354
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
Introduction
All archaeological contexts are destruction contexts.
Human actors, natural disasters, and post-depositio-
nal processes, all represent transformative forces
that contribute to changing the original occupation
setting. The primary importance of abandonment
and destruction sequences in the analysis of built
environments has long been recognized in the study
of formation processes of archaeological deposits
(Schiffer 1987; La Motta, Schiffer 1999). As a mat-
ter of fact, the concept of destruction embodies a so-
cial and cultural dimension. As much as construction
and maintenance activities, destruction practices
form part of the settlement life cycle, and as such
they represent a social phenomenon involving a
community (Cameron 1991; 2003; Driessen 2013;
Stevanovic 2002; Tringham 2013; Twiss et al. 2008).
Destruction events represent the culmination of so-
cial, cultural, political, and ideological circumstances;
therefore, cases of destruction should be analysed
by taking into account their preceding phases in or-
der to provide a better understanding of the causes
that led to the final destruction and to identify its
agents (Zuckerman 2007; Torrence, Grattan 2002).
It is fundamental to consider the multiple aspects of
destruction processes when we approach the analy-
sis of an archaeological context. Destruction is multi-
scalar: it can affect a single structure or an entire set-
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of
accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
Luca Bombardieri, Marialucia Amadio
Department of Humanities, University of Turin, Torino, IT
luca.bombardieri@unito.it
ABSTRACT – Destruction processes are considered ‘time capsules of material culture’ (Driessen
2013) as they freeze a site at one moment of its history providing key evidence for interpreting the
archaeological record and reconstructing social, political, cultural and ideological circumstances. By
focusing on selected case-studies, this paper aims at briefly discussing existing evidence of destruc-
tion events in Bronze Age contexts in Cyprus, and at a preliminary presentation of new research
data resulting from ongoing interdisciplinary analyses at Middle Bronze Age Erimi.
IZVLE∞EK – Procese uni≠enja razumemo kot ‘≠asovne kapsule materialne kulture’ (Driessen 2013),
saj prostor zamrznejo v nekem trenutku njegovega obstoja, s ≠imer zagotavljajo klju≠ne dokaze pri
razlagi arheolo∏kega zapisa in nudijo rekonstrukcijo dru∫benih, politi≠nih, kulturnih in ideolo∏kih
okoli∏≠in. S tem prispevkom nudimo kratko razpravo o obstoje≠ih dokazih in o dogodkih uni≠enja v
kontekstu bronaste dobe na Cipru, in sicer na podlagi izbranih ∏tudijskih primerov, hkrati pa pred-
stavljamo nove raziskovalne podatke, ki izhajajo iz interdisciplinarnih analiz, ki so v teku na cipr-
skem srednje bronastodobnem najdi∏≠u Erimi.
KEY WORDS – destruction events; abandonment practices; Bronze Age Cyprus
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – dogodki uni≠enja; prakse opu∏≠anja; bronasta doba; Ciper
?elja po uni;enju> sodobne interpretacije naklju;nih in namernih
uni;enj v bronasti dobi na Cipru
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.1
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
355
concerning abandonment dynamics and destruction
processes in Cyprus by discussing evidence from
Early-Middle Bronze Age sites, and by briefly present-
ing new research results on destruction sequences at
Middle Bronze Age Erimi.
Between the event and the practice: interpret-
ing destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
The multi-scalar and multi-temporal dimension of
destructions is rarely observed in the interpretation
of prehistoric contexts. However, these two dimen-
sions are key to understanding the nature of a spe-
cific destruction and identifying it as either an un-
controlled event or as a deliberate practice. The first
can be caused by natural catastrophes or human
agency, and its consequences for the community are
rather unpredictable. Conversely, the second type
of destruction has controlled effects and may also
serve a ‘regenerative’ social function. In both scena-
rios, destruction marks a crucial turning point in site
history, but they greatly differ from each other in-
sofar as they embody different perceptions that the
community has of its own history.
Thanks to the increasing number of projects that are
sensitive to depositional, destructive and abandon-
ment processes, which are based on fresh analysis
of old excavated contexts like that of the Sanctuary
of the Horned God at Enkomi (Papasavvas 2014)
and on new excavations, especially at Early and Mid-
dle Bronze Age sites (e.g., Frankel, Webb 1996;
2006; 2012; Swiny et al. 2003; Bombardieri 2017;
Sneddon 2019), Cypriote Prehistory offer good case-
studies to discuss abandonment destruction practi-
ces (Fig. 1, Tab. 1).
At Early Bronze Age Marki Alonia, the inter-related
analyses of architectural units, featu-
res and finds have made it possible
to broadly analyse depositional con-
texts and exclude the occurrence of
localized catastrophic events or sud-
den site-wide abandonment (Frankel,
Webb 2012). In the settlement struc-
tures there is a continual process of
change as individual rooms or areas
were renovated, reorganized, rebuilt,
demolished or left as standing ruins
(Frankel, Webb 1996; 2006). Marki
Alonia represents a straightforward
case where the absence of indicators
for destruction by natural disaster or
deliberate anthropic actions indicates
tlement. Destruction has a multi-temporal dimen-
sion: it can be temporary, then followed by repara-
tion and renovation, or definitive with no chance of
second reconstruction. Destruction can be random
and sudden, when triggered by external and uncon-
trolled factors, such as natural disasters, or it can be
an anticipated consequence of deliberate actions car-
ried out by individuals or communities who destroy
to express identities, beliefs and ideas (Tringham
2005; Stevanovic 1997; Cameron, Tomka 1993).
Each of these aspects impacts on the archaeological
record by producing distinct evidence.
Detecting disasters like earthquakes may be extre-
mely challenging in the archaeological record, espe-
cially when degradable building materials are used
in the construction practice. Recent studies have ap-
plied an integrated approach for identifying ancient
earthquakes, combining macroscopic indicators and
supporting evidence from microscopic geoarchaeolo-
gical techniques, such as micromorphology (Schach-
ner et al. 2019; Lazar et al. 2020). Recurrent pat-
terns of macroscopic markers have been detected as
expected effects of earthquakes observable on the
stratigraphic deposits and included in the so-called
‘Potential Earthquake Archaeological Effects’ (PEAEs)
(Jusseret et al. 2013). PEAE markers include effects
expressed in architectural elements (e.g., tilted walls,
displaced walls) and in the characterization of the
archaeological deposit (e.g., oriented fallen objects,
localized fire damage, compact layers of rubble bury-
ing valuables suggesting sudden collapse) (Lazar et
al. 2020.Tab. 1).
In this paper we examine the act of building destruc-
tion as a complex social phenomenon, and in doing
so we focus on a set of Bronze Age contexts in Cyp-
rus. The aim is to present a brief review of studies
Fig. 1. Map of Cyprus showing the Bronze Age sites mentioned in
the text.
Luca Bombardieri, Marialucia Amadio
356
that the settlement was gradually abandoned and
the structures were subjected to slow deterioration
by post-depositional processes, and possibly to epi-
sodic post-abandonment re-use.
In other contexts, however, abandonment sequences
indicate the occurrence of rapid destruction events,
as the cases of Sotira Kaminoudhia and Alambra.
Evidence of destruction retrieved from these sites
has been interpreted as indicating destruction by na-
tural circumstances: an earthquake for some of the
collapsed structures at Sotira, and an accidental fire
at Alambra.
Evidence of coursed tumbles retaining the spatial
arrangement of the building blocks, coherent with
a PEAE marker, has been documented in the de-
struction sequences of many structures at Early
Bronze Age Sotira Kaminoudhia and interpreted as
the consequence of a seismic event that specifical-
ly affected houses in Areas A and B (Herscher, Swiny
2003.505). In support of the seismic event inter-
pretation, Stuart Swiny indicates a series of evidence
including the complete abandonment of the settle-
ment and the absence of traces of reconstruction
post-destruction; the occurrence of collapsed roofing
materials completely sealing the houses’ inventory;
the presence of human skeletal remains in three
rooms (units 6, 16 and 22) without any clear mortu-
ary treatment (Herscher, Swiny 2003; Swiny 2008)
as evidence of accidental death in catastrophic cir-
cumstances; the recurrence of burnt deposits cover-
ing the floors of many structures as result of confla-
gration associated with an earthquake event (Swiny
et al. 2003.53–54).
In validating the assumption of a seismic event at
Sotira, George Rapp (2003.465–466) asserts that
mudbrick and undressed stone construction used
in building technique in the settlement are poorly
resistant to seismic damage. However, it is impor-
tant to stress that foundations cut into the solid bed-
rock – as in many buildings at Sotira (Swiny et al.
2003.56) – are much more stable to seismic waves
than unconsolidated soil materials (Grant et al.
1974), and that one-storey structures generally have
a better static performance during strong earth-
quakes due to their inferior load (Kallika 2017).
Even in the circumstance of intense earthquakes
with the consequent collapse of the mudbrick super-
structure, only moderate damage to the stone struc-
ture is produced (Rapp 1986.368), thus permitting
fast rebuilding and restoration of the structures to
habitable condition.
In this regard, the idea of human burial as possible
victims of a catastrophic earthquake at Sotira should
be also reconsidered. In the examination of destruc-
tion sequences in archaeological contexts it is com-
mon to attribute the occurrence of skeletons buried
under rubble to a sudden death caused by the col-
lapse of building in an earthquake (Bombardieri in
press). Skeletons of people killed and buried under
the debris of fallen dwellings imply that the collapse
came suddenly, without warning, and caught them
while sleeping or lying down. However, ethnogra-
phic analyses conducted in a large set of traditional
villages in the Near East destroyed by earthquakes
in the 1960s and 1970s indicate that in general
younger people, who attempted to escape outdoors,
are those that suffered more causalities from being
injured by collapsed structures falling around. In
contrast the elderly, who stayed indoors, were much
safer (Ambraseys 2006.1011). We must also consi-
der that bodies of people killed outdoors or indoors
are almost always recovered by the survivors and
given proper burials, as also recorded in ethnogra-
phic cases (Ambraseys 2006) and as expected for
early societies with standardized funerary rituals and
mortuary treatment traditions, like those of Bronze
Age Cyprus (Bombardieri in press; Baxevani 1997;
Keswani 2012; Knapp 2013.311–321).
In advancing these criticisms, we do not exclude the
idea proposed by Swiny of a seismic event at Sotira;
however, we question the assumption of an earth-
quake as a principal triggering factor for the defini-
tive destruction and abandonment of many structu-
res at the settlement.
Taking into consideration the possibility of a fire
event as a consequence of the earthquake, it is un-
likely that an accidental fire could have been respon-
sible for an extended burnt horizon as that docu-
mented in all three areas of the settlement (Swiny
et al. 2003.53–54). In fact, structures in mudbrick
and stone are very difficult to ignite without additio-
Chronological phases Approximate dates Cal BC
Philia Early Cypriot 2400\2350–2250
Early Cypriot I 2250–2150
Early Cypriot II
Early Cypriot III 2150–1950
Middle Cypriot I 1950–1850
Middle Cypriot II 1850–1750\1700
Middle Cypriot III 1750\1700–1680\1650
Tab. 1. Chronological schema for Early and Middle
Bronze Age Cyprus (after Manning 2013).
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
357
nal accelerants (Dennis 2008.177; Harrison 2008;
Amadio, Bombardieri 2019.6–7). Therefore, even
in the case of an uncontrolled blaze, fire could not
have spread from one building to the other, and
from one area of the settlement to the other.
A similar conclusion can be drawn for the destruc-
tion context at Early-Middle Bronze Age Alambra,
which represents a further interesting case-study to
analyse destruction processes in prehistoric Cypriot
contexts. No evidence of wall collapse by seismic
event has been recorded at the site; however, An-
drew Sneddon (2019) reports the occurrence of ex-
tended traces of burnt and ashy materials in the
abandonment sequences of unit 1 and in other struc-
tures of the ancient settlement – including clusters
of buildings in Areas A and C (Georgiou 2008; Sned-
don 2015) – which he considers clear indicators of
destruction by fire.
By focusing on the analysis of unit 1, Sneddon
(2019) interprets the absence of objects in the struc-
ture as a deliberate act of clearing as part of a
planned and gradual abandonment; yet his recon-
struction of the fire event appears less defined. Con-
sidering that the fire was not restricted to unit 1, but
also involved other areas of the settlement, Sned-
don sustains the hypothesis of a large conflagration,
possibly due to a forest fire, which swept across
part of Alambra soon after the settlement was aban-
doned.
Likewise, units 22 and 44 at Sotira, unit 1 at Alam-
bra presents a case of a human internment covered
by a layer of ashy debris. According to Sneddon’s
(2019) interpretation, this intramural burial is un-
likely to be the victim of a catastrophic fire, due to
the fact that mudbrick buildings with stone footing
– like those of prehistoric Bronze age villages – do
not explode into flames (Swiny 2008.51), and a per-
son inside would have had the time to escape out-
doors to abandon the building before the roof col-
lapsed (Bombardieri in press). In the analysis of
the context, Sneddon rejects the idea of a possible
act of violence or conflict because of the evidence of
a set of copper ingots deliberately placed on the de-
ceased’s chest (Sneddon 2019.10). He further dis-
cards the hypothesis of the burial as part of an act
of ‘domicide’ – the act of deliberate destruction to
mark the end of the house’s occupation upon the
death of the head of the household (Tringham 2005;
2013). However, one may also hypothesize that unit
1 was destroyed by fire because of the burial itself,
as argued for Prehistoric Levant (e.g., Verhoeven
2000; Akkermans 2008; Akkermans et al. 2012)
and potentially attested by ethnographic parallels
(e.g., Porteous, Smith 2001).
The assumption that the conflagration of unit 1
might have been part of the symbolic destruction of
specific residential clusters at Alambra is difficult to
validate due to the lack of univocal evidence in the
analysis of the destruction context. Additionally, the
identified macroscopic PEAE markers (e.g., local-
ized fire damage, broken in situ vessels) (Lazar et
al. 2020.Tab 1) can either be interpreted as the ef-
fects of a controlled destruction or the consequences
of natural catastrophic events, including earthquakes.
Nonetheless, even if the practice of deliberate house/
settlement destruction, as a preliminary step toward
the settlement’s final abandonment, has never been
identified in prehistoric Bronze Age contexts in Cy-
prus (Sneddon 2019.10), the repeated occurrence of
burnt structures in the contexts presented above cer-
tainly deserve further consideration, especially on
the basis of the new evidence and the application of
a new multi-scalar methodology at Middle Bronze
Age Erimi.
A case for destruction at Middle Bronze Age
Erimi: ongoing analyses and interpretations
Erimi Laonin tou Porakou is a Middle Bronze age
site in the south region of Cyprus, on the river Kou-
ris valley area (Limassol district). Extensive excava-
tions since 2009 have exposed a substantial part of
the prehistoric settlement, which was built on a
limestone hill and organized in three main areas:
the productive area, with a workshop complex on
the top (Area A); the residential area on the degrad-
ing terraces (Areas B, B2; T2, T3); and the funerary
clusters on the slopes surrounding the settlement
(Area E and Vounaros) (Fig. 2). The research pro-
gramme conducted at Erimi has provided a wealth
of new data on Middle Bronze Age society in Cyprus,
from settlement life-history to material culture, tech-
nologies and subsistence practices (Bombardieri
2017; Webb, Knapp 2021).
Excavations in the workshop complex revealed the
occurrence of wholly burned building-units, full of
ashes and other incinerated materials (Fig. 3). Since
the destruction sequences in these structures are cha-
racterized by a totally different depositional history
from those of naturally degraded buildings of the
workshop complex and of the residential areas (Ama-
dio, Bombardieri 2019; Amadio et al. in press),
Luca Bombardieri, Marialucia Amadio
358
interdisciplinary scientific analyses have been ap-
plied to the examination of these contexts in order
to provide multi-scalar and networked data to ana-
lyse and reconstruct the destruction dynamics.
Stratigraphic analysis has been integrated with mi-
cromorphology to conduct high resolution characte-
rization of depositional sequences and examination
of the pre-depositional environment, depositional
and post depositional processes that impacted on
the deposits and materials in order to identify nat-
ural and/or anthropic processes that contributed to
the formation of destruction sequences. FTIR analy-
ses have been applied to a wide range of materials,
including intact and degraded mudbricks, burnt de-
posits, floors, objects and natural sediments to distin-
guish between carbonates of different origins and
ascertain the heating temperatures of clay minerals
in order to examine the impact of fire on surfaces
and deposits. Phytolith analysis was further applied
as an important proxy to analyse the occurrence of
plant materials in destruction deposits and occupa-
tion sequences in order to acquire information about
possible organic substances that contributed to the
conflagration. The analyses conducted on burnt
structures at Erimi in the workshop complex are
summarized in Table 2, with specific reference to
unit SA V.
According to the integrated analyses on macro and
micro evidence (Amadio et al. in press) the destruc-
tion by fire at Erimi was most probably deliberate,
as demonstrated by the fact that burnt structures are
not adjacent to each other, as we would expect in
Fig. 2. Erimi. The terraced configuration of the Middle Bronze Age settlement and cemetery site, on the
east bank of the Kouris river valley (Limassol, Cyprus) (Archive Erimi Archaeological Project/Italian
archaeological mission in Erimi, Cyprus).
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
359
case of uncontrolled fire spreading all over a settle-
ment area, and as indicated by the limited occur-
rence of burnt and ashy residues outside the exter-
nal perimeter of the building, which suggests that
precautions were taken to contain and control the
fire. Micro data further indicate that temperatures
were prolonged enough to bake and sinter part of
the mudbrick wall structure. In fact, accidental fires
of modest intensity and short duration result in no
or very little sintering of the mud wall (Akkermans
et al. 2012.311; Shaffer 1993). Data also show that
the fire was ignited starting from the roof, as the
floor of the building-unit SA V shows no sign of al-
teration by fire. This constitutes further evidence in
favour of an intentional conflagration rather than
an accidental burning. As demonstrated by experi-
mental analysis, a house with mudbrick and stone
walls and a flat roof made of wood and clay – as at
Erimi – must be prepared for burning or it will not
burn at all (Gordon 1953.149; Dennis 2008).
Fig. 3. Erimi. Burnt structures in the workshop complex – Area A: a unit SA I; b unit SA V; c unit SA IV,
the picture shows the black deposit covered by a layer of degraded mudbricks (the pale orange layer) and
some intact mudbricks (the white rectangular features); d E-W section of unit SA I; e E-W section of unit
SA V; f E-W section in unit SA IV; all the three sections shows a similar sequence formed by a layer of de-
graded and intact mudbrick materials covering the black ashy deposits; this destruction sequence covers
the plaster floor, which – in most of the cases – is not preserved intact due to the collapse of the upper-
standing structures during the conflagration (Archive Erimi Archaeological Project/Italian archaeolo-
gical mission in Erimi, Cyprus).
in situ EVIDENCE INTERPRETATIONS
MACRO Burnt building-units are not contiguous. Structures were burnt intentionally.
No evidence of re-construction and re-use after Structures were not re-occupied but were definitively 
the destruction event. abandoned.
No evidence of fire outside the building’s perimeter. The fire was controlled.
Occurrence of rich floor assemblages in a good
state of preservation (most of the medium-small Possibly deliberate deposited objects.
size vessels are intact).
Intact mudbricks showing T of 450–500° C.
The fire was intense enough to bake part of the mud-
brick wall structure.
Burnt deposits mostly composed of pyrogenic calcite. Formation of ash due to slow burning fire.
Floor not altered by fire (no ignition points). The fire did not start from the floor.
Object are coated by a crust of pyrogenic calcite.
Ash produced during combustion of roofing structures
deposited on the vessels.
Unfired loom weights on the floor show no signs Ash produced during combustion of roofing structures
of fire alteration. insulated the objects.
MICRO
Occurrence of high percentage of dendritic
Possible addition of flammable material (|).phytholiths on the floor.
Tab. 2. Summarized data from integrated analyses conducted on burnt buildings at Erimi (Amadio et al.
2021).
Luca Bombardieri, Marialucia Amadio
360
While the data that was collected
made it possible to attempt a valid
reconstruction of the destruction
event at Erimi, which presumably
consisted of a first phase of a slow
burning fire and a second phase of
a well-vented fire, more uncertain is
the interpretation of the causes that
triggered the presumed deliberate
destruction. The analysis of residues
and assemblages on the floors of
burnt buildings, which indicates the
occurrence of many intact non-func-
tional vessels with possible ritual use,
such as a zoomorphic askos (Fig. 4),
along with prestige and imported ob-
jects bearing a symbolic value and
homogeneous tool sets (Fig. 5), may
suggest that these materials were de-
liberately deposited within the buil-
dings and that the abandonment was
possibly organized in advance.
This assumption may be further supported by the
absence of victims inside of the workshop complex.
The idea of an intentional conflagration of selected
building-units of the workshop complex as part of
abandonment rituals is also conceivable. The lack
of evidence for reconstruction and re-occupation of
the building-units after the conflagration, the fact
that the structures destroyed by fire are those with
a richer floor assemblage (maybe a deliberate depo-
sition?), and that all the burnt structures are those
of the communal and most representative area of
the settlement, might endorse this interpretation.
However, caution is needed before arriving at a
more certain conclusion about motivations on the
basis of the presumed deliberate destruction and fi-
nal abandonment at Middle Bronze Age Erimi.
Conclusions
The cases presented in this short review provide
new insights into the examination of destruction
processes and practices in Early and
Middle Bronze Age communities in
Cyprus. The paper underlined the
primary importance of destruction
events in the examination of long-
term socio-cultural processes and in
the reconstruction of settlement life-
histories. Throughout the case-stud-
ies presented we illustrated the com-
plexity of analysis focused on de-
struction sequences because destruc-
tion events are always multifaceted
and involve many distinct aspects,
which all contribute to the formation
of multiform in situ evidence and
consequent ambiguous interpreta-
tion.
The case of Sotira well exemplifies
the difficulty of finding a univocal
reconstruction for the destruction
Fig. 4. Erimi. Unit SA III. A goat-shaped askos found on the floor of
the building-unit (Archive Erimi Archaeological Project/Italian
archaeological mission in Erimi, Cyprus).
Fig. 5. Erimi. Unit SA XII. A set of textile tools and large ceramic
containers on the floor of the building-unit (Archive Erimi Archaeo-
logical Project/Italian archaeological mission in Erimi, Cyprus).
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
361
and final abandonment of the settlement. In this
regard a consideration should be made. Many struc-
tures at Sotira were built with a foundation cut into
the bedrock floor, possibly to enable better static
performance of the buildings (Wright 1992.399–
405). Considering that the cutting of the calcareous
bedrock is a task that required communal effort and
a large investment of labour, why was the decision
made to not reconstruct the collapsed parts of the
buildings and instead to definitively abandon the
structures? By advancing this consideration, we want
to stress that even admitting the occurrence of a na-
tural catastrophic event at Sotira, as well as at Alam-
bra and Erimi, the choice of destruction and aban-
donment was possibly based on socio-cultural fac-
tors and motivations.
In examining the processes and causes of deliberate
destruction, analyses conducted at Alambra and the
new research initiatives and results at Erimi have
disclosed interesting directions to examine the mean-
ing of intentional conflagrations for Middle Bronze
Age communities in Cyprus. In future analyses, the
examination of the social, political, cultural and ideo-
logical implications behind the practice of deliberate
destruction might offer an excellent point of entry
into the social configuration of Cypriot society at the
end of Middle Bronze Age Cyprus, which represents
a significant turning point from a household-based
society into a transformed socio-cultural system typi-
cal of Late Bronze Age urban centres.
This research was supported by the University of To-
rino, the Italian Minster of Foreign Affair MAE, and
by the Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science –
Weizmann Institute of Science. The Erimi Archaeolo-
gical project would like to thank the Department of
Antiquities of Cyprus for steady collaboration and
support, particularly the Director, Marina Solomidou-
Ieronymidou, along with Yiannis Violaris, Demetra
Aristoteleous and the staff of the Kourion and Limas-
sol District Museums.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Akkermans P. M. M. G. 2008. Burying the dead in Late
Neolithic Syria. In J. M. Córdoba, M. Molist, M. C. Pérez,
I. Rubio, and S. Martínez (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the An-
cient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006. Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid (UAM Ediciones). Madrid: 621–645.
Akkermans P., Bruning M., Hammers N., +9 authors, and
Visser E. 2012. Burning down the house: the burnt build-
ing V6 at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia 43/44: 307–324.
Amadio M., Bombardieri L. 2019. Abandonment Proces-
ses at Middle Bronze Age Erimi (Cyprus). A multi-scalar
approach. Antiquity 93(368): 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.29
Amadio M., Boaretto E., and Bombardieri L. in press. Aban-
donment practices through the microscope lens. Microar-
cheological data from Middle Bronze Age Erimi, Cyprus.
Levant.
Ambraseys N. 2006. Earthquakes and Archaeology. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Science 33: 1008–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.006
Baxevani E. 1997. From settlement to cemetery burial:
the ideology of death in the Early Bronze Age societies
of Cyprus and Crete. In D. Christou (ed.), Cyprus and the
Aegean in Antiquity: From the Prehistoric Period to the
7th Century A.D. Cyprus Department of Antiquities. Nico-
sia: 57–69.
Bombardieri L. 2017. Erimi Laonin tou Porakou. A Mid-
dle Bronze Age Community in Cyprus. Excavations
2009–2014. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 150.
Åström Förlag. Uppsala.
in press. Intramural Funerary Spaces in Early and Mid-
dle Bronze Age Cyprus. Agoge. Atti della Scuola di Spe-
cializzazione in Beni Archeologici dell’Università di
Pisa XVI.
Cameron C. M. 1991. Structure abandonment in villages.
Archaeological Methods and Theory 3: 155–194.
2003. A consideration of abandonment from beyond
Middle America. In T. Inomata, R. B. Webb (eds.), The
Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle
America. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City: 203–
210.
Cameron C. M., Tomka S. A. 1993 (eds.) The abandon-
ment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological
and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
References
∴
Luca Bombardieri, Marialucia Amadio
362
Dennis S. 2008. The Use of Experimental Archaeology
to Examine and Interpret Pre-Pottery Neolithic Archi-
tecture: A Case Study of Beidha in southern Jordan. Un-
published PhD thesis. School of History, Classics and
Archaeology. University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh.
https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5803
Driessen J. 2013. Time capsules? Destructions as Archa-
eological Phenomena. In J. Driessen (ed.), Destruction.
Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives.
UCL Presses universitaires de Louvain. Louvain: 5–22.
Frankel D., Webb J. M. 1996. Marki Alonia: An Early and
Middle Bronze Age Town in Cyprus. Excavation 1990–
1994. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 123.1. P. As-
troms Forlag. Jonsered.
2006. Marki Alonia: An Early and Middle Bronze Age
Settlement in Cyprus. Excavation 1995–2000. Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology 123.2. P. Astroms Forlag.
Savedalen.
2012. Household continuity and transformation in a
prehistoric Cypriot village. In B. J. Parker, C. P. Foster
(eds.), New Perspectives in Household Archaeology.
Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake: 473–500.
Georgiou G. 2008. The Settlement at Alambra Mouttes
Revisited. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cy-
prus: 133–143.
Gordon D. H. 1953. Fire and the sword: the technique of
destruction. Antiquity 27(107): 149–152.
Grant R., Christian J. T., and Vanmarcke E. H. 1974. Dif-
ferential settlement of building. Journal of the Geotech-
nical Engineering Division 100: 973–991.
Harrison K. 2008. Fire and Burning at Çatalhöyük. Ça-
talhöyük archive report 2008. Çatalhöyük Research Pro-
ject: 273–280. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/sites/defa ult/
files/media/pdf/Archive_Report_2008.pdf
Herscher E., Swiny S. 2003. Chronology. In S. Swiny, G.
Rapp, and E. Herscher (eds.), Sotira Kamindoudhia: An
Early Bronze Age Site in Cyprus. Cyprus American Archa-
eological Research Institute Monograph Series 4. Ame-
rican School of Oriental Research. Boston: 495–506.
Jusseret S., Langohr C., and Sintubin M. 2013. Tracking
earthquake archaeological evidence in Late Minoan IIIB
(~1300–1200 B.C.) Crete (Greece): a proof of concept.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103:
3026–3043. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130070
Kallika M. 2017. The development of contemporary ver-
nacular design in Cyprus: materials and technologies
that can reinforce the seismic resistance of the existing
vernacular dwellings in seismic areas of Cyprus. Unpub-
lished MA thesis. Edinburgh School of Architecture and
Landscape Architecture. University of Edinburgh. Edin-
burgh. https://issuu.com/mariaaristidoukallika/docs/mar
ia_kallika_issuu
Keswani P. S. 2012. Mortuary practices and burial cults
in Cyprus from the Bronze Age through the Iron Age. In
G. Cadogan, M. Iacovou, K. Kopaka, and J. Whitley (eds.),
Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cy-
prus. British School at Athens Studies 20. British School
at Athens. London: 313–322.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i23528533
Knapp A. B. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus: From
Earliest Prehistory Through the Bronze Age. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
La Motta V. M., Schiffer M. B. 1999. Formation process-
es of house floor assemblages. In P. M. Allison (ed.), The
Archaeology of Household Activities. Routledge. London:
19–29.
Lazar M., Cline E. H., Nickelsberg R., Shahack-Gross R.,
and Yasur-Landau A. 2020. Earthquake damage as a cat-
alyst to abandonment of a Middle Bronze Age settlement:
Tel Kabri, Israel. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239079.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239079.
Manning S. W. 2013. Appendix: a new radiocarbon chro-
nology for prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus, ca.
11,000–1050 Cal bc. In A. B. Knapp (ed.), The Archaeo-
logy of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory through the
Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge:
485–533.
Papasavvas G. 2014. Feasting, deposition and abandon-
ment in the Sanctuary of the Horned God at Enkomi. In
J. M. Webb (ed.), Structure, Measurement and Meaning:
Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus in Honour of David Fran-
kel. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 143. Åström
Förlag. Uppsala: 43–55.
Porteous J. D., Smith S. E. 2001. Domicide the global de-
struction of home. McGill-Queen’s University Press. King-
stone.
Rapp G. 1986. Assessing archaeological evidence for seis-
mic catastrophes. Geoarchaeology 1(4): 365–379.
2003. Geologic and Geomorphic Setting and Resources.
In Swiny S., Rapp G., and Herscher E. (eds.), Sotira-Ka-
minoudhia: an Early Bonze Age Site in Cyprus. Ame-
rican School of Oriental Research Archaeological Re-
ports 8. Cyprus-American Archaeological Research Insti-
tute Monograph Series 4. American School of Oriental
Research. Boston: 461–466.
https://doi.org/10.5615/j.ctt2jc9wt
Appetite for destruction> current interpretations of accidental or deliberate destructions in Bronze Age Cyprus
363
Schachner A., Barjamovic G., Bolatti N., +12 authors, and
Tilia S. 2019. Geoarchaeological and archaeoseismologi-
cal observations in H
˘
attu∏a: first evidence of earthquake
traces from the Hittite capital. Archäologischer Anzeiger
2019(1): 90–101. https://doi.org/10.34780/1vvt-j762
Schiffer M. B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeo-
logical record. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquer-
que.
Shaffer G. D. 1993. An archaeomagnetic survey of a wat-
tle and daub building collapse. Journal of Field Archaeo-
logy 20(1): 59–75.
https://doi.org/10.1179/009346993791974334
Sneddon A. 2015. Revisiting Alambra Mouttes: Defining
the Spatial Configuration and Social Relations of a Pre-
historic Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus. Journal of Me-
diterranean Archaeology 28(2): 141–170.
https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v28i2.29529
2019. An Analog from the Prehistoric Bronze Age Site
of Alambra Mouttes (Cyprus) for Adornments on the
Enigmatic “Vounous Bowl”. Bullettin of the American
Society for Oriental Research 382: 1–15.
doi: 10.1086/705485
Stevanovic M. 1997. The age of clay: The social dynamics
of house destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archa-
eology 16: 334–395.
2002. Burned houses in the Neolithic of south-east Eu-
rope. In D. Gheorghiou (ed.), Fire in Archaeology. BAR
International Series 1089. Archaeopress. Oxford: 55–62.
Swiny S. 2008. Of cows, copper, corners and cult: the
emergence of the Cypriot Bronze Age. Near Eastern Ar-
chaeology 71: 41–51.
Swiny S., Rapp G., and Herscher E. (eds.) 2003. Sotira-
Kaminoudhia: an Early Bonze Age Site in Cyprus. Ame-
rican School of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports
8. Cyprus-American Archaeological Research Institute Mo-
nograph Series 4. American School of Oriental Research.
Boston.
Torrence R., Grattan J. 2002. The archaeology of disas-
ters: past and future trends. In R. Torrence, J. Grattan
(eds.), Natural Disaster and Cultural Change. Routledge.
London: 1–18.
Tringham R. 2005. Weaving house life and death into pla-
ces: A blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In D. W.
Bailey, A. Whittle, V. Cummings (eds.), (Un)settling the
Neolithic. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 98–111.
2013. Destruction of Places by Fire. Domicide or Domi-
thanasia. In J. Driessen (ed.), Destruction. Archaeo-
logical, philological and historical perspectives. UCL
Presses universitaires de Louvain. Lauvain: 85–103.
Twiss K. C., Bogaard A., Bogdan D., +6 authors, and Yeo-
mans L. 2008. Arson or accident? The burning of a Neoli-
thic House at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Field Archaeology
33: 41–57. doi: 10.1179/009346908791071358
Webb J. M., Knapp A. B. 2021. Rethinking Middle Bronze
Age Communities on Cyprus: Egalitarian and Isolated, or
Complex and Interconnected? Journal of Archaeological
Research 29(2): 1–51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-020-09148-8
Verhoeven M. 2000. Death, fire and abandonment. Ritual
practice at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Archaeo-
logical Dialogues 7(1): 46–83.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203800001598
Zuckerman S. 2007. Anatomy of Destruction: Crisis Archi-
tecture, Termination Rituals and the Fall of Canaanite Ha-
zor. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20(1): 3–32.
doi: 10.1558//jmea.2007.v20i1.3
Wright G. R. H. 1992. Ancient building in Cyprus. Brill.
Leiden.