The Palaepaphos-Laona rampart. A pilot study on earthen architecture and construction technology in Cyprus

Abstract

Excavations conducted in the context of the Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project (PULP) have revealed a defensive monument of the Cypro-Classical period (fifth and fourth centuries BCE), which had been preserved under an anthropogenic mound (tumulus) of the 3rd century BCE. Besides stone-work, the construction of the monumental rampart made extensive use of mudbricks. In 2016-2017, PULP introduced a pilot study based on analytical techniques (pXRF, SEM-EDS, granulometric and petrographic analysis) to address issues relating to the manufacture and construction of the earthen architecture of the rampart. The paper presents a description of the geoarchaeological analyses and their results, which have highlighted specific manufacturing practices in relation to the construction of the monument. Given that the rampart constituted a major investment of the royal authorities of ancient Paphos, the results provide new information on the production of earthen building materials and also on environmental choices with respect to raw material selection in the context of a public project carried out by a central authority circa the mid first millennium BCE.

A geoarchaeological study of the construction of the Laona tumulus at Palaepaphos, Cyprus

“…">At a second stage, the central tumulus was constructed. It covered the interior of the rampart (Figure 4) (Lorenzon & Iacovou, 2019). At least two soil piles with inclined beds were formed, which were gradually unified with horizontally deposited materials, including marls and coarser sediments.…”

“…In 2014, in the process of investigating a built structure of sloping stonework that runs along the east side of the mound, and which was thought to have served as a retaining wall for the containment of the transported earth, we exposed the inner face of an impressive rampart. Constructed with a combination of worked and unworked limestone and well‐preserved mudbrick tiles, the rampart also possesses two facing staircases that would have led to towers (Lorenzon & Iacovou, 2019, p. 351, Figure 5). The pottery from the foundation trenches below the two staircases provides a construction date around the transition from the 6th to the 5th c. BC.…”

“…Each stage of the building process was challenging and demanded labor allocation and planning. The implementation of such a demanding building project would have required management and leadership to organize the collective work of moving sediments and erecting earth structures, as has also been suggested for the manufacture of the mold‐made mudbricks used in the construction of the earlier rampart sealed under the mound (Lorenzon & Iacovou, 2019). Moreover, the construction process required a series of decisions that reflect cultural choices and shared knowledge in communicating specific information (Kidder & Sherwood, 2017; Sherwood & Kidder, 2011).…”

Masters of mudbrick: Geoarchaeological analysis of Iron Age earthen public buildings at Ashdod‐Yam (Israel)

“…The macroscopic fabric was identified as coarse or fine based on the quantity and consistency of inclusions bigger than 2 cm (for methodology see Devolder and Lorenzon [2019], Lorenzon and Iacovou [2019]).…”

“…The 12 elements and compounds selected for statistical analysis (Al 2 O 3 , SiO 2 , K2O, CaO, Ti, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Rb, Zr, Sr) have good reliability in pXRF analysis and show low error margins (Al 2 O 3 , Sr ≤ 5%; SiO 2 , CaO, Fe < 1%; K 2 O, Ti, Zr ≤ 2%; Mn, Sr ≤ 10%; Cu, Zn and Rb ≤ 20%) (Supporting Information: Table S1). In this assessment, the limitations of the pXRF were carefully considered and included in the consideration of the results (Hunt & Speakman, 2015;Lorenzon & Iacovou, 2019;Shackley, 2011). The pXRF accuracy was further increased by analyzing a control sample.…”