Jennifer M. Webb, Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus: Early and Middle Bronze Age Tombs Excavated in 1913; Tombs 1–47 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021). 9782503590950.
Reviewed by Laura Ursprung Nerling, Columbia College, lsursprungnerlin@ccis.edu.
Originally excavated in 1913 by Leonard Halford Dudley Buxton, under direction of John Linton Myres and in cooperation with then Director of the Cyprus Museum Menelaos Markides, Vrysi tou Barba and its associated objects finally received a thorough study and treatment by Jennifer M. Webb. Of the 62 tombs located at the site, Webb’s Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba, Cyprus: Early and Middle Bronze Age Tombs Excavated in 1913; Tombs 1–47, provides a detailed analysis and catalogue of tombs 1–47. Webb states that the remaining thirteen tombs will be published in a second volume, a decision the author made for two reasons: first, the large amount of material necessitates two volumes; and second, Webb expresses a desire to publish the assemblages quickly given the 107-year gap between excavation and publication. The author’s goal of providing access to the material record is both admirable and appreciated.
This comprehensive volume provides an extremely thorough and in-depth account of the previous excavations of the Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba tombs but also delivers a new and more detailed analysis of tomb plans, objects, and chronology. The text is presented as an archaeological catalogue with detailed images and drawings. For any archaeologist working in Early to Middle Bronze Age Mediterranean studies, the wealth of material exhibited and described from this multi-tomb site, with a mostly intact and original accompanying excavation notebook, is invaluable both to establish the historiography of the site and also to assist in serving as comparanda.
Webb divides the book into chapters based on the same model as most archaeological resource materials. Chapter 1 provides a basis for understanding the scope of the project, the site, and the associated problems often encountered when synthesizing and analyzing the excavation notes of a 107-year-old excavation project. Chapter 2 details the historiography of the excavator, the excavation, and the archival record. Chapter 3 presents the core of the text by examining each tomb down to very specific details. Chapter 4 is a guest chapter written by Hedvig Landenius Enegren and Ina Vanden Berghe on the textiles found in the tombs. Chapter 5 provides a brief overview and discussion of the burial practices and chronology of the tombs and their relationship to the ceramic assemblage, but, as the author notes in Chapter 1, the full analysis and discussion of the tombs in context will occur in the subsequent volume.
Webb begins Chapter 1 by describing the settlement of Lapithos and its relationship to the burial ground Vrysi tou Barba. She also places the site in its historical context, securely identifying its importance to Cyprus and the broader Mediterranean world. This leads nicely into a section on the original excavator, J. L. Myres, and how he subsequently received the excavation project of Lapithos despite his many projects elsewhere. The remainder of the chapter deals with locating the tomb’s current location 100 years after the original excavation, despite the impediments of time.
Chapter 2, “The Excavator, the Excavation, and the Archival Record,” examines the contribution of Leonard Halford Dudley Buxton to the excavation at Lapithos. Overall, Webb presents Buxton’s academic credentials while also noting that he was not trained as an archaeologist, but rather was an anthropologist, thereby justifying his attention to skeletal remains. The details regarding Buxton’s role at Lapithos are extremely thorough and encompass his original letters, journals, and photographs. This chapter serves a dual purpose: it explains many of the problems presented by the archives of Lapithos, namely issues with the plans and details and their consistency, and also provides validation for the presence of so much data regarding the bones (a material normally absent from early excavation reports). The final section of Chapter 2 explains the publication record of Lapithos and notes the various reasons for delay of a full report (war and death at the beginning of the 20th century), in addition to the lack of consultation of the archival records, which may be the cause for some of the confusion between the 1913 excavations and the 1917 excavations.
Chapter 3 describes in detail tombs 1–47 from the 1913 excavations. This section is extensive and comprises the majority of Webb’s book. Webb breaks down each tomb at the beginning of individual sections by describing the tomb layout, providing the notebook description from Buxton (where available), and then proceeding through a full catalogue for each item found within that space. In between the notebook description and the catalogue, Webb also provides an analysis of the original notebook against modern analyses of the site. This is most certainly useful, though in order to aid in organization, another heading would have been beneficial for this additional analysis to help the reader identify the switch. All in all, Chapter 3 is remarkable in its detail, information, and summarization of the tombs. The decision to break Lapithos into two volumes was a wise one, as this section verges closely on too much information.
Chapter 4 focuses upon a rare find that falls outside of the typical ceramic, metal, and small finds typically associated with funerary archaeology in Greece. One can only assume that Webb decided to include a summary and analysis of the textile fragment within the first volume because the material remains originate from Tomb 16 (located in this volume). Textile remains are rare from the Bronze Age, and as a result any examples are exceptional. Webb opted for specialists Hedvig Landenius Enegren and Ina Vanden Berghe to write this chapter. Enegren and Berghe provide a description, a technical analysis, selected comparanda, and a description of textile production during the Bronze Age. Each discussion (technical analysis, comparanda, and explanation of production) is useful not only for understanding the textile presence at Lapithos but also will be extremely useful for future researchers and for comparanda. There was only a single fragment wrapped around a knife and so the chapter is quite small, especially in comparison to the rest of the book. Yet, the fragment clearly provides insight into funerary practices as well as weaving practices.
Chapter 5 provides a brief discussion of the burial practices, their chronology, and their relationship to the ceramic assemblage, noting again that full analysis and discussion will occur in the subsequent volume. The decision to delay makes sense for two reasons. First, it will allow for a comprehensive and complete analysis of the site, tombs, architecture, pottery, and chronology. Secondly, this volume already borders on too much information in a single setting. By breaking it into two volumes, Webb helpfully splits the information into digestible amounts and then provides a full summary upon completion of the study. All in all, this chapter relays a summary of the major components of each tomb. Webb breaks down the summary section into four individual divisions. Each section provides an early analysis of the information contained within the volume. These sections are divided by tomb architecture, ceramic assemblage, metal assemblage, and finally, chronology.
In the first section, Webb breaks down the architecture by spaces: dromoi, cupboards, stomia/doors, and interior chambers. Her summaries bring some key things to light, such as pointing out that cupboards rarely contain any grave goods or bones. Her section on chambers receives a more thorough discussion in which she suggests that most of tombs at the site constituted multi-chamber systems. Webb also notes that as the Lapithos cemetery progresses chronologically, the chambers appear to grow larger in correlation to later dates of use. Interestingly, she notes that there is a “broad correlation between chamber size and the minimum number of burials” (458). Webb notes that the increase appears to be related to expenditures on funerary goods rather than out of a necessity for additional interments. The final two parts of the architectural section deal with the human remains and associated grave goods.
Following the architectural summary, Webb discusses both the ceramic and metal assemblage as a whole. The ceramics are broken down by form and ware. Given that the wares are often utilized to assist in dating, this section is especially important. Webb notes some important details within this section that are likely to be explored in the final volume. For example, the date of WP FLS (White Painted V and Fine Line Style) is debated among academics, and the examples from Lapithos may be some of the earliest examples. If correct, this may help to refine dating in the future. In the metal assemblage section, Webb notes that in general, there is an uneven distribution of metal ware at the site. Overall, this summary provides a detailed breakdown of each type of metal goods (including earrings, pins, and forks).
The final section of Chapter 5 expounds on the chronology of the site. Within this section, Webb notes that much of the site does follow the original dating sequence as proposed by Buxton. Webb describes the impact that can be derived by understanding changes in ceramic styles or metallurgical shifts. Her final note about chronology indicates that habitation at the site must have continued for at least a short period even after the last tomb was closed.
Overall, Webb’s Lapithos Vrysi tou Barba represents an essential catalogue for anyone working in the Bronze Age and Mediterranean, and is a must for anyone working in Cyprus. The catalogue alone is invaluable for its visual representations of potential comparanda. Moreover, its detailed historiographical data provides a rich background that assists in understanding the site from a broader and ever-changing perspective that mirrors larger trends throughout Bronze Age Mediterranean archaeology.
Table of Contents
Introduction (1–12)
1. The excavator, the excavation and the archival record (13–40)
2. Tomb and finds (41–448)
3. Textile on Tomb 16.3 (449–454)
4. The tombs and the assemblages in context (455–496)
Discussion
1. What did you make of the spaces that lacked any bone material? Do you think this was an accident of the archaeological record? Looting? Or do you think it was purposeful from antiquity? And if it is from antiquity, why? I’m largely curious because we have similar spaces in Crete, and I haven’t been able to work out whether those spaces were just for storage or for something else.
Thank you for your great questions. I hope these answers go at least part of the way towards answering them. This is an interesting question but not so easy to answer. There are certainly factors that need to be taken into account when assessing the disposition of both skeletal remains and grave goods. At least some of the tomb chambers at Lapithos had been subject to flooding, possibly repeatedly over many years. Buxton observed this in the case of tombs he excavated in 1913 and the Swedish Cyprus Expedition also noted this for tombs they excavated in the same cemetery in 1927. The practice of multiple burial also involved the movement of earlier burials within the tomb. There are also issues related to the quality of excavation and recording. The tombs published in the volume you are reviewing were excavated 110 years ago and, while I think Buxton did a remarkable job, it was not a fine-scale excavation (many tombs were being excavated at the same time) and the soil was not sieved, so we cannot be sure that there were not some skeletal remains in what appear to be ‘empty spaces’. Looting, however, is not an issue in this case as most tombs were intact at the time of excavation.
Having said this, there are some observations I think we can safely make. The area immediately inside the stomion is frequently free of finds (Tomb 21, see Fig. 3.166 is a good example). This makes sense for practical reasons (allowing better access to the interior of the chamber). In other cases, something more interesting may have been going on. I am thinking in particular of Tomb 15. Here a large area probably in front of the stomion (which was not excavated) was clear of finds except for a skull found under a tankard and a row of metal artefacts placed along the wall. A worked stone slab, unfortunately thrown away by the workmen, may also have been found in this area. You will find my discussion of this in relation to a possible connection with post-mortem practices on p. 464 and the plan of Tomb 15 on Fig. 3.99.
2. Most of the burials appear to be primary over secondary, or do you believe that both are present across the board? (And if you addressed that in the monograph and I missed it, I apologize). Do you think that communal rituals are occurring elsewhere first and then receiving final interment here? Or if both are present, what do you think this means for the site as a whole, especially given its size.
Have a look at 5.1.5 Burials (pp 461–465) where I discuss the placement and disposition of burials, in so far as Buxton’s record allows. Final burials in chambers with multiple burials (which is most of them) seem to have been primary (i.e. left undisturbed) but earlier burials were sometimes gathered up and moved when space was needed for new burials. On occasion bones were placed in vessels. More interesting are the partial burials (pp. 464–465), which do not appear to be explained by taphonomic factors. They suggest secondary treatment of some burials, with special emphasis on the manipulation and curation of the skull.
On the question of communal (or kin-based) rituals, these could have been happening elsewhere but I think that whatever manipulation (secondary treatment) of skeletal remains was going on was probably happening within the chambers. I see the tomb chambers, or perhaps only the larger ones, as highly manipulated (ritualised) landscapes given over to on-going activities which probably involved moving things about well beyond the point of initial burial. I will attach a short paper on one of the tombs the Swedish Cyprus Expedition excavated at Lapithos which I think shows this very clearly.
The reference is: J.M. Webb 2017: Lapithos Tomb 322. Voice, context and the archaeological record, in E. Minchin & H. Jackson (eds), Text and the Material World: Essays in Honour of Graeme Clarke (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology PB 185), 1–12.
3. Do you think that the residents at Vrysi tou Barba are attempting to demonstrate any level of identity at these locations, whether that is communal, clan, or something else?
Yes, I think that this is undoubtedly the case, but I would place it at the kin/family level rather than the communal. I would tie this in with the evidence for ongoing activity in some of the larger, richer chambers (see my previous answer) and connect it with the veneration of ancestors. I also see an increasing use (over the MBA) of tombs as expressions of inter-generational wealth at Lapithos. This is visible in the form of metal value in particular and reflected in a change in practice which occurs during this period: initially metal objects were buried with an individual and left in position but over time metal objects initially buried with individuals were gathered up and ‘cached’ in the chamber (possibly in bags or boxes). I see this as a shift in the understanding of metal value from the inalienable possession of an individual to the accumulated wealth of the (presumably kin) group). Again, I have written about this elsewhere (it is mentioned also in the paper I will send you).
Rhea Classical Reviews 
Leave a comment