You are on page 1of 23

The Archaeology of Community on Bronze Age Cyprus: Politiko "Phorades" in Context Author(s): A.

Bernard Knapp Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 107, No. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 559-580 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: . Accessed: 06/04/2011 11:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.


Archaeology of

Phorades in


Bronze Context



the and the archaeological ple. In reality, community assemblageare one. The livingcomponentof the asand identifiedin semblages, subassemblages, artifacts archaeologymayonly be ignored at our peril.1 Archaeologists have long studied households, regions, cultures, civilizations, and world systems but only very recently have they focused specifically on the concept of community,2including the mining community.3 Canuto and Yaeger's volume on the archaeology of New World communities represents a recent watershed in these developments.4 Over the past decade, the study of human communities has also attained some prominence in European social anthropology,5Latin American ethnography,6social geography,7and anthropological theory generally.8The all-encompassing study of landscape and place9 also incorporates, quite naturally, the study of community.10 A social archaeology of the 21st century,whether practiced in the Anglo-American or European tradition, must take account of the concept of communityin order to move beyond binaryconstraints contrasting the local and global, the natural and ideational, processual and postprocessual- and to see how our understandings of locality, community, and region help to construct concepts of identi-

Thestudy humancommunities central a social of is to evidence fromseveral archaeology. Reviewing published andunpublished on prehistoric sites and Cyprus, in particular fromtherecently concluded excavations Politiko at this the Phorades, articleconsiders conceptof "commuand to nity" howit maybe relevant archaeology. Having established relevance,the focus then falls on the this and remoteminingcommunity, which socially spatially the and of represents work- living-space people drawn of togetherby the imperatives time and labor.Do the and that such expediency impermanence characterize in communities the modernworldfind echoes in the It that prehistoric past? is suggested the conceptof place wasinstrumental structuring in BronzeAge communisite formedpartof ties,andthatthe smelting atPhorades a nested,regional with socialorgacommunity a distinct nizationand communication networks linkedto other and regional supra-regional polities.* If we can accept the culturally patternedassemblage of familymemberswithina householdas material culture . . . , then it becomes obviousthata whole range of data normallyin the domain of the ethnologist shouldalsobe consideredfrom the materialperspective.The sameappliesto the dispositionof these famcalledcommunities. One defilyunitsinto aggregates inition of an archaeological is assemblage simplythe materialremainsof a community. we However, must rememberthat communitiesare composed of peo-

* Theoriginal version thisstudy presented a symof was in

ganized by Emma Blake at the 2001 annual meeting of the for . Society American Archaeology(NewOrleans,Louisiana) I am gratefulto EmmaBlakefor invitingme, and to the British of of Academyand the University Glasgow Faculty Artsfor the financialsupport that enabled me to attend the meetings. I alsowishto thankseveral people who readand commentedon earlier drafts of this paper: Fokke Gerritsen (Universityof , Amsterdam) MichaelGivenand Petervan Dommelen (Universityof Glasgow),LisaKealhofer(SantaClaraUniversity), PriscillaKeswani (independentscholar),SturtManning(Universityof Reading), Lynn Meskell (Columbia University), EmmaBlake(University Michigan) andseveral of , anonymous referees.I alsothankjayNoller and SturtManningfor providthe ing additionalinformationon, respectively, geomorphologicalandAMSdatingaspects.SturtManningalsoproduced withfigs. la-Id; MichaelGivenpreparedfigs.2 and 3. Finally, out the dedication,hardwork,and ideasof mycolleaguesVasilikiKassiandiou of , (University Cyprus)MichaelDonnelly(inArchaeodependentscholar), PaulDuffy(Glasgow University American 107 (2003) 559-80 Journal of Archaeology 559
to orposium, Archaeological Approaches Localityand Community,

, logicalResearchDivision/GUARD)JayNoller (OregonState , University) and Svenvan Lokeren (University College Lonthere would be no data to interdon) in excavatingPhorades, pret in termsof an archaeologyof communities.Mostof the people mentioned here could be seen as at leastpartlyculpable for the ideas I havepresentedin this study,but not necessarilyfor the wayI have expressedthem. 'DeetzW^ 11. 2 E.g., Wilk and Ashmore 1988; MacEachernet al. 1989; Schwartz Falconer1994;Kolband Snead 1997;Maxham and 2000; Gerritsen2003. 3 Douglass1998;Knapp1998, 3-8. 4Canutoand Yaeger2000. 5Lovelll998. 6Low 2000. 7Pred 1986;Soja 2000. 8 Guptaand Ferguson 1997;Amit 2002;Robin and Rothschild 2002. 9Ashmoreand Knapp1999;Anschuetzetal. 2001;Thomas 2001. 10 E.g., Blul996.




ty and to shape historical processes of formulating place. This article uses a case study from prehistoric Cyprus to consider how communities may form and endure, and whether and how locality or community may be read as material expressions of social relationships (see the quote from Deetz above). No less important, it seeks to transcend divisions between Old and New World archaeology. First I present an overviewof evidence from a recent excavation on Cyprus11 order to assess a spein cific archaeological problem: how and why did industrial and agricultural communities arise during the Bronze Age in the peripheral foothills of Cyprus's Troodos Mountains?How can a detailed evaluation of their social and spatial setting inform an archaeology of community, and at the same time help us to reconstruct patterns of regional settlement on prehistoric Cyprus? Having raised these issues and introduced the local situation on Cyprus, I review the concept of community more generally and archaeological approaches to that concept specifically, drawing upon recent and related studies in both the New World and Old. I move on to examine the construct of the mining community and then discuss how we might develop a more nuanced archaeology of community. I emphasize the expediency and impermanence that characterize socially and spatiallyremote mining communities, and discuss how such recent or contemporary communities may find echoes in the prehistoric past. Using the concept of the "imagined communiI ty"12 then discuss the Cypriotcase study in its local and regional context. I argue that place was instrumental in structuring Bronze Age industrial landscapes, and that the archaeological site of Politiko Phorades formed part of a broader, self-contained regional communitywith a distinct social organization and communication networks linked to other regional and interregional politico-economic entities.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Among the 14th-century B.C. cuneiform archives found at the site of Amarna in Egypt were several letters sent from the king of Cyprus (Alashiya) to the Egyptian pharaoh. From them we learn unequiv-

ocally that copper was produced locally on Cyprus, and in quantities sufficient to merit regal attention and intervention.13 Another earlier, 18th-century B.C. cuneiform text from Mari (on the Euphrates River, Syria) mentions "mountain copper" from Alashiya,14which arguably refers to copper-ore deposits in the Troodos Mountains of Cyprus. The mining, production, and export of Cypriot copper peaked during the Late Bronze Age (about 16001200 B.C.), a time of settlement growth, unprecedented prosperity, and developing social complexity. Along the Cypriot coast arose urban centers with notable public buildings and harbors, their wealth stemming from widening trade contacts in the eastern Mediterranean.15 Cyprus 's most lucrative export at this time was copper, traded in oxhide-shaped ingots weighing about 65 pounds each. Such ingots are widely regarded as an internationally accepted unit of trade during the Late Bronze Age; they have been found at a number of sites throughout the eastern Mediterranean and as far west as Sicily and Sardinia.16 The Uluburun shipwreck, discovered off the southern coast of Turkey,17 carried almost 1 1 tons of copper in the form of these same oxhide ingots, some of which are now argued to be consistent with production from Cypriot copper ores,18 albeit not from any single ore deposit.19 Because the ship was also carrying a quantity of Cypriot pottery, including lamps and other manifestly unused items (and thus stock en route to a market), Cyprus must have been a major port of call for the Uluburun ship before disaster struck. This historical scenario is well known among Mediterranean archaeologists,20 while the oxhide ingots represent the end product of a complex industrial process involving the mining, smelting, and casting of copper. Until very recently, however, archaeologists working on Cyprus concerned themselves chiefly with the finished products of this process: the ingots themselves or the objetsd 'artcrafted from them. The spatial scale and social organization that lay behind the unprecedented levels of economic development during the Late Bronze Age has received some attention in the literature.21 And, while the prescriptive settlement system proposed almost 40 years ago22 has to some extent been

11 and 1998;Knapp Knapp, Donnelly, Kassianidou etal. 1999,2001,2002. 12Isbell 2000, see furtherbelow. 13Moran 1996. 14Sassonl996, 18. 15 Knapp 1986. 16Muhlyetal. 1988.

17Pulakl998. 18 Gale 2001, 125. et 19Hauptmann al. 2002, 18-9. 1982;Knapp2000. 20Muhly 1982; Merrillees1992;Keswani1993;Webb and 21Muhly Frankel1994. 22 Catling 1962.




tested on the ground,23only recently has it become the object of theoretical and quantitativeattention.24 Despite this work, however, almost everything we know about regional settlement systems, or about the industrial and agricultural processes and social practices that lay behind them, is conjectural, or reconstructed on the basis of later evidence. Beginning in 1992, the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project (SCSP) set out to change that situation.
THE SYDNEY CYPRUS SURVEY PROJECT AND THE EXCAVATIONSAT POLITIKO PHORADES One primary aim of SCSP25was to examine the ways in which human communities emerged and developed in the northern Troodos foothills of Cyprus. We pursued this aim by classifying sites and settlements with reference to their chronological placement, internal organization, and their spatial and functional relationships with other activity areas in the survey region. For reasons explained at length in the final publication,26 we defined a settlement as any "site" containing material remains in close association with architectural features spread over 1 ha or more, or including several distinct structures. "Prehistoric" sites without architecture presented more specific problems:27 slag heaps, lithic scatters, and industrial installations, for example, might be regarded as sites, but not as settlements. Another main concern of SCSP was to consider how settlement location and patterns were related to metallurgical and agricultural resources. Based on evidence of known mining regions and historical or prehistoric mining communities on Cyprus,28 we expected to find two key components of the settlement hierarchies proposed in the literature: industrial sites (smelting areas, slag heaps, mines) and the agricultural villages that supported them. During the course of the survey, project geomorphologist Jay Noller (Oregon State University) observed a large quantity of slag and furnace material eroding out of the bank of a dry creek bed, enough cultural material to indicate an industrial installation. The site, now designated Politiko Phorades, proved to be a small copper-smelting workshop.29 Radiocarbon dates, well-stratified pottery, and the geological setting all place Phoradesin an early phase of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1700-1500 B.C.). Pale-

oenvironmental analysis, including detailed geomorphological mapping and stratigraphical study of soils and sediments, reveals an approximately 15,000 year record of environmental change in the Kouphos River valley, where Phorades is situated. One of the key stratigraphic sections of the ancient Kouphos River sediments is a stream-bank exposure that includes the Phorades site materials. In this exposed section, Phorades materials overlie river channel sediments dated to about 2000 B.C. by soil-carbonate morphology and radiocarbon dates on detrital charcoal. The Late Cypriot pottery recovered from Phorades (White Slip I and II [early], Monochrome, Plain White Wheelmade and Plain White Handmade, Red Lustrous Wheel Made, Black Slip, Red Slip Wheelmade, Base Ring I) was found almost exclusively within the site's clearly stratified metalworking levels; the limited amount recovered provides a further indicator of the specialized nature of this site. The dearth of coarse wares and the presence of what may be considered nonutilitarian fine-ware, or elite pottery styles (e.g., White Slip, Base Ring, Black Slip, Red Lustrous, one possible Aegean import) suggest that somebody at Phorades had access to what we usually regard as higher-status goods (typically seen in funerary contexts). An anomalous and intrusive conical boulder, with a small deposit of calcined bone found at its base, suggests other activities, but whether these were ceremonial30 or simply commensal in nature is a matter of debate. Currently there are six radiocarbon determinations from Phorades,with six more under way. These six samples give a range of ages; one sample in particular is much older than the rest (OxA-9972), while another is significantly younger (OxA-7013) (see fig. la). In both these extreme cases, the laboratory measurement errors are large and the samples fall toward the technical limits for possible dating, making these samples less reliable than the others. The other four dates offer a more coherent picture, with calibrated age ranges from the start of the second millennium B.C. through the end of the 16th century B.C. (fig. lb). Such a range of ages might well be argued to display the real and varying ages of tree rings in charcoal employed for smelting ores (with OxA-9932 perhaps the inner

1981;Manningand Conwell1992;Rupp1993, 23E.g.,Swiny in press;Manninget al. 1994. 24 E.g., Keswani1996;Knapp1997. 25 Givenet al. 1999;Givenand Knapp2003. 26 Givenand Knapp2003, 26-9. 27 Bintliffetal. 1999. Cf.

28 Constantinou1992. 29 1998;Knappet al. 1999, Donnelly,andKassianidou Knapp, and of 2001,2002.Detailedpresentation discussion allthe data outlined here willappearin Knappet al. (forthcoming) . 1992, 212. 30Karageorghis




distributions Calibrated determinations. radiocarbon probability Fig. la. Phorades dataset calibration determined OxCal(Bronk 1995)usingtheINTCAL98 Ramsey by showthe first, distribution et (Stuiver al. 1998).The lines undereach probability confidencerangesrespectively. deviation by (Prepared second,and thirdstandard Sturt Manning) W. rings of a longer-lived tree). The more recent ages in such a set would then provide termini post quos relativelyclose to the real age of human use. Three of the determinations lie close to each other (OxA8521, OxA-9818, OxA-9817), and offer a relatively coherent "phase"most likely placed within the time range of about 1700-1500 B.C. (see figs, lc and Id). An array of evidence demonstrates that Phorades was a primary copper smelting workshop. All the slags recovered derive from large, "plano-concave" Durcakes, a type previously unknown on Cyprus.31 1998 season we found a small piece of matte, ing the an intermediate product in the smelting process and thus extremely rare in archaeological excavations. Matte would have had to undergo further treatment before being converted into black copper, which itself would have to be refined further in order to produce metal of the purity found in some copper oxhide ingots.32 The presence of was matte demonstrates beyond doubt that Phorades a primary smelting workshop. Secondary smelting and refining may have taken place at the site, somewhere in the surrounding mining region, at intermediate production centers like Athienou,33or in the coastal towns from which the ingots of copper were exported.34 Over three field seasons we recovered more than 3.5 tons (some 20,000 pieces) of slag, along with almost 6,000 fragments of furnace rims, walls, and bases, as well as 50 nearly complete tuyeres (clay "pipes" that force air into smelting furnaces) and over 600 fragments of diverse tuyere types. The metalworkers at Phoradesused river-channel deposits to construct an artificial bank where they

31Kassianidoul999. 32 1989; etal. cf. Gale 2000; Hauptmann (2002,19), Knapp was whopointout thatthe copperin theseingots highly po-

oxideinclusions. of with rous concentrations copper 1983. and 33Dothan Ben-Tor 1989,1997. 1982,1989; Knapp 34Muhly




of Analysis the centralgroupof fourdeterminations excludingsignificantly older OxA-9972 youngerOxA-7013. and Dateslie ca. 2000-1500B.C.OxA-9932 is olderthanthe otherthreedates. DatafromOxCal clearly usingINTCAL98. (Prepared W. bySturt Manning) went about their work. Slag, the waste product of the smelting process, was piled against the creek's bank, eventually forming a small heap. The size and composite nature of the cobble bank suggest a sequence of activities as opposed to a single phase, while the discovery of numerous tiny snail shells within the bank, all postdating its construction, may be taken as one indicator that these industrial operations were conducted seasonally. If so, the smelting of copper at Phoradesarguably would have taken place during down time in the agricultural calendar, a common situation for the production of metals, both ancient and modern has (discussed further below). Phorades all the features we would expect to find in an industrial installation, but almost nothing indicative of a living community. Nonetheless, those who "worked"Phoradeshad to belong to some social structure that would have provided housing and subsistence; almost certainly such a community was situated on the arable land nearby. The Location and Function of Phorades Proximity to mineral deposits, fuel, water, and refractoryclaywere among the most important physical factors that dictated where to establish an ancient smelting workshop. Because the ore, the flux, and the fuel are equally available in the direct vithe cinity of the mines around Phorades, workshop's location may have been chosen in part because of the creek, which would have provided the clay and water required for construction of the furnaces. A spring near the site also would have provided drinking water for the workers even during the hottest months. The most likely source of the ores smelted at Phoradeswas the gossan at Kokkinorotsos ("red rock"),which lies about 800 m northwest of the site. (A gossan is an iron-rich, often distinctively red mineral deposit typicallyfound directly above rich deposits of copper sulfides.) The amount of slag found at Phorades points to a moderate level of production and suggests a limited manufacture of copper for local consumption,




Fig. lc. Analysismodel of the three approximately contemporary determinations assuming they represent a phase of activityor resource use at the site. Beginning of Dates lie between ca. 1700 end the phase defined as "First"; of the phase as "Last." and ca. 1500 B.C. See fig. Id. Datafrom OxCalusing INTCAL98.(Preparedby Sturt W. Manning) perhaps with some surplus entering a network where metal was exchanged for pottery and other goods. We believe that Phoradeswas only one of many such smelting sites in the Troodos foothills, each supported by one or more agricultural communities (two other relevant sites are discussed below but most others will have been destroyed by 20thcentury mining operations). Metalsmiths may have enjoyed a high status throughout the Early-Middle Bronze Age and into the beginning of the Late Bronze (ca. 2500-1600 B.C.). As the Late Bronze Age progressed, and as copper production became more centralized, metalsmiths seem to have become increasingly specialized, sponsored or perhaps dominated by regional or local elites. If so, the seasonal activities apparent at sites like Phoradeswould have changed later to a full-time enterprise. The Phoradesexcavations force us to reconsider not just an unprecedented array of archaeometallurgical developments, but also site and community constellations of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus: industrial sites, agricultural villages, and rural sanctuaries, on the one hand, and the inland towns and coastal distribution centers to which they were linked, on the other.35 Based on SCSP's intensive survey and spatial analyses of the region surrounding Phorades, we can reconstruct the basic components of this Bronze Age industrial community as follows:36 the ore itself would have come from mines on the gossan ridge (Kokkinorotsos)just northwest of the site and would have been prepared near the ore bodies located there. The actual site of Phoradesmay have extended about 100 m farther west, and thus closer to the mines: in this largely eroded landscape, we have re-

35Keswani 1996;Knapp1997.

36Knappetal. 2001, 2002.




Fig. Id. Correlation plots showing the relationship between likelihood of length of time between Firstand Lastas defined in fig. lc versusthe calendar date for the startof the phase (First)and the end of the phase (Last). The white-grayareasindicate the most likely result;the red to black areas the least likely. Top,the analysisdetermines a date for the start of the phase ca. 1700-1600 B.C., the with the late 17th century B.C. the most likely. Bottom, analysisdetermines a date for the end of the phase in the 16th centuryB.C.,with a date earlyin the mid 16th centuryB.C. the most likely. These dates are termini post quos for actual human use of the wood. Data from OxCal using INTCAL98.(Preparedby SturtW.Manning)

cently noted concentrations of crushed gossan lying in situ alongside the current stream channel. These are some of the key locational and materialelements of a self-contained metallurgical production center,

one that had all the essential raw materials,technology, and communications necessary for small-scale, localized production, itself integrated into a broader social, economic, and habitationalsystem.




What can a community-based approach add to these observations? Having demonstrated the existence of a Late Bronze Age copper-sulfide smeltwe ing workshop at Phorades, now need to establish the social and organizational context in which this method of production was adopted, and attempt to understand not just the economic organization but also the wider community and regional structure in which it was embedded. In order to consider these factors, I proceed first by examining how social scientists have conceptualized community, and how such a concept may be relevant to archaeology, including our understanding of Phorades.

What is a community, and what is the most effective way of conceptualizing community in archaeological terms? Isbell37and Yaeger38have summarized in part the diverse anthropological sources from which most archaeologists have drawn their intellectual inspiration. The community traditionally has been regarded as an empirical entity to be discovered and described by ethnographers, a natural territorial unit of human organization linking culture and society.39 Such communities are usually characterized as sharing residence or space, and bearing a collective consciousness, knowledge, and experiences. Typically the community is reckoned to be a fundamental social institution, internally homogeneous and externally bounded, in which all cultural, biological, and social reproduction took place.40 Alternatively,however, communities are also recognized as being dynamic, historically contingent, The people who belong to any even "imagined."41 individual community are necessarily involved in various social relations that serve to structure and define its nature, its economic base, and its political discourses- both within and beyond the actual community.42 Cheney,43for example, shows how migrant 19th-centuryminers in Australia sought to stabilize family and community ties in the face of impermanence. Earlier ethnographic work by Wolf and Mintz44revealed how rural, supposedly isolat-

ed communities were involved in a "contingent history . . . bewilderinglyramified throughout a vast Social scientists today, like archaeworld system."45 no longer assume any degree of homogeologists, neity or solidaritywithin a community; instead they examine the wider social configuration as well as the individual people who make up the communiCommunities therefore should be seen as soty.46 cial constructs, not necessarily tied to a specific place, and providing an important source of identity for their inhabitants.47 And yet communities undeniably have a strong the association with a "sense of place,"48 most fundamental form of identity, contestation, and embodied experience, where self, space, and time become inseparably intertwined.49The "construction" of place serves to create and reproduce the relationships between people and their landscapes; communities- as the prime space in which the social and material conditions of life are developed and transformed are particularlyimportant in this regard.50Those who live within a community are closely attached to the surrounding landscape and environment. Often they mark their occupational or ideational space in distinctive and patterned for ways,51 example, with respect to their household, or to their modes of subsistence, production, and consumption.52Through such patterned and daily activities, values, and beliefs (their habitus), the people who live in communities build, modify, and reshape their physical surroundings in order to preserve memory and experience, to rationalize the meanings bestowed on the landscape, and to provide their community with a meaningful sense of time and space. Because many of these factors are directly accessible to archaeology,we can study communities by examining more broadly their landscape setting, which served both to frame and to define community identity, as well as individual identities within the community.
Archaeological Constructs of Community How do archaeological concepts of community often simply equated with "site" or "settlement" -

37 Isbell 2000, 243-8. 38 Yaeger 2000, 124-6. 39 E.g., Redfield 1955;Bell and Newby1971. 40 Steward1950; Cf. Arensberg1954. 41 Anderson 1991. 42 E.g.,Rodman1992;Moore 1994;Urban 1996;Low2000; Ashmore2003. 43 Cheney 1992. 44 Wolf 1982; Mintz 1974.

45 Isbell 2000, 247. Giddens1984;Dobresand Robb2000;Meskell 46Following 2002. 2000, 124. 47Yaeger and Basso 1996;Low 1996. 48Feld 49 Casey 1996, 36-8. Goodman 1999, 13. 50Bruckand 51 Ashmoreand Knapp1999. 52 Anschuetz et al. 2001, 182-3.




relate to this paradigm? The study of "household" archaeology sparked the current interest in communities: several papers from the 1988 Chacmool
reflect Conference on Households and Communities5*

this development but tend to understand community simply as reflecting a supra-household dimenKolb and Snead, using sion within a fixed locality.54 data from Hawai'iand New Mexico,55 sought to provide a more explicit archaeological definition of community as a territorially discrete, usually contiguous, natural unit of interacting individuals who control land and labor and share membership in the community as a result of common residential and subsistence interests. The result is a shared cultural landscape- a "place"that forms the basis of a community's identity, and a descriptive account of ideal human types and the "activityareas" they create. The main problem with this approach is that it offers little scope for considering the role of human intention or agency, and fails to explain how communities were constructed, developed, or changed through time. Isbell56outlines a distinction between two approaches to community-based studies exemplified
in the papers from The Archaeologyof Communities?.51 the "natural" community and the "imagined" community. The first approach, that of the natural community, is essentialist in concept and views local groups as sharing territory, cultural values, economic interests, and worldviews. Such an overarching, universal notion of community is closely related to ethnographic community studies that formed the basis both of 20th-century American anthropology58and of most European social anthropology practiced during the same era.59 The second approach, that of the imagined community as conceived by Isbell and other contributors to the Canuto and Yaeger volume,60 might be named after Benedict Anderson's "imagined communities"61 but it is only linked tangentially to that concept. For Anderson, not just communities but entire nations are formed by ideological connections through space and time, or by imagined links and mythic relations to place. Yaeger discusses two levels of communities, the lo-

cal and the regional, in terms of certain "practices of affiliation" - ceremonial and ritual activity, house construction and orientation - that define community membership (and differentiate it from others), enforce group identity, and open up the community as a potential resource for use in social negotiations.62 The appeal of the "imagined community" concept lies in its dynamism and intransience, and in its application to much smaller social groups. In such a community, people make informed choices, pursue goals and alternatives that are at times intentional, at other times unintentional, and establish personal as well as community identities - all circumscribed and configured by practice.63 The detailed and closely focused discussions in the Canuto and Yaeger volume should serve to reinvigorate both New and Old World archaeologists' interest in studying how people and place are integrated socially, and how the community fosters a sense of shared identity. Isbell 's dichotomy between natural and imagined communities is not played out as clearly in the volume's chapters as he suggests, especially with respect to the self-promoting activities of individual agents. Nonetheless both Isbell 's notion of the imagined community and Yaeger's concept of differing local and regional community levels are taken up below in an attempt to interpret the role of a prehistoric Cypriot mining community within its regional context. Moving beyond the New World, archaeological studies seeking to engage the concept of community - some less well attuned than others to anthropological constructs - have been conducted in Europe,64 the Mediterranean,65 and the Middle East.66 Equally important for the present study is the corpus of research related to mining communities.67 The theoretical model of a "community area" developed in Czech archaeology68 has been used to study prehistoric farming communities in Bohemia. This community area model presumes the existence of individual communities with spatiallyrestricted "activity areas" (e.g., habitation, storage, pasture, mortuary) in delimited but not necessari-

53MacEachernetal.1989. 54 E.g., Lekson 1989; Sullivan1989. 55 Kolband Snead 1997. 56 Isbell 2000. 57 Canutoand Yaeger2000. 58 E.g.,Murdock1949;Arensbergand Kimball1965. 59 E.g., Firth 1936;Kuper 1996. 60 E.g., Pauketat2000;Yaeger2000. 61 Anderson 1991.

2000, 125-6. 62Yaeger 63Bourdieu1977, 1990. Kuna 1991;Neustupny1991, 1998;Gerritsen2003. 64E.g., 65 E.g., Gilmore 1987 (ethnography);Dyson 1992;Donlan and Thomas1993. 66 and Falconer 1994;Verhoeven 1999. E.g., Schwartz 67 E.g.,Bulmer 1975;Cheney 1992;Douglass1998;Knapp, Pigott,and Herbert 1998. b8 Neustupny 1991.




ly contiguous tracts of territory. Neustupny's study focuses on the definition and quantification of activityareas and the work carried out in such areas;it also seeks to reconstruct the landscape in which all these community activities took place. Kuna sees each community as sharing a common territorywith the focus is not on an specialized activity areas;69 archaeological site but on off-site activities, the environment, and settlement structures, all of which provide a "continuum of information" on specific functions or activities. Behind Kuna's prehistoric community area lies the implicit notion that the landscape- continuously inhabited or exploited by a local population- was divided into spatially regular segments corresponding to basic economic or social units. In his case study, Kuna seeks to identify prehistoric households at several sites, enumerate the number of households within a habitation area, relate various habitation areas to the community area and determine the size of that area, and finally to consider how the size of community areas changed through time. The theoretical potential and empirical relevance of the community area model revolves around the notion of nested activity areas within each community, an idea that is taken up and expanded in this study. Unfortunately, we learn all too little about the "structuredhuman activities" that may have coordinated the nested social and economic units in these settlement zones and community areas. In a much broader study,Gerritsen considers sevin eral majortransformations the landscape and habitats of the Meuse-Demer-Scheldtregion in northwest Europe between the Bronze Age and the Roman period.70Communities are conceptualized as dynamic entities based on a collective identity and marked by symbolic boundaries.71Gerritsen argues that, in premodern societies, communities are defined and constructed both by actors that transform the landscape and in turn by the ways that the organization of the landscape gives form to the sense of community identity. In particular, the relatively open and loose territorialordering of the landscape during the Middle Bronze Age gives way to more fixed and formalized relationships - defined by symbolicallyformed, ancestrallyfocused burial communities- in the Urnfeld period (Early Iron Age). By the fifth century B.C. (Middle-Late Iron Ages), a change in these burial practices suggests a transfor-

mation in the way that local communities were defined, with symbols of community now likely involving farmsteads,arable land, and cult places. By the Roman era, more fixed settlement structures, at times nucleated and enclosed, took on the main 's symbolic role of communities. Gerritsen study offers an informed discussion on the nature of archaeological communities, as well as the sociocultural practices that facilitate their construction and reproduction through time. Most importantlyfor the present study, his concept of local communities is very firmly grounded in a long-term, regional and landscape perspective. Below I attempt to establish a more nuanced concept of community in archaeology, building upon the ideas presented above and employing the Cypriot case study to anchor and expand upon some notions inherent in this concept. First, however, I discuss the construct of the mining community, one that is equally integral to my own interpretation.
The Mining Community Methodologically, it is important to bear in mind the differences between the static site or fixed settlement pattern analysis, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the more dynamic and flexible entity that is a human community (see following section) . In so doing, we must recall that mining communities have existed throughout historic times as well as in prehistoric periods, and have been studied at length by historical archaeologists, prehistorians, anthropologists, and social historians.72 The concept of the mining community I seek to integrate here is based on diverse prehistoric, historic, and contemporary manifestations. In so doing, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between 20th-century corporate mining ventures and preindustrial, or informal, mining activities.73 On the one hand, it might be argued that although we could expect similarities in some aspects of location, interaction, and behavior, the differences in factors of production, consumption, and transport not to mention ideology - make problematic any direct analogy between a prehistoric and historical or contemporary mining community. On the other hand, the case for using analogical reasoning in archaeology has been argued repeatedly74 and its validity demonstrated with respect to relational analogies (e.g., the "direct historical approach"),

69 Kuna 1991, 332-3. 70 Gerritsen2003. 71 FollowingCohen 1985, 1986. 72 various See papersin Knapp,Pigott,and Herbert1998.

73MacMillan 1995;Knapp1998. 74 E.g., Hodder 1982, 16-27; Wylie1982, 1985;Verhoeven 1999, 67-9.




where multiple, continual, and preferably contextual similarities between the origin and subject of the analogy are provided. Alternatively, where there exist a number and variety of cases in which multiple types of representative data are shown to be associated with certain types of patterned behavior, we may also rely cautiously on analogy. Following on from such contextual reasoning, it is hard to disagree with Speth's sentiments in a recent review article of two earlier studies on community dynamics in the American southwest: Suffice it to say that archaeologists who eschew the use of ethnographic insights in archaeological interpretation may as well quit, because without reference to the living realm there is no "stress,"no "mobility," no "alliance," no "aggregation," no "exchange," and no "hierarchy"in the archaeological record, just piles of artifacts [emphasis added] .75 The study of mining communities76 offers a constructive example of analogical reasoning, not least because of recent attempts to examine, contrast and compare, and articulate prehistoric and historic case studies.77 The distinctive nature of any mining community, past or present, derives at least partly from the dynamic between working and living in a place structured around a single commodity, industry, or technology. The location of underground mines, which in turn dictates the location and layout of a mining community, is fixed by the nature of minerals and ore bodies. In the contemporary world, such factors curtail the movement of people, demand labor specialization, and ensure a large degree of reliance on the mining company.78 Local factors also influence the dynamics of modern mining: for example, rapid turnover in the community, or perceived ethnic and status affiliations, may diminish social solidarity.79 Such communities were often expedient and impermanent, with workers of diverse origins and ethnicities drawn together by the need to work. When ore bodies became exhausted, the mining community would scatter to new strikes or new opportunities. In the modern mining community, therefore, spatial mobility was common while social mobility was not: rarely did a miner rise to a higher occupational stratum. Turning to the more remote past, archaeologists increasingly find robust evidence for smaller-scale, 75Speth2000, 146. 76 E.g.,Thompson 1982;Bulmer 1975;Tenfelde 1992. 77Knapp, Pigott,and Herbert 1998. 78 Bulmer 1975, 61. 79 Bulmer 1975, 69. 80Various studiesin Knapp,Pigott,and Herbert1998; case

occasionally kin-based mining communities in prehistoric or preindustrial societies, most of which relied on seasonal and nonspecialist labor.80 Thus both recent and ancient mining communities may be temporary or seasonal in nature, but for somewhat different reasons. From prehistory through the Medieval period, mining often was carried out by farmers, peasants, or other part-time laborers, chiefly during periods when they were unable to engage in their main livelihood. These miners came together as a community at certain times of the year to mine or smelt metallic ores, in some cases under pressure or force from social elites, in other cases to satisfy their own everyday (usually agricultural) needs. Shennan's fleldwork in central Europe indicates that individual Bronze Age mining communities had limited numbers of inhabitants with no significant degree of internal differentiation.81 European Bronze Age copper mining, moreover, is argued to have been mainly a winter activity. Similarly, mining expeditions during Egypt's Middle Kingdom (ca. 2040-1650 B.C.) occurred primarily when the Nile River had flooded and farming was impossible.82 In Thailand, sound evidence exists for prehistoric mining in which seasonal and ephemeral, community-based production for local consumption was the norm.83 We cannot assume, however, that prehistoric miners and metal producers operated exclusively on a limited, local scale, not least because transported metals were valuable commodities in high demand over vast regions (e.g., copper, and then iron throughout the ancient Mediterranean world from ca. 2500 B.C.-A.D. 500). Bronson's work in southeast Asia, furthermore, indicates that many historically known, small-time producers of metal were commercial smelters who sold at least a portion of their output beyond the local community.84 Many documented preindustrial miners or metalworkers in southeast Asia worked in communities with multiple furnaces and a notable level of cooperation not only in mining and producing fuel, but also in building and maintaining equipment as well as housing. Whatever the scale of the operations or the period in question, at the very least we can postulate that the social organization of a small mining community would have been fluid, often temporary (sea-

et Young al. 1999. 81Shennan 1991,1993. 82 Shaw1998.

83 Pigott 1998. 84Bronson1992, 104-5.




sonal), and clearly expedient.85 Another variation on this theme is the 19th-century mining camp in Californiaand Nevada,86 more a collection of strangers than a community of kin or friends. By the end of the 19th century, these camps were made up of men born and raised in mining or former mining towns in California and Nevada, who followed gold or silver rushes from one field to another. Douglass described this phenomenon as "a community without a locus": could such an expedient and impermanent scenario account, in some cases, for the scant evidence and material variability of mining communities in the archaeological record? Mining communities generally exhibit physical isolation and a dispersed settlement system. Whether they alwaysdemonstrate, as in modern situations, the economic predominance of mining, occupational homogeneity and isolation, sharply segregated family and gender roles, or ideological conflict between miners and managers,87 issues that may are be assessed empirically, given certain types of archaeological data and a social approach to their interpretation. Hardesty's documentary-based research into the records of 19th- through early 20thcentury mining communities on the American frontier, for example, revealed that most households comprised a small group of unrelated males living under one roof and sharing domestic chores.88The material evidence from these same communities indicated domestic cycles that changed throughout the time that various dwellings within a village were occupied. In material terms, the main indicators of household variabilityin these American mining communities were architecture, artifact assemblages, and site layout, where house floor area was used to estimate the size of the community. How can such factors help us to understand better the material record or social organization of ancient mining communities? How do they relate to an archaeology of community?
Toward a Nuanced Archaeology of Community One of the difficulties in establishing an archaeology of community is the disjunction between a social concept (community) and the material reality, however extensively interpreted, of a site, settlement, or settlement pattern (compare the concept of the household with the actual structure89) . Al85 See Hardesty1998;Lawrence1998;Simmons 1998. 86 Douglass1998. 87 Buhner 1975, 85-8. 88 Hardesty1992, 1998. 89 Wilkand Ashmore 1988.

though this complex issue cannot be resolved here, the attempt to link the concept of community imagined or otherwise to the patterned archaeological record is not only valid but essential if we wish to understand better and present possibleinterpretations of the prehistoric past. Very few archaeologists working today would adopt a timeless vision of community relations that denied historical context and conditions. Those who maintain that applying modern terms or norms to prehistoric data or data patterns creates an ethnocentric, modernist view of past communities and their inhabitants fail to realize that archaeologists cannot view the past directly, and that oftentimes they create alternative, if not irreconcilable views of the past.90Archaeological reality and interpretation dictate that we (subjectively) assign categories, group data, and use a mutually intelligible terminology. If the site or settlement area refers to the preserved archaeological record, the community denotes the living reality of the past.91 To bridge the gap between the material record of the settlement area and the more abstract notion of a prehistoric community, we need to understand how the activity areas of the community were structured, and to interpret those structures in ways that have meaning for living societies.92 The adoption of the community concept as a means to understand the material remains of past sites and settlements thus impels archaeologists to define and explain human activities, and their spatial correlates, in terms of the structured behavior of a living society. Community consists of the networks of relationships between people as they interact in day to day life. The social and human form of a community creates and is created by landscape and material items. Because of the dialectic between communities and the physical world the shape of a community as it once existed is revealed in its use of space.93 When people establish, elaborate, or modify community relations, their actions are influenced by social and cultural structures that affect their relationship with the material world. The shared set of unconscious mental dispositions (like Bourdieu's habitus) that configures many small communities' perceptions and actions are nested within what may be termed a local imagined community. The members of such a community share a "deep horizontal 90Preucel1991, 14;Knapp1996b, 151. 91 Schiffer 1972;Binford 1983, 45-55. Cf. 92Neustupny1991, 330. 93 Cheney 1992, 40.




sense of comradeship,"94an identity constructed and based on social practices occurring within a shared space. Each community develops its own cognitive map, stemming from the inhabitants' daily activities and beliefs, to give meaning and arrangement to the world, and to transform physical space into a remembered and meaningful place.95 Within the local community, diverse relationships, ranging from kin and descent to marriage and client-patron ties, are embedded in a loosely structured social network.96 Beyond the local community, groups of neighboring farmsteads, industrial and ceremonial sites, and larger, multifunctional centers may form a supra-local level of social integration. Situating the agricultural,industrial, or ceremonial aspects of the rural community within the larger regional context makes it possible to assess not only how local, everyday practice affects larger-scale social or politicoeconomic currents or groupings, but also how the diversity of places in the landscape actively configures and helps to formulate community identity. The local community, then, is nested within what Isbell termed a "regional imagined community"97 a larger polity that is socially and economically constituted from affiliated local groups. With respect to mining communities, it is crucial to consider how other social factors- beyond seasonality, isolation, economic orientation, and household makeup - may influence community location, inter-community links, and daily practices. For example, how were community life, subsistence, and the physical settlement interrelated? The social life of a community is enacted within material conditions constantly reworked according to different people's needs and their interpretations of material reality.Although natural and ecological factors certainly set some community parameters, within these bounds community patterns are created and reflected by material goods and space.98 The daily practices of the people living or working in a community not only provide necessary sustenance, they also help to give meaning and memory to a physical space, and thus imbue it with a sense of place. Mining villages or industrial installations, regardless of location or time period, often were constructed rapidly and simply to satisfy economic or political needs. At times, such places emerged from ag2000, 126. 94Yaeger 95 Anschuetz et al. 2001, 161. 96Gerritsen 2003, 111-3. 97 Isbell 2000, 258.

riculturalvillages in cycles of boom and bust, when villagers and farmers become miners and industrial pawns. At other times, production centers arose in isolated settings close to mineral or other resources in demand but devoid of good arable land. Here, miners (or charcoal producers, or potters) may have formed an expedient, seasonal, "community without a locus," whose living space was situated elsewhere within the wider regional community. The cycles of mining and agriculture in many mining regions99suggest that we must concentrate not just on mining as an economic activity,but also on the social practices and subsistence needs of the people who made up the mining community. Within these small mining localities or communities, social organization was seldom fixed, while mining itself was typicallyexpedient and often of a seasonal nature. Nevertheless, mining as a political or economic activity had the capacity to establish social relations between individuals that transcended the local community threshold and in some cases transformed regional community relations. The concepts of local and regional imagined communities, as outlined by Yaeger and Isbell and developed further here, may be examined more dynamically by analyzing the social and material patterns inherent within the mining community. Treated together, as I have sought to do throughout the preceding sections, these concepts help to provide a fuller and richer, even if still tentative interpretation of the prehistoric, Late Bronze Age smelting site of Politiko Phoradesin its local and regional context.
IN PHORADES ITS COMMUNITY CONTEXT An archaeological concept of community involves not just a specific physical space (a site) but also certain components of interaction and "practices of affiliation"100that engage the locality or community in social or politico-economic negotiations within a broader, often hierarchical system of place. From what has survived, namely a remnant slag heap with an abundance of unprecedented archaeometallurgical data, Phorades cannot be regarded as a settlement in terms of the criteria established by SCSP. Rather it functioned primarily as an industrial site where ores were smelted: no architectural remains were identified and the closest known, possibly contemporary site (Aredhiou Vouppes,see 98 Cheney 1992, 40. "E.g., Givenand Knapp2000. 2000. 100Yaeger




Fig. 2. Mapof the SydneyCyprusSurveyProjectarea, showingmodern townsand villagesas well as Bronze Age sites or concentrations of material,including those discussed in the text. The map of the surveyarea also shows the transects covered, the rivers of this region, and the 500 m contour line. (Prepared by Michael Given)

below) lies about 2 km distant. Nonetheless, the in miners or metalsmiths who worked at Phorades, an agriculturally barren area, had to have subsistence support, either from the village in which they lived or from local farmsteads.All these elementsindustrial, agricultural, habitational- were embedded within and formed essential parts of the wider, regional community. In terms of agriculturalsites within this proposed regional community, SCSP identified two other concentrations of Late Bronze material in proximity to Phorades (fig. 2) . Neither of these sites has been excavated. The first concentration, Aredhiou Koladhes,produced a very sparse scatter of Late Cypriot-Archaic sherds (a 500-700 year time span) , and probablyrepresents the remnants of a severelyerod101 Keswani1989.

ed tomb group or, less likely, a farmstead. The secis ond concentration, Aredhiou Vouppes, situated River drainage, where on the banks of the Aloupis the agricultural plain meets the igneous (metalscattered bearing) foothills. The finds from Vouppes, over some 2 ha, were made up exclusively of Middle-Late Bronze Age pottery, pithoi (storagejars), a typical Late Cypriot style "wall bracket" fragment, and some groundstone implements. The 22 pithos fragments include some very large examples equivThe alent to Keswani'sGroups II and III.101 remainder of the pottery (10 Plain ware sherds, one sherd each of Black Slip Wheelmade and White Painted Wheelmade I/II wares) are all Late Cypriot in On date.102 the one hand, the bulk of this material sometime in the Late suggests a floruit for Vouppes
et 102Knapp al. 1994, 337-8.




Cypriot II period (or Protohistoric Bronze Age/ ProBA 2), about 1400-1200 B.C., and thus some 100 years later than the material from Phorades. On the other hand, Vouppesalso produced one sherd from a Red Polished bowl of Middle Cypriot date (or Prehistoric Bronze Age/PreBA 2), raising the possibility that Vouppes might also be earlier than, as well as contemporary with, Phorades. Without excavation, however, no further conclusions may be drawn on its chronological emplacement: despite the fact that archaeological survey can stand alone as a coherent and viable data source,103 survey archaeology is not a definitive science. The nature of the material from Vouppes, however, does enable us to say something further about the possible role of this site within its regional setting. The pithoi fragments from Vouppesderive from storage vessels of various sizes, including some very large examples. In the final publication of SCSP,104we argue at length for the likelihood that Vouppeswas an (officially managed?) agricultural support village provisioning one or more mining or industrial sites in its immediate vicinity. Webb and Frankel have identified a similar, Late Bronze Age agricultural village and production center at Analiondas Palioklichia, some 10 km southeast of Vouppes}05Surface finds collected at Palioklichia consisted of over 1,000 pithos fragments and about 200 querns, rubbers, and grinders, indicating that grain was the primary commodity produced at the site. The output from Palioklichia could well have supported workers from a mining community or communities in or near the ore bodies at Mathiati, Sha, and Lythrodondas. We may surmise that such agricultural settlements formed one basic component of a Late Bronze Age regional community system and were intricately involved in the sociopolitical and economic matrices of that time. The farmers who resided in village communities like Vouppes and Palioklichia, in other words, would have provided food for the mining enterprise, and in addition may have produced a surplus of grains or olive oil to be redistributed up the line to secondary or primary (coastal) centers.106 Two possible Bronze Age exceptions to the pattern suggested for Phorades and Vouppesinvolve sites that are, respectively, about four centuries earlier (Ambelikou Aletri) and three centuries later (Apliki Karamallos) than Phorades. Both sites, each in dif103 Cherry1983. 104 Given and Knapp2003, 179-82. 105 Webb and Frankel1994. 106Keswani 1993, 1996;Knapp1997. 107Merrillees 1984, 3-4 and figs. 1-4. 108 Merrillees1984, 4, fig. 2.

ferent ways, contrast strikingly with Phorades. The very limited and fragmentary remains from a smallscale rescue excavation conducted in 1942 at the Middle Cypriot I (PreBA 1) site at Ambelikou Aletri may indicate a very early mining village. Two areas were excavated (the larger approximately 20 x 10 m, the smaller approximately 5 x 5 m), and 10 trial trenches were dug.107 The area excavations produced some fragmentary wall sections and what appear to be two complete, subrectangular buildings.108The soundings produced a few stone foundations and fragmentary walls as well as a lot of debris.109 Of equal interest and more important for dating the site were the groundstone tools and pottery recovered from ancient workings within the modern mining shafts (about 250 m distant from Aletri) then being explored by the Hellenic Company of Chemicals and Manures (now Hellenic Copper Mining Ltd) . The Red Polished III sherds, 19th century B.C. in date, came from approximately 19 m deep inside the Stoa 2 shaft and 2 m deep inside the Kekleimenou 1 shaft (reachable only from within Stoa 2). Although no formal excavations were conducted in the mining shafts, these artifacts were clearly in situ. Thus it seems certain that at this very early date, marketable seams of quality ore were being recovered with very focused effort, deep inside the mines near Ambelikou. The second site, Apliki Karamallos, was discovered by a mining engineer from the Cyprus Mines Corporation, which was engaged in opencast explorations of the South Hill near the modern village of Apliki. Rescue excavations were conducted immediately after the discovery in 1938 and were followed by more extensive excavations the following summer.110 Both undertakings in the neck of the South Hill111demonstrated a 13th-12th century B.C. date for the site112 and provided not only sound evidence for primary smelting activity but also abundant pottery finds, structural remains, stone tools (pestles, rubbers, and querns), spindle whorls and loom weights, and two charred fiber baskets containing grain. Helbaek later concluded that the variety of plant remains recovered from the Apliki excavations would have been difficult to cultivate on the "steep rocky slopes of the immediate surroundings which to-day [sic] show no traces of terracing."113All of this evidence suggests that Ap109Merrillees 1984, 3-4 and figs. 3-4. 110 Plat Du Taylor1952;Muhly1989, 306-10. 111 Plat Du Taylor1952,fig. 2 and pl. XXIV. luSee also Manning et al. 2001. 113 Helbaek 1962, 185-6.




liki was indeed a miners' community that included not only living space for the miners who worked there but many of the accoutrements of daily life. If Helbaek's interpretation is valid, however, these miners still had to rely in part on agricultural support villages for their subsistence. Evaluating the disparate types of evidence from the mining and smelting sites of Ambelikou Aletri, Politiko Phorades, Apliki Karamallos, and spread over a period of some 700 years, presents an interesting challenge in the context of a discussion on Bronze Age industrial and agricultural communities. The finds from Ambelikou are quite limited and at most indicate a few structures that may have served either to facilitateproduction (storage or work rooms) or to shelter those working deep inside the shafts at Stoas 1 and 2 and Kekleimenou 1. The finds from Apliki, in contrast, demonstrate that miners were living next door to the industrial area where they worked, even if they may have had to import some of their food supplies. Keswani's suggestion that House A at Apliki may have served as an official residence in a broader and closely controlled rewould indicate that a more comgional context114 plex pattern of community relations had developed by the end of the 13th century B.C., when copper production had reached its Bronze Age apogee on the island, and when several different, mainly coastal urban polities may well have exercised differential types of control over that production. In comparison with Apliki Karamallos Ambeand likou Aletri,Politiko Phorades stands apart, with no architectural remains and little evidence beyond pottery and a few faunal remains to tell us anything about the people who worked at the site. Neither Ambelikou nor Apliki offer evidence that contradicts the regional community pattern proposed here, but they do suggest a more diverse and dynamically evolving pattern through time. The regional pattern proposed in this study can be tested by further surveywork in or near the igneous zone In of the Troodos Mountains.115 contrast, Apliki has now been destroyed entirely by modern mining operations, and along with Ambelikou lies in the Turkish-occupied area of northern Cyprus,which at this time cannot be revisited or explored more fully. SCSPfound a notable concentration of archaeometallurgical sites on the slopes of the Kokkinorotsos gossan (fig. 3) . The evidence consists of at least two

other slag heaps (probably later in date than the material from Phorades)and a large slag scatterwith , an exposed section showing layers of roasting conglomerate, furnace lining, and furnace floor. Extensive geomorphological study has shown that a is check dam some 100 m southwest of Phorades preif Roman in date;116 it were contemporary with Phorades,we have good evidence for links between water resource management, agricultural activities, and smelting during the Bronze Age. All of these diverse components of a regional community system demonstrate that people have exploited and for modified the landscape around Kokkinorotsos nearly four millennia. Much of that activityfocused on extracting the area'scopper ore resources,which not only altered the environment but also nurtured the social and economic structures that configured this community's relationship with the wider world. With respect to transportation and communication within and beyond this regional community,
Phorades, Vouppes,and Palioklichia may all have fallen within the ambit of a western coastal center such as an Toumbatou Skourou,117 eastern center such as Enkomi or Hala Sultan Tekke,118 some still unidentior fied local polity (see further below). These sites are readily accessible from the Politiko region, whether following modern roads or the natural transport corridors leading northeast and southeast. Peltenburg argues that the coastal center of Enkomi in particular may have established, during the Late Cypriot I (ProBA 1) period, a "security system" of fortified sites:119 those along the northeastern flanks of the Troodos were designed to help procure copper, while those along the southern flanks of the Kyrenia Mountains were designed to prevent north coast sites from obtaining copper. Some support for this notion exists in the architectural similarities between the Late Cypriot I (ProBA 1) fortresses at Enkomi and Ayios Sozomenos Glyka VrysisNikolidhes, but no fortress along the southern Kyrenia range has yet been excavated, and there is no clear evidence to link any of them to Enkomi. Given their proximity, it seems equally plausible to postulate a link between the Kyrenia fortresses and Toumba tou Skourou. Moreover, based on a detailed analysis of a suite of Late Bronze Age material in sites to the north and northwest of Phorades,Keswani and Knapp suggest that the orientation of sites like Vouppes and Phorades within the Politiko-Mitsero

114 Keswani1993, 77. 115 Now under way,see Givenet al. 2001, 2002. 116 Givenand Knapp2003, 140-1.

117 Vermeule and Wolsky1990. See 118 Dikaios 1969-1971;Astrom 1976. See 119 Peltenburg 1996.




Fig. 3. GIS-derived map (Maplnfo) indicating the spread and diversity of archaeometallurgical remains (slag heaps, adits, smelting site) in the Sydney Cyprus (whose contour lines are also SurveyProject's Special Interest Area 7, or Kokkinorotsos shown). (Preparedby Michael Given) (SCSP) region cannot be determined definitively, and that the entire region may have fallen within two or more overlapping or competing spheres of political influence and exchange, one focused on Toumbatou Skourouor the northwest, another focused on Enkomi or other sites in the east and southeast.120 In terms of the differing, nested levels of a regional community, the site of Phorades itself seems to have formed only a single, industrial component, one in which group identity revolved around the mining and smelting enterprise. The social life of the miners would have been integrated within material conditions constantly reworked to address the needs and meet the demands of that enterprise. The lifetime of Phorades, at least to judge from the pottery and the radiocarbon dates, was probably one century or less. If we are correct in assuming that 120Keswani Knapp2003. and the production of copper ores during the Bronze Age was dispersed throughout the Pillow Lavas of the Troodos foothills, and that most of the industrial sites involved would have been worked only as long as the ores were readily accessible and fuel readily available, we might envision each one - perhaps even Apliki and Ambelikou - as a "community without a locus," albeit more in the metaphysical rather than in a strict spatial sense.121 In turn, such a scenario would help to explain the scant evidence for prehistoric mining sites or communities in the Cypriot archaeological record. The social organization of these small industrial sites would have been fluid, seasonal, and/or temporary, and fully expedient in terms of the dictates of regional or islandwide elites who in turn acted on demand from neighboring polities in the Mediterranean. 121 intended As by Douglass (1998).




CONCLUSION At least three steps are needed to develop further an archaeology of communities: 1. to engage studies of place in examining the relationship between locality and community;122 2. to refine and elaborate the concept of the imagined community;123 and 3. to examine more closely and understand more fully the association among people, locality, community, and material culture as the outcome of specific social and historical processes. The primary advantage of the imagined community concept, in any of its possible ramifications, is that it forces archaeologists to consider imagined connections within regional space, if not an imagined or mythic relation to a particular place. This concept also should inspire the study of historical development and historical change, themselves embedded in human intentions and strategies, political relations, and cultural differences - whether between places or within a specific social space. A community is made up of social factions, gendered agents, and individual people involved in promoting, resisting, or suppressing various agendas. The archaeological concept of an imagined community makes clear the active role of material culture - from artifacts to dwellings to regional landscapes - in constructing identities, negotiating social relations, affirming power relations, and enabling social reproduction. More specifically, an archaeology of community, and in particular the concept of an imagined community, enables us to situate Phorades more firmly in its regional context and in the broader, Late Bronze Age landscape of Cyprus. Phorades and its agricultural support village Vouppesformed part of a wider, regional community, perhaps a harbinger of the Iron Age town and kingdom of Tamassos, whose remains are located on the western perimeter of the modern village of Politiko. Neither SCSP nor any previous archaeological investigations, however, have uncovered evidence for a Late Bronze Age town center in the Politiko area. Intensive survey by SCSP revealed a veneer of Late Bronze Age pottery spread across the broad plains immediately to the west and north of Politiko; this phenomenon might well indicate the manuring of fields surrounding a still undiscovered site in this region.124 There are, moreover, some notably rich tombs of Middle Bronze Age date at Politiko Lambertis and 122 Blake 2001. 123 defined Isbell (2000). As by 124 Givenand Knapp2003, 269-70, color pl. XLVII.

as Chomazoudhia,125 well as some Late Bronze Age at Politiko Ayios Iraklidhios Tomb 6 (see fig. remains 2).126Site and settlement patterning in and around this sector of the SCSP area thus suggests that a larger polity, the focus of the proposed broader regional community, may lie very near if not beneath the modern village of Politiko. An archaeology of community also enables us to suggest that, at Phorades itself, the shared mentality that structured the metalworkers' perceptions and actions were situated within a socially distinct reimagined community, whose membership the economvolved around issues associated with ic preeminence of mining, spatial isolation, and perhaps some degree of economic or political conflict between the miners and the managers. In turn, this local imagined community was embedded within the wider regional community (in SCSP terms, Special Interest Area 7) with all its attendant agricultural and industrial practices of affiliation (fig. 3). This regional community was clearly more complex, spatially extensive, and multifunctional than the individual, local communities nested within it. The social and spatial relationships between a mining site like Phorades, its agricultural catchment area (including Vouppes) other industrial sites (var, ious workings in and around Kokkinorotsos) and the , wider regional community will vary with respect to the organizational level and scale of production. Industrial sites like Phorades fulfilled the regional community's basic needs for raw materials and certain finished products. But when external demand accelerated the production of copper beyond local or regional capacities, as seems to have been the case during the successive phases of the Late Bronze Age on Cyprus, mining sites and their community networks soon became integrated into supra-regional trading networks. These developments brought exotic goods, migrant labor, and new ideologies into the mining region, all of which led to new social uses of space as well as changes in the social structure of the regional community.127 In combination, these factors helped to support the unprecedented technological and social developments that propelled Cyprus into the status of an urban, state power, and a major purveyor of copper to the Bronze Age Mediterranean world. The individual mining sites and their associated communities, set within a landscape both industri125Masson 1964, 202-4. 1965. 126Karageorghis 127 Knapp 1986, 1997, 46-63.




al and agriculturalin nature, profoundly influenced the creation and maintenance of social identities. In turn, the people of the community worked, lived in, and exploited this landscape, and in that process imbued it with economic, ideological, and personal significance. In such a fashion, the landscape mirrored the community and reaffirmed the community's social, cultural, and historical links with its surroundings. Because the smelting of copper most likely took place during down time in the agriculturalcalendar,we can understand better how the rhythms of agricultural and metallurgical production became interlinked in the life cycles and memories of the people who inhabited this landscape. The regional focus of the Sydney Cyprus SurveyProject, in combination with the excavations at Politiko Phorades, enabled us to view a prehishas toric industrial site nested in a local agricultural community, in turn embedded within the wider regional community, a space which served both as a medium for and as the outcome of human activity. Forit is still the case thatnobodylivesin the worldin of general The banalitiesand distractions the way we now live lead us, often enough, to lose sight of how much it matters wherewe are and whatit is just like to be there.128

Works Cited
Vol. 1, Excavations Astrdm, P. 1976. Hala Sultan Tekke. 1897-1971. SIMA45 (1). Goteborg: P. Astroms. Social Amit, V., ed. 2002. Realizing Community: Concepts, and Sentiments. London: Routledge. Relationships on Anderson, B. 1991. ImaginedCommunities: Reflections the and 2nd ed. London: Verso. of Origin Spread Nationalism. Anschuetz, K.F.,R.H. Wilshusen, and C.L. Scheick. 2001. "AnArchaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions."JournalofArchaeological Research 9:157-207. Arensberg, CM. 1954. The Community Study Method." American 60:109-27. Journal of Sociology Arensberg, CM., and S.T. Kimball. 1965. Cultureand New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Community. Ashmore, W. 2003. Decisions and Dispositions: Socializing Spatial Archaeology." American Anthropologist 104:1172-83. Ashmore, W., and A.B. Knapp, eds. 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape.Oxford: Blackwell. Studies:An InBell, C, and H. Newby. 1971. Community

troductionto the Sociology the Local Community. New of York:Praeger. New York: Binford, L.R. 1983. Workingat Archaeology. Academic Press. BintliffJ.L., P. Howard, and A. Snodgrass. 1999. "The Hidden Landscape of Prehistoric Greece." JMA 12:139-68. Blake, E. 2001. "Archaeological Approaches to Locality and Community." Symposium abstract, 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Blu, K.I. 1996."'Where Do You Stay At?': Homeplace and Community among the Lumbee." In Senses of Place, edited by S. Feld and K. Basso, 197-227. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theoryof Practice.Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1990. TheLogicofPractice.Cambridge: Polity. Bronk Ramsey, C 1995. "Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy:The OxCal Program."Radiocarbon :425-30. 37 Bronson, B. 1992. "Patternsin the EarlySoutheast Asian Metals Trade."In EarlyMetallurgy, Trade and UrbanCentersin Thailandand Southeast Asia, edited by I. Glover,P. Suchitta, andj. Villiers, 63-1 14. Bangkok:White Lotus. Briick,J., and M. Goodman. 1999. "Introduction:Themes for a Critical Archaeology of Prehistoric Settlement." In Making Places in the PrehistoricWorld,edited by J. Briick and M. Goodman, 1-19. London: UCL Press. Bulmer, M.I.A. 1975. "Sociological Models of the MinReview23:61-92. ing Community." Sociological Canuto, M.A., andj. Yaeger,eds. 2000. Archaeology Comof munities: New World A London: Routledge. Perspective. Casey, E.S. 1996. "How to Get from Space to Place in a FairlyShort Stretch of Time: Phenomenological Prolegomena." In Senses Place,edited by S. Feld and K Basof so, 13-52. SantaFe: School of American ResearchPress. Catling, H.W. 1962. "Patterns of Settlement in Bronze 4:129-69. Age Cyprus."OpAth Cherry,J.F. 1983. "Frogs Round the Pond: Perspective on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Regions." In Archaeological Surveyin theMediterranean Area,edited by D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp, 375-416. BAR-IS155. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Cheney, S.L. 1992. Uncertain Migrants: The History and Archaeology of a Victorian Goldfield Communi10:36-42. ty."AustralasianHistoricalArchaeology Construction Community. Cohen, A. 1985. TheSymbolic of London :Tavistock. Boundaries: , ed. 1986. Symbolising Identityand Diversityin British Cultures.Manchester: University of Manchester Press. Constantinou, G. 1992. "Ancient Copper Mining in Cyand the Sea, edited by A. Maprus." In Cyprus,Copper rangou and K. Psillides, 43-74. Nicosia: Republic of Cyprus. Deetz, J. 1977. "Material Culture and Archaeology What's the Difference?" In HistoricalArchaeology and the Importance Material Things, edited by L. Ferguof

128Geertz 1996, 262.




son, 9-12. Societyfor Historical Special Archaeology, Publication 2. Chelsea, N.Y.:Society for Historical Archaeology. 1948-1958.3 Excavations Dikaios,P.1969-1971.Enkomi: vols.Mainz: Philippvon Zabern. in Dobres,M.A.,andj. Robb,eds. 2000. Agency ArchaeolLondon:Routledge. ogy. Donlan,W, and C.G.Thomas.1993."TheVillageCommunity of Ancient Greece: Neolithic, Bronze and DarkAges."Studi Micenei Egeo-Anatolici ed 21:61-71. 1983.Excavations Dothan,T, andA. Ben-Tor. atAthienou, 16. Qedem Jerusalem:Instituteof ArchaeoloCyprus. gy,HebrewUniversity. Douglass,W.A.1998. "TheMiningCampas CommuniPast: TheArto ty."In SocialApproaches an Industrial and of chaeology Anthropology Mining,edited by A.B. V.C.Pigott,and E. Herbert,97-108. London: Knapp, Routledge. Du PlatTaylor, 1952. "ALate BronzeAge Settlement J. '. at Apliki,Cyprus." 32:133-67 Journal Antiquaries and in Italy. Dyson,S.L. 1992. Community Society Roman Baltimore: Press. Johns HopkinsUniversity Feld, S., and K.H.Basso,eds. 1996. Senses Place.Santa of Fe: School of AmericanResearchPress. London: George Allen Firth, R. 1936. We,theTikopia. and Unwin. Studiesof Late Gale,N.H. 1989."Archaeometallurgical BronzeAge Copper Oxhide Ingots from the Mediterranean Region." In Old World Archaeometallurgy, edited byA. Hauptmann,E. Pernicka,and G.A.Wagner, 247-68. Der Anschnitt 7. Bochum: Deutschen . Bergbau-Museums Archaeolo. 2001. "Archaeology, Science-Based BronzeAge MetalsTrade: gy and the Mediterranean A Contributionto the Debate."EJA 4:113-30. edited by In Geertz,C. 1996."Afterword." Senses Place, of S. Feld and K. Basso, 259-62. Santa Fe: School of AmericanResearchPress. and Identities: F. Gerritsen, 2003. Local Landscape CommuMeuse-Demer-Scheldt Region. nity in theLatePrehistoric AmsterdamArchaeological Series 9. Amsterdam: Press. of University Amsterdam Outline the Giddens,A. 1984. TheConstitution Society: of of of University CaliforBerkeley: Theory Structuration. of nia Press. Paradoxes and Gilmore,D.D. 1987.Aggression Community: Press. Yale New Culture. Haven: University ofAndalusian A.B. Knapp,and J. Noller. Given, M., V. Kassianidou, 2002. "Troodos Archaeologicaland Environmental SurveyProject:Report on the 2001 Season."Levant 34:25-38. Given,M., and A.B. Knapp.2000. "TheSydneyCyprus SurveyProjectand the Archaeologyof Mining."In International ActsoftheThird Studies, of Congress Cypriot editedbyG.C.Ioannidesand S.A.Hadjistellis, 281-7. Nicosia:Societyof CypriotStudies. Social . 2003. TheSydney ApSurvey Project: Cyprus Monumenta to Archaeological Survey. proaches Regional Archaeologica21. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of UCLA. Archaeology, E. Given,M.,A.B.Knapp,I. Evans, Gibson,T.Ireland,V. Kassianidou, Noller,H. Saunders,L. Sollars,N. UrJ. and S. Zesimou. 2001. win, K. Winther-Jakobsen, "Troodos Survey Archaeologicaland Environmental Report (June-July2000)." Project:FirstPreliminary Cyprus:425-40. of of DepartmentAntiquities, Report the

A.B. Knapp,and N. Meyer.1999. "The Given, M.J.M., SydneyCyprusSurveyProject:An Interdisciplinary of Changein the NorthCenInvestigation Long-Term tralTroodos,Cyprus." 26:19-39. JFA Power, Gupta,A., and J. Ferguson, eds. 1997. Culture, Press. Place. Durham:Duke University DomesticHousehold: D.L.1992."TheMiner's Hardesty, a In from the AmericanWest." Towards Perspectives Social of History Miningin the19thand 20th Centuries, edited by K.Tenfelde, 180-96. Munich:Beck. and the IndustrialMining Com. 1998. "Power to In in the AmericanWest." Social Approaches munity and Past:TheArchaeology Anthropology an Industrial of Mining,edited by A.B. Knapp,V.C.Pigott, and E.W. Herbert,81-96. London:Routledge. Hauptmann,A., R. Maddin,and M. Prange.2002. "On the Structureand Compositionof Copper and Tin Ingots Excavatedfrom the Shipwreckof Uluburn." BASOR 328:1-30. Helbaek,H. 1962. "LateCypriot VegetableDiet at Apli4: ki."OpAth 171-86. to Past:An Introduction AnHodder,I. 1982. ThePresent London:Batsford. thropology Archaeologists. for The We Isbell,W.H. 2000. "What Should Be Studying: and the 'NaturalCommuni'ImaginedCommunity' A New Perspecof ty'."In ArchaeologyCommunities: World tive,edited by M.A. Canuto and J. Yaeger,243-66. London:Routledge. Tombat TamasV. Karageorghis, 1965. "ALate Cypriot sos."Report the Cyprus:ll-29. ofAntiquities, of Department . 1992. Miscellaneafrom Late BronzeAge CyLevant in 24:212. prus. 1. On 'Baetyls' Cyprus." Kassianidou,V. 1999. "BronzeAge Copper Smelting Technologyin Cyprus The Evidencefrom Politico edited by S.M.M. Phorades."In Metalsin Antiquity, A.M. Pollard,P. Budd, and R.A. Ixer, 91-7. Young, BAR-IS Oxford:Archaeopress. 792. Keswani,PS. 1989. "ThePithoi and Other Plain Ware III. Vessels."In Vasilikos Project Kalavasos-Ayios Valley II: Dhimitrios Ceramics, Studies, Tombs, Specialist Objects, byA. South, P.Russell,and P. SchusterKeswani,1271 21. SIMA (3). Goteborg:PaulAstroms. of . 1993."Models LocalExchangein LateBronze BASOR 289:73-83. Age Cyprus." . 1996. "Hierarchies, Heterarchies,and UrbanThe izationProcesses: ViewfromBronzeAge Cyprus." JMA9:211-49. 2003. Bronze BoundKeswani, andA.B.Knapp. P.S., Age ariesand SocialExchangein Northwest Of Cyprus." A 22:213-23. Knapp,A.B. 1986. "Production,Exchange and SocioPolitical Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus."OJA 5:35-60. Productionand Mediterranean . 1989. "Copper 18:109-16. Trade:The Viewfrom Cyprus." OpAth Texts the and Eastern Aegean , ed. 1996a.Near from BC. Millennia Sourcesfor the History to Third theFirst Research N.Y.: of Cyprus Altamont, 2. Greece/Cyprus Center. PostmodwithoutGravity: . 1996b."Archaeology Method ernismand the Past." of Journal Archaeological and Theory 3:127-58. . 1997. TheArchaeology LateBronze Lypnot Age of and The Survey Landscape. Society: Studyof Settlement, of OccasionalPaper4. Glasgow: University Glasgow, Departmentof Archaeology.




. 1998. "Social Approaches to the Archaeology to and Anthropology of Mining." In SocialApproaches and an IndustrialPast: TheArchaeology Anthropology of Mining, edited by A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott, and E.W. Herbert, 1-23. London: Routledge. . 2000. "Archaeology, Science-Based Archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age Metals Trade." EJA3:31-56. Knapp, A.B., M. Donnelly, and V. Kassianidou. 1998. "Excavationsat Politiko Phorades 1997." Report the of 247-68. Department Antiquities,Cyprus: of Knapp, A.B., S.O. Held, I.Johnson, and P.S. Keswani. 1994. "The Sydney-Cyprus Survey Project- Second Preliminary Season (1993) ."Report theDepartment of of Antiquities,Cyprus:329-43. Knapp, A.B., V. Kassianidou, and M. Donnelly. 1999. "ExcavationsAt Politiko Phorades 1998." Report the of Department Antiquities,Cyprus:125-46. of . 2001. "Copper Smelting in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: The Excavations at Politiko Phorades."NEA 64:204-10. A . 2002. "Excavationsat Politiko Phorades: Bronze Age Copper Smelting Site on Cyprus." Antiquity 76:319-20. Knapp, A.B., V. Kassianidou, M. Donnelly, P. Duffy, and J. Noller. Forthcoming. TheExcavationsat PolitikoPhoand Archaeometalrades (1996-2000): The Archaeology Site.Philadelphia: INSTAP lurgyof a Bronze Smelting Age Academic Press. Knapp, A.B., V.C. Pigott, and E.W. Herbert, eds. 1998. SocialApproaches an IndustrialPast: TheArchaeology to and Anthropology Mining. London: Routledge. of Kolb, M.J., and J.E. Snead. 1997. "It's a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology." AmerAnt 62:609-28. Kuna, M. 1991. "The Structuring of Prehistoric Landscape." Antiquity65:332-47. Kuper, A. 1996. Anthropologyand Anthropologists:The ModernBritishSchool.3rd ed. London: Routledge. Lawrence, S. 1998. "Gender and Community Structure on Australian Colonial Goldfields."In SocialApproaches and to an IndustrialPast: TheArchaeology Anthropology of edited by A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott, and E.W. Mining, Herbert, 39-58. London: Routledge. Lekson, S.H. 1989. The Community in Anasazi ArchaeProceedings of ology." In Householdsand Communities: the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference,edited by S. MacEachern, DJ.W. Archer, and R.D. Garvin, 181-5. Calgary:Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Lovell, Nadia, ed. 1998. Localityand Belonging.London: Routledge. Low, S.M. 1996. "Spatializing Culture: The Social Production and Social Construction of Public Space." American 23:861-79. Ethnologist . 2000. On thePlaza: ThePoliticsofPublicSpaceand Austin: University of Texas Press. Culture. MacEachern, S., DJ.W. Archer, and R.D. Garvin, eds. and 1989. Households Communities: Proceedings the21st of Annual ChacmoolConference. Calgary:Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. MacMillan, G. 1995. At theEnd of theRainbow:Gold,Land, and Peoplein theBrazilian Amazon.New York: Columbia University Press. Manning, S.W.,and D.H. Conwell. 1992. "MaroniValley Archaeological Survey Project: Preliminary Report

on the 1990-1991 Field Seasons." Reportof theDepartmentofAntiquities,Cyprus: 1-83. 27 Manning, S.W., D.L. Bolger, A. Swinton, and MJ. Ponting. 1994. "Maroni Valley Archaeological Survey Project: Preliminary Report on 1992-1993 Seasons." 345-67. Report theDepartment Antiquities,Cyprus: of of Manning, S.W., B. Weniger, A.K. South, B. Kling, P.I. Kuniholm, J.D. Muhly,S. Hadjisawas, D.A. Sewell, and G. Cadogan. 2001. "Absolute Age Range of the Late Cypriot IIC Period on Cyprus."Antiquity75:328-40. Masson, O. 1954. Kypnaka I. Recherches sur les antiquites de Tamassos."BCHS8:199-238. Maxham, M.D. 2000. "RuralCommunities in the Black WarriorValley,Alabama: The Role of Commoners in the Creation of the Moundville Landscape." AmerAnt 65:337-54. Merrillees, R.S. 1984. "Ambelikou-Aletri: A Preliminary Report." Reportof the Departmentof Antiquities, Cyprus:l-13. . 1992. The Government of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age." In Acta Cypria3: Acts of an International on edited by P. Astrom, Congress Cypriote Archaeology, 310-29. SIMA-PB120. Jonsered: P. Astrom's. Meskell, L. 2002. PrivateLife in NewKingdom Egypt.Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mintz, S. 1974. Caribbean Transformation. Chicago:Aldine. Moore, H.L. 1994. A Passionfor Difference. Cambridge: Polity. Moran, W.L. 1996. "Akkadian Documents from Amarna." In Near Easternand Aegean Texts from the Thirdto the First Millennia BC, edited by A.B. Knapp, 21-5. Sources for the History of Cyprus 2. Altamont, N.Y.: Greece/ Cyprus Research Center. Muhly, J.D. 1982. The Nature of Trade in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: The Organization of the Metals' Trade and the Role of Cyprus."In in 4000-500 BC, edited byJ.D. EarlyMetallurgy Cyprus, Muhly,R. Maddin, and V. Karageorghis, 251-66. Nicosia: Pierides Foundation. . 1989. "The Organisation of the Copper Indusin try in Late Bronze Age Cyprus."In EarlySociety Cyprus, edited by E.J. Peltenburg, 298-314. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Muhly, J.D., R. Maddin, and T. Stech. 1988. "Cyprus, Crete and Sardinia: Copper Oxhide Ingots and the Metals Trade." Reportof the Departmentof Antiquities, 281-98. Cyprus: London and New Murdock, G.P. 1949. Social Structure. York:Macmillan. Neustupny, E. 1991. "Community Areas of Prehistoric Farmers in Bohemia." Antiquity65:326-31. Bohemia.Prague: , ed. 1998. Space in Prehistoric Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences. Pauketat, T. 2000. "Politicization and Community in the Pre-Columbian Mississippi Valley."In TheArchaeology A edited by M.A. of Communities: New World Perspective, Canuto andj. Yaeger, 16-43. London: Routledge. Peltenburg, E.J. 1996. "From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus, c. 3500-1500 B.C." In TheDevelopment Fromthe Prehistoric Periodto the of the Cypriot Economy: Present Day, edited by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, 17-44. Nicosia: Bank of Cyprus, University of Cyprus. Pigott, V. 1998. Prehistoric Copper Mining in the Context of Emerging Community Craft Specialization in Northeast Thailand." In SocialApproaches an Industo


A.B. KNAPP, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COMMUNITY ON BRONZE AGE CYPRUS Studiesof Citiesand Critical Soja, E.W. 2000. Postmetropolis: Oxford: Blackwell. Regions. Speth, J. 2000. Aggregation, Abandonment, and Community Dynamics in the American Southwest."Reviews in Anthropology 29:141-69 . Steward, J.H. 1950. Area Research:Theoryand Practice. Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 63. Washington, D.C.: Social Science Research Council. Stuiver, M., P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, J.W. Beck, G.S. Burr, K.A. Hughen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk. 1998. "INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP." Radiocarbon 40:1041-83. Sullivan, L.P. 1989. "Household, Community, and Society:An Analysisof Mouse Creek Settlements."In Households and Communities: Proceedingsof the 21st Annual edited by S. MacEachern, D.J.W. Chacmool Conference, Archer, and R.D. Garvin, 317-26. Calgary:Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Swiny,S. 1981. "BronzeAge Settlement Patternsin Southwest Cyprus."Levant 13:51-87. a Tenfelde, K., ed. 1992. Towards SocialHistoryoj Mining International in the19th and 20th Centuries. Mining HisBochum,3-7 Sept1989. Munich: Beck. toryCongress, Thomas, J. 2001. "Archaeologies of Place and Landscape." In ArchaeologicalTheory Today,edited by I. Hodder, 165-86. Cambridge: Polity. Thompson, E.T. 1932. "Mines and Plantations and the Movement of Peoples." American Journal of Sociology 37:603-11. Austin: UniverUrban, G. 1996. Metaphysical Community. of Texas Press. sity Verhoeven, M. 1999. An Archaeological of Ethnography a NeolithicCommunity: Place, and SocialRelationsin Space, at theBurntVillage TellSabiAbyad, Syria.Istanbul:Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. tou Vermeule, E., and F.Z.Wolsky 1990. Toumba Skourou: on A BronzeAgePotter'sQuarter MorphouBay in Cyprus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Webb, J., and D. Frankel 1994. Making an Impression: Storage and Surplus Finance in Late Bronze Age Cyprus."JMA 7:5-26. Wilk, R.R., and W. Ashmore, eds. 1988. Householdand Communityin the MesoamericanPast. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wolf, E.R. 1982. Europeand the People WithoutHistory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wylie, A. 1982. "AnAnalogy by Any Other Name IsJust as Analogical: A Commentary on the Gould-Watson De1:382-401. bate." JournalofAnthropological Archaeology . 1985. "The Reaction Against Analogy. Advanc8:63-1 11. Methodand Theory es in Archaeological Yaeger,J. 2000. The Social Construction ot Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize." In TheArchaeology Comof edited by M.A. CanuA munities: New World Perspective, to and J. Yaeger, 123-42. London: Routledge. Young, S.M.M., A.M. Pollard, P. Budd, and R.A. Ixer, eds. 1999. Metals in Antiquity. BAR-IS792. Oxford: Archaeopress.

trial Past: TheArchaeology Anthropology Mining, and of edited by A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott, and E. Herbert, 205-25. London: Routledge. Social and Pred, A.R. 1986. Place, Practiceand Structure: in Sweden.Cambridge: Spatial Transformation Southern Polity. ArPreucel, R.W., ed. 1991. Processualand Postprocessual chaeologies: Multiple Waysof Knowing the Past. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 10. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Pulak, C. 1998. "The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview."IJNA27:188-224. Redfield, R. 1955. The Little Community:Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robin, C, and N.A. Rothschild. 2002. "Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdoor Space." 2:1 Journal of SocialArchaeology 59-72. Rodman, M.C. 1992. "Empowering Place: Multilocality 94:640-56. and Multivocality."American Anthropologist Rupp, D.W. 1993. "The EarlyPrehistoric Period in Western Cyprus: Recent Investigations." Echos du Monde Classiquen.s.12:159-71. . In press. Evolving Strategies for Investigating an Extensive Terra Incognita in the Paphos District by the Canadian Palaipaphos Survey Project and the FieldSurvey Western Cyprus Project." In Archaeological in Cyprus: Past History,FuturePotentials,edited by M. Iacovou. Studies of the British School at Athens. London: British School at Athens. Sasson,J.M. 1996. "AkkadianDocuments from Mari and Babylonia (Old Babylonian Period)." In NearEastern and AegeanTexts from the Thirdto theFirstMillennia BC, edited by A.B. Knapp, 17-9. Sources for the History of Cyprus 2. Altamont, N.Y.:Greece/Cyprus Research Center. Schiffer, M.B. 1972. "Archaeological Context and Sysw temic Context." AmerA 37:156-65. Schwartz, G.M., and S.E. Falconer, eds. 1994. Archaeologin Communities Early ical View Village fromtheCountryside: Societies. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian InstiComplex tution Press. Shaw, I. 1998. "Exploiting the Desert Frontier: The Logistics and Politics of Ancient Egyptian Mining Expeto ditions." In SocialApproaches an IndustrialPast: The and of Archaeology Anthropology Mining, edited by A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott, and E. Herbert, 242-58. London: Routledge. Shennan, SJ. 1991. "The Excavation of an Early Bronze Age Settlement at St Veit-Klingberg, Land Salzburg, Austria: An Interim Report." TheAntiquaries Journal 69:205-24. . 1993. "Commodities, Transactions, and Growth in the Central-European Early Bronze Age." Journal 1 Archaeology (2):59-72. ofEuropean Simmons, A. 1998. "Bedroom Politics:Ladies of the Night to and Men of the Day."In SocialApproaches an Indusand trial Past: TheArchaeology Anthropology Mining, of edited by A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott, and E.W. Herbert, 59-80. London: Routledge.