

Figure 1.1: View of the Souskiou Laona cemetery in 1972 (photograph F. G. Maier).

The settlement of Souskiou Laona was first identified in 1951 by Tryphonas A. Koulermou and the custodian at Kouklia, George Pastos, in an attempt to locate the likely habitations of those who were buried at Vathyrkakas Cemetery 1 (Iliffe and Mitford 1952, 50). Hadjisavvas (1977) surveyed it in 1975 when he discovered looted tombs and recorded heaps of stones marking the position of destroyed houses (Figs 1.2–3). He attributed it to the ‘Chalcolithic 1’ (E–MChal) period, with a possibility that it was also used during the Neolithic. The Canadian Palaepaphos Survey Project (CPSP) re-surveyed the site in 1991 as part of its major survey in SW Cyprus (Rupp et al. 1992). That report shows that finds were scattered in a 1.4 ha area on the southerly slopes of the Laona ridge. In her analysis of the site’s pottery, Clarke concluded that it was an unusual assemblage for two reasons. First is the presence of Red-on-Red pottery, which is early within the MChal sequence and which she regarded as an eastern ware found only at Souskiou amongst known western Chalcolithic sites (although it was found subsequently in early MChal contexts at Kissonerga Mosphilia; see LAP II.1A, chap. 5). Second, the assemblage is completely different from others investigated by the CPSP, a contrast she suggests may not be due to chronological disparities. She also concluded that the site was largely MChal with the possibility of a LChal presence (Rupp et al. 1992, 297–300). In the same report, D’Annibale noted the unusually high percentage of cores and informal tools at the site, a feature he suggests was due to the impracticality of bringing large amounts of chert up the steep slopes from the Dhiarizos. He also attributed the special character of the assemblage to activities connected with the cemeteries, and the presence of a rare bifacially retouched pressure tool to possible extra-island contacts (Rupp et al. 1992, 305–307).

In 1992, we put down trial trenches to ascertain if in situ remains still existed on the severely eroded slopes. Part of a curvilinear wall of a Chalcolithic building (B 13) and a straight wall, as well as a tool cache, indicated the existence of intact deposits attributable to the MChal (Peltenburg 1993b). We re-surveyed the site in 1999, recovering some LChal sherdage in addition to a majority of MChal, and we noted the exceptionally high proportion of RW, the use of local clay sources, and the low proportion of cores in contrast to numbers of tools and preference for dark Moni chert (Bolger et al. 2004). In sum, our previous work at Souskiou Laona demonstrated the existence of a 1.4 ha Neolithic(?)–Chalcolithic period settlement with unusual features, in some way linked to surrounding cemeteries, and with good potential for focussed intrusive investigation.

Full scale investigations at the Laona settlement took place initially in August–September 2005. The settlement is located 300 m SW of the cemetery along the same ridge that is such a striking feature of the lower Dhiarizos River valley. The 1 km long narrow ridge, flanked by the Dhiarizos and Vathyrkakas rivers, terminates in a spur at the confluence of the two. A declivity, the Saddle, marked on Pl. 1.2, neatly divides it into two sections. Its steep NW face (Fig. 1.4), caused by Dhiarizos River incision, is unsuitable for habitation, with the result that settlement is confined to the crown and gentler slopes facing away from, and so hidden from, the Dhiarizos (Fig. 1.5). It lies within an enclosed landscape, oriented towards the Vathyrkakas stream, with views to the Vathyrkakas cemeteries across the ravine and the Mediterranean Sea in the distance (Fig. 1.6).

While formally a Dhiarizos valley site (Pl. 1.1), the topography of Souskiou Laona sets it apart from the valley proper. That description, however, is too narrowly circumscribed by the known limits of the settlement. It was, after all, associated with the Laona cemetery, which forms a landmark on the crest of the ridge; and its location was well marked to those coming down the chain of Chalcolithic sites that line the valley by the conspicuous, curving wall of the ridge. In terms of communications, therefore, the site lies strategically at the junction of valley settlements and the coastal plain below. A chief aim of our research at Souskiou is to treat the evidence of the settlement and cemeteries as joint insights into the same community. This approach has not been undertaken previously in Cyprus, and such a relational or contextual study has rarely been applied elsewhere (see Legarra Herrero 2014, 26 ff. for problems of linking cemeteries and settlements in EB Crete; and Legarra Herrero 2014, 17 for references to the broader contextual study advocated by Hodder).

Figure 1.2: View of the Souskiou Laona cemetery from the west in 1975 (photograph S. Hadjisavvas).

Figure 1.3: View of the top of the Souskiou Laona ridge in 1975 (photograph S. Hadjisavvas).

1.2 The site of Souskiou

The site of Souskiou is located in southwestern Cyprus, two kilometres inland from Palaepaphos (modern Kouklia). Hog-backed Laona ridge, the focus of settlement, dominates the entrance to the Dhiarizos River valley, whether one approaches it from the coast or the valley inland from the E. It is a clearly defined place, an obvious focus of attention, with one of its cemeteries perched on the crest and visible for miles about. Souskiou was a topography of belief (Bradley 2000, 20; Harmanşah 2014). Its strategic position is enhanced by the steep flanks of the ridge, which were carved out by the two converging rivers, the Dhiarizos and its tributary, the Vathyrkakas (title page; Pl. 2.1–2). The ridge overlooks both valleys, with clear distant views up the Dhiarizos of the Troodos Mountains to the NE and of the Mediterranean to the S. The exceptional character of Souskiou is evident when one compares it to other contemporary sites like Erimi Pamboula, Ayios Epiktitos Mezarlik, Kissonerga Mosphilia, Lemba Lakkous, Chlorakas Palloures and Androlikou Ayios Mamas, all of which are important sites located on gentle slopes beside readily accessible streams and agricultural land. In choosing this distinctive landmark, settlers made a statement, one that distinguished Souskiou from its well-known contemporaries. The choice was also distinctive within the Dhiarizos River valley where most sites are on gentle slopes, like Ayios Savvas tis Karonis Monastery (Rupp et al. 1999). The exception is multi-period Prastio Mesorotsos (McCarthy 2014), but apart from Prastio none is as conspicuous as Souskiou.

The advantages of such prominence, however, came with practical drawbacks, such as the steepness of slopes for occupation, problems of access, and lack of adjacent agricultural land. In spite of those shortcomings, settlement expanded along the slopes of the ridge so that houses on the southern slopes were hidden from all view save from the opposite side of the Vathyrkakas gorge. These max 100 m long slopes become sheer in places below the 140 m contour down to the valley beds below. In contrast, and as shown in cross-sections of the site (Pl. 3.1), the Dhiarizos side of the hill is much steeper than the southern slopes, with precipitous falls of 100 m down to the valley floor. The remnant of a building here shows that occupation also existed on this northern, much more exposed, side of the ridge (see Chap. 6). Its presence raises the issue of the degree to which erosion has altered the topography of the site since c. 3000 BC, as discussed in Chap. 4.

The site as a whole attained significant proportions, although we shall always be ignorant of its maximum dimensions due to severe erosion. The most thoroughly investigated side of the ridge, the S side, has scattered evidence for settlement in an area of 15,000 sq. m. Since only parts of the hill were occupied at one time and pervasive erosion has removed large parts of the hill, an estimate of the total population of the community that lived here is problematic.

Figure 1.4: View of the Laona ridge from the north.

Figure 1.5: View of the Laona settlement from the south.

Figure 1.6: View from Laona ridge to the Mediterranean Sea.

In addition to the settlement, the community established discrete burial grounds, the first clear example of cemeteries since the beginnings of human colonisation of the island. The Laona cemetery existed on the Laona ridge some 280 m NE of the settlement. Another three were placed on the other side of the Vathyrkakas gorge. Thus, the site consists of several components spread over an area of c. 200,000 sq. m. It was bisected by the Vathyrkakas gorge in such a way that communication between the two sides may have been more readily accomplished by looping around from the western terminal of Laona or from the eastern part where the trail would have contoured gently.

We noted above that Souskiou was well placed for exchange networks since it is positioned at the nexus of communication routes along the coast and between the coast and the mountains (Pl. 3.2). Coming along the Ktima Lowlands from the W, one is faced with intractable hill country, a no man’s land where deeply incised ravines form a barrier to communications. The situation changed at least by Archaic times when the sanctuary at Rantidi formed the boundary of Palaepaphos. The first road through the region was made in the mid-3rd century BC (Bekker-Nielson 2004, 105–107). This barrier descends sharply to the sea at Cape Aspro, making progress difficult. The only Chalcolithic site in that region is Ranti Asprokremmos (also Alehtora Ayios Yeorgios), perhaps a specialised production centre for axes and adzes (McCartney 2000). Consequently, routes from the western coastlands would turn inland where Souskiou was situated at the entrance to the Dhiarizos valley, a major communication route towards the Troodos massif that forms a corridor between the Mamonia formation to the W and the Pakhna to the E. This corridor is marked by a chain of Chalcolithic sites just above the floodplain and, where the valley becomes too narrow at Kidhasi, higher along the eastern side where there are springs. The valley route could lead to mountain resources, or could lead to the E by side valleys such as that along the MChal site of Yerovasa Proou and onwards to other parts of Cyprus. An alternative route to other areas of the island was to bypass Cape Aspro by sea. Since there has been major progradation by the Dhiarizos River, the original coastal strip here was narrow and the site of Laona possibly less than a kilometre from the sea (Zomeni 2012). In sum, Souskiou lies strategically on major routes, and it is a frontier site at the eastern border of a regional grouping of many Chalcolithic sites. Settlers may have realised that it could serve as a pivotal centre between the relatively well-populated west and the rest of the island.

In contrast, we also noted that it was poorly located for agriculture. By agriculture we mean simple hoe agriculture since there were no draft animals on Cyprus in Chalcolithic times. One can infer from the palaeobotanical report (Chap. 18) and the remarkably high number of rubbers and querns from the settlement (Chap. 14) that this was an agricultural settlement requiring land beyond the ridge that was given over to buildings, burials and ‘unused’ spaces which may have served as garden plots. Sizable tracts for crops might have existed in the Dhiarizos valley, but the main crop area was available on the terra rossa plateau behind the Vathyrkakas cemeteries. Access to the site from the valley and the plateau meant they were within a kilometre of the settlement, but this entailed a climb of 100 m from the Dhiarizos and 40–80 m down and then up from the Vathyrkakas plateau with produce carried by hand. Easier site locations for agriculture were available in the area, so this was not the primary reason for selecting the Laona ridge, even if there was a marsh or delta area nearby providing another resource-rich habitat (Sewell 2012, 32; see also Chap. 3).

1.3 Research framework: variability among small scale societies

Souskiou has attracted attention since the 1950s because of the existence of a unique Chalcolithic cemetery and cruciform figurines alleged to come from it. The publication of Souskiou Vathyrkakas in 2006 provided an analysis of these two exceptional features of c. 3000 BC and reasons for the development of structural complexity. In 1992, we decided to test another element of the site, the settlement (Peltenburg et al. 2006a). While others had concluded that the site was too eroded to repay excavation (Rupp et al. 1992), our trial excavations demonstrated sufficient intact deposits on a steep slope. Assuming that the settlement was associated with the cemetery, or a second, often overlooked cemetery, we supposed that it too might be exceptional with evidence for an evolution in social complexity (Peltenburg et al. 2006a, 77). These were reasons enough for a programme of investigation, but studies of prehistoric Cyprus point to the existence of major research issues in need of study, and we felt that further work at Souskiou could contribute to the elucidation of some of these issues as well.

Inter-site variability

In common with much other Old World prehistoric archaeology, most new information in Cyprus was gathered in order to support a culture historical paradigm in which the goal of the fieldwork was to organise material into successive chronological periods and cultural groups (Trigger 1996, 211–313). For many years, archaeologists shoehorned prehistoric sites with generally similar material into what became homogenised cultures and periods. Porphyrios Dikaios, for example, strongly adhered to this model in his influential reconstruction of the island’s prehistory (1962). Lacking independent dating methods, he emphasised similarities and neglected to tease out multifarious differences of the informative kind David Clarke has shown to prevail among small-scale societies (Clarke 1978, 363–408).

In fact, such differences between co-existing communities are evident from the beginning of human occupation on the island. For example, the settlements of Ayios Tychonas Klimonas and Ayia Varvara Asprokremmos, only 32 km away from each other, are grouped together within the Cypro-PPNA in spite of major differences in several aspects of settlement and material culture (Vigne et al. 2012; McCartney et al. 2008). Later, Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia stands out as a major demographic focus with no competitors. Upland sites like Ais Giorkis or coastal sites like Cape Andreas are very different from it (Simmons 2010; Le Brun 1981). If, as is likely, the group size of Khirokitia became more than 100–200, new social networks must have developed (Dunbar 2011). This transformation is critical to any discussion of the manner in which corporate societies developed into more hierarchically structured ones. It seems that Khirokitia was unable to develop such novel social networks, and so the community broke up (Peltenburg 2004, 84–85; cf. Bandy 2004). As exemplified by the demise of Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2014), such fissioning occurred repeatedly in prehistoric megasites of the Near East and East Mediterranean.

In Late Neolithic times, communities varied from those on hilltops to others dug into the ground so that they were effectively subterranean (Steel 2004). During the Chalcolithic period, Souskiou, Kissonerga Mosphilia and Politiko Kokkinorotsos also show distinctive traits (e.g. Webb et al. 2009), but it is worth mentioning that these often overlooked disparities continue into the Bronze Age. For example, we tend to treat small sites like Alambra and Marki together (Coleman et al. 1996; Frankel and Webb 2006), yet there were significant planning differences, as has been shown recently by Sneddon (2015).

This briefest of outlines indicates that the study of variability between contemporary prehistoric sites would repay closer attention. As all seem to have opted for a corporate structure, Cyprus provides significant evidence for strategies that successfully allowed corporate structures to persist for some 7,000 years, from the Neolithic to the Urban Revolution. Research on types of more horizontal structures of organizational complexity have progressed elsewhere (e.g. Blanton 1995; McIntosh 1999), but more needs to be done in Cyprus.

In trying to move beyond the culture-historical paradigm, as many are now doing, we need to ask how these egalitarian structures lasted so long, why the Cypriot record is marked by the frequent movement of communities to new or re-visited locales, and what drove the variability between co-existing communities briefly outlined above. Following work in the 1980s, archaeology has increasingly begun to focus on practice theory and households, in part to see how the egalitarian mode persisted for such a long period (e.g. Netting et al. 1984; Blanton 1995; Ur 2014). In Cyprus, it persisted through the introduction of traction animals and other economic benefits that might normally have promoted inequalities.

Souskiou, however, belongs to a time well before such introductions, so we focus in this volume on intra-site variations between households over time, variations that may also be expressed in household tombs in the cemeteries surrounding the settlement. A strength of this report is the inclusion of results of investigations of one of the cemeteries, Laona, thus allowing evaluation of the whole community in its different roles during life in the settlement and on funerary occasions.

Middle Chalcolithic settlement in the west

Settlement expansion took place, at least in the W of the island, during the MChal period. Survey and excavation show a decided increase in the number of sites from the preceding Neolithic and EChal periods. Pl. 1.1 probably underestimates the number of MChal sites since most of those shown simply as Chalcolithic in all likelihood belong to the MChal period. A much more refined chronology is required to see if we are dealing with an organised MChal movement into the Dhiarizos valley.

Presumably as part of this trend, people chose to found a new settlement at Souskiou about 3400 BC. As so frequently in archaeology, the motives for such a move are unknown, but a number of factors bear on the issue. In prehistory, small settlements moved frequently, and within Cyprus questions of mobility and task sites occupied for only part of the year have barely been addressed (see Held 1992; Clarke 2007; Wasse 2007; Voskos 2018). Their highly distinctive, dual horticulture/agro-hunting system provided alternative economic strategies, including settlement shift, for coping with the scarcities and droughts that have constantly afflicted the island (cf. Wasse 2007, 60–63; Iacovou 2013b). What little attention has been given to the questions of semi-sedentism and recurrent village shift has focused primarily on environmental factors, such as soil depletion (Stanley Price 1979; Clarke 2007) or social reasons in which settlement fission, or what Voskos (2018, 472) terms the constant realignment of subsistence strategies and habitation patterns, pervasive elsewhere (Goody 1976), may have been commonplace. Other drivers towards settlement, such as pull factors like the prominent white outcrop that became the Laona cemetery, may have been in force, while an increase of settlement in the coastal plain may have prompted colonisation of the upland hinterlands. Whatever the case, there is no evidence that Souskiou grew out of a local pre-existing site cluster. It may have been part of a much larger phenomenon in which permanent co-residential communities and regional interaction networks became normal, prompted by the extension west from the Euphrates River precisely at this time (Lawrence and Ricci 2016, 46). The sudden appearance at Souskiou of alien materials, metal and faience, is relevant in this context (see Chaps 12, 16 and 21).

Our excavations at the rapidly founded site of Souskiou raise such questions as why people settled on this particular hog-backed hill about 3400 BC. Did it involve upheaval from one or more settlements to this place, or people from non-sedentary lifestyles? Assuming that aggregation or nucleation of peoples in a new locale meant carving out a space in the known landscape (see Birch 2013), what was the reaction of residents of that territory? And lastly, how did the incomers create a new identity as part of the process of establishing a new community? Souskiou yielded two striking features, cemeteries and evidence for picrolite production, that are particularly relevant to this discussion. We pay particular attention to these phenomena in our report since they shed important light on the ways in which communal identities were transformed during the M–LChal periods.

Chapter 2. Chronology

Charalambos Paraskeva

2.1 Relative chronology

Data and issues

The steep topographic profile, shallow soil cover and high levels of erosion at the Souskiou Laona settlement prohibited horizontal exposure of its area and mandated focused excavation of pockets with surviving, and occasionally stratified, archaeological features and artefacts (see Chap. 6), as well as intensive survey of the Laona ridge, to identify changes in the size and location of the site through time (see Chap. 5). In contrast, the Laona cemetery was excavated almost entirely so as to recover the maximum possible information from a heavily looted archaeological setting (see Chap. 8). These archaeological activities accumulated an extensive corpus of stratigraphic, spatial and artefactual data that have been used to reconstruct the relative chronology of the site for the Chalcolithic period (for chronology of Periods III–VI, see Chap. 20). Prior to discussion, however, it is important to stress that any attempt at establishing the relative chronology for the site is de facto imperfect and adversely affected by the following limiting factors:

1. Excavations at the settlement exposed c. 0.06 ha (or c. 2.5%) of its overall area, which is estimated to have been c. 2.4 ha (Sewell 2012, 32; Chap. 5) at any given time of habitation during the Chalcolithic, a percentage deemed acceptable for random sample empirical research.¹ Excavation of isolated Tr. 3/9, 13, 15, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32 and 34 yielded no architectural feature that can be dated with any degree of certainty to the Chalcolithic; hence all datable material from these deposits presently float without secure stratigraphic links to units beyond their trench. Less prevalent intrinsic problems for establishing the relative chronology of the site include the high degree of cultural material mixing and/or post-Chalcolithic contamination of excavated units due to natural and cultural formation processes discussed below; the lack of exact unit size measurements that hinder estimation of artefact density by area/volume excavated; and difficulties in ascertaining unit boundaries due to the bright yellowish and often leached colours of the loose, calcaric soils at the site.

2. Site topography and several natural post-depositional formation/disturbance processes affecting mostly the settlement, and to a lesser degree the cemetery at Souskiou Laona, distort the archaeological record and hamper the reconstruction of stratigraphic sequences (see Chap. 6). The rugged profile of the Laona ridge presents sharp inclinations and alternating aspects of slopes that in at least two cases form large funnel-shaped surface depressions: one at the saddle between the E and W Ridge, and one at the shoulder of the southern slope of the E Ridge (see black arrows in Fig. 2.1). These depressions function as mixing bowls and artefacts traps since they capture materials transferred by erosion and landslides that belong to all the cultural phases of the settlement, thus hindering our understanding of stratigraphic relations in the horizontal and vertical planes for these areas of the site. Beyond topography, perhaps the most important natural process affecting the stratigraphy of the settlement is erosion. Interpolation of the values from the annual soil erosion map published by Karydas and Panagos (2016, 775, fig. 6) indicates that the specific area of the Laona settlement loses between 13 and 20 tonnes/ ha of soil per year due to its precipitous topography, rainfall, soil and bedrock erodibility and other soil loss factors,² which translates to c. 3.8 meters of eroded stratigraphy for the c. 4 ha total settlement area from the Chalcolithic to the present time.³ The argument for severe loss of stratigraphy gains further support by geoarchaeological work undertaken in the Dhiarizos valley where in section SOA near the abandoned village of Souskiou, at a distance of c. 1.3 km NE of the Laona settlement, the OSL sediment sample SOA10/SUTL1329 was found to date between 2950–710 BC (3.84±1.12 ka BP) (Kinnaird et al. 2013, 55, table 2),⁴ namely from the M/LChal to early Iron Age, and was located at c. 4.1 m below topsoil (Deckers 2002, 126, table 2; 337, table 3; pl. 71: fig. 171). This suggests that erosional processes of comparable intensity are at play on both sides of the Dhiarizos river and Vathyrkakas stream.⁵ It should be noted that the estimated loss of soil did not uniformly affect the settlement, nor did it occur in a single episode, as pockets of deep stratigraphy up to c. 2.5 m survive in Op. A, and humans actively attempted to alleviate erosion through various mechanisms described in detail in Chap. 6. Nevertheless, erosion and other extreme expressions of erosional phenomena, such as landslides, are responsible for the loss of the southern half of almost all structures found at the settlement; the collapse of several tombs at the cemetery; the near absence of Per. I/II evidence from the settlement; the truncation and disturbance of stratigraphy in almost all external surfaces; the diminution of available soil for excavation; and possibly also the collapse of large parts of the E and W Ridge. Other, less severe, natural post-depositional formation processes affecting the stratigraphy of Souskiou Laona include bioturbation expressed in the form of plant/root action and burrowing animal (particularly rodent and snake) behaviour that displaces artefacts laterally and vertically; and taphonomic processes, such as moderately acidic regosols, recharge groundwater, and high temperatures, which are responsible for the near absence of organic, non-fossilised materials, artefact fragmentation and poor preservation of bone at both the settlement and cemetery.

3. Further complexities in the stratigraphy of the settlement and cemetery at Laona are due to cultural depositional and post-depositional formation processes. Vegetation clearing, soil stripping and the construction of solid building foundations by cutting into bedrock by the inhabitants of the Chalcolithic settlement destabilised the delicate balance of soils and reinforced natural erosional processes. Evidence for such practices is provided by geoarchaeological work: the northernmost end of the sensitivity-depth (Net IRSL) and dose-depth (OSL) profiles obtained from a sedimentary stratigraphy indicate that the lower colluvial units dating between 3100–2300 BC at c. 1.1–1.7 m below ground level synchronise well with the Chalcolithic dating of the settlement and lend credibility to a scenario in which human activity led to enhanced degradation of the slope (Kinnaird et al. 2013, 57). Also, the constant reuse and reoccupation of the settlement area in conjunction with the construction of platforms for later buildings in Per. I disturbed external building surfaces and curtailed vertical and horizontal stratigraphic connections between the buildings. Beyond depositional formation processes, the archaeological landscape at Souskiou was also transformed in later periods. Some tombs in Op. C may have been reused or disturbed in the Bronze Age and used as refuse pits at later times (see Chaps 8 and 20.2). Moreover, the settlement and cemetery areas appear to have been cultivated from the Hellenistic to Early Byzantine periods to judge from the presence of retaining, terrace or other drystone walls, as well as cuts and pits; the absence of evidence for long-term habitation (e.g. the lack of mortared masonry and roof tiles); and the pervasive distribution across the site of utilitarian pottery types consistent with manuring and refuse (Wilkinson 2003, 118; see also Chap. 20.1, 3). The geoarchaeological study by Kinnaird and colleagues also found that the samples toward the top of the sequence at c. 50–70 cm below ground level present increased quartz luminescence sensitivities and decreased sample ages, indicating either a change in quartz provenance, potentially through aeolian processes, or that quartz in these layers was modified by exogenic processes, such as heating in the use of landscape clearance, or in seasonal burning associated with agronomic activity (Kinnaird et al. 2013, 57, fig. 5), the latter being consistent with the hypothesis for cultivation at the site from the Hellenistic onward. Finally, beginning in the Middle Bronze Age, but most intensively during the mid-20th century AD, the Laona cemetery was extensively and repeatedly (but not thoroughly) looted, as demonstrated by the destroyed, partly looted and/or emptied tombs, the removed or broken tomb capstones and the looters’ spoil heaps (see Chap. 8 for details).

The limitations detailed above render inapplicable and meaningless the use of site-wide concepts such as Level, Layer or Stratum, and instead require analysis of all the data collected by the project in order to understand the complex relations between contexts and to extrapolate a rudimentary framework for the site’s relative chronology, which is further substantiated on consideration of the absolute data in Chap. 2.2.

Methodology

Determining the relative order of human activity episodes and establishing cultural periods at the site of Souskiou Laona necessitated a holistic, integrative and aggregative tri-partite approach to the available data, as follows:

1. Data preparation and cleaning: In this initial stage of analysis, all artefactual (primarily ceramic), stratigraphic and spatial data were transferred from their original digital sources to Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. A series of data consolidation and cleaning processes were then initiated in order to amalgamate data from multiple sources, homogenise the terminology used, and identify and remove any errors (e.g. typos, miscalculations, use of non-standard characters, etc.) attributable to human input during the creation of the original digital files or the transcription and digitisation of previously analogue sources. Afterwards, the data tables were normalised and cross-linked by forming suitable relationships in a data model and by creating queries. This process allowed data verification by checking for inter-source correspondence, which in turn aided the discovery and resolution of several issues with non-corresponding, isolated, misattributed and orphan data points resulting either from errors introduced in the digital files or errors in the pre-existing analogue sources. Finally, tables containing artefactual data were also linked to the project’s GIS dataset in ArcMap to perform spatial analyses.

Figure 2.1: Aspect-slope map (Brewer and Marlow 1993) of Souskiou Laona with survey transects, survey finds and excavated areas.

Figure 2.2: Analytical Harris matrix of Building 34 with stratigraphic phases. Pottery sherds by unit are displayed as 100% stacked bars with numbers indicating the exact number of sherds for each ware, while the number of vessels by unit and ware is indicated within their respective triangles.

2. Unit groups formation based on stratigraphy: This stage of analysis concerns solely the Souskiou Laona settlement as the evidence preserved at the cemetery was not sufficient for sequencing any of the tombs (see Chap. 8). After constructing a unified environment for data interrogation and analysis, it was initially attempted to reconstruct the stratigraphy for each Operation of the settlement on a per unit basis by considering stratigraphic information from the Unit Log (App. C on ADS), archival sources (unit sheets, photographs, notes), written accounts, Harris matrixes, trench plans, and associated ceramic data for each unit. However, as the example from the well-stratified and relatively undisturbed B 34 in Fig. 2.2 illustrates, the limitations posed by the natural and cultural site formation processes mentioned above would have yielded incomprehensible and/or unusable results. In particular, there are several nodal units that do not contain datable material or contain cultural material that cannot be confidently dated (Fig. 2.2: units 66, 86, 44); fills and surfaces with complex stratigraphy are on occasion recorded as singular entities (e.g. midden fill 1038, Fig. 2.2: units 97, 493); the quantity of datable ceramics per unit is in several occasions not statistically important (Fig. 2.2: all sealed units except 97, 493, 783); the number of pottery sherds per unit is too small to justify dating the unit (Fig. 2.2: units 731, 28, 575, 784, 641, 85, 96, 67, 492, 784, 786); and certain complex and/or inferred links between units, particularly in extra-mural areas between buildings, decrease the stratigraphic certainty of their association (see discussion of feature unit groups below). The same type of unit analysis was attempted for B 604, B 897 and B 920 from Op. A, and B 915 from Op. D with similar unsatisfactory results.

Since detailed per unit analysis failed, it was decided to abandon the unit as a useful division of spacetime,⁶ and to adopt the unit group instead as a more suitable conceptual instrument for the delineation of stratigraphic sequences. For the purposes of this analysis, the unit group is defined as an aggregative entity stemming from the coalescence of natural and cultural material at specific loci, which are characterised by relative spatiotemporal stability, lateral and vertical stratigraphic links, and fuzzy boundaries due to the residual and/or intrusive material within their limits and the difficulty in ascertaining the boundaries of their constituent units (as discussed above).⁷ The specific unit group categories proposed and distinguished are as follows:

a. Buildings (BU): This category encompasses all units associated with the mono- or polyphasic spatial-conceptual entity of the Chalcolithic roundhouse from its construction and use to its ultimate abandonment or replacement. ⁸ It is considered rather safe since the existence of partial walls in each building kept significant proportions of its interior stratigraphy intact, sealed or less disturbed than in extra-mural areas.

bPreparatory building site works (Pre-BU): Occasionally it was possible to discern unit groups representing preparatory building site works (e.g. natural accumulation of soil, platform creation, ground levelling, etc.), which typically contained artefacts predating the building’s construction. As this category is generally sealed by overlying buildings or sandwiched between buildings, it is also considered relatively safe.

c. Features (FE): Contrary to the spatially definable and stratigraphically secure buildings, an FE unit group is characterised as a collection of units surrounding a central feature or area of features, such as large occupational deposits, pits, and hollows; walls and wall remnants unrelated to buildings; and extra-mural areas of potentially contemporary pits or postholes. Although the boundaries of and stratigraphic links between members of FE unit groups are more vague and harder to detect, the post res analyses permit a rudimentary assessment for their temporal placement and/or reveal stratigraphic issues and the effects of natural/cultural formation processes over larger areas of the site. At the same time, on several occasions, the existence of FE unit groups between buildings allows both the lateral linking of quasi coeval loci in the site, and the verification of their contemporaneity via cross-comparison of their accompanying material culture inventories.

d. Trenches (TR): This final category concerns units located in trenches excavated at various, usually remote parts of Ops A, A/B, D, and E. The trenches in question are predominantly shallow, lack stratigraphy and architectural features, contain mostly slopewash material, and were excavated in isolation and without attempt to link them to other trenches on the site. Consequently, it was decided to group cultural material from all or most units below topsoil in each trench and evaluate the latter as a singular entity.

After conceptually defining the unit group categories, the stratigraphic information of all settlement units in Ops A, A/B, B, D, and E was thoroughly examined; logical inter-connections, relations and dependencies between units were formed; and 713 of 838 units (c. 85.1%) containing 72,747 of 96,178 sherds collected during excavations at the settlement (c. 75.6%) were eventually assigned to unit group categories. Specifically, this part of the analysis distinguished 20 BU, four Pre-BU, 22 FE, and nine TR unit groups that were transferred to the next stage of research for verification and further analysis.

3. Spatial-statistical analysis and visualisation of results: In this final stage of analysis, the artefactual (principally ceramic) inventories from the unit groups distinguished and sequenced from the settlement, tombs and other features from the cemetery, and survey transects were cross-plotted in suitable queries and pivot tables. These were then subjected to statistical and spatial analyses in Microsoft Excel, Minitab and ArcMap with the aims of verifying the concept of the unit group advocated for above, and elucidating the development of human habitation at the site. The results of these spatiotemporal analyses were also visualised utilising suitable software packages (i.e. Microsoft Excel, Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop) and are discussed extensively in the following sections of this chapter.

Unit groups delineation and stratigraphic sequences

The best preserved and stratified evidence for the Souskiou Laona settlement is found at Op. A, while Ops B, A/B, D and E produced mostly laterally dispersed and, to a lesser degree, vertically stratified habitation evidence. Table 2.1 shows the results of stratigraphic analysis and lists the emergent unit groups by Operation and in stratigraphic order from older to younger, while briefly discussing the units and criteria for their inclusion in each unit group (for further details on individual units and stratigraphy, see Chap. 6 and App. C on ADS). The inter-relations, dependencies and links between unit groups are illustrated in Fig. 2.3, while the ceramic assemblage and special finds associated with each unit group are showin in Table 2.14 on ADS.

Figure 2.3: Overview of the stratigraphic sequences and relative chronology of unit groups at the Souskiou Laona settlement.

Table 2.1: Analytical presentation of unit groups by Operation from older to younger based on the stratigraphic analysis of Souskiou Laona settlement units. Units included in each unit group are listed with an explanation of the criteria for their inclusion.

Having established the unit groups, it is essential to demonstrate that the definitions for the terms proposed by this study are verifiable, namely that the coalescence of material at specific loci is not accidental and reflects the outcome of past human actions rather than natural transformative processes occurring during and after the settlement’s lifetime. In order to test validity, it was necessary to conduct two post res analyses, namely tests that were conducted after the conclusions of the relative dating study were reached in order to avoid imposing results on both the verification analyses and the conclusions of the study:

1. Verification of statistical difference in the dating of ceramics found in topsoil accumulations and the unit groups: The aim of this first test was to exhibit that the unit groups included pottery dating to site periods (e.g. I, I/II, II) and that the overlying topsoil and surficial deposits contained pottery dating both to the specific cultural period of the underlying unit groups and to other site periods (e.g. III–VI), i.e. that the surface deposits have sealed and preserved the Chalcolithic settlement or at least pockets of habitation dating to the Chalcolithic. To assess this, all sherds from the settlement were assigned to seven general periodisation groups. It should be emphasised that the periodisation of sherdage was a blind process based on prior knowledge of the Chalcolithic typology as developed in the past (Stewart 1978; 1985a; 1985b; Bolger et al. 1998a; 1998b; 2006. See also Chap. 10). Table 2.2 below summarises the associations drawn between general periodisation groups and wares.

Figure 2.4: Quantitative and proportional comparison of ceramics from select units in BU897, BU1015 and Pre-BU796.

Even though the blind assignment of sherds to general periodisation groups can potentially lead to circular argumentation, the integrity of the analysis is safeguarded by the fact that any misattributions will result in statistical aberrances and inversions of stratigraphy in this test.

In the next step of this analysis, 78 pottery-containing units, which were not associated with a unit group in Table 2.1, were stratigraphically analysed and clustered by trench on the basis of relevant data from App. C on ADS. This exercise allowed the formation of 36 surface groups that essentially contained the topsoil and all surficial (mostly general and slopewash) deposits overlying unit groups. Table 2.3 below lists these surface groups and their associated units.

Although it would have been more appropriate to isolate the specific units overlying each unit group, this was impossible to achieve since the vast majority of units comprising surface groups covered entire trenches and/or significant parts of their associated Operation. Following the formation of surface groups, a pivot table was setup to cross-plot sherds by unit group/surface group and general periodisation group. Data from the pivot table were then extracted, transformed and formatted according to the following principles:

a. Formation of the second term of comparison for unit groups: The trench numbers associated with each unit group were used to sum data from the related and overlying surface groups. For example, BU69 was located in Tr. 8, hence surface groups A4/8, A4+8, and A8 were considered to overly it and therefore formed the second term of comparison (TS). As a number of unit groups, particularly in Op. A, occupied spatially the same trench(es), certain surface groups were inevitably reused many times. However, in order to avoid biases, statistics were applied to both the entire population of pairs under comparison and to a select sample of unit groups located at the uppermost layers of the settlement. The latter sample pool included the following unit groups: BU984, BU915, BU850, BU995, FE550, BU648, BU34, FE60, BU920, FE628, BU838, FE1102, Pre-BU838, FE1073-Upper, BU895, FE767, BU800, BU796, FE30, FE505, FE488, BU69.

b. Reduction/transformation of comparison dimensions: As the purpose of the analysis was to test for differences between the unit groups (UG) and the surficial deposits (TS) at the settlement, the periodised ceramic inventories for each of the UG/TS pair under comparison were transformed to concordance groups that reflected the level of agreement between the ceramic inventory and the dating assigned to the underlying unit group in the conclusions of this study. Five concordance groups were formed, as shown in Table 2.4 below.

At this point it should be emphasised that sherds have been blindly assigned a priori to general periodisation groups while their dating had been determined before this analysis took place. Finally, the concordance group data were converted to percentages in order to provide a common scale for comparisons.

c. Removal of indirectly dated, empty and non-Chalcolithic unit groups: Certain unit groups, such as all TRs, were assigned to site periods on the basis of their ceramic profile rather than their stratigraphic associations while other unit groups (Pre-BU648, FE880) did not contain sherds or were not Chalcolithic features (FE9); all of these groups were removed from the current test in order to avoid introducing biases into the statistical estimates.

The analysis of UG/TS ceramic inventories concluded with the visualisation of the normalised concordance groups for the UG/TS pairs examined, which can be consulted in Fig. 2.5, and the statistical processing of the data as outlined in Table 2.5 below.

As the most salient Uppermost unit groups+ statistics reveal, the TS deposits present a c. 12% drop in the quantity of sherds that belong to the same cultural horizon ascribed to the underlying UG, and in parallel a c. 10% increase in unclassifiable material. These figures are likely linked to an increase of sherdage abrasion in TS deposits due to more frequent exposure to cultural (agriculture) and natural (erosion, weather) formation processes. More importantly, however, the TS deposits present a near fivefold increase of sherds that post-date the Chalcolithic (2.6±1.6% to 0.5±0.8%) and a near sevenfold increase of material that disagrees with the relative dating of the UG below (2.8±7.9% to 0.4±0.6%). These numbers suggest that the pottery found in UGs is quite sealed and suitable for relatively dating the associated archaeological features. Parallel to the above, caution seems appropriate as on average 52.5% of all UG sherds were not classified, a figure that at first glance appears capable of significantly distorting the above conclusions. However, upon further scrutiny, the distortion is considered rather small as the number of unclassified sherds drops considerably to 35.5% for UGs in Op. A (Fig. 5.1), where the majority of pottery was recovered (c. 90%); and as the analysis of survey sherds from transects H, M, N, and P in Op. A indicates that ware classes associated with the Unclassified concordance group (e.g. RW?, RM?, X) are considered to date to Per. I to I/II rather than Per. I/II to II by a ratio of 20:1 (see also Chap. 10 with further data on unclassified Chalcolithic sherdage dating to Per. I).

Table 2.2: Allocation of wares to general periodisation groups for the analysis of statistical difference in the dating of ceramics found in topsoil accumulations and the unit groups.

Table 2.3: Surface groups and their associated units for the analysis of statistical difference in the dating of ceramics found in topsoil accumulations and unit groups.

Table 2.4: Concordance groups and their descriptions for the analysis of statistical difference in the dating of ceramics found in topsoil accumulations and unit groups.

Figure 2.5: Proportional comparison of ceramics by concordance group for all unit groups (UG) and surface groups (TS) at the Souskiou Laona settlement. TS concordance group profiles are listed immediately below the concomitant UG profiles.

Table 2.5: Results of the statistical processing of data regarding the presence of ceramics found in topsoil accumulations and unit groups by concordance group. Notes: All unit groups=statistics run on the percentages of all unit/surface group pairs; Uppermost unit groups=statistics run on the percentages of the select sample of unit/surface group pairs defined in discussion above; Uppermost unit groups+=statistics run on the percentages of the select sample of unit/surface group pairs defined in discussion above that satisfy a clause of comparability proposing that the number of ceramics in the inventory of the unit group is no more than five times the number of ceramics in the inventory of the relevant surface group(s), and vice versa.

2. Potential for the use of ceramic material from contaminated and mixed units: A second analysis was designed to test whether sherdage from units presenting low stratigraphic integrity was suitable for inclusion in analyses regarding the relative dating of unit groups, and it is considered an attempt to standardise analytical safety levels for use of problematic material in chronological studies (see relevant discussion in LAP II.1A, 8). To begin with, all units at the Laona settlement were assigned a level of stratigraphic security/integrity during excavation. Table 2.6 below outlines the integrity status levels utilised, while Fig. 2.6 illustrates the 838 settlement units by ascription to unit group, Operation and integrity status.

Integrity statuses were linked to the pottery inventories of each unit and unit group upon compilation of the latter, and numerical values were converted to percentages to avoid issues of scale and allow cross-Operational comparisons. Following preparation of the data, the steps employed in the previous test concerning the blind ascription of sherds to general periodisation groups and concordance groups were reiterated. This allowed for the production of a general overview of the settlement’s ceramic profile by Operation, general periodisation group and integrity status (Fig. 2.7); and for the estimation of statistical correlations between unit integrity and concordance percentages as summarised in Table 2.7 below.

Table 2.6: Integrity status levels and their description for the analysis of potential use of ceramic material from contaminated and mixed units.

Figure 2.6: Quantitative and proportional comparison of settlement units by integrity status, Operation and assignment to unit groups.

Table 2.7: Results of statistical correlations between unit integrity and concordance percentages and their statistical interpretation. Notes: r=Pearson correlation coefficient; df=degrees of freedom; p=significance at 5% level; NSS=not statistically significant; SS=statistically significant; BU=test run only on BU units; FE=test run only on FE units.

Results from the statistical analysis of correlations indicate that (contrary to the Null hypothesis as expressed in the initial definition of C and M units, namely that they are moderately to highly mixed and the former mostly unsuitable for chronology studies) there is no statistically significant linear correlation between contaminated and mixed ceramic assemblages and pottery in disagreement with the post res relative dating of concomitant unit groups. The same is true for extra-mural (FE) and intra-mural (BU) C and M units, while the only borderline statistically significant emergent relationship is between C units in buildings and post-Chalcolithic ceramics. Essentially, these results provide sufficient evidence that ceramics in C and M units should not be excluded from consideration, as the units have not been adversely affected by natural and cultural processes after the abandonment of the Chalcolithic settlement. Moreover, the fact that there is no correlation between C/M units and D pottery across the board, but there is some correlation for C units to L sherds, provides hints for the Chalcolithic settlement’s life history. According to this inverse relation of correlations, it appears that during the Chalcolithic, the inhabitants of the settlement either elected to continually shift location for their buildings (cf. LAP II.1A, 259–260), thus precluding the accumulation and mixing of ceramic material between site periods, or the site suffered from extreme erosional phenomena (i.e. landslides) that rapidly, and perhaps massively, removed later material at each locus of habitation. This argument is supported by the stronger correlation of BU C% units to L% sherds (r = 0.4998, df 41, p = 0.0248) and the proportionally increased presence of L sherds in C and M units (Fig. 2.7, C% μ and M% μ for D and L in Table 2.8), which can be linked with certainty to post-Chalcolithic anthropogenic activities, such as the cultivation and potential ploughing of parts of the site from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine periods. In other words, the presence of L sherds indicates that the human actions responsible for pushing them down into deeper Chalcolithic strata were not instrumental to the introduction of D sherds to unit groups beneath the topsoil—not for lack of required energy, but because when these actions were taking place, the D sherds in the topsoil were either too sparse or in some cases were already beneath the topsoil and overlay such deposits (e.g. BU920, FE628, FE1102).

Table 2.8: Correspondences between unit integrity and pottery concordance. Notes: μ=Sample population mean for all C, M, S units after conversion of each A, D, N, U, L row to percentages; n=Number of unit groups with relevant data.

Figure 2.7: Quantitative and proportional tabulation of sherdage from the Souskiou Laona settlement by general periodisation group, Operation and unit integrity status. Note that sherds from the Period I to II and Period I or I/II or II general periodisation groups have been conflated under the term Neutral.

Apart from statistical correlations, the raw ceramic data from C, M, S units were further processed in order to better understand the correspondences between unit integrity and post res concordance of pottery. Results