Ceramics, trade, provenience and geology: Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age.
Grave, Peter ; Kealhofer, Lisa ; Marsh, Ben 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
During the Late Bronze Age (LBA; c. 1500-1200 BC) the eastern
Mediterranean underwent large scale economic and political changes
(Sherratt 1998; Oren 2000). These transformations involved the
elaboration of a metals-based economy supporting a dense and complex
network that linked Europe, Africa and Asia for the first time (Edens
1992). In an environment where the palatial societies of the Hittites,
Mycenaeans and Egyptians were major beneficiaries of this early maritime
'World System', Cyprus stands out as a key supplier (Knapp
2013). The distribution of Cypriot oxhide' copper ingots (both as
artefacts and in representations) highlights the island's
importance in the operation of the wider metals-based exchange system
(Gale 1991; Budd 1995). In addition to the exploitation of raw materials
(i.e. precious minerals, ivory, wood), many other novel manufactured
goods also circulated in the LBA economy (Keswani 1993, 1997).
Evaluating the social and political dynamics associated with
ancient economies is one of the most challenging issues in archaeology.
Analytically, a fundamental challenge is identifying the origin of the
goods exchanged. In this paper we use a case study from the eastern
Mediterranean to illustrate a robust and systematic approach to
establishing provenance for trade ceramics and understanding the scope
of geospatial uncertainty. Three features make Late Bronze Age (LBA)
Cyprus a useful case study: first, it was a major producer of a wide
range of ceramics that were prominent in eastern Mediterranean trade at
this time (Barlow et al. 1991; Karageorghis 2001; Astrom 2008), and
Cypriot polities played a key role in defining the economic dynamics of
the LBA eastern Mediterranean. Second, legacy Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA) datasets exist for a relatively large and diverse sample
of Cypriot ceramics. And lastly, Cyprus has a highly complex but well
defined geology with excellent potential for direct geochemical linkage
with this ceramic corpus.
Cyprus has a dense archaeological record with a long history of
excavations (Astrom 1994; Knapp 2013), and hence provides an exceptional
record of the regional distribution of ceramics. In part due to this
record, Cyprus is also one of the first areas where archaeologists
collaboratively pursued larger analytical studies to understand regional
trade and exchange (Knapp & Cherry 1994). Considerable progress has
been made characterising Cypriot archaeological ceramics using elemental
and mineralogical analytical techniques, which in some cases have linked
types to specific locales (Vaughan 1987, 1991; Rautman et al. 1999;
Gomez et al. 2002; Coren et al. 2003; Rautman & Neff 2006; Tschegg
et al. 2009). A number of synthetic studies have produced relatively
fine-grained geopolitical interpretations of LBA dynamics within Cyprus
(e.g. Keswani 1993, 1997; Knapp 2013). However, a general shortcoming of
this work is that few connections have been made between the
geopolitical interpretations and the potential geospatial range and
diversity of Cypriot LBA ceramic production.
The goal of this study is to identify the geochemical provenience
of well-known and widely traded Cypriot ceramic types (e.g. White
Slipped, Base Ring, Bichrome Wheelmade) to explicate further the
patterns of exchange for elite goods in the LBA eastern Mediterranean. A
more specific focus is to identify the geographic origin of a class of
LBA ritual ceramic (Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware (RLW); Eriksson 1991).
RLW was one of the most widely traded ceramic types of the LBA and has
variously been argued to have been produced in an as-yet unidentified
location within Cyprus, as well as in other locations around the eastern
Mediterranean (Eriksson 1993).
Methodologically, this study underlines how defining ceramic
provenience in terms of geological precincts enables a more robust and
systematic evaluation of the relationship between geographical scale and
ceramic type diversity. The combined datasets that have been used (new
Neutron Activation Analyses of both sediments and ceramics and a large
legacy NAA dataset of Cypriot ceramics from the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory) are available for download through Open Context.
Problems of provenience
Cypriot ceramics have long been the focus of archaeometric research
(e.g. Millett & Catling 1966; King et al. 1986; Vaughan 1987;
Rautman & Neff 2006; Rautman et al. 1999). Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (LBNL) conducted the largest single analytical
programme for ceramics from Cyprus over the course of three decades.
Using NAA to characterise over 1500 Cypriot ceramic samples, the LBNL
group demonstrated that the wide range of Cypriot ceramic types could be
tied to a more limited set of compositional profiles (Knapp & Cherry
1994; Boulanger 2011). While the size of this NAA programme for Cypriot
ceramics is unparalleled, these data have remained disconnected from the
island's geochemistry.
A variety of archaeometric studies have suggested specific
'point-source' proveniences for Base Ring Ware (e.g. Vaughan
1987; Gomez et al. 2002), one of Cyprus' widely traded LBA ceramic
types. The provenience of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware, on the other
hand, has remained contentious despite several recent analytical
studies. With an archaeological distribution extending from Anatolia to
Egypt, RLW is one of the few LBA trade items that closely follows the
geopolitics described in the Amarna Letters, a unique archive of
correspondence between contemporary LBA rulers of this region (Moran
1992) (Figure 1). Excavations at Hittite centres in central Anatolia
have revealed both the most abundant and the oldest RLW (Mielke 2007;
Schoop 2009).
RLW had a 300-year production history, occurring archaeologically
as an important elite or ceremonial ware in the major Anatolian LBA
centres. It first appeared during the last decades of the sixteenth
century BC, but remained relatively uncommon until the late fifteenth
century BC. Around 1400 BC a large quantity of RLW was dumped into an
abandoned water reservoir at the inland Hittite capital of Hattusa in
central Anatolia (Figure 1). This dump constitutes the largest recovered
assemblage of RLW from one site (Seeher 2001, 2002). Over the following
200 years, RLW became a regular component of Hittite temple assemblages.
Elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus, Egypt and the
Levant, RLW is more commonly associated with mortuary assemblages in
tombs (Eriksson 1993; Kozal 2003; Knappett et al. 2005; Hein 2007). RLW
finally disappears from the archaeological record around 1200 BC,
coinciding with the systemic collapse of LBA palace economies across the
region.
Typologically, RLW comes in a variety of shapes including bowls,
craters and jugs (Figure 2). The most common forms include tall,
slender, one-handled jugs ('spindle bottles'); flasks with a
broad body ('lentoid flasks'); and enigmatic anthropomorphic
vessels ('libation arms'), each with a long, tubular
'arm' terminating in an opening in the form of a human hand
holding a cup (Figure 2a). Physically, RLW has a visually highly
distinctive ceramic fabric that is completely oxidised, bright orange,
very fine-grained and homogenous, with a red burnished surface. Throwing
marks on the inside of many RLW spindle bottles and libation arms (i.e.
created before firing) highlight the mechanical properties of the clay
used for RLW, which combined a high degree of plasticity with tensile
strength (Figure 2b). Analytically, RLW vessels are mineralogically and
geochemically homogenous and distinctive. Together, the typological and
material characteristics of RLW are consistent with specialised
production focused on an unusual and high-quality clay source (Knappett
et al. 2005).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
For ceramicists, as for biologists, both abundance and diversity
are commonly used to define the location of origin of specific types.
Early conjectures located RLW production in Syria because of its
relative abundance at coastal LBA entrepots such as Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
(Eriksson 1991). From its ubiquity, central Turkey might also be
proposed as a possible production centre for the ware, as the Hittite
capital Hattusa provided the largest single concentration of excavated
RLW. However, both the Syrian and Hittite contexts for RLW have only
yielded a subset of the known forms. The island of Cyprus, on the other
hand, while second to Bogazkoy in terms of abundance of RLW, has
preserved the full typological range of RLW. For Eriksson (1991, 1993),
this flagged Cyprus as the likely source of RLW. Within the island, the
quantity and diversity of RLW types recovered from tomb contexts on the
northern coast have been further used to suggest this region as a
probable centre of production (Eriksson 1993, 2007).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Previous work: geology and ceramics
The compositional diversity of Cypriot ceramics can largely be
understood in terms of the complex geology of Cyprus (a series of
diverse and spatially discrete ophiolites, limestones and volcanic
intrusions). The evidence of the formation of the Tethys and
Mediterranean Seas that it preserves has made Cyprus a major focus of
litho-stratigraphic and plate tectonic research (e.g. Swarbrick &
Robertson 1980). Additionally, its ongoing importance as a major source
of copper ore has also attracted the interest of economic geologists. As
a result, Cyprus is one of the more comprehensively researched
geological precincts of the eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Northmore et al.
1986; Lapierre et al. 2007) (Figure 3).
Cyprus is composed of four major geological provinces. From north
to south these are the Kyrenia Terrane, the Circum-Troodos sedimentary
succession, the Troodos Ophiolite complex, and the Mamonia Complex in
the south-west (Geological Survey Department 1993). The Kyrenia Terrane
is a complex of sedimentary (limestone) deposits with limited igneous
and metamorphic rocks. The southern side of the Pentadaktylos range,
within the Kyrenia Terrane, includes a set of interbedded chalks and
marls. The Circum-Troodos sedimentary succession consists of a range of
marine deposits overlain by clastic deposits of gravels, sands and
silts. The Troodos Ophiolite complex is an uplifted piece of oceanic
crust with volcanic and hydrothermal intrusions. Copper, exploited since
the Bronze Age, is associated with the massive sulphide mineral deposits
in this complex. The Mamonia Complex comprises two general geological
units, a lower Jurassic/Triassic unit of mainly extrusive alkaline
igneous rocks, reef limestones and hemi-pelagic sediments, and an upper
group (extending into the Miocene) of thin-bedded cherts, siltstones,
limestones and quartz sandstones (Swarbrick & Robertson 1980;
Lapierre et al. 2007). This Complex forms an arc-shaped region in
south-western Cyprus. Within the upper unit are the greenish bentonitic
clays of the Kannaviou complex, patchily distributed around the Mamonia
arc, which are crucial to this study. This geospatial complexity is key
to identifying likely ceramic production areas across the island.
Methodology
Geochemical profiling has proven a highly effective tool for the
archaeological reconstruction of patterns of trade and exchange through
linking unique elemental signatures with spatially constrained
geological sources (Glascock & Neff 2003). Geochemical studies of
archaeological obsidian provide one of the best exemplars for this type
of proveniencing: the highly localised character of volcanic glass
deposits coupled with distinctive volcano (or even flow-) specific
geochemical signatures typically enables very precise predictions of the
geological origin of an obsidian artefact (Reepmeyer et al. 2011).
Archaeological ceramics have also been the subject of extensive
geochemical proveniencing studies, but the interpretation of results
faces greater challenges, particularly in controlling for the spatial
variability of the parent material and the effects of clay processing
(Neff et al. 2006).
There are two general approaches to ceramic elemental analysis: in
one, production centres are inferred from the elemental composition of
well-known ceramic types whose location is otherwise constrained; in the
other, the identification of local production is attempted through
matching the geochemistry of discrete clay beds
('point-sourcing') with elemental profiles of archaeological
ceramics. While clay beds exploited in antiquity for ceramic production
could be presumed to have been spatially restricted (Whitbread 2003),
they were also typically derived from geological formations that may
have extended over a far wider area (e.g. benthic limestones). Rarely is
the spatial range of geologically defined source areas for ceramics
adequately quantified or characterised (Price & Burton 2011). As a
consequence of these substantial uncertainties, ceramic provenience
arguments often remain inconclusive.
We suggest that a geochemical match between a clay bed and local
ceramics cannot be taken as an adequate or sufficient demonstration of
provenience. Instead, we argue that a more robust alternative is to
focus on the geochemical precincts of regional parent geologies. This
enables us to gain a better understanding of the potential scale of
ceramic production regions. We address the issue of scalar variability
in geological source material through an extensive sediment sampling
regime across the four geological precincts of Cyprus (Figure 3). Some
locations, with multiple geological units, required several samples;
conversely, larger geological units were sampled over multiple
locations.
This study makes use of NAA to characterise sediments and ceramics.
We compare NAA results for a sample population of RLW from Bogazkoy, the
LBNL Cypriot ceramic NAA dataset (including RLW), and our Cypriot
sediment sample. The aim of this comparison is to evaluate the
geochemical relationship between different ceramic compositions and
geographic locales around the island, to relate geological deposit size
with ceramic diversity, and specifically to identify the most likely
production region(s) of RLW within Cyprus.
Previous studies have suggested that in some cases there are
systematic offsets in NAA data from different facilities that require
correction (Hein et al. 2002). In this case we lacked standards that had
been used by the LBNL facility which would have made it possible to
identify the presence of an analytic offset. In the absence of common
standards, we therefore relied on the presence of RLW results in the
LBNL dataset and the demonstrated compositional homogeneity of this
fabric. To establish that we could effectively combine the NAA results
from the LBNL dataset and the present study in a single analysis, we
analysed the two datasets together. Comparability was empirically
established through Principal Components Analysis of the combined RLW
results (reduced to common elements), where RLW from both datasets fell
in close and overlapping proximity in multivariate space, demonstrating
the absence of any significant offset. Based on this close similarity,
we determined that the two larger datasets could be reliably combined.
This correspondence between different NAA facilities is consistent with
our previous work combining legacy datasets (e.g. Grave et al. 2013).
Direct comparison of NAA results for sediments and ceramics is more
problematic, however, owing to gross differences in elemental
concentrations largely related to differences in mineral content
(primarily quartz). Ceramic fabrics generally reflect homogenising
processes that include the removal of organics and the alteration of
mineral concentrations. To minimise potential compositional differences
between processed ceramic and potential source sediments, the original
quantitative results are transformed into dimensionless quotients using
a scandium (Sc) ratio procedure (Dias & Prudencio 2008). This method
enables direct comparison with the Cypriot sediment dataset and the
identification of relationships between sediments, the RLW samples and
the suite of LBNL ceramics (Table 1). The data are evaluated and
compared using unsupervised and supervised multivariate methods.
Results
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the combined RLW, sediment
and LBNL NAA datasets (Tables 1-3) shows a highly structured assemblage
with four major geochemical groups and a number of subsets (Figure 4a).
Around 80 per cent of the NAA results for the sediment samples
approximated ceramic compositional groups. The correlations between the
ceramic and sediment NAA results allow us to establish connections
between geochemical groups representing geologically distinct regions of
the island, and different classes of ceramic. Our four compositional
groups mirror the four main geological provinces in Cyprus (Figure 4c).
Group 1 is from the Circum-Troodos sedimentary succession, Group 2 is
from the Kyrenia Terrane, Group 3 from the Troodos Ophiolite complex,
and Group 4 from the Mamonia Complex. These findings support previous
work on Cypriot geochemistry that demonstrated a close correlation
between sediments and underlying geology (Cohen et al. 2012). The
correlations between ceramic and sediment geochemistry also highlight
the differences in size between geochemical and ceramic source areas
across the island (Figure 4b).
Group 1 is the largest ceramic group of our study, with the
greatest typological diversity and the widest chronological range. It
also includes sediments that are the most broadly distributed, spread
across the alluvial plains and coastline of central and southern Cyprus.
The diversity of ceramic types associated with Group 1 could potentially
be provenienced from anywhere Group 1 sediments occur (see Technical
Note for Group 1 ceramic types).
A number of the more spatially confined groups include a smaller
range of ceramic types (for example, Group 2 is predominantly Red
Polished Ware from Lapithos; Group 4 is dominated by subsets that
contain single ceramic types such as Base Ring Ware (BRW)).
Conversely, Group 3 is unusual in the context of the otherwise
predictable sample-size relationship between spatial scale and ceramic
type diversity, where we expect larger regions to produce more ceramic
types. On one hand, Group 3 represents the Troodos ophiolite covering an
area almost as extensive as the Group 1 source region, while on the
other it contains an anomalously small range of wares (White Slipped and
variants). This suggests unusually specialised production and/or
relatively few production sites within a mountainous region that remains
sparsely inhabited today.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
For each group, there is a clear chronological sequence in the
stylistic types, indicating that while the range of types can be large,
a much more limited number were produced in any given period. For
example, the Group 2/North Coast Lapithos samples are predominantly
Neolithic; Group 3/Troodos types were produced only in the Bronze Age;
while production of Group 3.1/western Mesaoria Plain types only
commenced in the Middle Iron Age.
The provenience of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware
RLW and geochemically associated wares (e.g. BRW) are members of
Group 4, a group that separates into four distinct, but compositionally
closely related, subsets: 4.4 consists exclusively of the RLW samples
(from both the LBNL and Bogazkoy datasets); 4.1 and 4.2 account for the
majority of BRW samples (LBNL), and 4.3 includes a range of Cypriot
Black Slip and Mycenaean-style wares (LBNL) (Figure 4d).
Group 4 also includes matches with several sediment samples
restricted to two locations in western Cyprus. One sediment pair was
collected near the modern village of Mamonia (AIA7214, 7216); the second
pair from Kritou Tera (AIA7179, 7181), a locale 28km to the north of
Mamonia towards the Akamas peninsula (Figure 4e). While apparently
disparate, the locations of these sediment matches both lie in the
Mamonia Complex, a highly distinctive, narrow U-shaped formation of
greenish bentonitic clays unique to western Cyprus. The sediment matches
point to an origin for Group 4 ceramics in that Complex. The small
compositional offsets between the Group 4 subsets probably reflect
exploitation of slightly different beds within this formation (Northmore
et al. 1986), compounded by differences in technological treatments
between ceramic classes (e.g. handmade BRW versus wheelmade RLW).
Group 4 subsets are largely Bronze Age in date, suggesting that the
LBA was a period of intensive elaboration of ceramics in western Cyprus,
consistent with the documented expansion of economic networks across the
larger region (Sherratt 1993; Keswani 2005). Group 4.1 occurs in the MBA
to LBA. Group 4.3 includes ceramic types that chronologically begin in
the LBA and continue into the LIA. Groups 4.2 and 4.4 occur only in the
LBA. See Technical Note for Group 4 ceramic types.
Discussion
Through the combined analysis of new and legacy NAA for both
ceramics and sediments, we have been able to map the provenience of the
main LBA (and other) ceramics across the four geological precincts of
Cyprus. In the case of RLW, the bentonitic clays within the Mamonia
Complex of western Cyprus are the source for this Late Bronze Age ware.
The implication is that RLW and related wares, rather than being a trade
good produced in Anatolia or Syria as part of the 'balance of
trade' in the LBA metals economy, are significant high-value
elements of the LBA western Cypriot economy.
The transport of RLW from south-western Cyprus to the inland
Hittite capital of Hattusa, however, is a unique phenomenon. Not only
does it represent overland transport of a large number of very fragile
vessels, but it is the only eastern Mediterranean pottery import that is
found at Hattusa in any quantity. This suggests that the role of RLW in
Hittite society was not only tied to local ritual but was critically
intermeshed with LBA elite ideology and power in the eastern
Mediterranean.
Our results also demonstrate a predictable relationship between
size of geochemical source region and range of ceramic types. Deviations
from this pattern, as with Group 3, flag an unusual production
environment requiring further evaluation. In the case of Group 4, the
small number of types, including RLW, not only fits with the relatively
constricted range of the potential source area but also with
predominantly single-period (LBA) exploitation. We suggest that these
results require a more spatially nuanced assessment of the importance of
different production regions over time.
This study highlights the importance of large scale geochemical
mapping of the landscape for ceramic provenience studies targeting
large-scale exchange networks. Economic and political dynamics can play
out over extensive regions, particularly in areas reliant on maritime
connections, as in the eastern Mediterranean (Pulak 1998; Sherratt
2000). By matching ceramic elemental data with geological precincts, we
have been able to establish the degree of spatial resolution possible
for different geochemical groups. The approach taken here enables
identification of highly specific geological source regions for even
widely distributed ceramics, as well as allowing a better understanding
of redundant geochemical groups that can either be geographically very
extensive or recur across the region, like Group 1. New techniques may
improve analytical resolution of provenience studies but defining the
areal differences between geological sources will continue to be a
central challenge.
While this study demonstrates that the re-use of legacy NAA
datasets can be very productive for contextualising new research, we
have focused only on the largest and currently most readily accessible
datasets. The inclusion of other NAA studies for Cyprus, such as those
undertaken by the Brookhaven National Laboratory in the 1970s, are
beyond the scope of the present work. However, these datasets, while
unlikely to alter our basic understanding of the relationship between
geological precincts and ceramic compositional profiles established
here, should enable further refinements as more comprehensive studies
are undertaken in the future.
Conclusions
Identifying the production area of RLW allows us to re-evaluate
local responses to the new opportunities offered by the LBA economy on
the island of Cyprus. On one hand, Cypriot copper--almost entirely
obtained from ore bodies in central Cyprus, on the northern flanks of
the Troodos Range, during the LBA--became central to the production and
distribution of bronze throughout the Mediterranean. Keswani (2005), for
example, suggests that competitive elite public mortuary displays,
including copper items, were critical for driving the development of
Late Cypriot complexity. On the other hand, we see that groups occupying
the far western parts of the island that were not exploited for copper
at this time and had been generally assumed to be largely agrarian,
actively invented new 'value-added' goods that also became an
important part of the LBA Cypriot economy. It is possible that in this
new economy 'value-adding' was an effective strategy within
Cyprus, to compensate for a metal-poor location away from the major
copper-bearing zone of the northern flanks of the Troodos. While BRW
fits a value-adding model (Sherratt 1993), the distribution of RLW
suggests a more complex set of processes. Groups in western Cyprus,
therefore, engaged in a range of strategies, targeting not only domestic
but also regional ritual consumption, expanding their status and power
across the larger region.
From the limited presence of RLW in the known archaeological sites
on the southern coast of western Cyprus, we suggest that the Chrysochou
River catchment, draining northward into the Chrysochou Bay, was a more
likely production region than the eastern portion of the Mamonia
Complex. The fragmentation of production regions across Cyprus supports
Keswani's (1993, 1997) argument for a complex multi-polity Cyprus
during the LBA. Keswani suggests that there were strong
politico-economic links between coastal sites, inland cult sites and
mining sites for the production of copper. A similar control network may
have operated in the Chrysochou River basin for the production of RLW.
More recently, others have argued for a single state or polity unifying
the island of Cyprus, based on textual data (Alasiya') (Peltenburg
2012; Knapp 2013), although the archaeological evidence remains
equivocal.
These findings highlight the need for a reassessment of the
archaeological evidence for LBA ceramic production in Cyprus. Until
recently, archaeologists have tended to focus on the major urban centres
and palatial economies, with an emphasis on patterns of exchange and
consumption. However, beyond Cyprus' role as a copper producer, we
can now say that western Cyprus, in particular, was a major producer of
multiple classes of LBA ceramics, such as RLW, that became important
elements in defining status and power across the broader region, from
Egypt to inland Anatolia. In spite of the current paucity of RLW finds,
a centre in western Cyprus must have played a pivotal, and currently
underestimated, role not only in the production and exchange of
high-value ceramics but also in the development of the multi-faceted LBA
Mediterranean 'World System'.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council
(DP0558992) and the National Science Foundation (0401220). Support for
replicate NAA was provided by the Australian Institute for Nuclear
Science and Engineering (12060). We thank Dr Pam Watson for her generous
assistance with sediment collection, Dr Eric Kansa for facilitating open
access to the NAA datasets used in this study through Open Context (NEH
HK-50037-2), Kim Newman for drafting Figure 1 and Edward Rayner for
Figure 2. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and
suggestions.
Technical Note
Group 1 types = 92: dominated by Black Painted (1400-1200 BC),
Bichrome (1200-1000 BC?), Mycenaean LBA III C1 (1230-1100 BC),
Proto-White Painted (1100-1050 BC) and Cypro-Geometric I (1050-950 BC).
Group 4.1 is mainly composed of Handmade Red Slipped (1700-1600 BC),
Wheelmade Black Slipped (1700-1600 BC), Handmade Black Slipped II
(1600-1400 BC) and Base Ring Ware I-II (> 1400-1200 BC). Group 4.2 is
composed of BRW (>1400-1200 BC) and BRW II (1400-1200 BC) types. A
single example of both RLW and Handmade Black Slipped ware (both
1400-1200 BC) are found in this group. This group appears to represent
more contemporary typological diversity.
Group 4.3 includes Myc III AII (1350-1320 BC) and III CI (1230-1100
BC), Red Slipped I (750-700 BC) and Black on Red (600-500 BC), forming a
chronological progression.
References
ASTROM, P. 1994. "The fantastic years on Cyprus": the
Swedish Cyprus Expedition and its members. Philadelphia (PA): Coronet.
--(ed.). 2008. The chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bichrome
Wheelmade Ware: proceedings of a colloquium held in the Royal Academy of
Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18-19 2000. Stockholm:
Royal Academy of Letters, History & Antiquities.
BARLOW, J.A., D.L. BOLGER & B. KLING (ed.). 1991. Cypriot
ceramics: reading the prehistoric record. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Museum.
BOULANGER, M. 2011. Neutron activation analysis of ceramics from
Cyprus (tDAR ID: 371571). Available at:
http://core.tdar.org/project/371571 (accessed 29 May 2014).
BUDD, P. 1995. Oxhide ingots, recycling and the Mediterranean
metals trade. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 8: 1-32.
COHEN, D.R., N.F. RUTHERFORD, E. MORISSEAU & A.M. ZISSIMOS.
2012. Geochemical patterns in the soils of Cyprus. Science of the Total
Environment 420: 250-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.036
DIAS, M.I. & M.I. PRUDENCIO. 2008. On the importance of using
scandium to normalize geochemical data preceding multivariate analysis
applied to archaeometric pottery studies. Microchemical Journal
88:136-41. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.microc.2007.11.009
EDENS, C. 1992. Dynamics of trade in the ancient Mesopotamian
'World System'. American Anthropologist 94: 118-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1992.94.1.02a00070
ERIKSSON, K.O. 1991. Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: a product of Late
Bronze Age Cyprus, in J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger & B. Kling (ed.)
Cypriot ceramics: reading the prehistoric record: 81-96. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum.
--1993. Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware (Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 103). Uppsala: Astrom.
--2007. Using Cypriot Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware to establish
cultural and chronological synchronisms during the Late Bronze Age, in
I. Hein (ed.) The lustrous wares of Cyprus and the eastern
Mediterranean: 51-60. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
GALE, N.H. 1991. Copper oxhide ingots: their origin and their place
in the Bronze Age metals trade in the Mediterranean, in N.H. Gale (ed.)
Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 90): 197-239. Uppsala: Astrom.
Geological Survey Department. 1995. Geological map of Cyprus.
Nicosia: Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment.
GLASCOCK, M.D. & H. NEFF. 2003. Neutron activation analysis and
provenance research in archaeology. Measurement Science and Technology
14: 1516-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/14/9/304
GOMEZ, B., H. NEFF, M.L. RAUTMAN, S.J. VAUGHAN & M.D. GLASCOCK.
2002. The source provenance of Bronze Age and Roman pottery from Cyprus.
Archaeometry 44: 23-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4754.00041
GOREN, Y., S. BUNIMOVITZ, I. FINKELSTEIN & N. NA'AMAN.
2003. The location of Alashiya: new evidence from petrographic
investigation of Alishiyan tablets from el Amarna and Ugarit. American
Journal of Archaeology 107: 233-55.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.3764/aja.107.2.233
GRAVE, P., L. KEALHOFER, P. HNILA, B. MARSH, C. ASLAN, D.
THUMM-DOGRAYAN & W. RIGTER. 2013. Cultural dynamics and ceramic
resource use at Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age Troy, northwestern
Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 1760-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.027
HEIN, I. (ed.). 2007. The lustrous wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus
and the eastern Mediterranean. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
HEIN, A., A. TSOLAKIDOU, I. ILIOPOULOS, H. MOMMSEN, J. BUXEDA I
GARRIGOS, G. MONTANA & V. KILIKOGLOU. 2002. Standardisation of
elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of
archaeological ceramics: an inter laboratory calibration study. Analyst
127: 542-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b 109603f
KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2001. The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age
Cyprus. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
KESWANI, P.S. 1993. Models of local exchange in Late Bronze Age
Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292:
73-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1357249
--1997. Hierarchies, heterarchies, and urbanization processes: the
view from Bronze Age Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9:
211-50.
--2005. Death, prestige, and copper in Bronze Age Cyprus. American
Journal of Archaeology 109: 341-401.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.3764/aja.109.3.34l
KING, R.H., D.W. RUPP & L.W. SORENSON. 1986. A multivariate
analysis of pottery from southwestern Cyprus using neutron activation
analysis data. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 361-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(86)90054-3
KNAPP, A.B. 2013. The archaeology of Cyprus: from earliest
prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
KNAPP, A.B. & J. CHERRY. 1994. Provenience studies and Bronze
Age Cyprus: production, exchange and politico-economic change
(Monographs in World Archaeology 21). Madison (WI): Prehistory Press.
KNAPPETT, C, V. KJLIKOGLOU, V. STEELE & B. STERN. 2005. The
circulation and consumption of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware:
petrographic, chemical and residue analysis. Anatolian Studies 55:
25-59.
KOZAL, E. 2003. Analysis of the distribution patterns of Red
Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery in Anatolia in
the 15th-13th centuries B.C., in B. Fischer, H. Genz, E. Jean & K.
Koroglu (ed.) Identiyfing changes: the transition from Bronze to Iron
Ages in Anatolia and its neighbouring regions: 65-78. Istanbul: Turk
Eskicag Bilimleri Enstitusu.
LAPIERRE, H., D. BOSCH, A. NARROS, G.H. MASCLE, M. TARDY & A.
DEMANT. 2007. The Mamonia Complex [Southwest Cyprus] revisited: remnant
of late Triassic inter-oceanic vulcanism along the Tethyan southwestern
passive margin. Geology Magazine 144: 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0016756806002937
MIELKE, D. 2007. Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware from Hittite contexts,
in I. Hein (ed.) The lustrous wares of Cyprus and the eastern
Mediterranean: 155-68. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
MILLETT, A. & H. CATLING. 1966. Composition and provenance: a
challenge. Archaeometry 9: 92-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10111/j.1475-4754.1966.tb00910.x
MORAN, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins
University Press.
NEFF, H., J. BLOMSTER, M.D. GLASCOCK, R.L. BISHOP, M.J. BLACKMAN,
M.D. COE, G.L. COWGILL, R.A. DIEHL, S. HOUSTON & A.A. JOYCE. 2006.
Methodological issues in the provenance investigation of Early Formative
Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity: 54-76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25063036
NORTHMORE, K.J., M. CHARALAMBOUS & P.R.N. HOBBS. 1986.
Engineering geology of the Kannaviou 'Melange' and Mamonia
Complex formations: Phiti/Statos area, southwest Cyprus. Keyworth:
British Geological Survey.
OREN, E.D. (ed.). 2000. The sea peoples and their world: a
reassessment (University of Pennsylvania Monographs 108). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.
PARZINGER, H. & R. SANZ. 1992. Die Oberstadt von Hattusa.
Hethitische Keramik aus dem zentralen Tempelviertel. Funde aus den
Grabungen 1982-1987. Bogazkoy-Hattusa XV. Berlin: Gebruder Mann.
PELTENBURG, E. 2012. Text meets material culture in Late Bronze Age
Cyprus, in A. Georgiou (ed.) Cyprus: an island culture: society and
social relations from the Bronze Age to the Venetian period: 1-23.
Oxford: Oxbow.
PRICE, T.D. & J.H. BURTON. 2011. An introduction to
archaeological chemistry: 213-42. New York: Springer,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/9781-4419-6376-5
PULAK, C. 1998. The Uluburun shipwreck: an overview. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27: 188.
http://dx.doi.org/1011/j.1095-9270.1998.tb00803.x
RAUTMAN, M.L. & H. NEFF. 2006. Compositional analysis of
ceramics from Maroni Petrera, in S.W. Manning, A. Manning, R. Tomber,
D.A. Sewell, S.J. Monks, M.J. Ponting & E.C. Ribeiro (ed.) The late
Roman church at Maroni Petrera. Survey and salvage excavations
1990-1997, and other traces of Roman remains in the Lower Maroni Valley,
Cyprus: 55-57. Nicosia: A.G. Lenvetis Foundation.
RAUTMAN, M.L., H. NEFF, B. GOMEZ, S. VAUGHAN & M.D. GLASCOCK.
1999. Amphoras and roof-tiles from late Roman Cyprus: a compositional
study of calcareous ceramics from Kalvasos-Kopetra. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 12: 377-91.
REEPMEYER, C., M. SPRIGGS, ANGGRAENI, P. LAPE, L. NERI, W.P.
RONQUILLO, T. SIMANJUNTAK, G. SUMMERHAYES, D. TANUDIRJO & A. TAUZON.
2011. Obsidian sources and distribution systems in Island Southeast
Asia: new results and implications from geochemical research using
LA-ICPMS. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2995-3005.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.023
SCHOOP, U.-D. 2009. Indications of structural change in the Hittite
pottery inventory at Bogazkoy-Hattusa, in F.P. Daddi, G. Torri & C.
Corti (ed.) Central-north Anatolia in the Hittite period: new
perspectives in light of recent research: 145-68. Rome: Herder.
SEEHER, J. 2001. Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy-Hattusa 2000.
Archaologischer Anzeiger 2001: 333-62.
--2002. Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy-Hattusa 2001. Archaologischer
Anzeiger 2002: 59-78.
SHERRATT, A. 1993. What would a Bronze-Age World System look like?
Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later
prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 1-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/096576693800719293
SHERRATT, S. 1998. 'Sea peoples' and the economic
structure of the late second millennium BC in the eastern Mediterranean,
in S. Gitin, A. Mazar & E. Stern (ed.) Mediterranean peoples in
transition: 292-313. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
--2000. Circulation of metals and the end of the Bronze Age in the
eastern Mediterranean, in C.F.E. Pare (ed.) Metals make the world go
round: the supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe.
Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June
1997: 82-95. Oxford: Oxbow.
SWARBRICK, R.E. & A.H.F. ROBERTSON. 1980. Revised stratigraphy
of the Mesozoic rocks of southern Cyprus. Geology Magazine 117: 547-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800028892
TSCHEGG, C, T. NTAFLOS & I. HEIN. 2009. Integrated geological,
petrologic and geochemical approach to establish source material and
technology of late Cypriot Bronze Age Plain White ware ceramics. Journal
of Archaeological Science 36: 1103-14.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.12.004
VAUGHAN, S.J. 1987. A fabric analysis of late Cypriot Base Ring
Ware: studies in ceramic technology, petrology, geochemistry and
mineralogy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London.
--1991. Material and technical characterization of Base Ring ware:
a fabric typology, in J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger & B. Kling (ed.)
Cypriot ceramics: reading the prehistoric record: 119-31. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum.
WHITBREAD, I.K. 2003. Clays of Corinth: the study of a basic
resource for ceramic production, in C.K. Williams II & N. Bookidis
(ed.) Corinth: results of excavations conducted by the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. The centenary, 1896-1996. Volume 20:
1-13. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Received: 23 September 2013; Accepted: 1 November 2013; Revised: 28
November 2013
Peter Grave (1), Lisa Kealhofer (2), Ben Marsh (3), Ulf-Dietrich
Schoop (4), Jurgen Seeher (5), John W. Bennett (6) & Attila Stopic
(6)
(1) Archaeomaterials Science Hub/Archaeology &
Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351,
Australia
(2) Department of Anthropology & Department of Environmental
Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
(3) Department of Geography & Department of Environmental
Studies, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA
(4) School of History, Classics & Archaeology, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK
(5) German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul Section, 34437
Istanbul, Turkey
(6) Neutron Activation Group, Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation, Locked Bag 2001, Kirrawee DC, NSW 2232,
Australia
Table 1. Summary of NAA results for the LBNL legacy NAA dataset
(Boulanger 2011). Table 1A gives a breakdown of NAA groups by ware;
IB is the breakdown for NAA groups by site. Note that the discrepancy
in totals between 1A and IB reflects the removal of singletons from
1A (one compositional type with one typological member). Supporting
NAA datasets are available for download from http://opencontext.org/
projects/ABABD13C-A69F-499E-CA7F-5118F3684E4D
TABLE 1A
NAA Group
1 2 2.1
Ware n = 690 n = 116 n = 16
Not identified 59 3 --
Base Ring -- -- --
Base Ring I 1 -- --
Base Ring II -- -- --
Bichrome 47 -- --
Bichrome Handmade 2 -- --
Bichrome Red I (IV) 2 -- --
Black on Red 5 1 --
Black on Red I(III) 6 2 --
Black on Red I(III)-II(IV) 4 -- --
Black on Red III (V) 2 -- --
Black Polished 12 -- --
Black Polished III 6 -- --
Black Slip 7 -- --
Black Slip (Handmade) 5 -- --
Black Slip (Wheelmade) 29 -- --
Black Slip I 1 8 --
Black Slip II 13 3 --
Black Slip II (Handmade) 2 3 --
Blue Core -- -- --
Coarse Ware (Handmade) 1 1 --
Cypro-Geometric I 50 -- --
Episkopi Ware 2 -- --
Late Mycenaean III B 9 -- --
Levanto-Helladic Ware 13 3 --
Mycenaean 2 1 --
Mycenaean III A 5 24 --
Mycenaean III A or III B 6 -- --
Mycenaean III A2 3 16 --
Mycenaean III B 32 18 --
Mycenaean III C1 47 4 --
Neolithic Red Polished 4 -- --
Plain -- -- --
Plain White 2 -- --
Plain White (Wheelmade) 23 -- --
Plain White I 6 -- --
Plain White (Handmade) 2 -- --
Proto-White Painted 49 -- --
Proto-White Painted (Myc III C-2) 16 -- --
Proto-White Slip -- -- --
Red Lustre 3 1 --
Red Lustrous -- -- --
Red on Black 18 -- --
Red Polished 7 1 16
Red Polished II -- 2 --
Red Polished III 17 -- --
Red Polished II-III 12 -- --
Red Polished IV 7 1 --
Red Slip 2 1 --
Red Slip Handmade 11 2 --
Red Slip I(III) -- -- --
Red Slip Painted (Foreign) -- 2 --
Red Slip Wheelmade 5 -- --
Rude Style 2 -- --
Syrian 2 -- --
Tel e-Yehudiyeh Style 4 -- --
Terra Sigillata 4 -- --
White Painted 8 1 --
White Painted (Handmade) 8 -- --
White Painted (Wheel Made) 13 -- --
White Painted II 16 10 --
White Painted III 54 1 --
White Painted IV 3 -- --
White Painted IV-V 18 -- --
White Painted V -- -- --
White Slip 1 -- --
White Slip I -- -- --
White Slip II -- -- --
White Slip I-II -- -- --
3 3.1 4.1 4.2
Ware n = 148 n = 58 n = 44 n = 34
Not identified 10 2 -- 8
Base Ring -- -- 4 12
Base Ring I 1 -- 6 1
Base Ring II -- -- 3 10
Bichrome -- -- -- --
Bichrome Handmade -- -- -- --
Bichrome Red I (IV) -- -- -- --
Black on Red -- -- -- --
Black on Red I(III) -- -- -- --
Black on Red I(III)-II(IV) -- 13 -- --
Black on Red III (V) -- 5 1 --
Black Polished -- -- -- --
Black Polished III -- -- -- --
Black Slip -- -- -- --
Black Slip (Handmade) 3 -- 1 1
Black Slip (Wheelmade) -- -- 1 --
Black Slip I -- -- -- --
Black Slip II -- -- 5 --
Black Slip II (Handmade) -- -- 10 --
Blue Core -- -- -- 2
Coarse Ware (Handmade) -- -- -- --
Cypro-Geometric I -- -- -- --
Episkopi Ware -- -- -- --
Late Mycenaean III B -- -- -- --
Levanto-Helladic Ware 1 -- -- --
Mycenaean -- -- -- --
Mycenaean III A -- -- -- --
Mycenaean III A or III B -- -- -- --
Mycenaean III A2 -- -- 1 --
Mycenaean III B -- -- -- --
Mycenaean III C1 -- -- -- --
Neolithic Red Polished -- -- -- --
Plain -- 2 -- --
Plain White -- -- -- --
Plain White (Wheelmade) -- -- -- --
Plain White I -- -- -- --
Plain White (Handmade) -- -- -- --
Proto-White Painted -- -- -- --
Proto-White Painted (Myc III C-2) -- -- -- --
Proto-White Slip 17 -- -- --
Red Lustre -- -- -- --
Red Lustrous -- -- -- --
Red on Black -- -- 1 --
Red Polished -- -- 1 --
Red Polished II -- -- -- --
Red Polished III 1 -- -- --
Red Polished II-III 1 -- -- --
Red Polished IV -- -- 2 --
Red Slip -- -- -- --
Red Slip Handmade -- -- 8 --
Red Slip I(III) -- -- -- --
Red Slip Painted (Foreign) -- -- -- --
Red Slip Wheelmade -- -- -- --
Rude Style -- -- -- --
Syrian -- -- -- --
Tel e-Yehudiyeh Style -- -- -- --
Terra Sigillata -- -- -- --
White Painted -- -- -- --
White Painted (Handmade) -- -- -- --
White Painted (Wheel Made) -- 4 -- --
White Painted II -- -- -- --
White Painted III -- 2 -- --
White Painted IV -- 18 -- --
White Painted IV-V -- -- -- --
White Painted V -- 12 -- --
White Slip 6 -- -- --
White Slip I 20 -- -- --
White Slip II 60 -- -- --
White Slip I-II 28 -- -- --
4.3 4.4 Total
Ware n = 32 n = 13 1151
Not identified 2 -- 84
Base Ring -- -- 16
Base Ring I -- -- 9
Base Ring II -- -- 13
Bichrome -- -- 47
Bichrome Handmade -- -- 2
Bichrome Red I (IV) -- -- 2
Black on Red 6 -- 12
Black on Red I(III) 9 -- 17
Black on Red I(III)-II(IV) -- -- 17
Black on Red III (V) -- -- 8
Black Polished -- -- 12
Black Polished III -- -- 6
Black Slip -- -- 7
Black Slip (Handmade) -- -- 10
Black Slip (Wheelmade) -- -- 30
Black Slip I -- -- 9
Black Slip II 1 -- 22
Black Slip II (Handmade) -- -- 15
Blue Core -- -- 2
Coarse Ware (Handmade) -- -- 2
Cypro-Geometric I -- -- 50
Episkopi Ware -- -- 2
Late Mycenaean III B -- -- 9
Levanto-Helladic Ware -- -- 17
Mycenaean -- -- 3
Mycenaean III A -- -- 29
Mycenaean III A or III B -- -- 6
Mycenaean III A2 2 -- 22
Mycenaean III B 1 -- 51
Mycenaean III C 6 -- 57
Neolithic Red Polished -- -- 4
Plain -- -- 2
Plain White -- -- 2
Plain White (Wheelmade) -- -- 23
Plain White I -- -- 13
Plain White (Handmade) -- -- 2
Proto-White Painted -- -- 49
Proto-White Painted (Myc III C-2) -- -- 16
Proto-White Slip -- -- 17
Red Lustre -- -- 4
Red Lustrous -- 12 12
Red on Black -- -- 19
Red Polished -- 1 26
Red Polished II -- -- 2
Red Polished III -- -- 18
Red Polished II-III -- -- 13
Red Polished IV -- -- 10
Red Slip -- -- 3
Red Slip Handmade -- -- 21
Red Slip I(III) 4 -- 4
Red Slip Painted (Foreign) 1 -- 3
Red Slip Wheelmade -- -- 5
Rude Style -- -- 2
Syrian -- -- 2
Tel e-Yehudiyeh Style -- -- 4
Terra Sigillata -- -- 4
White Painted -- -- 9
White Painted (Handmade) -- -- 8
White Painted (Wheel Made) -- -- 17
White Painted II -- -- 26
White Painted III -- -- 57
White Painted IV -- -- 21
White Painted IV-V -- -- 18
White Painted V -- -- 12
White Slip -- -- 7
White Slip I -- -- 20
White Slip II -- -- 60
White Slip I-II -- -- 28
TABLE 1B
NAA Group
1 2 2.1
n = 721 n = 117 n = 16
Not identified 10 -- --
Akhera -- -- --
Alambra 12 -- --
Amathus 44 3 --
Ankastina 3 1 --
Ayia Irina 11 -- --
Ayios Jakovos 18 5 --
Enkomi 156 25 --
Famagusta 7 -- --
Halla Sultan Tekke 13 2 --
Kalopsidha 32 1 --
Kition 60 10 --
Kouklia 9 -- --
Kythrea 10 -- 2
Lapithos 98 35 14
Larnaca 6 12 --
Marion 4 -- --
Milia 84 2 --
Morphou 9 1 --
Nitovikla 3 -- --
Palaepaphos 61 18 --
Paleoskoutella 25 -- --
Pendayia -- -- --
Phaneromeni 4 -- --
Salamis 37 1 --
Stylli 3 1 --
3 3.1 4.1 4.2
n = 152 n = 58 n = 44 n = 35
Not identified -- 1 -- --
Akhera 17 -- -- --
Alambra 2 -- -- 2
Amathus -- 2 -- --
Ankastina -- -- -- --
Ayia Irina -- -- -- --
Ayios Jakovos 17 -- 13 --
Enkomi 25 -- 8 23
Famagusta -- -- -- --
Halla Sultan Tekke 1 6 -- --
Kalopsidha -- -- -- --
Kition -- -- -- --
Kouklia -- 1 -- 1
Kythrea -- -- -- --
Lapithos 2 -- 8 --
Larnaca 18 -- -- --
Marion -- 48 1 --
Milia 32 -- 7 1
Morphou 3 -- -- 1
Nitovikla -- -- -- --
Palaepaphos 16 -- 1 --
Paleoskoutella -- -- 6 --
Pendayia 17 -- -- --
Phaneromeni 2 -- -- 6
Salamis -- -- -- 1
Stylli -- -- -- --
4.3 4.4 Total
n = 31 n = 14 1186
Not identified -- -- 11
Akhera -- -- 17
Alambra -- -- 16
Amathus 9 -- 58
Ankastina -- -- 4
Ayia Irina -- -- 11
Ayios Jakovos -- 1 54
Enkomi -- 8 245
Famagusta -- -- 7
Halla Sultan Tekke -- 2 24
Kalopsidha -- -- 33
Kition -- -- 70
Kouklia -- -- 11
Kythrea -- -- 12
Lapithos 5 -- 162
Larnaca -- 2 38
Marion -- -- 53
Milia -- 1 127
Morphou -- -- 14
Nitovikla -- -- 3
Palaepaphos 9 -- 105
Paleoskoutella 1 -- 32
Pendayia -- -- 17
Phaneromeni 1 -- 13
Salamis -- -- 39
Stylli 6 -- 10
Table 2. Summary of NAA results for Red Lustrous
Wheelmade Ware (RLW) from Bogazkoy, central
Turkey, giving multivariate group membership 4.4
with average and coefficient of variation (CV). Note
overall homogeneity of this sample set with exception
of poorly measured/low abundance elements (e.g. Br).
Results expressed as parts per million unless otherwise
indicated.
4.4 (n = 45)
Group Average CV
As 10.00 13.48
Ba 455.33 17.97
Br 0.30 161.81
Ca% 4.77 22.44
Ce 79.64 3.61
Co 21.58 6.44
Cr 130.24 6.56
Cs 9.54 10.46
Eu 1.26 11.91
Fe% 5.87 3.77
Hf 4.34 8.56
K% 2.36 18.07
La 39.37 3.17
Lu 0.45 3.99
Na% 0.18 14.60
Nd 37.16 12.65
Rb 151.11 8.61
Sb 1.09 9.33
Sc 19.80 4.39
Sm 6.60 3.95
Ta 1.38 37.25
Tb 0.85 41.21
Th 14.98 3.90
U 3.74 13.92
Yb 2.87 6.49
Zn 82.13 24.26
Table 3. Summary of NAA results for 91 of 114 sediments showing
multivariate group membership. Results expressed as parts per
million.
1 (n = 29) 1.1 (n = 16) 2 (n = 3)
NAA
Group Avg. CV Avg. CV Avg. CV
As 8.03 40.40 6.50 105.84 6.67 43.30
Ba 195.90 46.91 237.75 65.42 220.33 51.29
Br 10.49 64.09 10.26 49.74 12.00 14.43
Ca% 13.51 51.35 20.23 32.37 14.67 28.39
Ce 29.45 43.50 25.63 30.29 37.67 10.73
Co 19.28 38.30 16.00 45.24 16.00 22.53
Cr 301.69 72.16 181.38 73.54 413.33 70.96
Cs 2.07 53.18 1.89 42.99 3.00 30.55
Eu 0.78 34.04 0.58 29.29 0.76 26.92
Fe% 3.62 42.22 2.13 38.43 2.72 17.71
Hf 2.21 52.56 1.53 32.70 2.87 19.84
K% 0.80 59.06 0.63 58.52 0.93 6.19
La 15.25 40.00 13.91 25.35 19.37 13.28
Lu 0.27 36.86 0.19 23.12 0.23 11.50
Na% 0.66 57.09 0.21 60.96 0.33 59.46
Nd 16.48 33.10 16.44 17.35 21.33 23.59
Rb 34.52 45.34 29.13 38.58 46.00 17.25
Sb 0.57 24.66 0.48 41.71 0.67 17.32
Sc 14.21 40.28 7.71 39.07 9.53 16.46
Sm 3.14 37.12 2.67 24.33 3.50 10.45
Ta 0.49 123.86 0.16 181.27 0.23 172.46
Tb 0.34 109.39 0.04 389.59 0.60 16.67
Th 3.74 47.80 3.22 33.33 5.27 24.49
U 1.13 61.45 1.27 60.13 1.33 26.34
Yb 1.70 35.93 1.18 23.59 1.53 15.06
Zn 50.34 40.75 35.50 57.38 55.00 14.88
2.1 (n = 4) 3 (n = 23) 3.1 (n = 14)
NAA
Group Avg. CV Avg. CV Avg. CV
As 10.50 78.73 1.57 89.95 4.64 31.16
Ba 495.00 37.27 39.17 145.38 157.21 66.81
Br 10.08 33.82 9.92 186.24 10.31 52.59
Ca% 8.48 33.48 5.79 58.95 7.09 44.17
Ce 42.25 15.26 6.35 67.10 19.07 36.00
Co 21.50 30.74 34.70 13.61 27.14 22.15
Cr 700.50 88.94 205.52 101.30 100.64 37.28
Cs 3.58 18.75 0.22 160.22 0.96 53.68
Eu 0.99 20.82 0.58 49.75 0.89 30.25
Fe% 3.32 17.83 6.48 17.62 5.90 23.11
Hf 3.30 30.60 1.14 41.16 1.96 38.08
K% 1.50 14.40 0.62 73.80 0.78 65.07
La 23.45 21.43 3.30 57.07 9.49 29.38
Lu 0.30 17.83 0.29 36.80 0.38 32.28
Na% 0.50 35.90 1.38 53.44 1.35 35.08
Nd 21.25 11.12 10.82 25.14 15.79 23.73
Rb 64.00 4.03 14.22 101.26 17.86 58.60
Sb 0.65 32.03 0.27 55.61 0.37 32.43
Sc 11.33 19.15 35.18 13.73 24.65 17.62
Sm 4.16 20.82 1.60 46.78 3.02 30.27
Ta 0.98 73.12 0.11 223.25 0.25 148.19
Tb 0.40 115.18 0.27 117.64 0.55 63.19
Th 6.38 8.24 0.53 79.39 1.86 40.94
U 1.03 72.24 0.06 326.61 0.47 109.70
Yb 1.95 24.59 1.78 37.07 2.33 31.26
Zn 57.50 30.27 33.83 97.81 60.29 42.10
4.2 (n = 2) 4.3 (n = 2)
NAA
Group Avg. CV Avg. CV
As 3.50 20.20 5.50 12.86
Ba 170.00 49.91 270.00 10.48
Br 1.25 28.28 13.50 15.71
Ca% 5.15 133.18 15.00 18.86
Ce 60.00 4.71 46.50 4.56
Co 13.50 5.24 14.00 0.00
Cr 76.50 10.17 107.50 0.66
Cs 5.70 42.18 2.80 0.00
Eu 1.00 14.14 0.87 6.50
Fe% 3.74 5.49 2.70 2.62
Hf 3.55 5.98 2.85 2.48
K% 1.65 55.71 0.65 10.88
La 29.90 12.30 23.30 5.46
Lu 0.35 18.45 0.29 0.00
Na% 0.44 56.89 0.14 5.24
Nd 26.50 13.34 24.50 2.89
Rb 86.00 55.91 44.50 17.48
Sb 0.45 15.71 0.45 15.71
Sc 12.45 5.11 9.50 5.95
Sm 5.14 16.23 4.30 5.43
Ta 1.00 14.14 0.85 24.96
Tb 0.65 32.64 0.65 10.88
Th 9.05 14.85 5.80 4.88
U 1.75 20.20 0.90 15.71
Yb 2.05 17.25 1.80 0.00
Zn 50.00 11.31 57.50 18.45
