Dear all,
By way of introduction my name is Michael Brown. I'm a final PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and I'll be the area supervisor for this summer's excavations at Pyla-Kokkinokremos. I've just had a chance to read through your discussions on ancient Cyprus, and it's great to see that you've all given a good deal of thought as to the role that the community at Kokkinokremos played in both Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the wider eastern Mediterranean.
As regards the thorny issue of whether archaeological remains can tell us about the ethnicity of the people who lived at Kokkinokremos… it is important to remember the old archaeological adage that 'pots do not equal people'. A simple example of this would be as students it's not unlikely that you will be the proud owners of IKEA kitchen ware, which is designed in Sweden. Would an archaeologist excavating you halls of residence in 3200 years time be justified in presuming that it was the site of a Swedish colony?! This issue would be further complicated by the fact that much of the pottery would have been made in China - would they be correct in deducing that the Chinese were intentionally copying a Swedish style for reasons of ethnicity or prestige? All they could reliably say was that the building was inhabited by a group of people who had a preference for this type of material - but why? (in this case because it's cheap - unless your all actually Swedish - in which case my apologies!)
The short answer to this quandary is that archaeological remains are not a direct reflection of the ethnicity of their former owners, but rather their patterns of consumption. This is an important distinction. While these group preferences can be closely linked to the origins of a specific population, other important factors also come into play. This is especially true as regards the everyday economic life (or function) of a settlement.
At Kokkinokremos, the majority of the surface sample PKAP collected in 2007 was made up of pithos fragments derived from storage vessels. While this material tells us very little about the ethnic origins of its users (Aegean/Cypriot/Egyptian etc), it perhaps more importantly tells us about what the inhabitants did with their time and how they supported their community. The preponderance of storage vessels at Kokkinokremos suggests that they were probably storing large amounts of portable materials at the settlement - were they perhaps generating a significant agricultural surplus or producing other products such as copper ore for export?
This brings us neatly onto the 'fortified' character of the settlement. This is a question that we will be exploring specifically with our excavations this summer. Were the inhabitants fortifying themselves against attack from the sea (the enigmatic Sea-Peoples perhaps), or were they securing the facilities of export (principally the harbour) that were so important to the livelihood of their community? These alternatives are not mutually exclusive but have important implications for considering the origin of the settlement's inhabitants.
Just a few observations to aid you in your deliberations!
Best regards -
Michael.