2006 Final Report for the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project
 

Submitted by W.R. Caraher, R. Scott Moore, and D.K. Pettegrew

To the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus

27 June 2006

I. Introduction and Season Goals

The 2004-2006 seasons at Pyla-Koutsopetria have revealed of a robust scatter of cultural material in the coastal region of Pyla village, extending from below the slopes of the prominent coastal height of Vigla to the Dhekelia base golf course. The highest-density scatter is found below the ridge of Vigla and covers 10 ha—this we have denoted as Zone 1 (see blue area in Figure 1).  An additional area of moderate artifact density covers some 30 ha below the slopes of Kokkinokremos—this we refer to as Zone 2 (see green area in Figure 1).   Moreover, an additional 30 ha area around the site is essentially devoid of artifacts suggesting that it might represent an infilled harbor of ancient date; geomorphological work scheduled to be conducted this summer should shed light on this issue (see pink area in Figure 1).  Besides the artifacts, there are also significant architectural remains exposed at the surface that indicate impressive buildings in the area. 

The predominant material, however, are the ceramic finds, of which there are a large quantity.  In the course of survey, we counted over 20,000 artifacts and collected, read, and recorded around 8,500 artifacts for analysis.  In addition to these sherds we collected another 3,000 artifacts using the more intensive total collection circles, bringing the total number of artifacts analyzed and collected to 11,500 with a weight of nearly a half a ton.  Of the artifacts collected from the site, we have inventoried over 1,000 with photographs, drawings, and basic catalogue descriptions. 

The goals of the 2006 study and field season were three: 1) to complete the preliminary analysis of artifacts collected from the 2004-2005 survey, 2) to begin preparing formal catalogue entries for diagnostic artifacts collected from 2004-2005, and 3) to complete the recording of features on the site.  The following report details the methods, procedures, and preliminary interpretations from the 2006 season.

Figure 1: Pyla-Koutsopetria with Zone 1 and 2 shown in blue and green respectively.

II. Finds Report and Summary (R. Scott Moore)

1. Processing Finds

The ceramics were processed this season in a similar fashion to the ones processed in the summer of 2004 and the summer of 2005.  All the ceramic collected in 2004 and 2005 were washed and prepared to read at the conclusion of the 2005 season.  Consequently, all that was necessary was for the finds to be pulled from their place of storage in the Larnaka District Archaeological Museum.  The pottery from each unit was divided into discrete categories of unique artifacts using the chronotype system.  Each batch was then recorded on a form for entry into our ceramic databases.  For each batch the ceramicist recorded the number of sherds, fabric color, weight in grams, body part, types of decoration, its chronotype designation and any unusual characteristics such as inclusion color or size.  To speed up the process several standard abbreviations were used.  For surviving ceramic body part I used: BS for body sherd, H for handle, R for rim, T for toe and E for edge (tile).  For decoration I used: S for slipped, G for glazed, I for incised, R for rouletted, C for combed, P for painted, and Ri for ridged (tiles).  During the reading of the pottery I pulled any diagnostic sherds (handles, rims, toes and decorated body sherds) for cataloguing, photographing and scanning for future study (for a more comprehensive discussion of this see below III.1.A).  These sherds were given a specific catalogue number based on its unit and batch.  For example, a handle from unit 12 that was in batch 13 would be assigned the catalogue number 12.13.  If more than one sherd from a unit was catalogued, they would be distinguished by the letters A,B, C, etc at the end of the unit-batch number, such as 12.13A or 12.13B.

2. Some Preliminary Observations on the Character of Artifacts

At present we are able to offer some general observations regarding the chronology and function of our site.  Of these artifacts, 53% can, at present, be dated to a period of 1,000 years or less; most of these diagnostic artefacts are Late Roman by date, but there are traces of earlier material.

We have identified very little Bronze Age material at Koutsopetria despite our proximity to the Late Bronze Age site of Pyla-Kokkinokremos, and certainly none of the high-quality finewares found at that site.  It may be that the site of Steno, shielded by the fortified acropolis of Kokkinokremos, was preferred for concentrated settlement over the more exposed coastal plain. 

The Archaic to Hellenistic period witnessed a graduate increase in number of artifacts which, all told, accounted for a little over 2% of all the pottery datable to 1,000 years or less.  The finds from the Geometric to Archaic period tend to be clustered at the base of the coastal ridge of Vigla.  They consist primarily of Archaic basket handles in multiple fabrics and shapes and painted fine ware sherds from both the Geometric and Archaic periods.  A sample of artifacts from the height of Vigla itself produced artifacts from the Archaic period as well, but we did not recover any earlier, particularly Geometric, material.  In the early 20^th century, Lacau published a Phoenician inscription probably datable to the 7^th c. BC purportedly found in the area of Vigla or Paleokastro and suggesting a Sanctuary of Bes in this area.  While our finds cannot confirm the presence of a sanctuary in particular, they do suggest substantial activity on and about this prominent coastal height as early as the 8^th and 7^th century BC. 

From the Classical to Hellenistic periods finds in the area gradually increase and extend further to the south into the coastal plain.  It is clear that the height of Vigla received some kind of military presence during the Hellenistic period judging by the number of lead sling pellets extracted over the years from its height.  Our sample of artifacts from Vigla produced finewares – imported black glaze, Hellenistic color-coated wares – cooking pots, and amphorae, although we recovered no additional sling pellets.  The large, inscribed stone basin discovered in 1951 at the base of Vigla and datable to the 3^rd century BC indicates a sanctuary in the area perhaps associated with olive oil production; Hadjisavvas has identified this basin as a settling basin for an olive press.  Classical to Hellenistic material also extended well to the east of Vigla and was particularly concentrated at the base of Kokkinokremos, in the area that we have denoted as Zone 2.  While amphoras, fine wares, and medium coarse fabric utility wares are represented in many units with Classical to Hellenistic material, it is notable that there were very few kitchen or cooking wares found below Vigla compared to our sample of material from the top of Vigla or Zone 2.  Perhaps this reflects the presence of a sanctuary where storage vessels and finewares might be expected to outnumber the kitchen wares more commonly associated with domestic assemblages. 

Roman pottery (100 BC-749 AD) makes up the dominant chronological component at Koutsopeteria.  In general, this material has the same distribution as material from the Classical and Hellenistic periods except that it extends a bit further south toward the shore.  The overlap in the Early Roman and the Classical- Hellenistic material suggests continuity of occupation at this site.  The most prevalent artifact type from the Early Roman period are highly diagnostic finewares such as Cypriot Sigillata and Eastern Sigillata A, although very little Eastern Sigilatta B was found.  Only a handful of Koan and Rhodian type amphoras were identified, although certainly additional amphoras are represented by the less diagnostic body sherds.  Only one example of the so-called “pinched handled” amphoras emerged from our assemblage.  Unlike the pattern evinced by the Classical to Hellenistic periods, kitchen and cooking wares seem to be distributed rather evenly throughout the units with Early Roman and Roman material.  This may reflect a functional change in the nature of the site with more space being devoted to habitation or other domestic functions.

Over 80% of the material at our site dates to the Late Roman. [Slide] Material of this date occurs in almost 90% of the units investigated, extending to the south toward the shore and presenting a substantial assemblage of material in the immediate vicinity of the basilica excavated by Dr. Hadjicosti as well as along the base of the Kokkinokremos ridge.  The quantity and distribution of this material is augmented by the abundance of Late Roman roof tile present at the site which represents 35% of the Late Roman material collected over the course of the survey.  The majority of roof tiles come from the field immediately adjacent to the excavated basilica.  The most distinctive shape are the large, heavy Corinthian style tiles which appear in a variety of fabrics, including one of a yellow color which has been associated with production sites on the Mesoria plain.  This type of tile is not uncommon on other sites on the island and in shipwrecks off the coast, suggesting that both local production centers (e.g., the kiln at Ziyi) and trade supplied the Late Roman building boom. 

In addition to roof tile we collected a robust assemblage of fine wares.  While Cypriot Red Slip makes up the majority of Late Roman fine wares, we have detected some patterning in the distribution of Late Roman Red Slips.  For the Late Roman period, Zone 1 is higher density than Zone 2. In Zone 1, CRS makes up 55% of the assemblage followed by ARS at 28% and PHW at 17%.  In Zone 2, CRS represents a more substantial majority: 76% with PHW following at 15% and ARS at a mere 9%.  Compared to other surveys – particular those of large sites at Kopetra and Maroni-Petrera – we have found a far higher percentage of ARS and a lower percentage of PHW.  It is also interesting to note that our PHW is rather concentrated at the site, appearing in areas where ARS is less common, as for example in the eastern half of Zone 1 and the core units of Zone 2.  Most of our Late Roman finewares date to the sixth and seventh centuries, and are the most commonly encountered forms, ARS 105, CRS 9, and PHW 10. In fact, we have only a few Late Roman finewares that are dated prior to the middle of the sixth century.

Amphoras made up approximately 15% of our total assemblage.  LR1 amphora was the largest category of Late Roman amphora, accounting for 30% of the total amphorae from all periods. While there is still debate over the contents of LR1 amphora, the large numbers of LR1 at Pyla-Koutsopetria indicate the importance of the site as a center of exchange for the local area. We have recently begun a project that is attempting to group our LR1 amphora into categories based on fabric to see if it is possible to connect them to the recent research conducted on LR1 amphora by other projects and scholars.  In an attempt to create more specific typologies for our Late Roman 1 amphora artifacts, 196 Late Roman 1 amphora handles were examined and divided into the following 7 sub-categories.

Group 1 – buff fabric; sandpapery texture; small black grits, large white stones (quartz? ~7.5mm), other small colored stones. Fabric – 5Y 8/2, 7.5YR 8/4

Group 2 – numerous black stones, many very large and angular (~3mm); fewer stones of other colors. Fabric can be green, pink, buff, orange, etc. Fabric – 10YR 8/2; 2.5 YR 7/4; 5Y 7/3. Twin grooves create a higher ridge.

Group 3A – extremely numerous small black stones, with red, white, and brown stones. The red, brown, and white stones are larger than the black stones.

Group 3B – Very similar to group 2B (extremely numerous small black stones covering the fabric), but consistent in fabric. Orangish color. 5 YR 7/8; 2.5 YR 7/6. Some very large inclusions 5 mm in size, some voids

Group 3C – Similar to group 3 in fabric (extremely numerous small black stones), but has numerous larger, white stones ~2mm.

Group 4 – Numerous small black stones, with larger red stones (~1.5 mm). Fabric 5YR 7/4 core, and 2.5Y 8/2 on the surface.

Group 5 – Miscellaneous fabrics that do not fit into the other categories.

Densities decline markedly in the post Roman period.  The eastern part of Zone 1, however, contains a smattering of Medieval material.  The most interesting concentration of post-Roman artifacts comes from the southeastern corner of Zone 1 in the vicinity of a ruined wall which remains visible to the north of the Larnaka-Dhekelia road.  This wall has been alternately identified as a church or as a Medieval or perhaps Venetian or Ottoman fortification.  It seems likely that this fortification is the reason why this stretch of coastline was known as Paleokastro on many of the 19^th and early 20^th century maps of the island.  Recent ploughing has cut through a floor in this area and exposed sub-floor packing, some of which is Late Roman in date.  While it is difficult to establish this floor conclusively with the ruined wall visible from the Larnaka-Dhekelia road, it does establish a Late Roman terminus post quem for a building in this area.  The scatter of Medieval and Ottoman/Venetian pottery in the area suggests that this area may have remained in use from the 13^th to the 19^th century.  In many units throughout the site, certain large rims and handles were discovered that had a coarse dark brown fabric with numerous small black stones. These items are believed to date to the medieval to early modern period (1800-1900 AD) and are currently designated as COMS (Coarse ware medieval-modern) in the chronotype field of the database. In the comments field, a careful description was provided for the fabric. During the fall, these items will be placed into a more specific chronotype based on the classification system Dr. Timothy E. Gregory developed for the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project. More modern artifacts are also present in some quantities in the area.  Most, however, are associated with debris from the modern road or the ongoing agricultural use of the area.

3. Priorities for 2007

At the conclusion of this field season, there are several small projects that need to be completed next season. 1) The Late Roman roof tiles need to be examined and broken into sub-categories based on fabric and then correlated with Marcus Rautman’s classification system used at Kalavassos-Kopetra; 2) the medieval and later coarse ware rims need to be matched to more specific typologies; 3) Roman cooking ware rims need to be matched to more specific typologies, particularly Dhiorios rims; 4) all amphora toes need to be studied further to see if a more specific identification can be determined; and 5) other ceramic specialists need to be consulted to see if our LR1 classification system can be refined any further.

All handles that were initially identified as archaic basket handles were pulled for cataloguing and further study. Examination of published excavation reports identified them as olive oil containers, similar to the ones discovered in the Salamis tombs by Karagheorgis. A closer examination of these handles confirmed that ten of these handles matched the fabric and shape descriptions provided by Karagheorgis and Hadjisavvas. These items were then catalogued and their preserved dimensions, Munsell colors, fabric colors, and fabric shapes were recorded.

III. Data and Lab Report (W. R. Caraher and R. S. Moore)

The following report will summarize laboratory procedures, accomplishments, and problems.  The main sub sections will be as follows: 1) procedures and artifacts selected for inclusion in our provisional or running catalogue,  2) various issues related to the management of the finds data, and 3) progress in finalizing our GIS data.

1. Cataloguing Finds

During the 2006 study season PKAP made a concerted effort to prepare formal catalogue entries for a substantial subset of our finds.  It is our goal to eventual have formal entries for >1000 artifacts, approaching 10% of all artifacts collected. 

A.  Procedure of Selecting Artifacts for Provisional Catalogue (R. S. Moore)

Items were selected for cataloguing based on the following criteria: 1) all fine ware rims that had a preserved length of more than 1 centimeter; 2) all Late Roman 1 amphorae handles that had a preserved length of more than 3 centimeters and were not damaged from ploughing; 3) all glass fragments; 4) all pieces of bone; 5) all metal artifacts; 6) all lithics; 7) all decorated body sherds dated Late Roman or earlier; 8) all cooking ware rims; 9) all coarse ware rims that were believed to be diagnostic (basins, pithoi, and amphorae); 10) all handles that were believed to be diagnostic, such as archaic basket handles or cooking pot handles; 11) well preserved tile pieces that showed decoration; and 12) all unusual items, such as spouts, stoppers, and stone vessels. Over the last three years we pulled 1,171 ceramic artifacts to be catalogued.

B. Labeling, Digital Imaging, and Drawing Artifacts (W. R. Caraher, S. J. Phillips, G. D. Fisher)

The same procedures were used in 2006 as were developed in 2005.  Problems with labeling and identifying artifacts were not corrected in 2006 and should be promptly addressed in 2007. 

i. Labeling

Artefacts were labeled using a base coat of clear (or white) acreloid and numbered with the unit and batch number using black ink. The artifact number is determined by a combination of the unit number, followed by a period, and the batch number (and sub-batch number, if required), for example, “246.4A”. This becomes the artefact’s unique number. After several tests of ink and archival ink pens, it was determined that a stylus with a size 104 nib provided the clearest label. Large artifacts were labeled using a size 103 nib. A clear top coat of acreloid was used to seal the ink. Tests also verified that ink was removable using acetone. Acreloid and ink are both fast drying and this meant that large batches of artifacts could labeled at one time.

It was noted that the acreloid that we used while of good quality tended to get dirty, thicken, and develop bubbles over a few days of use. 

In 2005, it was discovered that one batch contained a small number of artifacts with incorrect labels, and these must be corrected in 2007. Unit 70 currently has 5 handles assigned to batch 10, however the lab registry sheet shows that three of these belong to batch 9 and will need to be relabeled. More specifically, the ½ handle (red) currently labeled 70.10B should become 70.9A; the full LR1 handle currently labeled 70.10A should become 70.9B; and the ½ LR1 handle currently labeled 70.10C should become 70.9C. There are two other handles labeled 70.10A and 70.10B which are correct. The only other known correction is to add the sub-batch ID of A, B to two handles labeled 198.22.

ii. Digital Imaging

Once labeled, artifacts were then sent to be imaged. Batches were divided between photography and scanning, some of which were imaged both ways. In general, artifacts to be scanned were determined by shape and size. ‘Flat’ artifacts such as rims, bases, some tiles and body sherds et c.,were scanned using a HP Scanjet 4070. These were scanned at a resolution of 300, and recorded in the scan log by the unique artifact number (using an underscore instead of a period and Dr. Scott Moore’s ‘reader’ number “_1”). If a profile or reverse image of that artifact was also scanned, the images were identified as a multiple using a suffix of ‘a’, ‘b’, et c. This exact number was used to label the image in the scanning album, for example, 39_12_1b. Where possible, rim profiles were also scanned in order to provide addition diagnostic information.

In general, we were dissatisfied with the quality of images produced by scanning.  Consequently, we increased the number of artifacts deemed worthy of photography.  In 2005, the vast majority of these were handles, but increasingly in 2006 we included larger artifacts such as some worked stone and large diagnostic sherds. As in 2005, Greg Fisher, Oxford University, was responsible for artifact photography. A photography log containing the unique artifact number, provided a complementary record of imaged artifacts to that of the scanning log, so that a complete list of imaged, ie: catalogued, artifacts could be determined at the end of the season. The merging of this list shows that 684 artefacts were labeled and imaged during the 2005 season and an additional 414 artifacts from the 2006 season creating a solid basis for the PKAP catalogue. 

Artefacts (glass, ceramic) are photographed using a tripod, digital camera, and a piece of wood covered with a matte cloth clipped to each side with bulldog clips. The photo area is formed between the Kodak color scale and the cm scale to the top and bottom. The artefact is photographed with its tag number from which ever angles are required: e.g. the artifact may be photographed flat, in cross section, etc. The macro setting may be used on the digital camera. No flash should be used. The artefacts are photographed outside in the shade and it is prudent to stop up or down as required to ensure that the color on both artefact and colour scale are vivid. The camera should be at whatever distance above the cloth is required to adequately frame the subject matter.

iii. Drawing

a. During the Season

During the 2005 study season, a total of 100 artifacts were drawn by C. Glessner, J. Trenbeath, and K. Pettegrew.  These were primarily Late Roman fine ware rims.  The drawings were done at 1:1 scale, in pencil on a sheet of blue gridded paper.  These rim profiles do not show the proposed extent of the completed vessel even this dimension could be properly estimated.  This convention was excluded because the vast majority of our rims are exceedingly fragmentary and rim diameters over 24 cm could only be estimated very roughly.  Rims drawn by K. Pettegrew and J. Trenbeath are in pencil only.  For these artifacts the inner part of the pencil line should be considered the proper dimension of the artifact.  C. Glessner traced her penciled rims in ink at the proper dimension. 

b. Post Season Drawing (R.S. Moore)

As we prepared the artifacts for storage, I went back and examined every catalogued artifact to determine if it was to be selected for illustration. Since 100 fineware rims had already been drawn, covering all identified forms, I did not choose any others to be illustrated. All decorated fine ware body sherds were selected to be illustrated. From the rest of the catalogued material, I chose at least one of every specific ware for illustration. 45 artifacts were selected in this process and separated for illustration during the fall of 2006.

C. Cataloguing Procedure (W.R. Caraher)

During the 2006 season, we began the preparation of a formal catalogue of significant sherds.  This catalogue has two values for the projects: 1) it produced a publishable artifact catalogue, parts of which will certainly be included in subsequent publications and 2) it allowed us an opportunity to refine our identification of certain artifact classes.  We anticipate being able to complete our catalogue by the end of the 2007 study season.  Our goal is to catalogue around 10% of our collected artifacts.  For 2006, we selected artifacts either that fell within our expertise (i.e. primarily of Late Roman date or of well established chronology or function) or that seemed likely to yield significant refinement of chronology (i.e. primarily the well-understood Late Roman finewares).  During the coarse of the 2006 season we catalogued a total of 198 artifacts. 

Artifacts selected for formal catalogue descriptions had all been labeled and imaged and some of them had been drawn.  This is recorded in the previous section.  Formal textual and descriptions follow the following form:

PKAP Catalogued Artifact Recording Form (PKAPCARF)

In general, we used the “Instructions for Inventorying” employed at the American School of Classical Studies Excavations at Corinth, Greece dated to 2005. 

Dimensions:  All dimensions were recorded in meters.  A maximum of 3 dimensions were included for each artifacts: 1) h = height; the height of the properly stanced rim; 2) l = length; the maximum preserved length of the rim fragment; 3) est. diam. = estimated diameter; this was only used for rims and estimated from a rim diameter chart with a maximum rim diameter of 24 cm.  In some instances the maximum rim diameter for artifacts over 24 cm was estimated in order to convey the proper order of magnitude (e.g. 26 cm or 34 cm).  Consequently, all estimated rim diameters over 24 cm should be treated as only rough estimates.  For artifacts other than rims or too small to estimate diameter or stance, we simply recorded the maximum artifact dimension.

Munsell:  For all artifacts, we recorded a Munsell number for the fabric of the artifact.  For slipped artifacts we included a Munsell number of the color of the slip.

Description Fabric: This was done with the naked eye both inside the museum and in sunlight.  The size and coarseness of the grain was estimated and recorded as either fine, medium coarse, or coarse.  Any visible inclusions were recorded by color unless they could be easily identified by the naked eye, such as lime, quartz, or mica.  The goal of the fabric description is to produce descriptions that are useful to other archaeologists studying artifacts under similar conditions.

Description Shape:  If the artifact was from a known artifact type (e.g. PHW3), in most instances this was simply noted along with any recognizable subtypes.  If the artifact could not be associated with a known type or was significantly anomalous, then a more formal description was included following the guidelines established by the Corinth Excavations.

Description Decorations:  This field included a brief description of the surface decoration, painting, or the character of the slip. 

The catalogue entries on this form remain relatively informal and have not been keyed into a database.  We anticipate converting the informal, yet accurate, language of the catalogue with more formal and consistent language when they are keyed this fall. 

2. Finds Data

At the end of the 2006 season we completed a preliminary analysis of all artifacts collected during the 2004-2005 field seasons (for a summary of this, see II. Finds Report and Summary).  All this data has been keyed into an Access Database.  The following summary describes each table in the finds database as it existed at the conclusion of the 2006 study season.  This, of course, does not represent the final database redaction, but only a provisional version.  Any changes made to this provisional database should be shared with all senior members of the project.

Database Title: Finds2006Final

Table List:

Finds2006: This is the completed version of all finds collected from 2004-2006.  It has been merged with the chronotype database.

Chronotypes: This is the chronotype database current as of the conclusion of the 2006 study season.

Crate_Inventory:  This is the inventory at the Larnaka District Archaeological Museum of all pottery that has been selected to be catalogued.  See D. Issues related to Final Catalogue for problems with this table.

CTPeriodsCyprus: For the proper absolute dates adjusted to the Cypriot chronology use the CTPeriodsCyprus table.  These dates derive from those provided in the SCSP volume.

ReadUncat_Inventory2006: This table includes all pottery stored in the Larnaka District Archaeological Museum that was not pulled for more formal cataloguing. The table is arranged by unit. 

UnitZoneQuery:  This table are the units associated with Zone 1 and Zone 2 of our survey area. 

CataloguedList:  This is a full list of all the artifacts catalogued and those drawn.

CatalogueCheckertbl: This table contains all the artifacts pulled for cataloguing.  It also includes the file number for the digital image, whether it be a scan or a photograph.

3. Spatial Data and GIS datasets

As of 23 June 2006, the most recent and up-to-date GIS file is SurveyUnits2006 personal database.  In this database, units 241 and 252 have been switched.  This is because the artifacts and DU sheet from unit 252 has been mislabeled 241 in the field, and unit 241, likely walked as unit 252 produced no pottery and accords well with the description of 252 recorded on the DU sheet.  The result of this relabeling in the GIS is that all artifacts and density data previously associated with unit 241 is now in unit 252 and vice versa.  This does not effect density data (i.e. the DU sheet) or the Finds database and no further action is required.

4. Archiving

We have archived our data in both paper and electronic forms. 

1. Paper copies.  We have made two paper copies of all notes and forms.  The original will be stored at Indiana University of Pennsylvania with R. Scott Moore; one copy will be placed with the artifacts in the Larnaka Museum; and one copy will be stored with William Caraher.

2. Electronic copies.  All data is burned to CD and distributed to project participants.

IV. Fieldwork in 2006 (W.R. Caraher and D.K. Pettegrew)

Archaeological fieldwork during the 2006 field season was directed toward finishing the documentation of the extensive Roman site of Pyla-Koutsopetria.  Surface survey at the site was completed in 2005, so our goal for this season was to finish recording a variety of natural and cultural features that would help us better understand this coastal site.  Following from this goal, fieldwork during the 2006 season comprised four facets of work:

1. An examination of the long ridge between the sites of Vigla and Kokkinokremos.

2. Finishing the mapping, photographing, and documenting of the numerous cut stone and architectural features at the site of Pyla-Koutsopetria begun in 2005.

3. Experiments in artifact counting and densities. 

4. Reconnaissance work on the plateau north of the coastal site of Pyla-Koutsopetria extending to the new highway. 

These different projects occurred over a three week period from June 5 to June 23.  They are described in greater detail in the subsections below. 

1. The Ridge Survey

A principal focus of fieldwork activities in June 2006 was documenting any cultural features or exceptional artifacts on the ridge that separates the plateau from the coastal plain below.  This ridge extends from below the site of Vigla on the west to the area of Mavrospillios on the east (below the site of Kokkinokremos).  Although in 2005 we had surveyed the units immediately to the south of this ridge, we had not actually examined the ridge systematically.  The reasons for examining the ridge were as follows:

1)      We wanted to note the features in the area, including pits below Vigla and a number of cut stone blocks, and several walls we had noted in previous survey.  We were especially interested in whether there were tombs in the ridge associated with the site of Koutsopetria, as is common at other harbor settlements of the Mediterranean (e.g., Kenchreai in Greece; Matala in Crete). 

2)      We wanted to determine whether high-density artifact scatters noted in the coastal plain derived from the ridges above the site or were associated with the use of the plain.  That is, we wanted to ascertain whether artifact densities were a product of geomorphological forces.  This was especially important for the eastern end of the site (Area 2, east of the water treatment plant) where the moderate artifact densities were unexpected.  Determining whether artifact scatters were geomorphological or cultural in origin was fundamental for estimating the size of the site.

For the ridge survey, three field walkers spaced at 10-15 meter intervals walked across the breadth of the ridge west to east.  Field walkers noted variable artifact densities in the area and looked for features.  We did not collect finds (in accordance with our permit), but we did record information about artifacts and features.  For features like cut-stone blocks and looting holes, we measured dimensions, took photographs, collected GPS points, and recorded basic descriptions.  This information was integrated with the feature information collected in 2004 and 2005 seasons.  The results can be summarized as follows for three major sections of the ridge: a) the western part, below the coastal height of Vigla; b) the slopes surrounding the water treatment plant; and c) the slopes above the eastern part of the site (above “Area 2”) and below Kokkinokremos.

Figure 2.  Features in the Ridge at Koutsopetria

1. Below Vigla

Artifact densities are high below the entire height of Vigla.  This area of high artifact densities is extensive across the entire hillside below Vigla, and artifacts are very well-preserved, in better condition in fact than in the fields below the slope.  We noted Archaic-Late Roman material, and earlier material (Archaic-Hellenistic) is common on the slopes, more common in fact than in the fields below.  We should see these artifacts as associated with the coastal height of Vigla, either washed down from the height or a continuation of settlement on the slopes.    

Features in this area included a number of cut stone slabs and blocks (limestone and gypsum), several trenches and pits, quarried areas, and cut stone steps descending the slope.  The limestone quarries run for about forty meters, and end where the bedrock falls away.  The cuts are usually .15-.30 m deep, but occasionally to ca 1.20 meter.  The stairs are ca. 1.50 m wide, 0.16 m deep.  There are eight preserved steps.  A groove on the eastern end, 0.10 m wide, may represent a channel along the stairs, and was probably part part of the ancient settlement at Vigla.

Along the the Vigla Ridge, at the top of the slope, we noted two walls.  One is at the southeast corner of the plateau, and curves at the end, like an apse.  It is constructed with mortar and field stones and tiles, is about 0.65 m wide and preserved to a  height of 0.30 m.  The other is a long retaining wall that runs just below the Vigla plateau, beginning at the east end and continuing to the southwest corner of Vigla.  This latter wall is visible and clearly defined in several places, is made of blocks and large field stones that are sometimes 0.50 m wide, and has mortar surviving only in a few places.  This is not clearly a fortification wall but could be a retaining wall associated with the CL-Roman settlement.  The wall extends across the entire Vigla Ridge. 

We did not see clear evidence for any cut tombs, although there were numerous fissures and caverns caused by natural collapse.  We also recorded the large cistern associated with the ridge site of Vigla (there is a large fig tree there today), and noted a rectangular trench near this cistern that is 0.70 m N-S and 2.00 E-W.  It may be related to the military training in the area.

2. Slopes Surrounding Water Treatment Plant

Artifacts decline substantially at the point where the ridge turns inward (northwestward) away from the coast.  The slopes below the ridge around the water treatment plant produced few artifacts, which indicate that the settlement on Vigla does not continue inland (to the north), and is also consistent with the low-density scatters associated with the grid units (96-109, 165-70, 248-51) immediately southeast of the water treatment plant.  There were, however, a few artifacts.  We documented the base of a Hellenistic figurine fragment on the lower slopes of the ridge northwest of the water plant. 

Features in this area included two cut caves northwest of the treatment plant, separated by a distance of only 15 meters.  It is difficult to know whether these caves are modern or ancient, but it is clear that they have been used in recent times.  The first cave (on the west) is preserved to a height of 1.80 m at the entrance and 1.40 m at the back; it is 8 meters deep and four meters wide.  It appears to be a natural cavity (it lacks regularity) but is blocked up on the west end by a low wall (ca. 1.20 m high), suggesting perhaps use as an animal pen.  The darkened roof of the cave also shows eveidence for fires. 

The second cave on the east is more regular and is certainly cut (marks on the back wall suggest so).  It is three meters wide throughout and about 1.70-1.80 m. high.  Near the back of the cave there are two recesses perpendicular to the main body of the cave: one recess on the west wall cuts five meters to the west; the recess on the east wall cuts two meters to the east.  As with Cave 1, this second cave has a low wall partially preserved at the entrance, again suggesting perhaps use as an animal pen or temporary housing.  The interior show signs of use for campfires.  A pile of garbage debris lays outside this eastern cave is the result of dumping from the ridge above. 

At the base of the sloper, there is a low field/retaining wall constructed of fieldstones that may be a modern fieldwall.

3. Slopes above Zone Two

The slopes above zone 2 presented a conspicuous dearth of ceramic artifacts with few notable exceptions. 

Conclusions

The study of the ridges this year lead to the following conclusions about the use of the area in antiquity:

1)      Although the site of Koutsopetria is located mainly on the coastal plain, there is some indication that it also occupied the slopes and height of Vigla during Late Roman times.  Moreover, the great quantity of pre-Roman sherds at Vigla and its slopes suggest that this height is the predecessor to Koutsopetria.  In Roman times, the height and coastal plain below formed part of the same site.

2)      There is no undisputed evidence for cut tombs in the ridges, but some of the recesses could indicate such features.  Some pits could be interpreted as looting attempts, but the abundance of natural recesses throughout make it difficult to differentiate the two. 

3)      Artifact densities on the ridge are low east of the point where the ridge turns northward and inland around the water treatment plant, and remain low across the entire eastern extension of the ridge toward Kokkinokremos.  This proves that Area II of Koutsopetria (i.e., the moderate densities on the coastal plain below Kokkinokremos) do not derive from erosion from the slopes or ridges above. 

2. The Feature Project

Greg Fisher and Brandon Olson finished the work of Brian Willis and Mike Fronda (see 2005 Final Report) in documenting the features associated with Koutsopetria.  Most of this work was completed in 2005, and this season Fisher and Olson wrapped up loose ends.  The most important contribution of their work was the completion of a profile drawing (to scale) of the exposed wall along the coastal road, that we believe may be Venetian or Ottoman.  This drawing has been photocopied and the originals left at the Larnaca District Museum. 

3. Recently Ploughed Fields under Vigla

On 16 June 2006 in the late afternoon between 4:30-6:30, R.S. Moore, K. Pettegrew, G. Fisher, and C. Glessner conducted an examination of the deeply ploughed area south of Vigla and northwest of the fenced area. The ploughing was discovered by R.S. Moore on 14 June 2006 while he was taking digital photographs of the area. To the best of our knowledge this area had previously been uncultivated and that this was the first time it had been ploughed, at least in the last decade. During this examination, Moore, Pettegrew, Fisher, and Glessner walked the area systematically, but in no particular pattern, and identified unique or distinctive artifacts unearthed by the plough.  The area was divided into four subsections, and Moore identified and documented the artifacts discovered in each area:

1) The lower area to the south, around settling basin contained ARS105, unidentified ARS bases, CRS 9, unidentified CRS base, CRS 11 basin, medieval to modern rim, LR1 handles, other late Roman handles, glass, mortar, and Late Roman roof tiles

2) The upper area was divided into three subsections. The eastern section (by sign) contained Late Roman roof tiles (some like Kopetra roof tiles), LR1 handles, large CRS bases, mortar, marble pieces. This section had a lower pottery density and higher roof tile content.

3) The middle area had a higher roof tile count (including Zygi red cover tiles), numerous classical and Roman amphora toes, combed body sherds, LR1 handles, ARS rims, and a few pieces of CRS.

4) The western area had a lower density of roof tiles and mortar, but a sharply increased pottery density. It contained lots of cooking ware (body sherds, rims, and handles), glass (including rims), unidentified CRS, CRS 9, ARS, PHW10. Overall, it appeared to contain approximately the same number of CRS and ARS sherds.

4. Experiments in Artifact Sampling Strategies: Total Collection Circles

As discussed in the 2004 and 2005 final season reports, field teams conducted experiments measuring the effects of intensification of collection strategies on overall artifact density; we did this in acknowledgement of the limitations of coarser sampling strategies concomitant with large-site survey.  In ten grid squares, we exacted a 5% sample of the surface through more rigorous ‘vacuuming’ or ‘hoovering’ collection using total collection circles.  Rather than collect artifacts by Chronotype (as is standard for our survey method), we collected all artifacts found within the bounds of a circle with a radius of 5.1 meters by carefully combing the ground (see below).  

In 2006, we felt that we needed a more robust sample of experimental units to draw conclusions from these experiments.  Consequently, we sampled 11 additional units using these circles, bringing the total number of experimental circles to 21 (ca. 8% of the total number (n=252) of grid squares).  In accordance with our 2006 permit, we only counted artifacts and did not remove artifacts from the field. 

Selecting Units for Total Collection Circles

There were three criteria that we used to identify units for total collection circles.

1. Density.  Our overall density per grid square was generated by totaling the number of artifacts collected by each walker.  We select 21 units for total collection on the basis of their overall artifact density, selecting four-seven units from four different density quartiles:[1] very low (0-8 artifacts), low (9-30 artifacts), moderate (31-103 artifacts), and high (104 artifacts or more).  Hence, we sampled seven very low density units (#s 34, 85, 102, 151, 169, 173, 226), four low-density units (#s 45, 53, 141, 191), four moderate-density units (#s 40, 66, 120, 127), and six high-density units (#s 18, 61, 63, 71, 154, 187). 

2. General Area.  An effort was made to include units from throughout the entire area surveyed during the 2004 and 2005 field seasons.  Although these 21 experimental units are not interspersed at equal intervals, we did manage to resurvey each area of our site (See Fig. 2 below).  We also targeted areas associated with significant, but as yet undocumented features, such as the well-built, stepped, check dam (154) or the remains of the so-called Venetian castle (53). 

3. Chronology.  In addition to testing our sampling strategy, these experiments were also designed to refine the chronology for our site.  Hence we chose a number of units in lower-density areas where our chronological data from pedestrian survey was poor.  This includes especially the low-density areas between Zones 1 and 2  (See Figure 2).  

By using these three criteria, we hoped to generate a representative sample of both the densities and areas surveyed during the 2004 and 2005 seasons.  Once we have completed our analysis in full, we will be able to comment on both the effectiveness of our survey method in collecting chronologically and functionally representative material from the surface, and the nature and extent of certain pronounced, “isolated” peaks in density against the general artifact scatter present throughout the survey area.  We can offer the following additional comments on these experimental units and the data produced.

Figure 3.  Experimental Units at Koutsopetria

Field Procedure

For the 2004 and 2006 experiments, we followed a similar procedure.  For each unit selected, we collected all the artifacts from a circle with a radius of 5.1 m (81 sq m), thus providing a 5% sample of the total area of each unit (1,600 sq m).  A team of 2-4 took as long as was necessary to collect from the unit marking their progress with a rope attached to a central point.  The person-time per unit ranged from thirty minutes to four hours, depending upon the density of material in the unit.  In the 2004 and 2006 seasons, we counted all the pottery, tile, and other classes of artifacts within the circumference of the circle, carefully vacuuming all material until no artifacts remained visible within the circle. 

In the 2004 experiments, we also collected the artifacts, placed them in labeled bags, and took them back to the Larnaca District Museum for permanent storage; these artifacts were read in the 2005 and 2006 study seasons (see below).  In Grid Squares 17, 40, 71, 127, and 154, there were too many tiles to justify storage in the museum, so tiles were read and recorded in the field and only representative samples were brought to the museum for storage.  In the additional 2006 experiments, on the other hand, we left all artifacts in the field, in accordance with our permit not to collect any material.  The only difference between the 2004 and 2006 experiments, in fact, is that we did not collect any artifacts in the latter. 

Results of Experiments

We are now able to make preliminary conclusions on how sampling strategies affect overall artifact density.  While we understand that overall density of artifacts can hardly stand alone as an indicator of any specific form of cultural activity, it often presents a rough indication of the extent of activity areas diachronically in a particular area.  Moreover, as Mediterranean archaoelogists have begun to compare artifact densities between different regions, it is imperative that archaeologists understand how different methods relate to and create artifact densities.

In Table 1, the “Percentage Difference” is the Putative Total of experimental hoovering circles divided by the Putative Total of the pedestrian survey.  The Putative Total is the estimated total of the unit based on the sample, and adjusted for the visibility of the unit during survey.[2] 

The most immediate conclusion that we can draw from our data is that total collection circles with more exhaustive hoovering produce radically higher artifact densities than does normal fieldwalking methods, even though the pedestrian methods actually examine a greater percentage of the surface of the unit than hoovering circles.  The results are staggering: the percentage increase between Putative Total DU and Putative Total Circle commonly ranges from 300% to as much as 2900%.  The hoovering circles produced on average nearly nine times the artifact densitiy (859% more artifacts) as did the original fieldwalking procedures for the same units of space.  The increase in percentage difference is highest for very low and low density units, those units in fact which we usually know least.  This suggest that from a methodological perspective, it may be most advantageous to lavish additional intensification on low-density units.