The Philia facies and the Interaction Between Cyprus and Cilicia

3.1 Kissonerga-Mosphilia

The extensive settlement is located in the western part of the island and spans a considerable chronological range, from its foundation during the Neolithic phase (late seventh millennium BC) with a major occupation during the Late Chalcolithic and Philia period, when it appears to have been abandoned around 2400/2300 BCE.²⁷ The site covers an area of 12 hectares, and the excavations explored 1600 m² densely populated by structures organised into two sectors (Main Area and Upper Terrace).

Edgar Peltenburg²⁸ identified five distinct periods, with only Period 5 associated with the Philia facies. This period exhibits a strong continuity of occupation and a peaceful transition from the Chalcolithic era.

During the preceding Period 4, Kissonerga underwent a significant reorganisation, which can be divided into two phases, 4A and 4B. Within the older Phase 4A, the Main Area underwent transformation, and various complexes suggest the presence of a more hierarchical society.²⁹ The most notable building from this period is the Pithos House (Structure 3),³⁰ a circular space containing a substantial amount of storage containers (58 pithoi), as well as tools and instruments related to olive oil production.

As Phase 4B approached, dominant architectures vanished – the Pithos House is destroyed by a fire – and the community appeared to regress into a more egalitarian and simplified organisation.³¹

Kissonerga appears to transition into the Philia facies and Period 5 without any violent disruptions; instead, several elements suggest continuity:

1. the settlement retains its previous clustered arrangement of houses;

2. on the ruins of the Pithos House, two new structures, 706³² and 86,³³ emerge;

   33 Structure 706 appears to be a reoccupation of the earlier Pithos House, and probably most of the activities carried out inside were related to metalworking. Peltenburg 1998, 53, fig. 44.

   34 Structure 86, characterised by stone walls (Stone House), experienced two phases of occupation, Level 222, and Level 90. Peltenburg 1998, 53, fig. 44.

3. many structures built during Period 4 continue to be used during Period 5, even though none of them is well-preserved.³⁴

   35 Peltenburg 1998, 53.

However, some differences can be observed: the lack of storage buildings raises the hypothesis that the community was egalitarian during the Philia period; fire installations, especially ovens, during Philia are predominantly located outdoors; plaster is frequently used as covering for workbenches, floor preparations, platforms, and hearths. Notably, in Period 5, there is a hearth (78) positioned on a circular plastered platform, reminiscent of a typical Chalcolithic type observed at Kissonerga-Mosphilia during Periods 3 and 4.³⁵

During the excavations, an irregular surface (187) was discovered above Structures 3 and 86, which hosted oven fragments (116), a plastered surface (880) and a section of a platform (2103)³⁶ [fig. 3]. Additional ovens (133-5) were found on Surface 132.³⁷

Throughout Period 5, the presence of Philia markers, such as fire installations, plastered platforms, and floor preparations, is better understood through comparisons of Kissonerga-Mosphilia with other Philia contexts, particularly with Marki-Alonia.

3.2 Kissonerga-Skalia

The site is situated on a hill near the coastline, a bit further south of Kissonerga-Mosphilia.³⁸ Recent excavations³⁹ have unveiled a stratigraphy ranging from the Philia facies to the Early – Middle Cypriot period (2500-1650 BCE).

The Philia structures are in Area D [fig. 2] and exhibit five levels of floor preparations with some wall foundations, although their preservation status is poor. Originally, these structures had a north-south orientation, but towards the end of the facies, they adopted a different orientation, running northwest/southeast, before being eventually abandoned around 1750 BCE.

The initial buildings, oriented from north to south, had irregular limestone and pebbles foundations with fragments measuring approximately 40-50 cm. These structures featured well-defined rooms with plastered floor preparations, suggesting enclosed environments.⁴⁰

Two elements can be attributed to the Philia period: Structure 681, which originally seemed to have walls developing in elevation, while Structure 879 appears to constitute a typical emplacement element, likely a support for a ceramic container or mortar⁴¹ [fig. 3].

Deposits of materials overlying floor preparations, dated to the Philia period, are found sealed by subsequent levels. These include ceramic fragments and remnants of small objects.⁴²

3.3 Marki-Alonia

Marki-Alonia stands as a significant settlement from the latter half of the third millennium BC, notable not only for its extensive excavation⁴³ but also for the continuity of its stratigraphical sequence, spanning from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age.⁴⁴ Located in the central plain of the island, at the northeastern foothills of the Troodos massif, the site reached a maximum extension of approximately 5 hectares over its 500 years of occupation.⁴⁵

Among 33 identified architectural units, only three are attributed to the Philia facies (Phases A and B) [figs 4a-b], which have suffered damage from subsequent constructions, excavation of pits, and post holes.

Phase A, dating around 2300 BCE, follows the settlement’s foundation. The two oldest structures in the southwest area of the settlement, Compounds 1 and 2, suffered significant damage. Some postholes, in the northeast portion of the site, suggest temporary structures which likely included workspaces.⁴⁶

In Phase B, single-story buildings with mudbrick walls on stone plinths surround courts⁴⁷ or open spaces. Communal activities, indicated by large ovens and storage containers, suggest shared use of food and beverages among a large group of people.⁴⁸ Compound 1 remains unaltered, while Compound 2 is replaced by a structure associated with Compounds 3 and 4, featuring a two-rooms plan and a shared court,⁴⁹ suggesting a close relation among these houses. They formed a larger nucleus and shared the open space for domestic tasks, primarily centred on cooking, as probably indicates a hearth or bread oven (2468) found adjacent to close to wall 2340.⁵⁰ Additionally, evidence of artisanal production is attested, such as the working of shells and flint, the crafting of bone tools, and ceramic production.

The subsequent phases (Phases C and D), corresponding to EC I and II, are better preserved and crucial for understanding the appearance, continuity, and potential reuse of Philia elements [figs 4c-d].

With the onset of EC I (Phase C), there is an increase in population, leading to the expansion or reorganisation of previous structures and to the construction of new compounds, such as Compounds 6 and 7.⁵¹

Major changes concerning circular hearths and communal space occur in EC II (Phase D). The circular hearths, some of which are already attested during Phase C, complement the rectangular ones. The courts or open spaces, which appeared during Phase B, now seem to be divided and enclosed on at least three sides by structural walls. The absence of communal spaces and the appearance of houses with well-defined rooms may suggest social differentiation or a greater emphasis on private property.⁵² This is probably also linked to an increased social complexity within Cypriot communities, which can be associated with greater productivity and perhaps the emergence of increasingly extensive trade networks, particularly related to the circulation of metals. The architectural indicators of the Philia facies, including, rectilinear architectures, specific construction techniques, hearths distribution, and workbenches, imply that a range of activities previously shared and carried out outdoors now took place within each home or involved a smaller number of people.⁵³

3.4 Sotira-Kaminoudhia

The site of Sotira-Kaminoudhia, situated in southern Cyprus, spans nearly one hectare on the southern slope of a hill to the south of the modern city of Sotira-Kaminoudhia.⁵⁴ Excavations in three areas (A, B and C) [figs 9-10] revealed a settlement with a brief occupation during the Middle Chalcolithic, a significant expansion during EC I, and a tragic end, likely due to a fire possibly triggered by an earthquake.⁵⁵ The settlement’s architecture has a peculiar aspect, with rectangular units found next to square and triangular rooms and others that even incorporate curvilinear walls.

In Area A [fig. 5], a complex of 25⁵⁶ adjoined rooms was discovered in the northern part of the site. Each unit seems to be equipped with a rectangular hearth and low, elongated workbenches along the walls in the adjacent room.⁵⁷ Communal spaces between rooms were narrow, suggesting most activities occurred inside. Notably, two hearths were uncovered, one rectangular plastered hearth in the northwest corner of Unit 6,⁵⁸ and a double rectangular hearth in the southeast corner of Unit 7.⁵⁹

In Area B [fig. 6 left], located to the west/southwest of Area A and to the northwest of Area C, significant insights into the site’s abandonment were obtained.⁶⁰ Of note are two rooms uncovered within this area: Unit 12, and Unit 14.⁶¹ Unit 12 comprises a wide, unroofed area with a delimited rectangular court. Interestingly, a copper spiral earring diagnostic of the Philia facies has been unearthed within it, providing evidence of the use of this space during this period. Due to the notable absence of domestic features, such as hearths or workbenches, this space has been interpreted as a ritual space.⁶²

Unit 14 notable for its spacious dimensions and triangular shape, featuring a double hearth in the northern corner.⁶³ The later room represents a particularly unique example due to its distinctive construction technique in one of its walls (WS), which utilises ceramic fragments instead of the typically observed mudbricks.⁶⁴ Area C [fig. 6 right] revealed five environments: Units 2 and 25, Unit 8, Units 21 and 26. Unit 2 is the largest room with an area of 34 m² and a slightly quadrangular shape with a cardinal points orientation. In the northern corner of Unit 2, a hearth was found, being the sole one recovered in this area.⁶⁵

Unit 8 revealed significant discoveries in the northern corner, including a stone platform,⁶⁶ a thick lime plaster layer⁶⁷ likely used as a floor preparation, two platforms and two pits indicating grain grinding/refining and storage of small quantities of food.⁶⁸

In the western portion of the area the units exhibit variations in wall thickness. This discrepancy appears to be associated with the functional roles of the walls, distinguishing load-bearing walls from partition walls.⁶⁹

In summary, during the Philia period, architectures are characterised by rectilinear organisation and the presence of open spaces between houses for communal activities. With the advent of EC I, these communal spaces appear to lose their significance, likely due to a social reorganisation and increased complexity. During the same period, structures in Sotira-Kaminoudhia housed various domestic installations, such as hearths and workbenches, whose placement suggests that food preparation and cooking took place in different rooms within the house. The main change in Sotira-Kaminoudhia relates to building techniques, featuring stone foundations and walls constructed from stone or ceramic fragments, differing from the typical mudbrick walls found at Marki-Alonia. This variation is attributed to a combination of ancient techniques, innovative technologies, and a focus on structure thickness (see above).⁷⁰ Analysing the better-preserved EC I structures at Sotira-Kaminoudhia, following the Philia facies, reveals similarities with elements from the Philia period observed in Marki-Alonia and Kissonerga-Mosphilia. These similarities include as well rectilinear rooms, rectangular hearths, workbenches, and plaster floor preparations, all of which are common Philia markers.

4.1 EB IVA-B Contexts in Cilicia

The Philia facies in Cyprus corresponds to the Early Bronze Age (EB) IVA-B horizon in Cilicia, dated between 2500-2000 BC [tab. 2].⁸⁶ It’s noteworthy that at Tarsus a slightly different chronology and nomenclature is used, initially proposed by Goldman [tab. 2]: EB IIA-B is dated between 2700-2400 BCE, and EB IIIA-B between 2400-2000 BCE, in accordance with the periodisation used by Anatolian archaeologists.⁸⁷ However, for a better correlation between stratigraphies related to the Early Bronze Age in Anatolian contexts, the chronology proposed by Paolo Matthiae will be adopted here.⁸⁸ This chronology, applied by the scholar in the study of Northwestern Syria, is chosen due to its reliability and the geographical proximity of Cilicia to the latter area. Therefore, it has been decided to adopt Matthiae’s terminology in the analysis of the Early Bronze Age Cilician settlements considered [tab. 3].

In the preceding EB II period at Tarsus there was a notable increase in economic prosperity, marked by the establishment of wide-range relations⁸⁹ which endured into EB III. However, when viewed across the broader Anatolian mainland during the EB IV period, a less optimistic picture emerges.⁹⁰ During the EB IV, as highlighted by Bachhubber,⁹¹ there was a dramatic decrease in the number of settlements, contrasting with the preceding EB I-II-III periods (3100-2500 BC).

Many scholars have formulated theories regarding the causes of this crisis on Anatolian land. James Mellart,⁹² during surveys in the Konya plain, interpreted the decreased number of the settlements as the outcome of a potential migration.⁹³ According to Frankel, Webb and Eslick this period of crisis is believed to have been primarily determined by overexploitation of resources in the Anatolian territory,⁹⁴ which likely forced many agricultural communities to relocate elsewhere. It was precisely following this period of decline that the relation with Cyprus intensified, in fact, the island would have been a choice motivated by its geographical proximity and the previous relationships established as early as EB II-III.⁹⁵ Initially, this relationship would have been more occasional and likely involved adult males exploring the island, as evidenced by the discovery of metal weapons and objects. However, with the advent of the EB IV, it would have intensified with the arrival of entire Anatolian family groups in Cyprus, which would have settled on the island, leading to the emergence of the Philia facies and the transmission of knowledge concerning metalworking and craftsmanship.⁹⁶ Within Cilicia, 43 settlement contexts provide evidence of occupation dating back to the Bronze Age.⁹⁷

However, in many of these contexts, the stratigraphy yields only faint traces of the beginning of the Bronze Age, primarily represented by ceramic fragments. Analysis of architectural remains dating to the EB IVA-B phase is possible in only four settlements: Kilise-Tepe, Kinet-Höyük, Mersin Yumuktepe, and Tarso-Gözlü Kule. For each context, when possible, structures related to the EB III and EB IVA-B period (corresponding to Philia in Cyprus) will be presented⁹⁸ [tab. 3] [fig. 7].

4.2 Kilise-Tepe

Kilise-Tepe, located in the Göksu plain, overlooked the main ancient trade route connecting Anatolia with the eastern Mediterranean.¹⁰⁰ Initial investigations were carried out by Postgate¹⁰¹ between 1994 and 1997 in collaboration with the Silifke Museum. Subsequent excavations, led by Postgate and Tevfik E. Šerifoğlu from 2007 to 2013 with a team from Konya Selҫuk University, focused on quadrants H20 c-d¹⁰² and G19-20.¹⁰³

These last excavations revealed two significant phases: Phase Vf (=EB III) and Phase Ve (= EB IV).

Phase Vf, following visible destruction in the previous EB II, indicates uninterrupted occupation with new structures regularly built over the previous ones.¹⁰⁴ Two large pits affect a substantial portion of Phase Vf deposit. Four subphases are identified, and Phase Vf4, the latest, is better preserved and yields the remains of six rooms: Rooms 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55.¹⁰⁵ Rooms 51, 52, 54 and 55 feature well-constructed mudbricks walls oriented and set on stone foundations,¹⁰⁶ with entrances facilitating the passage between the various rooms,¹⁰⁷ pink-plastered walls¹⁰⁸ and plastered floors¹⁰⁹ suggesting enclosed spaces. Rooms 50 and 53, on the other hand, appear to be outdoor spaces.

Within quadrant G19d, a large circular fire installation (FI 11/14), likely an oven, dates to the later phase of Phase Vf4. After the abandonment of this area at the end of EB III, it became primarily used for waste disposal in the succeeding phase.

During Phase Ve (=EB IV), remains are poorly preserved and affected by numerous pits and subsequent structures, hindering the identification of intact rooms. However, elements of significant domestic nature were recovered.¹¹⁰ The oldest structure is a fire installation (FI 97/7), forming an oblong platform.¹¹¹ The central part of Phase Ve is marked by large pits,¹¹² suggesting an open space for waste disposal. An imposing wall (W8012) separates a hearth area (FI 11/5) from a northern section, indicating multiple uses. Near the hearth, a ceramic container and a basalt mortar suggest food preparation, while loom-weights imply a nearby textile processing area.¹¹³ The final part of Phase Ve reveals two walls (W224 and W229) using cornered stones, oriented north-northwest to south-southeast. The foundations are sealed by deposits related to at least three consecutive levels, marking the transition to the Middle Bronze Age (=Phase IVa).¹¹⁴

4.3 Kinet-Höyük

Kinet is located on the coast of the Bay of Iskenderun (Alexandretta) near Yeşikoy, at the extreme eastern end of Cilicia.¹¹⁵ The site has been occupied since the sixth millennium BCE, and until the mid-first century BCE, followed by a long abandonment until the late twelfth century when Kinet was reoccupied until the fourteenth century.¹¹⁶ The site was first investigated by Bilkent University (Ankara), from 1992 to 2012, under the direction of Marie-Henriette Gates.

The settlement is situated on a triangular-shaped elevation, covering an area of 3.3 hectares and 26 metres high.

Remains dating back to the Early Bronze Age (mostly EB III) were investigated through the opening of three trenches – referred to as M, M2, and M3397 – within the same Area M, which revealed a stratigraphic sequence composed of 14 phases.¹¹⁷ EB III corresponds to Phase VI.3 (Period 24), EB IVA corresponds to Phase VI.2 (Periods 23-2), and EB IVB corresponds to Phase VI.1 (Periods 21-19). Those levels provide architectural evidence preserved in a very fragmented state due to subsequent reuse phenomena.

With the onset of EB III (Phase VI.3, Period 24), there is a reorganisation of the structures originally built during EB II (Phase VI.4, Periods 29-5). Interestingly, EB II architectures¹¹⁸ were characterised by rooms overlooking a central court or open space, which appeared to either disappear or be encompassed within the houses.¹¹⁹ In the EB III, the architecture organisation becomes more irregular, and the walls rise above stone foundations located within excavated ground enclosures, often reused to support buildings from subsequent epochs.

Subsequently, in the EB IVA (Phase VI.2, Periods 23-22), the structures feature stone plinth foundations with walls made of two or three stone alignments preserved.¹²⁰ Also attributable to this period are evidence of food storage, often strongly associated with imposing structures, suggesting a redistribution on a larger scale, and elite residences positioned on either side of a cobbled alley across the settlement.

Finally, during the EB IVB phase (Phase VI.1, Periods 21-19), there is evidence of architectures with walls entirely made of stone, preserved up to a 1 m height. Additionally, there is a proliferation of new ceramic types, such as goblets, seemingly influenced by Tarsus, and ceramics of Canaanite typology.¹²¹

4.4 Mersin-Yumuktepe

The site, just northwest of Mersin, stands on a partially eroded mound along the Soğuksu River, with a height of 23 metres and an extension of 5 hectares.¹²² Initial investigations by Garstang in 1936 identified a stratigraphic sequence from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages, organised into Levels from XXXIII to I. According to Garstang, Late Chalcolithic (3500-2900 BCE) corresponds to Levels XV-XIIb.¹²³ Following this, Level XIIa is associated with the Early Metal (or Copper) Age (2900-2500 BCE),¹²⁴ and Levels XI-VIII are associated to the Bronze Age (2000-1500 BCE).¹²⁵

During subsequent investigations in 1993, new discoveries have called into question this initial chronological sequence.¹²⁶ Therefore, the chronology adopted by Mirko Novák,¹²⁷ proposes that the Late Chalcolithic period (4500-3800 BCE) corresponds to Levels XV-XIV. There is then a gap in the stratigraphic sequence corresponding to EB I.¹²⁸ Subsequently, EB II is attributed to Level XIII, EB III to Level XIIb, and EB IVA-B to Level XIIa.

Level XIIb (=EB III) is in precarious condition, impacted by subsequent Level XIIa structures. Four rooms (110,¹²⁹ 111, 112 and 113) from this period lie beneath the Hittite fort of Level VII (Late Bronze Age I). Room 111 exhibits traces of an extensive workbench leaning against the walls that delineate its northwest and southwest limits, with ash layers, and burnt ceramics.¹³⁰

The original floor of Room 112 reveals impressions, indicative of a vertical loom, supported by loom weights findings.¹³¹ In the northeast corner of the room, evidence of a clay oven and andirons fragments with burning traces were discovered, with a central hearth surrounded by ash deposits¹³² [fig. 15].

Level XIIa (=EB IV), like the previous Level XIIb, suffers disturbance from pits excavation and subsequent inhabitants attempting to clear space for new structures,¹³³ accompanied by signs of destruction and conflagration. The identified architectures have walls, extensively destroyed later, which seem to be attributable to two closely related but distinct phases, lacking distinct flooring. In elevation, these structures likely featured walls nearly 1 m thick, constructed with high-quality, large and dark-coloured bricks. The construction of a fortification wall, extensively destroyed by subsequent structures, likely protected a settlement with rectangular structures on mudbrick foundations.¹³⁴

Despite significant damage in Mersin from reutilisation and overlay of subsequent structures, a shared construction technique involving mud bricks walls set atop stone plinths is evident in EB II and EB IV.

However, mudbrick foundations are uniquely identified in Level XIIa (EB IV).

Although domestic artifacts are limited, a noteworthy discovery within Room 112 is an oven with spits, suggesting a clear culinary function for the installation.

4.5 Tarsus-Gözlü Kule

Tarsus, near the coast in southwestern Cilicia, exhibits evidence of occupation from the Neolithic period to the final phase of the Early Bronze Age.¹³⁵ Initial investigations by Hetty Goldman¹³⁶ (1935-39 and 1947-49) aimed to establishing a prehistoric chronological sequence in Cilicia and explore connections with the Aegean and Near Eastern areas. Recent excavations (2007, 2008-2010, 2012, 2014, and 2017), sponsored by Boğaziҫi University,¹³⁷ focused on Tarsus’ southern outskirts.

The correspondence between Matthiae’s chronology and Tarsus periodisation is as follows: EB III corresponds to Tarsus EB IIA, EB IVA corresponds to Tarsus EB IIB-IIIA (= Phases A and B), and EB IVB corresponds to Tarsus EB IIIB (= Phases C-I, C-II, C-III, and C-IV) [tabs 2-3].¹³⁸ The architectures will be presented following Matthiae’s chronology.

During the EB III two roads intersect perpendicularly¹³⁹ with four structures facing them.¹⁴⁰ The houses appear to have two types of layouts: bipartite or tripartite. Bipartite structures¹⁴¹ feature a square room with a hearth and a smaller rear space, while tripartite houses have a front portico in addition to these features.¹⁴² The structures appear well-built, with mudbrick walls following a fixed orientation.¹⁴³ Each of them has a hearth, which could be circular or rectangular, centred or off-centred within the main room.¹⁴⁴ Some houses also feature squared workbenches made of plaster near walls and close to the hearth (TAR 2) [fig. 8]¹⁴⁵ or located in the back room.

Despite earthquakes, cultural continuity remains during EB III, albeit with minor adjustments, such as the abandonment of porticos and the relocation of hearths, which are generally placed centrally within the main room facing the entrance. The period ends with the erection of a defensive wall and the introduction at the beginning of EB IVA of new architectural layouts, notably the appearance of a central hall and an open front portico.¹⁴⁶

EB IVA reveals the impact of the preceding destruction, with earlier structures persisting as ruins¹⁴⁷ (Phase A).

In subsequent Phase B, structures (TAR 14-15)¹⁴⁸ and independent spaces (TAR 12-13) are found. The scarcity of stone material leads to stone foundations being reserved only for larger structures,¹⁴⁹ while most architectures use clay.¹⁵⁰

EB IVB, divided into four subphases (= C-I, C-II, C-III, C-IV) sees architectural changes. In Phase C-I, some houses (TAR 15/20,¹⁵¹ 21, 22,¹⁵² 23/27) and a north-south-oriented road persist.¹⁵³ TAR 21 notably features a large semicircular hearth (1.50 × 1.30 m) accompanied by andirons fragments. Between Phases C-II and CIII, conglomerates of rooms emerge, with four structures coming to prominence in Phase C-II (TAR 25, 26, 27/23, 28/24),¹⁵⁴ which remain in use during phases C-III and C-IV with minimal modifications.¹⁵⁵ Notably, in Phase C-II, within TAR 24/28 a semicircular hearth is discovered [fig. 9], which continues to be in use in the subsequent phases (TAR 28/24) [fig. 10].¹⁵⁶ In Phase C-IV the remaining rooms evolve into autonomous spaces, with TAR 26 featuring a central hearth with a parapet. TAR 27/23, also possess an oblong-shaped hearth, and TAR 25 exhibits a clay staircase with at least nine steps.¹⁵⁷

The architectural analysis of the four Cilicia contexts presents a relatively uniform picture. The structures feature rectilinear plans, consisting of few rooms, generally two or three, delimited by walls constructed using the same building technique involving mudbricks and stone foundations. Structural elements exhibit the same characteristics, while fire installations present a more varied panorama, particularly in terms of shape, with circular/semicircular, or oval hearths being commonly observed. Workbenches made of plaster are discovered at Tarsus in EB III and appear to have a close association with the hearth or are located in an adjacent, albeit separate, room. During the EB II period, the Kinet-Höyük settlement shows a distinctive architectural organisation, with houses arranged around a court. However, this organisation gradually diminishes during the EB III. This arrangement is not observed in the other Cilician contexts, although this could also be attributed to the poor preservation of the archaeological remains.

5.1 Discussion

Following the comparison of architectural elements, the markers of the Philia facies found in Anatolia include rectilinear plans, the presence of open spaces, the use of mudbricks, the application of plaster coatings, and the presence of hearths and workbenches [tab. 4]. The arrangement of rooms around a court is observed at both Marki-Alonia and Kinet-Höyük. Open spaces are later delimited, possibly due to the emergence of dominant groups. Structures at both areas exhibit rectilinear plans, composed of two or three rooms with a single entrance, typically located in the corner, facing the main road of the settlement (if existing) and identifiable by the presence of a step. Tarsus reveals some tripartite structures, preceded by a portico, representing a distinctive variant which is entirely absent in Cyprus. Both areas feature mudbricks walls with stone plinths, while the use of plaster coatings for walls and floor preparations is more pronounced in Cilicia (Tarsus), while in Cypriot contexts, only fragments of such coverings are found (Marki-Alonia). Regarding fire installations, a notable distinction is evident: rectangular hearths appear to be characteristic of the Philia facies in Cyprus whereas, on the contrary, at the beginning of EC I, only few samples are found within Sotira structures.

In Anatolian contexts hearths are best preserved in Tarsus. However, no modifications in their shape are identified, with the majority characterised by a circular shape, and only few rectangular examples. A consistent feature in Cilicia concerns the placement of hearths inside the rooms: they are generally leaning against the walls and associated with workbenches located in the same or in adjacent rooms for domestic activities. In Cypriot contexts, the position of workbenches is more challenging to analyse, and only Sotira provides some evidence from the beginning of EC I.¹⁷⁰ The separation and yet strong proximity between hearths and workbenches, observed in both Cyprus and Cilicia, may suggest a functional distinction within the house. The room with the hearth was likely designated for cooking and heating, while the space with the work bench was used for more practical activities, probably focused on food preparation for subsequent cooking on the hearth.