• 1 Marangou 1997, Marangou 2002.
• 2 Marangou 1997, p. 15.

1The book Τα Λιμάνια της Κύπρου by Anna Marangou, published in 1997, and then in English translation in 2002, as The Harbours and Ports of Cyprus, was the first serious attempt to present a history of the island’s harbours using archival material, archaeological survey, and excavation results, and, most notably, travel literature.1 In the introduction, Marangou acknowledged that travel literature alone is insufficient for a systematic study of the history of these harbours.2 However, her work clearly demonstrates the richness of information that such sources can offer on the subject of harbours.

• 3 Du Plat Taylor 1980.
• 4 Leonard, Hohlfelder 1993; Leonard, Dunn, Hohlfelder 1998; Leonard 2005, pp. 584-590.
• 5 Raban 1995, pp. 163-164; Theodoulou 2006, pp. 167-184.
• 6 Theodoulou 2006, pp. 100-116.
• 7 Empereur, Koželj 2017.
• 8 Fourrier, Yon 2022.

2The study of ancient Cypriot harbours began in the 1930s with Joan du Plat Taylor, who documented the remains of the Hellenistic-Roman harbour structures at Karpasia-Ayios Philon.3 Since then, research has primarily consisted of surveys, such as in the harbour of Nea Paphos,4 Salamis,5 and Marion-Latsi.6 Few ancient harbours have been systematically researched, the most notable cases are the excavation of the artificial submerged Hellenistic harbour basin of Amathous, conducted by Jean-Yves Empereur between 1984-1986,7 and the excavation of the Classical-Hellenistic shipsheds at Kition, directed by Marguerite Yon, between 1984-1999, and completed by Sabine Fourrier in 2021.8

• 9 E.g. Leonard 2005; Theodoulou 2006.
• 10 E.g. Yon 2011, pp. 37-38; Colin, Goiran 2022.

3In most publications on ancient Cypriot harbours (i.e. Kition, Amathous, Nea Paphos, Kourion, Akrotiri-Dreamer’s Bay, Marion-Latsi, Lapithos, Soloi, Kyrenia, Karpasia-Ayios Philon, and Salamis), travel literature is mentioned in the introduction alongside ancient literary sources.9 However, only a few cases integrate travel literature into discussions alongside archival, archaeological or geoarchaeological data related to ancient harbours.10

• 11 Papacostas 2015, p. 142; Thompson 2011, p. 39.
• 12 Coureas 2020, p. 126; Edbury 2005, p. 68.
• 13 Thompson 2011, p. 39; Mas 2021, p. 97; Papacostas 2015, pp. 141-144.
• 14 Roussou-Sinclair 2005, p. 148.

7Cyprus has long been a frequent stopping point for travellers, especially from the 12th century up to the early 20th century.11 The chronological period that concerns this study begins from the 13th up to the late 19th century, and includes three historical periods, the Medieval, which is split between the Frankish (1192-1489) and the Venetian (1489-1571), the Ottoman (1571-1878) and finally the British (1878-1960).12 During the Medieval period, many European travellers passed through Cyprus on their way to the Holy Land. Most of them were merchants, diplomats, scholars, pilgrims or knights participating in the Crusades.13 Consequently, the establishment of Crusader kingdoms in the East, further increased travel and trade between Europe and the Levant.14

• 15 Aristeidou 1984, pp. 33-34.
• 16 Roussou-Sinclair 2005, p. 148; Bonato 2012, p. 25.
• 17 Said 1979, pp. 86-87.

8During the Ottoman period, Cyprus was integrated into a vast empire and established close trade relationships with the neighbouring coastal regions.15 At the same time, between the 17th and 19th centuries, it became customary for wealthy Europeans to undertake the Grand Tour, visiting places of classical antiquity such as Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Asia Minor, the Levant, and Egypt. This period demonstrated a significant rise in travel literature.16 Bonaparte’s expedition to Egypt (1798-1801) and the publication of Description de l’Égypte (1809-1822) further fuelled European scholarly interest in the archaeology of the eastern Mediterranean, as well as general travel to the region. These works often interpreted the East through an Orientalist lens, catering to European audiences.17

• 18 For more information on travel literature from the Renaissance to the Ottoman period in the eastern (...)
• 19 Tatton-Brown 2001.
• 20 Bonato 2012, p. 26.

9Over time, as Cyprus passed under the control of different powers – Frankish, Venetian, Ottoman, and British – the constant movement of goods, pilgrims, and explorers resulted in numerous written accounts describing the island.18 Travellers passing through Cyprus often visited, described, and sometimes even drew and photographed its antiquities, including its ancient harbours. These documents offer a unique testimony to the state of preservation of ancient structures at a specific point in time, often before their subsequent alteration, by natural or human causes. Such examples are Ali Bey, Melchior de Vogüé, Tiburce Colonna Ceccaldi and Luigi Palma di Cesnola, who visited Cyprus in the 19th century, at the end of the Ottoman rule.19 Some of them were not just travellers, but also writers, diplomats, antiquaries, or scholars.20

• 21 Demetriou 2011, p. 220; Bonato 2012, p. 25.
• 22 Kiely, Ulbrich 2012, p. 307.
• 23 Thompson 2011, p. 57.

10Later, during the British occupation of Cyprus, many British colonial and military officials, scholars, tradesmen, and ordinary citizens visited or resided on the island. Furthermore, many British and American travellers toured Cyprus in the 19th and early 20th century, either in search of a favourable climate or to visit ancient sites, particularly those mentioned in the Bible and Homer.21 At the same time, archaeological research ceased to be a traveller’s pastime and began to acquire a more scientific tone, with the British Museum organising the first scientific expedition to Cyprus, the Turner Bequest Excavations, between 1893-1896.22 In addition to that, the technological innovations of the early 20th century, such as the car and aeroplane, made travelling faster and more affordable to western society, diminishing even further the need for travellers accounts.23

• 24 Ibid., pp. 27-30.
• 25 Ibid., p. 39.
• 26 Said 1979, p. 207.

11Travel literature presents challenges related to reliability and accuracy, which can complicate its use as a source for research.24 Medieval travellers frequently based their accounts on earlier sources, both ancient writers and travellers of their own time, often without acknowledging their reliance on these texts and presenting them instead as first-hand observations.25 Furthermore, western travellers frequently depicted the Middle East through an Orientalist lens, portraying local populations as backward and uncivilized, incapable of appreciating their own cultural heritage. In contrast, western scholars positioned themselves as the true heirs of the Classical world, assuming the responsibility of studying and interpreting its remains.26 Consequently, it is essential to develop a critical approach that allows these sources to be incorporated into scholarly discussions while maintaining a rigorous analytical perspective.

• 27 Demetriou 2011, p. 220; Manzetti 2024, p. 1004.
• 28 See Chatzipanagioti-Sangmeister, Roussou-Sinclair, Tzounakas 2023.

12One of the primary limitations of travel literature is the disparity in the quantity of information available on different harbours. When comparing the descriptions of the islands’ main harbours during the Medieval and Ottoman periods, namely Limassol, Larnaca, and Famagusta, with those of ancient harbours, the amount of recorded data is significantly lower.27 These were not ancient harbours, but rather medieval harbours, which dominated maritime activity during these periods. This pattern is also reflected in most travellers recorded in the Zefyros: Travel Texts on Cyprus (15th-18th c.) database,28 further demonstrating that travel literature is, naturally, primarily focused on post-antique harbour sites.

• 29 Ibid.
• 30 Navari 2016.
• 31 Chatzipanagioti-Sangmeister 2002.
• 32 Marangou, 1997.
• 33 Leonard 2005.
• 34 Theodoulou 2006.
• 35 E.g. Cobham 1908; Bonato 2012; Bombardieri 2024.
• 36 Navari 2003.

14A key resource was the Zefyros: Travel Texts on Cyprus (15th-18th c.) database,29 which was inspired by the works of Navari,30 and Chatzipanagioti-Sangmeister.31 Other publications that were consulted, notably, Τα Λιμάνια της Κύπρου,32 and the PhD dissertations of Leonard,33 and Theodoulou.34 Additionally, works dedicated to travellers’ accounts35 and antique maps36 were consulted. Although the catalogue compiled for this study remains incomplete, over 70 works dating from the 13th to the 19th century have been examined, of which 42 contain references to ancient harbours (table 1).

• 37 Pius II 1544.
• 38 Dapper 1688; for more on Dapper, see Lampitsi 2023.
• 39 Cobham 1908.

15Table 1 presents all travellers who visited Cyprus between the 13th and 19th centuries and who, in their accounts, refer to the island’s ancient harbours. Most of these travellers physically visited the island, while some based their descriptions on the writings of earlier travellers or ancient sources – the so-called armchair travellers, such as Pius II,37 and Dapper.38 By analysing the concentration and distribution of information within these accounts, it is possible to identify key themes that contribute to various aspects of harbour archaeology. This dataset allows for the systematic assessment of all sources, facilitating their integration in the archaeological discourse and enabling a more nuanced evaluation of their potential contributions to the study of ancient harbours. All original sources were consulted when accessible, otherwise the text was consulted via a secondary source, more specifically Cobham.39

• 40 See Chatzipanagioti-Sangmeister 2023.

16The collected data was classified into five distinct information categories: (A) Identification of ancient harbour sites, (B) Description of harbour basins and their remains, (C) Construction techniques of harbour structures, (D) Accessibility, functionality, and conditions of ancient harbour basins, and (E) Natural and anthropic changes in ancient harbour basins. These categories, inspired by the methodology applied in the Zefyros database,40 enable a detailed distinction between different types of information while also considering the background of each traveller.

• 41 Ptolemy V 14.5.
• 42 Stadiasmus 297-317.

18An important contribution of travel literature is the localization of ancient harbours. While ancient sources such as Ptolemy,41 and Stadiasmus,42 provide references to the locations of ancient Cypriot harbours, travellers’ accounts have played a crucial role in further confirming and precisely identifying these sites.

• 43 Kinneir 1818, p. 185.
• 44 Baker 1879, p. 8.
• 45 For a detailed discussion on these terms, see Leonard 1997.
• 46 Yon 2001, p. 165; Colin, Goiran 2022; Goiran, Dalongeville 2022.

19Regarding the harbour of Kition, John Macdonald Kinneir,43 who visited the site in 1814, described an “elevated spot” between the upper and lower town (referring to Bamboula) and noted that “at its foot is the basin” of the ancient harbour. Similarly, Samuel Baker recorded in 1879 that Kition’s harbour was located to the east of the modern city of Larnaca.44 These detailed descriptions are often more precise than those provided by ancient writers, who primarily indicate distances from capes or use ambiguous terminology – such as ὕφορμος, ὁρμός, and χειμερινός –to describe harbour basins.45 The significance of these travellers’ descriptions becomes even more apparent in cases where the landscape has drastically changed over time. The harbour of Kition, for instance, is now located 400 m inland.46

• 47 Pius II 1544, p. 159.
• 48 Dapper 1688, p. 37.
• 49 Strabo XIV 6.3.
• 50 Stadiasmus 297.

20However, it is important to recognize that travellers often relied on ancient sources, meaning their localization efforts may have been influenced or facilitated by earlier writings. For instance, both Pius II,47 and Dapper,48 armchair travellers of the 16th and 17th centuries, describe Palaepaphos and its harbour as being situated between Cape Zephyrium and Paphos. It is evident that they had consulted not only Strabo,49 and Stadiasmus,50 who both mention the harbour and the sanctuary of Aphrodite, but also earlier and contemporary travel accounts.

• 51 Porcacchi 1686, p. 132.
• 52 Ptolemy V 13.1-7.
• 53 Pliny V 129-131.
• 54 Strabo XIV 6.3.
• 55 Stadiasmus 303.

21Furthermore, travel literature sometimes introduces confusion regarding site identification. A notable example is the misattribution of the Akrotiri peninsula’s harbour and Kourion’s harbour. Porcacchi,51 another armchair traveller, refers to Kourion as Curias and the Akrotiri peninsula as Curi, creating ambiguity when compared to ancient sources. Ptolemy,52 Pliny,53 Strabo,54 and Stadiasmus,55 all mention Curias in reference to the Akrotiri peninsula, while Curi is used to denote Kourion, leading to potential misinterpretations.

• 56 Marangou 1997, pp. 266-280.
• 57 Cobham 1908, p. 43.
• 58 Pieris, Nicolaou-Konnari 2003, p. 349, more specifically V213v, O218v and R137v.
• 59 Mas Latrie 1884, p. 323.
• 60 Mas Latrie 1891a, pp. 465-466.
• 61 Mas Latrie 1891b, pp. 205, 207.
• 62 Hill 1948, p. 405.
• 63 Drummond 1754, p. 271.
• 64 Sakellarios 1855, p. 133; Sakellarios 1890, p. 146.
• 65 Peristianes 1910, pp. 17-18.
• 66 “Kyrenia, Cyprus: buildings and boats in the harbour”. Photograph, ca 1880, Wellcome collection. Ac (...)

24Marangou provided an extensive overview of the travellers that mentioned Kyrenia’s harbour.56 Spanish captain Tafur who lived in Cyprus between 1456 and 1474, describes the harbour basin of Kyrenia as being closed with a chain.57 Additionally, there are references to the harbour chain in Cypriot chroniclers, such as the 15th century Chronicle of Leontios Makhairas,58 and the 16th century chronicles of Florio Bustron,59 Amadi,60 and Strambali.61 According to these sources, on 3 March 1374, as part of the Genoese war against the Lusignan kingdom, the Genoese fleet attacked the Kyrenia harbour; they attempted to cut the harbour chain, but it was repaired.62 Later, in the Ottoman period, Drummond noted the presence of “fortifications on either side of the entrance”.63 This is also described by Sakellarios in the 19th century.64 Additionally, Peristianes explains that the British during harbour works between 1886-1891, destroyed the two ruined towers at the entrance of the harbour. The first was in the centre of the harbour, while the second, the western tower, was replaced by a customs house that still stands today.65 The western tower is documented in a photograph from 1880, a few years before its demolition.66

• 67 Marangou 1997, pp. 84-142.
• 68 Leonard, Hohlfelder 1993, pp. 375-376.
• 69 Empereur, Koželj 2017, p. 49.

25These literary references are the only evidence so far of a fortified harbour entrance of the Medieval period on the island, with the exception of those for the harbour of Famagusta.67 For the late Classical-early Hellenistic period there are only the cases of Nea Paphos,68 and Amathous,69 that based on archaeological research may have had a fortified harbour.

• 70 Mallock 1889, p. 204.
• 71 Theodoulou 2006, p. 195, fig. 156α, β.

26Another intriguing piece of information is provided by Mallock,70 who describes a “row of white posts” along the quay of Kyrenia, used for securing ships’ cables. He further states that “they were columns of snowy marble, taken from a temple of Venus”. This observation is particularly interesting, as it was not possible to locate any other references to these columns in the literature. However, on the western side of Kyrenia’s harbour, partially buried pink marble columns can still be seen (fig. 2). Possibly, these are the columns referred to by Mallock, and they could have been used as mooring stones. Interestingly, there are sandstone mooring stones, of unknown date, that have been reused as building material on the southern end of the harbour.71

• 72 Sakellarios 1855, pp. 132-133; Sakellarios 1890, p. 145.
• 73 Thomson 1879b, pp. 22-23.
• 74 “Kyrenia, Cyprus: buildings and boats in the harbour” (quoted n. 66).
• 75 Panayiotou 2013, p. 97; Peristianes 1910, p. 17; for more details on the harbour works, see Marango (...)

27Sakellarios mentions that the remains of the ancient city lie to the northwest of present-day Kyrenia. At the time, Sakellarios was able to see columns, capitals, heaps of stone, and a multitude of looted multi-chambered tombs carved in the natural bedrock.72 Therefore, these columns could have possibly been repurposed, during antiquity or later, as mooring stones for the harbour. Additionally, multiple columns can be seen in old photographs from the 50s and 60s along the promenade of the Kyrenia harbour, some were taken by Costakis Eleftheriades, a Cypriot microbiologist and amateur photographer, in the 50s (fig. 3). In older photographs, for example those taken in 1878 by John Thomson,73 and another photograph taken two years later,74 the promenade of the Kyrenia harbour was covered with heaps of soil and no column was visible. It is known that harbour works were initiated by the British to improve the landing facilities between 1886 and 1891.75 Considering that Mallock visited Cyprus in 1889 the soil must have been removed as part of the harbour works, making the marble columns visible again. Still, there is a possibility that the columns were placed along the quay by the British during the harbour works, since it was not possible to locate written sources or photographs that show or refer to the columns before the harbour works of 1886.

• 76 Leonard, Hohlfelder 1993, p. 378; Demesticha, Secci, Theodoulou 2021.
• 77 Theodoulou 2006, pp. 106-107.
• 78 Leonard 1995, pp. 139, 147.

28The presence of columns in Cypriot harbour basins remains a subject of debate. Are they decorative elements, functional features, or architectural remnants unrelated to the harbour structures? For example, in Nea Paphos, a series of columns identified during the 1991-1992 survey may indicate decorative features on the mole.76 Similarly, in Marion-Latsi, a column discovered during a dredging operation remains uninterpreted.77 Furthermore, in Kioni anchorage, two columns have been discovered and interpreted as architectural material repurposed as mooring posts.78

• 79 Mallock 1889, p. 204.
• 80 Feuser 2009.
• 81 Theodoulou, Kourtzellis 2019.

29Mallock’s observation suggests that these architectural elements could have been repurposed as mooring stones during a later phase of use.79 This hypothesis is further supported by parallels from other harbours in the eastern Mediterranean, where columns were secondarily used as mooring stones, such as at Alexandria Troas,80 and Mithymna.81 This raises the possibility that similar practices may have occurred in Cyprus, warranting further investigation into the role of repurposed columns in ancient harbour infrastructure.

• 82 Pococke 1745, pp. 218-219.
• 83 Theodoulou 2006, p. 225, fig. 206.

30At Karpasia-Ayios Philon, a Hellenistic-Roman harbour, British traveller Richard Pococke describes a fortified harbour, for which no visible evidence remains today.82 The tower he refers to has since been demolished, but it appears in the background of a photograph taken by Theodoulou in the early 2000s.83 Today, this structure no longer exists, having been replaced by beach residences (fig. 4).

• 84 Mas Latrie 1884, p. 17.
• 85 Ross 1852, p. 86.
• 86 Lacroix 1853, p. 11.
• 87 Lake 1878, p. 9.
• 88 Strabo XIV 6.3.
• 89 Mariti 1787, pp. 23-24.
• 90 Savorgnano 1578, pp. 22-23.
• 91 Cesnola 1877, p. 49.
• 92 Thomson 1879a, p. 98.
• 93 Callot, Fourrier, Yon 2022.
• 94 Myres 1945, p. 89.
• 95 Nicolaou 1976, pp. 58-59, 81-82.

31Kition was described by most travellers as a closed and/or artificial harbour, with references spanning from Florio Bustron in the 16th century,84 to 19th century travellers such as Ross,85 Lacroix,86 and Lake.87 All these references are based on Strabo’s description of a closed harbour.88 Mariti also mentions the presence of a lighthouse or tower in the harbour, which had been converted into a windmill but was already destroyed by the time he visited the site.89 Savorgnano is the first to describe a channel connecting the harbour basin to the sea in the 16th century.90 Later, Luigi Palma di Cesnola,91 stated that the Monastery of St. Joseph was built on a “mole”. Additionally, Thomson,92 who visited Cyprus in 1878, reports “traces of the pier and retaining walls of the harbour”, describing the preservation of ancient remains. Today, the remains of the closed harbour, the channel, and the pier are no longer visible. However, the existence of a closed harbour and a channel were later confirmed through systematic archaeological and geoarchaeological studies.93 Myres, who excavated at Kition in 1913, also noted the presence of a wall and a large concentration of ashlar blocks to the east of the monastery.94 Nicolaou later suggested that the wall documented by Myres was a “quay”.95

• 96 Mas Latrie 1884, p. 16.
• 97 Empereur, Koželj 2017, p. 49; Aupert 2020.
• 98 Empereur, Koželj 2017, p. 49.
• 99 Aupert, Balandier 2024, pp. 124-127.
• 100 Thély et al. 2020, p. 15; Cannavò 2021, p. 88.
• 101 Magen 1878, p. 26.
• 102 Kyprianos 1788, p. 24.
• 103 Frangoudes 1890, pp. 377-378.
• 104 Gatt et al. forthcoming.

32At Amathous, Florio Bustron referred to a tower that “serrava il porto”, meaning that it closed or sealed the harbour.96 This reference is puzzling, as no such tower seems to have existed.97 However, it raises questions about whether this might relate to the tower at the entrance of the harbour described by Empereur and Koželj,98 or the coastal structure known as Pa, which Aupert and Balandier,99 described as a surveillance post or lighthouse guiding ships to the entrance of the potentially now-silted Archaic-Classical basin.100 Additionally, in the 19th century, Magen described a wide wall extending up to the sea, resembling a quay.101 Magen is the earliest traveller referring to the harbour structures at Amathous, but, in Cypriot historiography, they were already known at least from the late 18th century, as noted by Archimandrite Kyprianos,102 and later by Georgios Frangoudes.103 Despite the presence of multiple structures along the Amathousian coastline,104 it is possible to consider these as references to the Hellenistic fortification located today on the coastline to the west of the harbour basin.

• 105 Löher 1878, p. 285.
• 106 Pius II 1544, p. 380.
• 107 Strabo XIV 6.3.

33Some accounts, however, can be misleading. Von Löher claims that nothing remains of the Amathous harbour except its natural basin, formed by rocks extending into the sea.105 In other cases, references to the ancient use of harbour basins are based entirely on ancient sources. For example, Pius II,106 an armchair traveller, states that Lapithos had an arsenal, but his claim is a direct quotation from Strabo,107 rather than an observation of surviving remains.

• 108 Hogarth 1889, p. 90.
• 109 Sakellarios 1855, p. 148; Sakellarios 1890, p. 159.
• 110 Frangoudes 1890, p. 414.
• 111 Theodoulou 2006, pp. 222-229.

34For Cyprus, only one traveller has so far provided information on the construction of ancient harbour structures, Hogarth, who visited the island in 1888 and described the harbour remains at Karpasia-Ayios Philon and Nea Paphos. His account is particularly valuable as it documents features that are no longer visible or accessible today. His description of the harbour structures at Karpasia-Ayios Philon is accompanied by a drawing of a block with a clamp.108 When compared with the present-day remains of Karpasia-Ayios Philon, his observations align with those of earlier and later scholars, namely, Sakellarios,109 Frangoudes,110 and Theodoulou.111

• 112 Hogarth 1889, p. 7.

35In the case of Nea Paphos, however, Hogarth’s description cannot be easily cross-referenced due to extensive modern development in the area.112 He describes what he refers to as the “northern breakwater” – likely the west breakwater – which is now covered by a concrete promenade. According to his account, “a rough cemented core, faced with massive blocks cramped together with metal” was visible. He further noted that:

• 113 Peristianes 1910, pp. 414-415.

37In 1910, Peristianes noted that the breakwaters and the quay were almost destroyed, the entrance and the interior of the harbour were almost completely silted by sand and mud and the harbour could only be used by small vessels. The ancient quay extended further than what was visible, but it had been covered partially by sand.113

• 114 Nicolaou 1966, p. 568; Leonard, Hohlfelder 1993, p. 371.
• 115 Gatt 2022.

38So far, no archaeologists who worked on the site have identified evidence of a cemented core or metal clamps.114 However, in a 2022 survey, a series of blocks displaying traces of what may correspond to a cemented core were observed (fig. 5).115 To confirm whether these remains indeed belong to the west breakwater, further investigation is required, including systematic mapping of the area and mortar sampling. These steps would help clarify the nature of the observed remains and determine whether they correspond to the harbour structure described by Hogarth.

• 116 Marangou 1997, pp. 232-238.
• 117 Papacostas 2015, p. 118.
• 118 Mas Latrie 1884, p. 241.
• 119 Mas Latrie 1891a, p. 389.
• 120 Lusignan 1580, p. 15.
• 121 Drummond 1754, p. 173.
• 122 Empereur, Koželj 2017, pp. 161-162.

40In the case of Amathous, no direct references to the ancient harbour are made, but the area is repeatedly mentioned as a site where galleys could anchor, as already noted in the work of Marangou.116 This must have been the case at least by late antiquity.117 Later it’s noted in the 16th century chronicles by Florio Bustron,118 the Chronique d’Amadi,119 and Étienne de Lusignan (Steffano Lusignano).120 The site appears to have remained in use, as Drummond, writing in the 18th century, describes the harbour as “tolerable”.121 These references invite reconsideration on how the longevity of the Amathous harbour is defined. While it has often been considered short-lived,122 the apparent maritime activity recorded in the 16th and 18th centuries may suggest a degree of continuity along the Amathous coastline.

• 123 Cobham 1908, p. 13.
• 124 Ibid., p. 43.
• 125 Laffi 1708, p. 79.
• 126 Cobham 1908, p. 232.
• 127 Ibid., p. 241.
• 128 Kinneir 1818, p. 196.

41Travel literature on Kyrenia and Nea Paphos offers particularly interesting diachronic observations. The function and condition of Kyrenia’s harbour appear to have fluctuated over time based on travellers’ accounts. From the 13th to the 17th centuries, it is frequently described as a “good harbour” but small, as noted by German count Wilbrand von Oldenburg who visited Cyprus in 1211,123 Tafur who visited between 1456 and 1474,124 and Italian clergyman Domenico Laffi who visited between 1678-1679.125 In 1670, Hurtrel stated that only small boats could access the harbour basin,126 while in 1683, de Bruyn recorded that galleys could still enter.127 By the early 19th century, the harbour was described as exposed to the north winds, unsuitable for vessels exceeding a hundred tons burden.128

• 129 Cobham 1908, p. 43.
• 130 Ibid., p. 45.
• 131 Savorgnano 1578, p. 32.
• 132 Laffi 1708, p. 74.
• 133 Vézien 1702, p. 161.
• 134 Drummond 1754, pp. 257-258.
• 135 Ferrières-Sauveboeuf 1790, p. 177; Ali Bey el Abassi 1816, p. 341.
• 136 Saville 1878, pp. 68-69.

42A similar pattern is observed at Nea Paphos. In 1435, Tafur described a seemingly functional harbour basin,129 yet by 1483, German monk Felix Faber noted its abandonment.130 In the 16th century, Venetian official Ascanio Savorgnano, who visited in 1561-1562, estimated that the basin could shelter between 60 and 200 galleys.131 However, by the 17th century, it was considered dangerous according to Laffi.132 In the early 18th century, Vézien, a French merchant, recorded that five to six galleys could still enter the basin,133 while Drummond noted the access of small vessels.134 Later accounts from the late 18th and early 19th centuries indicate that only small ships could be accommodated.135 Saville, an officer in the British Army, described the basin as “nearly choked with sand,” with only four to eight feet of water at the entrance and 10 to 12 feet in a small area inside, making it accessible only to vessels of very small burden and light draught. He also noted that the site was notoriously unsafe during south and southeast gales.136

• 137 Marriner, Morhange 2007, p. 180.

44Harbours are dynamic and complex coastal spaces.137 As a result, retracing their transformations and reconstructing their coastal landscapes requires the application of multiple investigative methods. In this process, travel literature can serve as a valuable source of information.

• 138 Pococke 1745, pp. 216-217.
• 139 Mariti 1769, p. 160.
• 140 Baker 1879, pp. 100, 156; Hogarth 1889, p. 61.
• 141 Navari 2003, p. 304.
• 142 Ibid., p. 313, fig. 157.6.

45For Salamis, Pococke describes the harbour’s location as being south of the city and north of the Pedieos river mouth.138 In his plan, Pococke positions the harbour basin further inland than it is generally considered today (fig. 6). Mariti reports that the remains of the harbour were visible, and that it could receive only small boats.139 Additionally, 19th century travellers note the progressive silting of the harbour basin by the Pedieos river.140 This is clearly visible in the British Admiralty map that resulted from a survey conducted by Lieutenant A. L. Mansell in 1849 under the guidance of Captain Thomas Graves.141 The map used in the present article was published in 1906 with some additions that do not affect the ancient harbour, which is the same as the original publication of the map in 1850 titled “The Harbour of Famagusta, with the ruins of Salamis. Old and New Paphos. From the survey by Captain Thomas Graves, London 1850” (fig. 7). In addition to that, Kitchener’s 1882 triangulated map of Cyprus, indicates a basin connected to the sea but he does not mark the ancient breakwater.142

• 143 Theodoulou 2006, pp. 183-184.

46The breakwater that runs along the coastline has been dated to the Classical period.143 However, if a now silted basin once existed – potentially with buried harbour infrastructure – this raises questions about the proposed dating of the breakwater. These factors highlight the importance of integrating historical testimonies with archaeological and geoarchaeological evidence to refine our understanding of the harbour’s evolution. Given the difficulties associated with conducting archaeological research at this site, these historical observations should be considered when attempting to determine the original location and configuration of the ancient harbour basin.

• 144 Pseudo-Scylax 103.
• 145 Strabo XIV 6.3.
• 146 Stadiasmus 311.
• 147 For a further discussion on the ancient sources, see Nicolaou 2017, p. 59, n. 20.
• 148 Scott-Stevenson 1880, p. 174.
• 149 Kyprianos 1788, p. 40.
• 150 Sakellarios 1855, p. 118; Sakellarios 1890, p. 132.
• 151 Sakellarios 1855, p. 118.
• 152 Sakellarios 1855, p. 119; Sakellarios 1890, p. 132.
• 153 Munro, Tubbs 1890, p. 4.
• 154 Gjerstad et al. 1937, p. 402.
• 155 Westholm 1936, p. 12.
• 156 Theodoulou 2006, pp. 208-209.

47For Soloi, the Classical and Roman sources, like Pseudo-Scylax,144 and Strabo,145 mention that the city had a harbour, while in the Stadiasmus,146 a work of the 3rd century AD, the city is referred to as having no harbour, therefore the siltation must have already taken place by that time.147 Only one traveler’s testimony was identified for the harbour of Soloi, that of Esmé Scott-Stevenson, in the first years of the British occupation,148 who noted that only a few traces of the ancient harbour were visible, which indicates that the condition of the harbour did not change significantly from the Roman period. Her testimony can be corroborated by earlier observations of Cypriot and Greek scholars, such as Archimandrite Kyprianos in the late 18th century,149 who recorded that Soloi used to have a good harbour which was now only accessible to small ships. Later, Sakellarios noted that when he visited the site, the closed harbour of Soloi was completely silted and turned into a swamp.150 Importantly, he met a Turkish-Cypriot villager, who had heard from his father and grandfather that until some years ago the harbour was still accessible to small boats.151 This story appears only in the first publication of his work Τα Κυπριακά in 1855, that was based on his observations travelling around Cyprus between 1849-1854. This indicates that the harbour was silted a few years prior to Sakellarios visit. Additionally, he observed that in the edge of the swamp a wall made of worked stones was visible, which he considered as the quay of the closed harbour.152 These remains were later identified by a number of archaeological missions, including, the British Exploration Fund in 1889,153 the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1927,154 Westholm,155 and more recently, examined by Theodoulou.156

• 157 Oliver Scholasticus 1723, col. 1450.
• 158 Löher 1878, p. 178.

48Nea Paphos is more extensively documented by travellers. In 1222, Oliverus Scholasticus recorded that after an earthquake, the harbour dried up.157 In the 19th century, von Löher,158 described the harbour’s condition, stating:

• 159 Smith 1887, p. 210.
• 160 Leonard, Dunn, Hohlfelder 1998.

50This account provides two crucial pieces of information: changes in the coastline and the sedimentation process caused by the stream. Beyond natural transformations, anthropogenic modifications are also evident. Agnes Smith Lewis observed that the remains of the harbour were submerged and that a new wooden quay had been constructed over them.159 These descriptions align with the findings of the only geoarchaeological study conducted at the site so far.160

• 161 Pococke 1745, p. 213, pl. XXXII.
• 162 Karanasios 2023, p. 104.
• 163 Niebuhr 1837, p. 22.
• 164 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
• 165 Callot, Fourrier, Yon 2022.

51The harbour basin of Kition also underwent significant changes over time. Pococke, who visited Cyprus in 1738, drew the harbour basin of Kition still in contact with the sea, stating that it is “now almost filled up” (fig. 6).161 Later, Carsten Niebuhr, a German cartographer, who stayed in Cyprus for just seven days in 1766,162 visited Kition and described the ancient harbour basin as a depression that turned into a lake with fish during the rainy season, stating clearly that there was no connection of the lake with the sea.163 Moreover, Niebuhr referenced Pococke in his work and must have been familiar with his map.164 These observations align closely with the results of the geoarchaeological surveys conducted in recent years at Kition’s harbour,165 while providing a more precise time frame between 1738-1767 for the final phase of the siltation of the channel that connected the basin with the sea.

• 166 Mariti 1769.
• 167 Mariti 1787, p. 36.
• 168 Mariti 1769, p. 52.
• 169 Niebuhr 1837, p. 22, tab. III; Yon 2011, p. 36, fig. 6a.
• 170 Bombardieri 2024, p. 73, n. 82; Karanasios 2023, p. 105.
• 171 Bombardieri 2024, p. 67, n. 67.
• 172 Mariti 1787, pp. 23-24.
• 173 Bombardieri 2024, p. 23, n. 3, p. 91, n. 121.
• 174 For a further discussion on these maps, see Yon 2011, pp. 37-38.

52At almost the same time, Italian traveller Giovanni Mariti, who lived in Cyprus between 1760-1767, published two plans of Kition, one on the cover of his book titled Viaggi per l’isola di Cipro (fig. 8),166 and a second more detailed one in his Dissertazione istorico-critica sull’antica città di Citium (fig. 9).167 The map on the cover of the Viaggi was, according to Mariti,168 reproduced from a plan drawn by Niebuhr.169 The two men met when Niebuhr came to Cyprus in July 1766 and they visited Kition together.170 Notably, when comparing the two maps, the canal of the port used to be connected to the sea in the 1769 map, but it does not reach the coast in the 1787 map. This was also noted by Bombardieri.171 Mariti specified that there was no more communication between the basin and the sea as stated in the map’s legend, at number 5 (fig. 9).172 According to Bombardieri,173 the maps published by Mariti, in 1769 and in 1787, were based on Niebuhr’s plan, and the second map was the updated version.174 Unlike Niebuhr, Mariti does not reference Pococke’s book in either of his works.

• 175 Niebuhr 1837, p. 22.
• 176 Bombardieri 2024, p. 73, n. 82.
• 177 Mariti 1787, p. 36.

53Therefore, it is possible to assume that Mariti’s first map mistakenly showed that the ancient harbour was still connected to the sea through the canal, since Niebuhr, who visited the site with him in 1766, clearly stated that the harbour was separated from the sea.175 Additionally, since Mariti examined the harbour with Niebuhr, and based both of his maps on Niebuhr’s plan,176 he must have seen that the canal was silted. Possibly, this is the reason the explanatory text of his second map clearly indicates that the canal is no longer connected to the sea.177

• 178 Kinneir 1818, p. 185.
• 179 Löher 1878, p. 298.
• 180 Thomson 1879a, p. 98.
• 181 Baker 1879, p. 8.
• 182 Smith 1887, pp. 96, 319.
• 183 Myres, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 5.

54By the early 19th century, Kinneir,178 who visited Cyprus in 1814, wrote that the mouth of the Kition harbour was blocked with sand and gravel, causing water to become stagnant in the summer, a fact also supported by a British Admiralty map of 1849 (fig. 10). After 1878 there was an influx of travellers to Cyprus that were interested in the new British possession. Multiple travellers corroborate the condition of the harbour, for example von Löher reported that the basin had been destroyed and filled with sand.179 Thomson described the dynamic processes that contributed to the harbour’s silting and changes in the coastline.180 Samuel Baker attempted to explain this transformation, attributing the disuse of the harbour to siltation and sea level rise.181 Finally, Agnes Smith Lewis,182 who visited the site after the British Government filled the ancient harbour with soil from Bamboula in 1879,183 similarly recorded that a marsh had formed at the site of the former enclosed harbour, noting that the sea had receded from the area.

• 184 Davies 2012; Davies 2016.
• 185 Gatt et al. forthcoming.
• 186 Bombardieri 2024, p. 73, n. 82.
• 187 Callot, Fourrier, Yon 2022.

55The information categories provide valuable aspects for future exploration. In Salamis, Pococke’s map, along with travellers’ descriptions, highlight the existence of a harbour basin that has been largely overlooked in discussions of Salamis’ harbour.184 Hogarth’s description of the harbour structures at Karpasia-Ayios Philon is one of the very few written sources of information regarding Cypriot harbour construction techniques. The post-Roman history of Nea Paphos remains largely unknown. For now, travellers’ accounts are the only available source for retracing changes and understanding the functionality of this basin. Additionally, travellers’ descriptions of the remains observed along the coastline of Amathous serve as important sources that encourage further investigation of the coastal area and perhaps also redefining its post-Hellenistic maritime history.185 For Kition there are four maps from 18th century travellers that clearly show the existence of a canal connecting the harbour basin with the sea, which was closed in the 19th century, as later travellers and an admiralty chart show. Interestingly, these maps have a scale that could indicate the process of coastal progradation. In the published map of 1745 (fig. 6), Pococke measured the distance of the basin from the coastline at 147.42 m (90 paces). In the 1769 published map (fig. 8), Mariti’s measurements indicate a distance of 163.8 m (100 doppi passi, meaning double pace) while in his map published in 1787 (fig. 9) the distance increases further to 327.6 m (around 200 doppi passi). Pococke’s map must be dated to 1738, when he visited the island, and the other three maps, by Mariti and Niebuhr, were made between 1766-1767, and possibly both of Mariti’s maps were based on Niebuhr’s.186 Although these measurements may be not accurate, they could possibly indicate a coastal progradation, a fact proven by the geoarchaeological study of the harbour.187

• 188 Finnegan 2019, pp. 237-238.

57A thorough examination of travel literature, along with an understanding of each traveller’s background and perspective, should be encouraged while constructing the initial timeline of a harbour site while also identifying potentially unreliable accounts. Travellers should not be judged as objective narrators, but rather as a product of their times that should be examined critically.188 This opens the door to new possibilities. For instance, by comparing future geoarchaeological data from ancient harbours with travellers’ observations, or, even better, by incorporating them in the reconstruction of a harbour’s environment timeline, the interpretation gains a layered quality and becomes more robust through the integration of this proxy.

• 189 E.g. Leonard 2005; Theodoulou 2006.

59Finally, travel literature sheds light on a largely overlooked aspect of Cypriot harbour archaeology. Modern research has identified harbours along the current coastline,189 yet travellers’ accounts point to harbours that once existed at river mouths, which have since shifted inland (e.g. Salamis, Soloi). This observation encourages a broader approach, prompting us to search for harbours now located on land and to revive forgotten landscapes through interdisciplinary methods.