PREHISTORIC & PROTOHISTORIC CYPRUS Phần 8 pps

During the 7th century reign of Esarhaddon (c.680–669 bc), a clay prism recording the reconstruction of the royal palace of Nineveh lists the names of ten kings and kingdoms of Iadnana (Borger 1956: 60; Pritchard 1969: 291; Yon 2004: 54–5). Iacovou (2002: 81–3) discusses the internal developments that likely lay behind the change in the number of kingdoms, from seven (Sargon) to ten (Esarhaddon). In Esarhaddon’s inscription, the kings of Iadnana, along with those of H ˘ atti and several states in the Levant, reportedly sent timbers of cedar and pine, and various types of stone statues and bulding materials for the rebuilding of Esarhaddon’s palace. The same ten names and kingdoms found on Esarhaddon’s inscription are repeated on the Rassam Cylinder of Ashurbanipal—last great king of the Neo-Assyrian empire (c.668–633 bc). These kingdoms are listed as part of an army that, in the company of various Levantine rulers, is said to have marched against Egypt, Ethiopia, and Nubia (Luckenbill 1927: II, 340–1, § 876; Pritchard 1969: 294; Yon 2004: 55). Whatever one makes of Assurbanipal’s claim (did he do anything beyond copying the list of names in its entirety, attempting to bolster his imperial image by means of describing a foray into the distant regions of the Upper Nile?), Esarhaddon’s inscription is probably describing raw materials obtained either through regular commercial trade or gift exchange. Although Sargon’s ‘Display Inscription’ boasts that he established his oYcals as governors, not just over Iadnana but over a long list of lands from Egypt to Elam (Iran) (Luckenbill 1927: II, 26), neither the presence of a stele nor the claim of a far-distant potentate can be taken as proof that an Assyrian army, garrison or governor were ever present on Cyprus, much less dominating the country (Reyes 1994: 52–3; Iacovou 2002: 82–3). Yon and Malbran-Labat (1995), moreover, have noted that—on Sargon’s stele as opposed to other, contemporary Neo-Assyrian stelae and documents—there is no account of military action, no topographical details, and no mention of the annexation and incorporation of Iadnana into the Neo-Assyrian empire (also Malbran-Labat, in Yon 2004: 352). As the archaeological evidence also demonstrates (see below), the only possible involvement of Neo-Assyrian rulers in Cyprus resulted from the island’s contacts and exchanges with Phoenicians, Greeks, Egyptians, and Anatolians, and its capacity to adapt to changing political circumstances in order to maintain its economic networks. No Neo-Assyrian governors or garrisons were ever present on the island, nor was it ever incorporated, politically, into the Neo-Assyrian empire (Reyes 1994: 21; cf. Gjerstad 1948: 451). Iacovou (2002: 83) suggests perceptively that the very existence of the Neo-Assyrian empire at the gates of the Mediterranean may have served as the impetus for the island’s polities to consolidate themselves, politically and economically, and to form units that could respond better to the exigencies 344 Island History and Island Identity on Cyprus of the new, imperial world order. Finally, if Oppenheim (1967: 241) was correct in speculating that the copper and iron imported from Yamana by a merchant of the Neo-Babylonian period (c.550 bc) had actually come from Cyprus (see Brinkman 1989: 57–61 on Yamani, a term used in Neo-Babylon- ian cuneiform documents to refer to Greek-speakers; also Parker 2000: 73), then this accommodation to imperial regimes may be seen to continue well into the 6th century bc. Archaeolog y, Texts, and Iron Age History With respect to the Cypriot archaeological record, and unlike the situation in the Levant, there is no indisputable or well-provenanced object or architec- tural element of clearly Assyrian style or derivation preserved on Cyprus (beyond Sargon’s stele) (Reyes 1994: 61–6). In fact the most striking feature of Cyprus’s material culture during the Cypro–Archaic period is the continu- ity of its various indigenous styles (including Phoenician). Such imported goods as exist come from both Anatolia and northern Syria, but the main foreign inXuences during the Cypro–Archaic period—in pottery, architec- ture, statuary, and glyptics—stem from the Levant and the east Greek world (Reyes 1994: 126–51). On the one hand, then, the relevant cuneiform records related to Iadnana/ Cyprus fail to conform in most respects to the usual imperial style, thus calling into doubt any Neo-Assyrian physical presence on the island. On the other hand, the material record reveals evidence of close contacts with the Levant, and with Phoenicia in particular, but nothing that can be regarded as imported from or even inXuenced by Neo-Assyrian style or iconography. Cyprus, accordingly, certainly never suVered from military or political inter- vention on the part of the Assy rians, but the Cypriotes may well have beneWted from commercial involvement in the Neo-Assyrian sphere of inXu- ence, w ith its seaside kingdoms ser ving as Mediterranean entrepots, like those of the coastal states of Phoenicia (Iacovou 2002: 83). The Phoenicians, moreover, could well have served as intermediaries between the Cypriot polities and the Assyrian palaces, whilst the intersection of Phoenician and Neo-Assyrian interests may have worked to the advantage of Cyprus, ensuring a consistent level of contacts with the Levant and western Asia more generally (Reyes 1994: 54–5, 66–7; Malbran-Labat, in Yon 2004: 352–4). Approaching these issues from other perspectives, Iacovou (e.g. 1998; 1999a; 2001; 2002; 2005; 2006a) has argued that the seven or ten historical kingdoms of Cyprus mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions did not emerge from chiefdom-like political formations that had developed on the Island History and Island Identity on Cyprus 345 island during the 11th–9th centuries bc (Rupp 1987; 1998; Petit 2001). Rather, she maintains that these kingdoms had all been established in an ‘orderly and organized manner’ during the 11th century bc (Iacovou 2002: 85; 2005). As argued above (see pp. 286–90), many objects and features of the LC IIIB through Cypro–Geometric archaeological record demonstrate the hybridization of Cyp- riot, Levantine, and Aegean elements. It also seems clear that new elite groups— native Cypriotes, Phoenicians, some groups of Aegeans—emerged on Cyprus during the LC IIIB period, but whether they did so as isolated factions or amalgamated political units remains a source of contention (Iacovou 2005). Given the lack of any deWnitive settlement evidence, it is diYcult to determine unequivocally whether the territorial (city) kingdoms mentioned in the Neo- Assyrian documents had taken form already in the 11th century bc, or rather resulted from extended, internal politico-economic developments that occurred throughout the 11th–8th centuries bc. That close contacts with the Levant, and the Phoenicians in particular, existed during the Cypro-Geometric period seems patently clear from archaeological evidence. The Phoenicians, in turn, may have facilitated Cyprus’s other contacts with Near Eastern polities (Egyptians and Anatolians) and ultimately—by the Cypro-Archaic period—served as intermediaries in the island’s relations with Neo-Assyrian regimes. There is no doubt that new social and political structures had been estab- lished on the island by the Cypro-Archaic I period. In Rupp’s view, it was pressure from Phoenicians established at Kition that impelled local elites at Salamis and Amathus to organize themselves into a newly formulated mini- state to resist outside domination at this time. In Iacovou’s view, it was pressure from the Neo-Assyrian regime knocking at the gates of the Mediter- ranean world that impelled the Cypriot polities to organize themselves into poltical formations capable of responding in a uniWed manner to imperial exigencies. My own view is that we need to approach this situation diVerently. The formation of these Iron Age territorial kingdoms should not be equated with the re-emergence of a hierarchical, state-level of organization, as Rupp (1998: 216–18) would maintain, nor can they be seen as ‘a close re-enactment of [Cyprus’s] Late Bronze Age politico-economic tradition’, as Iacovou (2002: 85) would maintain. As ever, the geopolitical formations that we can discern on prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus seem distinctively diVerent from their Aegean or Levantine counterparts, and we cannot assume or relate directly the polities and peoples of any one period to those of subsequent or previous periods. We would be well advised to evaluate such developments, and to engage with all the material and social factors that were entangled in making up prehistoric and protohistoric Cypriot identities, sui generis. Throughout this and previous chapters, I have spoken much of hybridized cultures and material culture, and their impact on island identities and polity 346 Island History and Island Identity on Cyprus formation. In this chapter, I have considered as well the impact of external (imperial) regimes on local elites. In all these matters, one of the most inter- esting interludes in the history of Cyprus begins here and now, during the course of the Iron Age. Here, however, is where this particular story must end. I return to the Iron Age of Cyprus and to a more fully ‘historical’ era, comparing cultural developments and island identities between Cyprus and the other large Mediterranean islands, in a subsequent, follow-up volume. In the next chapter, I revisit the volume’s themes of insularity, connectivity, and social identity, summarizing their relevance for a better understanding of island archaeology and island history on prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus. Island History and Island Identity on Cyprus 347 7 Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity on Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus THE PREHISTORIC BRONZE AGE During the PreBA, the expansion of the agro-pastoral sector of the economy— seen materially in new terracotta models of cattle and the plough (see Figure 20), pottery products associated with the use of milk products and alcoholic beverages, Xat copper and imitative groundstone axes used in forest clearance— helped to support a changing and developing society. By this time, the economy was based on two main elements: (1) innovations in the agricultural sector (e.g. land clearance and newly created territories, the associated demarcations and social networks); (2) the increasing exploitation of major copper ore deposits along the northern and eastern Xanks of the Troodos Mountains, which fuelled the development of the industrial sector (Knapp 1990a: 159–161; 1994: 419, 423; Manning 1993; Frankel and Webb 2001: 34, 38–41; Fasnacht and Ku ¨ nzler Wagner 2001). By the end of the PreBA, a veritable ‘industrial revolution’ had taken place, one that—by the subsequent ProBA—would aVect every aspect of island life. The geographic and communication barriers that had characterized the earlier prehistory of Cyprus were overcome, whilst new and broader exchange systems and new social orientations developed (Frankel 1974; 1993: 70). Certain wealthy burials in cemeteries along the north coast (Vasilia Kafkallia, Bellapais Vounous, Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba), with diverse metal products and luxury imports, provide clear signs of overseas contacts, however limited, and signal Cyprus’s growing involvement in an emerging eastern Mediterranean interaction sphere during the mid–late third millennium bc (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991: 367–8; A. Sherratt 1993; Sherratt and Sherratt 1998: 338–9; Stos-Gale 2001; Webb et al. 2006). The evident links between copper produc- tion and expor t, the quantity and quality of metal goods in certain north coast burials, and the possible establishment of a port centre or centres along the north coast, all highlight the economic potential of this region, and at the same time suggest the workings of a vibrant economy linked closely to foreign demand (Manning 1993) and to a newly developed interregional exchange in metals (Philip et al. 2003; Webb et al. 2006). The spatial and temporal conjunction of such economic factors—internal copper production, external trade, and foreign demand—with the diversiWca- tion evident in mortuary practices, not only indicates close links between the two phenomena, but also the likely emergence of elite social groups or individuals. From quite diVerent perspectives, Keswani (2004: 150–4) and Manning (1993: 48) have linked PreBA mor tuary practices to the emergence of new ideologies held by speciWc descent groups (Keswani), or to the legitimization of land rights (Manning) in a situation where good arable land was in great demand and increasingly unavailable. More recently, Kes- wani (2005) has portrayed the social and ideological concerns enacted in mortuary practices as an important stimulus for the production and con- sumption of copper within PreBA Cyprus. New social groups thus developed and elaborated their funerary practices through rituals involving feasting and the competitive display of locally produced metal goods, all designed to negotiate and display their identity and status by revering and celebrating their status-laden ancestors. These groups laid claim to certain regions or resources by constructing chamber tombs and reusing formal cemeteries to perpetuate links between speciWc kin groups, their ancestors and communal connections to the land (Keswani 2004: 151). In that view, these new tomb types, and the rituals associated with them, would not necessarily reXect a move toward more hierarchical levels of society, or the negotiation of social or political status, because the organization of society was already complex, contingent, and negotiated. This brings us to a somewhat contentious issue, one that has underlain and characterized multiple archaeological interpretations of the many spatial, social, economic, mortuary, and iconographic aspects of the PreBA: the existence of a hierarchical social order and the presence of an (hereditary) elite group. My own view on this issue might be deWned as ‘maximalist’ (as opposed to Frankel’s ‘minimalist’ stance), and diVers from earlier essays on the same issue (Knapp 1990a, 1994, 2001) mainly by the inclusion of more recent and diVerent kinds of evidence. In the wider context, Chapman (2005: 96–7) maintains that Mediterranean archaeologists tend to assign to prehis- toric societies quite inappropriate and rather subjective degrees of complexity or neo-evolutionary types and stages. He argues (and in what follows I attempt to address his concerns) that we need to develop new ways of looking at material representations of social relations and island identities, at exploitation and consumption as well as production and exchange, at disjunctions and conXicts as well as transitions and social stability, and at unstable political formations as well as palatial or state-level organizations. Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity 349 The people of PreBA Cyprus, like their Chalcolithic predecessors, maintained a dual subsistence strategy appropriate to their insular setting. Indicators of surplus and specialized production suggest that, from the mid-fourth millen- nium bc, some growth was sustainable and society may have become diVer- entiated to a certain degree. The Chalcolithic way of life on Cyprus, however, despite several material indicators of social change, remained essentially rural, parochial and self-suYcient, factors that—at least on Cyprus—inhibited the permanent establishment of unequal social relations. The ‘emerging asymmet- rical social relationships’ that Peltenburg (1991c: 27) sees in the Middle, if not the Late Chalcolithic thus may be regarded as incipient forms of material, cultural, and social developments that became much more intensiWed in the highly transformed social, political, and economic milieux of the PreBA, during the third millennium bc (Knapp 1993a: 89–90). Such developments were in no way inevitable (evolutionary) and they do not exclude a situation where epi- sodes of social c omplexity alternate with periods of s tasis or collapse (Figur e 65) (Allen 1984: 442–9; Manning 1993: 39–41; P eltenburg 1993: 18–20). The PreBA 1 period (c.2700–2000 bc) witnessed several innovations (see Chapter 3): intricate mortuary rituals attendant upon (often wealthy) burials in extramural, at times elaborate chambered tombs; centralized storage facil- ities (Late Chalcolithic only); the specialized production of faience beads and various Wgurines; metalworking and metals production from local ores; the likely emergence of speciWcally gendered identities. All these factors, alongside notable diVerences in wealth within and between some communities, as well as the dynamics of prestige competition that become increasingly apparent in the mortuary record (Keswani 2004: 83; 2005: 382–4), surely signal at least some structural changes in society (Manning 1993: 45–9; Peltenburg 1993: 20; 1996: 17–27 and Wg. 1). They all highlight a new ideology and new economic activities that served to underpin an elite group (or groups) exercising some control over a society in the throes of substantial and unsettling change. Although it may be impossible, on present evidence, to state unequivocally that such social distinctions were tantamount to political hierarchies which somehow regulated the islanders’ lives, we can at least conclude that emerging social elites, and escalating social and economic links with the surrounding regions, had now begun to transform island life and to trigger changes in insular identities on Cyprus. How do such social and material factors relate to the thematic issues treated in this study: colonization and ethnic migration, acculturation and hybridization, insularity and connectivity, identifying individuals in the material record, and the social identity of PreBA Cypriotes? Examining how individuals present and experience themselves through embodiment can steer archaeologists toward a better understanding of both 350 Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity the social (gender, class, or status) and physical (age, sex) components of human identity. The construction of identity through material culture is revealed to diVering degrees in representations of the body, where dress, bodily ornamentation or modiWcation, posture and gesture enable individ- uals to put on a ‘social skin’ (Turner 1980), linking themselves to speciWc social groups, factions, or communities. On Cyprus, the increased use of and diVerentiation amongst representations of the human form—from the pen- dants and birthing Wgurines of the Middle Chalcolithic (c.3200 bc) to the scenic compositions and plank Wgurines of the PreBA (ending c.1700 bc), many with highly distinctive markings (personal adornment, jewellery, cloth- ing, facial markings (see Figures 3, 17a, b), coincide with a suite of other changes in PreBA material culture to reveal not just new modes of social organization but also the emerging role and status of the individuals involved. Over a period of some 1,500 years diverse forms of human representations accompanied and characterized some striking organizational changes in Cypriot society. Representations of individuals are apparent throughout this period, and they changed over time, with indicators of the self becoming more numerous and more prominent in the latest phase of the PreBA. Beyond formal distinc- tions in style, these Wgurines display distinctive ways of representing the body, Figure 65: Step model illustrating episodes of social complexity alternating with periods of stasis or collapse. Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity 351 reproducing stages of the life cycle as well as idealized moments in individual lives. There is a tension between the highly individualized executions of both the Chalcolithic birthing Wgurines and the PreBA 2 plank Wgurines (cf. Joyce 2003: 256–8, on early Mesoamerican Wgurines). The restricted range of actors and actions depicted argues strongly for the use of Wgurines as media in negotiating island identities. These Wgurines thus mirror the bodily experience of those who made and used them, and at the same time reverberate with both intelligibility and ambiguity, in terms of their sexuality, embodiment, and representation. Can material culture shed any light on the proposed migration of an Anatolian ethnic group or groups to Cyprus at the onest of the PreBA? Emberling (1997: 317) warned that archaeologists have often been too quick to assume that a complex of foreign objects or inXuences is indicative of a cohesive ethnic group. Such distinctiveness in material culture might relate instead to elite identities, or elite attempts to establish or justify their status by emulating foreign groups. In their various papers, Frankel and Webb argue that the concept of technology transfer from Anatolia serves to explain many of the innovations seen in the PreBA 1 material record. Their argument assumes that the properties of introduced items (and their technologies) would have been immediately obvious and adopted by islanders on Cyprus; it reXects in some measure a colonialist perspective in which the people of ‘frontier’ zones like Cyprus are seen as passive recipients of innovations stemming from ‘core’ zones like Anatolia (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995: 475–7). Technology, moreover, is a dynamic and multi-dimensional phenom- enon that involves not just technology transfer but other factors such as invention, innovation, and cognition (Parayil 1993: 105), and depends upon cultural and social knowledge (Lemonnier 1993). Even relatively spe- cialized tools and techniques may be adapted for alternative technological uses and purposes ( Thomas 1991: 87). We remain uncertain, for example, about the purposes for which Anatolianizing pottery might have been adoped, or what kind of materials, textiles, or clothing might have been produced using the low-whorl spindles and loomweights emphasized by Frankel (2000: 172–3). Assuming that Anatolian migrants were able to waltz over to Cyprus and extract a raw material in demand misconstrues power relations and, prima facie at least, assumes the domination or subordination of indigenous Cypriotes. Webb and Frankel themselves (Webb et al. 2006; also Stos-Gale 2001) have now provided plausible reasons for Cyprus’s growing involvement in interregional trade, but we still need to consider who might have domin- ated that trade (migrants or natives? a new hybridized social group? other foreign traders?). As originally proposed, the migration scenario failed to consider the signiWcance and mechanisms of local or long-distance trade, the social impact of foreign contacts, or the meanings of the objects and materials 352 Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity involved in such trade (the ‘entangled objects’ of Thomas 1991: 83–4). Changes in the meanings of trade, or its motivations, in one society (e.g. Anatolia, the Levant) may have had a rapid and dynamic eVect on another (e.g. Cyprus, the Cyclades or the Aegean). Within the Mediterraenan, the spread of the secondary products revolution in the late 4th or early 3rd millennium bc, the development of an interregional trade in metals and prestige goods in the later 3rd millennium bc, and the emergence of trade as a politico-economic fulcrum all must have disrupted the balance amongst power sources within many contemporary societies. For many mainland societies of the time, this resulted in more egalitarian power structures increasingly oriented around trade, social alliances, and economic intensiWca- tion (Robb 2001: 195). On 3rd millennium bc Cyprus, as was the case on late 4th millennium bc Malta, we see the opposite eVect, namely the increa- sed authorit y and prominence of those who stood at the apex of the socio -political hierarchy. As an alternative, we should view all the evidence Frankel and Webb cite not simply in terms of an ethnic migration but rather as the hybridization of various Anatolian and Cypriot material and social elements. The people most directly involved may have formed part of a symmetrical exchange network (Alexander 1998: 486–7), in which interdependent groups represent and reveal indicators of symbiosis in social, economic, and ritual spheres that cut across linguistic and territorial boundaries. As Frankel (2005: 20–1) would argue for the Cypriot case, power diVerentials between exchange partners are not evident and similar types of technology are available to all members of the network. Although some inequalities may be evident in household capacities, in production and access to resources, and in patterns of consumption (mortuary practices, feasting activities), such diVerences are not crucial in exchange transactions. Because participation in a symmetrical exchange net- work itself would provide the incentive for surplus production, labour or- ganization would be aVected only at the individual household level. Mutual obligations in giving, receiving or reciprocating food, minerals, Wnished goods and raw materials, especially metals, would support a long-term, spatially extensive and stable system of economic as well as social interaction, one in which sustained cross-cultural contact does not necessarily reduce cultural diversity or, if it does, results in a more hybridized social system than that envisioned by Frankel and Webb. Frankel et al. (1996: 48) argued that various aspects of the secondary products revolution (Sherratt 1981, 1983; Knapp 1990a), including the feed- ing, maintenance, and breeding of new animals as well as the sole-ard ploughs of Bronze Age Cyprus (Frankel 2000), demand ‘the movement of farmers, as well as of material’. In other words, there is an expectation here that dominant Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity 353 [...]... conditions in southern Anatolia and taking over Cyprus (Catling 1971a: 80 8–16), have crystallized into a factoid (Maier 1 985 ) that Wnds ethnic Anatolians migrating and transferring advanced technologies to Cyprus, in order to exploit its copper resources Webb and Frankel (1999; also Frankel 2000, 2005) regard the material record of mid-3rd millennium bc Cyprus as indicative of both an indigenous Chalcolithic... networks and polities within and beyond the Mediterranean had only limited eVects on Cyprus Some of the earliest developments in iron technology took place on Cyprus at this very time (Waldbaum 1 980 ; Snodgrass 1 982 ; Pickles and Peltenburg 19 98) , whilst the production of copper would have been reorganized, not least in Cyprus but also in other sectors of the Mediterranean economy (Knapp 1990b; also Kassianidou... time 8 Islanders, Insularity, and Identity in the Mediterranean In this Wnal chapter, I reiterate in summary form several key issues related to islanders, insularity, and identity on prehistoric and early historic Cyprus, issues examined in depth throughout this study After a general discussion of island identities, I summarize aspects of insularity and identity on prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, ... on seals from the Bronze and Iron Age Levant, western Asia, and Cyprus Kolotourou (2005: 188 –200, pls 23.3, 24.3) discusses and illus- Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity 371 trates tambourine and lyre players from ProBA 3 through Cypro-Archaic 2 Cyprus, whose arms are extended to hold the instruments A shallow bronze bowl from 8th–7th century bc Idalion depicts three musicians—a lyre player,... use and patterned display of foreign goods (e.g the Levantine-type bronze socketed axes and maceheads from various mortuary deposits—Courtois 1 986 : 74–9; Philip 1991: 85 ; or the Old Babylonian cylinder seal from Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi tomb 188 4—Merrillees 1 989 : 153–5) They sought to legitimize their authority by establishing an ideology partly rooted in the localized production and exchange of copper,... Indeed, many scholars (Coldstream 1 989 ; Sherratt 1992: 326 8; 1994c; 19 98: 296–300; Muhly 1996: 52–4; Iacovou 2006b: 325–27) have argued in their own, distinctive ways for strong cultural continuity, as well as economic and industrial intensiWcation between the 13th and 12th centuries bc Whilst some agricultural and mining or pottery-producing villages were abandoned, 3 68 Insularity, Connectivity, and... most isolated polities in the prehistoric Mediterranean, and the archaeological record presented here demonstrates palpably that this was not the case It may also be noted that migration or colonization have never been touted as a mechanism for the spread of the secondary products revolution, anywhere in the Mediterranean or Europe (e.g Bogucki 1993; GreenWeld 1 988 ; Thomas 1 987 ; GreenWeld and Fowler 2005)... (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995: 4 78 9) Adding to Frankel’s line of argument, Peltenburg (1996: 23) maintained that the cattle-plough complex would not have been adopted on Cyprus ‘without external input and engaging in a lengthy evolutionary process’ In a more recent discussion, he seems to question whether the secondary products revolution ever touched Cyprus (Peltenburg et al 19 98: 254; cf Knapp 1990a: 155–61,... least two Mediterranean ˜ anthropologists, Herzfeld (1 984 ; 1 987 ; 2001: 265–7, 270) and Pina-Cabral (1 989 ; 1992) Herzfeld argues that attempts to portray any sort of Mediterranean cultural unity, or identity, reveal a ‘pervasive archaism’, what he sees as a ‘Mediterraneanism’ quite diVerent from that of the geographer, one tantamount to Said’s (19 78) ‘Orientalism’ Thus the quest for a broader, comparative,... often involves modifying outward cultural appearances as well as the material manifestations of life, as part of manipulating one’s social identity (Cusick 1998c: 1 38 9) I propose the following scenario At the transition to the PreBA era on Cyprus, some migrants of ultimate Anatolian origin arrived on the island, 356 Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity intent—as migrants typically are—on . history on prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus. Island History and Island Identity on Cyprus 347 7 Insularity, Connectivity, and Social Identity on Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus THE PREHISTORIC. and taking over Cyprus (Catling 1971a: 80 8–16), have crystallized into a factoid (Maier 1 985 ) that Wnds ethnic Anatolians migrating and transferring advanced technologies to Cyprus, in order. various mortuary deposits—Courtois 1 986 : 74–9; Philip 1991: 85 ; or the Old Babylonian cylinder sea l from N ic osia Ayia Paraskevi tomb 188 4—Merrillees 1 989 : 153–5). They sought to legitimize