Site and IntroductionThe ancient city-kingdom of Kition extends underneath the modern city of Larnaca and its

surroundings, in the southeast part of Cyprus (Figure 1). The site has been thoroughly

studied up to its decline in the 4th century AD. Both Karageorghis (1985, 2005) and the

French Mission under the direction of Yon (1994, 2000, 2006) and Fourrier (2015) have

provided us with a clear picture of a thriving city-kingdom up until the Late Roman period.

Human habitation here dates back to the Middle Bronze Age as a minor settlement, while

after the silting of Hala Sultan Tekke’s port, it reaches its peak as a major urban centre at

the end of the 13th c. By the 9th c. BC the site prospered into a multicultural settlement

with a strong Phoenician connection. Among the factors that contributed to the emergence

of ancient Kition into a key Cypriot site was its strategic position, which rendered it an ideal

naval base, as well as its harbour, which facilitated the export of primarily copper and

timber to Egypt, Greece and the rest of the eastern Mediterranean (Karageorghis 1973;

Yon and Childs 1997).

Ongoing excavations by the Department of Antiquities as part of mitigation efforts relatedto the waste water and sewer modification project have brought to light new sections ofancient Kition and its cemetery. The analysis of the skeletal remains from theseexcavations can provide unique insights to the diachronic occupation of this key location.The skeletal analysis of this assemblage was initiated in the summer of 2019 as acollaborative effort between the Department of Antiquities, Texas State University, and theCyprus Institute.

Materials and MethodsThe first data collection season (July-August 2019) focused on the remains from two

tombs: Agiou Georgiou Kontou street Τ1 ΣΜ1-Υ259 (hereafter T1), dating from Classical

to Hellenistic times, and Anagenniseos street T2-D900-D221.3 (hereafter T2), dating from

Hellenistic to Roman times. Most burials represented primary inhumations (with some

post-depositional disturbance) but scattered skeletal elements were also found (Figure 2).

This presentation will focus on the primary inhumations as these represent the majority of

the assemblage.

The state of preservation of the remains was assessed using the Zonation method (Knüseland Outram 2004) to record which parts of each skeletal element are present, theAnatomical Preservation Index (API) (Bello and Andrews 2006) to determine whatpercentage of each element is preserved, and the Qualitative Bone Index (QBI) (Bello andAndrews 2006) to mark the percentage of well preserved cortical bone. Standardmorphological and metric skeletal markers of the pelvis, cranium and long bones wereused for the estimation of age and sex (Nikita 2017 and references therein). In addition,pathological lesions were recorded according to Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), enthesealchanges were scored in fibrocartilagenous entheses of the upper limbs adopting theVilotte et al. (2010) method, while stature was estimated based on long bone lengthsusing the equations by Ruff et al. (2012) and Celbis and Agritmis (2006).

THE INHABITANTS OF ANCIENT KITION: PRELIMINARY INSIGHTS

A. Karligkioti¹, P. Christofi², K. Helgeson³, S. Mavroudas³, F. Constantinou4, K. Cruz³,

E. Nikita¹, N. Herrmann³

¹ Science and Technology in Archaeology and Culture Research Center (STARC), The Cyprus Institute

² Department of Antiquities, Cyprus

³ Department of Anthropology, Texas State University4 Department of Archaeological Sciences, Leiden University

Results and DiscussionThe osteological analysis to date has identified 14 individuals in Τ1 and 20 in T2. The

skeletal remains from T1 were preserved in a poorer state than those from T2. In

specific, the mean API value for T1 was 3.899 while for T2 it was 4.008, and the mean

QBI value for T1 was 4.177 while for T2 it was 4.391. The difference between these

values was statistically significant (p = 0.015 for API, p = 0.0001 for QBI). The poorer

preservation of T1 can be attributed to the fact that this tomb was found looted and

flooded.

The demographic profile of the sample per tomb can be seen in Figure 3, and per

context (inside or outside sarcophagi) in Figure 4. Figure 3 shows that Tomb 1 contained

more individuals of indeterminate age, classified in the generic ‘adult’ category, than

Tomb 2. This finding is associated to the poorer preservation of the remains in Tomb 1. In

addition, Tomb 1 contained more young adults compared to middle adults whereas this

pattern is inversed in Tomb 2. Given the small sample sizes and the high number of

individuals that could not be aged, this pattern should not be interpreted as indicating a

shorter life span for those interred in Tomb 1. On the other hand, it is very interesting that

the demographic profile of those interred inside sarcophagi is very similar to that of the

individuals found outside these (Figure 4), suggesting no association between mortuary

treatment and demographic characteristics, as least from the very small part of the

cemetery examined.

The pathological conditions identified in the sample are typical for bioarchaeological

assemblages and include degenerative joint disease, Schmorl’s nodes, periostitis, dental

diseases and trauma. Degenerative joint disease was the more frequent condition in the

sample and affected mostly individuals in T2 (Figure 5). The overall caries rate is low for

both tombs (3.2% of available teeth) with a moderate tooth loss (12.8% of sockets).

Figure 5. DJD frequency per zone in T1 (left) and T2 (right)

Stature could be estimated for seven individuals from T2 and ranged from 162.1 to

164.2cm for males and from 155.2 to 169.2cm for females. The entheseal changes

recorded on the current sample are too few to be discussed at this stage.

Concluding remarkThe excavations in ancient Kition have revealed dozens of tombs and are expected to

bring to light many more in the following months. While our study is still at a very early

stage, the demographic characteristics, pathological lesions, and metric traits identified

on the individuals of this site highlight the need for more extensive research in this

direction.

Figure 3. Demographic distribution of

the sample per tombFigure 4. Demographic distribution of

the sample per context

References:Bello S, Andrews P. 2006. In: Gowland R, Knüsel C (eds.) Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxbow, pp. 1-13.

Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Report Number 44.

Celbis O, Agritmis H. 2006. Forensic Science International 158: 135-139.

Fourrier S. 2015. The Iron Age city of Kition: the state of research 85 years after the Swedish Cyprus Expedition's excavations.

Karageorghis V. 1973. Kition: Mycenaean and Phoenician. Oxford University Press.

Karageorghis V, Demas M. 1985. Excavations at Kition V (Parts I-IV). The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Nicosia.

Karageorghis V, Callot O. 2005. Excavations at Kition vol. VI. The Phoenician and Later Levels. Nicosia.

Knüsel CJ, Outram AK. 2004. Environmental Archaeology 9: 85-98.

Nikita E. 2017. Osteoarchaeology: A Guide to the Macroscopic Study of Human Skeletal Remains. Academic Press.

Ruff CB, Holt BM, Niskanen M, Sladék V, et al. 2012. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148: 601-617.

Villotte S, Castex D, Couallier V, Dutour O, et al. 2010. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142: 224-234.

Yon M. 1994. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 118: 672-677.

Yon M, Childs WA. 1997. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 9-17.

Yon M. 2000. Syria 77: 95-116.

Yon M. 2006. Kition de Chypre, Paris.

Figure 1. Map of

Cyprus with location

of ancient Kition

Figure 2. Plan

of T1 (left) and

T2 (right)