Kalavasos-Tenta

In the lower reaches of the Vasilikos Valley, a corridor that descends from the Troodos Mountains to the southern coast of Cyprus, a small natural hill rises from the flat valley floor [1, p. 30; 2, p. 59]. This is the site of Kalavasos-Tenta, an Aceramic Neolithic settlement that has played a central role in reshaping our understanding of the island's earliest prehistory [3, p. 30; 4, p. 30]. For many years, Tenta was considered a contemporary of the well-known site of Khirokitia-Vouni, another village of circular stone houses dating to the sixth millennium BCE [1, p. 30; 5, p. 5]. However, systematic excavations beginning in the 1970s revealed a much deeper and more complex history, one that pushed the timeline for substantial, architecturally sophisticated settlement on Cyprus back by millennia [1, p. 30; 6, p. 4]. The evidence recovered from Tenta shows a community engaged with its landscape, capable of communal construction, and connected to broader cultural currents of the Near East. This article will examine the discovery and investigation of Kalavasos-Tenta, detail its revised chronology and settlement plan, and explore its architecture, material culture, and mortuary practices to build a comprehensive picture of this significant prehistoric site.

A Site Revealed: The Vasilikos Valley Project

While Porphyrios Dikaios conducted a brief, unpublished excavation at Kalavasos-Tenta in 1947, the site’s full significance remained unknown until a long-term, multidisciplinary research program was established in the region [1, p. 30; 3, p. 30; 4, p. 30]. In 1976, the Vasilikos Valley Project (VVP), under the direction of Ian A. Todd, began a systematic investigation of the valley’s archaeological landscape through all prehistoric periods [7, p. 3; 8, p. 736]. The VVP was one of the most intensive and successful survey projects on Cyprus, eventually recording 146 sites and transforming what was once a relatively unexamined area into a key region for understanding Cypriot prehistory [9, p. 114; 10, p. 46; 11, p. 15].

Within this broader project, Tenta became a primary focus. Five seasons of excavation were carried out between 1976 and 1984, revealing substantial architectural remains and a rich material record [1, p. 30; 12, p. 897; 13, p. 671]. The work of the VVP was not limited to excavation; it also involved extensive field surveys that identified at least four other Aceramic Neolithic localities within the valley, showing that the settlement at Tenta was not an isolated phenomenon [1, p. 32; 3, p. 32; 4, p. 32]. This regional approach provided critical context for the site, demonstrating that early settlers had penetrated well inland from the coastal zone [1, p. 32; 3, p. 32; 4, p. 32]. The research culminated in the publication of detailed excavation reports and, in 1995, the construction of a distinctive protective shelter over the site’s main architectural remains. This 12-faceted conical structure, resembling a large tent, now serves as a landmark, preserving the fragile mud-brick and stone walls for future study and public presentation [14, p. 2].

Recalibrating Neolithic Chronology

The most significant outcome of the VVP’s work at Tenta was the fundamental revision of its chronological placement. Initial expectations, based on architectural similarities with Khirokitia, placed the site in the sixth millennium BCE [1, p. 30; 5, p. 5]. However, a series of radiocarbon assays from Todd’s excavations produced dates in the eighth and seventh millennia, suggesting a much earlier occupation [1, p. 30; 15, p. 3]. While these early dates were initially viewed with some distrust, as there was no other evidence at the time for such early substantial architecture on Cyprus, they eventually compelled a complete re-evaluation of the site's sequence [16, p. 45; 6, p. 4].

The occupation at Tenta is now divided into five main periods, with later, more ephemeral activity also present [1, p. 30; 17, p. 45]. The earliest phase, Period 5, dates to the Cypro-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Cypro-PPNB) and is contemporary with the early phases of another key site, Parekklisha-Shillourokambos [1, p. 30; 16, p. 45]. This earliest occupation, dating to the mid-ninth millennium cal BCE, lacked substantial architecture, marked only by exiguous traces of post structures, stake holes, and pits [5, p. 5; 1, p. 30; 6, p. 4].

The main occupation of the site occurred during Periods 4 through 2, corresponding to the Late Cypro-PPNB and contemporary with sites like Kissonerga-Mylouthkia 1B [16, p. 45]. Period 4, dated to around 7500 cal BCE, saw the construction of a site enclosure wall and ditch [17, p. 45]. Period 3 followed around 6950 cal BCE with the appearance of a mud-brick building, while Period 2 (c. 6200 cal BCE) represents the most extensively preserved architectural phase, with a dense cluster of domestic structures [17, p. 45]. The final prehistoric phase, Period 1, represents the Late Aceramic Neolithic component of the site and is now considered the only period to overlap chronologically with Khirokitia [16, p. 45; 5, p. 5].

Following the abandonment of the main Aceramic settlement, there was limited activity on the lower slopes during the subsequent Ceramic Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods [7, p. 4; 18, p. 4]. This later occupation did not involve standing architecture but is represented by a series of pits, some used as hearths, containing ceramics and other artifacts [7, p. 4]. The ceramic evidence suggests a complex pattern of use and re-use among a cluster of sites in the valley, including Tenta, Kalavasos-Ayious, Kalavasos-Kokkinoyia, and Kalavasos-Pamboules, perhaps by a shifting population [19, p. 6; 20, p. 7]. However, the integrity of some Chalcolithic deposits at Tenta has been questioned due to the possibility of contamination [17, p. 48].

Landscape and Layout of an Aceramic Village

The location of Kalavasos-Tenta was carefully chosen. Situated on a natural hill on the west side of the Vasilikos Valley, the settlement commanded wide-ranging views north towards the Troodos Mountains and south to the sea, which was approximately 3 km away [2, p. 59; 8, p. 736; 1, p. 30]. During the Neolithic, the Vasilikos River is thought to have flowed immediately past the eastern foot of the site, providing a ready source of water [2, p. 59]. The selection of this strategic, defensible position suggests that security was a significant concern for its inhabitants [1, p. 32; 3, p. 32; 4, p. 32].

This concern is materialized in the settlement's layout during its main occupation phase. The village was a densely clustered settlement on the hilltop, with the lower slopes more sparsely inhabited [16, p. 45]. In an early phase of the settlement (Period 4), the community undertook a significant communal labor project, enclosing the village with a substantial wall and an exterior ditch cut into the underlying havara, a local secondary limestone [1, p. 32; 3, p. 32; 4, p. 32; 17, p. 45]. Such defensive features are not ubiquitous at Cypriot Neolithic sites and reinforce the interpretation that Tenta was designed to be a secure, protected settlement [21, p. 100]. This layout contrasts with that of sites like Cape Andreas-Kastros, where open areas appear to have been the center of domestic life, suggesting different organizational principles were at play across the island [21, p. 102]. The settlement at Tenta grew over time, eventually expanding beyond its original boundaries [7, p. 68].

Architecture and the Use of Space

The buildings at Kalavasos-Tenta were consistently circular or curvilinear in form, a defining characteristic of the Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic [1, p. 32; 21, p. 226]. They were constructed from stone, mud-brick, or a combination of both [16, p. 45]. The mud-bricks were hand-made, irregular, and loaf-shaped, produced from local calcareous sediments and mixed with vegetal matter as a temper to prevent shrinkage [22, p. 43].

The interiors of these structures were clearly important living spaces. Many contained internal piers or buttresses, which likely supported a second storey or loft, effectively doubling the usable floor area [16, p. 45; 21, p. 127]. While it is uncertain whether the roofs were flat or domed, the presence of these internal supports points to a sophisticated understanding of structural engineering [16, p. 45]. Unlike some contemporary sites where activities were focused outdoors, the structures at Tenta were well-equipped with domestic installations such as hearths and platforms, indicating that much of daily life took place within their walls [21, p. 102]. This intensive use of interior space is further evidenced by the rare discovery of a wall painting in Structure 11. Applied to one of the building’s piers, the painting depicts at least two human figures with upraised arms, one of which is red and the other in outline, providing a rare glimpse into the symbolic world of Tenta’s inhabitants [2, p. 9; 21, p. 102; 16, p. 618].

While most buildings appear to have been dwellings, some evidence suggests functional differentiation [16, p. 45]. Structure 34, a smaller building, is interpreted as a granary or storage facility, possibly with a raised wooden floor [16, p. 45; 2, p. 63]. Archaeologists suggest that a typical household unit may have consisted of a main dwelling accompanied by smaller, auxiliary buildings for various purposes, a pattern observed at Khirokitia, though distinct clusters of buildings are not clearly recognizable at Tenta [16, p. 45].

A particularly noteworthy architectural feature at Tenta is a sequence of unusual, large buildings on the 'Western Top' of the hill [16, p. 45]. This location housed three superimposing structures (S. 36, 17, and 14), each replacing the last in roughly the same footprint, suggesting the spot held a particular and continuous significance for the community over a long period [23, p. 48; 2, p. 63]. These buildings, described as "circular pillar buildings," are an architectural form with antecedents in the mainland Pre-Pottery Neolithic A [5, p. 11; 24, p. 3]. In Cyprus, such buildings are known from only two sites: Tenta and the later site of Khirokitia, implying these two settlements may have held a special status [25, p. 30]. The function of these prominent structures at Tenta is unknown; they may have served as ordinary dwellings for high-status individuals, or they could have been used for communal or ritual purposes [23, p. 48]. Their impressive scale and persistence mark them as distinct from the surrounding domestic architecture.

Material Culture and Mortuary Practices

The artifact assemblage from Tenta provides further insight into the lives of its inhabitants. The chipped stone industry was based almost entirely on local Lefkara chert [26, p. 130]. A high proportion of blades is a defining feature of the assemblage; a 1976 surface collection of over 6,000 lithics found that nearly a third were blades [26, p. 130]. The toolkits from the earliest phase, Period 5, show technological similarities to mainland Epipalaeolithic and Early PPNB traditions, as well as connections to local Cypro-PPNA sites like Ayia Varvara-Asprokremmos, indicating that Tenta was part of a broader technological landscape [2, p. 79; 27, p. 98]. The rarity of obsidian—only a single piece was recovered from Period 5 deposits—further aligns Tenta's early phase with the mainland PPNA, when the material was less common than in the subsequent PPNB [5, p. 5]. Ground stone tools, including axes, adzes, grinders, and pestles, were also common, typically fashioned from igneous rocks like andesite sourced from local riverbeds and outcrops [28, p. 19; 29, p. 10].

Archaeobotanical evidence, though less abundant than at Khirokitia, indicates that the economy was based on agriculture [1, p. 37]. Remains from the Aceramic levels show the cultivation of domesticated cereals like emmer wheat and barley, as well as legumes such as lentils [17, p. 45]. Faunal remains suggest a mixed strategy of animal husbandry and hunting [7, p. 67]. The community relied on managed animals, but also exploited wild species. Over time, there was an increased emphasis on food production, perhaps reflecting population growth at the settlement [7, p. 68]. Some debate exists regarding the status of pigs, which may have been either domestic stock or hunted feral animals [30, p. 15].

The mortuary practices at Tenta differ notably from those at Khirokitia. Only 14 burials containing a minimum of 18 individuals have been found, a small number compared to the hundreds of interments at its larger neighbor [2, p. 126; 23, p. 48]. The deceased included adults, children, and infants [23, p. 48]. There was no strict rule for burial location; six individuals were interred in pits beneath the floors of dwellings, while seven were placed in pits outside buildings, sometimes in refuse layers [23, p. 48]. Despite their varied contexts, all are considered to be intentional burials [23, p. 48]. Another key difference is the general absence of grave goods at Tenta, a practice that was more common at Khirokitia [21, p. 102]. This pattern of intramural and extramural burial during the Aceramic Neolithic contrasts with the later Ceramic Neolithic period, when the dead were no longer buried within settlements [21, p. 104; 31, p. 104].

Conclusion

The evidence from Kalavasos-Tenta, brought to light through the systematic work of the Vasilikos Valley Project, has proven to be transformative for Cypriot prehistory. Far from being a simple village conforming to a known cultural pattern, Tenta reveals a long and dynamic history of settlement beginning in the mid-ninth millennium BCE. Its strategic location, substantial enclosure wall, and sophisticated circular architecture demonstrate a well-organized community capable of significant communal undertakings. The site’s chronological depth has been crucial in filling a perceived gap in the island’s early prehistory, showing that Cyprus was home to established, architecturally advanced communities long before the period represented by Khirokitia.

The finds from Tenta connect its inhabitants to broader technological and cultural developments in the Near East, while its unique architectural features and burial customs highlight the existence of regional diversity within Cyprus itself. The site stands as evidence of a complex, enduring society adapting to an island environment. Several questions, however, remain. The precise function of the unique pillar buildings on the Western Top is still a subject of debate, as is the exact chronological and social relationship between Tenta and the other Neolithic sites scattered throughout the Vasilikos Valley [23, p. 48; 1, p. 32]. Furthermore, the process by which the substantial Aceramic village on the hill gave way to the ephemeral pit-based activity of the Ceramic Neolithic on the lower slopes is not yet fully understood [7, p. 4]. Continued analysis of the material from Kalavasos-Tenta will undoubtedly shed more light on these issues, further refining our knowledge of a critical period in the human story of the Mediterranean.