An archaeological chronology is not a static list of dates, but a framework under constant construction and revision. For an island like Cyprus, with a human history spanning more than twelve millennia, building this framework is a complex undertaking. The island's position in the Eastern Mediterranean fostered both periods of distinct insular development and intense interaction with the surrounding cultures of the Near East, Anatolia, and the Aegean. This long and varied sequence presents a signal case study in the methods and challenges of archaeological periodization. The chronological scheme used today, founded on the typological work of early excavators like the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, is now continually refined by stratigraphy, radiocarbon analysis, and cross-cultural synchronisms [1, p. 130; 2, p. 38]. An examination of the island’s chronological sequence reveals a process of continuous refinement, marked by debates over cultural transitions, gaps in the archaeological record, and the integration of diverse dating methods.

The Foundations of Prehistory: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Divides

For much of the 20th century, the earliest settled occupation of Cyprus was thought to begin with the Aceramic Neolithic Khirokitia Culture around 7000 BCE [3, p. 48; 4, p. 3; 5, p. 3]. This culture, characterized by sedentary villages with distinctive circular stone architecture, was considered a late-developing and somewhat isolated phenomenon compared to mainland developments [6, p. 23; 7, p. 1]. Sites like Khirokitia-Vouni, Kalavasos-Tenta, and Cape Andreas-Kastros represented a remarkably uniform, island-wide culture that flourished for over 1,500 years, from approximately 7000 to 5500 BCE [8, p. 28].

This long-held understanding was dramatically altered by discoveries over the past few decades, which have pushed the timeline for human activity and settlement back by several millennia [6, p. 5]. The identification of the Late Epipalaeolithic Akrotiri Phase, dated to ca. 10,000 BCE, provided the first evidence of pre-Neolithic human presence [9, p. 2; 10, p. 2]. Following this, excavations at sites such as Parekklisha-Shillourokambos and Kissonerga-Mylouthkia revealed earlier phases of the Aceramic Neolithic, now termed the Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Cypro-PPNB), beginning as early as the 9th millennium BCE [6, p. 23; 11, p. 23; 12, p. 4]. These discoveries established that the neolithization of Cyprus was not a late occurrence but a process contemporary with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Anatolia [9, p. 2; 11, p. 23]. The material culture of these early phases, including naviform core technology and imported Anatolian obsidian, demonstrates ongoing contact with the mainland, challenging the previous image of an isolated Neolithic backwater [3, p. 66; 13, p. 2].

The established Khirokitia Culture is now understood as the final stage of a long Aceramic Neolithic sequence that extended over some 2,000 years [6, p. 23; 14, p. 3]. This period saw the development of distinct insular characteristics, with elements of Near Eastern tradition progressively disappearing [15, p. 3]. The unique circular architecture, for instance, became standard while rectangular plans were adopted on the mainland [14, p. 3; 15, p. 3]. Around 5500 BCE, the Khirokitia Culture ended with the apparently peaceful abandonment of its settlements [16, p. 51; 17, p. 51].

This abandonment marks one of the most debated chronological problems in Cypriot prehistory: a gap of approximately one thousand years before the appearance of the Ceramic Neolithic, or Sotira Culture, around 4400 BCE [18, p. 1; 19, p. 2; 20, p. 1]. This hiatus has prompted two primary explanations: either the island was largely deserted and subsequently re-colonized, or the population adopted a more mobile lifestyle with a much lower archaeological visibility [19, p. 3; 21, p. 5]. Some evidence suggests a degree of local continuity across the gap. The study of bone tools from Khirokitia shows technical traditions that persist from the Aceramic into the Ceramic levels of the site [18, p. 1; 19, p. 10]. Furthermore, some Aceramic sites were reoccupied during the Ceramic Neolithic, and similarities in settlement location have been noted for both periods [18, p. 4; 19, p. 5].

The Ceramic Neolithic (ca. 4400–3900/3700 BCE) is defined by the introduction of pottery, which appears on the island fully developed [22, p. 45; 23, p. 45; 24, p. 1]. The Chalcolithic period (ca. 3900–2500 BCE) follows, subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late phases based primarily on ceramic styles and developments at key sites like Kissonerga-Mosphilia [25, p. 23; 26, p. C9]. While some scholars see a continuous development from the Late Neolithic through the Chalcolithic [16, p. 399; 17, p. 399], others note a chronological hiatus between the end of the Ceramic Neolithic and the mature Chalcolithic period [21, p. 3].

The Bronze Age: A New Chronological and Social Order

The Cypriot Bronze Age (ca. 2500–1050 BCE) was a time of fundamental social and economic change, presenting its own set of chronological complexities. The traditional framework, established through pottery seriation, divides the era into Early (EC), Middle (MC), and Late (LC) Cypriot periods, each with further subdivisions [27, p. 805; 99, n.p.]. This system, while still widely used, has been criticized because its ceramic-based divisions do not always align with broader patterns of cultural transformation [28, p. 35; 8, p. 4]. An alternative scheme divides the Bronze Age into a "Prehistoric Bronze Age" (PreBA), encompassing the EC and MC periods, and a "Protohistoric Bronze Age" (ProBA) for the LC period, reflecting the major socioeconomic shifts of the later second millennium BCE [27, p. 805; 29, p. 573].

The transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age is marked by the appearance of the Philia facies, one of the most debated phenomena in Cypriot archaeology [30, p. 4; 27, p. 806]. Named after a type-site, the Philia material culture is distinct from the preceding Chalcolithic, with new ceramic technologies, rectilinear architecture, burial practices, and evidence for cattle and metalworking [25, p. 30; 31, p. 15]. The debate centers on its chronological position and cultural meaning. It has been variously defined as a "cultural stage," a "culture," a regional "facies," or a chronological "phase" [30, p. 4; 32, p. 28; 33, p. 40]. Stratigraphic evidence from sites like Marki-Alonia and Kissonerga-Mosphilia shows that the Philia facies predates the full Early Cypriot sequence and overlaps with the latest Chalcolithic levels, suggesting it represents a transitional period [30, p. 4; 34, p. 2; 35, p. 21]. Absolute dates place the Philia facies roughly between 2500/2400 and 2250 BCE [36, p. 117; 37, p. 40; 38, p. 2]. Its origins are also contested, with arguments for a migration from Anatolia opposing models of local hybridization or intensified contact [30, p. 4; 32, p. 35; 39, p. 53].

The subsequent Early and Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2250–1700 BCE) is often treated as a continuous period of development [38, p. 2]. The material culture shows a smooth transition between the two, making a clear chronological division difficult [40, p. 147; 35, p. 9]. This has led some to group EC III and MC I-II into a single phase [40, p. 147]. This era is marked by increasing regionalism, particularly in ceramic production, which complicates the application of a uniform, island-wide chronological system based on pottery styles [41, p. 6]. While society remained largely village-based and agro-pastoral, evidence from extramural cemeteries shows growing social complexity and wealth differentiation, particularly on the north coast at sites like Bellapais-Vounous and Lapithos-Vrysi tou Barba [28, p. 39; 42, p. 7].

The transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age (MC III–LC I, ca. 1750/1700–1450 BCE) was a period of significant upheaval and change [43, p. 201; 44, p. 134]. Many MC settlements were abandoned or destroyed, and new centers emerged, particularly along the southern and eastern coasts [44, p. 134; 45, p. 2]. This era saw the appearance of new, highly distinctive ceramic wares—White Slip, Base Ring, and Monochrome—that define the Late Cypriot period and signal a major shift in production and exchange patterns [29, p. 572; 45, p. 2]. Cyprus became deeply integrated into the Eastern Mediterranean trade networks, driven largely by the intensified production and export of its copper resources [46, p. 18; 47, p. 55; 48, p. 6]. This period witnessed the development of urban centers, social stratification, and literacy [46, p. 18; 42, p. 7].

The peak of this international engagement occurred during the LC II period (ca. 1450–1200 BCE) [29, p. 572]. The end of the Bronze Age, in the transition from LC IIC to LC IIIA around 1200 BCE, was part of a wider series of disruptions across the Eastern Mediterranean [2, p. 37; 49, p. 37]. While some sites on Cyprus show evidence of destruction, the process was complex and varied across the island, involving a combination of factors rather than a single event [50, p. 9; 51, p. 121]. This period of transformation led directly into the new social and political structures of the Iron Age.

The Iron Age and Roman Period: Historical Frameworks and Revisions

The chronology for the Iron Age (ca. 1050 BCE onwards) was established by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, led by Einar Gjerstad, who adapted the terminology of the Greek sequence [1, p. 130; 2, p. 38]. This resulted in a framework of Cypro-Geometric (CG), Cypro-Archaic (CA), and Cypro-Classical (CC) periods, based primarily on the stylistic seriation of pottery found in tombs [52, p. 237; 53, p. 352]. This foundational system remains in use, though it is subject to ongoing refinement and debate [54, p. 115].

The transition from the Late Bronze Age is defined by the Late Cypriot IIIB period (ca. 1125/1100–1050 BCE) and the appearance of Proto-White Painted ware, an ancestor of Iron Age pottery styles [29, p. 573; 55, p. 22]. The subsequent Cypro-Geometric period (ca. 1050–750 BCE) has presented chronological challenges. In particular, the CG II period (ca. 950–850 BCE) has very little associated settlement evidence, making it difficult to define outside of ceramic typology [52, p. 247; 56, p. 247]. This has led some scholars to question its duration or even its validity as a distinct chronological phase [57, p. 62; 58, p. 28].

The Cypro-Archaic period (ca. 750–475 BCE) is marked by increased settlement visibility and the emergence of city-kingdoms, some of which are documented in Neo-Assyrian texts [59, p. 294; 60, p. 367]. This provides a crucial historical anchor, although the cultural influence of Assyria on the island was limited [1, p. 266]. Despite this political entanglement, the archaeological record shows strong stylistic continuity from the preceding period [61, p. 14; 62, p. 14]. The Cypro-Classical period (ca. 475–312 BCE) also suffers from poor settlement visibility, as later Hellenistic and Roman constructions often destroyed the earlier strata of the island's major urban centers [63, p. 2].

The Hellenistic (ca. 312–30 BCE) and Roman (ca. 30 BCE–330 CE) periods are characterized by rich and abundant evidence [64, p. 265]. While this era brought Cyprus fully into the political sphere of larger empires, there was continuity in many areas, including the large-scale exploitation of copper, which reached an industrial scale under Roman rule [65, p. 12; 66, p. 171]. The abundance of datable materials like coins and imported ceramics, particularly from the Late Roman period, allows for a much finer chronological resolution than is possible for earlier eras [64, p. 265; 67, p. 6].

The Tools of Chronology

The construction of this extensive timeline relies on a combination of methods, each with its own strengths and limitations. Pottery is the cornerstone of Cypriot relative chronology [68, p. 49; 69, p. 1]. The appearance and disappearance of specific wares, such as Red Polished, White Slip, or Proto-White Painted, are used to define the boundaries of entire periods [27, p. 805; 29, p. 572]. However, this reliance is problematic. The pronounced regionalism in Cypriot material culture means that a typological sequence developed for one part of the island may not apply elsewhere [70, p. 31; 71, p. 134]. Furthermore, since much of the early work focused on multi-burial tombs, establishing secure, unmixed contexts for ceramic seriation has been a persistent challenge [36, p. 17; 28, p. 3; 53, p. 352].

To anchor these relative sequences, archaeologists turn to scientific dating and external synchronisms. Radiocarbon dating has been essential, particularly for the prehistoric periods [72, p. 304; 73, p. 304]. It was instrumental in pushing back the date of the first Neolithic settlement and continues to refine the timelines for the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages [6, p. 23; 43, p. 84]. For later periods, it helps settle long-standing debates based on ceramic parallels [74, p. 178; 75, p. 3]. Synchronisms with historically dated sequences in Egypt and the Levant offer another crucial tool [76, p. 73; 77, p. 38]. The presence of Cypriot pottery in dated Egyptian contexts, or Egyptian objects like scarabs in Cypriot tombs, allows for the transfer of absolute dates [78, p. 51]. This method, however, must be used with caution, as objects can remain in circulation for long periods before being deposited in the archaeological record [76, p. 93].

The chronological story of ancient Cyprus is, therefore, a narrative of archaeological method itself. It charts a course from broad, tripartite schemes to a highly nuanced and regionally specific understanding of time. Gaps remain in the sequence, and debates over the meaning of transitional phases like the Philia facies persist [60, p. 135; 32, p. 39]. The archaeological visibility of certain periods, such as the Cypro-Geometric II, is still poor, requiring further excavation of settlement contexts to supplement the funerary record [52, p. 247]. The Cypriot case shows that chronology is not a simple background setting for history, but a central research problem that evolves with every new excavation and analytical technique. The ongoing effort to refine this framework continues to shape our understanding of the island’s long-term development and its place within the ancient Mediterranean world.

References

  1. Gjerstad, E. (1948). *The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods* (The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, Part 2). The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
  2. Kearns, C. (2023). The rural landscapes of Archaic Cyprus: An archaeology of environmental and social change. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Keach, L. L. (2014). Spatial analysis of chipped stone at the Cypro-PPNB site of Krittou Marottou Ais Giorkis: A GIS-assisted study [Master's thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/7048594
  4. Simmons, A. H. (2009). Until the cows come home: cattle and Early Neolithic Cyprus. Before Farming, 2009(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3828/bfarm.2009.1.5
  5. Simmons, A. H. (1994). Early Neolithic Settlement in Western Cyprus: Preliminary Report on the 1992-1993 Test Excavations at Kholetria Ortos. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 295, 1–14.
  6. Jones, P. L. (2008). *Moving heaven and earth: Landscape, death and memory in the Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus* (BAR International Series 1795). BAR Publishing. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302836
  7. Watkins, T. (1980). The economic stars of the aceramic neolithic culture of Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology and Anthropology, 4, 139-149.
  8. Knapp, A. B., Held, S. O., & Manning, S. W. (1994). The prehistory of Cyprus: Problems and prospects. Journal of World Prehistory, 8(4), 377–507.
  9. Simmons, A. H., DiBenedetto, K., & Keach, L. (2018). Neolithic Kritou Marottou-Ais Giorkis, Cyprus—Living in the Uplands. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 379, 171–195.
  10. Simmons, A. H., DiBenedetto, K., & Keach, L. (2018). Neolithic Kritou Marottou-Ais Giorkis, Cyprus—Living in the Uplands. *Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research*, 379, 171–195.
  11. Swiny, S. (Ed.). (2001). The earliest prehistory of Cyprus: From colonization to exploitation (American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, No. 05; Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute Monograph Series, Vol. 2). American Schools of Oriental Research.
  12. Grøn, O., & Jones, P. L. (2005). A review of Northern European Stone Age and Cypriot Neolithic archaeology. Antiquity, 79, 448–454.
  13. Şevketoğlu, M. (2008). Early settlements and precurement of raw materials – New evidence based on research at Akanthou-Arkosykos (Tatl›su-Çiftlikdüzü), Northern Cyprus. *TÜBA-AR, 11*, 64-.
  14. Legrand-Pineau, A. (2010). The impact of insularity on morphologies and techniques. The Aceramic Neolithic bone tools from Khirokitia (Cyprus). In A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, & V. Scheinsohn (Eds.), *Ancient and modern bone artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature* (BAR International Series 2136). Archaeopress.
  15. Legrand-Pineau, A. (2010). The impact of insularity on morphologies and techniques. The Aceramic Neolithic bone tools from Khirokitia (Cyprus). In A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David, & V. Scheinsohn (Eds.), *Ancient and modern bone artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature* (pp. 7-11). Archaeopress.
  16. Winkelmann, C. (2020). The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Figurines of Cyprus (Studien zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Bd. 2). Zaphon.
  17. Winkelmann, C. (2020). The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Figurines of Cyprus. Zaphon.
  18. Legrand-Pineau, A. (2009). Bridging the gap: Bone tools as markers of continuity between Aceramic (Khirokitia Culture) and Ceramic Neolithic (Sotira Culture) in Cyprus (7th-5th millennia cal. BC). Paléorient, 35(2), 113-123.
  19. Legrand-Pineau, A. (2009). Bridging the Gap: Bone Tools as Markers of Continuity between Aceramic (Khirokitia Culture) and Ceramic Neolithic (Sotira Culture) in Cyprus (7th-5th Millennia cal. BC). Paléorient, 35(2), 113-123.
  20. Boness, D., Clarke, J., & Goren, Y. (2015). Ceramic Neolithic pottery in Cyprus—origin, technology and possible implications for social structure and identity. Levant, 47(3), 233.
  21. Kloukinas, D., & Voskos, I. (2013). Identity mapping in prehistoric Cyprus: Cultural divergence and consolidation during the Neolithic period. In L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, & S. Valentini (Eds.), *Identity and connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Volume I* (BAR International Series 2581(I)). Archaeopress.
  22. Osterholtz, A. J. (2015). *Bodies in motion: A bioarchaeological analysis of migration and identity in Bronze Age Cyprus (2400-1100 BC)* [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas].
  23. Osterholtz, A. J. (2015). Bodies in motion: A bioarchaeological analysis of migration and identity in Bronze Age Cyprus (2400-1100 BC) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas].
  24. Boness, D., Clarke, J., & Goren, Y. (2015). Ceramic Neolithic pottery in Cyprus—origin, technology and possible implications for social structure and identity. Levant, 47(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2015.1105480
  25. Lucas, L. (2016). Crops, culture, and contact in prehistoric Cyprus (BAR International Series No. 2639). BAR Publishing. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407312767
  26. Maliszewski, D. (2013). *Polis-Pyrgos Archaeological Project I: Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Pottery from the Field Survey in Northwestern Cyprus, 1992–1999* (BAR International Series No. 2547). BAR Publishing. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311678
  27. Cline, E. H. (Ed.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford University Press.
  28. Keswani, P. (2005). *Mortuary ritual and society in Bronze Age Cyprus*. Equinox Publishing.
  29. Steel, L. (2013). Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. In *The archaeological record* (pp. 571–). Oxford University Press.
  30. Webb, J. M., & Frankel, D. (1999). Characterizing the Philia Facies: Material Culture, Chronology, and the Origin of the Bronze Age in Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology, 103(1), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/506576
  31. Amadio, M. (2023). *Building in prehistoric Cyprus: Tracing transformations in the built and social environment of early Cypriot communities*. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-685-5
  32. Dikomitou, M. (n.d.). *Ceramic production, distribution, and social interaction. An analytical approach to the study of Early and Middle Bronze Age pottery from Cyprus* [Doctoral dissertation, University College London].
  33. Monahan, E. M. (2010). *Dwelling with the dead: Mortuary landscapes and the production of community during the prehistoric Bronze Age on Cyprus* (Master's thesis, Cornell University).
  34. Webb, J., & Frankel, D. (2006). Identifying population movements by everyday practice. The case of third millennium Cyprus (pp. 187-195).
  35. Frankel, D. (n.d.). Exploring diversity in Bronze Age Cyprus. In Unknown (Eds.), *Unknown* (Keynote, pp. 16–23). Unknown.
  36. Sneddon, A. C. (2016). The cemeteries at Marki: Using a looted landscape to investigate prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus (BAR International Series No. 1028). BAR Publishing. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714066
  37. Swiny, S., Rapp, G. R., & Herscher, E. (Eds.). (2003). *Sotira Kaminoudhia: An early Bronze Age site in Cyprus* (CAARI Monograph Series, Vol. 4; American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports, No. 08). American Schools of Oriental Research. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015057025549
  38. Sneddon, A. (2015). Revisiting Alambra Mouttes: Defining the Spatial Configuration and Social Relations of a Prehistoric Bronze Age Settlement in Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 28(2), 141-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v28i2.29529
  39. Graham, L. (2013). *The Necropolis of Kissonerga-Ammoudhia: Techniques of Ceramic Production in Early-Middle Bronze Age Western Cyprus* [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Edinburgh].
  40. Gagné, L. A. C. (2012). Middle Cypriot White Painted Ware: A study of pottery production and distribution in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].
  41. Webb, J. M., & Frankel, D. (2013). Cultural regionalism and divergent social trajectories in Early Bronze Age Cyprus. *American Journal of Archaeology*, *117*(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.117.1.0059
  42. Fisher, K. D. (2020). The materiality of ashlar masonry on Late Bronze Age Cyprus. In M. Devolder & I. Kreimerman (Eds.), Ashlar: Exploring the Materiality of Cut-Stone Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (pp. 307-340). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
  43. Kearns, C., & Manning, S. W. (Eds.). (2019). New directions in Cypriot archaeology. Cornell University Press.
  44. Bürge, T., & Recht, L. (Eds.). (2024). T. Bürge & L. Recht (Eds.), *Dynamics and developments of social structures and networks in prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003320203
  45. Steel, L. (2013). Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. In The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE (pp. 571–585).
  46. Knapp, A. B. (1985). Review: Alashiya, Caphtor/Keftiu, and Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Recent Studies in Cypriote Archaeology and History. Journal of Field Archaeology, 12(2), 231–250.
  47. Kassianidou, V., & Papasavvas, G. (Eds.). (2012). *Eastern Mediterranean metallurgy and metalwork in the Second Millennium BC*. Oxbow Books.
  48. Kassianidou, V. (2013). The production and trade of Cypriot copper in the Late Bronze Age: An analysis of the evidence. Pasiphae: Rivista di Filologia e Antichità Egee, VII, 133–146.
  49. Kearns, C. (2023). *The rural landscapes of Archaic Cyprus: An archaeology of environmental and social change*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009071826
  50. Bürge, T., & Fischer, P. M. (Eds.). (2023). The decline of Bronze Age civilisations in the Mediterranean: Cyprus and beyond (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. 154). Astrom Editions.
  51. Kearns, C. (2023). The rural landscapes of Archaic Cyprus: An archaeology of environmental and social change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009071826
  52. Smith, J. S. (2009). Art and society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Cambridge University Press.
  53. Bourogiannis, G. (Ed.). (2022). *Beyond Cyprus: Investigating Cypriot connectivity in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Classical Period* (AURA Supplement No. 9). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of History and Archaeology.
  54. Núñez Calvo, F. J. (2022). Principles of Phoenician pottery in the Central Levant. *Berytus Archaeological Studies, 61–62*, 97–134.
  55. Iacovou, M. (Ed.). (2012). *Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age: The legacy of Nicolas Coldstream*. Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
  56. Smith, J. S. (2009). *Art and society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age*. Cambridge University Press.
  57. Karageorghis, V., & Raptou, E. (2016). *Palaepaphos-Skales: Tombs of the Late Cypriote IIIB and Cypro-Geometric Periods (Excavations of 2008 and 2011)*. The Cyprus Institute.
  58. Iacovou, M. (Ed.). (2012). 'Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age: The legacy of Nicolas Coldstream'. Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
  59. Caraher, W. R., Moore, R. S., & Pettegrew, D. K. (2014). Pyla-Koutsopetria I: Archaeological survey of an ancient coastal town (Archaeological Reports, Vol. 21). American Schools of Oriental Research.
  60. Knapp, A. B. (2008). *Prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus: Identity, insularity, and connectivity.* Oxford University Press.
  61. Reyes, A. T. (1994). <emi>Archaic Cyprus: A study of the textual and archaeological evidence</emi>. Clarendon Press.
  62. Reyes, A. T. (1994). *Archaic Cyprus: A study of the textual and archaeological evidence*. Oxford University Press.
  63. Iacovou, M. (2013). Cyprus During the Iron Age Through the Persian Period: From the 11th Century BC to the Abolition of the City-Kingdoms (c.300 BC). In M. L. Steiner (Ed.), The archaeological record (pp. 795–800).
  64. Given, M., Knapp, A. B., Noller, J., Sollars, L., & Kassianidou, V. (2013). *The TAESP landscape* (Vol. 2). Oxbow Books. (Levant Supplementary Series, Vol. 15).
  65. Iacovou, M. (2019). From the metalliferous sources to the citadel complex of Ancient Paphos: Archaeo-environmental analysis of the mining and the built environment. In *20 Years of Research at the University of Cyprus* (pp. 71-76). University of Cyprus.
  66. Hussein, E. (2021). Mapping Metal Rich Roman Cyprus: The Case for Object-Centred Approaches. Études et Travaux, 34, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.12775/EtudTrav.34.008
  67. Caraher, W. R., & Moore, R. S. (2014). Settlement on Cyprus in the 7th and 8th Century. In R. Bockmann & S. Ladstätter (Eds.), The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the End of Late Antiquity to the Coming of the Turks. Oxbow Books.
  68. Cook, V. (2010). *Cyprus during the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age: The evidence of foreign contacts in Proto White Painted–White Painted I pottery contexts*. Valerie Cook.
  69. Hennessy, J. B. (n.d.). Cypriot artists of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. [Article starting on page 17 of an unknown publication].
  70. Graziadio, G. (2025). *The Aegean and Cyprus: Interaction Between Two Distinct Cultural Mediterranean Areas from the Third Millennium to Ca 1200 BC*. Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Venice University Press. https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-857-6
  71. Graham, L. (n.d.). The trouble with typologies: Stewart’s pottery classifications and regional styles. In [Book Title Unknown] (pp. 133–136).
  72. Jones, R. E. (1986). *Greek and Cypriot pottery: A review of scientific studies*. The British School at Athens.
  73. Jones, R. E. (1986). A review of scientific studies: Greek and Cypriot pottery (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1). The British School at Athens.
  74. 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. (2016, April 25-29). Abstract booklet. Austrian Academy of Sciences.
  75. Fantalkin, A., Finkelstein, I., & Piasetzky, E. (2015). Late Helladic to Middle Geometric Aegean and Contemporary Cypriot Chronologies: A Radiocarbon View from the Levant. *Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research*, *373*, 25–48. https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.issue-373
  76. Maguire, L. C. (1990). *The circulation of Cypriot pottery in the Middle Bronze Age* [Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh].
  77. Radner, K., Moeller, N., & Potts, D. T. (Eds.). (2022). From the end of the third millennium BC to the fall of Babylon (Vol. 2 of The Oxford history of the ancient Near East). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687571.001.0001
  78. Horowitz, M. T. (2007). *Monumentality and social transformation at Late Bronze I Phlamoudhi-Vounari, Cyprus* [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University].