During the Late Archaic and Classical periods (6th-4th cent. BCE, traditionally labelled “Persian period” in the Levant), major transformations took place in the south-central region of Cyprus. They led to the disappearance of two independent polities (Idalion and Tamassos) and to the constitution of a unified kingdom, under the rulership of the Cypro-Phoenician kings of Kition. Admittedly, other political reconfigurations took place in other regions of the island in the course of the Iron Age, but they are not documented by historical sources. The KIT case therefore, relatively well-documented, represents a unique opportunity to observe the tangible effects of a political transformation and to address the question of its possible territorial and material markers.
The current state of the art concerning the archaeology of the period makes the project challenging. The Late Archaic and Classical periods in Cyprus, labelled as CA II and CC, are well documented by written sources, primary sources (inscriptions, coinage) as well as secondary sources (ancient Greek authors). However, this relative wealth of sources (in comparison to earlier periods) contrasts with a dearth of archaeological studies devoted to the material culture of this specific period. Most studies concentrate on the Archaic period, characterized by vivid artisanal productions (ceramics, terracottas and sculptures) considered as unique to Cyprus, and they tend to obliterate the Classical period. The latter, although it coincides with the climax of the Cypriot kingdoms (which played at that time a major role in the history of the Eastern Mediterranean), remains therefore archaeologically evasive. Artisanal productions of the Classical period are still poorly known, and their dating remains vague. Moreover, the Classical phase of many contexts, which were occupied diachronically (especially sanctuaries), remains under-studied and under-published. This may be related to the fact that it is, or at least it seems, easier to recognize specific regional patterns (technical and/or stylistic) in artisanal productions of the Archaic period compared to the ones of the Classical period. Also, it is easier to date stone sculptures and terracottas within the Archaic period as compared to the CC period.
Building on the results of the KIT 1 project and on its innovative methodology, this project will study and cross archaeological, epigraphic and spatial data through a multidisciplinary approach. It will benefit from first-hand data coming from ongoing field programs led by the French and German teams. The results will shed light on the complex trajectories of a crucial and disputed Cypriot region in the Late Archaic and Classical periods. More broadly, because it addresses the possible identification of archaeological (cultural and territorial) markers of political transformations, this project will also serve as a proof of concept to question and improve culture-based methods in archaeology.