What is the evidence?

observation

The initial settlement suffered a destructive episode and was rebuilt in a modified form.

Inspect the sources →
Review and provenance

Specialist reviewer: not recorded. Review date: not recorded.

Dataset workflow: proposed. This is separate from specialist review.

Confidence describes the stated assessment; it does not certify expert approval. How review works.

Chronology

Dating intervals may describe uncertainty or phases; their width alone does not establish event duration.

Preferred assertion

1190 BCE–1170 BCE

Precision: approximate

high

Preferred display range for this event. It preserves positive BCE ordering and does not suppress narrower contexts or alternative chronology models.

Alternative assertion

1190 BCE–1170 BCE

Precision: approximate

Chronology model: Maa excavation sequence

high

Local phase estimate that should not be synchronized automatically with Pyla or Sinda.

  • informs · dates
    Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–1986 — Vassos Karageorghis, Martha Demas (1988)

    Local phase estimate that should not be synchronized automatically with Pyla or Sinda.


    Locator: Phase I–II sequence

Interpretation and caveats

The two-phase sequence demonstrates local recovery; neither attackers nor occupants can be securely named from pottery styles alone.

Event context

Classification

Event type: destruction and rebuilding

Evidence layer: archaeological

Timeline role: regional core

Why it matters to the timeline

Directly reconstructs a Cypriot site, landscape, institution, community, or chronological transition within the primary interval.

Research notes

  • Documents the stratigraphic sequence. Role: provides primary excavation evidence. Locator: Phase I destruction and Phase II rebuilding.
  • Places the event within western Cyprus. Role: contextualizes. Locator: Maa transition summary.

Evidence and sources

Where to go next

Referenced records