artifact and assemblage at polis-chrysochous on cyprus

8/10/2019 Artifact and Assemblage at Polis-Chrysochous on Cyprus

1/73

DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHORS PERMISSION 2014

Architecture and Assemblage at Polis-Chrysochous on Cyprus

William Caraher, University of North DakotaDelivered at the University of Colorado, BoulderNovember 12, 2014

Introduction

Last summer, I was fortunately to work alongside Sarah James,

Dimitri Nakassis, and a team of extraordinary University of Colorado

undergraduate and graduate students on the Western Argolid

Regional Project It was undoubtedly the most intellectually and

physically rigorous two months of my life. During this time, I spoke

periodically (ok, constantly) about my work on Cyprus as a point of

reference for our work in the Argiolid. Most of my colleagues

probably got tired to hearing about Cyprus and began to wonder

whether my work in Cyprus was a bit like my girlfriend in


2/73

whether my work in Cyprus was a bit like my girlfriend in


production facilities, and substantial assemblages of transport

amphora, fine ware, and utility wares. My understanding of these sites

is a product of the hard work of myriad student volunteers and

continuous collaboration with R. Scott Moore, Brandon Olson, and

Amy Papalexandrou at Polis and Scott, Brandon, David Pettegrew,

and Dimitri Nakassis at Pyla-Koutsopetria.

Part of my interest in working at Polis and Koutsopetria has been

to use Late Antique Cyprus as a way to think about Late Roman

communities both on Cyprus and in the Eastern Mediterranean more

broadly. [SLIDE3] Recent scholarship on the island has emphasized

how its insularity made it an important regional crossroads in the

Roman and Late Roman Eastern Mediterranean. The position of

Cyprus provides a vital context for understanding how communities

on Cyprus crafted their identities within the material limits of the


3/73


has shown that peasant communities in the the 5th century increased

consumption of fine red-slipped table wares and changed in their

domestic architecture in an effort to negotiate their relationship with

Roman landowners in the the region. Scholars have also recognized

the subtle variation of architectural forms associated with early

Christian ritual as a way for groups to represent their relationship to

the institutional authority of the church.

The use of material culture to understand the relationships

between groups or how communities or even individuals represented

themselves is difficult. It asks us as archaeologists to make the leap

from objects to critical consideration of the past practices (both

archaeological and historical) that created the archaeological record.

Ill avoid the term communities of practice or Pierre Bourdieus

habitus for today as unnecessary theorizing in the face of some


4/73


This paper has two parts. First, Im going to consider the

archaeology and architecture of a building called the South Basilica

at Polis in relation to other churches of a similar date and style on the

island. [SLIDE5] Then, Im going to look at a rather extraordinary

assemblage of pottery associated with this church and compare it to

assemblages from across the island to attempt to understand how

various communities across the island constructed their identity. At

best, this will be profoundly convincing; at worst, youll think that I

went and took a tidy little archaeological paper a little too far.

Since 2010, Ive been working with the Princeton Cyprus

Expedition at the site of Polis-Chrysochous, ancient Arsinoe, in the

northwestern corner of the island. Settled during the Neolithic and

called Marion during the Iron Age Ptolemy Philadelphus refounded


5/73


6/73


difficult to reconstruct the stratigraphy of a trench or even to

understand the archaeological relationship between levels.

Fortunately, the Princeton Cyprus Expedition has scanned nearly all

the notebooks and images collected over the 30 years of activity at

the site. We used the scanned notebook as the basis for our

transcription of the level and pass descriptions from the trenches in

immediate vicinity of the South Basilica. This allowed us to

reorganize the data according to stratigraphic relationship and to

produce Harris Matrixes for each trench.

[SLIDE8] We also prepared a digital site plan for the area of the

South Basilica based on the plans produced by the projects architects

and the regular trench plans produced over the course of excavation.

This allowed us to relate walls removed over the course of excavation

or across several trenches (or even years) and begin to correlate


7/73


stages.

[SLIDE8] At the same time that we worked to organize the

excavation notebooks and plans, we set about studying the context

pottery from the excavations. During the excavations, trench

supervisors and specialists identified and recorded separately highly

diagnostic pottery and other individually significant artifacts (coins,

lamps, architectural fragments, et c.). The remaining pottery was

quickly documented, undiagnostic sherds discarded, and a

representative sample kept for future study. This sample included

most feature sherds, rims, handles, bases, and some examples of

distinct fabrics. These artifacts had not been studied systematically

for the area around the South Basilica and in 2010, R. Scott Moore

and myself used our reconstruction of the sites stratigraphy as the

basis for the study the context pottery Over the past three years we


8/73


known Early Christian basilicas on the island of Cyprus and one of

the thousands that dot the Eastern Mediterranean and date to the 5th-

7thcenturies [SLIDE11]. Even small communities often featured

multiple basilicas. It is unremarkable, then, that the site of Polis has at

least three basilicas. What is somewhat more remarkable, however, is

that two of these churches, the South Basilica and the yet unnamed

basilica in the area named E.G0, were excavated systematically. These

two buildings join a disappointingly small group of churches that

enjoyed careful excavation and study on Cyprus. More interestingly,

both of these buildings appear to have enjoyed a rather long-life

span. The South Basilica, which we have studied most extensively,

appears to have stood at least as late as the 10 thor 11thcentury with

significant modifications throughout its history.

The first two major phases of the church are Late Antique The


9/73


below the foundations of the nave and aisle walls are the inelegantly-

named Cypriot Red Slip forms 9B, 11, and 2. These types tend to

date to the second half of the 6th century. The appearance of later

6th century material in lower fills near the south nave and aisle walls

provides a terminus post quem. In other words, we can probably date

the first phase of the church to the later 6th century. As I will argue

in just a minute, the second phase of the church dates to the first half

of the 7th century and this provides aterminus ante quemfor the

buildings initial construction.

[SLIDE15] With the second phase of the building, things get more

interesting both in terms of the architecture and the archaeology. The

church received a western narthex and a long portico that ran along

its south side. The narthex and the south portico both featured a

series of arched openings and they joined in a room at the


10/73


than the main nave, probably kept their wooded, shed roofs even in

the second phase.

The way we dated this phase was pretty exciting (from an

archaeological perspective). It involved a careful study of both the

architecture and the ceramics found in trenches associated with the

modifications to the building. [SLIDE16] The most dramatic feature

that we have associated with the second phase of the South Basilica is

a vast leveling course of cobble sized stones and rubble along the

south wall of the church. While Ill return to discussing this feature

later, it is important to understand that there was no foundation cut

visible in this level for the south aisle wall. In other words, the south

aisle wall predated this rubble fill which became the foundation for

the south portico. [SLIDE17] The south portico, in turn, is

contemporary with the narthex and these two features are


11/73


coin of Maurice (582-602) and reinforce the 7th century date for the

south portico and narthex.

This is where things get really cool (you know, for an

archaeologist). [SLIDE19] In 1995, the Polis project excavated the

foundation cut associated with the construction of one of the

buttresses along the north wall of the nave. This excavation produced

a small assemblage of Cypriot Red Slip pottery including a base with

a stamped cross. [SLIDE20] This piece of pottery joined with a base

found in the cobble and rubble level under the south portico making

the deposit of these two sherds almost certainly contemporary. This

allows us to link the construction of the narthex, south portico, and

the nave buttresses to a single phase of construction. Several other

deposits from the north aisle and from the vicinity of a pair of rooms

to the southeast of the basilica confirm a 7th century date for


12/73


Karpas Peninsula which have attracted the attention of archaeologists

since the mid-20th century. Unfortunately, the walls are not

preserved above the level of the foundation making it difficult to

understand the exact modifications that the church endured. For

example, it would be useful to know whether the nave walls received

arches or solid walls between the buttresses. Despite these

limitations, it seems fair to assume that the builders at Polis had some

familiarity with the kind of modifications of churches that appears,

perhaps at around the same time, on the Karpas Peninsula on the

opposite corner of the island or perhaps the Episkopi basilica near

Kourion which appears to have been barrel-vaulted as well.

[SLIDE22] The South Basilica shares similar dimensions with the

North Basilica (Church III) at site of Ay. Georgios-Peyia about 10

km to the south The North basilica at Peyia has interior length of


13/73


of nave to aisles is a common for basilicas in Cyprus. The churches at

Peyia have, generally speaking, wider central naves with proportions

of 1:2.6:1.

[SLIDE24] Unfortunately, the Peyia and Amathus churches have

not received comprehensive publication so it is impossible to speak

to their construction history. It does appear, however, that both

buildings are either contemporary or slightly earlier than the second

phase of the South Basilica marking them both among the last large-

scale wood-roofed basilicas constructed on the island. It seems

unlikely that the Amathus Acropolis church post-dates the

refurbishment of the main nave and the addition of the narthex and

portico to the South Basilica. It may well be that the additions to the

South Basilica sought to imitate the prominent Acropolis basilica at

Amathus and the very basic similarities in shape Both churches share


14/73


between the Amathus acropolis church and the South Basilica might

relate the formers status as a pilgrimage church. The visibility of this

monument on the island likely made it an appealing target for

imitation and perhaps connected the activities of a saint or some

aspect of that saints veneration at Polis and Amathus.

[SLIDE25] It is appealing to speculate on the relationship between

the second phase of the South Basilica at Polis and the events that

took place just north at the site of Soloi. According to a dated

inscription, the basilica was destroyed during Arab raids of 649 and

subsequently repaired. Perhaps the the rebuilding of the Polis church

was contemporary with the repairs to the Soloi basilica which

involved a repaired roof but without a change to the basic structure.

If we link the rebuilding of churches on the Karpas to Arab raids in

that region and the tendency of wood-roofed churches to burn easily


15/73


central coast, the ceramic evidence from Polis tells a slightly broader

story. The substantial rubble and cobble level associated with the

second phase of the basilica produced a massive assemblage of

Roman and Late Roman period pottery. Archaeologists refer to

assemblages found in fills as residual or in secondary context. This

assemblage of pottery, then, does not reflect activities associated with

the intended use of the ceramic vessels, but rather discard practices

that likely brought together material from a wide range of areas

across the site and dumped it together to produce the rubble fill. This

residual assemblage, then, represents a wide range of activities up

until the point when it dumped into the leveling fill of the south

portico and atrium.

[SLIDE29] This residual assemblage produced over 3000 sherds

of pottery and a substantial amount of diagnostic material Historical


16/73


17/73


match (Williams 1992). Form 7 and 8 tend to feature flat rims with

multiple grooves, but they do not appear with as much variation as

this form does elsewhere on the island. Form 7, 8, and 11 are the

largest vessels in CRS fabric and some scholars have suggested that

large vessels tend to travel less distance from their production sites,

and the relatively utilitarian character of these larger basins might

make this even more the case. So, the large quantity of this material

at Polis might hint at the presence of a production site in the far west

of the island.

[SLIDE33] We can add a little more to this argument: The Form

11 with the heavy, folded, rim does not appear among the types

associated with the kilns recently published in Pamphylia in Asia

Minor, and the Polis Form 7s and 8s do not appear to have obvious

parallels with those same forms at the Pamphylian kilns The


18/73


19/73


Interestingly Kopetra is an inland site situated in the Kalavassos

valley that extends from the coast to the copper mining regions in theTroodos Mountain foothills. [SLIDE36] The nearby, contemporary

coastal site of Maroni-Petrera which stood near the mouth of the

Kalavassos valley produced significantly lower percentage of

imported fine ware with over 80% of the assemblage being CRS.

[SLIDE37] The odd pattern of CRS being less common at inland

sites continues further east on the island. At the inland site of

Panayia-Ematousa east of the modern city of Larnaka, LRC ware

accounts for close to 60% of the total assemblage of Late Roman

fine ware, and Cypriot Red Slip in contrast tallies only a little over

20% and African Red Slip at around 15%. The massive supply of

Phocaean ware in the eastern half of the Mediterranean (particular

such long lived forms at the Form 3 plate) may account for the


20/73


modern city of Larnaka which was the ancient city of Kition. Our

work documented a thriving coastal community of Late Roman datestretching along a kilometer of the south Cyprus coastline. The site

benefited from a now infilled embayment that likely served as a

harbor in antiquity and had at least one well-appointed Early

Christian basilica as well as a built up semi-urban area. It is possible

that John Moschos referred to the site as an emporion (or market

town) named Tadai is his Spiritual Meadow. My work at this site was

done with my colleagues David Pettegrew and R. Scott Moore and it

produced a robust assemblage of both local and imported Late

Roman ceramics.

[SLIDE] The Late Roman assemblage from the site consisted of a

large number of transport amphora sherds (32%) most of which are

from Late Roman 1 amphoras which were either produced on the


21/73


understanding the sites broader engagement with the broader

Mediterranean world. Of the three most common wares, CRSconstitutes 70%, PHW 19%, and ARS 11%. The majority of this

material is contemporary with the types present in the Polis

assemblage with a slightly larger quantity of earlier sherds (particularly

CRS 1 and 2). [SLIDE] Like at Polis, the most common form of CRS

is the long-lived Form 9. There is very little CRS 7 and 8 and CRS 11

accounts for only 14% of the assemblage at PKAP rather than 35%

at Polis. In other words, the assemblage at the coastal site of Pyla-

Koutsopetria is rather different from the assemblage at Polis.

Conclusions

Anyone who hopes that my analysis today will now come together

is a brilliant and tidy description of Late Roman culture at Polis or on


22/73


and ceramic fine ware is only scratching the surface, but it does

represent two opportunities for display at the public and private levelrespectively.

[SLIDE48] This differences between the contemporary

assemblages at Pyla-Koutsopetriaand Polis reflect the complexity oflocal economic realities and taste. Separated by less 100 miles as the

crow flies and 150 miles by sea, the sites are basically similar. Both

have basilica style churches, robust assemblages of fine table wares

and transport vessels, and developed urban infrastructures. The

artifact assemblages, as we have seen, differ significantly.

The differences fit into a general pattern. CRS appeared

predominantly in coastal communities and particularly in the

southwestern corner of the island The abundance of CRS along the


23/73


competitors more appealing. What seems more plausible to assert is

that inland communities seemed to prefer PHW and ARS at least asfrequently as CRS making the tables of residents in inland

communities would have looked rather different from those of

communities along the coast.

Similar networks of local preferences may provide a context for

the design and construction techniques manifest in the basilica at

Polis. Drawing on the the basic dimensions of the churches at Peyia,

and later inspired by the elaborate acropolis basilica at Amathus and

perhaps vaulted basilicas on the Karpas peninsula, the church at Polis

appears to draw on a different network of relationships than

produced the ceramic assemblages.

[SLIDE49] In 2000 Horden and Purcell published a book called


24/73


The value of observing these connections across the island of Cyprusis not so much to argue that ceramics or church architecture hold any

distinct significance, but to set the stage for a larger consideration of

how the relationships between these microregions reflect practice at

the level of individual communities. If we accept that microregionsform the basic unit for social practices in the ancient Mediterranean

(and the jury is still out on this, but the evidence from Cyprus does

show remarkable variation), then the decision making present at these

relatively small, local communities is the activity that produces what

archaeologists understand as culture in the ancient world.


25/73

!"#$%&'#&("' *+, !--'./0*1' *& &$'

-%&' 23 420%-5!"#$%&'"&(% 2+ 678"(-

9%00%*. :; 6*"*$'"< =+%>'"-%&7 23 ?2"&$ @*A2&*


26/73


27/73


28/73

!"#$%& ()"*+


29/73


30/73


31/73


32/73


33/73


34/73


35/73

!" $%&'()*+ !"#$ &'()*$ +",-.-/", 0' 1234*,5,0*4/$,6 /0'#$7#,6 8-,#042"

,-./'0" 12"3" 4(55" 6%57 8.&9(% :;(&"


36/73

"# $# %&'()*&+ ,-.' /0*1& 2)34&'5 ".3*6.'1 07 "89*31:

!"#$%&' ") *+, -"./,*0 ") 1$.+/*,.*#$&' 2/3*"$/&%3;< =>?@?A

/0B# @


37/73


38/73


39/73


40/73


41/73


42/73


43/73


44/73


45/73

"# $# %&'()*&+ ,-.' /0*1&

2)34&'5 ".3*6.'1 07 "89*31:

!"#$%&' ") *+, -"./,*0 ")

1$.+/*,.*#$&' 2/3*"$/&%3;?@?A /0B# @


46/73


47/73


48/73

"# $# %&'()*&+ ,-.' /0*1&

2)34&'5 ".3*6.'1 07 "89*31:

!"#$%&' ") *+, -"./,*0 ")

1$.+/*,.*#$&' 2/3*"$/&%3;?@?A

/0B# ; )75 C


49/73


50/73


51/73


52/73


53/73


54/73


55/73


56/73

!"#$ &'($)"*)$


57/73

!"#$%&'%$

)*+ ,'-". /0#1'23

45-'.

4,!4

)4+4,6-676.5.8!"#$%&'

96&5"'8($%&$&'


58/73

!"#$%&' )*+ ,-%# .$&/ 0&-%1


59/73


60/73


61/73


62/73


63/73


64/73


65/73


66/73


67/73


68/73

!"#$%&' )*+ ,-%# .$&/ 0&-%1


69/73

!"#$%&' )*+ ,-%# .$&/ 0&-%1


70/73


71/73


72/73


73/73

artifact and assemblage at polis-chrysochous on cyprus

Documents