the initial appearance of ashlar stone in cyprus

MediterraneanArchaeologyandArchaeometry,Vol.2011,No.2,pp.3753Copyright2011MAA

PrintedinGreece.Allrightsreserved.

THEINITIALAPPEARANCEOFASHLARSTONEINCYPRUS.SSUESOFPROVENANCEANDUSE.

MariaPhilokyprou

DepartmentofArchitecture,UniversityofCyprusP.OBox20537Nicosia1678,Cyprus

Tel:+35722892974,99354436,Fax:+35722660834

Received:18/05/2011Accepted:30/07/2011

Correspondingauthor:[email protected]

ABSTRACTInCyprusstonewastheprimarybuildingmaterial,eitherasrubbleorinadressedform(called

ashlar),sincetheNeolithicperiod.InitiallystonewasusedonlyasrubblebutlaterduringtheLateBroneAgeashlarstoneappearedforthefirsttimeontheisland.TheaimofthispaperisthepresentationoftheresultsofasystematicresearchregardingthedifferenttypesandusesofashlarstoneandthetechniquesfollowedduringtheLateBronzeAgeinCyprusincomparisonwithotherMediterranean areas.Themacroscopic andmicroscopic examination of selected samples showed thatsedimentaryrocksofvariousgeological formationswereusedasashlars.One, twooreven threedifferenttypesofstonesweretransportedfromthequarriesnearesttothesettlements.Somecharacteristicmethodsof stonedressing, suchas finishingonly thevisible facesandcreatingdraftedmarginsaround the faceof theashlarblocks,are tobe foundnotonly inLateBronzeAgesettlementsbutalso inmorerecentexamples from the last twocenturies.Thechoiceofashlarand themethodsofconstructioncanberelated tosocial,religiousandpolitical factorsandwerenotonlybasedonaestheticcriteriaandpracticalissues.Thus,themostimpressivestructuralsolutionswerefollowedintheconstructionoftemplesandpublicbuildings,whereasmoresimplemethodscanbeobservedinresidentialcomplexes.

KEYWORDS:Quarries,Draftedmargins,Orthostats,Courses,Calcareoussandstone

MARIAPHILOKYPROU38

INTRODUCTIONSince theNeolithicperiodanduntil the last

twocenturies,stonehasconstitutedtheprimarychoice in the construction ofwalls inCyprus,giving structures stability and satisfactoryaesthetic appearance (e.g. Khirokitia, MarkiAlonia, AlambraMouttes, MaroniVournes,AlassaPaliotaverna, KalavasosAyios Dhimitrios: Philokyprou 1998a). The most primitiveNeolithic circular houses made of perishablematerials timber, reedsetc. (KalavasosTenta)were succeededbymorepermanent structuresusing rubble stone (Khirokitia: Le Brun 1984,KalavasosTenta: Todd 1987). Rubble stoneseemstobetheonlychoiceofstoneduringtheNeolithic, Chalcolithic, Early and MiddleBronzeAgeinCyprusforeconomicandtechnologicalreasonswhereasduringtheLateBronzeAge,stoneinadressedform(calledashlar)wasalsoused in combinationwith rubble.According toG.Hult (1983),BronzeAgeashlar stonerefers to wrought blocks which approach theideal of a rectangular visible face when theblocksareinplace.Thefacesthatarenotvisibleare mostly unwrought and the sizes of theblocksvaryconsiderablyfrom0,50X0,30X0,30m(Hala SultanTekke) tovery large sizeswith alengthof1,005,00m,aheightof0,501,50m,andathicknessof0,500,90m(Kition,Alassa).Therearealsosomepartlycarved (worked)piecesofstone that are often used among unworkedstoneblocks (rubblestones) indomesticbuildingsoftheEarlyBronzeAge(MarkiAlonia)tothe Late Bronze Age (Hala Sultan Tekke,Enkomi etc.).Ashlarblockswith all facesperfectlyworked toshapeandusuallyofuniformsize and occupying the entire thickness of thewall occurredmainly during theClassical period (true ashlar masonry). Ashlar was always left exposed on the external facades ofbuildings,andforthisreasonitsusehadanimportantaestheticvalue inaddition to its structuralone.

Theuseofstonehasalwaysbeenassociatedwith the geology of each area, the immediateenvironment of the settlements and the availabilityofsuitablematerialtobequarried.Thesefactors resulted in theemergenceof theuseofdifferent types of rock in the various areas of

the island and in the absence of the use ofdressed stones in areas where suitable rockswerenotavailableespeciallyduringtheearliestperiodsofantiquity.

Theinitialappearanceofashlarsdidnottakeplace simultaneously in every civilization duetomany factors (available rocks,urbanization,bronzetoolsetc.).InEgyptitsuseisdatedbacktothebeginningofthethirdmillenniumandinSyria to the middle of the same millennium(Hult1983).InUgarit(Wright1985),ashlarappeared in the beginning of the secondmillennium.The extensivedefences ofEbla (DamascusGateway) dating to the Early andMiddleBronzeAge (3rd and 2ndMillennium BC)wereconstructedwiththeuseofashlar(Hadjisavvas2007). In Palestine, somewhat limited use ofashlarcanbeobserved in theMiddleandLateBronzeAge. InAnatoliaandmainlandGreece,this techniquewas adoptedduring the end oftheMiddle and especially in the beginning oftheLateBronzeAge (Hult1983).Morespecifically, limestone blocks with a regular shapewerefoundtobeusedinmanypartsofGreeceduring thePrehellenicperioddue to the easyway inwhichrocksweresplit intorectangularblocks(Laurence1983).

The development of ashlar in Crete isthoughttooriginateintheEarlyMinoanperiod(Shaw 1983). Ashlar masonry seems to havebeeninitiallyusedineliteresidenceslocatedinthesurroundingsofurbansettlementsofCrete(Mallia, Chrysolakkos: Schoep 2006). MonumentalarchitectureinCreteusingashlarblocks(orthostatsetc.)wasobserved from theMiddleMinoan period onwards (Phaistos, MalliaChrysolakkos,QuarterMu,Hypostyle Crypt).Shortly after the beginning of theMiddleMinoanperiod, largeorthostatswereused in theMiddleMinoan IB palaces at Phaistos and atChrysolakkos,which constitute the earliest examplesoforthostats in theAegeanarea (Shaw1983).AccordingtoDriessenandSchoep(1995),for the rest of the island of Crete during theMiddleMinoan IIperiod,orthostatsareabsentandashlarisverylimiteduntiltheLateMinoanperiod.In theMiddleBronzeAge inthesettlementofKeos, largeroughlysquared limestoneblockswereusedfor theconstructionofanewdefensive system, while in northern Rhodes

THEINITIALAPPEARANCEOFASHLARSTONEINCYPRUS.SSUESOFPROVENANCEANDUSE 39

ashlar masonry appeared during the LateBronzeAgeIandII(Davis1992).

InCyprus, the firstuseofashlar isdated totheLateBronzeAge IIC (13251225BC)whenthe first public and administrative buildingcomplexes appeared (Kalavasos, Maroni). Itwas more widespread later during the LateBronzeAge IIIA (12251125BC)when the firsturban centerswith buildings of differentiateduse were established in various sites such asEnkomi,Kition,Kouklia andMyrtou. Theuseof ashlar is related to the widespread use ofbronzetoolsatthatperiod(Philokyprou1998a).Theappearanceofashlaralwaysdemandedthefulfillment of some prerequisites (appropriatetypeof rock, tools,wealth, socialorganization,availableworkforce).This is the reason for thetime difference in the dissemination of thistechniqueinthevariouscultures.

Fig.1.LateBronzeAgesettlementofKalavasos

Fig.2.LateBronzeAgesettlementofKition

Theuseofashlar,inCyprus,duringtheLateBronze Age wasmainly limited to importantpublicbuildingsandadministrativecomplexes(KalavasosAyios Dhimitrios: Fig.1, MaroniVournes,AlassaPalaiotaverna),places ofworship (KitionKathari: Fig.2, KoukliaPalaipaphos, MyrtouPighades, Enkomi) andmajorresidentialcomplexes,someofwhichareconsideredaspalaces.Toalesserdegree,ashlarwas used in fortifications, simple houses andtombs.Thus,themoreprimitivetemples(ruralworship places) of the beginnings of the LateBronze Age (e.g. Ayios Iakovos, DhaliAmbelleri) constructedmainly of rubble stonewere succeededby theashlarmonumentalurban structuresof theLateBronzeAge.Tombsconstructedentirelyofstoneandinsomecasesofashlar stoneappearedalsoduring the sameperiodLateBronzeAge(Westholm1939).

EXPERIMENTALWORKANDRESULTS

Aimsandmethodologyofresearch

Inthispaper,theresultsofafirstsystematicresearch aiming to investigate the differenttypesandusesofashlarstoneaswellasthedifferent structural solutions followedduring theearliestperiodsofantiquity inCyprusarepresented. At the same time, comparisons aremadewiththeuseofashlarinotherMediterranean areas aswell as in the recent vernacularbuildingsof the island (19thandearly20thcenturies) in order to investigate similarities anddifferences in characteristics and constructiontechniques.The researchaimedatascertainingthe composition of the various types of stoneused and the reasons for theparticularuse ofeach type.Thisresearchwasconsideredessentialbecauseof theabsenceofanoverall studyontheuseofashlarstoneinCyprusthroughoutantiquityandtheassociatedstonequarries.

During this research, the different types ofbuildings aswell as the different parts of eachstructurewhere ashlar stonewasusedwere investigated. The present researchwas based primarilyonthestudyofrocksusedasashlarsintheLateBronzeAge settlements inCyprus. For theinvestigation of the provenance of ashlar stone,samples fromdifferent typesof stones from thevariousstructureswereselected formacroscopic

MARIAPHILOKYPROU40

andmicroscopicexamination,followedbyasystematicsurveyaroundtheprehistoricsettlements.Afterascertainingprobablesourceareas,asearchwasmade to find tracesofoldquarrying:channels and trenches in rocks, step formations, etc.Thesecondaryuseofmanyquarriesduringmorerecentperiodsconstitutedaserioushindrance toanyattempttodate theoldquarries,as inmanycases the ancient trace marks have been completely dissipated. Comparisons were made ofsamplesgatheredfromthequarrieswiththeashlarblocksofthesettlementsonthebasisoflithology,porosity,grainsizeandcolour.Petrographictechniqueswereemployedinordertoidentifyallcomponents including mineral matrices in theashlar stoneof each settlementaswellas in thesamplesfromthecorrespondingquarries.

Theselectionofrockstobeusedasashlar

Arockcanbeusedasashlaronlyifitcanbequarried in a sufficient size inorder to satisfythe construction purposes for which it is intended,andifitisfreeofanymineralsthatmaycausechemicaldecompositionorbeaffectedbyweather conditions. In Cyprus, ashlars werealmostexclusivelyderivedfromlocalsedimentary rocks of various geological formations,whichcouldbeeasilyquarriedandatthesametimewereresistant tomechanicalandphysicalstresses.

The finegrained calcareous sandstone thatbelongstothePachnageologicalformationhadthemostwidespreadusesinceitisanespeciallydurable rockwithagoodaestheticappearance(Fig.3). It consistsmainly of biogenic componentswitha fewparticlesofsilicate,allboundtogetherbymicrocrystallinecalcite,micriteandsparite.Useof theaboverockcanbeobservedin theLateBronzeAgesites inKalavasos,Maroni,AlassaandKouklia.

Quarriesof this rockare tobe found in theLimassol,LarnacaandPaphosdistricts(Pachna,Kivides, Tochni etc.). This rock appears veryoften in layersof thicknessrangingfromafewcentimeterstoafewmeters.Betweenthelayersthereareusuallynarrowmarly layers.Insomecasesthenaturalrockdiscontinuationscreatearectangulargridthatservestheeasyremovalofrectangularpiecesofstone.

Fig.3:CalcareoussandstoneofPachnageologicalformation(a.Specimenandb.Thinsectioncross

nicolsshowingadensestructurecomposedofafewparticlesofsilicates(quartzetc.)andmanybiogeniccomponentsboundtogetherbycalcite,micriteand

sparite)

Aratherextensiveusewasmadeofahighly

porous yellowishochre calcareous sandstonethatbelongstotheNicosiaAthalassageologicalformation(Fig.4).Duringtheprehistoricperiod,rocksofthistypewereusedinsecondarystructuresof importantbuildings (Kitionsanctuary)and ina few residentialbuildingsofothersettlements (Hala SultanTekke).All the biogenicand silicate grains of this rock are looselyboundtogetherbymicrosparryandsparrycalcite.According to theclassificationofDunham(1962) this is agrain stone,while according tomore recent publications (Ioannou et al. 2009)this stone can be considered as a vuggy limestone.

QuarriesofthisporouscalcareoussandstonecanbefoundinbothNicosia(Aglantzia,Mammari, Gerolakos etc.) and Larnaca districts(OrokliniandDhekelia).Thelessprevalentuseof this typeofrockcompared to thesandstoneof Pachna formation can be attributed to itsmoderate diagenesis and the weak bondingcomponents, whichmakes it a highly porousrock.

a

b1mm


Fig4:CalcareoussandstoneofNicosiaAthalassa

geologicalformation(a.Specimenandb.Thinsectioncrossnicolsshowingaveryporousrockcomposedmainlyofbiogenicmaterialboundtogetherwith

calciteandmicrite)

Use of the whitish reef limestone that be

longs to the Koronia geological formation,composedmostlyofmicrospar,wasconfinedtosignificant prehistoric buildings such as themagnificent sanctuaries in Kition (Fig.5). Itspleasingcolourandgreatdurabilitymakesthisstoneparticularlyattractiveforwhatmusthavebeen very impressive monumental structures.Quarries of this rock have been discovered intwo places: Potamos tou Liopetriou andMosfiloudhia,southwestofthevillageofXylofagou(Xenophontos1985).

In1968at theareaofMosphiloudhiaunfinished statues of theHellenisticRoman periodtogether with three incomplete capitals werefound (Vermeule 1979). It is therefore evidentthatthisquarryhasbeenusedbothforthecarvingofstatuesaswellasforthesupplyofbuilding stones during the Hellenistic and Romanperiods, without precluding the possibility ofanearlieruseofthisquarrypredatingtheseperiods(e.g.LateBronzeAge).

The finegrain chalk thatbelongs to theLefkarageologicalformationhadalimiteduse intheprehistoricperiod.Use of such a rock has

beenobservedatKitionandat theneighbouringLateBronzeAgesettlementofHalaSultanTekke(Fig.6).

Fig.5:WhitishreeflimestoneofKoroniageologicalformation(a.GeneralviewofashlarorthostatsofKitionandb.Thinsectioncrossnicolsshowinga

denserockcomposedmainlyofmicrospar).

Fig.6.FinegrainchalkofLefkarageologicalformation

(a.ThinslabsofchalkusedaswallfacinginabathroominHalaSultanTekkeandb.Thinsectioncrossnicolsshowingmanyfossilsandforaminifersboundtogetherwithmicrocrystallinecalcite)

a

b

a

b 1mm

a

b1mm

a

b1mm

MARIAPHILOKYPROU42

The rock is composed almost entirely ofmicrocrystalline foraminifera, tightly boundtogetherwithmicrite andmicrocrystalline calcite. Itwas used for architectural componentswhich demand fine carving, cutting into thinslabsforwallfacing,basesandthresholds.Rockof this type appears in theKoshi andLymbiaareawherequarry faces can be observed.Another very suitable type of rock used whentherewasademand for finecarvingwasgypsum. Gypusm slabs (called gyphomarmara)were employed during all the prehistoric andhistoric periods because of the abundance ofthismaterialontheislandandtheeasywayofcuttingitintothinslabs.

Inmost of the Late BronzeAge sites onlyone type of rock was used as ashlar for allbuilding purposes, although therewere caseswhereaselectiveuseoftwo,threeormoredifferent types of rockwereused invery important building complexes (such as the ancientKitiontemples).Itisthereforeevidentthatsincethe Late Bronze Age there has been a clearknowledge of the qualities, properties and ca

pabilities on which the selection of the mostsuitable type of rock was based. These rockswere transported from the nearby quarries onland or via the sea (Xenophontos 1985). It isclear that the prehistoric people decided totransport large pieces of ashlar stone from avery longdistance inorder toobtain themostappropriateanddurable rock for theconstruction of impressive buildings during the LateBronze IIIA period (12251125 BC), whereasother quarries existedmore closely to the settlements butwith less durable rocks (e.g. calcareous sandstone of Athalassa formation)(Fig.7). This practice of transporting a specifictype of stone over a long distance can be observed even inmore ancient periods of antiquity(2100BC)fortheconstructionofimportantmonuments such as the Stonehedge. Despitethe fact that the huge trilithons of the Stonehedgeweremadeoflocalstone,theBluestonesfor the construction of the inner part of themonument were transported from over 250milesaway,fromthePreseliHillsinPembrokeshire,WestWales(Jones2008,Wright2000).

Fig.7.GeologicalmapofKitionareashowingtheprovenanceofashlarstonefortheconstruction

oftheancientKitiontemples


The investigationof theancientquarries revealed that during antiquity the quarrying ofstonefollowedmoreorlessonegeneralmethod(Fig.8).The stone tobequarriedwas removedfromtheparentrockbytheopeningofcircumferentialtrenchestotherequireddepthwiththeuse of axes, chisels, saws and sometimeswedges. This procedure was followed by theundercuttingoftherockwiththeuseoflevers,chisels and more often metal or woodenwedges.Most of the ancient quarrieswere onhill slopes or near the sea and quarryingwascarriedoutinconsecutivesteps.Incaseswheresuitablematerialwasnotpresentatorclose tothesurface,undergroundquarrieswerecreated(e.g.Dhekelia,Gerolakkos,Aglantzia).

Fig.8:PotamostouLiopetriou.Ancientquarry(a.Photo

andb.Sketchplanandsection)

It is important to note that in contrast to

other Mediterranean regions and MainlandGreece, in Cyprus during all prehistoric andevenhistoricperiodsthecalcareoussandstonesconstituted the prime construction materialwhilstmarbleandotherharderandmoredurable materials were almost completely absent.Ontheotherhand,marblewasusedindifferentbuildingsinAtticaandinmanyAegeanislandsdue to the abundance of marble quarries in

theseareas(Kea:Mendoni1998,Kythnos:Chatzianastasiou 1998, Andros: Koutsoukou andKanellopoulos 1990). Soft creamy yellowlimestone,sandstoneaswellasveryhardclosegrainedbluelimestone(sideropetra)wereusedin different settlement of Minoan Crete andwere quarried from the nearby areas of eachsettlement (Rehak and Younger 1998). Limestone and schist stones were used in otherMediterranean areas such as the EuboeaDragonHousesatStyraoftheClassicaltoHellenistic period and were provided from thenearby schistpeaks (Chindiroglou 2010,Reber2010,LiritzisandArtelaris2010).

IntheSyroPalestinianregion,goodbuildingstone such as white coarsegrained limestonewaswidelyused as this rockwas available inall parts of the region. Calcareous sandstonewasdistributed in the coastalplainandbasaltwas only used in monumental buildings becauseof itshardness and for its striking chromaticeffect (Wright1985).Thus, ineachcountrythematerialusedisrelatedtothegeologyofeachparticulararea.Theabsenceofmarbleandother hard (dense)materials inCyprus led tothe widespread use of local calcareous sandstonesinalltheperiodsofantiquity.

Maincharacteristicsofashlarstones

A key feature of the ashlarmasonrywhichhas appeared on the island since the LateBronze Age onwards is the dressing andsmoothingofonly its faceswhichweremeanttobevisible(freevisiblesurfaces)andpartiallyofthesurfacessetagainstotherstones,whereasthe back of the stone almost always remainedunworked. Dressing the stone only on itsvisible face and leaving the back face roughconstitutes a common technique during antiquity in the SyroPalestinian coast, in Crete(Shaw 1973) and Anatolia (Wright 1996), butnot inEgyptandmainlandGreece.Thedressing of the contact surfaces of ashlar stones oftheLateBronzeAgesettlements inCyprusdidnot incorporate anathyroris, which is a verycommon characteristic of the ClassicalmonumentsofMainlandGreece.

Inmany cases there is a smooth, carefullyworkedperipheralband calleddraftedmargin

b

a

MARIAPHILOKYPROU44

on the external visible surfaces of ashlars surroundingacentralpanelthatprotrudesslightly(Fig.9).

Thispanelcalledapergonhadaroughrectangular, unworked orworked flat surface.Agreat variation in the number of draftedmargins and their degree of carving can be observed. These appear either as peripheralaround the faceof the ashlar,or are restrictedalongone,two,orthreesidesofthefaceofthestone(Fig.9).

Insomecases,thesemarginsareclearlyvisible and in other cases hardly distinguishable.Marginswere drafted before commencing thebuildingprocess inorder todirect theplacingof the blocks and to show towhat depth thedressingshouldbe.

Fig.910:DraftedmarginsinLateBronzeAgemasonry(1200BCFig.9)andinacolonialbuilding(19thcen

turyACFig.10)

Inorder todressa stone, it isessential thatfourpointsdefining thesame levelare locatedat its fourcorners.After thecarvingof theperipheralmargins the restof the surface canbemore easily worked. With the help of thesemargins thepiece of stone could be set at exactly thesame levelas theneighboringblocks.Thecentralsurfacewascarvedentirelyorpar

tially before, ormore often, after placing thestone.Duringtheearliestperiodsofantiquity,itseems that this carving processwas as a rulecarriedoutaftertheinstallationofthestoneandsometimes the smoothing work was nevercompleted. Thus the margins are still visibletoday.Working ashlar stonewith the help ofdraftedmarginswas also recognized in otherareasoftheEasternMediterraneanArea(SyroPalestinian coast: Reich 1992, Ugarit: Wright1996andAnatolia:Wright2000)duringthelastquarterofthesecondmillenium.

Fig.1112:Bossesobservedonthesurfacesofashlarstones(Fig.11:AlassaPhoto,Fig.12:KalavasosPlan

andelevations)

Thesemarginswere also employed in Cyprus later during the CyproArchaic andCyproClassical periods (Karageorghis andMaier 1984). The presence ofmargins is alsovery common inmainlandGreece duringArchaic and Classical periods (retaining wall ofAthena Pronaia terrace at Delphi, temple ofAthena Aphaia at Aegina island: Orlandos195960). In thecolonialarchitectureof the late19th and early 20th centuries in Cyprus, thedrafted margins appeared again and werewidelyused in the facadesofpublicbuildingsandprivatehouses (Fig.10).Whilst initially the

10

9

11

12


marginsplayedaclearstructuralrole,theylateracquiredanaestheticvaluesincetheirpresencecreated an interesting decorative effect (Fig.910).Itisageneralruleinmasonrydevelopmentthatfunctionaldevicessurviveduringlaterperiodsasdecorativeones(Wright1992).

Fig.1314.AshlarsfromKitionshowingsmallmortises

atthetopoftheorthostats

Some interesting structural features of theLate Bronze Age ashlar stones are the smallprotrusions (bosses) that are observed in themiddle of their visible surfaces (Fig.1112).Thesewere usually of a square, triangular orirregular cross section and were left on thestonesurfaceatthebeginningofitsworkingsoas to ease its handlingwith the use of levers(Coulton1974).Suchprotrusionscanbe foundboth in the low,nonvisiblepartsofbuildings

as well as in orthostats and other prominentpartsofmasonry.During the finalworkingofthestonesurfacesthebosseswerecutoff.Thereare,however,exampleswhere these remained,probably foreconomic reasons, thus formingadecorative element and being witnesses ofthe initial size of the stone which had beenquarried. Inmost cases, one boss can be observedoneachblock,whilstthereareexamplesof two protrusions usually on corner stones(Kition,Alassa).Thepresenceofbossescanbeusually observed on stones of relatively largesizeusedmainlyinpublicbuildings.Thebossesare very common features of Greek ArchitecturethatcanoftenbeobservedinmanyClassicalmonuments (Temple ofAphaia atAegina,Thesion,Temple ofAthenaNike,Propylaia ofAcropolis:Orlandos195960).

Ontheuppersurfaceofsomeorthostatsandalsoontheuppersurfaceofthelowercourseofthe walls on which these orthostats stood,smallsizedshallowmortises(blindholes)werecut.Theirregularsizeandshapeoftheseholesat the topof the lowercourseofstones lead tothetheoryoftheirpossiblerelationtotheuseofa lever for the placement of the stones abovethem.On the otherhand, theuniform regularform and size of themortises (rectangular orsquare) and the frequency of their appearanceon the topof theorthostats (Fig.1314) indicatetheir possible use in fastening the timber elements of the superstructure.Wooden dowelswouldhavebeenset in theseholes. (KarageorghisandDemas1985).

Methodsofconstructionusingashlar

DuringtheLateBronzeAge,ashlarmasonrywas not employed for building entire structures,mainlyduetoeconomicalreasons.Itsusewas often confined to the lower part of thewallsandfrequentlyintheconstructionofonlycertainpartsofthestructures.Mostofthepublicbuildingshave the lowerpartof theirwalls(socle) constructed entirely of ashlar for betterstabilityand for theprotectionof themasonryagainstrisingdampcausedbycapillaryaction.Inmanycases,theuseofashlarwas limitedtothe visible importantparts of the buildings asshaping ashlars was timeconsuming and ex

MARIAPHILOKYPROU46

pensive.Theuseofashlarcanalsobeobservedin key positions (wall corners, frames of theopenings,etc.).Thisselectiveusereinforcedthestructuresandat the same time createdan interestingaestheticeffect.SelectiveuseofashlarinrubblewallsforimprovingthestabilityofthevariousstructuresappearssincetheprehistoricperiodsintheterritoryofMinoanCrete(Rehakand Younger 1998) and in Ugarit (Hult 1983,Niemeier 1991). These areas share commoncharacteristics during the Late Bronze Age(Niemeier 1991, Cline 1995) that show closeconnectionsbetweenthem(Crete,Cyprus,Ugarit) and underline anAegean presence in theLevant during the Late Bronze Age (Tell elKabri,TellQuasileetc.).

Ashlar stones, since the Late Bronze Agewere usually laid lengthways along both theinteriorandexterior facesofawall,creatingashelltype construction (Alassa, Maroni,Kalavasos:Fig.1516).Oftenasmallnumberofstoneswithawidthequaltothethicknessofthewallorslightlylesswereplacedtransverselyatregular intervalsasheadersconnecting its twofaces(HalaSultanTekke:Fig.16).Thusthemasonrywallacquiredacertaindegreeofstability.Intheshelltypewalls,theintermediatehollowspacebetweenthetwoparallelstonefaceswasusuallyfilledwithrubble,mudandearth.

Fig.1516:Ashlarwallsofshelltype(Fig.15:Kalavasos:Wallwithstoneslaidlengthwaysalongbothfaces.Fig.16:HalaSultanTekke:Wallwithsome

stoneslaidtransverselyasheaders)

This building technique is described byVitruvius (Second Book of Architecture), whoassigns to theGreeks theuseofheaderscalleddiatonoi (Atzeni 2003), but this constructionmethodseemstohavebeenusedsincetheLate

Bronze Age (Cyprus Hala Sultan Tekke,Enkomi:Philokyprou 1998a). It is evident thatAncientGreeksused this technique in amoresystematic and regularway. There are only afewexamplesofcompactstructurescreatedbylarge stones occupying the entire width of awall. Ashlar was, as a rule, combined withother materials, both along the length of thewallaswell as in itsheight.There are severalcases inwhichone single faceof thewallwasbuiltwithashlarmasonrywhile theother interior face, which was of less importance, wasconstructed of rubble. A similar constructiontechniquewith the faces of fortificationwallsbeing constructed with large stones and thespace inbetween filledwithmud and smallerstonescanbeobservedinNeolithicsettlementsinCyprus(Khirokitia:LeBrun1994,KalavasosTenta: Todd 1987) and in the Aegean world(Strofilas fortification wall in Andros: Liritzis2010) aswell as in the cyclopeanwalls of theLate Bronze Age in Cyprus (Kition, Enkomi,Maaetc.).

A simplemethodof construction comprisesthe setting of ashlars in successive horizontalcourses. Coursedmasonrywas not used veryoftenduringtheLateBronzeAgeinCyprusbutsawmuch greater use in the periods that followedanduptomoderntimes.DuringtheLateBronzeAgeinthefewexamplesofcoursedmasonry,thestonesdidnothaveauniformlengthand each successive coursewas of a differentheight. Insomecases,suchasanaltar inMyrtouPighades, there was a reduction of theheight of the consecutive courses of stones(Hult1983).Coursedmasonrywaswidelyusedin the Classical period and Vitruvius (SecondBook of Architecture)mentions the names ofvarious techniques following this system(isodomic,pheudoisodomic).Themost ancientandwelldevelopedcoursedmasonrysystemoftheislandisrepresentedintheLateBronzeAgebuilt tombs of Enkomi (Westholm 1939,Schaeffer1952).Intheroofsofthesetombs,thecorbelling system of building blocks was followedwith slightlymoreprominent blocks insuccessive courses (Westholm 1939).A similarway of roofing using the corbelling system isobservedmainlyintombsofthesameorearlierperiods excavated in Syria, at Ebla (Middle

16 15


BronzeAge:Hadjisavvas 2007), also atUgarit(Late Bronze Age) in Ras Shamra, MinetellBeida, Ras Ibn Hani, as well as in Mycenae(Hult, 1983). The various similarities betweentheCypriotashlartombsandthecorrespondingbutearlieronesofUgaritandSyria(Ebla)indicatethatthelatterwereprobablyprototypesoftheCyprusexamples.ThetombsofEnkomiareprobably associated with new settlers(Achaeans, Sea people),who came to theisland during this period and brought withthemtheirlocaltraditions.

Itisworthmentioningthatwhereasuntiltheendof theEarlyBronzeAgeCyprushadcloserelationsmainlywith the EastMediterranean,since the Middle Bronze Age (19001650 BC)Minoanpottery appearedon the island.Later,attheendoftheMiddleandduringthebeginningoftheLateBronzeAge(17001400BC)theconnections with the Aegean world becamecloserasCyprustookaleadingroleinthetradeof the Eastern Mediterranean. The Minoanships used Cyprus as an intermediate stopwhen travelling to Ugarit. During the LateBronze Age the connectionswith the Aegeanbecamemoreclose(existenceofalargenumberof importedAegean items on the island) andduring 1500BC anewwriting system, the socalledCyproMinoan scriptwas introduced inthe island probably due to the relations betweenCypriotsandMinoans inUgarit.During1450/1400BCmanyMycenean itemswere imported toCyprusandanew typeof localpotterycalledMyceneanMCIIIC:2bappeared thatshowedMycenaeaninfluences.

Thebuilding techniquewhichwasmostoftenusedduringtheprehistoricerainvolvedtheuseoforthostats (uprightplacedstones)setonahorizontal course of larger, slightlyprotrudingstones(calledplinths)(Fig.17).Thismethodhadawideapplicationmainlyduringtheearliestperiodsofantiquity(Philokyprou1998b)butnotatalaterperiod.Intheconstructionofwallswiththeuseoforthostats,severalvariationsasto the method of placing the orhtostats andformingtheirbasecanbeobserved(Fig.17).

Usuallytheorthostatsrestedonahorizontalcourse of ashlar stones (Fig.17. A2) and veryrarely on irregularlyshaped large blocks(Fig.17.A1).Theplinthwaseitherformedintoa

singlehorizontallevel(Fig.17.A2)ortherewasadifferenceinthelevelsbetweenthetwohorizontalstonesof the twosides (Fig.17.A3).Thedifference in the levels might have providedmore stability to the orthostats orwasmerelydue to adifference in theground levelon theinside and outside of the building. There arealso some very elaborate structures with twoseries of orthostats arranged on a single largeashlar(Fig.17.B1).Insomecasestheupperfaceof theplinthsonwhich theorthostatswere tobesethadtworabbetsforplacingandfasteningthe orthostats (Fig.17. B2, B3). Thus, thewallwasmadeentirelyoftrueashlarsandappearedverysolid.Theupperpartoftheorthostatswasformed into a single horizontal levelwith theuse of orthostats of the same or differentheights (Fig.17.B3,C1)oradifference in levelwascreatedbetweenthetwofaceswiththeuseoforthostatsofdifferentheights(Fig.17.C2).

Fig.17.DifferentMethodsoftheorthostatsystem

Therewere some cases of the existence of

rabbets (cut off part of the top surface) alongthe topofbothorthostatsmaintaining the restofthesurfaceinamoreroughcondition(Fig.17.B2).Thismethodresultedinthebettersupportofhorizontaltiebeams,whichprobablyservedasabaseof the superstructure.Sometimes thedouble rowoforthostatswascoveredbyslabsplacedhorizontally surmounted by the timber

MARIAPHILOKYPROU48

andmud brick superstructure. This techniqueofusingorthorstatswasappliedatahighlevelof development during its first appearance inCyprus.Theextensiveuseofthistechniqueandits continuation later, especially when in theneighbouring countries thiswas succeeded bythemethod of building in successive courses,might be a result of the conservatism of theCypriots (Hult 1983).Buildingwith theuseoforthostats appeared in Palestine (Megiddo,BethShear)duringtheMiddleandLateBronzeage (Shiloh, 1979) and inUgarit andAnatolia(TelKabri:Niemeier1991,Alalakh,AlayaHuyuk, etc.) since the secondmillennium. In TelKabri many other aspects of civilization(painted floorsetc.)showcommoncharacteristics with the Minoan civilization (Niemeier1991).AshlarmasonryusingorthostatssetatopafootingcourseconstitutesacommonarchitecturalfeaturemainlyintheProtopalatialpalacesofMinoanCreteandwasrarelyobservedintheNeopalatialpalaces(RehakandYounger1998).The Cypriot technique of orthostats presentsseveral similarities to that used in the SyroPalestine coast and especially that of Ugarit(Shiloh1979)andCrete(Hult1983).

Ashlar,apart from itsuse forwalls,was incorporatedintheconstructionoffloorsandasalining forwallswhichresulted insecuringwatertightness. Thus, a wide application in theconstruction of bathrooms took place (Rehakand Younger 1998; Schoep 2006; Hult, 1983).Floorsofashlarslabsandwallslinedwithverticallyplaced slabs thatwere observed inprehistoric bathrooms in Cyprus (Hala SultanTekke andEnkomi), appeared very frequentlyin the area of Minoan Crete in purificationrooms (Hult, 1983). Similar floors with slabswerealsofound inUgarit(TelKabri:Niemeier1991).However, the examples of Cyprus presentmanysimilaritiesbutalsoshowsomedifferenceswhen comparedwith theMinoan examples (lessglamorousetc.).These floorsmayhaveCretan inspiration but present particularCypriotcharacteristics.

The impermeabilityofashlar stonehasalsoledtotheuseofdressedstonesintheconstruction ofwater channels (Karageorghis andDemas1985),tanksandolivepresses(Philokyprou1998a).Theneed forachievingacarefullypre

pared final appearance of certain architecturalelementsandtheacquisitionofagreaterstabilityledtotheuseofashlarintheconstructionofstaircasesandpillars.Roomswithpillarswerecommon architectural features ofMinoan palaces (Rehak and Younger 1998). Another keyfactorwas the protection ofwooden elements(staircases and supports) frommoisture. Thusthebasesoftimberpostsweremadeofdressedstone.Theparticularaestheticrequirementsandprobably the need to ensure longer life led totheuseof carved stones in the constructionofsymbols of worship during antiquity such assacred horns of consecration, as well asstepped capitals and bases (Late Bronze Age:Fig.1819).Inadditiontohavingsteps,thecapitals are also characterized by a cavetto, similarlymarked.Theoriginofthesecapitalsisnotclearandmaybe related toMinoanaswellasNear East civilizations. These stone elementsplayan importantaestheticroleas theyconstitute the first form of capitals found on the island.

Fig.1819.SteppedcapitalsfromKitionKathari

(Fig.18)andPaphosPalaipaphos(Fig.19)

Incised decorationwas observed only in afew cases during the Late BronzeAge inCyprusandwasobservedmainlyinsomesteppedbases or othermembers of the stonewalls. Inthefirstcase,thedecorationincludesgeometricshapes(rosettes,circles),whileinthelattercasethe illustrationsweremainly boats. Such incisions are observed in the large pillars on the

18

19


southwall of the Temple ofKition 1 and thesacredaltaroftheTemple4(KarageorghisandDemas 1985). The display of ships seems tohaveasymbolicsignificance.Theywereprobably sacred offerings and had a similar role tothe many anchors observed near the holyshrines of Kition (Karageorghis and Demas1985).AsimilarmarkboatwasrecognizedonapieceofcarvedstoneinBtiment18ofEnkomiand dates to the 12th century BC (Schaeffer1952).Graffitiof shipswas also foundon twopieces of carved stone in Hala Sultan Tekke(brink1979).Carvingsonrockwallsofearlierperiods (Neolithic)whichmainly depict shipswerefoundonsomeblocksofAndrosStrofilas(Liritzis2010).Someenigmaticmasonsmarkssometimes incised on ashlars ofporous, sandstone or gypsum, but not always on the exposedouterwallsurface,aretobefoundinProtopalatialpalacesofMinoanCrete (RehakandYounger1998).Incisedlettersandnumberscanbeobserved inmanypiecesofashlarstonesoflater periods (Classical monuments) whichserved for their easier placement into the correct position (Temple of Aphaia, temple ofApollonatDelphi:Orlandos19591960).

DISCUSSIONDuring the Late BronzeAge, the construc

tionsolutionswhichwerefollowedusingashlarmainly depended on the function and size ofthecorrespondingbuildings.Themost impressive structureswere the templesofKitionandKoukliawherehugeorthostatsmeasuringupto5m can be observed. Very elaborate solutionswere followed in the administrative publicbuildings in Kalavasos, Maroni, Alassa andEnkomi.Moresimplesolutionscanbeobservedin smaller residential complexes such as thehousesatHalaSultanTekkeaswellasthefortificationsand tombsatEnkomi (coursesofashlar). It isobvious that socialand religious factorsledtotheuseofashlarsincertainbuildingsand dictated the construction methods to befollowed.Thus,theuseofashlarwasnotbasedonlyonpracticalandaestheticcriteria,asarchitecturereflectsthecultural,social,politicalandeconomiclifeofeveryperiod.Itcanbededucedthat ashlar structures in the Late Bronze Age

wereassociatedwiththeestablishmentofwellorganizedurbancentres (Negbi1986).Theuseof ashlar stone was the result of the generalprosperityofCyprus linkeddirectly to the intensification of the exploitation of copper andtheactiveparticipationintradewithneighbouringcountries(Hadjisavvas2000).Itisclearthattheashlarbuildingsappearasthemostobviousmanifestationof thestatusof theeliteafter theaccomplishmentofa longprocessofurbanization sometime during the Late Bronze Age(Hadjisavvas2000).TheuseofashlarinCyprusinvolvedhigh costs and the availability of theappropriate tools and labournecessary for thequarrying, transportation, processing and installation. Ashlar was definitely a means ofpromotingthewealthandpoweroftheleadersand constituted a symbol of prestige. Ashlarmasonrydidnotappearsimultaneaslyinallthesettlements of the island. In some settlements(Kalavasos,Maroni) ashlar canbe observed intheLateBronzeAge IICwhereas inothersites(Kition,Enkomi,Paphos)itappearedlaterduring the Late BronzeAge IIIA.A similar phenomenon can be observed in Minoan Crete(DriessenandSchoep1995).Atsomesites(MalliaandPseira) thepresenceofashlarwas limited, despite the presence of suitable quarries.Thus,thisproliferationofashlarmasonrymustbe connected to social and political relationships.

Inorder tostudy thecomplexphenomenonoftheinfluencesbetweendifferentcivilizationsandtoarriveatsomeconclusionsregardingtheuseofashlar, it isessential to investigateotherarchitecturalcharacteristicsofashlarbuildings.For example, some of the prehistoric ashlarbuildingsof the island (Maroni,Kalavasos)established in the Late Bronze Age IIC sharecommon features. They were built on specialcommandingpositionsandwereprovidedwithsomespacious roomsandconsiderablestoragefacilities. It isnoteworthy that theconstructiontechniquesofashlarmasonryareverysimilarinthemajorityofthesettlementsontheislandindicatingaquiteuniformcivilization (Hadjisavvas2000).Atthesametime,theintroductionofsome other innovative architectural elementswith social interpretations in Cyprus such asthecyclopeanwalls,thecentralhearthsandthe

MARIAPHILOKYPROU50

bathtubsnot found inpreviousperiodsconstituted important characteristics of the civilization of thisperiod and lead todirect relationswith theAegeanworld. It seems that CyprusduringtheLateBronzeAgehadverymuchinteraction with Crete and the SyroPalestinecoast.ThesimilaritieswithAnatolia,EgyptandmainlandGreecearefewer(Hult1983).S.Hadjisavvas(2007)connectsthehistoryoftheashlarbuildingsofCypruswithanAegeantribe,mostprobably the Achaeans, whomoved to theislandofCyprusaspartof thecolonizationbytheSeaPeoples.

In the recent vernacular architecture of thelast two centuries,no special innovationswithregard to theuseof ashlar stone and the construction methods followed can be observedcompared to the prehistoric examples (Ionas1988, Sinos 1976). Themost significant differenceregardsthemorewidespreaduseofashlarin the lastcenturies.Althoughduring theLateBronzeAge ashlar constructionswere encounteredalmostexclusively inmonumentalpublicbuildings, in the recentvernaculararchitectureof the 19th and 20th centuries, ashlarwas alsousedinsimpledomesticstructures.Inthelattercase, thismay be attributed not only to socialfactorsbutalsotopracticalissues,suchaseaseofquarryingandcuttingand transportationascomparedwith the requirementsofagreat labourforceneededduringtheLateBronzeAge.Social and economic reasons also lead to thewidespread use of ashlar as the communitychangedandmorepeoplecouldtakeadvantageof this ashlarmasonry.Thepreference for theuse of coursed masonry in recent vernaculararchitectureandnotthesystemoftheorthostatscanbe attributed to itsmore simple structuralrequirements and its easier incorporation intodomesticstructures.

Some of the characteristics and buildingtechniques observed in the Late Bronze Agestructuresaswellas invernaculararchitectureofthe19thand20thcenturiesaretobefoundinstructuresofvarioushistoricalperiods (Classical,Romanetc.),perhapspassingfromonegeneration to theother,and thuscovering thegapbetweenprehistoryandrecentvernaculararchitecture. These observations underline the con

servativeattitudeof theCypriotsandshowanexcellent constructiondevelopmentduring thevery earlyperiods of antiquity. Since theLateBronzeAge theancientbuildersdevised someexcellent solutions that were followed on theislandwithouttheneedforgreatimprovementsandchanges.Thesamestructuralrequirementsin identical climatic and environmental conditions and the same availability of materialshaveprobablyledpeopleofdifferentperiodstoresort to similar simple and functional solutions.

CONCLUSIONhe appearance of ashlar stone in Cyprus

during the Late Bronze Age was associatedwiththegreatprosperityoftheareaduringthisperiodand thedevelopmentof the firsturbansettlements. Some characteristics of ashlarmasonry (drafted margins etc.) and methods ofconstruction (orthostats) observed in Cyprusduring theLateBronzeAgeare tobe found inthe ashlarmasonry of neighbouring countries(Near East, Aegean World) showing connections and relationsbetween these civilizations.The same characteristicswere also recognizedinthestructuresoflaterperiods(Classical,Hellenistic)andeveninthevernaculararchitectureofthe19thand20thcenturies.

Thechoiceofthestonesusedasashlarswasalwaysrelated to thegeologyofeachareaandwasalsodictatedbysocial,economicandfunctionalcriteria.Thedifferenttypesofstonesemployed in the same settlement showed theroutesfollowedforthetransportationofashlarsandgivevaluableinformationabouttheleveloftechnology during the Late Bronze Age. Itshowsthatthebuildersacquiredtheknowledgeofselectingthebestqualityofrockforeachparticularuseveryearly.Thisexplains thepreferenceof transportinga typeofrockovera longdistancedespitethefactthattherewasarathergoodqualityofrocknearertoasettlement.Thetransportation of stone over longdistances reveals key facts about the organization of thegroupsofworkers responsible for the erectionofthemonumentalpublicbuildingsoftheLateBronzeAge.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThisarticleisbasedmainlyonanunpublishedPhDthesisonBuildingMaterialsandStructures

oftheArchitectureinPrehistoricCyprusFromtheNeolithicperioduntiltheLateBronzeAge(inGreek),thatwassubmittedbytheauthorintheUniversityofCyprusandwassupervisedbyProfessorVassosKarageorghis.ValuablescientificassistancewascontributedbyDr.CostasXenophontos,ageologistoftheDepartmentofGeologicalSurveyandfinancialsupportfortheresearchwasofferedbytheA.G.LeventisFoundation.Inaddition,valuableinformationincludedinthisarticleisderived from furthermultidisciplinaryresearch thatwascarriedoutrecently in theUniversityofCyprusincollaborationwithGovernmentDepartments.

REFERENCESAtzeni,C. (2003)Stonemasonry inruralSardinianbuilding.Evolutionof the traditionalbuilding

techniquesbetweenXIX andXX century.Proceedings of the first InternationalCongress onConstruction History Madrid 20th24th January 2003, ed. S. Huerta, Madrid: I. Juan deHerrera,ETSAM,A.E.Benvenuto,COAM,F.Dragados,279289.

Chatzianastasiou,O. (1998)Notes fromKythnos ( ), inMendoniL.G.andazarakisAinianA.I.(eds.),KeaKythnos:HistoryandArchaeology.ProceedingsofanInternationalSymposium,KeaKythnos,2225June1994,27,259273.

Chindiroglou,M. (2010)Thearchaeological research in the regionof themodernmunicipalityofStyra:OldandNewFinds,MediterrraneanArchaeologyandArchaeometry,Vol.10,No.3,1928.

Cline,E.H.(1995)Tinker,Tailor,Soldier,Sailor:MinoansandMyceneansAbroad,Aegaeum12,265283.

Coulton,J.J.(1974)LiftinginEarlyGreekArchitecture,JournalofHellenisticStudiesVol.94,119.Davis,J.L.(1992)ReviewofAegeanPrehistoryI:TheIslandsoftheAegean,AmericanJournalofArh

caeology,Vol.96,No.4,699756.Driessen,J.andSchoep,I.(1995)ThearchitectandtheScribe.PoliticalImplicationsofArchitectural

andAdministrativechangesonMMIILMIIIACrete,Aegaeum12Vol.II,649664.Dunham,R.J.(1962)Classificationofcarbonaterocksaccordingtodepositionalstructure,inHam,

W.E.(ed.),ClassificationofCarbonaterocks,AAPGMemoirs.1,108121.Hadjisavvas,S. (2000)AshlarBuildingsand theirRole inLateBronzeAgeCyprus, inActs of the

ThirdInternationalCongressofCypriotStudies,Nicosia,387398.Hadjisavvas,S. (2007)Whowere theresidentsof theashlarbuildings inCyprus?,Patrimoinescul

turels enMditerraneorientale: recherch scientifique et enjeux identitaires,1eratelier (29Novembre2007):Chypre,unestratigraphiedelidentit.RecontresscientifiquesenlignedelaMaisondelOrientetdelaMditerrane,Lyon.

Hult, G. (1983) Bronze Age AshlarMasonry in the EasternMediterranean, Cyprus, Ugarit and theNeighbouringRegions(StudiesintheMediterraneanArchaeologyLXVI),Gteborg.

IoannouI.etal.(2009)Applicationofthesharpfrontmodeltocapillaryabsorptioninavuggylimestone,EngineeringGeology,Vol.105,2023.

Ionas, J. (1988)LaMaisoneRuraledeChypre. (XVIIXXesicle).AspectsetTechniquesdeConsturction,PublicationsoftheScienceResearchCentre.Nicosia.Cyprus.

Jones,D.(2008)NewLightonStonehenge,SmithosianMagazine,October.Karageorghis,V.andMaier,F.G.(1984)Paphos.HistoryandArchaeology,A.G.LeventisFoundation,

Nicosia.Karageorghis,V.andDemas,M. (1985)Excavations atKitionV.ThePrePhoenicianLevels, III,De

partmentofAntiquities,Nicosia.Koutsoukou,A.andKanellopoulos,C.(1990)TowersfromNorthWestAndros,BritishSchoolofAr

chaeology85,155174.

MARIAPHILOKYPROU52

Lawrence,A.W.1983:GreekArchitecture,YaleUniversityPress,NewHavenandLondon.LeBrun,A.(1984)FouillesRcentKhirokitia(Chypre)197781,EditionsRecherchesur lesCivilisa

tions,Paris.LeBrun,A.(1994)FouillesRcentKhirokitia(Chypre)198891,EditionsRecherchesur lesCivilisa

tions,Paris.Liritzis, I. (2010)Strofilas (Andros Island,Greece):Newevidence for theCycladic finalNeolithic

periodthroughnoveldatingmethodsusingluminescenceandobsidianhydration,JournalofArchaeologicalScience,Vol.37,Issue6,June2010,13671377.

Liritzis,I.andArtelaris,G.(2010)AstronomicalOrientationsofDragonHouses(LakaPalli,Kapsal,Oche) and Armena Gate (Euboea, Greece), Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry,Vol.3,No.3,4152.

Mendoni,L.G.(1998)ThetowersofKea,additionsandnotifications(: ) (in Greek), In Mendoni, L.G. Mazarakis, Ainian A.I. (eds.),KeaKythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium,KeaKythnos,2225June1994,Meletemata1927,275307.

Negbi,O.(1986)TheClimaxoftheUrbanDevelopmentinBronzeAgeCyprus,ReportoftheDepartmentofAntiquities,Cyprus,97121.

Niemeier, W.D. (1991): Minoan Artisans Travelling Overseas: The Alalakh Frescoes and thePaintedPlasterFlooratTelKabri(WesternGalilee),Thalassa.LEgeprhistoricetlamer.ActesdelatroisimeRencontregenneinternationaldelUniversitdeLige,Stationderecherchsousmarinesetocanographiques.Calvi.Corse(2325Avril1990),Aegaeum7,189210.

brink,U.(1979)HalaSultanTekke5.ExcavationsinArea22,19711973and19751978(SIMAXLV:5).Gteborg.

Orlandos,A.K.(195960)BuildingMaterialsofAncientGreeksandMethodsofConstruction,Vol.2,()(inGreek),Athens 1958,Libraryof theArchaeological SocietyofAthens ( .37).

Philokyprou,M.(1998a)BuildingMaterialsandStructuresinAncientCypriotArchitectureunpublishedPh.D.Thesis,DepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofCyprus.

Philokyprou,M.(1998b)BuildingMaterialsandMethodsemployedinPrehistoricandTraditionalArchitectureinCyprus,inEthnographyofEuropeanTraditionalCultures,Arts,CraftsofHeritage,CentreofVocationalTrainingInstituteofCulturalStudiesofEuropeandtheMediterranean,Athens,150164.

Reber,K. (2010)TheDragonHousesofStyra:Topography,ArchitectureandFunction,MediterraneanArchaeologyandArchaeometryVol.10,No.3,5361.

Rehak,P.andYounger,G,1998:ReviewofAegeanPrehistoryVII:NeopalatialFinalPalatialandPostpalatialCrete,AmericanJournalofArchaeology,Vol.102,No.1,91174.

Reich,R. (1992)BuildingMaterialsandArchitectureElements inAncient Israel, inA.KempinskiandR.Reich(ed.),TheArchitectureofAncientIsraelfromthePrehistorictothePersianPeriods,Jerusalem,116.

Schoep, I. (2006)Lookingbeyond the firstpalaces:Elitesand theAgencyofPower inEMIIMMIICrete,AmericanJournalofArchaeology,Vol.110,No.1,3764.

Shaw,J.W.(1973)MinoanArchitecture:MaterialsandTechniques.AnnuariodellaScuolaArcheologicadiAteneetdelleMissioniItalieneinOrienteXLIX.NuovaSerie331,Rome.

Shaw,J.W.(1983)TheDevelopmentofMinoanOrthostates,AmericanJournalofArchaeology87,231216.

Schaeffer,C.F.A.(1952)EnkomiAlasiaI.NouvellesMissionsenChypre194650.Paris.Shiloh,Y.(1979)TheProtoaeolicCapitalandIsraeliteAshlarMasonryQedem2Jerusamen.Sinos,S.(1976).AReviewoftheVernacularArchitectureofCyprus.Athens.Todd,I.A.(1987)VasilikosValleyProject6.ExcavationsatKalavasosTenta(SIMALXXI:6).Gteborg.


Vermeule,C.(1979)AnImperialCommemorativeMonumentneverfinished:ApossibleMemorialoftheTrajansEasternConquests,atSalamisonCyprus.inV.Karageorghisetal.(ed.),StudiesPresentedinMemoryofPorphyriosDikaios.Nicosia,189193.

Westholm,A.(1939)BuiltTombsinCyprus.OpusculaArchaeologica,Rome,2958.Wright,G.R.H.(1985)AncientBuildinginSouthSyriaandPalestine,E.J.Brill,Leiden.Wright,G.R.H.(1992)AncientBuildinginCyprus,E.J.Brill,Leiden.Wright,G.R.H.(1996)MaterialsandTechniquesoftheBronzeandIronAges,inMeyers,E.M.(ed.),

TheOxfordEncyclopediaofArchaeologyintheNearEast.1,363378.Wright,G.R.H.(2000)AncientBuildingTechnology.Vol.I.HistoricalBackground,Leiden.Xenophontos,C.(1985)AppendixVIII:KitionBuildingStoneanditsResources.InV.Karageorghis

andM.Demas,ExcavationsatKition.V.ThePrePhoenicianLevels.I,Nicosia,431437.

the initial appearance of ashlar stone in cyprus

Documents