THE SWEDISH CYPR US EXPEDITION VOL. IV. PART l~HE
2
CYPRO-GEOMETRIC, CYPRO-ARCHAIC AND
CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIODS
BY
EINAR GJERSTAD
THE
SWEDISH
CYPRUS
EXPEDITION
STOCKHOLM
PREFACE
PUBLISHED WITH A CONTRIBUTION FROM HUMANISTISKA FONDEN, STOCKHOLM PRINTED IN SWEDEN
COPYRIGHT BY THE SWEDISH CYPRUS EXPEDITION
~i ,~
~2 ,Lt~ ,~
STOCKHOLM
PRINTED BY VICTOR PETTERSONS BOKINDUSTRIAKTIEBOLAG STOCKHOLM 1948
or several reasons the publication of Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV has been much delayed. In the meantime it proved necessary for this volume to be published in three separate parts owing to the amount of material to be taken into consideration. Vol. IV: I will deal with the Stone and Bronze Ages, Vol. IV: 3 with the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and Vol. IV: 2, now appearing, forms a comprehensive survey of the Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic, and Cypro-Classical epochs. The manuscript of this book was begun before the last war and completed in 1946. Through the interruption of the international relations during the war I have not been able to keep pace with the relevant literature published in that time, and it has been difficult, in some cases impossible, to amend these defects even after the war. As an instance of this I may mention that the paper of Sir John L. Myres, Excavations in Cyprus, 1913, published in Ann. Brit. School Athens XLI, 1940-45, did not reach me until the proofs of my book were ready for printing, and I was therefore unable to make use of the paper quoted, but so far as I can see those parts of it which bear upon the epochs here considered, viz. the reports on the excavations at Lefkoniko and the Bamboula Hill at Larnaka, do not add evidence of a new kind to our knowledge and do not alter my conclusions. I can only hope that the same holds good with regard to all the other lacunae in my work. The typological section is not meant to be a corpus and does not therefore include every typological variety but only a selection of the principal and representative types sufficient to form a basis for the chronological and historical conclusions. The coins are altogether excluded from this comprehensive presentation of the material, and for them I refer the reader to the Bibliographical Notes on Cypriote Numismatics by Dr. Willy Schwabacher. This bibliography includes all the papers on Cypriote pre-Hellenistic coinage published after Sir George Hill's fundamental work, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus (A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum), London 1904, where there are references to all the earlier publications. In the typological sections on Pottery and Sculpture only Cypriote types are considered, and the foreign types, whether imported or made by foreigners in Cyprus, are exclusively
F
VI
dealt with in the chapter on foreign relations. In accordance with the practice in the excavation reports of Vols. I-III, the terms Type I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII of pottery are used to indicate all the different wares of the first to the seventh morphological stages of the ceramic series: White Painted I, Bichrome I, etc. are Type I; White Painted II, Bichrome II, etc. are Type II, and so on. The readers acquainted with the excavation reports and my classification of the Cypriote pottery in Union Academique Internationale, Classification des ceramiques, 16, know already that the terms Black-on-Red I (III), II (IV), etc. mean that the first class of Black-on-Red Ware is Type III and the second class is Type IV, etc. owing to the fact that Black-on-Red Ware did not appear in Cyprus before the time of Type III. The bracketed figures added to the class figures of other wares are similarly explained. In the text each ware has been classified separately with its subsequent types; in the illustrations of types another method has been used: the series starts with all the wares of Type I, followed by those of Type II, etc., in order to facilitate the survey of the general typological connections of the different wares and the development of their forms. The Coarse Ware, which owing to its character cannot be included in the general typological system, is placed at the end of the series. The Arabic figures in the text of the pottery classifications and those placed beneath each illustration of the vases refer to the different types of each form of vase; the letters a, b, c, etc. refer to varieties of the type in question. In general the illustrations of the vases are reproduced on a scale of I: 5, some large vases marked* being, however, reproduced on a scale of I: 10. The types of pottery not represented in the Cyprus Collections, Stockholm, have been drawn from reproductions in various publications, as indicated in the List of Pottery Types; and then of course it has not been possible to give a section of the vases. In these cases, the illustrations of the vases and their descriptions in the Catalogues and other publications have served as a basis of the drawing, and, whenever possible or necessary, information about measurements, colours, etc. and photos of the vases have been asked for from the various Museum authorities. In a few cases the supplementary red colour of the Bichrome pottery ornaments may be somewhat incorrectly indicated, owing to the fact that information on the matter could not be obtained. Contrary to the practice used in the Classification of the Pottery and Sculpture, all the types of objects found in Cyprus, whether native or of foreign derivation, have been included in the section dealing with Other Arts and Crafts. This incongruency is due to the fact that it is often difficult to decide whether a metal object, for instance, is imported or a Cypriote product of foreign derivation, and the only way out of the frequent dilemmata was therefore to include all objects in the classification, even those which can be proved to be imported. In the current text I have omitted the pronoun Other and used the term Arts and Crafts for the sake of brevity. Following the example of Professor A. B. Cook, who used the form Apollo when speaking of the Roman god and Apollon when mentioning the Greek god, I have used the Greek form for the Greek god, though I know, of course, that both gods are usually called Apollo in English.
VII
,
I have to apologize for some inconsistency in the spelling of Turkish and Arab placenames. For typographical reasons the diacritical signs have been omitted. There is no list of abbreviations of the titles of periodicals and monographs since they are only abbreviated so slightly that they can be easily understood, at least with the aid of the Bibliography. The publication of this book has greatly benefited from the assistance and collaboration of Dr. Olof Vessberg, Keeper of the Cyprus Collections in Stockholm, Miss Margit Hallberg and Mr. Bror NIillberg, secretary and draughtsman respectively of these Collections. Dr. Vessberg has supervised the printing work, assisted in checking references and reading proofs, and compiled the List of Pottery Types. Miss Hallberg has typewritten the MS., assisted in checking references and reading proofs and' has compiled the Index, the Contents, the List of Illustrations in the Text and the List of Plates; Mr. Bror Millberg has done all the drawings reproduced and in addition has contributed many useful observations bearing upon the correct interpretation of the objects. I am glad to avail myself of this opportunity to acknowledge officially my gratitude to these three collaborators for their neverfailing help and support. To Fil. lie, Ervin Roos I express my great obligation for his very careful work in composing the Bibliography. For the Bibliographical Notes on Cypriote Numismatics referred to above, I offer my sincere thanks to Dr. Willy Schwabacher. Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon, Secretary of the Institute of Archaeology in the University of London, has undertaken the work of revising the proofs. I beg her to excuse my obstinacy in keeping the name Apollon in spite of her protests and wish to thank her most warmly indeed for her great kindness in devoting much of her spare time to the tedious task of correcting my bad English. During his visit to Sweden in the summer of 1946, Mr. James Stewart of the Sydney University, revised a section of the MS., for which I feel much obliged to him. The University Library of Lund and the Library of the Royal Academy of History and Antiquities, Stockholm, have facilitated my studies in various ways and I am much indebted for their ready courtesy. Several Museums have also promoted my work by supplying me with information and photos to be published. In particular lowe a great debt of gratitude to the British Museum, London; the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia; the Metropolitan Museum, New York; the Musees Royaux d'Art, Bruxelles; the National Museum, Copenhagen; and the Robinson Collection of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The Director of the Tessin Institute, Paris, Dr. Gunnar W. Lundberg, I wish to thank most heartily for repeated efforts made to obtain information from Museum authorities in Paris. Finally I wish gratefully to acknowledge the grant received from "Humanistiska Fonden" as a contribution to the printing expenses of the book. Lund, December rjth 1947. EINAR GJERSTAD
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
"
, . . . . . .. . . . .
CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
" ., .. . . . . .. . . .
XXIV
LIST OF POTTERY TYPES
XXVI
ARCHITECTURE Sanctuaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD: Ajia Irini; Idalion; Ajios Jakovos THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD: Ajia Irini; Idalion; Tamassos; Achna; Voni; Kition; Soli; Kurion THECYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD: Kition; Vouni; Paradisotissa; Soli
12
SUMMARy.................................................................
17
Domestic Architecture
23 23 23
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC AND CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIODS
Tombs................................................................... THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD...... THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
POTTERY White Painted Ware
I
1
1
3
29 29 33 42
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
!
XV
LIST OF PLATES
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
f
V IX
.
WHITE PAINTED I WARE
.
48 48
.
52
WHITE PAINTED III WARE
.
54
WHITE PAINTED IV WARE
.
WHITE PAINTED V WARE
.
WHITE PAINTED VI WARE
.
56 57 58 59
WHITE PAINTED II WARE
'
WHITE PAINTED VII WARE . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI
x 60 60 60
STROKE POLISHED I (VI) WARE . . . . . . • . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BICHROME III WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . .
61
BLACK LUSTROUS I (VI) WARE
BICHROME IV WARE ... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . , . . . . .
62
Red Lustrous Ware
BICHROME V WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . • . .
66 67
Plain White Ware
Bichrome Ware
···············································
BICHROME I WARE . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . BICHROME II WARE
........................••..............................
BICHROME VI WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • .
STROKE POLISHED II (VII) WARE
Black Lustrous Ware
.
............••...•...........................
. ......................•........................
.
RED LUSTROUS I (VII) WARE
.
.
.
68 68 68 68
PLAIN WHITE I WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN WHITE V WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........•........•..•.....................•..•
69 71 72
BLACK-ON-RED V (VII) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Bichrome Red Ware
.
BICHROME RED I (IV) WARE
.
BICHROME RED II (V) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .
73 73 74
BICHROME RED III (VI) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .
75
BICHROME RED IV (VII) WARE
76
BICHROME VII WARE
........................•...........•....•............•
Polychrome White Ware Black-on-Red Ware
. .
BLACK-ON-RED I (III) WARE . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . BLACK-ON-RED II (IV) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . BLACK-ON-RED III (V) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BLACK-ON-RED IV (VI) WARE
Polychrome Black Slip Black Slip Black Slip
.................................•...•.•.•...•.
Red Ware Painted Ware Bichrome Ware Ware
BLACK SLIP I WARE BLACK SLIP II WARE
. . . . .
........................................•...•.....••...
BLACK SLIP III WARE
................•...•........................••.....•.
BLACK SLIP IV WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . BLACK SLIP V WARE
.
BLACK SLIP VI WARE
.
Red Slip "Ware
"
.
RED SLIP I (III) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . • . RED SLIP II (IV) WARE
.
RED SLIP III (V) WARE
..........•..........................................
RED SLIP IV (VI) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ...•.. RED SLIP V (VII) WARE . . • . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • .
(frey and Black Polished Ware GREY AND BLACK POLISHED I (III) WARE
. ....................................•
GREY AND BLACK POLISHED II (IV) WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . GREY AND BLACK POLISHED III (V) WARE
.
Stroke Polished Ware
.
76 76
77
77 77 78 78 79 79 79
80 80 80 81 81
82 82 82 83 83 84
PLAIN WHITE II WARE
.
PLAIN WHITE III WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAIN WHITE IV WARE • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . PLAIN WHITE VI WARE • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . PLAIN WHITE VII WARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . • . • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coarse Ware
.
SCULPTURE The Proto-Cypriote Styles
. THE FIRST PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLE: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures . THE SECOND PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLE: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures The Cypro-Egyptian Style . The Neo-Cypriote Style: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures; Bronze Sculptures . The Cypro-Greek Styles . THE ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures . THE FIRST SUB-ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures . THE SECOND SUB-ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE: Limestone Sculptures . THE CLASSICAL CYPRO-GREEK STYLE: Terracotta Sculptures; Limestone Sculptures; Marble Sculptures . Minor and Animal Plastic: Terracotta Figures; Limestone Figures; Bronze Figures OTHER ARTS AND CRAFTS IRON, Sword, Dagger, Spear-head, Butt-spike, Arrow-head, Shield, Helmet, Armour, Cuirass, Axe, Knife, Sickle, Chisel, Spit, Spade, Strigil, Tweezer, Rod, Pin, Fibula, Earring, Finger-ring, Lamp, Lamp-stand, Nail, Rivet, Cramp, Mounting . LEAD, Ring, Slinger's Bullet, Mounting, Pyxis, Plaque, Weight . BRONZE, Spear-head, Butt-spike, Arrow-head, Shield, Helmet, Axe, Hammer, Chisel, Mace-head, Sceptre, Shepherd's Crook, Strigil, Tweezer, Shovel, Mirror, Palette, Toilet and Surgical Instruments, Fish-hook, Needle, Pin, Fibula, Hair-ring, Earring, Finger-ring, Toe-ring, Bracelet, Necklace, Bead and Pendant, Bell, Clasp, Horse-bit,
94 94 97
1°3 10 5
1°9 1°9 117 122 123 12 5
XII
XIII
Blinker, Front-band, Hinge, Nail, Rivet, Cramp, Lamp, Chain, Lamp-stand, Incense-burner, Incense-lamp, Tripod, Flute, Plate, Bowl, Cauldron, Strainer, Ladle, Jug, Mounting, Weight . SILVER, Needle, Fibula, Girdle, Hair-ring, Earring, Finger-ring, Pendant-ring, Bead, Pendant, Bracelet, Frontlet, Mouth-piece, Toilet and Surgical Instruments, Mounting, Reel, Bowl, Jug . GOLD, Needle, Pin, Fibula, Hair-ring, Earring, Nose-ring, Finger-ring, Pendant-ring, Bead, Pendant, Necklace, Chain, Bracelet, Frontlet, Mouth-piece, Mounting, Reel, Bowl . TERRACOTTA, Spindle-whorl, Loom-weight, Pendant, Lamp, Incense-lamp, Incenseburner, Offering-receptacle, Chapel, Smelting-pot, Mould, Box . FAIENCE, Spindle-whorl, Spoon, Finger-ring, Bead, Pendant and Amulet, Necklace, Bowl, Aryballos, Bottle, Jug, Miscellaneous Vases . GLASS, Ring, Bead, Pendant, Alabastron, Juglet, Amphoriskos . STONE, Spindle-whorl, Loom-weight, Mace-head, Grinder, Pestle, Whetstone, Netsinker, Lamp, Bead, Pendant and Amulet, Offering-stand, Plate, Bowl, Ladle, Alabastron, Jar, Jug, Amphora and Amphoriskos, Crater, Box, Lid, Weight . SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE, Sceptre, Bead and Pendant . BONE, Spindle-whorl, Bobbin, Flute, Comb, Pin, Bead, Rounde1, Handle, Mounting, Box, Amulet . GLYPTICS • • . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • • . . • . . • • • • • . . • •
GLYPTICS . . . • • • • • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . • • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . .
225 225
FOREIGN RELATIONS Architecture .............................................................. SANCTUARIES AND HOUSES: Material and Construction; Form and Plan .
226 226
TOMBS • . • • • • • . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . .
23 8
Pottery
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN ANATOLIA • . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24° 240 242 258
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN GREECE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
262
FOREIGN POTTERY FOUND IN CYPRUS
269
BONE
155 161
.•••..••••••••••••.•••...•.•.••.......•...••..•....••....••••...••..
.
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN EGYPT . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . • . . . . CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA
175 180
.
CERAMIC CONSTITUENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE . . . . . • . . . • • • • . . . . . .
282
INFLUENCES TO AND FROM THE EAST . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28 7
INFLUENCES TO AND FROM THE WEST .............•.••.••...•••.••..•••.••.••.
292
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
Palestine, Syria and Anatolia; Egypt; Greece
Sculpture CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN EGYPT
180 182
...........•.•.....•.......
. .
.•.••...•..............................
CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA
.••..•..•.....•...•..•.••.
CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN GREECE • • . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOREIGN SCULPTURES FOUND IN CYPRUS . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • • • • • • . . . • . • . . . • . • . . . . • . .
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY Introduction Pottery
. .
CYPRIOTE INFLUENCE ON FOREIGN SCULPTURE . . . • • . • • . . . . . . . . • . • . . • • • . . . . . . . . . .
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD ...••............••..•....•......••.•••••.••..•••
SUMMARy . . . . . . . . • • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . • . . • . . • . • . . . . • . • . . . . . • • • . . . • • . .
.......•............................•••••.••.•.
SUMMARy •••••••••.....•...........•.•...•••..•.........•.•••••.••••.•..••
. .
IRON •••••••••••••••••...••..••••.••......•..•.............•.....•..•....• LEAD ••.•.•.••••••••••.••.•••..•..••••.•••.............•.••........••.•••• BRONZE
••••••••••••.••.••..••.•••.••...•..•••.••.•......•.••.•....•.•••.•
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
.
.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY The Cypro-Geometric Period The Cypro-Archaic Period The Cypro-Classical Period
SILVER •••••••••••••••••.•....•..••........•........••........••.••. ,...•.•
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON CYPRIOTE NUMISMATICS
GOLD
BIBLIOGRAPHY
•••••••.•••••••.•••...•...•...•••.•.•..••..•.•...••••.•.....•.•...••
by Ervin Roos
by Willy Schwabacher
.
4 21
. . . . .
42 8
TERRACOTTA ••••••••••.•..•.......••....••.....•......•........••.•...•.•..
INDEX ....••••.•....•........•...•••••••••..••••.••..••••.••••..•.•.......
FAIENCE •••••..••..••••••..•••.••..•.•....•...•.........•.•....••••.......
POTTERY TYPES
GLASS •.•.••.•••.•••••...•..•....••.....•..•........•.•....•..•....••••... STONE •••••.•.••..•.•.•••.••.•...•.•.•.•••..••.••••....•.•••...••..••....• SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE
33 6
The Proto-Cypriote Style; The Cypro. Egyptian Style; The Neo-Cypriote Style; The Cypro-Greek Styles
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD • . . . . . . . • . • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • . • • • • • . .
Sculpture Other Arts and Crafts
318 318 32 2 327
FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE:
Other Arts and Crafts
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
31 I
....••••••.•...•..•....•........•••....•..•..•...••••.
drawn by Bror Millberg
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . following
449
479 5°8 510
525 545
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT For abbreviations indicating excavation sites: A.
=
Amathus, etc.
see Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. XVIII.
Fig.
Page
Fig. I. Sanctuaries, Type I I. Ajia Irini, Cypro-Geometric temenos. 2. Ajia lrini, Cypro-Archaic temenos. 3. Achna, Temenos. 4. Tamassos, Temenos at Frangissa.
.
Fig. 2. Sanctuaries, Type 2 I. Ajios Jakovos, Chapel. 2. Vouni, Chapel of Room II7. 3. Vouni, Chapel of Rooms II3-II4. 4. Vouni, Chapel of Rooms 132-135.
.
Fig. 3. Sanctuaries, Type 3 . I. Idalion, Western Acropolis. Cypro-Geometric temenos. 2. Kition, First Cypro-Archaie temenos. 3. Idalion, Western Acropolis, Second Cypro-Archaic temenos. 4. Voni, Temenos.
20
Fig. 4. Sanctuaries, Type 4 I. Idalion, Sanctuary of Aphrodite. 2. Vouni, Main temenos. 3. Vouni, Sanctuary of Athena.
.
21
Fig. 5. Sanctuaries, Type 5 I. Soli, Temple on the Acropolis. 2. Paradisotissa, Temple.
.
22
26
Fig. 6. Vouni, The first palace
I
18
Fig. 7. Vouni, The second palace
.
28
Fig. 8. Cypro-Geometric tombs
.
31
J
Fig. 9. Cypro-Geometric tombs (1-4); Cypro-Archaic tombs (5--8) . Fig. 10. Cypro-Archaic tombs
.
Fig. II. Cypro-Archaic tombs
.
Fig. 12. Cypro-Archaic tombs from Faneromeni (I), Amathus (2), Xylotimbou I (3), Kition (4), Xylotimbou II (5), and Trachonas (6) .
Fig.
Page
Fig. 13. Cypro-Archaic tombs from Tamassos
41
Fig. 14. Cypro-Classical tombs
43
Fig. IS. Cypro-Classical tombs
44
Fig. 16. Cypro-Classical tombs
46
Fig. 17. Cypro-Classical tomb from Pyla
.
47
Fig. 18. Development of the lotus-ornament
.
65
. 13 1 Fig. 19. Arts and Crafts. Iron I. Sword I. A. 2.76. Stockholm. 2. Sword I. Handb. Cesn. Coli. 4725. 3. Sword 2. Handb. Cesn. Coli. 4726. 4. Sword 2. Handb. Cesn. Coli. 4727. 5. Dagger 1. I. 319. Stockholm. 6. Dagger 2. M.43.29. Stockholm. 7. Spear-head 1. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 1437. 8. Spear-head 2 a. I. 135. Stockholm. 9. Spear-head 2 b. A. 2.64. Stockholm. 10. Spear-head 2 b. I. 145. Stockholm. II. Spear-head 2 b. I. 221. Stockholm. 12. Spear-head 2 b. I. 823. Stockholm. 13. Spear-head 2 b. I. 336. Stockholm. 14. Butt-spike I. I. 446. Stockholm. IS. Butt-spike 2. V. 167. Stockholm. Fig. 20. Arts and Crafts. Iron I. Arrow-head I a. A. 2.60. Stockholm. 2. Arrow-head I b. A. 13.25. Nicosia. 3. Arrow-head I c. M. 43.19. Stockholm. 4. Arrow-head 2 a. I. 727 a. Stockholm. 5. Arrow-head 2 a. A.!. 2277 c. Stockholm. 6. Arrow-head 2 b. I. 346. Stockholm. 7. Arrow-head 2 b. I. 1461. Stockholm. 8. Helmet. I. 1071. Stockholm. 9. Armour I. A.2.57. Stockholm. 10. Armour 2. I. 236. Stockholm. II. Armour 3. Cyp. Coli., Acc.725. Stockholm.
133
XVI
XVII
Fig. 21. Arts and Crafts. Iron..................... 135 I. Axe I. I. 440. Stockholm. 2. Axe 2. A. 2.23. Stockholm. 3. Axe 3 a. A. 2.63. Stockholm. 4. Axe 3 b. M. 43.28. Stockholm. 5. Axe 4. I. 384. Stockholm. 6. Sickle. V. 348. Stockholm. 7. Spit. I. 293. Stockholm. 8. Knife I a. L. 429.36. Stockholm. 9. Knife I b. A. 7.122. Stockholm. 10. Knife I c. I. 490. Stockholm. I I. Knife I d. I. 303. Stockholm. 12. Knife 2 a. L. 420.46. Stockholm. 13. Knife 2 b. I. 190. Stockholm. 14. Knife 2 c. A. 16.11. Stockholm. 15. Knife 2 d. A. 2.72. Stockholm. 16. Knife 2 e. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 4728. 17. Chisel. A. 2.62. Stockholm. 18. Spade. V. 448. Stockholm. 19. Strigil. M. 22.17. Stockholm. 20. StrigiI. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LVI, 4. 21. Tweezer I. A. I. 2286. Stockholm. 22. Tweezer 2. M. 14.22. Nicosia. 23. Rod. L. 411.32 b. Stockholm. Fig. 22. Arts and Crafts. Iron and Lead I. Pin. I. 1204 b. Stockholm. 2. Pin. L. 411.25. Stockholm. 3. Fibula. A. 15.63. Nicosia. 4. Fibula. A. 5.16. Nicosia. 5. Earring. I. 251. Stockholm. 6. Earring. I. 114 c. Stockholm. 7. Finger-ring I. I. 1458. Stockholm. 8. Finger-ring 2. I. 1516. Stockholm. 9. Finger-ring 3. I. 50. Stockholm. 10. Lamp. I. 171. Stockholm. I I. Lamp-stand. M. 34.48. Stockholm. 12. Ring. A. I. 2269. Stockholm. 13. Slinger's bullet. V. 393. Stockholm. 14. Mounting. I. 84. Stockholm. 15. Mounting. I. 1263. Stockholm. 16. Mounting. I. 1409. Stockholm. 17. Mounting. I. 808. Stockholm. 18. Mounting. I. 804. Stockholm. 19. Pyxis. M. 53.22. Stockholm. 20. Plaque. K. 581. Stockholm. 21. Weight. I. 1460. Stockholm. 22. Weight. Syria XIII, p. 190, Fig. I.
137
Fig. 23. Arts and Crafts. Bronze 139 I. Spear-head I a. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 1433. 2. Spear-head I b. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 1436. 3. Spear-head 2 a. A. 13.10. Stockholm. 4. Spear-head 2 a. L. 602.26. Nicosia. 5. Spear-head 2 a. A. 6.13. Lund. 6. Spear-head 2 b. A. 21.39. Stockholm. 7. Spear-head 2 b. A. 21.12. Stockholm.
8. Spear-head 2 b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIV,S. 9. Butt-spike I. I. 407. Stockholm. 10. Butt-spike I. V. 163. Stockholm. I I. Butt-spike 2. I. 37. Nicosia. 12. Butt-spike 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIII, 2. 13. Butt-spike 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIII, 3. 14. Butt-spike 2. I. 401. Nicosia. 15. Arrow-head I a. I. 272. Stockholm. 16. Arrow-head I b. I. 485. Stockholm. 17. Arrow-head I c. I. 49. Stockholm. 18. Arrow-head I d. I. 271. Stockholm. 19. Arrow-head I d. V. 205 a. Stockholm. 20. Arrow-head 2 a. I. 1500. Nicosia. 21. Arrow-head 2 b. I. 52. Stockholm. 22. Arrow-head 3. I. 370. Stockholm. 23. Arrow-head 4. I. 738. Stockholm. 24. Arrow-head 4. I. 259. Stockholm. 25. Arrow-head 5. V. 220 c. Stockholm. 26. Arrow-head 6. V. 184 a. Stockholm. 27. Shield I. A. 21.38. Stockholm. 28. Shield 2 a. I. 133. Nicosia. 29. Shield 2 b. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXLII,
5 b. 30. Shield 3. Perrot & Chipiez, Hist. de l'art III, p. 869, Fig. 636. Fig. 24. Arts and Crafts. Bronze 141 I. Shield. I. 194. Nicosia. 2. Shield. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 12. 3. Shield. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXLII, 5 a. 4. Helmet I. I. 130. Stockholm. 5. Helmet 2. I. 315. Stockholm. 6. Hammer. I. 268. Stockholm. 7. Chisel. V. 158 d. Stockholm. 8. Axe I. Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. III, I I. 9. Axe 2. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXXVI, 4· 10. Mace-head. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LI, 2. II. Sceptre I. A. 5.19. Nicosia. 12. Sceptre 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LII, 2. 13. Shovel. A. 18.46. Stockholm. 14. Shepherd's Crook. L. 409.12. Stockholm. 15. Shepherd's Crook. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LV, 2. 16. StrigiI. M. 44.39. Nicosia. 17. Tweezer I. L. 428.25. Stockholm. 18. Tweezer 2. A. I. 2712. Nicosia. 19. Tweezer 2. A. I. 2714. Nicosia. 20. Tweezer 2. A. I. 2355. Nicosia. Fig. 25. Arts and Crafts. Bronze 145 I. Mirror I. M. 45.2. Nicosia. 2. Mirror 2. M. 57.8. Stockholm. 3. Mirror 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXI, 3. 4. Mirror 2. M. 58.22. Stockholm. 5. Mirror 2. M. 53.23. Stockholm. 6. Mirror 3. M. 53.28. Stockholm. 7. Mirror 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXI, I, 2. 8. Palette. A. 6.1. Lund. 9. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. A. 6.2. Lund. 10. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. M. 14.21. Nicosia.
I I. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. I. 75. Stockholm. 12. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. I. 511. Nicosia. 13. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, I. 14. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, 8. 15. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, I I. 16. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, 12. 17. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, 18. 18. Fish-hook. V. 202 b. Stockholm. 19. Needle. L. 601.4. Uppsala. 20. Needle. I. 1051. Nicosia. 21. Needle. I. 875. Nicosia. 22. Pin I. I. 1394. Stockholm. 23. Pin I. I. 1325. Stockholm. 24. Pin 2. A. 13.1. Nicosia. 25. Pin 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX,S. 26. Pin 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, 10. 27. Pin 2. L. 417.7. Stockholm. 28. Pin 2. L. 406.101. Stockholm. 29. Pin 2. L. 417.5. Stockholm. 30. Pin 2. L. 403.49. Nicosia. 31. Pin 3. A. 7.78. Stockholm. 32. Pin 4. I. I I 17. Nicosia. 33. Fibula I a. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman
13· 14. 15· 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
Bronzes 920. 34. Fibula I b. Gjerstad, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, p. 236, 2. 35. Fibula 2 a. A. 23.63. Stockholm. 36. Fibula 2 b. L. 406.102. Stockholm. 37. Fibula 2 c. A. 14.65. Stockholm. 38. Fibula 2 d. A. 5.39. Nicosia. 39. Fibula 3 a. Exc. in Cyp., p. 68, Fig. 94. 40. Fibula 3 a. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman
Bronzes 922. 41. Fibula 3 b. Verhandl. Berl. Ges. j. Anthrop., 1899, p. 340, Fig. XXV, 12. 42. Fibula 4 a. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 93 I. 43. Fibula 4 b. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman
Bronzes 937. Fig. 26. Arts and Crafts. Bronze I. Hair-ring I. L. 4°9.14. Stockholm. 2. Hair-ring 2. M. 46.2. Nicosia. 3. Hair-ring 3. M. 41.38. Nicosia. 4. Earring I. M. 21. Dr. 2. Nicosia. 5. Earring I. A. I. 2518. Nicosia. 6. Earring I. I. 381. Nicosia. 7. Earring I. I. 217. Nicosia. 8. Earring 2 a. I. 1499. Stockholm. 9. Earring 2 b. M. 46.3. Nicosia. 10. Finger-ring I. I. 395. Stockholm. II. Finger-ring 2. L. 4°9.13 a, Stockholm. 12. Finger-ring 2. M. 69.22. Stockholm.
147
Finger-ring 3. L. 420.79. Stockholm. Finger-ring 4. I. 253. Stockholm. Finger-ring 5. I. 744. Stockholm. Finger-ring 6. I. 1272. Nicosia. Toe-ring. L. 602.101. Nicosia. Bracelet I. I. 125 a. Nicosia. Bracelet 2. I. 191. Nicosia. Bracelet 3. I. 777. Stockholm. Bracelet 4. I. 376. Nicosia. Bell. I. 775. Nicosia. Bell. I. 784. Nicosia. Clasp. I. 1496. Stockholm. Blinker. I. 416. Stockholm. Blinker. I. 164. Nicosia. Blinker. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 9. Blinker. I. 302. Stockholm. Blinker. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXLI, 4. Horse-bit. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLV, 2. Horse-bit. Cat. Cyp. Mus. 3841. Nicosia. Front-band. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 2. Front-band. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, I.
Fig. 27. Arts and Crafts. Bronze 149 I. Hinge. I. 325. Stockholm. 2. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 c. Stockholm. 3. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 b. Stockholm. 4. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. M. 22.10. Stockholm. 5. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. M. 22.42. Stockholm. 6. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. M. 22.43. Stockholm. 7. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 c. Stockholm. 8. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 c. Stockholm. 9. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 220 c. Stockholm. 10. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 c. Stockholm. II. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 158 c. Stockholm. 12. Nail, Rivet, Cramp. V. 175 c. Stockholm. 13. Lamp I. I. 134. Nicosia. 14. Lamp 2. I. 459. Nicosia. 15· Flute. Cesnola, Salaminia, p. 56, Fig. 54. 16. Lamp-stand I. Cesnola, Atlas III PI. LI, 3. 17. Lamp-stand I. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, 9. 18. Lamp-stand I. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, 10. 19. Lamp-stand 2 a. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXVII, I. 20. Lamp-stand 2 b. Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 336. 21. Chain. I. 38. Stockholm. 22. Incense-lamp. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LV, 3. 23. Incense-burner I. Cyprus Museum. Nicosia. 24. Incense-burner 2. V. 537. Stockholm. 25. Tripod I. Hall, Vrokastro, PI. XXXIV, 3. 26. Tripod 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXII, 2. Fig. 28. Arts and Crafts. Bronze I. Plate. Cyp, Coil. Ace, 367 n. Stockholm. 2. Bowl I a. L. 413.38. Stockholm. 3. Bowl I b. I 398. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 2 b. M. 44.19. Nicosia. 5. Bowl 2 a. M. 73-4- Stockholm. 6. Bowl 3. L. 409.9. Stockholm.
151
XVIII
XIX 7. 8. 9. 10.
7. Bowl 4. I. 129. Stockholm. 8. Bowl x. Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes 535. 9. Bowl 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVIII, 3· 10. Bowl 7 a. A. 6.12. Lund. II. Bowl 7 b. V. 424. Nicosia. 12. Bowl 7 c. I. 81, Stockholm. 13. Bowl 8 a. A. 21,42. Stockholm. 14. Bowl 8 a. A. 13.8. Stockholm. IS. Bowl 8 b. M. 58.37. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 9. A. 21,42. Stockholm. 17. Bowl 10. Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148.8. 18. Bowl I I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVII, 3. 19. Bowl 12. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVII, 4. 20. Bowl 13. M. 58.36. Stockholm.
II.
Fig. 29. Arts and Crafts. Bronze I. Cauldron. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLV, I. 2. Strainer. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVIII, I. 3. Strainer. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LII, I. 4. Ladle I. M. 34.43. Stockholm. 5. Ladle 2. Exc, In Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148, I. 6. Jug I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. L, 3· 7. Jug 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVI, I. 8. Jug 3. M. 34.11, Stockholm. 9. Jug 4. Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148, 5· 10. Jug 5. Cyprus Museum. Nicosia. II. Jug 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVI, 2. 12. Jug 7. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVI, 3·
153
Fig. 30. Arts and Crafts. Bronze I. Mounting. I. 534. Nicosia. 2. Mounting. I. 720 a. Nicosia. 3. Mounting. I. 802. Nicosia. 4. Mounting. I. 1167. Nicosia. 5. Mounting. I. 114 c. Stockholm. 6. Mounting. I. 491, Nicosia.' 7. Mounting. I. 508. Nicosia. 8. Mounting. I. 1303. Stockholm. 9. Mounting. V. 23 I b. Stockholm. 10. Mounting. I. 116o. Nicosia. I I. Mounting. I. 359. Stockholm. 12. Mounting. I. 447. Stockholm. 13. Mounting. I. 1095. Stockholm. 14. Mounting. I. 184. Nicosia. IS. Mounting. I. 128. Nicosia. 16. Mounting. K. 485. Stockholm. 17. Mounting. V. 300. Stockholm. 18. Mounting. V. 288. Stockholm. 19. Weight. I. 733. Nicosia. 20. Weight. I. 3I. Nicosia.
154
Fig. 31, Arts and Crafts. Silver I. Fibula I a. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 7· 2. Fibula I b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 8. 3. Fibula 2. A. 9.174. Stockholm. 4. Fibula 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 2. 5. Fibula 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI,S· 6. Girdle. Detail of No.8.
157
12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31, 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41, 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
Needle. V. 228 b. Stockholm. Girdle. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXV, 3. Earring I a. I. 92. Nicosia. Earring I a. M. 31, Dr. N. 3. 5 b. Copenhagen. Earring I b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 17. Earring I b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 16. Earring 2 a. I. 348. Nicosia. Earring 2 b. M. 67.43. Nicosia. Earring 3. Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. II, I I. Earring 4. V. 16.12. Stockholm. Earring 5. Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 9. Earring 6 a. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 3· Earring 6 a. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 14· Earring 6 b. Exc, in Cyp., PI. XIV, 8. Finger-ring I. M. 83.23. Nicosia. Finger-ring I. A. 10.2. Stockholm. Finger-ring 2. M. 34.61, Stockholm. Finger-ring 2. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 44. Finger-ring 2. I. 354. Stockholm. Finger-ring 3. M. 44.56. Nicosia. Finger-ring 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 22. Finger-ring 5. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 45. Finger-ring 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXVI,S. Finger-ring 6. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 42. Finger-ring 7. V. 16.9. Stockholm. Finger-ring 7. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 43. Finger-ring 7. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 40. Hair-ring. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 12. Pendant-ring. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXVI, 4· Pendant-ring. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXVI, 3. Pendant-ring. M. 62.40. Stockholm. Bead. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7. Bead. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7· Pendant I. M. 41,47. Nicosia. Pendant I. I. 719. Nicosia. Pendant I. Brit. Mus Cat. Jewell. 1594. Pendant I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 24. Pendant I. M. 21.3. Nicosia. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 16. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 17. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 18. Pendant 3. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII,
5. 6. 7· 8.
Bracelet 4. V. 292 n. Nicosia. Bracelet 5. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, I I. Bracelet 6. V. 292 m. Nicosia. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, I. 9· Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola. Atlas III PI. XXXIX, 2. ' 10. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola Atlas III PI. XXXIX, 3. " II. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX,S. 12. Toilet and Surgical Instruments. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 6. 13. Mouth-piece. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 10. 14· Frontlet I. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXIII, 7. IS· Frontlet I. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXIII, 4. 16. Reel. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 49. 17. Reel. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 51. 18. Mounting. I. 67. Nicosia. 19. Mounting. I. 364 a. Stockholm. 20. Mounting. A. 18.42. Nicosia. 21, Mounting. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 21, 22. Mounting. I. 364 b. Stockholm. Fig. 33. Arts and Crafts. Silver I. Bowl I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVI, I. 2. Bowl 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIII, 4. 3· Bowl 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVIII, 3. 4· Bowl 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVI, 3. 5· BowlS· Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. 6. Bowl 6. Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. 7· Bowl 7· Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVII, 3. 8. Bowl 8. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXV, 3. 9. Bowl 9. V. 292 b. Nicosia. 10. Bowl 10. V. 292 c. Nicosia. I I. Bowl II. V. 292 d. Nicosia. 12. Bowl 12. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV, I. 13. Jug I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV, 3. 14· Jug 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV, 4. IS· Jug 3· Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV,S.
I
7· 49. Pendant 3. V. 292 r, Stockholm. 50. Pendant 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 19· 51, Pendant 4. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVIl,
f
9·
Fig. 32. Arts and Crafts. Silver I. Bracelet I. M. 62.39. Stockholm. 2. Bracelet 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XL, 3. 3. Bracelet 2. V. 292 h. Nicosia. 4. Bracelet 3. V. 292 0. Nicosia.
159
I
160
Fig. 34. Arts and Crafts. Gold .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 I. Needle. V. 239. Stockholm. 2. Pin. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 4. 3· Pin. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 5. 4. Fibula. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, I. 5. Earring I a. L. 425.15. Nicosia. 6. Earring I a. L. 417.8. Stockholm. 7. Earring I a. L. 420.19. Stockholm. 8. Earring I a. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 3. 9. Earring I a. L. 420.18. Stockholm. 10. Earring I a. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, I. I I. Earring I b. L. 409. I. Stockholm. 12. Earring I b. A. 14.2. Nicosia. 13. Earring I b. L. 4°3.38. Nicosia. 14. Earring I b. L. 420.21, Stockholm. IS· Earring 2 a. M. 41,22. Nicosia.
16. Earring 2 a.Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIX, 18. 17. Earring 2 b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIX, 19. 18. Hair-ring I. M. 57.15. Stockholm. 19. Hair-ring 2. M. 57.12. Stockholm. 20. Earring 2 c. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXIII, 33. 21, Earring 2 c. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXIII, 31. 22. Earring 2 c. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1596. 23. Earring 2 c. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIX, 35. 24. Earring 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIII, 4. 25. Earring 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XX, IS. 26. Earring 5. M. 51,8. Nicosia. 27. Earring 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIV, 3. 28. Earring 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIV, IS. 29. Earring 6. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XV, 24. 30. Earring 7. Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIII, 9. 31. Earring 8. Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 326. 32. Earring 9 a. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XVII, 6. 33. Earring 9 b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XVII, 12. 34. Earring 10. M. 60.2. Nicosia. 35. Nose-ring. L. 406.1, Stockholm. 36. Finger-ring I. L. 403.34. Nicosia. 37. Finger-ring 2. L. 417.2. Stockholm. 38. Finger-ring 2. L. 420.14. Stockholm. 39. Finger-ring 3. M. 60.76. Nicosia. 40. Finger-ring 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXX, 20. 41. Finger-ring 5. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXX, I. 42. Finger-ring 6. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 34. 43· Finger-ring 7. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXV, 3. 44. Finger-ring 7. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXV, 10. 45. Finger-ring 8. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 4071. 46. Finger-ring 8. Handb, Cesn. Coll. 4072. 47· Finger-ring 9. M. 58.18 a. Stockholm. 48. Finger-ring 10. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 4073. Fig. 35. Arts and Crafts. Gold I. Pendant-ring I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXV, 2. Pendant-ring 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 3. Pendant-ring 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 4. Bead I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 8. 5. Bead I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VII, 3. 6. Bead I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VII, 2. 7. Bead I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IX,S. 8. Bead 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 7. 9. Bead 2. A. 13.35. Nicosia. 10. Bead 2. L. 420.22 b. Stockholm. I I. Bead 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 8. 12. Bead 2. M. 52.18. Stockholm. 13. Bead 3. Arsos [Ssoed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCV, Nicosia. 14. Bead 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 2. IS. Bead 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 2. 16. Bead 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 3. 17· Bead 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IX, 4. 18. Bead 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 7. 19· Bead 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 26. 20. Bead 5. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IX, 3. 21, Pendant I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXIV, 23.
165 14. 27. 30.
4).
xx 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.
XXI
Fig. 36. Arts and Crafts. Gold , I. Bracelet I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. II, I. 2. Bracelet 2. V. 292 e. Nicosia. 3. Bracelet 2. V. 292 g. Nicosia. 4. Bracelet 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. I, 2. 5. Bracelet 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. I, I. 6. Bracelet 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. II,S· 7. Bracelet 5. Coll. de Clercq VII, PI. XII, 1224. 8. Frontlet I. A. 6.19. Lund. 9. Frontlet 2. A. 10.1. Stockholm. 10. Frontlet 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XII, I. II. Frontlet 4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XII, 4· 12. Frontlet '4. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XII, 8. 13. Mounting I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 2. 14. Mounting I. A. 21.43. Stockholm. IS. Mounting I. L. 422.1. Stockholm. 16. Mounting 2 a. L. 417.1. Stockholm. 17. Mounting 2 b. L. 403.41. Nicosia. 18. Mounting 2 b. L. 403.40. Nicosia. 19. Mounting 2 b. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1487. 20. Mounting 2 c. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1485. 21. Mounting 2 c. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1488.
12. Bead 6. A. 7.70. Stockholm. 13. Bead 6. I. II82. Stockholm. 14. Bead 6. A. 12.12. Nicosia. IS. Bead 6. I. II6I. Stockholm. 16. Bead 6. A. I. 2253. Nicosia. 17· Bead 7. A. 11.72 a. Nicosia. 18. Pendant and Amulet I. I. 533. Nicosia. 19· Pendant and Amulet I. I. 79. Nicosia. 20. Pendant and Amulet I. A. I. 2188. Stockholm. 21. Pendant and Amulet I. M. 50.16 a. Stockholm. 22. Pendant and Amulet 2. A. 2.10. Nicosia. 23· Pendant and Amulet 2.A. 9.149. Stockholm. 24· Pendant and Amulet 2. A. 9.1. Stockholm. 25· Pendant and Amulet 2. A. 2.31. Nicosia. 26. Pendant and Amulet 2. A. I. 2625. Nicosia. 27· Pendant and Amulet 2. A. I. 2683. Nicosia. 28. Pendant and Amulet 2. A. I. 2294. Stockholm. 29· Pendant and Amulet 3. A. 9.66. Stockholm. 30. Pendant and Amulet 3. A. 2.9. Nicosia. 31. Pendant and Amulet 3. A. 2.7. Nicosia. 32. Necklace. A. 9.100. Stockholm. 33· Bowl. A. 2.27. Nicosia. 34. Bowl. A. 2.28. Nicosia. 35· Aryballos. Exc. in Cyp., p. II5, Fig. 166,2. 36. Aryballos. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XCIII, 3. 37· Jug. Exc. in Cyp., p. II5, Fig. 166,3. 38. Duck-shaped Vase. Exc. in Cyp., p. II5, Fig. 166, 5. 39. Bead I. M. 26. II a. Stockholm. 40. Bead I. A. I. 2612 b. Stockholm. 41. Bead I. A. I. 2612 a. Stockholm. 42. Bead I. M. 92.24 b. Stockholm. 43· Bead 2. A. I. 2510. Nicosia. 44. Bead 3. I. II90. Stockholm. 45· Bead 4. I. 1289 b. Stockholm. 46. Bead 5. I. 807. Nicosia. 47· Bead 6. I. 918. Stockholm. 4 8. Bead 7. V. 328. Stockholm. 49. Bead 8. A. I. 2750 a. Nicosia. 50. Bead 9. I. 187. Nicosia. 5I. Ring. I. 434. Stockholm. 52. Pendant I. A. I. 2666. Nicosia. 53· Pendant 2. A. I. 2691. Nicosia. 54· Alabastron I. Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. XVII, 6. 55· Alabastron 2. Fossing, Glass Vessels, p. 61, Fig. 29. 56. Iuglet. M. 58.39. Stockholm. 57· Amphoriskos. M. 7.3. Stockholm.
22. Mounting 2 d. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 4. 23. Mounting 3. V. 229 a. Stockholm. 24. Mouth-piece I a. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII,2. 25. Mouth-piece I b. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XI, 2. 26. Mouth-piece 2. M. 57.13. Stockholm. 27. Reel. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXXIII, II. 28. Bowl. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 4551.
Pendant I. L. 420.20. Stockholm. Pendant I. Cesnola, Cyprus, PI. XXVI. Pendant I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIX, 28. Pendant I. Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCV, 4). Nicosia. Pendant I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VIII, 3· Pendant I. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 26. Pendant 2. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CCCIII, 18. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 8. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 7. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 7. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 3. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. X, 3. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III,PI. X, I. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. X, 5. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. X, 5. Pendant 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 7. Pendant 2. Exc. in Cyp. PI. XIV, 16. Pendant 2. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1267. Pendant 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 3. Pendant 3. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1578 d. Pendant 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 32. Pendant 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 32. Pendant 3. Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 19· Pendant 3. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1578 a. Pendant 3. Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell. 1578 c. Pendant 3. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXXIII, 17· Pendant 3. Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 20. Pendant 3. M. 60.75. Nicosia. Pendant 3. Cesnola, Cyprus, PI. XXV. Pendant 3. Coll. de Clercq VII, PI. V, 1747· Chain. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V,S. 167
Fig. 37. Arts and Crafts. Terracotta 17 I I. Spindle-whorl I. S. 17.8. Stockholm. 2. Spindle-whorl I. I. 1433. Stockholm. 3. Spindle-whorl 2. L. 413.3. Stockholm. 4. Spindle-whorl 3. V. 179. Stockholm. 5. Loom-weight I. V. 10. Nicosia. 6. Loom-weight 2. V. 394. Stockholm. 7. Pendant I. A. I. 2588. Nicosia. 8. Pendant 2. Exc. in Cyp.,p. II2, Fig. 164, 14. 9. Lamp I. I. 550. Stockholm. 10. Lamp 2. Cyp, Coli. Acc. 693 a. Stockholm. II. Lamp 3. S. 2.1. Stockholm. 12. Lamp 3. S. 2.2. Stockholm. 13. Lamp 3. S. 7.2. Stockholm. 14. Lamp 3. M. 96.3. Stockholm. IS. Lamp 3. I. 182. Stockholm. 16. Lamp 3. Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1005. 17. Lamp 3. Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1006. 18. Lamp 3. Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1007. 19. Lamp 3. Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1008. 20. Lamp 3. A. I. 960. Stockholm. 21. Lamp 4. I. 1398. Stockholm. 22. Lamp 5. I. 664; A. I. 923. Stockholm. 23. Lamp 6. M. 72.13. Stockholm. 24. Lamp 7. M. 58.35. Stockholm. 25. Lamp 8. M. 39.2. Uppsala. 26. Incense-lamp. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 798. 27. Incense-burner. L. 4°3.127. Nicosia. 28. Incense-burner. Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXIII, 888. 29. Offering-receptacle. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XVII, 4. 30. Offering-receptacle. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XVII, 2. 31. Chapel. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXIV, 4. 32. Chapel. Ohnefalsch-Richter. Kypros, PI. CXXIV, 5. 33. Smelting-pot. M. 53.19. Nicosia. 34. Box. V. 423. Nicosia. Fig. 38. Arts and Crafts. Faience and Glass I. Spindle-whorl. A. 15.46. Nicosia. 2. Finger-ring. A. 11.83. Nicosia. 3. Bead I. L. 4°1.58. Nicosia. 4. Bead I. A. I. 2658 b. Nicosia. 5. Bead I. I. 197. Stockholm. 6. Bead 2. A. 4.2. Nicosia. 7· Bead 3. A. 9.3. Stockholm. 8. Bead 3. A. I. 2750 b. Nicosia. 9· Bead 4. I. 1338. Stockholm. 10. Bead 4. A. I. 2750 e. Nicosia. II. Bead 5. A. I. 2304. Nicosia.
173
I r
I
Fig. 39. Arts and I. Spindle-whorl 2. Spindle-whorl 3· Spindle-whorl 4· Spindle-whorl 5· Spindle-whorl 6. Spindle-whorl 7· Spindle-whorl 8. Spindle-whorl 9· Spindle-whorl 10. Spindle-whorl
Crafts. Stone. 177 I. K. 474. Stockholm. I. L. 403.39. Nicosia. 2. L. 4°3.14°. Nicosia. 2. I. 2672. Nicosia. 3. L. 413.2. Stockholm. 3. L. 413.4. Stockholm. 3. A. I. 2765 a. Nicosia. 3. L. 406.9 b. Stockholm. 3. I. 500. Nicosia. 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXIV, 3.
I I. Spindle-whorl 3. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXIV, 3. 12. Loom-weight. V. 287. Stockholm. 13. Mace-head. A. I. 2023. Stockholm. 14. Grinder. I. 170. Stockholm. IS· Pestle. I. 394. Stockholm. 16. Bead I. A. 15.47. Nicosia. 17. Bead 2. A. I. 2295. Nicosia. 18. Bead 3. I. 1034. Stockholm. 19. Bead 4. A. I. 2288. Nicosia. 20. Bead 5. A. I. 2132. Nicosia. 21. Bead 6. V. 255. Nicosia. 22. Net-sinker. V. 271. Stockholm. 23· Whetstone. I. 242. Nicosia. 24· Pendant and Amulet I. A. I. 2512. Nicosia. 25· Pendant and Amulet I. A. 1. 2636. Nicosia. 26. Pendant and Amulet 2. A. I. 2759. Stockholm. 27· Pendant and Amulet 2. A. I. 2227. Nicosia. 28. Pendant and Amulet 3. A. I. 1873. Stockholm. 29· Offering-stand. V. 421. Nicosia. 30. Plate. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXV, 7. 31. Bowl I. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, 6. 32. Bowl 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXV, 6. 33· Bowl 3. I. 967. Stockholm. 34· Bowl 4· Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, 2. 35· BowlS. V. 164. Nicosia. 36. Ladle I. A. I. 69. Nicosia. 37· Ladle 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, I. 38. Alabastron. M. 22.23. Stockholm. 39· Jar. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXI, 2. 40. Jug. A. I. 1179. Stockholm. 41. Amphoriskos I. Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 247. 42. Amphoriskos 2. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXV, 5. 43· Amphoriskos 3. A. l. 436. Stockholm.
Fig. 40. Arts and Crafts. Stone and Semi-precious Stone 179 I. Crater. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXXIV, 3. 2. Box. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXCIX, 6, 7. 3· Box. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXXIII, 8. 4. Box. M; 98.41. Stockholm. 5· Box. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXXIII, 7. 6. Lid. L. 408.49. Nicosia. 7. Weight. A. 4-24. Nicosia. 8. Weight. A. 4.26. Nicosia. 9. Weight. A. 4.59. Nicosia. 10. Weight. A. 2.20. Nicosia. 11. Weight. A. 8.144. Nicosia. 12. Sceptre. Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 309. 13· Bead. I. 716. Nicosia. 14. Bead. A. I. 2750 d. Nicosia. IS· Bead. I. 525. Nicosia. 16. Bead. A. I. 2241. Nicosia. 17· Bead., I. 93. Stockholm. 18. Bead. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 7. 19· Pendant. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 2. 20. Pendant. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 2. 21. Pendant. Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VI, 3. 22. Pendant Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. VII, 3.
XXII
XXIII
Fig. 41. Arts and Crafts. Bone.................... 181 I. Spindle-whorl. A. J. Iron Age Sanct. 55. Stockholm. 2. Bobbin. I. 377. Nicosia. 3. Comb. L. 417.9. Stockholm. 4. Pin I. L. 602.40. Nicosia. 5. Pin 2. L. 403.5. Nicosia. 6. Pin 2. A. 8.122. Nicosia. 7. Bead I. A. I. 2608. Stockholm. 8. Bead 2. A. I. 2641. Nicosia. 9. Bead 3. A. I. 2612 d. Stockholm. 10. Roundel 1. L. 403.126. Nicosia. II. Roundel I. L. 417.92. Stockholm. 12. Roundel 2. L. 425.18. Nicosia. 13. Handle. I. 522. Nicosia. 14. Handle. I. 480. Stockholm. IS. Handle. I. 1490. Nicosia. 16. Handle. A. 21.48. Stockholm. 17. Mounting. A. 13.14. Nicosia. 18. Mounting. A. 2.33. Nicosia. 19. Mounting. A. 2.33. Nicosia. 20. Box I. A. 21.40. Stockholm. 21. Box 2. Poulsen, Der Orient u. d. friihgr. Kunst, p. 130, Figs. 143, 144. 22. Box 3. Idalion. Cyp, Mus. Nicosia. 23. Amulet. A. 2.8. Nicosia. Fig. 42. Cypriote and Rhodian lotus ornaments
303
Fig. 43. Black-on-Red I (III) bowl in Rijksmuseum Kroller-Muller, Otterlo, Holland ..308 Fig. 44. Votive Statuette from Naukratis. University College, London 320 Fig. 45. Votive Statuette from Cyprus. Cyp, Coll., Stockholm 320 Fig. 46. Votive Statuette from Naukratis. University College, London 320 Figs. 47-48. Votive Statuettes from Naukratis. University College, London 320 •••
0
•••••
0
••
0
•••
0
•
0
•••••••
Fig. 49· Votive Statuettes from Sidon. Istanbul
Fig. 56 342 a. Relief from Ashur, Staatl. Mus., Berlin. b. Relief Statuette from Ajia lrini, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia. c. Sculpture Fragments from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence. Fig. 57 343 a. Head of Goddess, Tell Halaf Mus., Berlin. b. Head of Sculpture from Sendjirli, Istanbul. c. Head of Statue from Ajia Irini, Cyp. Coll., Stockholm. d. Head of Bronze Statuette from Elba, Mus. Naz., Naples. Fig. 58 345 a. Head of Terracotta Statue from Ajia Irini, Cyp. Coll., Stockholm. b. Head of Etruscan Bronze Sculpture, Mus. Arch., Florence. Fig. 59 345 a. Head of Bronze Statuette, Museum f. Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. b. Head of Limestone Sculpture from Arsos, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia. c. Head of Etruscan Stone Sculpture, Mus. di Villa Giulia, Rome. Fig. 60 346 a. Bronze Statuette (in part), Museum f. Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. b. Terracotta Sculpture (in part) from Ajia lrini, Cyp, Coll., Stockholm. c. Bronze Sculpture from Vulci, Brit. Mus.
•
.....
3 24
Fig. 5°· Votive Statuettes from Sidon. Istanbul. .... 3 24 Fig. 51. Terracotta Heads from Sidon. Istanbul ..... 325 Fig. 52. Sculptures from Dadia. Istanbul
Fig. 55 342 a. Syro-Anatolian Bronze Sculpture, Staatl. Mus., Berlin. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia lrini, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia. c. Bronze Statuette from Brolio, Mus. Arch., Florence.
333
Fig. 53. Map showing distribution of Cypriote Pottery and Sculpture found abroad facing 336 Fig. 54 341 a. Stone Sculpture from Sendjirli, Istanbul. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyp. Coll., Stockholm. c. Stone Sculpture from Mari, d. Relief from Djerabis, Brit. Mus. e. Terracotta Sculpture from Mersinaki, Cyp. CoIL, Stockholm. f. Stone Sculpture from Vulci, Brit. Mus.
Fig. 61 348 a. Heads of Stone Sphinxes from Sendjirli, Istanbul. b. Stone Head from Enkomi, Brit. Mus. c. Upper part of Syrian Alabastron found in Etruria, Brit. Mus. Fig. 62 349 a. Upper part of Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia. b. Sculpture Fragment from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence. Fig. 63· 349 a. Part of Relief from Sendjirli, Istanbul b. Head of Terracotta Sculpture, Cyp, Mus., Nicosia. Fig. 64 349 a. Cypriote Sculpture, Met. Mus. b. Sculpture Fragments from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence.
Fig. 65 351 a. Part of Rock Relief, Ivriz. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia lrini, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia. c. Stele of Larth Atharnies, Mus. Arch., Florence. Fig. 66 35 1 a. Limestone Statuette from Kirtch-Oglu, Staatl. Mus., Berlin. b. C~priote Limestone Sculpture, Brit. Mus.
Fig. 67. Terracotta Statue from Ajia lrini, Cyp. Mus., Nicosia 35 1 Fig. 68. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia lrini, Cyp, Mus., Nicosia 35 1 Fig. 69. Boiotian Fibula found in Cyprus. Cyp. Mus. Nicosia '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 384 Fig. 70. Corrected drawing of Section VI, Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Plan V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 439
xxv
LI ST OF PLATES
PI. XI. Terracotta sculptures. Archaic Cypro-Greek style
I I 2
Mersinaki 767 etc. Stockholm. Vouni 480. Stockholm.
Greek style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 Vouni 477. Nicosia.
PI. XII. Limestone sculptures. Archaic Cypro-Greek style Kition 139 etc. Nicosia.
style.
Ajia Irini 2106+2103.
Ajia Irini 1728 + 1740.
Nicosia.
Stockholm.
94
PI. VI. Limestone sculptures. Cypro-Egyptian style 104 Cesn. ColI. 1265. New York.
Cesn. Coli. 1033. New York.
Ajia Irini 2102. Nicosia.
PI. VII. Terracotta sculptures. Eastern Neo-Cypriote style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 Cesn, Coli. 1257. New York.
Idalion. Brit. Mus. A 231. London.
Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXV). Nicosia.
Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 3). Nicosia. Idalion, Vasilika 6. Stockholm.
PI. III. Terracotta sculptures. Second Proto-Cypriote style. .. .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
98
Idalion. Brit. Mus. 1917.7-1.53.
PI. VIII. Limestone sculptures. Eastern Neo-Cypriote style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
London. Cesn. Coli. 1277. Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, New York. PI. CLXXXIX, 2). Nicosia. Idalion. Brit. Mus. C 77. London.
Ajia lrini 1044+2495. Stockholm. Cyp, Mus. C. 554. Nicosia.
PI. IX. Terracotta sculptures. Western Neo-Cypriote PI. IV. Terracotta sculpture. Second Proto-Cypriote style.. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 98
Ajia Irini 2072+2075. Stockholm. PI. V. Limestone sculptures. Second Proto-Cypriote style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100 Cesn. Coli. 1258. New York. Cyp, Coli., Ace. 226. Stockholm.
Ajia lrini 1049. Stockholm. Salamis. Ashmolean Mus. 1909.837. Oxford. PI. X. Limestone sculptures. Western Neo-Cypriote style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 Cesn. Coli. 1251. New York. Idalion. Brit. Mus. C 12. London.
II6
Vouni 17. Stockholm.
Cesn. Coli. 1356. New York. Cyp. Mus. A. 28. Nicosia.
. 122
Mersinaki 632. Stockholm.
Mersinaki 901. Stockholm.
Mersinaki 717. Stockholm.
I
PI. XVIII. Limestone sculptures. Classical Cypro-Greek
PI. XV. Terracotta sculptures. Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style
PI. II. Limestone sculptures. First Proto-Cypriote style
style
Cesn. Coli. 1283. New York.
Facing Page
Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXIX, I). Nicosia.
Idalion or Pyla. Brit. Mus. C ISS. London.
Paphos (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XV, I). Antiquarium, Berlin.
PI. XIV. Limestone sculptures. Archaic Cypro-Greek
PI. I. Terracotta sculptures. First Proto-Cypriote style
Idalion. Brit. Mus. C 154. London.
PI. XVII. Terracotta sculptures. Classical Cypro-Greek II6
Vouni 16. Stockholm.
Plate
Arsos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXCII, 4). Nicosia.
Vouni 16 etc. Stockholm.
style
Facing Page
Vouni 210. Nicosia.
114
Kition 254+350. Stockholm.
PI. XIII. Limestone sculpture. Archaic Cypro-Greek
Plate
PI. XVI. Limestone sculptures. Sub-Archaic Cypro-
. II8 Mersinaki 814. Stockholm.
Mersinaki 768. Stockholm. Vouni 517. Nicosia.
.
style . Cesn. Coli. 13°9. New York. Cesnola, Atlas I, 685. Formerly in Metrop. Mus.
Cesn, Coli. 13 10. New York.
XXVII I I. 12. 13. 14.
LIST OF POTTERY TYPES For abbreviations indicating excavation sites: A.
=
Amathus etc.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
see Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. XVIII.
Fig. I. White Painted I Ware. I. Dish I a. L. 428.35. Stockholm. 2. Dish I b. L. 428.39. Stockholm. 3. Dish 2. L. 417.80. Stockholm. 4. Bowl I. L. 420.53. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 2. L. 420.55. Stockholm: 6. Bowl 3. L. 406.37. Stockholm. 7. Bowl 4 a. L. 406.26. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 4 b. L. 428.53. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 5. A. 22.8. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 6. L. 420.7°. Stockholm. II. Bowl 7. L. 420.72. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 8 a. L. 420.52. Stockholm. 13. Bowl 8 b. L. 406.29. Stockholm. 14. Bowl 9. L. 406.85. Stockholm. 15. Bowl 10. L. 406.44. Stockholm.
Fig. II. White Painted I Ware. I. Bowl I I. L. 417.120. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 12. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. IX.14. (Gr. Brit. 488). 3. Bowl 13 a. L. 417.124. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 13 b. L. 406.63. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 13 c. L. 406.69. Stockholm. 6. Bowl 14 a. L. 420.56. Stockholm. 7. Bowl 14 b. L. 420.68. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 15. L. 417.22. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 16. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 4, Robinson Collection, Baltimore I, II C, PI. III. 2. (U.S.A. 136). 10. Bowl 17 a. L. 406.36. Stockholm. I I. Bowl 17 b. L. 406.58. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 18 a. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. V.IO. 13. Bowl 18 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.22. (Gr. Brit. 45)· 14. Bowl 19. L. 502.31. Nicosia.
Fig. V. White Painted I Ware. I. Bottle. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.8. (France 190). 2. Flask I. L. 420.44. Stockholm. 3. Flask 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 695. Nicosia. 4. Flask 3. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. II.82. 5. Flask 4. L. 406.32. Stockholm. 6. Flask 5. Amer.Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. V.25. 7. Flask 6. L. 406.31. Stockholm. 8. Flask 7. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CCXVI.3I. 9. Amphora I. L. 420.32. Stockholm. 10. Amphora 2. L. 406.64. Stockholm. I I. Amphora 4 a. Coli. Westholm, Goteborg, 12. Amphora 4 b. A. 22.24. Stockholm. 13. Hom-shaped Vase. Amer, Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. II.44. 14· Amphora 3. L. 417.87. Stockholm. 15. Amphora 5. L. 502.37. Nicosia. 16. Amphora 6. A. 22.3. Stockholm.
15. Bowl 20. L. 420.27. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 21. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. II.62. 17. Bowl 22. L. 603.5. Copenhagen. Fig. III. White Painted I Ware. I. Strainer. A. 22.25. Stockholm. 2. Jar I. L. 420.48. Stockholm. 3. Goblet I. M. 65.4. Stockholm. 4. Goblet 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 418. Nicosia. 5. Jar 2 a. Cyp, Mus., B. 63. Nicosia. 6. Jar 2 b. Cyp, Mus., B. 297. Nicosia. 7. Cup I a. L. 420.76. Stockholm. 8. Cup I b. M. 63.10. Stockholm. 9. Jar 3. L. 5°3.29. (Opusc. archaeol. III Rom. Regn. Suec. X, PI. I). Nicosia. 10. Jar 4. I.3.96. Nicosia. II. Jug I. L. 417.42. Stockholm. 12. Jug 2 a. L. 428.17. Stockholm. 13. Jug 2 b. L. 406.19. Stockholm. 14. Jug 2 c. L. 417.61. Stockholm. 15. Jug 3. A. 19+ Stockholm. 16. Jug 4 a. L. 408.62. Nicosia. 17. Jug 4 b. L. 428.66. Stockholm.
=
Fig. VI. White Painted I Ware. I. Amphora 7. M. 65.9. Nicosia. 2. Amphora 8 a. L. 406.55. Stockholm. 3. Amphora 8 b. L. 602.9. Nicosia. 4. Amphora 8 c. L. 6°3.10. Copenhagen. 5. Amphora 9 a. L. 406.98. Stockholm.
Acta Inst.
Fig. IV. White Painted I Ware. I. Jug 5. L. 413.32. Stockholm. 2. Jug 6. L. 417.47. Stockholm. 3. Jug 7· L. 425.26. Nicosia. / 4. Jug 8 a. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. V·7 0. 5. Jug 8 b. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. V·3 6. 6. Jug 9. L. 425.3°. Nicosia. 7. Jug 10. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.16. (France 190). 8. Jug II. L. 412.9. Lund. 9. Jug 12 a. A. 24.7. Stockholm. 10. Jug 12 b. A. 15.25. Nicosia.
Jug 13. L. 406.23. Stockholm. Jug 14. L. 417.48. Stockholm. Jug 15 a. L. 417.113. Stockholm. Jug 15 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.25. (Gr. Brit. 45). Jug 16. L. 406.24. Stockholm. Jug 17 a. L. 420.9. Stockholm. Jug 17 b. L. 417.106. Stockholm. Jug 18. L. 420.49. Stockholm. Jug 19. L. 420.63. Stockholm. Jug 20. L. 406.62. Stockholm.
I
Fig. VII. White Painted I Ware. I. Amphora 9 b. L. 408.7. Nicosia. 2. Hydria. L. 413.37. Stockholm. 3. Askos I. L. 420.65. Stockholm. 4. Askos 2. L. 420.39. Stockholm. 5· Askos 3. L. 406.7. Stockholm. 6. Askos 4. L. 408.82. Nicosia. 7. Askos 5. L. 420.69. Stockholm. 8. Support I a. L. 4°6.91. Stockholm. 9. Support I b. L. 417.128. Stockholm. 10. Support 2. Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. III, 1910, PI. XXIX. 20. I I. Ring-vessel I. Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. III, 1910, PI. XXIX. 19. 12. Ring-vessel 2. L. 401.105. Nicosia.
13. Animal-shaped Vase I. A.22.1. Stockholm. 14. Animal-shaped Vase 2. L. 428.46. Stockholm. 15· Animal-shaped Vase 3. L. 420.10. Stockholm. Fig. VIII. Bichrome I Ware. I. Bowl I. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. I. I I. 2. Bowl 2 a. L. 420. N.I. Stockholm. 3. Bowl 2 b. L. 420.5°. Stockholm. 4· Bowl 3. A. 21.41. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 4. A. 24.13. Stockholm. 6. Bowl 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 12.9. (France 335). 7. Bowl 6. L. 420.29. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 7. L. 406.20. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 8. L. 420.33. Stockholm. 10. Jug I. L. 411.14. Stockholm. II. Jug 3. Cyp. Mus. Nicosia. 12. Jug 4. L. 408.N.5. Nicosia. 13. Jug 6 a. L. 411.18. Stockholm. 14. Jug 2 a. (Polychr. var.) A. 22.12. Stockholm. 15· Jug 2 b. Cyp, Mus., B. 708. Nicosia. 16. Jug 5. I. 3.68. Nicosia. 17. Jug 6 b. A. 24.3. Stockholm. 18. Jug 7. A. 24.9. Stockholm. 19. Jug 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XI. 2. (Gr. Brit. 490). 20. Amphora I. A. 15.16. Nicosia. 21. Amphora 2. Corp. Vas. Ant. Great Britain II. Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XI, 4. (Gr. Brit. 490). 22. Bottle. L. 417.53. Stockholm. 23. Flask. Cyp, Mus., B. 1922. Nicosia. 24· Askos. Handb, Cesn. Coll. 518. Fig. IX. Black Slip Painted I Ware. I. Bowl I a. L. 602.92. Nicosia. 2. Bowl I b. L. 428.36. Stockholm. 3. Bowl 2. Cyp, Mus., B. 1466. Nicosia. 4. Amphora I. L. 406.100. Stockholm. 5· Amphora 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 1241. Nicosia. 6. Amphora 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 4, Robinson Collection, Baltimore, I, II C, PI. II.7. (U.S.A. 135). 7· Amphora 4. A. 19.18. Stockholm. Black Slip Bichrome I Ware. 8. Bowl L. 406.79. Stockholm. Black Slip I Ware. 9. Bowl I. L. 420.77. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 2. A. 22.22. Stockholm. II. Jug I. M. 63.8. Stockholm. 12. Jug 2. L. 417.5°. Stockholm. Fig. X. Black Slip I Ware. I. Jug 3 a. L. 420.91. Stockholm. 2. Jug 3 b. L. 601.2. Uppsala. 3. Jug 4. L. 420.84. Stockholm.
XXIX
XXVIII 4. Jug 5 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, Michigan I, II C, PI. V1.6. (U.S.A. 91). 5. Jug 5 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pologne 2, Cracovie, Coli. de I'Univeraite, II C, PI. 2.12. (Pologne 75). 6. Bottle. L. 420.34. Stockholm. 7. Amphora I a. Handb. Cesn. Coli. 463. 8. Amphora I b. L. 408.81. Nicosia. 9. Amphora 2 a. L. 406.68. Stockholm. 10. Amphora 2 b. L. 408.54. Nicosia. I I. Amphora 3 a. L. 408.50. Nicosia. 12. Amphora 3 b. A. 15.8. Nicosia. 13. Amphora 3 c. Handb. Cesn, Coli. 464. Plain White I Ware. 14. Bowl I. A. 21.15. Stockholm. 15. Bowl 2. L. 420.73. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 3 a. L. 406.48. Stockholm. 17. Bowl 3 b. L. 420.28. Stockholm. 18. Bowl 4. L. 406. Suppl. N. 103. Stockholm.
Fig. XI. Plain White I Ware. I. Strai~er. L. 425.42. Nicosia. 2. Cup I. L. 417.11. Stockholm. 3. Cup 2. L. 417.74. Stockholm. 4. Jug I. L. 408.69. Nicosia. 5. Jug 2. L. 413.55. Stockholm. 6. Jug 3 a. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, PI. III. 9 8. 7· Jug 3 b. L. 417.45. Stockholm. 8. Jug 4 a. L. 406.71. Stockholm. 9. Jug 4 b. L. 406.49. Stockholm. 10. Jug 5. L. 408.14. Nicosia. I I. Jug 6 a. A. 24.8. Stockholm. 12. Jug 6 b. L. 417.1°3. Stockholm. 13. Amphora I. M .. 69.18. Stockholm. 14. Amphora 2 a. L. 420.1. Stockholm. 15. Amphora 2 b. L. 420.26. Stockholm. 16. Amphora 2 c. L. 417.108. Stockholm.
15. Bowl 9 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 8.9. (France 192). 16. Bowl 10. A. 19.1. Stockholm.
Fig. XVI. Bichrome II Ware. I. Strainer. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 11.27. (France 334). 2. Basket. A. 15.43. Nicosia. 3. Jug I. L. 413.6. Stockholm. 4. Jug 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. I I. 13. (France 334). 5. Jug 3· A. 19.20. Stockholm. 6. Jug 4. L. 408.80. Nicosia. 7· Jug 5. L. 4°3.82. Nicosia. 8. Jug 6. L. 413.12. Stockholm. 9. Jug 7. A. 19.16. Stockholm. 10. Jug 8. L. 408.N.2. Nicosia. II. Bottle. L. 601.10. Uppsala. 12. Flask. L. 429.13. Stockholm. 13. Askos. Handb. Cesn. Coli. 517. 14. Amphora. L. 429.26. Stockholm. Black Slip Painted II Ware. 15. Bowl. L. 401.77. Nicosia. Black Slip Bichrome II Ware. 16. Dish. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 3.16. (Gr. Brit. 47).
Fig. XIII. White Painted II Ware. I. Bowl I I. Cyp Mus., B. 1912. Nicosia. 2. Goblet. A. 15.6. Nicosia. 3. Basket. L. 4°3.147. Nicosia. 4. Cup. L. 412.8. Lund. 5. Jar. I. 3.11 I. Nicosia. 6. Jug I a. L. 411.3. Stockholm. 7. Jug I b. L. 429.6. Stockholm. 8. Jug 3. I. 231. Stockholm. 9. Jug 2. L. 428.71. Stockholm. 10. Jug 4. L. 4°3.138. Nicosia. I I. Jug 5 a. L. 403.44. Nicosia. 12. Jug 5 b. L. 4°3.112. Nicosia. 13. Jug 6 a. L. 401.25. Nicosia. 14. Jug 6 b. A. 22.19. Stockholm. 15. Jug 7 a. L. 402.33. Nicosia. 16. Jug 7 b. L. 402.8. Nicosia. 17. Jug 8 a. L. 401.49. Nicosia. 18. Jug 8 b. A. 14.3. Nicosia. 19. Jug 9 a. A. 10.26. Stockholm. 20. Jug 9 b. L. 4°3.83. Nicosia. 21. Jug 10. L. 408.60. Nicosia. Fig. XIV. White Painted II Ware. I. Bottle I. A. 15.52. Nicosia. 2. Bottle 2. Cyp. Coli. Ace, 446. Stockholm. 3. Amphora I. A. 10.41. Stockholm. 4. Amphora 2. L. 403.121. Nicosia. 5. Hom-shaped Vase. L. 429.30. Stockholm. 6. Amphora 3. A. 7.1°4. Stockholm. 7. Amphora 4. L. 411.2. Stockholm.
Fig. XII. Fig. XV. White Painted II Ware. I. Dish I a. L. 408.56. Nicosia. 2. Dish I b. A. 6.9. Lund. 3. Dish I b. A. 7.218. Stockholm. 4. Bowl I. A. 7.261. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 2. L. 401.79. Nicosia. 6. Bowl 3. L. 4°3.13. Nicosia. 7. Bowl 4 a. A. 7.130. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 4 b. L. 411.29. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 4 c. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. IX.1. (Gr. Brit. 488). 10. Bowl 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. X.32. (Gr. Brit. 489). II. Bowl 6. A. 14.34. Nicosia. 12. Bowl 7. A. 7.124. Stockholm. 13. Bowl 8. A. 7.254. Stockholm. 14. Bowl 9 a. A. 7.224. Stockholm.
White Painted II Ware. I. Hydria. L. 4°3.15°. Nicosia. 2. Ring-vessel. L. 401.6. Nicosia. 3. Askos. Cyp, Mus., B. 1933. Nicosia. 4. Support I. L. 402.42. Nicosia. 5. Support 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Ca, PI. 4. I I. (France 188). 6. Animal-shaped Vase I. L. 4°3.110. Nicosia. 7. Animal-shaped Vase 2. A. 14.79. Nicosia. Bichrome II Ware. 8. Dish I. A. 21.34. Stockholm. 9. Dish 2. A. 19.25. Stockholm. 10. Bowl I. L. 402.25. Nicosia. II. Bowl 2. A. 19.2. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 3. A. 7.232. Stockholm. 13. Bowl 4. A. 16.103. Stockholm.
r
Fig. XVII. Black Slip II Ware. I. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.14. (Gr. Brit. 61). 2. Jug 2. L. 401.71. Nicosia. 3. Jug 3. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 461. 4. Amphora I a. L. 4°3.19. Nicosia. 5. Amphora I b. L. 403.68. Nicosia. Plain White II Ware. 6. Bowl I. A. 24.10. Stockholm. 7. Bowl 2. A. 7.150. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 3. A. 19.23. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 4. A. 10.43. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 5. M. 69.23. Stockholm. II. Bowl 6. A. 7.216. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 7. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XIV.26. (Gr. Brit. 493). 13. Bowl 8. A. 14.66. Nicosia. 14. Bowl 9. L. 4°4.12. Stockholm. 15. Goblet I. A. 7.215. Stockholm. 16. Goblet 2. A. 7.139. Stockholm. 17. Jar. L. 4°3.115. Nicosia. 18. Jug I a. L. 401.66. Nicosia. 19. Jug I b. L. 429.21. Stockholm. 20. Jug 2. L. 402.29. Nicosia. 21. Jug 3. A. 6.18. Lund. 22. Jug 4 a. L. 4°3.85. Nicosia. 23. Jug 4 b. L. 429.33. Stockholm. 24. Jug 5. A. 19.11. Stockholm. 25. Jug 6. A. 24+ Stockholm. Fig. XVIII. White Painted III Ware. I. Dish. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid, Musee Archeologique National I, II Cb, PI. 4.6 b. (Espagne 8).
2. Bowl I. A. 7.230. Stockholm. 3. Bowl 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 3.10. (Gr. Brit. 47). 4. Bowl 3. A. 7.13. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 4. S. 6.15. Stockholm. 6. BowlS. A. 7.174. Stockholm. 7. Bowl 6. M. 69.15. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 7. Cyp, Mus., B. 506. Nicosia. 9. Bowl 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pologne 3, Museum Wielkopolskie, II C, PI. 2.6. (Pologne 118). 10. Bowl 9. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 4.14. (Gr. Brit. 48). I I. Cup I. S. 3.8. Stockholm. 12. Cup 2 a. M. 62.23. Stockholm. 13. Cup 2 b. L. 428+ Stockholm. 14. Jar I. L. 404.6. Stockholm. 15. Jar 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 225. Nicosia.
Fig. XIX. White Painted III Ware. I. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pays-Bas I, Musee Scheurleer I, II Cb, PI. 3.1. (Pays-Bas 5). 2. Jug 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 11.6. (Gr. Brit. 55). 3. Jug 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 11.15. (Gr. Brit. 55)· 4. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 11.3. (Gr. Brit. 55). 5. Jug 5. Cyp, Mus., B. 1070. Nicosia. 6. Jug 6. S. 9.4. Stockholm. 7. Jug 7 a. A. 7.222. Stockholm. 8. Jug 7 b. A. 11.59. Nicosia. 9. Jug 8. A. 23.36. Stockholm. 10. Jug 9. S. 6.12. Stockholm. II. Jug 10. L. 4°3.12. Nicosia. 12. Jug II a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.10. (Gr. Brit. 45). 13. Jug I I .b. M. 6 A,5. Nicosia. 14. Jug 12. L. 403.9. Nicosia. 15. Jug 13. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. I. I. (Gr. Brit. 45). 16. Flask. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.15. (France 190). 17. Bottle. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.7. (Gr. Brit. 45).
Fig. XX. White Painted III Ware. I. Amphora I a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 4.17. (Gr. Brit. 48). 2. Amphora I b. M. 98.1. Stockholm. 3. Amphora I c. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 9.2. (France 193). 4. Amphora 2. L. 4°3.1°3. Nicosia. 5· Amphora 3. A. 18.23. Nicosia.
xxx
XXXI
6. Amphora 4 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid, Musee Archeologique National I, II Cb, PI. 2.10. (Espagne 6). 7. Amphora 4 b. A. 23.67. Stockholm. 8. Amphora 4 c. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1108. 9. Hydria. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.33. (Gr. Brit. 45). 10. Animal-shaped Vase. L, 4°3.42. Nicosia. Fig. XXI. Bichrome III Ware. I. Dish. A. 7.131. Stockholm. 2. Bowl I. A. 11.89. Nicosia. 3. Bowl 2 a. S. 7.3. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 2 b. A. 16.150. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 3 a. Cyp, Mus., B. 1755. Nicosia. 6. Bowl 3 b. Cyp, Mus., B. 1403. Nicosia. 7· Bowl 4. S. 8.3. Stockholm. 8. Bowl j; A. 14.10. Nicosia. 9. Bowl 6. L. 404.15. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 7 a. S. 9.3. Stockholm. I I. Bowl 7 b. Cyp. Mus., B. 1920. Nicosia. Fig. XXII. Bichrome III Ware. I. Jar I. A. 13.40. Stockholm. 2. Jar 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 205. Nicosia. 3. Jar 3. Cyp. Mus., B. 1988. Nicosia. 4. Basket I. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 16.9. (France 339). 5. Basket 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 425. Nicosia. 6. Jug I. L. 4°3.116. Nicosia. 7. Jug 2 a. Handb. Cesn. Coil. 622. 8. Jug 2 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Belgique I, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux du Cinquantenaire I, II C, PI. 2. I I. (Belgique 2). 9· Jug 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus 2, II Cc, PI. 11.9. (Gr. Brit. 55). 10. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.12. (France 190). II. Jug 5 a. L. 410.1. Nicosia. 12. Jug 5 b. A. 11.64. Nicosia. 13· Jug 6 a. (Polychrome var.) A. 11.88. Nicosia. 14. Jug 6 b. S. 8.6. Stockholm. 15· Jug 7. A. 7.207. Stockholm. 16. Jug 8. A. 18.27. Nicosia. 17· Jug 9. A. 14.37. Nicosia. Fig. XXIII. Bichrome III Ware. I. Jug 10. A. 11.98. Nicosia. 2. Jug II. A. 18.8. Nicosia. 3· Jug 12. Cyp. Mus., B. 673. Nicosia. 4· Jug 13. Handb, Cesn, Coll. 772. 5. Jug 14. S. 6.2. Stockholm. 6. Jug 15. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 13.1. (France 336). 7. Jug 16. K. 563. Stockholm. 8. Jug 17. Cyp. Mus., B. 1091. Nicosia.
9. Jug 18. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 11.25. (France 334). 10. Jug 19. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XLI. (Gr. Brit. 490). I I. Jug 20. Cyp. Mus., B. 637. Nicosia. 12. Bottle I a. A. 7.127. Stockholm. 13. Bottle I b. Handb. Cesn, Coll. 629. 14. Bottle 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 875. Nicosia. 15. Amphora I. L. 402.10. Nicosia. 16. Amphora 2 a. S. 8.1. Stockholm. 17. Amphora 2 b. S. 9.1. Stockholm. 18. Amphora 2 c. Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, 1940, PI. 8 a. Fig. XXIV. Bichrome III Ware. I. Amphora 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid, Musee Archeologique National I, II Cb, PI. 2.6. (Espagne 6). 2. Amphora 4. S. 13.5. Stockholm. 3· Amphora 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 11.2. (France 334). 4. Ring-vessel. Coll. de Clercq V, PI. XXXV.559. 5. Animal-shaped Vase I. Cyp. Mus., B. 1192. Nicosia. 6. Animal-shaped Vase 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 25.1. (Danemark 25). 7. Animal-shaped Vase 3. Coll. de Clercq V, PI. XXXV.561. 8. Support. Handb. Cesn, Coil. 513. Black-on-Red I (III) Ware. 9. Bowl I. A. 16.33. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 2. A. 5.33. Nicosia. II. Bowl 3. L.427.4. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 4. A. 11.41. Nicosia. 13. Bowl g. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 13.1. (Gr. Brit. 57).
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Jug 8. Cyp. Mus., B. 1622. Nicosia. Jug 9. Cyp. Mus., B. 1613. Nicosia. Jug 10 a. M. 10.10. Stockholm. Jug 10 b. L. 410.5. Nicosia. Jug I I a. S. 9.2. Stockholm. Jug I I b. L, 403.8. Nicosia. Jug 12. Cyp, Mus., B. 2004. Nicosia. Jug 13. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16'35. (Gr. Brit. 60). Fig. XXVI.
Black-on-Red I (III) Ware. I. Amphora I. Cyp. Mus., B. 1395. Nicosia. 2. Amphora 2. A. 14.47. Nicosia. 3. Hydria, L, 41°+ Nicosia. Black Slip III Ware. 4. Jug I. L. 428.Dr.6. Stockholm. 5. Jug 2. A. 7.180. Stockholm. 6. Amphora. A. 14.13. Nicosia. Grey and Black Polished I (III) Ware. 7. Bowl. L, 4°1.42. Nicosia. 8. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XIV.5. (Gr. Brit. 493). 9. Jug 2. L.403.117. Nicosia. 10. Amphora I. S. 17.37. Stockholm. II. Amphora 2 a. L.403.79. Nicosia. 12. Amphora 2 b. A. 14.17. Nicosia. Red Slip I (III) Ware. 13. Bowl I. A.7.160. Stockholm. 14. Bowl 2. A.7.105. Stockholm. 15. Bowl 3. A.7.103. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 4. A. 14.21. Nicosia. 17. BowlS. L,403.67. Nicosia. Fig. XXVII.
Fig. XXV. Black-on-Red I (III) Ware. I. Bowl 6. A.5.27. Nicosia. 2. Bowl 7 a. Cyp, Mus., B. 1788. Nicosia. 3· Bowl 7 b. L. 4°2.36. Nicosia. 4. Jar I. L, 422.Dr.1. Stockholm. 5. Jar 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 27.10. (Danemark 27). 6. Jug I a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.1. (Gr. Brit. 60). 7. Jug I b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.5. (Gr. Brit. 60). 8. Jug 2. A. 7.239. Stockholm. 9. Jug 3 a. A.9.171. Stockholm. 10. Jug 3 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pays-Bas I, Musee Scheurleer I, II C, PI. 4.5. (Pays-Bas 6). I I. Jug 4. A. 7.155. Stockholm. 12. Jug 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.16. (Gr. Brit. 60). 13. Jug 6. A.9.34. Stockholm. 14· Jug 7. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.34. (Gr. Brit. 60).
Red Slip I (III) Ware. I. Cup. M.lo.18. Stockholm. 2. Jar. A. 13.36. Stockholm. 3. Jug I. A. 13.37. Stockholm. 4. Jug 2. A. 7.15. Stockholm. 5. Jug 3. A. 13.39. Stockholm. 6. Jug 4. A. 13.38. Stockholm. 7. Amphora I a. L. 403.45. Nicosia. 8. Amphora I b. A. 11.95. Nicosia. Plain White III Ware. 9. Bowl I. A. 15.5. Nicosia. 10. Bowl 2. A. 14.74. Nicosia. II. Bowl 3. A. 14.50. Nicosia. 12. Bowl 4. S. 13.6. Stockholm. 13. Bowl x, A.7.223. Stockholm. 14. Jug I. A. 11.40. Nicosia. 15. Jug 2. L, 4°3.146. Nicosia. 16. Jug 3. L, 402.27. Nicosia. 17. Jug 4. A. 8.63. Nicosia. 18. Jug 5. I. 840. Stockholm. 19. Jug 6. L, 403.27. Nicosia. 20. Jug 7. A. 14.15. Nicosia.
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
Jug 8. M.76.1. Stockholm. Jug 9. S. 9.6. Stockholm. Jug 10. S. 13.Dr.1. Stockholm. Amphora. I. 1149. Stockholm. Horn-shaped Vase I. A.1. 2746. Stockholm. Horn-shaped Vase 2. L, 4°3.17. Nicosia. Fig. XXVIII.
White Painted IV Ware. I. Bowl I. A. 8.93. Nicosia. 2. Bowl 2 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 4+ (Gr. Brit. 48). 3. Bowl 2 b. A.5.37. Nicosia. 4. Bowl 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 8.12. (France 192). 5. Bowl 4. A.1. 70. Stockholm. 6. BowlS. A. 16.50. Stockholm. 7. Bowl 6. A.8.79. Nicosia. 8. Bowl 7. A.8.42. Nicosia. 9. Bowl 8. A. 16.59. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 9. I. 769. Stockholm. II. Bowl 10. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 7+ (France 191). 12. Goblet. A.1. 2413. Stockholm. 13. Cup. M.75.17. Stockholm. 14. Jar. M. 10.32. Stockholm. 15. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid I, II Cb, PI. 3.8 a. (Espagne 7). 16. Jug 2. A. 8.129. Nicosia. 17. Jug 3 a. A. 23.43. Stockholm. 18. Jug 3 b. Cyp, Mus., B. 186. Nicosia. 19. Jug 3 c. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 26.2 b. (Danemark rzo). 20. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid, Musee Archeologique National I, II Cb, PI. 4.4. (Espagne 8). 21. Jug 5. A. 16.43. Stockholm. 22. Jug 6. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.4. (France 190). 23. Jug 7. A. 5.21. Nicosia. 24. Jug 8. A.9.88. Stockholm. 25· Jug 9. A.23.35. Stockholm. 26. Jug 10 a. A. 16.91. Stockholm. 27. Jug 10 b. Cyp. Mus., B. 1074. Nicosia. 28. Jug II a. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.1. (France 190). 29. Jug II b. A. 23.11. Stockholm. Fig. XXIX. White Painted IV Ware. I. Jug 12. M.75.2. Stockholm. 2. Jug 13 a. M.4.4. Stockholm. 3. Jug 13 b. S.4.3. Stockholm. 4. Jug 14. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 6.5. (France 190). 5. Jug 15. Cesnola, Atlas II. 975· 6. Jug 16. Handb, Cesn. Coll. 727· 7. Jug 17a. A.8.11. Nicosia.
XXXII
XXXIII
8. Jug 17 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pays-Bas I, Musee Scheurleer I, II Cb, PI. 3.5. (Pays-Bas 5). 9. Jug 18. M. 6 b.29. Nicosia. 10. Jug 19. Corp. Vas. Ant., Belgique I, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux du Cinquantenaire I, II C, PI. 2.15. (Belgique 2). II. Jug 20. Cyp, Mus., B. 1101. Nicosia. 12. Amphora I a. M. 10.22. Stockholm. 13. Amphora I b. M.69.6. Stockholm. 14. Amphora I c. 1. 244. Stockholm. Fig. XXX. White Painted IV Ware. I. Amphora 2. A.7.60. Stockholm. 2. Amphora 3 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 2.5. (Gr. Brit. 46). 3. Amphora 3 b. S.6.4. Stockholm. 4. Hydria I. M. 10.21. Stockholm. 5. Hydria 2. Cyp, Mus., B. 1125. Nicosia. 6. Bird-shaped Vase. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 9.6. (Gr. Brit. 53). Bichrome IV Ware. 7. Bowl I. A.7.102. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 2 a. S. 14 A. 3. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 2 b. S. 14 A. 4. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 3. A.I. 582. Stockholm. I I. Bowl 4. (Polychr, var.) A. 9.102. Stockholm. 12. BowlS. A. 16.127. Stockholm. 13. Bowl 6. I. 611. Stockholm. 14. Bowl 7. S. 14 A. 5. Stockholm. 15. Bowl 8. S. 17.32. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 9 a. S.6.2I. Stockholm. 17· Bowl 9 b. A.9.25. Stockholm. 18. Bowl 10. M.69.I. Stockholm. 19. Bowl I I. A.1. 952. Stockholm. Fig. XXXI. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Bowl 12. A. 16.119. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 13. S. 17.11. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 14 a. S. 13.9. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 14 b. S. 11.4. Stockholm. 5. Basket I a. S. 17.19. Stockholm. 6. Basket I b. S. 17.34. Stockholm. 7. Jar 2 a. M.75.18. Stockholm. 8. Jar 2 b. A.7.280. Stockholm. 9. Jar I. M.82.5. Lund. 10. Jar 3. S. 17.31. Stockholm. I I. Jar 4 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 8.2. (Gr. Brit. 52). 12. Jar 4 b. Cyp, Mus., B. 280. Nicosia. 13. Jar 5. Cyp. Mus., B. 281. Nicosia. 14. Jar 6. Cyp, Mus., B. 277. Nicosia. Fig. XXXII. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Jar 7. Cyp. Mus., B. 1992. Nicosia. 2. Jar 8. Handb. Cesn. Call. 775.
3. Jar 9. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXIII.19K. 4. Jar 10. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 6.2 a. (Gr. Brit. 50). 5. Jar I I a. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 20+ (France 343). 6. Jar I I b. Cyp. Mus., B. 1915. Nicosia. 7. Jar 12. Cyp, Mus., B. 218. Nicosia. 8. Jar 13 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 18.1. (France 341). 9. Jar 13 b. Cyp. Mus., B. 1981. Nicosia. 10. Jar 14. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 18.6. (France 341). Fig. XXXIII. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Jug I a. Ashmolean Museum, Inv. N. 1885/366. Oxford. 2. Jug I b. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb , PI. 13.8. (France 336). 3. Jug 2. A.23.39. Stockholm. 4. Jug 3. A. 8.12. Nicosia. 5. Jug 4 a. Cyp. Mus., B. 1929. Nicosia. 6. Jug 4 b. A. 8.75. Nicosia. 7. Jug 5 a. (Polychrome var.} A. 9.112. Stockholm. 8. Jug 5 b. A.8.19. Nicosia. 9. Jug 6 a. M.98.13. Stockholm. 10. Jug 6 b. Cyp, Mus., B.927. Nicosia. II. Jug 6 c. (Polychrome var.) A. 8.105. Nicosia. 12. Jug 7 a. M.75.22. Stockholm. 13. Jug 7 b. M.5.6. Uppsala, 14. Jug. 8. Cyp. Mus., B. 902. Nicosia. 15. Jug 9. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 4, Robinson Collection, Baltimore I, II C, PI. 11.8. (U.S.A. 135). 16. Jug 10. M. 82.35. Stockholm. 17. Jug II. A.9.18. Stockholm. 18. Jug 12. A. 16.92. Stockholm. 19. Jug 13 a. A. 7.43. Stockholm. 20. Jug 13 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 4, Robinson Collection, Baltimore I, II C, PI. 111+ (U.S.A. 136). Fig. XXXIV. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Jug 14 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 10.15. (Gr. Brit. 54). 2. Jug 14 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Belgique I, Musees Royaux du Cinquantenaire I, II C, PI. 2.13 b. (Belgique 2). 3· Jug 14 c. Handb. Cesn. Call. 754. 4. Jug 14 d. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 14.7. (France 337). 5. Jug 15 a. M.6A.8. Nicosia. 6. Jug 15 b. Handb. Cesn. Call. 755. 7· Jug 16 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 10.2. (Gr. Brit. 54). 8. Jug 16 b. S. 11.3. Stockholm. 9· Jug 16 c. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid, Musee Archeologique National I, II Cb, PI. 2.7. (Espagne 6). 10. Jug 17. Handb. Cesn. Call. 767.
Fig. XXXV. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Jug 18 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Belgique I, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux du Cinquantenaire I, II C, PI. 2.17. (Belgique 2). 2. Jug 18 b. Cyp. Mus., B.663. Nicosia. 3· Jug 19· Cyp. Mus., B. 581. Nicosia. 4· Jug 20. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 26.10. (Danemark 26). 5· Jug 21. Cyp. Mus., 655. Nicosia. 6. Jug 22. A.9.54. Stockholm. 7· Jug 23 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 12.16. (Gr. Brit. 56). 8. Jug 23 b. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XIX.3. 9· Jug 24· Handb. Cesn. Coll., 686. 10. Jug 25. Cyp, Mus., B. 1075. Nicosia. I I. Bottle. A. 16.4°. Stockholm. 12. Amphora I a. A.9.44. Stockholm. 13· Amphora I b. M. 6 B.23. Nicosia. 14· Amphora 2 a. Cyp, CoIL, Ace, 699. Stockholm. 15· Amphora 2 b. S. 17.1. Stockholm. Fig. XXXVI. Bichrome IV Ware. I. Amphora 3. M. 8.Dr.3. Stockholm. 2. Amphora 4 a. M. 64.2. Stockholm. 3· Amphora 4 b. M.62.34. Stockholm. 4· Amphora 5. I. 629. Stockholm. 5· Amphora 6 a. Cesnola, Atlas II. 922. 6. Amphora 6 b. I. 1534. Stockholm. 7· Amphora 7. Cyp, Mus., B. 210. Nicosia. 8. Amphora 8. Cyp. Mus., B. 1072. Nicosia. 9· Askos, Handb. Cesn. Coll. 519. 10. Bird-shaped Vase. Cyp. Mus., B. 1908. Nicosia. I I. Bird-shaped Vase. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 9.7. (Gr. Brit. 53). 12. Bird-shaped Vase. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 9.2. (Gl. Brit. 53). Fig. XXXVII. Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware. I. Bowl I. M. 10.3. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 2. M.75.8. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 3· M. 64.5. Stockholm. 4· Bowl 4· M. 8.Dr. 7 (SuppI.) Stockholm. 5· Bowl x, M.75.6. Stockholm. 6. Bowl 6. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. IX.2I. (U.S.A. 94). 7. Bowl 7 a. M.68.12. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 7 b. M. 68.11. Stockholm. 9· Bowl 8. M. 83.21. Nicosia. 10. Bowl 9 a. M.77+ Malmo. I I. Bowl 9 b. A. 7.21. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 10. M. 10.2. Stockholm. 13· Bowl II. A.9.116. Stockholm. 14· Bowl 12 a. M.62.46. Stockholm. 15· Bowl 12 b. A. 7.263. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 12 c. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 14-21. (Gr. Brit. 58).
17· 18. 19· 20. 21. 22. 23·
Bowl 13. M.68.4. Stockholm. Bowl 14. A.7.II3. Stockholm. Bowl IS. M. 68.5. Stockholm. Bowl 16 a. A. 7.37. Stockholm. Bowl 16 b. M. 79.2. Nicosia. Bowl 17. I. 1541. Stockholm. Bowl 18 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 14.19. (Gr. Brit. 58). 24. Bowl 18 b. M.83.I7. Nicosia. 25· Bowl 18 c. A. 16.149. Stockholm. 26. Bowl 19. M. 68.8. Stockholm. Fig. XXXVIII. Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware. I. Jar I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 13+ (Gr. Brit. 57). 2. Jar 2. M. 8.Dr. 5. Stockholm. 3· Jar 3· Cesnola, Atlas II. 926. 4· Jar 4· Cesnola, Atlas II. 901. 5· Jar 5· M. 79.24. Nicosia. 6. Jar 6. Cyp. Mus., B. 214. Nicosia. 7· Jug I. Handb. Cesn. Call. 809. 8. Jug 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 1564. Nicosia. 9· Jug 3 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.43. (Gr. Brit. 60). 10. Jug 3 b. M.75.1I. Stockholm. II. Jug 4 a. Cyp. Mus., B. 1572. Nicosia. 12. Jug 4 b. A. 9.129. Stockholm. 13· Jug 5 a. Cyp. Mus., B. 1579. Nicosia. 14· Jug 5 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pays-Bas I, Musee Scheurleer I, II C, PI. 4.10. (Pays-Bas 6). IS· Jug 6. Exc. in Cyp., p. 76, Fig. 133.1. 16. Jug 7. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 821. 17· Jug 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 13.13. (Gr. Brit. 57). 18. Jug 9 a. M.98.42. Stockholm. 19· Jug 9 b. A. 9.170. Stockholm. 20. Jug 9 c. I. 755. Stockholm. 21. Jug 10. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. X.2. (U.S.A. 95). 22. Jug I I. M. 10.8. Stockholm. 23· Jug 12. A. 8.96. Nicosia. 24· Jug 13· M. 98.7. Stockholm. Fig. XXXIX. Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware. I. Jug 14 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 14.14. (Gr. Brit. 58). 2. Jug 14 b. S. 17.30. Stockholm. 3· Jug IS a. Cyp, Mus., B. 961. Nicosia. 4· Jug IS b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 13.15. (Gr. Brit. 57). 5· Jug 16. Corp. Vas. Ant., Pologne I, Goluchow, II C, PI. 4.10. (Pologne 4). 6. Jug 17. M. 98.7. Stockholm. 7· Jug 18. Cyp. Mus., B. 1871. Nicosia.
XXXIV 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
xxxv
Jug 19. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 818. Jug 20 a. Cyp. Mus., B. 1548. Nicosia. Jug 20 b. Cyp. Mus., B. 1549. Nicosia. Jug 21 a. Cyp. Mus., B. 1535. Nicosia. Jug 21 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.4. (Gr. Brit. 61). Jug 22. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 819. Jug 23. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 13.11. (Gr. Brit. 57)· Jug 24. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 882. Amphora I. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1157· Bottle I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II <;, Pl. 27.6. (Danemark 27)· Bottle 2. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C. 892. Askos I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 13.12. (Gr. Brit. 57). Askos 2. Exc. in Cyp., p, 77, Fig. 138. Alabastron. Maximova, Les vases plastiques dans l'ant. II, Pl. IV. 18 b. Fig. XL.
Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware. I. Amphora 2 a. A.23.25. Stockholm. 2. Amphora 2 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 14.3. (Gr. Brit. 58). 3. Amphora 3. M.IO.35. Stockholm. 4. Amphora 2 c. M. 10.28. Stockholm. 5. Amphora 4. A. 16.152. Stockholm. 6. Hydria. Cyp. Mus., B. 1391. Nicosia. Bichrome Red I (IV) Ware. 7. Bowl I a. M.68.6. Stockholm. 8. Bowl I b. M. 8.3. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 2. M.82.18. Lund. 10. Jar I. Cyp. Mus., B. 1388. Nicosia. Fig. XLI. Bichrome Red I (IV) Ware. I. Jar 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 13.14. (Gr. Brit. 57)· 2. Jar 3. M. 6 B.26. Nicosia. 3. Jar 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 14.13. (Gr. Brit. 58). 4. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 14.15. (Gr. Brit. 58). 5. Jug 2. M. 77.5. Malmo. 6. Jug 3. Cyp, Mus., B. 1527. Nicosia. 7. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, Pl. 27.12. (Danemark 27)· 8. Jug 5. A.8.7. Nicosia. 9. Jug 6. M.82.25. Lund. 10. Jug 7. Cyp, Mus., B. 1626. Nicosia. II. Jug 8. Cyp. Mus., B.1229. Nicosia. 12. Jug 9. Cyp. Mus., B. 92. Nicosia. 13. Jug 10. A.7.16. Stockholm. 14. Jug II. Cyp. Mus., B. 1511. Nicosia. Fig. XLII. Bichrome Red I (IV) Ware.
I. Jug 12. Cyp, Mus., B.200I. Nicosia. 2. Jug 13. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, Pl. XLII. (Gr. Brit. 490). 3. Jug 14. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 13.8. (Gr. Brit. 57)· 4. Jug 15. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Pl. XIX.2. 5. Jug 16. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 931. 6. Amphora I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 14.17. (Gr. Brit. 58). 7. Amphora 2 a. M.6 B.33. Nicosia. 8. Amphora 2 b. M. 79.6. Nicosia. 9. Askos. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, Pl. 19.24. (Gr. Brit. 63)· Red Slip II (IV) Ware. 10. Bowl I. A 2.44. Stockholm. II. Bowl 2. A. 16.148. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb,.' Pl. 25.7. (France 34 8). 13. Bowl 4. Cyp. Mus., C.402. Nicosia. 14. BowlS. M. 6 B.I2. Nicosia. 15. Bowl 6. M. 98.15. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 7. A. 11.21. Nicosia. 17. Bowl 8. A.8.136. Nicosia. 18. Bowl 9. A. 8.53. Nicosia. 19. Cup I. M. 6 A6. Nicosia. 20. Cup 2. M.75.15. Stockholm. Fig. XLIII. Red Slip II (IV) Ware. I. Jar I. A.2.49. Stockholm. 2. Jar 2. Cesnola, Atlas II. 902 .. 3. Jug I. A.23.46. Stockholm. 4. Jug 2. A.16.80. Stockholm. 5. Jug 3. A.9.126. Stockholm. 6. Jug 4. A. 16.75. Stockholm. 7. Jug 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. II Cc, Pl. 20.6. (Gr. Brit. 64)· 8. Jug 6. M.6 B.27. Nicosia. 9. Jug 7. M. 10.1. Stockholm. 10. Jug 8 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. II Cc, Pl. 20.1. (Gr. Brit. 64)· II. Jug 8 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. II Cc, Pl. 20.4. (Gr. Brit. 64)· 12. Jug 9. A.7.113. Stockholm. 13. Jug 10. Cesnola, Atlas II. 106 3. 14. Flask. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 473· Black Slip IV Ware. 15. Bowl. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. II Cc, Pl. 17.17. (Gr. Brit. 61). 16. Jug. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. II Cc, Pl. 17.21. (Gr. Brit. 61). 17. Amphora. M. 5.14. Nicosia, Grey and Black Polished II (IV) Ware. 18. Bowl I. S. 17.21. Stockholm. 19. Bowl 2. I. 572. Stockholm. 20. Bowl 3. Cyp. Mus., B. 1234. Nicosia. 21. Bowl 4. I. 663. Stockholm.
Bowl x. Cyp, Mus., B. 1230. Nicosia. Jug I a. 1. 574. Stockholm. Jug I b. A 11.25. Nicosia. Jug 2. I. 568. Stockholm. Jug 3· Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II Cambridge 2, II Cc, Pl. XIV. 3. (Gr. Brit. 493). ' 27· Jug 4. 1. 660. Stockholm. 28. Amphora. Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid I, II Cb , PI. 4.12. (Espagne 8). 22. 23· 24· 25· 26.
Fig. XLIV. Plain White IV Ware. I. Bowl I. A. 8.88. Nicosia. 2. Bowl 2. I. 607. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 3. M.64+ Stockholm. 4· Bowl 4. M.77.I. Malmo. 5· BowlS· A. I I .62. Nicosia. 6. Goblet I. A.I. 2411. Stockholm. 7· Goblet 2. A.I. 74. Stockholm. 8. Cup. M.77.7. Malmo. 9· Jar I. AI. 2397. Stockholm. 10. Jar 2. M. 81 A.3. Stockholm. I I. Jar 3. AI. 201. Stockholm. 12. Jug I. A.9.43. Stockholm. 13· Jug 2. I. 758. Stockholm. 14· Jug 3. A 8.89. Nicosia. 15· Jug 4· Handb. Cesn. Coll. 962. 16. Jug 5. A 8.44. Nicosia. Fig. XLV.
2,
2, 2,
2, 2,
Plain White IV Ware. I. Jug 6. A. 11.13. Nicosia. 2. Jug 7. A 8.94. Nicosia. 3· Jug 8. I. 761. Stockholm. 4· Jug 9 a. M.73.II. Stockholm. 5· Jug 9 b. A.1. 1671. Stockholm. 6. Jug 10. A 23.27. Stockholm. 7· Jug I I. A.8.22. Nicosia. 8. Jug 12. I. 569. Stockholm. 9· Jug 13. I. 598. Stockholm. 10. lug 14· M.7I.5. Stockholm. II. Jug 15 a. M.82.4. Lund. 12. Jug 15 b. M. 85.2. Stockholm. 13. Jug 16. A. 16.28. Stockholm. 14· Jug 17. A.1. 2652. Stockholm. 15· Jug 18. A.8.84. Nicosia. 16. Amphora I a. A.7.33. Stockholm. 17· Amphora I b. M.98.5. Stockholm. 18. Amphora 2. M.78.6. Stockholm. 19· Amphora 3. A.8.23. Nicosia. Fig. XLVI. White Painted V Ware. I. Bowl I. A. 10.10. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 2. A.9.143. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 3· A.1. 47. Stockholm.
4· Bowl 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. IX.12. (U.S.A. 94). 5· Goblet. A.1.2412. Stockholm. 6. Jar. I. 1540. Stockholm. 7· Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, Pl. 9.1. (France 193). 8. Jug 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, Pl. 6.9. (France 190). 9· Jug 3 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2 II Cc, PI. 1.3. (Gr. Brit. 45). ' 10. Jug 3 b. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1006. I I. Jug 4. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 654. 12. Jug 5· Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. I I. 17. (France 334). 13· Jug 6. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1048. 14· Jug 7· Corp. Vas. Ant., Espagne I, Madrid I, II Cb, PI. 4.1. (Espagne 8). IS· Jug 8. A.1. 581. Stockholm. 16. Jug 9 a. A. 11.26. Nicosia. 17· Jug 9 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Belgique I, Bruxelles, Musees Royaux du Cinquantenaire I, II C, PI. 2.12. (Belgique 2). 18. Jug 9 c. M.84.3. Stockholm. 19· Jug 10. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.19. (Gr. Brit. 63). 20. Askos. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague Musee National I, II C, PI. 25.5. (Danemark 25). ' Fig. XLVII. White Painted V Ware. I. Amphora I. M. 50.6. Stockholm. 2. Amphora 2. Cyp. Mus., B. 291. Nicosia. 3· Amphora 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 1.31. (Gr. Brit. 45). 4· Amphora 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Bri Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.6. (Gr. Brit. 63). 5· Hydria. M. 77.8. Malmo. Bichrome V Ware. 6. Bowl I a. A.16.14. Stockholm. 7· Bowl I b. A.9.105. Stockholm. 8. Bowl I c. A 9.30. Stockholm. 9· Bowl 2. I. 659. Stockholm. 10. Bowl 3. I. 657. Stockholm. II. Bowl 4. A. 10.30. Stockholm. 12. BowlS. A 9.115. Stockholm. 13· Bowl 6. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. X.33. (Gr. Brit. 489). 14· Bowl 7. A. 9.13°. Stockholm. 15· Bowl 8. A.1. 2738. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 9· (Polychrome var.) Melanges syriens off. R. Dussand I, PI. II.
a
Fig. XLVIII. Bichrome V Ware. I. Bowl 10. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 83 8. 2. Bowl I I. AI. 68. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 12. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague Musee National I, II C, PI. 26.8. (Danemark 26). '
XXXVII
XXXVI 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I I.
Bowl 13. Handb. Cesn. CoIl. 680. Jar I. I. 1425. Stockholm. Jar 2. M.73.17. Stockholm. Jar 3. M.84.5· Stockholm. Jar 4. M. 82.17· Lund. Jar 5 a. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 839· Jar 6. Cyp. Mus., B. 226. Nicosia. Jar 5 b. S.2.IO. Stockholm.
Fig. XLIX. Bichrome V Ware. I. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 13, Musee National de Sevres, II Cb, PI. 10.7. (France 539)· 2. Jug 2. Handb. Cesn. CoIl. 7 65. 3. Jug 3· M.85·3· Stockholm. 4. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 8.8. (France 192). 5. Jug 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 11.9. (France 334)· 6. Jug 6; (Polychrome var.) Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15.
C 953. Jug 7 a. (Polychrome var.) A. 8.18. Nicosia. Jug 7 b. I. 747. Stockholm. Jug 7 c. S. 11.5. Stockholm. Jug 8. M.95.17. Stockholm. Jug 9 a. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 86 9. Jug 9 b. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 990. Jug 10. (Polychrome var.) A. 11.31. Nicosia. Jug I I a. M.78.2. Stockholm. Jug lIb. M.75.3. Stockholm.
Fig. L. Bichrome V Ware. I. Jug 12. Cyp. Mus., B. 1950. Nicosia. 2. Jug 13. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 4, Robinson Collection, Baltimore I, II C, PI. III.1. (U.S.A. 13 6). 3. Jug 14. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.1 I. (Gr. Brit. 63)· 4. Jug 15. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.12. (Gr. Brit. 63)· 5. Jug 16. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 12.14. (Gr. Brit. 56). 6. Jug 17. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 793· 7. Amphora I. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 11.15. (France 334). 8. Amphora 2. M.84.19. Stockholm. 9. Amphora 3 a. M. 71.3. Stockholm. 10. Amphora 3 b. (Polychrome var.) Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 851. II. Amphora 3 b. (Polychrome var.) Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 853. 12. Amphora 3 b. (Polychrome var.) Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 849. 13. Amphora 4. (Polychrome var.) A. 10.16. Stockholm. 14. Amphora 5 a. (Polychrome var.) Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 963.
Fig. LI. Bichrome V Ware. I. Amphora 5 b. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, 9 64. 2. Amphora 6. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, 840. 3. Amphora 7 a. Cyp. Mus., B.20. Nicosia. 4. Amphora 7 b. M.62.25· Stockholm. 5. Amphora 8. I. 240. Stockholm. 6. Amphora 9. A. 16.153. Stockholm. 7. Amphora 10. M.75.1. Stockholm. Fig. LII. Black-on-Red III (V) Ware. I. Bowl I. M.78.3. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 2. M. 6 A.lo. Nicosia. 3. Jar I. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 14.7. (Gr. Brit. 58). 4. Jar 2. M. 94.5. Stockholm. 5. Jar 3. A. 16.121. Stockholm. 6. Jug I. M. 97.7. Nicosia. 7. Jug 2. M. 52.4. Stockholm. 8. Jug 3. M. 73.2. Stockholm. 9. Jug 4. Cyp. Mus., B. 654. Nicosia. 10. Jug 5. M.72.22. Stockholm. I I. Jug 6. M. 6 B.3. Nicosia. 12. Jug 7. M.73.1. Stockholm. 13. Amphora I. A. 2.48. Stockholm. 14. Amphora 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb , PI. 25.1. (France 34 8). 15. Amphora 3. I. 760. Stockholm. Fig. LIII. Bichrome Red II (V) Ware. I. Bowl I. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. IX.25· (U.S.A. 94)· 2. Bowl 2. M.72.14. Stockholm. 3. Bowl 3. M.75.21. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 4. M. 62.38. Stockholm. 5. BowlS. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.16. (Gr. Brit. 61). 6. Bowl 6. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXVIII.1. 7. Bowl 7. M.75.16. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 8 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 25.3. (France 34 8). 9. Bowl 8 b. M.71.1. Stockholm. 10. Jar. M.95.7. Stockholm. II. Jug I. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 25.14. (France 348). 12. Jug 2. M.44.35. Nicosia. 13. Jug 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 16.7. (Gr. Brit. 60). 14. Jug 4. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 25.8. (France 348). 15. Jug 5 a. M.44.14. Nicosia. 16. Jug 5 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.1 I. (Gr. Brit. 61). 17. Jug 6. M.92.18. Stockholm. 18. Jug 7. M.62.12. Stockholm.
19· Jug 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 13, Musee National de Sevres, II Cb, PI. 10.14. (France 539). 20. Jug 9 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 15.9. (Gr. Brit. 59). 21. Jug 9 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.6. (Gr. Brit. 61).
Fig. LIV. Bichrome Red II (V) Ware. I. Jug 10. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 931. 2. Jug I I. M. 14.13. Nicosia. 3· Jug 12. M. 5.18. Uppsala. 4· Jug 13. Handb. Cesn. Coll. 935. 5. Jug 14 a. M. 50.8. Stockholm. 6. Jug 14 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 28+ (Danemark 28). 7· Jug 15 a. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXVII.3. 8. Jug 15 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 5, Louvre 4, II Cb, PI. 21.2. (France 344). 9· Jug 15 c. M. 62.15. Nicosia. 10. Jug 16 a. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXII.I a. II. Jug 16 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 28.1. (Danemark 28). 12. Jug 17. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 975.
Fig. LV. Bichrome Red II (V) Ware. I. Jug 18. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 15.19. (Gr. Brit. 59). 2. Jug 19. Cyp. Mus., C. 343. Nicosia. 3. Amphora I. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1175. 4. Amphora 2. M. 5°.10. Stockholm. 5· Amphora 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.10. (Gr. Brit. 61). 6. Amphora 4. M. 95.20. Stockholm. 7· Amphora 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. X.1. (U.S.A. 95). 8. Amphora 6. A. 9.86. Stockholm. 9· Amphora 7. A.8.77. Nicosia. 10. Amphora 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., France 8, Louvre 5, II Cb, PI. 25.2. (France 348). I I. Amphora 9. M. 82.21. Lund. 12. Amphora 10. I. 235. Stockholm. 13. Amphora II. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 13.5. (Gr. Brit. 57).
Fig. LVI. Black Slip V Ware. I. Bowl. M. 69.29. Stockholm. 2. Jug I. M. 26.14. Stockholm. 3· Jug 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. X.21. (U.S.A. 95). Grey and Black Polished III (V) Ware. 4· Jug. M.23.17. Stockholm. Red Slip III (V) Ware.
5. Bowl I. M.89.12. Stockholm. 6. Bowl 2. M.84.15. Stockholm. 7· Bowl 3 a. M.24.1. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 3 b. M. 32.N.1.2. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 4. M. 56.39. Stockholm. 10. Cup I. M.73.12. Stockholm. II. Cup 2. M.89.15. Stockholm. 12. Jug I a. A. 9.94. Stockholm. 13· Jug I b. A. 9.165. Stockholm. 14. Jug 2. I. 154. Stockholm. 15· Jug 3. M. 5.8. Uppsala, 16. Jug 4. M. 74.3. Stockholm. 17· Jug 5. I. 599. Stockholm. 18. Jug 6. M.62.13. Nicosia. Plain White V Ware. 19. Bowl I. I. 610. Stockholm. 20. Bowl 2. A.I. 2653. Stockholm. 21. Bowl 3. I. 404. Stockholm. 22. Bowl 4. M.72.7. Stockholm. 23· BowlS. AI. 2747. Stockholm. 24· Bowl 6 a. M. 71.2. Stockholm. 25· Bowl 6 b. M. 6 B.19. Nicosia. 26. Bowl 7. A.I. 2055. Stockholm. 27· Jar I. I. 480. Stockholm. 28. Jar 2. M.84.9- Stockholm. 29· Jar 3. M.82.32. Lund. 30. Jar 4. M. 5.1. Uppsala. 31. Goblet. AI. 78. Stockholm. Fig. LVII. Plain White V Ware. I. Jug I a. M.31.7. Copenhagen. 2. Jug I b. I. 529. Stockholm. 3· Jug 2 a. I. 34. Stockholm, 4· Jug 2 b. I. 495. Stockholm. 5· Jug 3· M.72.16. Stockholm. 6. Jug 4 a. M. 50.7. Stockholm. 7· Jug 4 b. M. 20.28. Stockholm. 8. Jug 4 c. AI. 2576. Stockholm. 9· Jug 4 d. I. 457. Stockholm. 10. Jug 4 e. I. 751. Stockholm. II. Jug 5. I. 1476. Stockholm. 12. Jug 6. I. 748. Stockholm. 13· Jug 7. M.78.1. Stockholm. 14. Jug 8. M.72.IO. Stockholm. 15· Jug 9. M. 26.3. Stockholm. 16. Jug 10. M. 6 B.17. Nicosia. 17. Rhyton I. A.I. 2654. Stockholm. 18. Rhyton 2. Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. XX.13. 19· Amphora I. M. 14.53. Nicosia. 20. Amphora 2. A.25.16. Stockholm. 21. Amphora 3. M.6 B.14. Nicosia. 22. Amphora 4. M. 96.9. Stockholm. 23· Amphora 5. M. 96.10.' Stockholm. 24. Amphora 6. M.80.17. Copenhagen. 25· Amphora 7. M. 83.3. Nicosia. 26. Hydria. M.95.15. Stockholm.
XXXVIII
XXXIX Fig. LVIII.
White Painted VI Ware. I. Bowl I. V. 1.50. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 2. M. 44.37. Nicosia. 3. Jug I. M. 14.30. Nicosia. 4. Jug 2. M. 20.23. Stockholm. 5. Jug 3. M. 56.1. Stockholm. 6. Jug 4. M. 41.30. Nicosia. 7. Jug 5· Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.21. (Gr. Brit. 63). 8. Jug 6. V. 1.98. Stockholm. 9. Jug 7. M.26.Dr.1. Stockholm. 10. Jug 8. V. 7.5. Stockholm. I I. Jug 9. M.47.19. Nicosia. 12. Jug 10. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLII.21. 13. Jug II. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.23. (Gr. Brit. 63). 14. Jug 12. V. 1.43. Stockholm. 15. Jug 13. V. 1+ Stockholm.
Fig. LIX. White Painted VI Ware. I. Amphora I. V. 338. Stockholm. 2. Amphora 2. V. 136. Stockholm. 3. Amphora 3· M.47.3. Nicosia. 4. Hydria. V. 3.30. Nicosia. Bichrome VI Ware. 5. Jar. M. 43.48. Stockholm. 6. Jug I. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 944. 7. Jug 2. M. 20.8. Stockholm. Fig. LX. Black-on-Red IV (VI) Ware. I. Jug I. M.41.44. Nicosia. 2. Jug 2. M.25.14. Nicosia. 3. Jar. M.23.12. Stockholm. Bichrome Red III (VI) Ware. 4. Bowl I. M. 23.7. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 2. Cyp, Mus., C.41. Nicosia. 6. Bowl 3. M. 14.6. Nicosia. 7. Jar I a. M. 14.49. Nicosia. 8. Jar I b. M.42.7. Nicosia. 9. Jar I c. M. 56.17. Stockholm. 10. Jar 2. M.39.22. Uppsala. I I. Jug I. M. 23.18. Stockholm. 12. Jug 2. M.3I.Dr.N.2.1. Copenhagen. 13. Jug 3 a. V. 3.32. Nicosia. 14. Jug 3 b. V. 3.28. Nicosia. 15. Jug 4· M. 37.11. Nicosia 16. Jug 5. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 17.3. (Gr. Brit. 61). 17. Jug 6. ColI. Millberg, Alta by Stockholm. 18. Jug 7. M. 42.21. Nicosia. 19. Amphora I. M. 41.29. Nicosia. 20. Amphora 2. M. 14.50. Nicosia.
Fig. LXI. Black Slip VI Ware. I. Bowl I. M. 39.20. Uppsala. 2. Bo~l 2. M. 20.21. Stockholm. 3· Bowl 3. Corp. Vas. Ant., U.S.A. 3, University of Michigan I, II C, PI. X.22. (U.S.A. 95). 4· Bowl 4. M. 47.9. Nicosia. 5. BowlS. M. 18.13. Stockholm. 6. Jug. V. 1.96. Stockholm. Red Slip IV (VI) Ware. 7. Bowl I. M. 39.11. Uppsala. 8. Bowl 2 a. M. 35.3. Stockholm. 9· Bowl 2 b. M. 49+ Stockholm. 10. Bowl 3. M. 44.Dr.3. Nicosia. I I. Bowl 4. M. 42.25. Nicosia. 12. BowlS a. M.23.14. Stockholm. 13· BowlS b. M.35.5. Stockholm. 14· Bowl 6. M.43.1I. Stockholm. 15· Bowl 7. M.44.30. Nicosia. 16. Jar I. M.32.N.3.4. Stockholm. 17. Jar 2. M. 39.15. Uppsala. 18. Jug. M.42.IO. Nicosia. Black Lustrous I (VI) Ware. 19· Bowl. M.67.3. Nicosia. 20. Jug. M.14.45. Nicosia. Stroke Polished I (VI) Ware. 21. Bowl. Cyp. Mus., B. 1232. Nicosia. 22. Jar. M.43.17. Stockholm. 23· Jug I a. M. 43.50. Stockholm. 24· Jug I b. M.38+ Stockholm. 25· Jug 2. M. 32.N.3.3. Stockholm. 26. Jug 3. M. 57.7. Stockholm. 27· Askos. M.42.17. Nicosia. Plain White VI Ware. 28. Bowl I. M.23.1I. Stockholm. 29. Bowl 2. M.20.12. Stockholm. 30. Bowl 3. V.432. Stockholm. 31. Bowl 4. V. 551. Stockholm. 32. BowlS. M.59.lo. Nicosia. 33· Bowl 6. M.44.18. Nicosia. Fig. LXII. Plain White VI Ware. I. Jar I. M. 52.Dr.1. Stockholm. 2. Jar 2. V.132. Stockholm. 3. Jar 3. V. 1.1 I. Stockholm. 4. Jar 4 a. M.20.29. Stockholm. 5. Jar 4 b. M. 39.Dr.1. Uppsala. 6. Jug I. M. 20.14. Stockholm. 7. Jug 2. M.24.2. Stockholm. 8. Jug 3 a. V. 304. Stockholm. 9. Jug 3 b. V. 2.12. Stockholm. 10. Jug 4. M.23.1. Stockholm. I I. Jug 5 a. M. 56.25. Stockholm. 12. Jug 5 b. M.58.51. Stockholm. 13· Jug 5 c. M. 58.12. Stockholm. 14· Jug 5 d. M.52.5. Stockholm. 15. Jug 5 e. M. 42.1 I. Nicosia.
16. 17· 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug
6. V. 1.86. Stockholm. 7. V. 12.8. Stockholm. 8. M.21.18. Nicosia. 9 a. M. 23.6. Stockholm. 9 b. V. 2.22. Stockholm. 10. M. 25.Dr.1. Nicosia. II. M. 32.N.3.6. Stockholm. Fig. LXIII.
Plain White VI Ware. I. Jug 12. V. 355. Stockholm. 2. Jug 13. V. 563. Stockholm. 3· Jug 14 a. M. 57.16. Stockholm. 4. Jug 14 b. M. 32.N.1.3. Stockholm. 5· Jug 15. M. 20.19. Stockholm. 6. Jug 16. V. 12.7. Stockholm. 7· Jug 17. M.20.20. Stockholm. 8. Amphora I a. M. 39.1. Uppsala. 9· Amphora I b. M. 80+ Copenhagen. 10. Amphora 2. V. 266. Stockholm. I I. Amphora 3 a. M. 58.66. Stockholm. 12. Amphora 3 b. M. 18.5. Stockholm. 13· Amphora 3 c. M.58.47. Stockholm. 14· Amphora 4 a. M. 26.13. Stockholm. 15· Amphora 4 b. V. 3.1. Nicosia. 16. Hydria, V. 1.26. Stockholm. Fig. LXIV. White Painted VII Ware. I. Bowl. Cyp. Mus., C. 81. Nicosia. 2. Jar I. M.52.Dr.2. Stockholm. 3. Jar 2. M. 59.Dr.3. Nicosia. 4. Jug I. M. 16.5. Nicosia. 5. Jug 2. M.27.lo. Stockholm. 6. Jug 3 a. M. 60.22. Nicosia. 7· Jug 3 b. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain II, Cambridge 2, II C, PI. XI. 14. (Gr. Brit. 490). 8. Jug 4. M. 72.24. Stockholm. 9· Jug 5 a. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 18.18. (Gr. Brit. 62). 10. Jug 5 b. M. 37.2. Nicosia. II. Jug 6. Cyp. Mus., B. 1467. Nicosia. 12. Jug 7. V. 11.16. Stockholm. 13· Jug 8. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.33. (Gr. Brit. 63). 14. Bottle. M.22.16. Stockholm. 15. Amphora I. Cyp, Mus., D. 650. Nicosia. 16. Amphora 2. Cyp, Mus., D.247. Nicosia. 17. Hydria. M. 53.9. Stockholm. Fig. LXV. Bichrome VII Ware. I. Bowl I. (Polychrome var.) Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXVIII.3. 2. Bowl 2. Cyp, Mus., D.655. Nicosia. 3. Jug I. V.8.13. Stockholm. 4. Jug 2 a. M.25.lo. Nicosia.
5· Jug 2 b. (Polychrome var.) M.43.24. Stockholm. 6. Jug 3 a. M.59.Dr.2. Nicosia. 7· Jug 3 b. (Polychrome var.) Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXIV.1. 8. Jug 4· Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 20.12. (Gr. Brit. 64). 9· Jug 5. Cyp, Mus., B.999. Nicosia. 10. Jug 6. Cyp. Mus., B. 1071. Nicosia. II. Amphora. Cyp, Mus., B. 364. Nicosia. Fig. LXVI. Black-on-Red V (VII) Ware. I. Jug I. M. 16.6. Nicosia. 2. Jug 2. Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.28. (Gr. Brit. 63). 3· Jug 3. M. 43.47. Stockholm. Bichrome Red IV (VII) Ware. 4· Bowl. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark I, Copenhague, Musee National I, II C, PI. 28.6. (Danemark 28). 5. Jug I. V. 13.22. Nicosia. 6. Jug 2. V. 14.14. Nicosia. 7· Jug 3· Corp. Vas. Ant., Great Britain 2, Brit. Mus. 2, II Cc, PI. 19.35. (Gr. Brit. 63). 8. Jug 4. Handb. Cesn. Col!. 941. Red Slip V (VII) Ware. 9· Bowl I. M. 53.10. Nicosia. 10. Bowl 2. M. 37.18. Nicosia. II. Bowl 3. M.22.14. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 4. M. 39.6. Uppsala. 13· Bowl x. M.56.2. Stockholm. 14· Jar I a. M.34.54. Stockholm. 15. Jar I b. M.25.Dr.3. Nicosia. 16. Jug. M.37.3. Nicosia. Fig. LXVII. Stroke Polished II (VII) Ware. I. Bowl I. M. 43.30. Stockholm. 2. Bowl 2. M. 21.1. Nicosia. 3· Bowl 3. M. 36+ Stockholm. 4· Bowl 4· M. 21. 15. Nicosia. 5· BowlS· M. 52.9. Stockholm. 6. Jug I. M. 22.36. Stockholm. 7· Jug 2. M. 37.1. Nicosia. 8. Jug 3. M.25.7. Nicosia. 9· Amphora. Cyp, ColI., ACC.406. Stockholm. Red Lustrous I (VII) Ware. 10. Jug. M.34.34. Stockholm. Plain White VII Ware. I I. Bowl I. M. 34.24. Stockholm. 12. Bowl 2. V. 1.35. Stockholm. 13· Bowl 3. M. 58.77. Stockholm. 14· Bowl 4. V. 16.18. Stockholm. 15· Bowl x. V. 1.69. Stockholm. 16. Bowl 6. V. 13.17. Nicosia. 17· Bowl 7. M. 2i:.16. Nicosia. 18. Bowl 8. M.43.16. Stockholm. 19· Bowl 9 a. M.57.1. Stockholm.
XL 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
Bowl 9 b. M.43.27. Stockholm. Bowl 10. M. 22.29. Stockholm. Bowl I I. M. 34.5. Stockholm. Jar I. M. 2I.Dr.N.2.7. Nicosia. Jar 2. M.34.46. Stockholm. Jar 3. V. 11.1. Stockholm. Jar 4 a. V. 1.27. Stockholm. Jar 4 b. M. 43.46. Stockholm. Fig. LXVIII.
Plain White VII Ware. I. Jug I. V. 14.3. Nicosia. 2. Jug 2. V. II3. Stockholm. 3. Jug 3. K. 51 I. Stockholm. 4- Jug 4· V. 1.30. Stockholm. 5. Jug 5 a. V. 137. Stockholm. 6. Jug 5 b. M. 22.19. Stockholm. 7. Jug 6 a. M. 55.6. Nicosia. 8. Jug 6 b. M. 48.5. Stockholm. 9. Jug 7. V.8.12. Stockholm. 10. Jug 8. M.57.Dr.I. Stockholm. I I. Jug 9 a. V. 1.21. Stockholm. 12. Jug 9 b. V. 13.5. Nicosia. 13. Jug 9 c. M.49.7. Stockholm. 14. Jug 9 d. M.72.19. Stockholm. 15. Jug 9 e. M.44.I. Nicosia. 16. Jug 10. M. 21.20. Nicosia. 17. Jug I I. M. 34.51. Stockholm. 18. Jug 12. V. 1.78. Stockholm. 19. Jug 13. V. 2.16. Stockholm. 20. Jug 14. M.22.3I. Stockholm. 21. Jug 15. M.21.Dr.8. Nicosia. 22. Jug 16. V. 3.18. Nicosia. 23. Jug 17. M. 22.2. Stockholm. 24. Jug 18. Cyp. Mus. Cat. 1068. 25. Jug 19. V.7.44. Stockholm. Fig. LXIX. Plain White VII Ware. I. Amphora I a. M.34.23. Stockholm. 2. Amphora I b. M. 34.36. Stockholm. 3. Amphora 2. V.267. Stockholm. 4. Amphora 3 a. V.7.6. Stockholm. 5. Amphora 3 b. M. 34.3. Stockholm. 6. Amphora-j c. M.22.1. Stockholm. 7. Amphora 3 d. M.22.3. Stockholm. 8. Amphora 4- V.6.lo. Stockholm. 9. Amphora 5 a. V. 7+ Stockholm. 10. Amphora 5 b. M.34.7. Stockholm.
I I. 12. 13. 14.
ARCHITECTURE
Amphora 5 c. V. 296. Stockholm. Amphora 6. V. 14.16. Nicosia. Amphora 7. M. 22.39. Stockholm. Hydria, M. 34.22. Stockholm.
Fig. LXX. Coarse Ware. I. Bowl I a. V. 349. Stockholm. 2. Bowl I b. V. 145. Stockholm. 3. Bowl 2. I. 596. Stockholm. 4. Bowl 3. V. 558. Stockholm. 5. Bowl 4 a. V. II I. Stockholm. 6. Bowl 4 b. V. 437 .. Stockholm. 7. Bowl x. M.6I.15. Stockholm. 8. Bowl 6. L. 406.43. Stockholm. 9. Bowl 7. I. 1112. Stockholm. 10. Cup I. M.23.15. Stockholm. I I. Cup 2. V. 6.6. Stockholm. 12. Jug I. V.466. Stockholm. 13. Jug 2. V. 13.15. Nicosia. 14. Jug 3. V. 522. Stockholm. 15. Jug 4 a. I. 790. Stockholm. 16. Jug 4 b. V.261. Stockholm. 17. Jug 5. V. 13.25. Nicosia. 18. Jug 6 a. L. 413.4°. Stockholm. 19. Jug 6 b. L. 408.75. Nicosia. 20. Jug 7 a. V. 7.16. Stockholm. 21. Jug 7 b. L. 406.13. Stockholm. 22. Jug 7 c. L. 428.5. Stockholm. 23. Jug 8. V.7.34. Stockholm. 24. Jug 9. V. 7.36. Stockholm. 25. Jug 10. M. 58.57. Stockholm. 26. Jug II. L. 407.4. Stockholm. Fig. LXXI. Coarse Ware. I. Tankard. A. 7.177. Stockholm. 2. Cooking-pot I. A. 7.232. Stockholm. 3. Cooking-pot 2. L. 413.16. Stockholm. 4. Cooking-pot 3. L. 402.16. Nicosia. 5. Cooking-pot 4. V. II.26. (Suppl.) Stockholm. 6. Cooking-pot 5. V. 292 a. Stockholm. 7. Amphora I a. S. 10.21. Stockholm. 8. Amphora I b. I. 576. Stockholm. 9. Amphora 2. I. 619. Stockholm. 10. Amphora 3. M. 61.2. Stockholm. II. Amphora 4. L. 406.35. Stockholm. 12. Amphora 5. L. 404.7. Stockholm. 13. Hydria. V. 1.85. Stockholm.
Sanctuaries THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD Ajia Irini he sanc.tuary consists of a rustic temenos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 671). irregularly oval in shape. The temenos was enclosed by a heavy earth wall which also served to cover the remains of the houses of the Late Cypriote III sanctuary, leaving free in the middle the irregularly oval temenos area on the site of the earlier open space between the houses of the Late Cypriote III sanctuary. The entrance to the temenos was to the S. The floor consisted of trodden earth and sand. A low altar, roughly triangular in shape and built of rubble in two or three courses, was erected within the N. part of the temenos, and close by was a libation table for liquid offerings. It is made of a thick limestone slab, roughly oval in shape and with small concavities cut on the upper side. This temenos, erected at the beginning of Cypro-Geometric I, lasted to the middle of Cypro-Geometric III. At that time it was subject to some alterations. The temenos area remained the same as before, but the peribolos wall was heightened with an additional filling of earth on top of the earlier agger. The floor was raised to a higher level, but was of the same construction as before. The old altar was covered by the filling of this floor, and a new altar was erected close by, to the S. of the old one. This new altar consists of a monolithic pillar of limestone, whose upper, visible, part is square in section and well dressed, while the lower part, which was hidden below the floor-level, is quite unworked. The top surface of the altar is hollowed out into a shallow, square cavity with a raised border along the edges. This temenos lasted to the middle of Cypro-Archaic I. The temenos is situated in an open field, not far from the seashore, on rocky ground, gradually sloping towards the sea. It lies in an isolated position, without immediate topographical connection with a settlement. At a distance of some hundred metres, to the N. of a shallow valley, there are, however, remains of a small town. The earliest datable finds on the surface belong to the Hellenistic period, but some of the rifled tombs in the neighbouring necropolis belong to the C¥pro-Geometric period, and indicate that the settlement dates back to the time of the temenos.
T
2
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
Idalion
and is situated on a small hillock, bounded on two sides by river-beds, at the foot of one of the offshoots of the Kerynia range. The architectural history of the sanctuary in the Geometric period comprises two periods. The .first chapel was built in Cypro-Geometric I, and the second chapel in Cypro-Geometnc III, but the latter was in use until Cypro-Archaic II. The first period chapel consists of a rectangular, narrow-fronted building facing N. The entrance to the chapel was in the northern short wall, which is now missing. It is also possible that the front was open. The question cannot, however, be settled, as this part of the chapel has been entirely destroyed. There is no evidence of interior walls, and the chapel seems, therefore, to have consisted of a single, large room. The foundation walls are built of rubble and the floor is constructed of lime-cement resting on a bed of rubble. As no traces of tiles were found, the chapel seems to have had a roof of the same construction as that of the chapel in the Idalion temenos (d. above). In the second period the chapel was divided into two rooms, or, rather, an inner part was screened off by a transverse wall from the western long wall. This transverse wall does not project to the longitudinal axis of the chapel, so that there is a wide opening between the two rooms. Close ~y t~e W. wall of the inner room is a small, square altar built of fairly regular stones, bedded In lime-cement, and covered by a thin revetment of the same cement. The position of the opening between the two rooms and that of the altar in the inner room show a complete lack of axiality in the arrangements, which on the contrary are determined by.the desire to hide the altar from exterior view. The foundation walls of the chapel are built on top of the remains of the earlier walls. They are constructed of rubble bound with lime-cement, and their interior surface is covered with a revetment of the same material. The same cement continues without a break in the floor, which was laid on top of the earlier one, and is of similar construction, i. e., it rests on a bed of rubble and is covered with limecement. It i~ noteworthy t~at a number of jars (op. cit. I, pp. 364 f., Nos. 17, 66-70) were em b.edded In the foundation walls, apparently receptacles for foundation offerings. As no tiles were found in this chapel either, the roof seems to have been of the same construction as supposed for the first chapel.
In Idalion we meet with a type of temenos which is different both as regards situation and architecture (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 525 ff.). The temenos was dedicated to AnatAthena. It was placed on the western acropolis of the city, and the acropolis was enclosed by a fortification wall, which at the same time served as a peribolos wall of the temenos. Remains of this wall are preserved along the N. W. and S. W. slopes of the acropolis. It was built of mud-brick on stone foundations. The mud-bricks are of three types of differing sizes, as described in op. cit. II, p. 473. The width of the first type corresponds to the length of the second and third types, the united width of the second and the third types corresponds to the length of the first type, etc. The proportions of the mud-bricks therefore enabled them to be built into a solid structure, but the walls are too small to allow definite conclusions as regards the general method of construction. The stone foundations are built of roughly cut or unworked limestones of varying quality and size, sometimes mixed with a few river-stones. Mud-mortar is often abundantly used, and the construction is more or less regular, with coursed or rough facing. The W. part of the N. W. fortification wall was strengthened by two roughly square turrets. These turrets were built of an exterior frame of walls retaining an interior filling of earth, gravel, and debris. An entrance gate, with limestone slabs for the substructure of the threshold and for the bases of the jambs of a wooden door, occurred in the S. W. fortification wall. Within the acropolis enclosed by these fortification walls, remains of the temenos were found in the W. part of the area. The structures preserved are a chapel and an altar. The chapel is erected against the N. W. fortification wall, opposite the E. turret. The walls of the chapel are narrower than the fortification walls, but of the same construction and material. The front of the chapel is open. It is, therefore, a room of the so-called "liwan" type. The room was most probably roofed with a coating of clay resting on a substructure of straw and reed. The floor consisted of rammed earth. The altar is also erected against the N. W. fortification wall, to the N. E. of the chapel. It is rectangular in shape and is built of large, square blocks of selected limestone, some heavy river-stones, and one square poros block, kept together by mud-mortar and splinters of stone. It seems likely that, as in the Archaic period (d. pp. 5 f.), an area around the altar was surrounded by an enclosure, separating an inner altar court from the outer temenos area. As no remains of such an enclosure could be observed, it must have been of a temporary nature, perhaps of earth, which was levelled later on, or a hurdle-fence on a poor stone foundation. This temenos in Idalion is approximately contemporary with Cypro-Geometric III, but lasted to the beginning of Cypro-Archaic 1. Ajios Jakovos The sanctuary of Ajios Jakovos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, pp. 361 ff.) represents a third type. It is a rectangular house, a cult-chapel, without any adjoining temenos or altar court. This chapel has a detached position, without any topographical connection with a settlement,
3
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD Ajia Irini The fir~t Archaic t:menos at Ajia Irini was erected about the middle of Cypro-Archaic I, and was In use until the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II. It was then restored, and this second Archaic temenos existed until about the middle of Cypro-Archaic II, when it was restored again bef~re it was entirely abandoned about 500 B. C. (the third Archaic temenos). The first Archaic temenos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 671 ff.) marks a new era in the architectural development of the Ajia Irini sanctuaries. True, there is no change of the archi-
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
tectural type, but the temenos is considerably enlarged, somewhat more regularly shaped, and receives some new structures. The floor and the earth wall of the Geometric temenos were covered with a filling of earth, and on top of this filling the new temenos was erected. It is" roughly triangular in shape with the base to the E. and the apex in the N. W. corner. This area was surrounded by a' peribolos wall of.rubble, surmounted by a hurdle-fence. The floor of the temenos was constructed of rubble and earth. Where the entrance was situated is uncertain. The entrance of the later temene was located in the N. E. corner, and it is probable that the entrance of the first Archaic temenos was at the same place, though this cannot be ascertained, as the peribolos wall has been destroyed at that corner. The sacred centre of the temenos was the altar, which remained the same and on the same place as in the second Geometric temenos. The cult symbol, an oval stone, was placed on the altar. S. E. of the altar a new structure was erected, consisting of two small, rectangular rooms. There are strong indications that the rooms were enclosures for sacred trees. Remains of substructures and bases are found to the E. and N. of the altar, whichseem to be substructures for wooden posts supporting the roofs of two shelters, one along the N. peribolos wail of the temenos and the other between this and the tree-enclosure. These shelters are rustic parallels to the covered halls which are found in other temene of a more developed architectural tradition, e. g., in Idalion (cf. below). By means of these shelters and the tree-enclosure a part of the ternenos around the altar was screened off from the remaining area, so that an inner altar court was formed. There are also parallels to this in the more developed temenos architecture (cf. below). We thus see that the first Archaic temenos, though of the same primitive type as the temene of the Geometric period, at the same time reflects a more developed architecture. The first and second Archaictemene were destroyed by floods, which covered them with .layers of alluvial sand and gravel. The alluvial layers were each time levelled, the floor was successively raised, and the walls were rebuilt or repaired. The same altar, however, was in use all the time, but on account of the successively raised floors its top surface was only o.15m. above the floor of the third Archaic temenos, and its height was, therefore, increased by a raised border of lime-concrete around its top edge. The peribolos walls were relaid, partly on, top of the earlier walls, partly outside these, running parallel with them at a distance of about o.50-2.om., with a filling of earth and rubble in the intervening space, theperiboloswall thus widening considerably. An entrance gate was opened in the N. E. corner: of the temenos, with a flight of stairs of well-dressed limestone blocks leading up to the gateway from the lower level outside the temenos, and the walls of the tree-enclosure were partly rebuilt. It is thus evident that the second and third Archaic temene are only restorations of the first Archaic temenos. The architectural form and plan remained entirely ~nchanged. .
Idalion
4
5
The Geometric temenos on the western acropolis of Idalion was subject to several additions and rebuildings at the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I. This first Archaic temenos existed until the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II, when it was succeeded by the second Archaic temenos, which was in use until the beginning of Cypro-Classic I (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 528 ff.). At the time of the erection of the first Archaic temenos, the fortification walls of the acropolis were strengthened. As in the Geometric period, the walls were built of mud-brick on stone foundations. The mud-brick walls were of the same construction as before. The stone foundations are built of limestone rubble or blocks of varying size and quality and sometimes mixed with river-stones. Mud-mortar is used in some of the walls. The S. W. fortification wall was strengthened and widened by revetting walls. The entrance gate remained in the same place and was of the same construction as before. The N. W. fortification wall, too, was strengthened by revetting walls, and the W. turret of the Geometric period was rebuilt into a massive, trapezoidal, tower, consisting of a series of walls forming a fram~work around the earlier turret and supporting an inner filling of earth, gravel, and ChIpS of stone. The E. turret, on the other hand, was not rebuilt, but remained as it was in the Geometric period. The W. corner of the tower was directly connected with the city-wall which can be traced along the W. slope of the acropolis down to the plain. The temenos was erected within these fortification walls on the same area as before. Along the S. W. acropolis wall was built a rectangular hall, which was entered from the outside through a gateway in that wall. In the N. corner and theS. E. short wall of this hall doorways open on to the outer temenos. The hall had a floor made of lime-earth and chips of stone on a bed of clay, and it was covered by a roof constructed of reed and straw, packed with clay and resting on horizontal, wooden beams. The outer temenos consisted, as before, of the open acropolis area enclosed by the fortification walls, which the same time served as peribolos walls of the temenos. The S. W. area of the outer temenos was paved with a floor of the same kind as in the covered hall, but the greater part of it, especially to the N. and N. E., had a floor of rammed earth. The cult-chapel. of the Geometric period was still used, but its walls were rebuilt, and a new floor of the same construction as in the S. W. hall was laid on a higher level, on top of the debris of the Geometric period. The chapel was covered by a roof of the same construction as that of the hall. A rectangular altar, built of cut poros blocks with some square pieces of selected limestone and bound with some mud-mortar, was erected at the right end of the open front side of the chapel. N. E. of this cult-chapel, a part of the outer temenos area was screened off into an inner temenos court, bounded to the S. W. by the chapel, to the N. W. by the acropolis wall, and on the other sides by a wall of which only a part of the foundations is preserved. Where the remains of the wall are preserved, it follows the line of the later wall of the second Archaic sanctuary and it may therefore be inferred that the inner temenos of the first Archaic sanctuary had similar proportions (cf. below). In the N. E. part of the inner temenos an altar was erected, of
6
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
the same shape and construction as the one in the cult-chapel. The inner temenos was entirely open to the sky and was floored in the same way as the chapel and the hall. Architecturally, the second Archaic temenos was mainly of the same type as the first, but some additions and repairs took place. The fortifications were still further strengthened. As before, the walls are built of mud-brick on stone foundations. These are similar to those of the preceding period, but the majority are of a more regular construction, with a more or less carefully coursed face. The S. W. and N. W. acropolis walls were partly strengthened by rather thin revetting walls, but the main fortification work consisted of the erection of new towers. For the E. turret of the preceding periods, a strong, rectangular tower was substituted, to the N. E. of the earlier W. tower, and in this way a large doubletower, or bastion, was formed. The construction of the newly-built tower differs from the earlier one, being built of a network of walls, longitudinal and transverse, with the spaces between filled with a debris of waste material and earth. In the angle between the city-wall and the acropolis wall another tower was built, but its size and exact shape are unknown. The entrance gate to the temenos was still in the S. W. acropolis wall, but the earlier gate was blocked up and anew entrance was made further up to the S. E. in the same wall. It led into a newly-built, square, gate-chamber, with a polygonal column in the middle supporting the roof. From this gate-chamber, one door led directly into the outer temenos and another door into the hall along the S. W. acropolis wall. This hall and the cult-chapel remained as they were in the first Archaic temenos, except that parts of the walls were repaired, and new floors were laid on a higher level on top of the debris of the earlier temenos. The floor of the outer temenos, too, was similary raised. The wall of the inner temenos court was rebuilt. There is evidence that it was built of wood and rested on cubic foundations of limestone; on the outside, it was provided with a doublestepped platform of limestone blocks. This inner temenos court is rectangular, with a small, trapezoidal recess in the N. corner. There seem to have been two entrances: the main entrance in the S. corner, formed by a passage between the elongated S. E. wall and the cult-chapel; and a second entrance in the N. corner, where the finds of bronze hinges seem to indicate the existence of a wooden door hung on these hinges. The earlier altar. of the inner temenos was still used. A new floor of the same construction as before was laid on top of the earlier debris. Finds of tiles above this floor indicate that the inner temenos court was provided with a passage covered with a roofing of tiles projecting from the walls, while the central section, including that above the altar, was open to the sky. In addition to this temenos on the western acropolis, we know the architectural form of two other sanctuaries at Idalion: the temenos situated close to the W. of the modern village and probably dedicated to Aphrodite and the temenos of Apollon situated just within the city-wall, where it crosses the valley between the two acropoleis. The former sanctuary was excavated by Ohnefalsch-Richter (Kypros, PI. VII) and the latter by R. H. Lang (Transact. R. Soc. Literat., Ser, 2, XI, 1878, pp. 30 ff.). It must, however, be pointed out that we know nothing about the architectural history of the sanctuaries, so that we
cannot say which parts belong to the original structure and to later rebuildings. The series of sculptures found shows that the sanctuaries were erected in the Archaic period and remained in use during the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It is, therefore, more than probable that at least some of the architectural remains preserved are post-Archaic. On the other hand, it seems certain that the original plan and form of the sanctuaries were mainly retained at the time of these subsequent rebuildings, especially since their architectural plan is similar to that of other sanctuaries of the Archaic or early Classical periods (e. g., at Vouni, d. pp. 14 ff.). We are, therefore, justified in considering the architecture of these two Idalion sanctuaries as representative of the original Archaic type, even if the actual remains do not altogether date from the Archaic period. The temenos excavated by Ohnefalsch-Richter is supposed to have been dedicated to Aphrodite, as mentioned above, but as no inscriptions were found this cannot be proved. We only know that it was dedicated to a female deity, since almost all the sculptures erected as ex votos in the temenos are female. The temenos consisted of an open court with porticos along the S. and W. sides, once supported by wooden columns, and a chapel at the W. side, at the rear of the court. The court was enclosed by a peribolos wall with foundations of rather well-cut limestone blocks or roughly shaped limestones of smaller size mixed with river-stones. No lime-mortar was used for binding purposes. The foundation walls were fairly well preserved, except to the E., where very scanty remains were left. How the superstructure of the walls was built is a matter of conjecture, possibly of wood or of mud-brick. It can, however, be assumed with certainty that the superstructure must have been of a considerable height, as porticos were attached to some of the walls, and the foundations cannot therefore have been surmounted by a fence of thorn, as OhnefalschRichter supposes. The court is somewhat irregular in shape. It seems that it was entered through a doorway in the N.peribolos wall. Within the open area of the court, ex votos of sculptures were erected in a rather irregular way, as can be seen from the bases preserved in situ. Close to the W. portico was a rectangular substructure built of a frame of well-cut limestone blocks enclosing an inner filling of rubble, which seems to have been an altar judging from ashes and burnt remains found close by. The chapel placed at the rear of the court is rectangular in shape, with foundation walls of rubble. In the chapel was a square altar constructed of a cube of yellow clay with a concavity on the top and a revetment of small rubble. It was not placed exactly in the middle of the chapel but somewhat nearer the E. and N. walls, the former evidently in order to obtain sufficient space around the two orthostatic limestone slabs which were placed between the altar and the N. W. corner of the chapel. Why the altar was placed nearer the N. than the S. wall of the chapel will be explained below. The slabs in question, of which the purpose is uncertain, were placed at a distance of about 0.75 m. from each other. Ohnefalsch-Richterexplainsthem as supports for the table where the meat of sacrificed animals was cut into pieces, but this is altogether pure conjecture. The chapel was entered from the W. portico by means of a doorway at the S. end of its E. wall. Ohnefalsch-Richter (Kypros, p. 409) supposes that the chapel was entered through a door at the W. end of its S. wall, so that there was no
7
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
direct communication between the temenos court and the chapel. He bases this supposition on the fact that there is a gap in the wall at that place, but this negative evidence is of course not conclusive, because the wall may equally well have been destroyed. As a matter of fact, an examination of Ohnefalsch-Richter's plans and drawings (op. cit., PIs. VII, LVI, LVII) shows that there is another gap in the E. wall at the place where I have located the doorway (Fig. 4: I), and in front of it, there is a substructure for a step evidently leading from the lower level of the portico to the higher level of the chapel; finally, it can be seen that the S. side of the altar in the chapel is in line with the N. flank of this door which explains why the altar was not placed at equal distances from the N. and S. walls of the chapel but somewhat nearer itsN. wall, whereas if the doorway had been in the S. wall, it can be seen that the altar would have projected within the opening of the doorway. To sum up: the sanctuary consists of an open, enclosed court with porticos along two sides and a roofed chapel erected at the back of the .court, communicating directly with it by means of a door opening from the rear portico. The chapel and the court thus form an architectural unit. The plan, however, lacks regularity, symmetry, and axiality: the shape of the court is rather irregular, the chapel is not placed in the middle of the rear of the court, the entrance door of the chapel is placed at the S. end of its front wall, and the axis of this door does not coincide with the axis of the central monument of the court, i. e., the altar. The plan of the temple of Apollon, excavated by Lang, can only be determined tentatively, because the conditions are more complicated and the observations made by the excavator are less satisfactory. Further, the excavations were far from complete, as can be seen from the excavation report and the plans of the temenos. Two plans are published, the one by Lang, (loc. cit.), and the other one by Colonna-Ceccaldi (Monum. ant. de Chypre, de Syrie et d'Egypte, PI. I). These plans agree fairly well. It seems that we have to do with architectural remains of different periods. We can distinguish between two groups of buildings which are orientated in different directions, the first group represented by the structures K-N on Lang's plan, the second group by the structures A-E and Q. The first group is orientated N. E. and S. W. It consists of an outer court with two structures (K, L), which may be a base of a colossal statue and an altar (?), an inner court or terrace (M) with bases of sculptures, and a chapel (N) at the rear of this court. The plan of this grou~ o£~llildings appears, therefore, to be similar to that of the temenos of Aphrodite described. above. Lang supposes that this group represents the earliest remains of the sanctuary, and this seems most probable. The second group is orientated due N. and S. It comprises a court with rows of bases for sculptures to the S., an entrance passage (Q) and possibly a hall (D) to the N., and a rectangular cella (E) at the rear of the court. In front of the cella are two large basins (A, B). The planof this group, which is better re..., produced by Colonna-Ceccaldi.rseems, therefore, to be of the same type as that of the first group.
Tamassos
8
9
At a locality called Frangissa, Ohnefalsch-Richter excavated a temenos dedicated to Apollon (Kypros, pp. 7 ff., 352 f., PI. VI). The site is within the boundaries of ancient Tamassos, to the S. E. of the remains of that city. The finds of sculpture show that the temenos w~s .erect~d in the Archaic period and that it was in· use until the beginning of the Hellenistic penod. No analysis of the architectural history of the temenos has been publi.shed by the excavator, and we cannot 'therefore know which parts of the preserved rem~m~ of the temenos belong to the original structure or if it altogether represents a later rebuilding. Only as regards the southernmost wall running in E.-W. direction can it be stated with certainty that it has at least been repaired in a later period, since are-used inscribed slab is ~eported by the excavator to have been built into that wall (op. cit., p. 9): For the reason gIven above, we may, however, assume that the original Archaic temenos is represented, at least in type, by the preserved, architectural remains. These show us a court with a small recess and an angular entrance corridor to the S., and an altar at the W. end of the corridor. The court is trapezoidal in shape. It was enclosed by peribolos walls to the N., E. and W., and by the recess to the S. The N. and E. walls are straight, the. W. wall. is oblique, i:s direction apparently determined by the course of the river by which the temenos was situated. The foundation walls were built of limestone rubble and river-stones embedded in mud-mortar. How the upper walls were constructed is unkno~n. !he court was crowded with ex votos of sculptures, many of their bases being found tn situ. Two entrances led to the court, one opening between the S. E. end of the W. peribolos wall and the recess, and the other one between the recess and the E. peribolos wall. The exterior of the recess is rectangular, but the interior face of the E. short ~ide. is .concave. The entrance is at the N. W. corner. Some bases of sculptures were found tn situ m the recess, and it was used as a screened-off store-room for some important ex -ootos of sculptures. The altar consisted of a square block of limestone (op. cit., p. 232*). From the altar an entrance corridor ran along the S. side of the recess in an eastern direction and then turned to the S. W. The excavator admits that the area excavated forms only a part of the temenos, and he states that he discovered walls of solid masonry to the N. of the area laid bare, which, however, he was not able to excavate (op. cit., p. 9). This indicates that the area excavated formed an inner temenos, which had been screened off from an outer temenos by the peribolos wall. The entrance corridor mentioned above thus led from the outer to the inner temenos. Achna A temenos close to the village of Achna, excavated by Ohnefalsch-Richter, yielded finds from the Archaic period to the early part of the Hellenistic period (Kypros, pp. rff., 352 L, PI. IV). No analysis of the architectural history of the preserved remains is given by the exca:ator, but they are considered in this context for the same reason as given above. The architecture resembles very much that of the temenos at Tamassos (Frangissa). There
10
ARCHITECTURE
is an inner temenos court irregularly oblong in shape, narrowing towards the S. part and enclosed by a peribolos wall of rubble. Parts of the wall are much damaged or missing, and the N. area of the court is entirely destroyed, so that its length cannot be ascertained. Within the temenos court sculpture bases were found in situ. The court was entered through a doorway in the E. wall. Immediately outside this entrance was a structure built of clay and covered with slabs of limestone. It consists of two rectangles placed at a short distance from each other and joined along one side by means of a narrow strip. Most probably it is to be interpreted as an altar (d. Jahresh. iisterr. arch. Inst. VI, 1903, pp. 128f.), and its location in front of the entrance to the inner temenos agrees with that of the altar of the temenos at Tamassos (Frangissa). S. W. of the S. part of the inner temenos court was another, larger, rectangular structure, which was not entirely excavated. The construction was solid, with walls of roughly cut limestones and occasional, fairly well-cut blocks in the corners, enclosing an inner filling of small rubble and lime-mortar. This structure seems too small to be a chapel, and on analogy with the structures of similar size and technique at Ajia Irini I am inclined to interpret it as an enclosure for a holy tree.
Voni Near the village of Voni, a temenos dedicated to Apollon was excavated by OhnefalschRichter (Kypros, pp. 3 ff., 352 f., PI. V). The sculptures range in time from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period and we are confronted with the same uncertainty regarding the preceding sanctuaries and how far the actual remains represent the original architecture. The part excavated shows us a portion of the inner temenos enclosed by a wall of rubble. Bases of sculptures were found in situ, and two basins were interpreted by OhnefalschRichter as basins for holy water. Along the W. side of the temenos three columns were found in situ, of which the northernmost seems to be built into a later addition of the wall enclosing the inner temenos. These columns seem to have supported the roof of a portico along the W. side of the temenos. The columns were apparently of Doric style (op. cit., PI. V, 2), but details are unknown. In shape, this temenos is more regular than those of the preceding sanctuaries and seems to have been quite rectangular. At the N. short side of the W. portico there is a small, quadrangular chapel with a rectangular altar in the N. W. corner. The chapel was entered by a doorway at the right end of its front wall, but this is probably a later addition, and the front of the chapel seems originally to have been entirely open at the time when the northernmost column built into the later addition of the temenos wall was in use as a roof support of the W. portico. Kition A sanctuary excavated by Prof. J. L. Myres in the field called Kamilarga has not been completely published (d. Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, pp. 164 ff.). The architectural type of the sanctuary is unknown.
SANCTUARIES
II
The first Archaic sanctuary on the Acropolis of Kition was succeeded by two others during the Archaic period. The first dates from the middle of Cypro-Archaic I to the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II, and the second lasted to shortly after the middle of CyproArchaic II. The end of the third sanctuary coincides approximately with the end of CyproArchaic II. The sanctuaries were dedicated to Melkart, th~ city-god of Kition. The preserved architectural remains of the first Archaic sanctuary (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 18 ff.) consist of a long wall running in E.-W. direction and a roughly rectangular room built to the N. of the wall. Only the foundations of the walls are preserved. They are built of rubble mixed with a few blocks of sandstone. The upper walls may have been of mud-brick. The rectangular room was probably roofed. It is wide-fronted, and a doorway opens into it at the N. end of its E. front wall. The space S. of the long wall was paved with a floor of pebbles resting on a foundation of rubble. This space was evidently a large open area, a court bounded by this wall to the N. To judge from the preserved remains we have here a sanctuary of the temenos type, with open votive and altar courts enclosed by peribolos walls, and a roofed-in chapel attached to the inner temenos court, but not in direct communication with it. The chapel and the inner court do not form an architectural unit, but the chapel is added to the court as a separate building in the same way as in the temenos on the western acropolis of Idalion. Of the second Archaic sanctuary (op. cit. III, pp. 20 f.) very few remains are left within the area excavated, so that very little can be said about the architectural plan. The walls, however, show the same orientation as those of the first Archaic temenos, and it is evident that the second Archaic sanctuary was of a similar type, i. e., a temenos with open courts and a roofed-in chapel, but the extent of the temenos and the disposition of the rooms cannot be ascertained. The walls were built with foundations of single courses of sandstone blocks, and the floor consisted of a layer of pebbles. A rectangular base of a stone statue is built into a transverse wall, which seems to form part of a recess. To judge from the size of the feet, which are all that remain of the statue, it must have been more than life-size. The size and the location of the statue indicate that it was the cultstatue itself. The third Archaic sanctuary (loc. cit.) is only a restoration of the second one. New walls were added, and the foundations of the earlier walls were heightened up to the raised floorlevel of the new temenos. The walls are of the same construction as before, and the floor consisted of sand and gravel, at least partly covered by limestone slabs. A rectangular altar, built of rubble and chips of stone laid in mud-mortar, was erected in front of the cult-statue, In 1879 an early Ionic capital of Cypriote limestone was found on the acropolis of Kition. The capital has an almost spherical bowl and large, flat volutes, with small palmettes filling the spaces beneath the volutes (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXCVII, I; d. Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 5).
12
ARCHITECTURE
Soli On the top of the acropolis of Soli, there are some scanty remains of a sanctuary, which unfortunately has been almost entirely destroyed (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 412). Most probably the building is to be reconstructed as a Greek temple in antis, with pronaos, cella, and opisthodomos or adyton. As no doorways are preserved, the orientation of the building is not, however, quite certain, and the possibility exists that it should be reconstructed as a sanctuary of the Cypriote temple type with three cellae side by side, all of them opening on to a court to the N. of the building. The fragments of Doric entablature and an ante capital found in Soli (op. cit. III, p. 576, Nos. 66, 67; pp. 579 f.) are also probably Archaic. Kurion Limestone drums of columns, Doric capitals, and pieces of an architrave are recorded from the site of the sanctuary of Apollon Hylates near Kurion (Archaeologia LXXVIII, 1928, pp. 41 ff.). Many of the capitals are of late date, but two are Archaic. Of these, one (ibid., pp. 42 f., Figs. I, 4, No. I) shows some peculiarities: the apophyge is much larger than usual, and the echinus starts from a quirked ogee instead of the usual annulets. The other one (ibid., pp. 42 f., Figs. 2, 4, No.2) has a normal apophyge and above that two broad annulets. THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD It has been pointed out that the sanctuaries of Aphrodite and Apollon at Idalion and those at Tamassos, Achna and Voni were in use during the Classical period, too, but as their architectural history is unknown, we cannot say to what extent the architectural remains preserved represent rebuildings of Archaic structures in the Classical period. These sanctuaries should, however, be added to the list of Classical sanctuaries described below.
Kition At the end of Cypro-Archaic II the third Archaic temenos' on the acropolis of Kition was covered with a deep filling of earth, and on top of the levelled surface a new temenos was erected, the first Classical temenos. This was in use to the end of Cypro-Classic I, when it was demolished and covered with a deep filling of earth. On top of the levelled surface a new temenos was erected, the second Classical temenos, which continued in use to the end of Cypro-Classic II. The first Classical sanctuary (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 21 f.) consists of a large, outer temenos court enclosed by a massive peribolos wall, an inner temenos with an altar, and another altar placed immediately outside the E. side of the inner temenos. Only a part of the S. peribolos wall of the exterior temenos was discovered within the area excavated. It runs obliquely in relation to the inner temenos, which was orientated strictly N. and S.
SANCTUARIES
13
It is constructed of a double shell of well-cut facing blocks and a core of rubble. The inner temenos is rectangular in shape and was bordered by a platform of rectangular limestone slabs, which are only in part preserved. It cannot be ascertained how it was enclosed, whether by a wooden wall resting on this platform or in some other way. The altar in the inner temenos consists of a square limestone block with concave top surface. The other altar consists of a monolithic, four-sided pillar provided with two .rounded mouldings, and might at the same time have been a support for a cult symbol. The second Classical sanctuary (op. cit. III, pp. 23 f.) was a temenos of approximately the same plan and extent as in the previous period. A new massive peribolos wall of ashlar masonry on foundations of large, undressed blocks was built immediately inside the earlier peribolos wall and runs in the same direction. There are no remains left of an enclosure for an inner temenos, which seems to have been destroyed at the beginning of the Hellenistic period (d. op. cit. III, pp. 23, 65). Within the open area of the exterior temenos two altars were erected close to each other. Both are square in shape, that to the N. being built of ashlar on a stepped base and that to the S. consisting of a monolithic block with moulded base border. Vouni The sanctuaries found at Vouni are of two principal types: detached chapels and chapels attached to temenos courts. The first type is represented by the chapels of Rooms 101, 113, 114, 117, 132-135, the second type by the main temenos of the palace (Rooms 121129) and the temple of Athena. Of the detached chapels, that of Rooms 113 and 114 was erected in the first buildingperiod of the palace, that of Room 101 in the second building-period, and those of Rooms 117 and 132-135 in the third building-period. The chapel of Room 101 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 214 f.) is situated in the area between the S. corner of the palace and the top of the Vouni rock. It consists of a single room, which is almost quadrilateral in shape. It was entered through a doorway in the S. E. wall, somewhat to the left of the centre of the wall. There is no altar in the room, and no objects were found, so that the identification of the room as a chapel is based only upon its architectural similarity to the other chapels. The walls were built of mud-brick on stone foundations, partly of the same construction as the foundation walls of the chapel of Rooms 113 and 114, partly of the box-wall type (op. cit. III, pp. 123, 128). The floor consisted of the levelled rock with lime-concrete as filling in the irregularities of the rock surface. The chapel of Rooms 113 and 114 (op. cit. III, p. 212) was erected immediately to the S. E. of the later S. E. store-rooms. It is a rectangular house divided into two square rooms, which are entered through doorways in their S. E. walls, but do not communicate with each other. In Room 113 a rectangular altar projects from the transverse wall between the rooms. The walls were built of mud-brick on a stone foundation consisting of a doublefaced shell wall of orthostates alternating with horizontal blocks placed lengthways. The chapel of Room 117 (op. cit. III, p. 225) is situated outside the E. corner of the
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
palace. It consists of a single room and a corridor along its N. wall. The room is rectangular and is entered through a doorway in the middle of its E. wall. The entrance is flanked by projecting pieces of walls. Approximately in the centre of the chapel is a square altar, constructed of rubble with ashlars at the corners. The faces were probably once revetted with wooden planks coated with lime-mortar. On the front side of the altar, at its E. corner, a small square structure was added to it. This is built of rubble and the faces are covered with lime-mortar. The walls of the chapel were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of superimposed courses of orthostatic blocks revetting an inner filling of limestone chips. The floor of the chapel consists of levelled rock. The chapel of Rooms 132-135 (loc. cit.) is situated in the area outside the N. part of the palace. At the entrance to the chapel; there is a quadrilateral, screened-off area (Room 132). The chapel itself consists of a anteroom (Room 133) and an inner room (Room 134), provided with a small, quadrilateral recess (Room 135) in its rear wall. The rooms are rectangular. The anteroom has a revetting platform of limestone slabs along the base of the inner faces of its walls. It is entered through a doorway at the left end of its front wall. The inner room is entered through a doorway approximately in the middle of its front, and the recess opens somewhat to the left of the axis of the room. In this way the chapel shows a complete lack of axiality in the plan, which is determined by the desire to hide the inner parts of the chapel from exterior view. The walls of the chapel were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of rubble with stones of larger size along the edges, except the front wall of the anteroom, which is built of rubble with orthostatic blocks revetting the exterior face. The floors consist of red lime-marl. All the chapels described above were roofed. The construction of the roofs was most probably of the same kind as used in the palace, i. e., they were horizontal or slightly sloping, and were made of a matting of reeds coated with earth and lime, resting on horizontal wooden beams. The main temenos of the palace (op. cit. III, pp. 210 ff.. 225, 229) is situated to the N. E. of the palace. Three building-periods can be distinguished, corresponding to the first, third, and fourth periods of the palace. The temenos of the first period consisted of a rectangular fore-court (Room 122), with a small square room (Room 121) at the S. E. short side, a rectangular altar court (Room 123), and a small chapel or recess at the back of this court. The small room S. E. of the fore-court communicates with the latter by means of a rock-cut flight of steps leading from the lower level of the fore-court to the higher level of the room. It is not quite certain how the fore-court was entered. In the third period, there were entrances in the N. and E. corners of the court, and these belong to the rebuildings of this period. It is, however, likely that there were also entrances at these places in the temenos of the first period. From the N. W. short side of the fore-court a wide, rock-cut staircase led up to the altar court. The flight of steps was flanked by votive sculptures, the bases of which were still found in situ. Two circular and two semicircular altars were erected in the court. The circular altars were built of lime-mortar and the semicircular ones of a core of rubble revetted along the semicircular circumference by a thick layer
of lime-mortar. The front of the small chapel or recess at the back of the altar court was entirely open towards the court, but it was probably roofed in, as well as Room 121 at the back of the fore-court. The walls of the temenos were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of rubble with stones of larger size along the faces. The lower part of the S. W. wall of Room 122 which is partly cut in the rock, is formed by the vertically cut rock face. The floors in the room at the back of the fore-court, the altar court, and the chapel consist of roughly levelled rock with hard-packed earth filling in the irregularities. In the fore-court the floor consists of levelled rock and a filling of red lime-marl where the rock is sloping. In the second building-period a facade consisting of Rooms 126-128 was added to the N. E. of the temenos. All these rooms had open fronts, but were roofed, with columns supporting the roofs along the open fronts. The central room (127) was provided with a platform of a single row of limestone slabs along the base of its walls. At the same time the N. E. wall of the fore-court was rebuilt, and two entrances, probably replacing earlier ones (d. above), were opened in the N. and E. corners of the fore-court with stairs of stone blocks leading from the lower level of the front rooms to the higher level of the fore-court. The walls of these added structures were built of mud-brick on stone foundations , which differ in type from those of the original temenos, and consist of a double-faced shell of orthostates alternating with courses of horizontal blocks placed lengthways and a filling of stone chips, earth, and lime-mortar between the blocks. The room floors consist of levelled rock with lime-cement in the irregularities or of a layer of red lime-marl. In the third building-period, two more rooms were added to the temenos, one (Room 124) enclosing an area to the N. W. of the chapel and the other (Room 125) added to the previous front rooms along the N. E. facade of the temenos. It is of the same type as these, with open front and the roof supported by three columns, but its shape is irregular. The foundation walls of these added rooms consist of rubble, with larger stones along the edges, or rubble of irregular construction. The floors are of levelled rock with lime-cement in the irregularities. These subsequent additions have nothing to do with the architectural type of the temenos, which is characterized by the original nucleus: a fore-court, altar court, and a chapel or recess forming an architectural unit and arranged one behind the other in a continuous line, proceeding from the fore-court to the chapel or recess. The sanctuary of Athena on the top of the Vouni rock (op. cit. III, pp. 85 ff.) comprises a group of structures, consisting of a temple cella (Room I), fronting a large court (Room II), and a second, smaller fore-court (Room III), entered from an irregular open space (Room IV), where a block of three contiguous treasuries are built at its S. E. side (Rooms V-VII). The cella is square in shape. The walls were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of ashlar and rubble. The ashlar masonry is partly constructed in an irregular "box-wall" technique with the blocks set in gypsum mortar, in which the rubble, too, is embedded. The inner faces of the stone foundations were coated with mortar. The cella was divided into three rooms by means Of wooden walls, each wall supported by three wooden posts. The middle room is wider than the side-rooms. The wooden walls did not reach the front wall of
\
ARCHITECTURE
SANCTUARIES
the cella, so that doorways were left between the middle room and the side-rooms. The exterior entrance to the cella is in the E. wall, though not in the middle, but to the S. of the axis of the building. The floor of the cella was constructed of a layer of gypsum on a bed of small limestone chips. The roof was of tiles, and was flat or slightly sloping, with terracotta antefixes of palmettes and volutes. The court in front of the cella is rectangular in shape. It was surrounded by walls, of which only .the extremely solid stone foundations are preserved. These are built of ashlars of various ~izes set in gypsum mortar. The entrance to the court was in: the middle of its E. short wall. Of the floor nothing is preserved. It was probably of earth covering the irregularities in the rock, and it sloped from the entrance of the cella to the entrance of the court, which was at a level of 0.65 m. below the former. The fore-court is roughly rectangular in shape, and was enclosed by a fence, screen, or some similar arrangement.. To the N. of the entrance to the large inner temple court is an altar somewhat more than semicircular in shape, built of rubble embedded in gypsum and plastered with the same material on the face. The group of the three contiguous treasuries is not orientated in relation to the other structures of the sanctuary but to the city rampart against which they were built. The buildings are rectangular and narrow-fronted. Their length cannot be determined with certainty as their rear portions have been destroyed and have fallen down the precipice together with the rampart in consequence of a collapse of the rock. House V consisted of a single room, Houses VI and VII of two rooms, the one behind the other, separated by a transverse wall with a doorway at the E. end. The exterior front of Houses V and VI was entirely open; that of House VII was closed by a wall with an entrance at the W. end. The walls of the houses were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of ashlars and rubble. The floors were made of levelled rock, white or red lime-concrete, and the houses were covered by flat roofs, possibly connected with each other at the same level. An analysis of the architectural history of the sanctuary has shown that the temple cella is a later addition, and we do not know if it took the place of an earlier, entirely destroyed, cella Of if the original temenos was without cella. It is evident that the sanctuary shows a strong resemblance to the main palace temenos, with two courts, the one behindthe other, and in the background of the inner court a chapel or recess, of which the temple cella in the sanctuary of Athena is a further development. As regards the disposition of these two structural elements, court and chapel, it can be seen that the axial lines of the courts and the temple cella do not coincide in the sanctuary of Athena: the temple cella is placed to the N. of the axial line of the courts. This irregularity in the disposition is explained by the local conditions and want of space: the large, rectangular court extended so near the S. W. edge of the rock that there was no space for the temple cella, except somewhat to the N. of the axial line of the court. The actual solution of the problem displays a compromise between these two possibilities. In this way the strict axiality and symmetry were lost, but at the same time a striving for axiality can be observed in the location of the entrance door to the tern ple cella. As mentioned above, this was not placed in the middle of the front wall, but somewhat to the S. of the axis of the temple cella, or as near the axial line of the court as possible.
Paradisotissa
16
The small temple excavated in the valley of Paradisotissa, 1.5 km. N. W. of Vouni (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 292 ff.), is a Cypriote, rustic version of a Greek temple with pronaos and cella. The room behind the cella (Room I) is on a higher level than this, and is probably an opisthodromos, a separate room without direct communication with the cella. The floor of the pronaos has been entirely destroyed, so that its level in relation to that of the cella cannot be ascertained. The temple is orientated in N.-S. direction on account of topographical conditions. The walls were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of rubble and sometimes faced with ashlars. No roof-tiles were found, and the roof was therefore probably made of a reed-matting coated with earth and lime. Consequently, if the plan of the Paradisotissa temple represents a local variety of the Greek temple type, the superstructure does not seem to have been influenced by Hellenic architecture, but buildings of that kind were not entirely lacking during the Classical period in Cyprus, as is proved by a Doric marble capital, of unknown provenance, in the Betestan Collection, Nicosia (Archaeologia LXXVIII, 1928, p. 42, Fig. 3). It is a Classical parallel to the late Archaic specimens of Doric architecture at Kurion. Soli The fragments of a marble frieze decorated with scenes representing the battle of Greeks and Amazons (p. 125) indicate the existence of a building of Ionic style.
SUMMARY
\
On a survey of the architectural form and plan of the sanctuaries described above, we find that they represent five principal types. The first type consists of a temenos with an open court irregular in shape, enclosed by a peribolos wall, and with an altar as a sacred centre.. The Geometric temene at Ajia Irini represent the simplest variety of this type. More advanced are the Archaic temene of the same locality: the temenos area is somewhat more regularly shaped, and by means of the shelters and the tree-enclosure an area around the altar was screened off from the remaining part of the temenos, and a sort of inner court was formed in this way. A further development is shown by the temene at Tamassos (Frangissa) and at Achna, where the inner court is enclosed by a peribolos wall. The area thus enclosed is of an irregular shape at Achna, but at Tamassos it has a more regular, trapezoid shape, and is provided with a small recess used as a store-room for the more important ex votos. The second type of sanctuary consists of a detached chapel not connected with a temenos court. This type is represented at Ajios Jakovos and Vouni (the chapels of Rooms 101, 1I3, 1I4, 1I7, 132-135). The chapel at Ajios Jakovos consisted originally of a single room, rectangular, with narrow front. Subsequently, an inner part was screened off by a transverse 2
ARCHITECTURE
18
SANCTUARIES 1
5 I
i
10 I
15 I
~T
Fig. 2. Sanctuaries, Type 2. I. Ajios jakovos, Chapel. 2. Vouni, Chapel of Room 117. 3. Vouni, Chapel of Rooms 113-114. 4. Vouni, Chapel of Rooms 132-135.
/
....
wall leaving a wide opening between the two rooms. The location of this opening and that of the altar erected in the inner room show a complete lack of axiality in the plan, which was determined by the desire to hide the altar from exterior view. The chapels at Vouni are of different shapes. The chapel of Room 117 consists of a single, rectangular room, but the entrance is in the middle of the front wall, and the altar is situated approximately in the centre of the room. This chapel is thus an axial structure. The chapel of Rooms 132-135, on the other hand, resembles the chapel at Ajios Jakovos, but has a recess in the back wall of the inner room. The chapel of Rooms 113 and 114 consists of two rectangular rooms, but these are not placed the one behind the other as in Ajios Jakovos and in the Vouni chapel just mentioned but are placed side by side without communication with each other, and are separately entered through doors in the middle of their front walls. The third type, a combination of temenos and chapel, is represented by the sanctuaries at Kition, on the western acropolis of Idalion, and at Voni. It consists of an exterior court surrounded by a peribolos wall, an inner enclosed court, and a roofed-in chapel, which, however, does not form an architectural unit with the inner court, though it may be attached to it. In the Archaic temene at Idalion, the exterior court is provided with roofed-in halls. At Idalion the inner court is built against the peribolos wall of the exterior court, but at Kition it is situated approximately in the middle of the exterior court. At Voni the chapel was placed within the inner temenos at the N. short end of a portico running along the W. wall of the temenos. The shape of the chapel moreover varies. At Idalion it is of the "liwan" type, with open front; at Kition remains of a chapel were only found in the first Archaic temenos; this chapel has the front side closed by a wall, and was entered through a doorway at the right end of the front wall. At Voni the chapel was originally of the "liwan" type, but later on the front was closed by a wall. The inner court is rectangular in shape. In
SANCTUARIES
ARCHITECTURE
20
"""'=~~
2
~~~
·.:·-lL..·
-~<:~.
2,
3,
t
_____-~it*:
10
I
4
II
It II I I II I I
II.. F .:~,dJ t
~ LA,_,0,.
,4S :... iCOL
o I
2 I
3,
Jt,
5 M. ,.
Fig. 3. Sanctuaries, Type 3. I. Idalion, Western Acropolis, Cypro-Geometric temenos. a, Kition, First CyproArchaic temcnos. 3. Idalion, Western Acropolis, Second Cypro-Archaic temenos. 4. Voni, Temenos.
J) o
_
OJ!
\~~
o . ,
C
I
21
ARCHITECTURE
22
:: . r: r · - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.,
1 2• ~ _ 0 . • I
---_.------------ ,,
I o-
.•
~
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE
, ,
,,
I
I
I
,
1
I
I
I
:
:
I
"-C::;:;.------r;-:- qO
I
I
~
'000 GO
J
1
P",,(J ..'J
0
I
\.
r-----.~ooo
I
I 1 I
.(2"
°1
I
,
I I I
..
I
23
The chapels are of different types: the recess in the principal temenos of the Vouni palace has naturally an entirely open front, at Idalion the chapel is an undivided, single room with entrance door at the one side of the front wall, and in the sanctuary of Athena at Vouni the cella is tripartite. The fifth type is represented by the temples on the acropolis of Soli (?) and at Paradisotissa, which is a somewhat irregular, rustic variety of a templum in antis, with pronaos and cella. The Greek type is also represented by the fragments of Doric architecture found at Kurion and Soli, the Doric marble capital in the Betestan Collection, Nicosia, the Ionic capital from Kition, and the fragments of a Ionic frieze found at Soli.
.1
•0
Domestic Architecture ,
,
2
Fig. S. Sanctuaries, Type S.
I.
Soli, Temple on the Acropolis.
:J
2.
,
4
Paradisotissa, Temple.
the first Archaic temenos at Idalion the N. W. side of the inner court formed an angular line on account of the angular bend of the acropolis wall against which the court was erected, but this irregularity was adjusted in the second Archaic temenos. The temene of Apollon and Aphrodite at Idalion, the principal temenos of the palace of Vouni, and that of Athena on the top of the Vouni rock are representatives of the fourth type of sanctuary. This consists of one or two courts, usually rectangular and regularly shaped, and a recess, chapel, or temple cella placed in the rear of the innermost court ~nd opening on to it, so that the chapel and the court form an architectural unit. The ideal plan of this type of sanctuary is characterized by symmetry, axiality, and frontality, but the preserved structures show a more or less imperfect realization of the ideal plan, partly on account of topographical conditions. In the temenos of Aphrodite at Idalion the court is surrounded by porticos on two sides, the beginning of a peristyle arrangement, but the entrance to the court is not on the side opposite the chapel, the court itself is of a somewhat irregular shape, the chapel is not placed in the middle of the rear of the court, the entrance door of the chapel is placed at one end of the front wall and not on the axial line either of the chapel or of the court. All these irregularities are deviations from the ideal plan, but this temenos is still a representative of the type in question, because the chapel is placed in the rear of the court and forms an architectural unit with it, which are the fundamental principles characterizing this type and distinguishing it from the sanctuaries of the previous types. In the sanctuary of Athena at Vouni the striving for axiality is more pronounced: the entrance to the court in front of the chapel is in the mid~e. of the front wall, the cella itself is not on the axial line of the court on account of to 0graphical conditions, but the entrance of the cella is placed as near that axial line as possib .
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD Fragmentary remains of a room on the acropolis of Kition (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 18, Fig. 16 : I) dating from the Cypro-Geometric period may be a specimen of domestic architecture. In any case there is no evidence of the contrary. To judge by the angle of the walls preserved, the shape of the room seems to have been approximately rectangular or somewhat trapezoid. The walls were built of mud-brick on stone foundations of rubble. Some remains of house-walls from the local periods 3 and 4 on the Bamboula site at Kurion (Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLII, 1938, pp. 261 ff., Fig. 2) may also belong to Cypro-Geometric I, but the date of the periods in question is somewhat uncertain. They are assigned by Mr. J. F. Daniel to Late Cypriote III (loc. cit.) and by Dr. E. Sjoqvist to Cypro-Geometric I (cf. Sjoqvist, Probl. of the Late Cypr. Bronze Age, pp. 132 f., n. 4).
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC AND CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIODS The only remains of domestic architecture from the periods in question are those of the palace at Vouni. A detailed description of the palace is found in Swede Cyp. Exp. III, pp. II I ff. A summary of the architectural facts is given below. The walls were built of stone and sun-dried brick. As a rule, only the foundations were built of stone, the upper walls being of brick, but sometimes the walls of the whole groundfloor were of stone. The masonry is of three different main types: walls of rubble, walls of ashlar stones, and walls of mixed rubble and ashlars. The ashlar walls are never solid: the stone blocks form an outer revetment, while the inner filling consists of small stones, gravel, and earth, sometimes mixed with gypsum and lime-concrete. The technique of this revetment varies. Some of the walls are built of isodome layers of recumbent blocks placed lengthways; these walls are almost solid, as the interstices between the blocks in
ARCHITECTURE
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE
the middle are small; this type of wall is, however, rather rare. The usua t pes are those with isodome layers of alternately raised and recumbent blocks (as runners a d binders), the recumbent blocks sometimes being placed crosswise, but usually lengthways: o-called shell walls; furthermore, those with isodome layers of alternately raised and recumbent blocks as runners and binders, but also with transverse, raised blocks as binders inserted between the runners: so-called box-walls; a vertical variety of the box-walls is erected in this way: on one side of the wall a recumbent binder placed lengthways with a raised runner on the top of it corresponds on the other side to a raised runner with a recumbent binder placed lengthways on the top of it, so-called hook-walls. The rubble walls are of varying construction: narrow walls with stones in double rows, almost meeting in the middle and placed either obliquely or opposite each other; wider walls erected of a nearly compact mass of stones without distinct outer lining; and walls with an outer lining of large stones and an inner filling of smaller stones and gravel. A special type of wall is that with orthostatic blocks facing only one side, while the remainder is composed of rubble. The doorways are rectangular; some of the doors were double; the door-pavement is usually built of stone blocks; the thresholds, door-posts, and lintels were of wood; the doors turned on pivots, and one of the double doors was fastened with bolts. The floors are of varying construction. In the peripheral sections of the palace, the floors often consist only of levelled rock, sometimes with cement or lime-concrete in the hollows. In some of the store-rooms, there is a row of conical holes cut in the floor, which were intended to keep amphorae and other storage vessels with pointed bases in an upright position. In the other parts of the palace, the floors are made of lime-earth, limeconcrete or of lime-cement covered with a finishing coat of lime. Finally, there is one example of a floor constructed of stone slabs (cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 152 f.). The roofs were flat or slightly sloping and were built of a dunnage of straw resting on the wooden' beams and tightened and covered with clay and lime. Columns were used to support the roof of a peristyle round the open central court and also to support the beams across the open-front of'halls, etc. The columns were of two kinds: cylindrical, and elliptical with the ends cut off straight, both resting on low bases of rectangular slabs, projecting- above the stylobate, One capital was found, which had the shape of a 'Cypriote variety of the Hathor capital," with a female head in relief on the two long sides and an uraeus in a niche above it. Stairs were used not-only to lead to the upper story, but also on the ground-floor, to facilitate communication between rooms on different levels. These varied much owing to the "floors following the natural rise and. fall of the rock. Usually the stairs were straight, but there is one -example of a three-flight staircase leading to the upper story. The short staircases were, as a -rule, built of stone blocks; the longer ones leading to the upper story seem to have' been partly built of wood, and the three-flighrstaircase was built entirely of wood. As there is no well at Vouni, the rain-water was collected on the roofs and conducted
into cisterns by gutters and water-pipes. The cisterns are of three main types: the basincistern in the shape of an oblong basin; the cylindrical well-cistern; and the "bottle" cistern in the shape of a beer-bottle. They are all cut out of the rock and lined inside with limecement. Rain-water falling on the open parts of the palace and water poured out on the floor of sculleries, bath-rooms, etc., was carried off by conduits made of channelled stone blocks or cemented grooves. Some structures - the kitchen, baths, and latrines - deserve special mention. The kitchen has an open semicircular cooking-place in a corner of the room. There are two kinds of baths: one cold bath and one combined hot and cold bath. The cold bath consists of rooms with cemented walls and floors sloping to an outlet, from which a water-conduit carried off the used bath water. The hot bath consists of a sudatory, a firing-room for boiling hot water, a lavatory for hot water, and another for cold water. The sudatory was built on the top of two thick walls pierced by vertical holes leading from small rectangular furnaces below. The hot air was thus conducted into the sudatory, which was heated in this way. The lavatories have sloping cemented floors with marks of stands for water-basins, etc., and an outlet for the water. The latrines consist of small rectangular boxes built of ashlar stones, with drains from one of the short sides. Two of the latrines are connected with the cold bath in Rooms 22 and 23. The different rooms and other structures formed by these architectural elements were united into the final form of the palace only by degrees, as well as by essential changes of the original plan. An analysis shows that four building-periods are represented. The plan of the first palace (first and second building-periods) is shown by Fig. 6. The front of the palace faces S. W., where the main entrance is situated. This leads into the state apartments, which consist of a tripartite complex of rooms with a dominating central section and two lateral parts. The central section consists of an outer entrance hall, the main room, and an inner ball.openingonto the court. In the middle, between the antae of the inner hall, there are marks ofa base for a column, which supported the roof.. Probably there was a similar central column in the outer hall, but this cannot be. proved on account of the later cross-wall there (cf. p. 27). The side-rooms have outer doors of their.own, and are in direct communication with the main room and the other parts of the palace. From the entrance one descends to the central court by a staircase of seven steps extending across the whole width of the court. Thecourt was surrounded on three sides, in the N. W., N. E., and S. E., by a peristyle, with elliptical columns in the corners and cylindrical columns between these to supportthe portico. The central part of the court wasopen, with the basin-cistern in the middle. This cistern was probably covered by a wooden roof resting on wooden cross-beams, and was fed by rain-water .from the roofs. of the surrounding rooms; by a subterranean passage cut in the rock it communicated with the wellcisternin Room 34-36, from which the water was .drawn.
I
I"
26
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE
ARCHITECTURE
39
37
..
.'
o
59-61
:~::::::::::::::::1
'1
::
::
80
II II
II
:1.11II::::::;;:: :::
::.::
.
63 62::
52
53
55
78
'
"79
•
Fig. 6. Vouni, The first palace.
Round the central court are the private rooms of the palace. A wide-fronted room, 34-3 6, situated on the N. E. long side, opens on to the court with a broad aperture. As this opening seems to be spanned by a single cross-beam without support, it is almost certain that a column of stone or wood supported the wood-work. The other rooms round the court are all narrow-fronted and communicate with the court by means of doors, but do not communicate directly with each other; they are, consequently, grouped centripetally around the court. Of the bath-rooms, which were placed in the angle between the rooms of the short side and the south-eastern long side of the court, Room 42 opens on to the court, while Room 40+4 1 communicates only with Room 42 by a door at the north-western end of the partition wall.
27
The axial line of the entrance-building coincides with that of the court and of the middle of the three rooms at the rear end of the court. The building, consequently, shows perfect axiality. The fact that the stylobate in front of the three rooms in the rear of the court extends across the whole width of the court emphasizes the frontality. Though the plan shows a geometrically clear conception, it is, however, not perfectly symmetrical. The large room 34-36 of the private apartments is asymmetrically placed at one of the long sides of the court, and there is no correspondence to the bath-rooms on the opposite side; further, as a door was made into Room 42 from the court, the walls of the rooms at the S. E. long side had to be located somewhat to the S. W. in relation to those of the corresponding rooms at the opposite side of the court; furthermore, the corresponding side-rooms of the entrance-building are not of the same size; and finally, the walls of the side-rooms of the entrance-building do not correspond. The part of the palace just described forms its main body and nucleus: a fixed, dominating complex of rooms grouped round the central court. S. E. and N. W. of this central complex are two side-wings: in the S. E. the kitchen-department, and to the N. W. some living-rooms, bath-rooms, and store-rooms. The N. W. wing was entered through three vestibules (Rooms 14, 16, 27). During the second building-period a suite of store-rooms to the S. E. and N. E. (8688, 92, 93), a latrine (91), and the sudatory (41, 85) for the bath were added to the palace. A back-yard enclosed on three sides (to the S. E., N. E., and N. W.) was formed in this way, and in the middle of this a cistern was built to receive the water from the roofs of the newly built rooms. The plan of the second palace (third and fourth building-periods) is shown by Fig. 7. The building operations of the earlier period were completed; an upper story was added; by building four new store-rooms in the S. E. wing and by demolishing a couple of rooms of the earlier kitchen-department, the back-yard was formed into a closed rectangle; part of the earlier kitchen-yard was screened off, and a three-flight staircase was built leading to the upper story; as compensation for the lost part of the kitchen-department, the latter was enlarged by a wing to the S. W. containing new rooms round a second kitchen-yard. In the remaining earlier part of the kitchen-yard a staircase was erected to the upper story or only to the roof of the kitchen-rooms, and the wall, together with the door and staircase between the yard and Room 55, was rebuilt; in the N. W. wing some minor rebuilding operations were carried out: a staircase was built to the upper story of Room 16, and the western vestibule, Room 14, was converted into a store-room. On the other hand, the building operations as revealed in the central part of the palace mean a complete change of the earlier conditions there. A new main entrance was built, with an angular vestibule round the northern corner of the palace; from the vestibule a staircase leads up to Room 37 and thence to the central court. At the same time the exterior hall of the earlier entrance-building was closed by a transverse wall, though otherwise it was left untouched. In this way, however, the character of the reception-rooms was completely changed; from being located in the front of the palace they were now relegated to
28
ARCHITECTURE
TOMBS
the rear of the court-yard, with a megaron-shaped central part flanked by three side-rooms on each side. At the same time the earlier main room of the private appartments was divided by a wall into two rooms of the same type as the other rooms round the central court. Finally, the basin-cistern in the court and the well-cistern in Room 34-36 were filled in, and a new, more monumental, cistern of the bottle type was built within and below the basincistern with a stand for hoisting the water. In this way the palace obtained its ultimate form: during the fourth building-period only minor additions and renovations were made. This ultimate form of the palace differs essentially from that of the earlier palace, owing to the changes in its central part. These changes affect the architectural principles. The axiality is preserved, though not in the entrance, which on account of the steep slope of the rock to the N. E. had to be located as it is; the symmetry is still more emphasized, but the location of the reception-rooms in the rear of the court and their megaron-shaped main room make the architectural form of the later palace quite different from that of the earlier palace. The first and second building-periods date from the last stage of Cypro-Archaic II to shortly before the middle of Cypro-Classic I, and the third and fourth building-periods date from shortly before the middle of Cypro-Classic I to the end of the first quarter of Cypro-Classic II (cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 286).
l
o o
o
-.- .
!j "
__/J"
\"
,r ', ,'
f! ~_I
~
~._-----
29
----------------------
• o
NI
Tombs ~
--Do
i;l:~~rd<-==-~-""'''1IIu
o c-i
~
CD
:::~ ~\
co ::
..
:::~j
()"\:: t-::
:: ::
cO
CD CD
o L{)
0'
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD Specimen tombs of this period are: Lapithos, Tombs 4°1-429,601-6°3 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, pp. 173 ff.); Marion, Tombs 63, 65, 68-70, 83 (op. cit. II, pp. 372 ff.); Stylli, Tombs I, 7-9, 14, 15 (op. cit. II, pp. 143 ff.); Idalion, Tomb 3 (op. cit. II, pp. 634 ff.); Amathus, Tombs 4-8, 10-16, 18, 19, 21-25 (op. cit. II, pp. 17 ff.); Kurion (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, Pl.CLXXIII, 19; Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, pp. 56 ff., Fig. 3). All the tombs are rock-cut. The following main types can be distinguished. The simplest type of tomb represented is the pit-shaped tomb. Only two specimens of this type are recorded hitherto: Lapithos, Tomb 421 and the Kurion tomb published by Ohnefalsch-Richter, loco cit. The Kurion tomb is roughly circular in plan and narrows upwards, so that the pit has the shape of a truncated cone. The Lapithos tomb consists of an oblong, rounded pit with a niche cut along one long side, and one short side bordered by a line of rough stones. A small but definite, class of tombs is represented by Lapithos, Tombs 4°4,429,601-6°3. These tombs consist of a vertically cut shaft, roughly rectangular or trapezoid in shape, and a small chamber of a similar shape, sometimes even smaller in size than the shaft,
3°
ARCHITECTURE
so that it is more of a large niche than a chamber. The chamber is placed along one of the long sides of the shaft, and the whole or almost the whole of its front side opens on to the shaft. This wide opening was closed by a packing of rough stones. The floor and the roof of the chamber are nearly horizontal or slightly sloping towards the back wall. Occasionally (Tomb 404) a small niche is cut in one of the rock walls of the shaft. It could be observed that Tombs 601-603 were covered by tumuli of earth and stones. Possibly the other tombs of this type were also covered by such tumuli. The tombs of this type are represented during the whole of the Cypro-Geometric period. Lapithos, Tomb 427, from Cypro-Geometric III, represents a type which is really only a variety of the preceding. Its dromos is a rather shallow and wide shaft, roughly rectangular in shape, with a step cut at the entrance and sloping slightly towards the door. On the left of the rear end of the shaft is a semicircular niche cut in the rock. The doorway is a roughly rectangular hole, which opens onto the chamber from above, near the rear end of the shaft. This hole was closed by a packing of rough stones. From the bottom of the door-aperture, a step leads down to the level of the chamber, which is of an irregular shape with an oblong, cave-shaped recess at the back. Lapithos, Tombs 406-410, 412-415, 417, 418, 420, 422, 428 and the Kurion tombs published by Mr. Daniel are of a totally different type. These tombs have a long, narrow dromos sloping towards the door of the chamber. The rock walls usually narrow upwards in the back part of the dromos, so that they almost meet above the door, and the dromos in the upper plane has therefore the shape of a wedge. In some tombs, the sides of the dromos converge only slightly, but the narrow and long corridor shape of the dromos is always a typical feature. The doorway sometimes occupies the whole width of the dromos, occasionally it is provided with a short stomion. The sides of the doorway are straight and vertical, with the upper end vaulted or almost horizontal. The door was closed with a packing of rough stones. Occasionally it opens onto the chamber along the longitudinal axis. The chamber is often trapezoid in shape, sometimes roughly rectangular, and only occasionally of a somewhat irregular shape. The roof of the chamber is horizontal or sloping towards the back wall. Some of the tombs are provided with niches cut in the rock walls of the dromos, and occasionally there is also a niche in the chamber. The tombs of this type occur in Cypro-Geometric I-II. Lapithos, Tombs 402, 416, 419, 423-426~ Marion, Tombs 63, 65, 68-70, and Idalion, Tomb 3 form a group which in part seems to be influenced by the type just described, but, on the other hand, shows distinct characteristics of its own. The dromos is a narrow passage, but is usually shorter and often wider than in the preceding type; sometimes it widens considerably towards the entrance; the sides of the dromos are vertical or only slightly converging and sometimes even diverging. The dromos slopes gradually towards the door or descends by rock-cut steps. These different forms of the dromos are only varieties of the same main type. The doorway is, as a rule, of the same shape as in the preceding type, and was closed by a packing of rough stones. The shape of the chamber, too, resembles that of the preceding type, but the irregularities are more common. Transitional types are
TOMBS
2f[J A-A
~
...c
A-A L.421
5 t _Q
~~----
:
3
B-'
I
L.401
Lt=>rnn
B L.417
l..ff.c.:cJ
A- A
I
I I
-- - -- - ---------t' I
8
OJ B-B
B
A __ ~~.p
A
I
, I
@S.,
B-B
fu.::r=3 A-A
Fig. 8. Cypro-Geometric tombs.
A.12
ARCHITECTURE
TOMBS
represented by Lapithos, Tombs 401, 403, and 4II, whose dromo~ are ~f medium length and converge slightly upwards. On the other hand, the typologIcal difference between the characteristic and pure representatives of both types is evident. It suffices to compare the shape of Marion, Tombs 63 and 65 with that of Lapithos, Tom~s 40~ and 4 17. The tombs of this group occur during the whole of the Cypro-Geometnc penod. The Stylli tombs form a group, distinctly different from those of the types already described. The dromos is wide and long, gradually sloping and widening towards the door. The sides of the dromos are almost vertical or diverging. Occasionally small niches are cut in the rock walls of the dromos. The doorway of the chamber is usually of a rounded, somewhat irregular shape, sometimes with a short stomion. The door was closed by a packing of slabs and irregular stones. It opens on to the ~hamber approxi~ately in the longitudinal axis of the latter or is placed somewhat to the SIde. The chamber IS very small in comparison with the size of the dromos; it is cave-shaped, irre~ularly round, ~sually with the floor and roof sloping slightly towards the back wall. Manon, Tomb 83 IS of a similar type, but the cave-shaped chamber is larger, of a normal size in relation to the dromos, which is a combined sloping and staircase shaft, and has a rock-cut bench along the left side wall. The Stylli tombs date from Cypro-Geometric III, and the Marion tombs from
covered with large stone slabs placed transversely across the shaft and resting on the rock edges. Smaller stones of various sizes were inserted between the large slabs. In some tombs, where no remains of these covering slabs are left, the shafts might have been covered with some easily perishable material, e. g., wooden planks, but the possibility also exists that the stone slabs have been removed at a later date. Tombs belonging to this type are Nos. 4-8, 10, 12-15, 18, 19, 22-25. Tombs of this type are represented during the whole of the Cypro-Geometric period. Three tombs of the same necropolis, Nos. II, 16, and 21, are of a type which is actually only a variety of the preceding. Of these tombs, No. 21 dates from the end of Cypro-Geometric I and the others from Cypro-Geometric III. The rock walls of the tomb shaft are revetted by stone masonry of roughly cut ashlars. The roof of the shaft is built of large stone slabs placed transversely across the shaft and resting on the revetting walls, i. e., the same kind of roof as in the other Amathus tombs. The walls of Tomb 21 are constructed in the technique of a corbel-vault; probably it was closed with flat slabs at the top. Technically, these Geometric tombs are primitive representatives of the same structural type as the large, built tombs of the Archaic period (d. below).
32
. Cypro-Geometric I. The Amathus tombs form a group which differs essentially from all the precedmg types. There are several varieties, but one principal type. The dromos is a narrow shaft sloping down to the door of the tomb. Sometimes there are one or more steps at the entrance of the dromos. The length of the dromos varies, but is usually rather short. It opens on to the tomb shaft in different ways: in the left or right corners of one of its long sides, in the middle of its long side, or in the middle of its short side. The stomion is rather short and rectangular "in shape. Usually it is built of two stone blocks forming the door-jambs with a covering stone slab as a lintel. Sometimes there is also a threshold stone. In some tombs the orthostatic door-jambs are missing, and the lintel block rests on the rock edges. In one case (Tomb 24) the rear of the dromos is revetted and stre~gthened by a wa~l of roughly, cut ashlars of various sizes. This revetting of the rock walls WIth stone masonry IS a structural feature which connects this tomb with those of which the chambers are entirely revetted with stone masonry (d. below) and also with the large, built tombs of the Archaic period, e. g., Tomb 2, where the rear of the dromos is revetted with a wall of stone blocks. Usually thedromoi seem to have been filled in with earth in the usual way, but in one case (Tomb 12) it could be stated that the dromos had been covered by large stone slabs resting on the edges of the rock, i. e., in the same way as the tomb chambers (d. below). ~he doorway leading to the tomb shaft was usually closed with one or more stone slabs, sometimes wedged around the edges with smaller stones. Occasionally the door was closed. by huge blocks instead of slabs. The tomb shaft is of varying size and usually roughly rectangular in shape, with rounded corners; sometimes part of the walls are of a rounded or irregular outline. The walls of the shaft are either vertical or somewhat converging towards the rock surface. A few tombs are provided with niches cut in the rock walls. The tombs were, as a rule,
33
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD Specimen tombs of this period are: Amathus, Tombs 1-3, 9 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 4 ff.); other tombs at Amathus found in earlier excavations (Opusc. archaeol. II = Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. V, 1939, pp. 32, 34 f.); Marion, Tombs 4-8, 10-13, 20, 50, 62, 64, 66, 71-82, 84-87, 89, 90, 93-98 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 190 ff.); Stylli, Tombs 2-6, 10-13, 16, 17 (op. cit. II, pp. 144 ff.); the Trachonas tomb (op. cit. I, pp. 461 ff.); Enkomi, Tomb in the tumulus near Ajia Katherina (Opusc. archaeol. II, PP.43 ff.); tombs at Tamassos (op. cit. II, pp. 36 ff.); Xylotymbou, Tombs I, 2 (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. CLXXV, 6,7; CLXXXIX); Kition (op. cit., PI. CLXXV, 8; Opusc. archaeol. II, pp. 39 ff.). No pit-shaped tombs are recorded from the Cypro-Archaic period, but their existence is not altogether excluded, since this simple type of tomb, represented in the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Classical periods, was most probably in use in every period. The majority of the tombs are rock-cut chamber-tombs. Of the Cypro-Geometrical types, those with a vertically cut shaft (Lapithos, Tombs 404, 429, 601-603) and those with a narrow, wedge-shaped dromos (Lapithos, Tombs 406-410, 412-415, 417, 418, 420, 422) are entirely missing, and there is no addition of new types not represented in the Cypro-Geometric period. Though, therefore, the principal types are fewer in number, there are, many varieties, as described below. The chamber is either of an irregularly cave-shaped form or it is more regularly shaped, with straight or almost straight walls. The dromos may be short or long, narrow or wide, and may descend with or without steps. There are, however, many intermediate specimens 3
TOMBS
ARCHITECTURE
34
1 ~--i7iT=1mn
A
A
j c
A
c
'"::cJlJ_...I.
OJ
1 ----..
A-A
c-c
D-D
A
A.4
B-B
c-c
6
B I
c
I I I
A
L
I I
I
I
8
. . --..------~',
E----Pt~--) .......... --...
Fig. 9. Cypro-Geometric tombs (1-4); Cypro-Archaic tombs (5-8).
:
......_-"*'
35
between the extreme and pure representatives, and this holds good both as regards the shape of the chambers and the dromoi. In fact, the tombs form a coherent series of various shapes gradually passing into each other. The extreme examples are easily distinguishable, but it is not possible to draw distinct typological limits. E. g., Stylli, Tomb 10 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Fig. 54), Amathus, Tomb 3 (op. cit. II, Fig. 6), and Marion, Tomb 4 (op. cit. II, Fig. 69) are certainly different in shape: the Stylli tomb has a long and wide dromos and a small, cave-shaped chamber, the Amathus tomb has a long and narrow dromos and a rectangular chamber, and the Marion tomb has a short, wide dro mos and an irregularly shaped chamber, but the gradual transitions from the one shape to the other are represented by a great number of tombs, which shows that no fixed types were developed; the differences in shape depend far more upon other than typological conditions, e. g., the consistency of the rock, topographical conditions, economic considerations, etc. Certain groups of tombs characterized by common typological features can, however, be distinguished. One group displays the following characteristics: the dromos is a basin-shaped shaft; the shaft is sometimes short and wide, sometimes longer, and the dromos then approaches the shape of the dromoi inthe second group; in others it is fairly narrow and then approaches the shape of the dromoi in the third group (d. below). In some tombs a bench is cut along one side of the shaft, and occasionally there are niches (Marion, Tomb 8). The walls of the shaft are vertical or widen upwards and the floor slopes towards the door or descends by a flight of steps. The doorway has straight sides and a horizontal or vaulted top. It opens on to the chamber to one side of its longitudinal axis. The stomion is short or missing. The door is closed with a packing of rubble or stone slabs. The chamber is usually irregularly round and cave-shaped, but sometimes of a more regular, roughly rectangular shape. Sometimes niches are cut in the walls. The floor of the chamber is horizontal or gently sloping towards the back wall. The roof, when preserved, is slightly vaulted and slopes towards the back wall. Marion, Tombs 4, 8, 64, 78, 94, and Stylli, Tomb 2 are representatives of the tomb with short shaft. Tomb 94 is of a miniature size - it was a child's tomb - and is of a singular shape, with its small, niche-shaped chamber opening on to the shaft with its whole front side. The shafts of Marion, Tomb 10, and Stylli, Tomb I I are wide, but rather long, so that they tend towards the shape of the tombs of the second group, but in spite of its length, the shape of the dromoi is more of a basin-shaped shaft than a passage. The shafts of Marion, Tombs 74, 84, and 90 are also rather long, but narrower, so that they form an intermediate stage between the basin-shaped shafts of the first group and the passage shaft of the third group. The tombs which are pure representatives of the first group are equally distributed within the Cypro-Archaic periods, while the majority of those of the mixed types date from Cypro-Archaic II. The chambers of the second group of tombs are similar to those of the first group, but, though the roughly round, cave-shaped chamber occurs frequently, the fairly regularly shaped, roughly rectangular or trapezoid, chamber is more common than in the first group. The dromos is, however, of a different shape. It is a wide passage, which descends by a gentle
TOMBS
ARCHITECTURE
-----------+I
11lJ B '--_-
~
. .
. .
B-B
B
5
11'" I
r
B ~ C
I I
~~I
I I I
I
I
I
...,c I
}
B-'B
Fig.
10.
Cypro-Archaic tombs.
-- -)1
J
B-'
I
I I
II
I I
I
A-A
I
~
,
M.11
I I
.......
M.72
37
slope, or by a flight of steps, or is a combined sloping and staircase passage. The length of the passage varies. It depends upon the position of the tomb, the slope of the rock, and the inclination of the passage: steep passages and those cut in a steep hillside are usually rather short, while those cut on a plateau and with a gentle slope are longer. The dromoi of Marion, Tombs sand 79 are rather short, but the regularly stepped descent includes these dromoi in the "passage-group". The gradual elongation of the dromos is shown by Marion, Tombs II, 12,96, and 97. Marion, Tomb 72 represents the monumental form of the staircase passage. The wide, gradually sloping passage, on the other hand, is characteristic of the Stylli tombs (Nos. 3-6, 12, 13, 16, 17) and Marion, Tombs 71 and 86. The latter is a child's tomb and, therefore, of a miniature size, corresponding to Marion, Tomb 94 of the preceding group. The Stylli tombs illustrate the gradual elongation of thedromos from that of Tomb I I, which can be considered as an enlarged basin-shaped shaft, to the long dromoi of Tombs 10, 13 and 17. These Stylli tombs differ from the other tombs of this group by the size of the chambers, which are very small in comparison with the enormous dromoi, and by the location of the doors, which open on to the chambers approximately in their longitudinal axis, while the chambers of the Marion tombs are of normal size in comparison with the dromoi, and the doors, as a rule, open on to the chambers somewhat to the side of their longitudinal axis. The doorways and the interior of the chambers are similar to those of the first group. The monumental dromos of Marion, Tomb 72 is provided with rock-cut parastades close to the door. The tombs of this group are represented in both the Cypro-Archaic periods, but the majority of the tombs with regularly shaped chambers and with staircase dromoi date from Cypro-Archaic II. The chambers of the third group are similar in shape to those of the preceding groups, but the shape of the dromos is different. It is a narrow passage, which descends by a gentle slope, or by a flight of steps, or is a combined sloping and staircase dromos. The length varies, as in the wide passage type. Marion, Tombs 6,76,89,93,98 and Amathus, Tomb 3 have a sloping dromos. A staircasedromos or a combined sloping and step dromos occurs in Marion, Tombs 62, 66, 73, 7S, 77, 80-8S, 87-9S. In Marion, Tombs 13, 20, -and So a part or almost the whole of the dromos is missing, so that it cannot be ascertained whether it was once provided with steps or not. The door usually opens on to the chamber to the side of its longitudinal axis; only in a few tombs does it open approximately in the longitudinal axis of the chamber. The doorways and the interior of the chambers are, as a rule, similar to those of the preceding groups. In the chamber of Marion, Tomb 20 a rock-cut pillar projecting from the back wall supports the roof. The chamber of Marion, Tomb 89 is provided with a small niche in the back wall and a large, loaf-shaped niche in its left side wall, a type of niche which is typical of a group of tombs in the Cypro-Classical period (ef. below). Marion, Tombs 81 and 93 are children's tombs and of a miniature size. The tombs of this group are represented in both the Cypro-Archaic periods, but those with a regularly shaped chamber and a step dromos are much more common in Cypro-Archaic II - the same phenomenon as was observed in the second group. A type of tomb distinctly different from all those described occurs in Amathus, VIZ.,
TOMBS
ARCHITECTURE
_---r'"B-
t
J_u________
, .>: -
:
~
..............,
i I !
B-B
B-B
4 A _------n.~~
~
M.'.
B-B
5 A - A - - - -_ _J
6 t.
1 I
7
B -
B~ I
i
I
:..
~B-B I
Fig.
II.
Cypro-Archaic tombs.
.
.....'
39
the type represented there already in the Cypro-Geometric period and consisting of a short and narrow dromos opening on to a rectangular chamber shaft, of which the roof is covered by large stone slabs. It is true that no tombs of this type were newly cut in the Archaic period among those excavated by us, but many of the Cypro-Geometric tombs were re-used in the Archaic period; and the variety of this type, also represented in the Cypro-Geometric period, with the rock shaft revetted by stone walls is represented by Amathus, Tomb 9, dating from Cypro-Archaic II. It was pointed out above that tombs of this type are technically only primitive representatives of the group to which we now turn: the monumental built tombs. Such tombs are not rare during the Archaic period. Several structural varieties can be distinguished. The \omb of Ajia Faneromeni at Kition contains two chambers, one behind the other. The outer chamber is rectangular in shape, the interior square with one corner rounded. The roofs of both the chambers are vaulted, and are formed by huge blocks hollowed out and covering the whole width of the chambers. The date of this tomb cannot be determined on the basis of datable finds, which are entirely missing, but the structure of the tomb suggests an Archaic date. The dromos of the other tombs is sometimes merely cut in the rock and slopes gradually towards the door, or descends by rock-cut steps with only the front wall above the door revetted by ashlar blocks (e. g., Amathus, Tomb 2 and the Xylotymbou tombs); sometimes the sides of the dromos are revetted by ashlar blocks (e. g., the Tamassos and Trachonas tombs). The number of the chambers varies. Often there is only one chamber, sometimes there are two, one behind the other (e. g., one of the Tamassos tombs, Amathus, Tomb 2, and other tombs at Amathus found in earlier excavations), occasionally there are three transverse chambers (e. g., Amathus, Tomb I) or four chambers, of which three are transverse, and the fourth is placed behind the middle of the three chambers (e. g., one of the tombs at Amathus excavated by Cesnola), or even five chambers, the location of which is, however, not certain (one of the Amathus tombs, No. 312, excavated by the British Museum). It must be pointed out that the date of the Amathus tombs found in earlier excavations can only occasionally be ascertained on the basis of datable finds. Thus the sculptured sarcophagus found in one of the tombs discovered by Cesnola (cf. Opusc. archaeol. II, pp. 34 f.) and the jewellery found in one of the tombs, No. 79, excavated by the British. Museum (Exc. in Cyp., PIs. IV, 10; XIV, II, 12, 18) assign these tombs to the Archaic period. The Roman glass found in two of the tombs, Nos. 77, 103, excavated by the British Museum must belong to a later burial (op. cit., pp. 92, 120). From a structural point of view and from comparison with the types of dated tombs, an Archaic date of all the built tombs in Amathus seems likely. The chambers of all these tombs are built of rectangular blocks of limestone or sandstone in isodome or roughly isodome courses. They were erected in a shaft excavated in the rock. The floor is horizontal and usually covered with stone slabs. The shape of the roof varies. It may be Rat, saddle-shaped or vaulted. Flat roofs are represented by one of the Amathus tombs, No. 77, excavated by the British Museum and the exterior chamber of one of the
TOMBS
1
1
B1 j
1.--_
I I
A
f-
----0-+-----
l-
A L
I
I--
l-
I
I
I---
I--
l-
f--
I-
-[
•
J-
• ~1 t:~
I---
[
r-- ~ I---
f
r-:
I-:0-
~
I
J
1
BJ
1
---
1 r"
rE••
~ ~
~;;;;
~
I • oj
lE· •
Lc
_----I-------~I I I
~-ll I ,I
: :: ~-L. ~-,-~~-L-L;L--------l---.L---------~-ll--I
'II
B-B
2 A
A
------------------ ... _._--_ ...__.------ .+
u
A-A
c-c
B-B
I ,
A
A-A
L
1--'--
J--I
I
I B..J
~
I
1 -f -
~
I-
-1--
I---
I--
f-
l-
\--,
f-
~
f---
.--
I---
1-
I I
5
6
C--C
B~
2
~
I---L....,-,..
L..-c
A 1-1-1-1-1+ ~~+-1++·1--l4-.J
c-c
I
11 Fig. 12. Cypro-Archaic tombs from Faneromeni (I), Amathus (z),-Xylotymbou I (3), Kition (4), Xylotymbou II (5), and Trachonas (6).
l-
B-B
A I \-'..,---'---lr+-L.J~~--j
1.
.
A-A
Fig. 13. Cypro-Archaic tombs from Tamassos.
ARCHITECTURE
Amathus tombs excavated by Cesnola (cf. Opusc. archaeol. II, p. 34). The tombs at Tamassos, Enkomi, Xylotymbou, one tomb at Kition published by Ohnefalsch-Richter, two tombs at Amathus, Nos. 79, 103, excavated by the British Museum, and the interior chamber of one tomb at Amathus excavated by Cesnola have a saddle-shaped roof. Usually the roof is formed by long blocks leaning against each other, but at Xylotymbou it is built in the corbel technique. Amathus, Tombs I and 2, one tomb at Amathus, No. 312, excavated by the British Museum, one tomb at Kition (cf. op. cit. II, p. 41, No. 21), and the tomb at Trachonas have a vaulted roof. Usually it is built in the corbel technique and covered at the top by horizontal slabs, but at Trachonas it is formed by long blocks cut curved and leaning against each other. The technique of leaning long blocks against each other is thus only exceptionally used for the structure of the vaulted roof, but is customary for that of the saddle-shaped roof in the same way as the corbel technique is commonly used for the structure of the vaulted roof, but is exceptional for that of the saddle-shaped roof. Above the door of the Trachonas tomb the front wall of the chamber is decorated with rude relief sculptures of grotesque male figures. The side walls of the dromos of the Tamassos tombs, in front of the door, are decorated with sculptured pilasters surmounted by "Proto-Ionic" capitals. The interior of one of these Tamassos tombs, that with two chambers, is noteworthy on account of the elaborate stone imitation of a wooden construction of roof-beams, door-jambs, bolts, and window-casements. The doors of the chambers were closed by large slabs of stone. Sometimes the door swung on pivots (Amathus, Tomb 79, excavated by the British Museum) or there was a sliding portcullis door, lowered from a hole in the roof (Tomb of Ajia Faneromeni at Kition). All the built tombs were probably covered by tumuli of earth, and in two cases (Enkomi, Trachonas) these have been preserved.
TOMBS
\f-----------}Y 1
43
fE---n_J
- 2
'"
7 .'-A-_A-:J.. A-A
V.10
M.19 B
3~ B-B~
B
M.35
~ A-A
-f------I I
I I I
I I
B-]
[
J
20
A-A
.---------+--_.__. I
I
I I
I I I I
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD Specimen tombs of this period are: Marion, Tombs 14-19, 21-49, 51-60, 67, 88, 91, 92 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 219 ff.); Vouni, Tombs 1-16 (op. cit. III, pp. 300 ff.); a tomb at Pyla (Cyprus!?ep. Antiq., Rep. No.2, 1934, Nicosia 1935, pp. 9 ff.). A few pit-tombs are recorded in this period: Marion, Tomb 19 and Vouni, Tombs 5 and 10. Marion, Tomb 19 is a shallow, oblong shaft with rounded corners; Vouni, Tomb 5 is only an irregular cavity in the rock; and Vouni, Tomb 10 consists of a narrow, rectangular shaft. In the Marion tomb a broken pithos containing a child's skeleton was found; Vouni, Tomb 5 contained one jug and very decayed remains of a skeleton; and in Vouni, Tomb 10 a skeleton was found in a dorsal position squeezed between the walls of the shaft and without tomb-gifts. It may be a sacrificial burial of a slave killed when his master was buried in one of the neighbouring tombs (for human sacrifices at the burial, see Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, pp. 218, 228, 236, 243 f.). It is thus evident that the few pit-tombs represented hitherto in the Cypro-Classical period are used for burials of a particular or unusual kind.
B-B
---------ffi--M.15
2(..jm.....~ c
'
M.14
~
A-A
I ic~~ F B-a
Fig. 14. Cypro-ClassicaI tombs.
B
TOMBS
ARCHITECTURE
44
1 f I
----------------------+ r I
I
v.a
2 ~~_-_-~~--------------------01 A
\
31] B-B
Fig. IS. Cypro-Claseical tombs.
J
4S
All the other tombs are chamber-tombs. Some of these are of the same types as in the Cypro-Archaic period, so that the typological continuity is unbroken. On the other hand, the majority of the tombs show a modification and development of the Archaic types, and this modification increases as time passes, so that tombs of the most advanced type are represented towards the late part of Cypro-Classic II. In general, the morphology of the tombs tends towards uniform, regular, and canonic shape. The many irregularities and varieties of the Archaic types gradually decrease. In Cypro-Classic I, the predominant shape of the chamber is trapezoid or roughly rectangular, usually with rounded corners. The irregularly oblong and cave-shaped chambers are only represented by single specimens (Marion, Tombs 29 and 3S). The roofs, when preserved, are usually curved, and slope towards the back wall. Only occasionally (Vouni, Tomb 12) a barrel-shaped roof occurs. Loaf-shaped, shallow niches are not seldom cut in the walls of the chamber. The shape of the dromoi is more varied. The dromos may be a rather short and narrow, basin-shaped shaft, sometimes descending by rock-cut steps, or the shaft is prolonged into a corridor, usually provided with rock-cut steps, so that the dromos is a combined sloping and step corridor. Occasionally there is a rock-cut bench along one side of the dromos (Marion, Tomb 28), as was usual in the Archaic period. Sometimes the dromos descends by a continuous flight of steps, a regular step dromos of varying length and width, but usually rather narrow. All these varieties are already represented in the Archaic period, emphasizing the morphological continuity. On the other hand, the general tendency-towards uniformity is evident from the fact that the varieties are fewer, and the typical shape is a combined sloping and stepped shaft of medium size or a regular step dromos. The dromoi are sometimes provided with small niches cut in the rock walls. As a rule, the doorway of the chamber opens in the back wall of the dromos and only occasionally in one of its side walls (Marion, Tomb SI). Sometimes the door is placed approximately in the longitudinal axis of the chamber, but usually to the left or right of this axis. A few doors have no stomion, but usually there is a short or, more seldom, longer stomion. The door is closed by a packing of slabs or, more seldom, rough stones. In Cypro-Classic II, the canonic and regular shape of the tomb is still more dominating, especially in the later part of the period. Tombs of the trapezoid or roughly rectangular shape, often with loaf-shaped niches, are common; only a very few tombs are of a rounded shape, and these are evenly rounded, not of the irregular type occurring before (Marion, Tomb 4S; Vouni, Tombs 2, 13, IS). In the later part of the period the normal shape of the carefully cut tombs is a symmetrical, rectangular chamber, usually with slightly curved walls and sometimes with loaf-shaped niches but, more often, with tunnel-shaped and deep niches. The roofs may be slightly arched and sloping towards the back wall as before, but the barrel-shaped roof is extremely common, and there is also evidence of a saddle-shaped roof (Marion, Tomb 36). The dromoi, too, are of a more uniform shape. Medium-sized shafts, with or without steps, or combined sloping and step dromoi still occur, but the normal and characteristic type is the step dromos. A few dromoi have niches cut in the rock walls, as before, and occasionally a side-chamber opens from one of the long walls
TOMBS
ARCHITECTURE
47 I I I I
I I I
~--I-~
c-c
-" ]
-
r -I
L
l-
-
I
1"'-1
I-
~
~ r-, -
- r-
w-
-
I I
J ,,
,,
.....
I
''-B \
"
I
I
r-B
~
,
I
,-
I
I I
--1- -
L _,
-
,..,
, \
I
--1-I
.: I
-
~
l
, /
1 I I
I
-
T
.I.
I I
c-c -
I-I---
B-B
c
2VJ I
Fig. 17. Cypro-Classical tomb from Pyla.
A-A
~
C-------~j c-c
ll-B
~.
B
B
M.53
D-D .
3
W D -D
[ {h ----~c-c
B-B
-- ----t11Iiit~~ M.n
rFig. 16. Cypro-Classical tombs.
I
~: ~
i:,~
.;.
(Marion, Tombs 36, 40). The doorway and door-packing are similar to those of the tombs of Cypro-Classic 1. The built tombs, which are fairly common in the Archaic period, are less numerous in the Classical period so far as the present evidence goes. The best specimen of this type is the tomb found at Pyla. Its dromos descends to the. chamber by steps. These and the sides of the dromos are revetted by stone blocks. The tomb has four chambers: the central chamber entered through the doorway from the dromos, two chambers entered through doorways in the E. and W. side walls of the central chamber, and one chamber entered through a doorway in the back wall of the central chamber. The chambers are erected in a large pit cut in the rock. The walls are built of rectangular stone blocks in isodomic courses and the roof of two rows of curved, long blocks joining in the middle and resting on a course of smaller, curved blocks set on the vertical wall. In this way a barrel-shaped vault is formed. The W. side chamber has no built roof, but is entirely cut in the rock, and only the lower part of its walls is revetted with stone blocks. The floor of the central chamber is paved with gypsum slabs. Above the entrance to the N. chamber are three reliefs cut on limestone slabs representing a Gorgon's head and two sphinxes.
WHITE PAINTED WARE
,p 0 T T E R Y
White Painted lfiire 1.
WHITE PAINTED I WARE (Figs. I-VII)
Technique
· heel-made; the cl. ay is buff or br~wn, sometimes greenish. in colour; well silted, . with a buff or somewhat greemsh slip, smooth and not mfrequently polished; W .on this slip the ornaments are painted in a black or brown mat colour. .
Shape
The dishes have a wide, flat base, with or without base-ring, and as a rule, two handles, . plain or knobbed (I a, b). The type with three handles (2) is rare. The shallow bowls (1-·7) are sometimes rather similar to the dishes, but differ from them in the narrow base. This is usually flat or provided with a base-ring. Occasionally there is a low foot (7). Pierced ledge-handles (I), one horizontal handle (2), one horizontal handle and a shaft handle opposite to it (3) are rare phenomena. Usually there are two horizontal handles, plain or knobbed. The bowls of a medium depth (8-10) have usually convex or, more seldom, straight sides; the deep bowls (II, 12) have angular or doublecurved sides, all these types of bowls have base-ring, or occasionally flat base, and two horizontal handles; the bowls with low foot (I 3 a-c) are of varying depth, they have doublecurved sides and two horizontal handles. A characteristic, but rather rare type is the deep bowl with more or less low foot, double-curved sides, two horizontal handles and a miniature bowl perched on one of the handles (14 a, b). Occasionally the rim is raised into a short neck (15). The funnel-shaped bowls have straight sides and flat base (16) or flaring sides with flat base or base-ring (17 a, b), both types with two horizontal handles. The bowls with three loop legs have double-curved sides, sometimes with distinctly profiled rim, without (18 a) or with two bucranium handles alternating with two single vertical handles below the rim (18 b). A rare type is the open bowl with a basket-handle and an animal's protome on the rim (19)' Bowls of Bronze Age tradition are Nos. 20-22, with round base, one or two horizontal handles (20,21), or flat base and two vertical handles (22).
49
The strainer has a pierced, hemispherical bottom and two horizontal handles at the rim. The stemmed goblets have a funnel-shaped body with two vertical handles from the rim (I) or double-curved body with flaring rim and two horizontal handles below it (2). The cups have a low foot, double-curved sides, and a vertical handle from the rim (I a, b). The jars are of four main types: with depressed, ovoid body, flat base, and two stringholes at the flat rim ( I ); with cylindrical body, low foot, two horizontal, erect handles on the body, short or raised rim (2 a, b); with globular body, base-ring, two horizontal handles on the body, and a short, cylindrical neck (3), the later type being a transitional form between jar and amphora, but the neck has preserved its character of raised rim and is much wider than those of the amphorae; with depressed, piriform body, wide, low foot, flat, out-turned rim, and two vertical handles on the shoulder (4). The jugs are of the following types: lenticular, round jug with a handle from neck to shoulder (I); barrel-shaped jug with round base, depressed or somewhat elongated body, with central knobs, short neck, and a handle from neck to shoulder (2 a-e); the very depressed variety (2 a) is actually a transitional form between the lenticular and the barrelshaped type; barrel-shaped jug with handle-ridge, concave neck, flaring rim, and handle from neck to shoulder (3); depressed or globular jug with round base, collar-shaped rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder (4 a, b); juglet with squat body, round base, narrow, concave neck, flaring rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder (5); jug with globular body, round base, cylindrical neck, splaying rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder (6); juglet with depressed body, raised base, narrow, concave neck, and a handle from rim to shoulder (7); jug with oval body, low foot, concave or cylindrical neck, flaring rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder (8 a, b); jug with pinched rim and a handle from rim to shoulder: spindle-shaped body, pointed base, and short neck (9); ovoid body, pointed base, and taller neck (10); depressed globular body, base-ring, and short neck (II); oval or depressed oval body, base-ring, short neck (12 a, b); similar, but with low foot (13); oval depressed body, base-ring, and taller neck (14); globular depressed body, low foot, tapering neck (15 a, b); jug with spout on shoulder and a handle from rim to shoulder (16); jug with spout on shoulder and basket-handle: base-ring or low foot (17 a, b); narrow foot and concave, narrow neck (18); pinched rim (19); stirrup-vase (20). The bottles are lenticular with two handles from neck to shoulder. Their body has a marked convexity in the middle. The flasks are of the following types: body in the shape of a leather-bag with pointed base (I); cylindrical body, one handle from neck to shoulder (2), or two superimposed handles (3), or two string-holes at the shoulder (4), or two horizontal handles on the body (5), or three handles from neck to shoulder (6), or with annular body and a handle from neck to body (7). A very rare type is the horn-shaped vase with flat base and a vertical handle below the neck. The amphorae with horizontal handles on the shoulder have a depressed globular or oval body, short neck without distinct neck-line, flat base (I) or low foot (2); base-ring, 4
POTTERY
WHITE PAINTED WARE
taller, concave neck with distinct neck-line (3); low foot, short, narrow or wider neck (4 a, b). Amphorae with vertical handles on the body have a depressed oval body, base-ring, rather wide, concave neck (5). Amphorae with vertical handles from rim to shoulder have flat base, short neck without neck-line (6); base-ring, concave neck with neck-line (7); low foot, concave neck without distinct neck-line (8 a); with neck-line, depressed oval or ovoid body, wide or narrow foot (8 b, c). Amphorae with handles from neck to shoulder have base-ring, depressed oval or oval body, plain or knobbed handles (9 a, b). Much rarer than the amphora is the hydria with depressed ovoid body, base-ring, concave tapering neck, two horizontal handles on the shoulder, and a third handle from neck to shoulder. Rare and peculiar types are the ring-vessels (I, 2), the askoi (1-5), the animal-shaped vases (1-3), and the supports (I, 2).
or vertical bands radiate. The decoration of the interior of the plates consists mainly of central dots, encircling lines and bands, occasionally an encircled spiral. The bowls with a low foot show a predilection for the panel style, though even the zone style is used. The panels are separated by latticed bands, framed by parallel lines, or bands of latticed lozenges, hour-glass ornaments, etc., framed by parallel lines; the panels are either plain or filled with diagonals, rows of latticed lozenges, a or single lozenge with inscribed, latticed lozenges forming a secondary Greek cross, or a swastica, etc. The cups are decorated with encircling bands; the encircled zones are sometimes ornamented with wavy lines. The jars with depressed ovoid body and string-holes at the rim (I) are decorated in a variety of the zone style which may be called the close style, because the zones are contiguous. Many of the lenticular jugs and the jugs with collar-shaped mouth are decorated in a variety of the zone style, the ornaments of which consist only of encircling lines and bands. Some of these jugs are decorated with ornaments composed of either concentric, encircling lines or Maltese crosses encircled by concentric lines. The barrel-shaped jugs' with handle-ridge are decorated in the vertical zone style; the upper part of the middle zone is not infrequently decorated with a row of latticed lozenges. The decoration of the jugs with pinched mouth is chiefly confined to the shoulder and the neck, the shoulder sometimes having a plain zone, sometimes being decorated with isolated, latticed triangles. Another characteristic ornament consists of groups of short strokes pendent from the neck; the neck is sometimes ornamented with wavy lines; the lower part of the body is either covered with black paint or divided into plain zones. The plain-bodied style is represented on the jugs, Nos. 8 a, b. The main decoration of the spout-jugs is confined to the shoulder. The zone style is predominant. Only occasionally the panel style is represented. The decoration of the amphorae with handles from neck to shoulder is mainly confined to the shoulder, and consists of plain or decorated zones or panels; the body and the neck are divided into plain zones. The amphorae with horizontal handles on the body have the neck usually black-painted with one or two narrow, reserved zones, filled with concentric lines; the principal decoration is on the shoulder and the belly, and consists of plain, or usually decorated zones of latticed triangles, lozenges, wavy lines, or of panels, usually plain, separated by latticed bands, bands of latticed lozenges, etc., framed by parallel lines. The amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder are either decorated in the plainbodied style with only rim, neck, and base accentuated by single bands, and sometimes with groups of small strokes pendent from the neck; or they are decorated in the usual style with the neck and shoulder divided into plain or decorated zones or panels. The hydriae are decorated like the amphorae with handles from neck to shoulder.
50
Decoration
The decorative elements are purely geometrical: encircling lines and bands; short strokes; groups of oblique strokes; parallel lines; zigzag lines; wavy lines; van Dyke pattern; arcornaments; hatched and latticed triangles and lozenges; dotted lozenges; diagonals; butterfly ornament; Maltese cross; swastica; arrow-heads; groups and bands of filled triangles, etc. These decorative elements are arranged in three different ornamental systems: the zone style, the panel style, and the plain-bodied style. In the zone style the body is divided into horizontal or vertical zones, separated by encircling bands and lines; these zones are either plain or decorated with continuous or isolated ornaments. In the panel style the zones are divided into panels by vertical bands and lines; the panels are either plain or filled with a single ornament. In the plain-bodied style the whole body is left undecorated between encircling bands round rim, neck, base, etc. The bowls may have a central ornament on the base, e. g., a Maltese cross, filled triangles, diagonals, foliaceous rosette, etc., and the sides are decorated in the zone and panel style. The zones are sometimes ornamented with filled triangles, wavy lines, series of latticed triangles, single triangles with diaper pattern, etc., and the panels are separated by broad, filled bands or bands of zigzag lines, dotted lozenges, etc., framed by parallel lines. Very rare are survivals of the painting technique of the Late Bronze Age, e. g., the rope-ladder pattern typical of the White Slip Ware of that period. The principal decoration of the dishes and flat bowls is on the base, and consists of a central ornament and encircling lines and bands round the sides. The base ornament consists either of a single ornament: a Maltese cross, a spoke ornament; or of a pattern with combined ornaments: rows of latticed lozenges, latticed triangles meeting in the centre, latticed squares or triangles forming a secondary ornament of a Greek cross in the middle, etc.; or of a diagonal band of latticed lozenges, framed by parallel lines and flanked by latticed triangles; or of concentric lines in the centre, from which opposed latticed triangles
WHITE PAINTED WARE
POTTERY
2.
WHITE PAINTED II WARE (Figs. XII-XV)
Technique Wheel-made; on the whole, the clay is similar to that of the White Painted I Ware, but it is not so well silted, and the slip is rough and mat, sometimes reddish-brown in colour; the ornaments are more roughly finished, and the paint is usually more greyish-black in colour.
Shape The dish (I a, b) has nearly the same shape as that of White Painted I, and the difference lies mainly in the decoration. The bowls have lost their elastically curved outlines. The profile of the shallow bowls (I, 2) lacks the concavity near the bottom characteristic of Type 1. A peculiar and rare shape is the shallow bowl with wavy sides (3), which is also found in Bichrome I, but that of White Painted II is provided with an open spout and one knobbed handle. The bowls of medium depth (4, 5) are of a heavier structure than in Type I, there is a tendency toward an angular outline, a flat bottom, a raised flat base or a very low base-ring are usual, whereas in Type I a high base-ring is characteristic. The same holds good for the deep bowls (6, 7), and the bowls on a low foot (8-10) show the same tendency as regards the shape of the body, which has lost the rhythmic, double-curved outline of Type I; the foot is wider and flatter than in Type I and is sometimes provided with a short stem froj.so that the bowl approaches a goblet shape. The influence from that shape is also demonstrated by the fact that this stemmed bowl has two vertical handles. In general the handles of the bowls show a tendency to stick to the body at their lower end. The footed bowl with one horizontal handle (8) is derivative from that of Type I, where it is represented in Plain White 1. The open bowl with a basket-handle and an animal's protome (rr) is much more elaborately formed in the accessories than in Type I. The body of the goblet shows the same development as that of the bowls, and the stem has lost the rings and is only slightly moulded. The basket imitates plait-work prototypes. The cup has a raised base and no foot as in Type I, and the body has the same heavy, somewhat angular shape as the bowls. The jar is a development of the White Painted I deep bowl with three loop legs. The body of the barrel-shaped jugs (I, 2) is usually more elongated than in Type I, and all the jugs have a funnel-shaped mouth with handle-ridge, the collar-shaped mouth of the White Painted I jugs having been elongated into a funnel) while the rudiment of the collar has been transformed into a handle-ridge, from which the handle runs to the shoulder. Sometimes even the handle-ridge is missing (2). The squat jugs (3, 4) have usually a more depressed body than in Type I and are sometimes provided with a foot. The globular and oval juglets (5) have a flat base and have lost the collar-shaped mouth. The jugs with rather
53
wide neck (6) are developed from the corresponding type of Black Slip I and Plain White 1. The jugs with a pinched rim (7, 8) have often a clumsier body, the neck is less concave than in Type I, and the pinching of the rim is not so elegant as in that type. Sometimes the foot is somewhat elongated and the body much depressed. The spout-jugs (9, 10) display the general formal characteristics of the jugs; the neck is usually less concave, sometimes the body is much depressed, the foot somewhat elongated, and the spout longer than in Type 1. Of the bottles (I, 2), the ring-shaped type (2) is not found earlier than in White Painted II, but the variety with one handle (flask NO.7) is represented already in White Painted 1. The neck of the bottles is less concave than in Type I and has not a collar-shaped mouth. The body is more evenly convex. The horn-shaped vase is provided with a flat, wide mouth. The amphora with handles from neck to shoulder has disappeared. The body of the amphora (1-4) has lost the bulging shape of Type I, it is less dynamic and sometimes (2) the greatest width is below the middle of the body, the neck is less concave, the handles less swung, and the rim less flaring than in Type I; sometimes (4) the foot is somewhat elongated. The hydria shows the same general traits of development as the amphora. The ring-vase, the askos, the animal-shaped vases (I, 2) and the supports (I, 2) show the same tendencies toward less vigorous modelling, a certain lassitude and heaviness as is characteristic of the other vases of Type II. The askos is a trick vase (cf. Fig. XXXVI, 9).
Decoration The ornaments and their composition differ from those of White Painted I in the following characteristics: the wavy lines have developed either into very long, less curved waves, or into shorter, rippled waves; the angle-lines of the triangles and lozenges are not infrequently elongated into small, filled triangles; the latticed bands are not much used and are often replaced by bands of parallel lines; the bands of latticed lozenges and zigzag lines, framed by parallel lines, are still used, but the lozenges have usually small filled triangles at the angles; the framing parallel lines are more roughly, rather carelessly drawn and at a greater distance from each other; the zones with running frieze decoration are very rare; the zones with isolated ornaments and panels are common; the panels are narrower and the separating bands broader, so that sometimes there is no difference in width between the panels and the bands, or the "bands" are even broader than the "panels"; the panels are decorated with diagonals more often than in White Painted I; the decoration of the dishes and bowls shows a preference for a central circle ornament, from which opposed latticed triangles or bands: radiate; bands sometimes alternate with triangles on the same plate, which is unknown in the White Painted I Ware. The fresh ornamental spirit and rhythmic sense of White Painted I has disappeared; the decorative elements are poorer, and their composition is more mechanical; .
54
WHITE PAINTED WARE
POTTERY
3. WHITE PAINTED III WARE (Figs. XVIII-XX)
Technique Wheel-made; the clay is brown or sometimes greenish, rougher in texture, and in the larger specimens usually gritty; the slip is either white, smooth and thick, or sometimes buff and brownish, with a rougher surface; the ornaments are painted in a mat, but deeply black colour.
55
The necks of the amphorae (1-4) and hydriae are usually less concave than in Type II, sometimes nearly straight; the amphorae with shoulder-handles are often provided with a ridge around the neck below the rim, and the handles are usually placed more upright and higher up on the shoulder; the handles from rim to shoulder are less curved, and the rim is not so flaring as in Type II. The smaller amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder are often provided with a foot, and their bodies are sometimes much depressed. The bodies of the other amphorae are usually more constricted and their component parts more accentuated than in Type II.
Shape
Decoration
In Types I and II there is often no difference in depth between the dishes and shallow bowls. In Type III the dishes are very flat, and the shallow bowls (1-3) are much deeper than the dishes. A new type is the shallow bowl with a wavy handle at the rim (I). Though the shallow bowls are much deeper than the dishes, the difference in depth between the bowls of medium depth (4, 5) and the deep bowls (6) is less marked than in Types I and II. The bowls of a medium depth have usually a contracted rim (4). More seldom the rim is sharply profiled and out-turned (5). The bowls on a low foot (7--9) have an angular outline and almost straight sides. Not seldom there is a bordering ridge below the rim. The foot is sometimes provided with a short stem. The erect handles of the bowls are usually still more attached to the body than in Type II. The cup with a plain rim (I) is very rare. The usual type is that with angular sides, flat base or base-ring (2 a, b). The biconical jar with vertical handles on the shoulder (I) is already represented in White Painted I, and the jar with three loop legs (2) is a derivation from that of Type II. The body shows a tendency towards an angular outline, the handles are horizontal, while those of the corresponding Type II are vertical, and the rim is low and swollen. The body of the barrel-shaped jugs (I, 2) is more elongated than in Type II, and the funnel-shaped mouth both of the barrel-shaped jug and globular or oval juglets (3, 4) widens much more than in Type II. The juglet with handle-ridge (4) is influenced from the Black-on-Red I (III) ware. In general the shapes are markedly restrained and elegant compared with those of Type II. The loose and clumsy forms of Type II are no longer found. This can be seen both in shapes of the juglets mentioned and in the other jugs: those with short, wide neck (5), jugs with pinched rim (7-10), and spout-jugs (II-I3). The body is usually slimmer than in Type II, the pinched rim is nearly straight and not flaring. A new type is the pear-shaped jug with short, splayed neck (6), and so is the spout-jug with the handle from rim to shoulder opposite the spout (II a, b). The foot is rare on the jugs, the flat base, raised base and base-ring are usual. The ring-shaped flask continues the corresponding type of White Painted I, but has acquired a base. The bottles have 'the same wide funnel-mouth as the barrel-shaped jugs, the globular and oval juglets, and the body is wider in profile than in Type. II.
White Painted III is marked by the development of old, and the introduction of new, decorative elements and patterns: concentric circles; fringed concentric circles; concentric, pendent arcs; vertical row of chevrons; the tree-ornament; the "eye"-ornament; dotted diagonals, the dots sometimes being converted into leaves with the diagonal as "reserved" midrib; diagonals crossed by vertical line; winged lozenge with inscribed chequers, latticed or black and white; concentric lozenges and triangles; latticed triangles or triangles with inscribed black and white chequers, framed by parallel lines; concentric triangles and lozenges with inscribed black and white chequers; latticed triangle as "reserved" ornament in a large, filled rectangle; net-work pattern of leaf-rosettes; lotus flowers, etc. There are also representations of birds, quadrupeds and human figures. The floral and pictorial decoration is, however, mainly used in Bichrome III (pp. 61 f.). Some of the old ornaments continue: the wavy line, which is now very short-rippled, the plain diagonals, the Maltese cross, the swastika, which is now common, the latticed triangle with a small filled triangle at the top, the latticed lozenges, etc. Bands of latticed lozenges or zigzag lines, framed by parallel lines, are still used to separate the panels, but much commoner is the band of parallel lines already appearing in White Painted II. In the composition, there is a decided tendency to favour the panel style; the decorated zone style, in fact, is very rarely used; the plain zone style, on the other hand, is rather common: vertical or horizontal plain zones, separated by bands of concentric lines, sometimes constitute the sole decoration of the vases. Besides, a new style is introduced, viz., the free-field style, which occurs especially on the jugs with pinched rim. It is to be considered as a decorated variety of the plain-bodied style of White Painted I and II: on the free surface of the vase a single ornament is applied, e. g., a triangle with inscribed black and white chequers, framed by parallel lines; or some isolated circles and swastikas, or rows of chevrons, sometimes combined with a single ornament as filling ornaments. Other characteristics of the composition are that the concentric circles are never connected; the neck of the amphorae with handles on the belly is not black-slipped with a narrow, "reserved" zone, as before, but decorated with different ornaments in zones or panels; the plates, as in White Painted II, are usually decorated with a central ornament on the base, from which triangles and bands radiate, but, contrary to the rule in White Painted II,
POTTERY
WHITE PAINTED WARE
the outer .zone between the rim and the base is also often decorated with groups of parallel lines; the eye-ornament is applied at the rim, and the fringed concentric circles, the swastika, and the row of chevrons are used as filling ornaments. In the later stage of White Painted III the uniform decoration hitherto characteristic of the Cypriote Iron Age pottery begins to split up in two different groups; the rectilinear group and the circle group. Rectilinear ornaments are as characteristic of the one group as circle ornaments of the other. There is, therefore, a difference between the decorative elements, but their composition is the same: both the rectilinear and the circle ornaments are composed in the same zone, panel, or free-field styles as described before.
handle (19) has a cylindrical neck, while that of Bichrome IV widens upwards, and the spout-jug with a human protome on the neck (zo) has the handle opposite the spout, while that of Bichrome IV is at right angles to the spout. Thehydriae (I, a) are in shape similar to the amphorae. The modelling of a human face on the neck of a hydria (a) has also a parallel in an amphora of Bichrome IV.
4. WHITE PAINTED IV WARE (Figs. XXVIII-XXX) Technique
Wheel-made; clay and slip sometimes similar to those of White Painted III; sometimes red-brown or light-brown slip, often more buff in colour than that of White Painted III; the ornaments are sometimes painted in a purple colour. Shape
The shapes of White Painted IV are mainly similar to those of Bichrome IV, but the varieties are much fewer. Bowls (1-10), goblets, cups, jars, jugs (I-ZO), amphorae (1-3), hydriae (I,Z), and bird-shaped vases are represented. Disregarding minor differences in details of form the following shapes have hitherto not been found in Bichrome IV: The bowls with rounded sides and plain rim, sometimes with a boss in the centre of the bottom (za.b), differ from the corresponding Bichrome type by having a flat instead of a raised base. The bowl with round base and splayed, raised rim (4) is unique and imitates, like the bowls just mentioned, metal prototypes. The bowl with slightly angular sides and one horizontal handle below the rim (5) and the rounded bowl of medium depth with two horizontal handles below the rim (8) are developed from the corresponding specimens ofType III and are also represented in Black-on-Red II (IV) and Red Slip II (IV). The deep bowl with two horizontal handles on the shoulder (10) approaches the jar type, and the goblet is a combination of a stemmed bowl and a goblet, the same phenomenon as is found in Plain White IV. The cup is of a more softly double-curved outline than in Type III. The juglet with round base and handle from. neck to shoulder (a) is a late survival of this type, which just appears in Type I; the body is more sack-shaped than the specimens of Type III, and the rim is slightly turned-in. The pear-shaped juglets with straight neck (5) are new shapes, which are also represented in Black-on-Red II (IV); Also a novelty is the juglet with handle from rim to shoulder (6). The sack-shaped jug with marked shoulder, pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder ( I 5) has a taller neck and slimmer body than that Bichrome IV. The jug whith a low foot, ridged neck and a handle from the pinched rim to the shoulder (16). clearly imitates a metal prototype. The spout-jug with a basket-
57
Decoration
Of the two groups that began to separate in White Painted and Bichrome III, and are fully developed in Bichrome IV, mainly the circle group is represented in White Painted IV. The reason of this is that the bichrome treatment is more common in the rectilinear group than in the circle group. The designs are similar to those of the corresponding types of Bichrome IV.
5. WHITE PAINTED V WARE (Figs. XLVI, XLVII) Technique
Wheel-made; clay and slip sometimes similar to those of White Painted IV; the clay is often brown or greenish, rough and gritty; the slip is often greenish or brown and rough on the surface; the ornaments are sometimes also painted in a light-blue or violet colour. Shape
Bowls (1-4), goblets, jars, jugs (1-10), amphorae (1-4), hydriae, and askoi are represented. In general the shapes are the same as in Bichrome V, but though the latter ware is represented by a richer variety of shapes, there are nevertheless some types only represented in White Painted V. The shallow bowls (1-3) have no handles and are of a similar shape to those of Bichrome V; the deeper bowl with two horizontal handles on the body (4) is angular in profile. The goblet has splayed sides, which form a sharp angle with the bottom-line. The jar has a stemmed foot, depressed body, short neck, widening upwards, and two vertical handles on the shoulder. The barrel-shaped jug (I) has the same bobbin-shaped body as in Bichrome V, the handle-ridge juglets (z, 3) have a flat or down-turned rim, and the body is often depressed with a tendency to a biconical or a quite biconical shape. The jug with a narrow neck and handle from rim to shoulder (4) is related to the corresponding Bichrome V juglet, which is more biconical in shape. The form represents a development of the corresponding juglets of Type IV. The jugs (5-9) with pinched rim show the same stylistic features as the Bichrome V jugs, and the same holds good for the spout-jugs (10); the jug No. 8 has a pronounced biconical body, and NO.7, which is not hitherto represented in Bichrome V, is developed from the corresponding jugs of Type IV, but has a somewhat slacker structure.
POTTERY
The amphorae Nos. I and 3 are of the same shape as the corresponding specimens of Bichrome V. The amphora No.2 is a peculiar type: the thick, down-turned rim is a characteristic feature of Type V, the serpentine handles seem to imitate a metal prototype. The amphora NO.4 imitates a common type of Plain White V. Thehydriae have a depressed, almost biconical body, the neck widens slightly upwards, and the rim is flat.
Decoration The decoration is similar to that of Bichrome V, though less varied, and the circle group is more dominant than in Bichrome V.
WHITE PAINTED WARE
Decoration Technically, White Painted VI is a, revival of the White Painted Ware. The bichrome tehnique is almost ousted, but artistically White Painted VI forms a very poor style. It marks the end of the artistically painted pottery of Cyprus and the beginning of the decadence. The ornaments consist mainly of encircling lines and bands, single wavy lines, and short strokes. Consequently, there is an absolute break between the decoration of White Painted V and VI; the characteristic circle ornaments of the former ware have entirely disappeared; only the earliest specimens still preserve conventional ornaments of lotus flowers of the same kind as the later vases of White Painted and Bichrome V.
6. WHITE PAINTED VI WARE (Figs. LVIII, LIX)
Technique Wheel-made; sometimes technical similarity to White Painted V; often buff or buff-green slip; on this slip the ornaments are painted in a usually brown or dark-brown, somewhat lustrous colour. Shape The bowls are hemispherical with raised base and without handles (I) or shallow with base-ring, curved sides, plain rim, and two horizontal handles below the rim (2). The jugs with round mouth and handle from neck to shoulder are sack-shaped, with base-disc and ridge below funnel-shaped neck (I); depressed oval, with base-ring, concave, narrow neck, and flaring rim (2); oval, with high base-ring, ridge below concave neck with flaring rim, and a protome or human figure holding a jug on the shoulder (3); depressed oval, with flat, raised base, almost cylindrical, wide neck, and a ring-shaped rim (8). The jugs with round mouth and a handle from rim to shoulder are bobbin-shaped, with flat base and a splayed rim (4); depressed globular, with short, concave neck and wide, ringshaped rim (5); depressed oval, with flat, raised base, short and narrow, concave neck, and flaring rim (6); oval, with base-ring, rather wide, concave neck, and ring-shaped rim (7); depressed oval, with base-ring, wide, concave neck, and flaring rim (9). The jugs with a pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder are oval or depressed oval, with very short, narrow neck (10, II); oval, with wide and short, concave neck (12). The spout-jugs are globular with narrow and concave neck, splayed rim, and a handle from rim to shoulder opposite the spout (13). The amphorae are all of the type with horizontal shoulder-handles, depressed oval body, concave neck, and flaring rim (I); depressed oval, with slightly concave neck widening upwards and flattened, out-turned rim (2); oval, with tall, cylindrical neck and swollen rim (3). The hydriae are depressed oval with cylindrical neck and annular rim. In general the biconical and straight shapes' of Type V are transformed into forms of a more rounded, curved outline.
59
7. WHITE PAINTED VII WARE (Fig. LXIV)
Technique Wheel-made; sometimes technical similarity to White Painted VI; the slip is often brown and reddish-brown in colour; sometimes it is missing; the ornaments are painted in usually a brown or reddish-brown colour. .
Shape Bowls, jars (I, 2), jugs (1-8), bottles, amphorae (I, 2), and hydriae are represented. The wide bowls have a broad, drooping rim and metal-imitating double-handles. The body of the jars is depressed with the greatest width at the middle of the belly; they are always provided with two horizontal handles, and the base is often higher than in Type VI. The body of the jugs is occasionally slacker than in Type VI with the greatest width below the centre of the belly, or it shows a certain stiffness and has lost the gentle and evenly curved outline of Type VI. The form may still be elegant, but the metal-prototype character is conspicuous in the frequent imitation of the rivets on the handles and the angular shoulder of some of the jugs. The base of these vases with metal prototypes is usually higher and wider than in Type VI. A new shape is the ovoid bottle with the greatest width at the shoulder, a narrow, concave neck, and a down-turned rim. The bodies of the amphorae and hydriae are usually slimmer and stiffer than in Type VI and the necks narrower and taller, but the flat rim is broader and more sharply profiled. Some amphorae (2) imitate contemporary Attic shapes.
Decoration The poor ornamentation of White Painted VI continues; a new characteristic ornament is the field filled with crossed lines; in addition, there appear imitations of the ornaments of the contemporary Red Figured Attic Ware: leaves, palmettes, etc.
60
POTTERY
Bicbrome ware BICHROME I WARE (Fig. VIII)
BICHROME WARE
61
3. BICHROME III WARE (Figs. XXI-XXIV) Technique
Technique
Wheel-made; the clay and the slip are the same as those of White Painted III; the red paint is often bright-red in colour.
Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of White Painted I; the ornaments are painted in black and supplementary red colour.
Shape
I.
Shape
The shapes are mainly the same as those of White Painted I, though the repertory of forms is much restricted. Bowls (1-8), jugs (1-8), bottles, flasks, amphorae (1,2), and stemmed askoi are represented. Peculiar shapes hitherto not found in White Painted I are the bowls with wavy sides (S), the jug with base-ring and collar-shaped mouth (2 a, b), the flask with two horizontal, erect handles on the shoulder, and the stemmed askos, which is a trick vase (cf, Fig. XXXVI, 9). Decoration
The decoration is similar to that of the corresponding shapes of White Painted I.
2. BICHROME II WARE (Figs. XV, XVI) Technique
Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of White Painted II; the red paint is sometimes violet-red in colour. Shape
The shapes are similar to those of White Painted II, though the types are less numerous. Dishes, bowls, strainers, baskets, jugs, bottles, flasks, amphorae, and askoi are represented. Types hitherto not found in White Painted II are globular jugs with round base (2), which are a development of the corresponding specimens of Type I, oval jugs with base-ring, handle-ridge, and funnel-shaped mouth (3), which continue the corresponding type of Bichrome I, the jug with a spout on the shoulder, funnel-shaped mouth, and a handle from neck to shoulder (7), which is a new type of spout-jug, the strainer, and the flask, which are derivatives from the corresponding specimens of Type I. The askos is a trick vase (cf. above). Decoration
The decoration is similar to that of the corresponding shapes of White Painted II.
The bichrome technique increases rapidly in Type III, so that the number of vases belonging to White Painted III and Bichrome III are about equal. The shapes of Bichrome III are as a rule the same as those of White Painted III. Dishes, bowls (1-7), baskets (I, 2), jars (1-3), jugs (1-20), bottles (I, 2), amphorae (I-S), ring-vases, animal-shaped vases (1-3), and supports are represented. Rare types are bowls with loop legs (3 a, b) and with animal's protome on one handle. The jars with three loop legs (3) have preserved more of Type II than the corresponding specimens of White Painted III. Of the jugs with round mouth the following types have not hitherto been found in White Painted III: globular juglet with round base (3), which is derived from the corresponding Type II; juglet with flat base and more than hemispherical body (4), which is influenced from the corresponding specimens of Black-on-Red I (III); globular jug with funnel-mouth (6); jugs with tapering necks (7, 8) and jug with wide neck and indented mouth (9), which allare derivative from shapes of Type II. Among the jugs with pinched rim, the sack-shaped jug (I I), the oval jug on low foot (12) and the jug with the neck widening upward (IS) are not represented hitherto in White Painted III. The sack-shaped jug is a new type, which seems to be influenced from the Plain White jugs with a sack-shaped body, and the shape is further developed in Type IV. The oval jug on low foot is similar in shape to a type of Black-onRed I (III), Fig. XXV, jug No.8, though this has a base-ring instead of a foot. The jug with upwards widening neck is evidently influenced by the corresponding type of Red Slip I (III), Fig. XXVII, jug NO.3. Several of the spout-jugs (18, 20) have a pronounced sack-shaped body. A Cypriote oddity is the bottle consisting of three coupled vases (2). The amphorae are of a shape similar to those of White Painted III. Decoration
The decoration is similar to that on the corresponding types of White Painted III.· The intersecting lines, e. g., on the jug No.6 b, show influence from the characteristic decoration of Black-on-Red I (III). In particular the pictorial decoration is commoner in Bichrome than in White Painted III. We may distinguish two stylistic groups. In the first group the figures of birds, quadrupeds, men, etc. are still geometrical or geometricising. Remarkable vases of this group are the Kaloriziki amphora (Ill. London News 183, 1933, p. 1034, Fig. 3; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, p. 71, Figs. 6, 7), an amphora in the Louvre (Melanges syriens off. a R. Dussaud I, pp. 43S ff., PI. I), two jars in the Cyprus Museum, and some
POTTERY
bowls and jugs with bird figures. One of the jars in the Cyprus Museum (d. Fig. XXII, jar NO.3) is decorated with a representation of a tripartite temple of the liwan type similar to that of the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos (d. p. 232), flanked by trees and birds. In the second group, magnificently represented by the so-called Hubbard amphora (Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, pp. S6 £I., PIs. 7, 8), the figures are more freely drawn, with the body usually designed in contour-lines, and there is a marked tendency to escape from the geometrical schema. This is also evident in the syntax of the ornaments. In the first group the figures are used as ornaments of metopes, in the second group they form a continuous frieze. Mr. Dikaios hasjustly interpreted the cultic representation of the Hubbard amphora.' Both the ornamentation and the shape of the Hubbard amphora indicate that the second group begins later than the first.
4. BICHROME IV WARE (Figs. XXX-XXXVI) Technique Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of White Painted IV, and the paint is similar to that of Bichrome III. Shape
In Type IV the bichrome technique is commoner than in Type III, so that the vases of Bichrome IV are more numerous than those of White Painted IV. Bowls without handles are fairly common. The flat bowl with flat rim (I) is derived from the corresponding types of Red Slip I (III). New shapes are the shallow bowls with flat rim pierced by two suspension-holes (2 a, b), the bowl withround base and rim curving inwards (3), the bowl with a raised base, rounded sides, and plain rim (S), and the wide bowl with a raised base and incurving rim (6). The almost hemispherical bowl with a flat base and plain rim (4) is derived from the corresponding bowl of Plain White III No. I. The shallow bowls with one (7) or two (8-10) horizontal handles have usually the rim curving in or flat, and are derived from the corresponding bowls of Type III. The handles are either of the usual loop-shaped type or wavy and stuck-on. The shallow (II) or deeper (12) bowls with contracted, raised rim are also developed from the corresponding specimens of Type III. The shallow bowl on a stemmed foot (13) is a unique type. The deeper bowls with a foot (14 a, b) have a more angular outline than the corresponding specimens of Type III, the sides are not splayed as in Type III, but almost vertical, and the rim is slightly turned-in. The shape of the basket (I a, b) is similar to that of the flat bowl without handles. 1 The amphorae mentioned above have been somewhat wrongly classified and dated. The Kaloriziki amphora is Type III and not Type II as thought by Dikaios. The amphora in the Louvre is assigned by Maggie Rutten to the loth or 9th cent. B.C. The amphora is Type III and cannot be earlier than the second part of the 9th cent. I
cannot accept Mlle. Rutten's far-reaching speculations about the interpretation of the designs on this amphora. The Hubbard amphora is considered by Dikaios to be transitional between Types II and III, but in reality it belongs to the closing phase of Type III.
BICHROME WARE
The jars show a greater variety of shapes than in any other class of pottery. The jars with base-ring or raised base and horizontal handles on the shoulder have either more evenly curved sides than in Type III, and the short, cylindrical neck has a swollen rim (I), or the body has an angular shoulder-line (2 a, b), or both the shoulder and bottom are angular and the sides almost straight (3). The jar with vertical handles (4 a, b) has a body of more evenly curved outline than in Type III, and the handles are placed on the shoulder or on the belly. The bodies of the jars on a low foot and with horizontal handles (S-8) are of the varieties mentioned above. They have no neck. Not infrequently there are double handles in the shape of bucrania. The jar on a high, stemmed foot and with vertical handles on the body (9) is a rare type. The jars with three loop legs have a rounded or angular body, raised rim and vertical handles on the thoulder (12) or double handles in the shape of bucrania on the body (13). A characteristic phenomenon is the combination of vertical and horizontal handles. This is represented by jars with base-ring (10), low or high, stemmed foot (I I a, b), and three loop legs (14). These jars are provided with a short, wide neck, and the vertical handles either run from. rim to shoulder (10, 14), or from the rim to the horizontal handles (I I), which are often double in the shape of bucrania. The body of the barrel-shaped jugs (I a, b) is usually more elongated than in Type III, the neck does not widen upwards so much (I a), the concavity of the neck below the mouth is less pronounced (I b), the rim is ring-shaped or with the lip down-turned. The handleridge jug with profiled rim (2) is derived from the corresponding specimens of Type III, but has a raised base, the body is depressed and the neck less concave. The slim, oval handle:idge juglet (3) is influenced by the similar Red Slip II (IV) type. The other handle-ridge Jugs (4-7) have a globular or depressed body, the base is sometimes flat, more often raised or more seldom provided with base-ring, the rim is out-turned, flat or mushroom-shaped, the neck is slightly concave, funnel-shaped or straight. The oval jugs with handle from neck to shoulder have a cylindrical, narrow (8) or wider (9) neck and ring-shaped rim. The bodies of these jugs are much less depressed than those of the corresponding Type III, and the neck has straight sides, while that of Type III is slightly concave. The jugs with a pinched rim (10-21) occur in a great many varieties. The narrow, oval jug has a rather angular shoulder and bottom (10), while the corresponding specimens of Type III have a rounded outline. The body of the sack-shaped jug (I I) widens more towards the bottom t~an in Type III. The jugs with a wide, very short neck (12) have a squat body, those WIth a somewhat taller neck (13, 14) have a globular, oval, depressed or sack-shaped body, and ~he neck is concave. The more the neck is elongated the less concave it is (IS a-c), and It develops into a purely cylindrical (16 a, b) or even slightly convex shape (I6 c). The long, narrow necks (17, 18) are always cylindrical. The jugs with the neck tapering or widening upwards have a squat or oval depressed body (19-21), the neck almost straight or even slightly convex. As a rule the jugs with a pinched rim have handles from rim to shoulder. Only occasionally (17) the handle runs from neck to shoulder. The pinched rim is usually bent inwards, and the outlet is wide and rounded. The spout-jugs with wide, short neck (22) have a depressed body and handle from rim to shoulder opposite the spout.
POTTERY
The spout-jugs with a narrow neck, which is quite cylindrical, have a swollen, ring-shaped rim and handle from rim to shoulder, at right angles to the spout (23 a, b). The spout-jugs with a basket-handle have a wider neck with almost straight sides widening upwards (24). Spout-jugs with human protomes on the neck (25) are rare. The shape of the bottle is similar to that of the handle-ridge jugs with funnel-shaped neck, the body is globular and the base flat. The neck of the amphorae is quite cylindrical or somewhat widening upwards, and the rim is flat or swollen and ring-shaped. Sometimes there is a ridge below the rim, a continuation of the feature introduced in Type III..The body of the amphorae with horizontal (I, 2) or vertical (3) handles on the shoulder is usually somewhat wider than in Type III, with the greatest width at the shoulder or immediately below it. The body of the amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder (4-6) is usually depressed, sometimes with a tendency to a biconical shape, and instead of a base-ring these amphorae are not infrequently provided with a low foot. The amphorae with both vertical and horizontal handles (7), of the same type as thejars, and those with a human face modelled on the neck (8), the askoi, and birdshaped Vases are rare shapes. The askos is a trick vase.
Decoration The two different ornamental styles distinguished in White Painted III and Bichrome III are now fully developed, but mutual influences and combinations of the two styles are not infrequent. The circle style can be localized to the western and northern parts of Cyprus, and the rectilinear style to the eastern and southern parts of the island(cf. p. l0S). The former may therefore be called the Western style and the latter the Eastern style. It must be emphasized again that the difference between the styles is a difference between the decorative elements, and does not refer to their composition. The decorative elements of the rectilinear style are partly the same as in White Painted III and Bichrome III, but the non-geometrical ornaments, which began to appear already in the above mentioned wares, now become common, and impart their character to the whole style: lotus buds and flowers, rosettes, sacred tree, aquatic birds, quadrupeds, and human figures. The strength of the geometrical tradition and the geometricizing tendency of the Cypriote ceramists are well illustrated by the transformation of the floral motives into geometric designs. The transformation of the lotus flower is particularly instructive, as shown by Fig. IS: In this way an ornament is created which bears a strong resemblance to the Mycenaean triglyphand half-rosette pattern,' though they have nothing to do with each other. Of the other new geometrical ornaments, the cable-pattern is the most important. The geometrical ornaments are now wholly stereotyped and combined into more elaborate and "compact" patterns, in contrast to the "open" style with free space between the ornaments which had prevailed from the beginning of the Iron Age. The tendency to use the neck of the amphorae with shoulder-handles as an ornamental field increases, so that the neck 1 FuRUMARK,
Myc. Pottery, p. 414, Fig. 72, Mot. 74.
BICHROME WARE
of these amphorae becomes the main ornamental field. As before, in the composition of the new elements, both the zone, panel, and free-field styles are used. The free-field style is generally employed on the jugs with pinched mouth, both for geometrical and pictorial . designs, and the zone and panel-styleon the other vases. The pictorial designs may also be arranged in antithetic groups. Some of the pictorial designs are still rather geometrically rendered, but the birds and quadrupeds, though conventionalized, are more elaborately shaped, and the body has only exceptionally kept the abstract form characteristic of the first group of pictorial designs in Bichrome .III. The more freely drawn figures of the second group in Bichrome III are further developed in Bichrome IV, and though the drawing is occasionally still fairly rude, the touch of the brush is much surer, and the body has overcome the geo·'0' . . metrical abstractness and obtained volumen. In parti... cular, the birds, as mentioned above, usually decorating the jugs in the free-field style are elegantly designed, and bear witness of a great decorative ability and artistic sense. They may be interpreted as soul-birds. As in Type III the pictorial decoration includes cult representations, but also pure genre. The decorative elements of the Western style are mainly the same as in White Painted III and Bichrome III, viz., above all the circle ornament and poor and simple rectilinear ornaments painted with thin lines, but the circle ornament is now gaining the upper hand, the circle decoration of the Bichrome wares reaching its climax in this class of vases. There is a veritable circle dance on the pots. Encircling intersecting lines are also a common ornament. The outer Fig. 18. Development of the lotus-ornament. line of the concentric circles is sometimes thicker than the others, and the circles are often connected in vertical or horizontal rows. The outer line is also thicker than the others in the concentric, pendent arcs. Sometimes the -influence of the Eastern style is evident by the intrusion of lotus and rosette ornaments. In composition the same styles as before are used. In the free-field style, isolated circles or a vertical row of connected circles are painted on the plain body of the vase. In the zone style, friezes of isolated or connected circles, or some of the simple rectilinear ornaments, fill up the zones between the encircling lines and bands; and the panels, separated by vertical lines and bands, are decorated in the same way by single concentric circles or a group of circles, or some of the rectilinear ornaments.
~. ",.~
5
66
POTTERY
5. BICHROME V WARE (Figs. XLVII-LI)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of White Painted V; the red paint is sometimes purple-brown or yellowish-brown in colour; one variety is decorated with white supplementary paint on the black-painted ornaments, actually a polychrome fabric reduced to a two-coloured ware (cf. below, Polychrome White Ware).
Shape In Type V the bichrome technique is very common and the vases of Bichrome V are in an overwhelming majority in relation to those of White Painted V. Bowls (1-13), jars (1-6), jugs (1-17) and amphorae (1-10) are represented. Characteristic stylistic features of the shallow bowls without handles are their sharply angular outline and flat or down-turned rim. The small, squat bowls with flat base,narrowing or contracted rim ( I a-c), are rare, as also the shallow bowl with flat base and plain rim (2). The wide bowls with two handles have a wide, flat rim (8) or the rim is bent inwards (9) The bowl with pinched sides (10) continues the type imitating basket-work and appearing already in Bichrome 1. The bowls with a raised rim (II, 12) have a flat base or a short, stemmed foot and horizontal or vertical handles. The rim is sharply defined and usually more splayed than in Type IV, and if high, it is often of a somewhat convex profile. The footed bowl with horizontal handles on the body (13) has the rim more curved-in, and the body and foot are heavier than in Type IV. The jars have often a biconical body (1-4, 6) or a sharply defined shoulder (5 a, b). The latter jars are also deeper than the corresponding specimens of Type IV. The barrel-shaped jugs (I, 2) are still more elongated than in Type IV, and take a spindle-shaped form; Type 2 has a strainer inserted in the lip. The juglets with a handle from rim to shoulder (3) are biconical in shape. The jug NO.4 has a wide neck. This widens upwards, and the handle rises above the mouth, both characteristic features of Type V. The sack-shaped jug with a pinched rim (5) is slacker than that of Type IV. Jug No.6 is a peculiar shape with a sharply defined lower part, in shape corresponding to jug NO.4 of Black-on-Red III (V). Characteristic features of the jugs with a pinched rim are as follows: there is a tendency to a biconical or depressed form, the neck is usually tapering or sometimes widening upwards, the pinched lip, which often takes the shape of an inverted, truncated cone, is narrower than in Type IV, the handle often rises above the mouth. The evenly oval shape and cylindrical neck (8) or the concave neck (9) are exceptions. The spout-jugs show the same general characteristics: the body is often biconical, the neck is tapering or widening upwards, and the handle rises above the rim. The amphorae have also a biconical or depressed body, the neck has straight sides, usually widening upwards, more seldom tapering, and, if cylindrical, it has often an intumescency at the middle; the rim is rarely plain, sometimes flat or annular, but usually downturned. The amphoriskos with round base, narrow neck and vertical handles on the shoulder
BICHROME WARE
(I) is un~que, and the depressed oval amphora with concave neck, no neck-line, thick, annular rim, and handles from neck to shoulder (10) imitates a foreign, Greek, prototype (cf. p. 307).
Decoration The ~ecoration of Bichrome V shows the beginning of the decadence of the painted wares, either by superabundant or impoverished ornamentation both in the Western and Eastern styles. In the Western style the wild dance of circles is on the decline, but sometimes, on the other hand, the circle ornaments are used in a superfluous way: concentric circles cover the whol~. surface of the vase either in the free-field style or circumscribed by panels. The rectilinear ornaments are rare, except lines, criss-cross lines, and strokes, which are commonly used, partly in substitution for the circles. On the other hand the influence of the Eastern style is more marked, and lotus ornaments are commoner than in Bichrome IV, but they are more conventionalized. In the Eastern style there is, on the other hand, a superabundance of the lotus decoration so that the o~naments co:-er the whole surface of the vase in a carpet-like pattern, or, if the style of B~~hrome IV ,I,S pre~erved, the designs. are sometimes more complicated, e. g. the so-called sacred-tree motif, or at the same time careless and stiffer and the outlines less ca:eful~y drawn, e. g., the lotus and rosette ornaments; the usual tree-pattern is common. The plctor~al :eprese~tation is more common than in Bichrome IV. Occasionally the ornaments are incised as In the contemporary Black Figured style.
Technique
6. BICHROME VI WARE (Fig. LIX)
Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of the White Painted VI· the red paint is usually bright-red in colour. '
Shape
Onl~ jars and jugs are represented. The jars are globular, with base-ring, splayed rim an? WIthout handles. The jugs with round mouth (I) are similar to No. 5 of White ~aInted VI and those with pinched rim (2) to No. 10 of White Painted VI, but the neck IS longer.
Decoration The ornaments are similar to those of White Painted VI.
BLACK-ON-RED WARE
POTTERY
68
7. BICHROME VII WARE (Fig. LXV)
Technique Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of White Painted VII; the paint is similar to that of Bichrome VI.
Shape The general stylistic traits are similar to those of White Painted VII. Forms based on metal prototypes are represented by the bowls (I, 2) and the jugs (1-6) with their handlerivets, angular mouldings of bases, ridge around lower end of neck, the sharp edges and stiff sides of the lips, etc. The squat biconical jug with the neck surmounted by an animal's protome (6) is a rare type. The amphora is similar to No.2 of White Painted VII.
Decoration The ornaments are similar to those of White Painted VII.
Polychrome White Ware (Figs. VIII, XXII, XXX, XXXIII, XLVII, XLIX, L, LXV) This ware is a variety of Bichrome I-VII: some selected specimens are painted in black and supplementary red,' white, yellow, green, and blue colours. A variety in. tech~ique has the clay covered with a white slip, which easily flakes off. The vases of this vanety co.nsist of jugs with long, concave neck and round mouth of the same type as those of White Painted VII and Bichrome VII.
Black-on-Red Ware
(3) and the deep bowl (5), all with two horizontal handles below the rim, are of entirely Cypriote tradition. On the other hand the bowl with raised, concave rim and one horizontal handle below the rim (4) is not represented in the earlier repertory of forms of Cypriote pottery. Of the bowls on a low foot, the almost hemispherical bowl (6), is a peculiar variety not represented in the other contemporary Cypriote pottery, while the bowls of rather angular outline without or with encircling ridge below the rim (7 a, b) are found in White Painted III and Bichrome III. The shape of the biconical deep jar with vertical handles on the shoulder (I) is different from the biconical jar of White Painted III, and the ovoid jar with cylindrical neck and a basket-handle (2) is also a novelty. Of the jugs, the following types are not of Cypriote derivation: the handle-ridge jug with pointed base (2), the handle-ridge juglets with flat base (3 a, b), and the elongated, oval jugs with pinched rim and short neck, without or with distinct neck-line (8, 9). The other jugs are related to the corresponding types of White Painted III and Bichrome III, except' the jug NO.5, which seems to be influenced from the Coarse jug NO.7 b and a somewhat similar shape is also represented by the Plain White III jug No.6. The amphorae (I, 2) and hydriae are entirely in the Cypriote tradition and similar to the corresponding types of White Painted III and Bichrome III.
Decoration The decoration sometimes consists only of encircling lines and bands. The jugs are frequently decorated with intersecting, concentric lines, but isolated, concentric circles, which are placed below the rim of the deep bowls and on the shoulder of the jars, jugs, amphorae, and hydriae, are the most characteristic ornament. In addition, there are a few instances of the usual rectilinear ornaments of the type used in White Painted III and Bichrome III.
2. BLACK-aN-RED II (IV) WARE (Figs. XXXVII-XL)
Technique
Technique
Wheel-made; the slip is usually lustrous, but never polished and thinner than that of Black-on-Red I (III); the ornaments on the slip are painted in black, mat colour.
Wheel-made; the' day is reddish-brown; the slip red or reddish-brown, lustrous, or polished; on this slip the ornaments are painted in black, mat colour.
Shape
1.
BLACK-ON-RED I (III) WARE (Figs. XXIV-XXVI)
Shape '. The shapes of Black-on-Red I (III) are in part the same as those of White Painted~II and Bichrome III, in part they show peculiarities of their own. The shallow bowl WIth two horizontal handles at the rim (I), the wide, deeper bowl (2), the bowl ofmedium depth
Bowls (1-19), jars (1-6), jugs (1-24), bottles (I, 2), askoi (I, 2), alabastra, amphorae (1-4) and hydriae are represented. The shapes are mainly the same as those of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV, but there are several types peculiar to Black-on-Red II (IV). The handleless bowls are in general similar to the corresponding types of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV, but sometimes show peculiarities in details.iNo.ir has a fiattened base,
POTTERY
BLACK-ON-RED WARE
Nos. 2-S have a raised base. No.6 has a flat rim pierced by suspension-holes. Of the bowls with one horizontal handle, the shallow bowls with flat rim (7 a, b) are derived from the similar shallow bowls without handles of Red Slip I (III): apart from the added handle, the curved sides of Type III have become straight, the rim is wider, and there is a characteristic swelling below the rim. The shallow bowl with raised base, convex sides and incurving rim (8) is derived from the corresponding type of White Painted III, but is less bulging and the handle is placed below the rim. The bowls with slightly angular sides and straight (9 a) or inturned rim (9 b) are similar to the corresponding type of White Painted IV, and the bowl with contracted, raised rim (10) is derived from the corresponding type of Black-on-Red I (III): the sides are almost straight and the shoulder more angular than in Type III. Of the bowls with two horizontal handles, the shallow, wide bowls ( I I, 12) are similar to the corresponding types of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV and are derived from Type III: the sides are often less curved than in Type III, the rim is usually more incurved, the handles are sometimes wavy and stuck-on or double in the shape of bucrania. The bowls of medium depth (13, 14) are also derived from the corresponding specimens of Type III, from which they differ by the more evenly curved sides and the rim slightly incurving. The wide bowl of medium depth (IS) differs from the corresponding Type III by the bulging shoulder and contracted rim. The deep bowls (16, 17) have a more evenly curved outline (16) than in Type III, or the shoulder is bulging and the rim contracted (17). The bowls with a raised rim (18 a-c) have their forerunners in Type III, from which they differ by the straight or almost straight sides, the more pronounced shoulder, the rather straight, splayed or vertical rim. The metal prototypes are conspicuous. The deep bowl with raised rim and handles from rim to shoulder (19) is a new shape. The jar with angular sides and horizontal handles on the body (I) is similar in shape to the corresponding type of Bichrome IV; the oval jar with horizontal handles on the shoulder (2) has the rim elongated into a short, splayed neck, and the body is less depressed than the corresponding type of Bichrome Red I (IV) and much less depressed than the corresponding type of Bichrome IV; the depressed globular jars on a low foot with horizontal (3) or vertical (4) handles on the shoulder or with vertical handles running from the rim to horizontal handles on the shoulder (S) resemble types of Bichrome IV. The deep, oval jar on three loop legs and with vertical handles on the shoulder (6) represents a typological development from the corresponding type of. Bichrome III quite different from that of the jars on three loop legs of Bichrome IV: the globular shape of Bichrome III has been elongated in Black-on-Red II (IV) and made angular in Bichrome IV. New shapes of jug are the sack-shaped handle-ridge jugs with wide lip (2), the pear-shaped handle-ridge juglets (4 a, b), the juglets in shape of a truncated cone (S a, b), and the sackshaped or pear-shaped juglets surmounted by miniature jugs with a pinched rim (20 a, b). Other noteworthy and rare types are the jug with a strainer on the spout (19), thejug with an animal's protome on top of the neck (22), the jug with a human face modelled on the neck (23)) and the spout-jug with the neck in the shape of a human protome (24), which is a trick vase (cf. Fig. XXXVI, 9). The other types are derived from the corresponding shapes
of Type III, and the typological changes are the same as already stated in the description of Bichrome IV: the rim of the handle-ridge jugs is flat, the globular and oval bodies show a tendency to widen at the middle, the sack-shaped bodies widen towards the bottom, the necks are straight and often cylindrical, the pinched rim is usually incurved, and the outlet is wide and rounded. The lenticular bottle (I) has a bowl-shaped mouth. In addition, there is another type, also represented in Bichrome IV, with flat base and oval depressed body (2), resembling the shape of the handle-ridge jugs. The alabastron ending in the upper part of a human figure is also a new type. The shapes of the amphorae and the hydriae are the same as the corresponding types of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV.
Decoration The circle style of Black-on-Red I (III) is further advanced in accordance with the development of the circle style in White Painted and Bichrome IV: groups of circles border the circular, intersecting lines: the circles are often connected into vertical or horizontal rows; the outer circle-line is sometimes thicker than the others; the latticed lozenge ornaments have developed into a group of intersecting straight lines; the influence of the contemporary Bichrome IV Ware represented by lotus and rosette ornaments is very infrequent.
3. BLACK-aN-RED III (V) WARE (Fig. LII)
Technique Wheel-made; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or nearly mat, often dark-brown in colour.
Shape The shapes are mainly the same or similar to those of the other wares of Type V. Bowls (I, 2), jars (1-3), jugs (1-7), and amphorae (1-3) are represented. The wide bowl without handles and with flat rim (I) is similar to the corresponding type of Bichrome Red II (V), and the bowl with raised, splayed rim and two horizontal handles on the body (2) is represented in Bichrome V and Bichrome Red II (V). The biconical jars with horizontal (I) or vertical (2) handles on the shoulder are typical of Type V; the oval jar on a foot and with vertical handles on the shoulder (3) is developed from the corresponding type of Black-on-Red II (IV): the body is more evenly rounded than in Type IV, there is no raised rim, and the sides of the foot are almost straight, so that the foot takes the shape of a truncated cone. The biconicaljuglets with handle from rim to shoulder (1,2) are similar to the corresponding specimens of Bichrome V. The jugs with a pinched rim (3-7) show all the characteristic features of Type V. Noteworthy peculiar varieties are the sack-shaped jug with a sharply
por.TERY-.
defined lower part (4) and the jug with a squat, biconical body (7). The amphora with horizontal shoulder-handles (I) has a short and wide, splayed neck, the amphora with vertical handles on the body (2) is of the same shape as the corresponding type of Bichrome V and Bichrome Red II (V), and the amphora with handles from rim to shoulder (3) has a biconical body, low foot, neck with an intumescency at the middle, and down-turned rim.
Decoration The decoration is chiefly executed in the circle style, but the ornamental syntax is poor, and the main part of the decoration of the red wares of Type V is in the bichrome technique and is, therefore, found in Bichrome Red II (V), the same phenomenon as was observed in the white wares of Type V, of which Bichrome V is the principal ornamental ware, while White Painted V has a rather poor decoration.
BICHROME RED WARE
73
Shape Only jugs are represented hitherto: jugs with female figures on the shoulder (I), similar to those of White Painted VII and Bichrome VII; jugs with squat body, very short neck, pinched rim, and an elevated handle from rim to shoulder (2), clearly imitating a metal prototype; jugs similar to No.2 of Black-on-Red IV (VI), but with higher base and taller neck (3).
Decoration The decoration is similar to that of White Painted VII, partly with Attic influence: olive leaves, ivy spray, etc.
Bichrome Red Ware
4. BLACK-ON-RED IV (VI) WARE (Fig. LX)
1.
BICHROME RED I (IV) WARE (Figs. XL-XLII)
Technique
Technique
Wheel-made; the slip is usually more lustrous than in Black-on-Red III (V), but sometimes entirely mat; it is, as a rule, red in colour and the ornaments are painted in the usual black colour.
Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red II (IV); the ornaments on this slip are painted with black and supplementary white paint; occasionally red colour is .used instead of white.
Shape
Shape
Only jars and jugs are represented. The jars are squat, with base-ring, splayed rim, and two rudimentary handles on the body. The jugs with a figure holding a jug on the shoulder (I) are similar to NO.3 of White Painted VI. The jug with a pinched rim (2) has a globular body, high, concave base, short swollen and tapering neck, a funnel-mouth, and a handle from mouth to shoulder.
Decoration The decoration of Black-on-Red IV (VI) shows the same characteristics as that of White Painted VI: the concentric circles have disappeared; it is only in the earliest specimens that there is a survival of the motif of intersecting, circular lines. The main part of the decoration is still executed in the contemporary Bichrome Red technique; see Bichrome Red III (VI) Ware.
5.
BLACK~ON-RED
The shapes are similar to those of the contemporary vases of Type IV, particularly to those of Black-on-Red II (IV) and Red Slip II (IV). Bowls (I, 2), jars (1-4), jugs (1-16), amphorae (I, 2) and askoi are represented. The jars with horizontal handles on the shoulder have a more evenly curved body than the corresponding type of Bichrome IV, the rim is raised, very short (I), or elongated into a short, splayed neck (2). The sack-shaped handle-ridge jug with wide lip (I) and the globular jug with slightly concave neck and downturned rim (3) and that with tapering neck (I I) are similar to Red Slip II (IV)' types, arid the same. holds good in general for the shapes of the jugs. The neck of the spout-jug No. 14 has preserved more of the concavity of Type III than is usual in Type IV; the bodies of the spout-jugs with human protomes (IS, 16) show more of the biconical tendency typical of late specimens of Type IV than the corresponding jugs of Black-on-Red II (IV), and the jug No. 16, a trick jug (cf. below), is provided with a short foot. The askos has also a low foot, but apart from that its shape is identical with the corresponding type of Black-on-Red II (IV). It is a trick vase (cf. Fig. XXXVI, 9).
V (VII) WARE (Fig. LXVI)
Technique
Decoration
Wheel ..mader.buffclay.. rather. coarse. in. core; no slip, only .a slightly polished wash; mat, black decoration..
The decoration is the same as that of the corresponding types of Black-on-Red- II (IV); some encircling bands, dots, and short' strokes are made in white colour.
74
POTTERY
2. BICHROME RED II (V) WARE (Figs. LUI-LV)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red III (V); the ornaments are painted on this slip in black and supplementary white colour; sometimes the slip has become black from the baking, the white paint has assumed a violet shade, and the black paint has vanished in the blackened slip; in this way a black-and-white variety of Bichrome Red II (V) is produced.
Shape Bowls (1-8), jars, jugs (1-19) and amphorae (1-1 I) are represented. The types are few, but the varieties are many. The bowls are similar to those of the corresponding specimens of the other wares of Type V, except the bowl with raised rim and without handles (3), which is a type hitherto peculiar to Bichrome Red II (V). This bowl represents a development of bowl No. S of Red Slip II (IV). The jar is sharply biconical in shape, has a down-turned rim and two vertical handles on the shoulder. The juglets with handles from neck to shoulder (I) and from rim to shoulder (2) have a biconical body; the rim of the latter form is ring-shaped. This juglet is a further development and variety of the corresponding type of Bichrome V and Black-on-Red III (V). The handle-ridge jugs Nos. 3 and 4 have both developed from corresponding specimens of Type IV, the former from the type represented by the Plain White IV jug NO.4 and the latter from the sack-shaped jugs No. 2 of Black-on-Red II (IV) and No. I of Bichrome Red I (IV). The jugs with tapering neck, splayed rim and handle from rim to shoulder (S a, b) are new types, while the jugs with wide neck and handle from neck (6) or rim (7) to shoulder are derivations from the corresponding specimens of Type IV. The jugs with a pinched rim (8-12) display the stylistic features characteristic of Type V: the neck tapers, the pinching of the rim is narrow, the lip takes the shape of an inverted, truncated cone, the handle often rises above the mouth. The body of No.8 is less sackshaped than the corresponding types of White Painted V, Bichrome V, and Black-on-Red III (V), and is almost cylindrical in shape, but the lip and pinched rim is characteristically Type V. The spout-jug with short, wide neck and handle from rim to shoulder (13) has a biconical body unlike the corresponding specimens of Type IV (e. g., Bichrome IV, jug No. 22), from which it is derived. New types of jugs characteristic of Bichrome Red II (V) are those with a bull's protome on the shoulder (14, IS) and a human figure holding a jug on the shoulder (16, 17). Rare types are those with the neck surmounted by a human protome, sometimes combined with a bull's protome on the shoulder (18, 19). The amphorae (1-. II) are all similar to those of the other wares of Type V, except No. II, which has horizontal, erect handles on the shoulder and bridge handles from the rim to the horizontal handles, a type derived from the corresponding jars of Bichrome IV. In fact,' this and other amphorae of.Bichrome Red II (V) with a rather short and wide neck are intermediate forms between jars and amphorae.
BICHROME RED WARE
7S
Decoration Bichrome Red II (V) is the most richly decorated of the Bichrome Red wares, and the use of supplementary colours is more abundant than in Bichrome Red I (IV). Influence from the "lotus" style is also more common: lotus flowers, rosettes, and dotted stars, painted in supplementary colours; the tree-ornament, already appearing in White Painted III and common in Bichrome V, is often used, especially in the latest specimens of this ware; further influence of the contemporary Greek vase-painting may be noticed: stags, oxen, lion attacking bull, sphinxes, etc. Otherwise some of the usual ornaments of the contemporary wares are employed: black and white toothed border round the rim of the jugs and plates, encircling lines in black and white, concentric circles, rows of dots, etc. 3· BICHROME RED III (VI) WARE (Fig. LX)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red IV (VI); the ornaments are painted in the usual Bichrome Red technique.
Shape Bowls, jars, jugs, and amphorae are represented. The bowls are wide and shallow, with base-ring, slightly curved sides, flattened, curved rim, pierced by two suspension-holes (I); convex sides, plain rim, and low foot (2); basering, slightly curved sides, flat, down-turned rim, and a horizontal handle below rim (3). The jars are similar in shape to those of Bichrome VI and Black-on-Red IV (VI), all with rudimentary handles (I a-c) or with horizontal handles on the shoulder (2). The jugs with round mouth and handle from neck to shoulder are of the following principal types: similar to No.2 of White Painted VI, but with depressed body (I); globular depressed with short, concave neck and collar-shaped rim (2); similar in shape to NO.3 of White Painted VI and No. I of Black-on-Red IV (VI), but the handle with metal-imitation side-knobs at the neck, without (3 a, b) or with human figure on the shoulder (4). The jugs with round mouth and handle from rim to shoulder (S) are of the same shape as No. S of White Painted VI and No. I of Bichrome VI, and the jugs with a pinched rim (6, 7) are similar to No.2 of Bichrome VI and Black-on-Red IV (VI). The amphorae are oval or oval depressed, with concave neck, flaring rim, and rudimentary handles on the body (I) or with cylindrical neck and a ridge below rim (2).
Decoration The decoration follows the general decorative scheme of White Painted VI and Blackon-Red IV (VI), but is richer than both of these; in the earliest specimens, there is a survival of the Bichrome Red II (V) decoration: dotted stars, tree-ornaments, etc.; the later specimens
POTTERY
show the influence of the contemporary Attic ware in the palmette, myrtle, ivy leaf, and kymation motifs, etc. decorating the shoulder, neck, and rim of the jugs. The supplementary colours are no longer such: they predominate in the decoration; very rarely are the ornaments propet;' painted in black colour, which, as a rule, is used only for the encircling bands and lines and then also together with the supplementary colours.
4. BICHROME RED IV (VII) WARE (Fig. LXVI)
BLACK SLIP WARE
77
Shape Characteristic shapes are: shallow bowls with plain or knobbed hofizontalhandles' at the rim (I a, b); bowls on a low foot with raised, out-turned rim and two horizontal handles on the shoulder (2); amphorae with handles from neck to shoulder (I) or from rim to shoulder (2-4). They are similar to the corresponding types of White Painted and Black Slip I and II.
Technique
Decoration
Wheel-made; the slip is usually slightly lustrous or mat; the ornaments are painted in the usual Bichrome Red technique.
The decoration is the same as that of the corresponding types of the White Painted and Bichrome wares. The decoration of the shallow bowls is confined to the bottom, that of the bowls on a low foot to the shoulder, and that of the amphorae to the shoulder or neck; the other parts of the vases are covered with black slip.
Shape Typical shapes are: shallow, wide bowls with drooping, flat rim, and horizontal, sometimes double handles at the rim; jugs with concave or almost cylindrical neck, handle from neck to shoulder, without (I, 2) or with an animal's protome (3) or with a female figure on the shoulder (4), the shapes being similar to those of the corresponding types of White Painted VII, Bichrome VII, and Black-on-Red V (VII).
Black Slip Bichrome Ware (Figs. IX, XVI)
Technique
Decoration
The decoration of Bichrome Red IV (VII) shows the same characteristics as that of White Painted VII, Bichrome VII, and Black-on-Red V (VII).
Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of Black Slip Painted, and the ornaments are painted in a black and supplementary red colour of the same kind as those of Bichrome I and II.
Shape
Polychrome Red Ware
Only dishes and shallow bow Is are represented hitherto.
This ware is a variety of Bichrome Red II-IV (V-VII): selected specimens are painted in black and supplementary white, red, yellow, green, and violet colours.
Black Slip Painted Ware
Black Slip Ware
(Figs. IX, XVI)
Technique -:Wheel-maae;theclay, and' slip are the same as those of Black Slip I and II, and the ornaments ate' painted in a .black colour of the same kind as those of the White Painted land II.
I.
BLACK SLIP I WARE (Figs. IX, X)
Technique Wheel-made; buff or brown clay, well silted, with a black, mat or occasionally very slightly lustrous slip.
POTTERY
BLACK SLIP WARE
Shape
79
4. BLACK SLIP IV WARE (Fig. XLIII) Technique
The following shapes are characteristic: hemispherical bowl with base-ring, rim turned somewhat inwards, and two vertical string-holes at the rim (1); bowl with contracted rim and horizontal handles on the shoulder (2); jugs with low foot, concave, sometimes tapering neck, round mouth with annular rim, and handle from neck to shoulder (1, 2); jugs with pinched mouth of the same shapes as the corresponding jugs of White Painted I (3-5); lenticular bottle, similar to the corresponding White Painted I and Bichrome I type; amphora with base-ring or low foot, oval or globular body, concave neck, flaring rim, with rounded, sometimes down-turned lip, and two handles, plain or knobbed, from neck to shoulder (1, 2), similar to, but not of exactly the same shapes as the corresponding White Painted I types; amphorae with somewhat compressed body, low foot, concave neck, and handle from rim to shoulder (3 a-c), of nearly the same shape as the corresponding amphorae of White Painted I. Most of the vases have parallel, vertical furrows round the body, imitating the ribbed surface of the metal models. 2.
Wheel-made; the clay is always of the softer quality, also used in Black Slip III. Shape
Bowls, jugs, and amphorae are represented. The The bowls are hemispherical, with round base and base-ring, the neck widens upwards; the amphora has what concave, short neck, flat rim, and handles from
body of the vases is always plain. plain rim; the jugs are ovoid, with a depressed body, high foot, somerim to shoulder.
5. BLACK SLIP V WARE (Fig. LVI) Technique
Wheel-made; the clay is buff, rather soft, or brown and harder baked; the slip is lustrous or mat, and often flakes off.
BLACK SLIP II WARE (Fig. XVII)
Technique
Shape
Wheel-made; technical similarity to Black Slip I, but often a brown and not so well silted clay, covered with mat slip, usually greyish-black.
Bowls and jugs (1, 2) are represented. The body of the vases is always plain. The bowls are similar in shape to NO.3 of Red Slip III (V), but shallower and wider, and the jugs are similar to the corresponding specimens of Bichrome V, Black-on-Red III (V), and Bichrome Red II (V).
Shape
Only jugs with pinched rim (1-3) and amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder (1 a, b) are represented, all deriving from Black Slip I types and similar in shape to the corresponding specimens of White Painted II and Bichrome II. The body of the vases is usually furrowed as in Black Slip I, but the furrows are more carelessly drawn.
6. BLACK SLIP VI WARE (Fig. LXI) Technique
Wheel-made; pale, buff clay, rather coarse; mat, black slip, sometimes mottled-brown, easily flakes off.
3. BLACK SLIP III WARE (Fig. XXVI) Technique
Shape
Wheel-made; technical similarity to the preceding wares; the clay is sometimes reddishbrown and of a similar consistency to that of Black Slip II, but sometimes softer and light-brown or greenish in colour.
Bowls (1-5) and jugs are represented. The bowls without handles have splaying sides, plain rim, rounded base with central boss (1); some are shallow, with narrow base-ring, defined and down-turned rim (2), or shallow, with wide base-ring and plain rim (3). The bowls with one (4) or two (5) horizontal handles imitate Attic one-handled bowls and kylikes. The jug has a flat, raised base, depressed body, wide, concave neck, and handle from rim to shoulder.
Shape
Only jugs with pinched rim (1, 2) and amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder are represented. The shapes are similar to those of White Painted III and Bichrome III. The surface of the vases is usually plain; only occasionally the body is furrowed by shallow and careless grooves.
. t
80
POTTERY
Red Slip WUre 1.
RED SLIP I (III) WARE (Figs. XXVI, XXVII)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of the Black-on-Red I (III).
RED SLIP WARE
81
type of Bichrome IV. Of the jugs with pinched rim, those with a low foot (8 a, b) and that with rather biconical body and the mouth covered by a strainer (9) represent varieties of shape peculiar to Red Slip II (IV). The ring-shaped flask is derived from the corresponding type of White Painted III, from which it differs by the low foot and the metallic character of the shape. Metal prototypes are also demonstrated by the shape of the jugs with pinched rim mentioned above.
Shape
3. RED SLIP III (V) WARE (Fig. LVI)
As in Black-on-Red I (III), the shapes are in part the same as in White Painted III and Bichrome III, in part they show peculiarities of their own. The flat bowl (I) and shallow, carinated bowl (3), both without handles, have no Cypriote predecessors, ~hile the shallow bowl without handles (2) is derived from a Plain White II type, and the deep bowl (4) and the bowl on a low foot (5) are of the same shape as the corresponding types of White Painted III and Bichrome III. The same holds good for the cup, but the jar is not of Cypriote derivation. Of the jugs, only the type with funnel-mouth and handle from neck to shoulder (I) is of Cypriote tradition, while all the jugs with pinched rim (2-4), with upwards widening or tapering neck, flat base or low foot are non-Cypriote. The amphoriskoi with handles from rim to shoulder (I a, b) are entirely Cypriote, and like the other shapes of Cypriote origin are similar to the corresponding types of White Painted III and Bichrome III.
2.
RED SLIP II (IV) WARE (Figs. XLII, XLIII)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red II (IV).
Shape Bowls (1-9), cups (1,2), jars (I, 2), jugs (1-10), and flasks are represented. In general the shapes are derived from the corresponding specimens of Type III and are similar to those of the other wares of Type IV, particularly those of Black-on-Red II (IV) and Bichrome Red I (IV). The following shapes are of particular interest. The bowl with flat, out-turned rim (4) is a new type and the bowl without handles, with raised base, curved sides, and erect rim (5) and the bowl with flat base and splayed sides (8) seem to have no exact parallels in other wares of Type IV. The squat cup with flat base and flat rim (I) is peculiar to Red Slip II (IV), that with double-curved body and base-ring (2) is of the usual Type IV. The jar without handles (I) is derived from the corresponding type of Red Slip I (III), from which it differs in the transfer of the greatest width to the shoulder. The jar with horizontal and vertical handles (2) and the jugs with tapering neck and pinched rim (10) are also represented by Bichrome IV. The ridge around the lower end of the neck betrays a metal prototype. The slim, oval handle-ridge juglet (3) has influenced the corresponding
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red III (V) and Bichrome Red II (V).
Shape Bowls (1-4), cups (I, 2), and jugs (1-6) are represented. The shallow bowls without handles have a flat (I) or down-turned (2) rim. The bowls of medium depth without handles (3 a, b) are developed from the corresponding specimens of Black-on-Red II (IV), from which they differ in the angular outline or tendency towards angularity. The bowl with raised rim and two horizontal handles on the shoulder (4) is similar to the corresponding specimens of Bichrome Red II (V). The cups are sometimes very splayed (I), and the sides have lost the double-curved outline of Type IV and become sharply angular (2). The sack-shaped handle-ridge juglets (I a, b) are similar to those of Bichrome Red II (V). The juglets with round mouth and handle from rim to shoulder (2, 3) have either a globular depressed body, flat base, short, concave neck, and thick rim, or they are of biconical shape with a narrow base-disc and a wide, splayed neck. Of the jugs with pinched rim, NO.4 is similar to the corresponding type of Bichrome Red II (V), and NO.5 is a new type. The jug with an animal's protome on the shoulder and handle from rim to shoulder (6) is of the same shape as the corresponding jugs of Bichrome Red II (V).
4· RED SLIP IV (VI) WARE (Fig. LXI)
Technique Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of Black-on-Red IV (VI) and Bichrome Red III (VI).
Shape Bowls (1-7), jars (I, 2), and jugs are represented. The bowls without handles are of the following principal types: shallow, wide, with flat rim (I); shallow, sometimes wide, with double-curved sides and splaying rim (2 a, b); 6
GREY AND BLACK POLISHED WARE
POTTERY
shallow, with double-curved sides and swollen, in-turned rim (3); shallow, with almost straight sides and contracted rim (4); shallow, with convex or slightly angular sides and high base-ring (5 a, b); conical, with splayed, raised rim (6). The bowls with two horizontal handles are only represented by one type: wide and shallow, with flattened, drooping rim (7). The jars are similar in shape to those of the other wares of Type VI; they are without (I) and with two rudimentary handles on the body (2). The jugs are only represented by one type: a rounded, somewhat biconical juglet with narrow short neck, ring-shaped rim, and handle from neck to shoulder.
Shape Bowls, jugs (I, 2), and amphorae (I, 2) are represented. . · The bowl is hemispherical, with base-ring and two pierced, horizontal handles at the nm,
, ~h~ juglet with flat base, funnel-shaped mouth, and. handle from neck to shoulder (I) IS similar to the corresponding type of Black-on-Red I (III), and the juglet on a low foot has a depressed body, concave, short neck, pinched rim, and handle from rim to shoulder (2). The. amphorae are of two principal types: with shoulder-handles (I) and with handles from nm to shoulder (2 a, b), both similar to the corresponding types of White Painted III and Bichrome III.
5. RED SLIP V (VII) WARE (Fig. LXVI)
Technique Wheel-made; the clay and slip are the same as those of Bichrome Red IV (VII).
Shape Bowls (1-5), jars (I a, b), and jugs are represented. The bowls without handles are of two principal types: with double-curved sides, base-ring, and flat rim (I), derived from bowl No.2 of Red Slip IV (VI), but the base-ring is high, the sides do not flare so much as in Type VI, and the rim is thick; bowls of varying depths with angular shoulder and raised rim (2, 3), derived from bowl No.6 of Red Slip IV (VI), but with sharply angular shoulder and higher base-ring. The shallow bowl with a horizontal handle at the rim (4) imitates the corresponding Attic Black Glazed bowl, and the wide, shallow bowl with horizontal handles at the rim (5) corresponds to the similar type of White Painted VII and Bichrome Red IV (VII). The globular depressed jars with raised rim and two horizontal handles on the shoulder (I a, b) correspond to the similar types of White Painted VII, and the jug with a female figure on the shoulder is similar to the corresponding types of White Painted VII, Bichrome VII, Black-on-Red V (VII), and Bichrome Red IV (VII).
Grey and Black Polished Ware
, 2. GREY AND BLACK POLISHED II (IV) WARE (Fig. XLIII) Technique W~ee~-made; the clay is grey or grey-black, sometimes not so well silted as in Type III; t~e slip IS usually grey-black, the burnishing is more careful than in Type III, but is some-
times effaced.
Shape Bowls (1-5), jugs (1-4), and amphorae are represented. · The bowls are ,all shallo,:: with one .horizontal wavy handle stuck-on at the body, basermg, and a flat nm (I); with two honzontal handles, flattened base, contracted rim with flattened top (2);. han~les surmounted by lotus flowers, flat out-turned rim (3); rounded base, spl.ayed, raised nm (4). The hemispherical bowl with round base and two vertical handles In the shape of quadrupeds clearly imitates a metal prototype (5). · The handle-r~d~e juglets with globular or sack-shaped body (I, 2), and with pinched nm (3, 4) are similar to the corresponding types of Black-on-Red II (IV). The amph?ra has a low foot, depressed body, cylindrical neck, and handles from rim to shoulder, In shape rather similar to that of Black Slip IV.
, 3· GREY AND BLACK POLISHED Technzque
ill
(V) WARE (Fig. LVI)
Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of the preceding ware. I.
GREY AND BLACK POLISHED I (III) WARE (Fig. XXVI)
Technique
Shape
Wheel-made; the clay is well silted, grey in colour, covered with a grey or black, polished slip.
Only one type of juglet is represented hitherto. It is biconical, with flat base, narrow, short, concave neck, swollen rim, and a handle from rim to shoulder similar to the corresponding type of Black-on-Red III (V) and Bichrome Red II (V).
PLAIN WHITE WARE
POTTERY
Black Lustrous Ware
Stroke Polished Ware 1.
STROKE POLISHED I (VI) WARE (Fig. LXI)
Technique Wheel-made; reddish-brown clay, covered with a red slip, polished in vertical strokes.
BLACK LUSTROUS I (VI) WARE (Fig. LX I)
Technique Wheel-made; brown clay, hard and well baked; slightly lustrous, thin slip.
Shape
Shape Bowls, jars, jugs (1'-3), and askoi are represented. The bowls are of medium depth, with flat base, convex sides, swollen, drooping rim, and two projections on the body. This is the only type of bowl hitherto noted, and the jars are also represented by only one type: the body is squat, with two horizontal handles on the shoulder and with raised, splayed rim. The jugs with bowl-shaped mouth (I, 2) have a globular or rounded square body, short, concave. neck, mouth with curved rim turned inwards, and loop-shaped handle from base of neck to shoulder. The jug with funnel-shaped mouth (3) has a body and neck similar to Nos. I and 2. The askos has a funnel-shaped mouth and a basket-handle from neck to body.
The types represented are: bowl with base-ring, angular outline, drooping rim; sackshaped juglet with handles from rim to shoulder.
Red Lustrous Ware RED LUSTROUS I (VII) WARE (Fig. LXVII)
Technique Wheel-made; light buff, well silted clay, covered by a fine wash; thick, lustrous, brown or reddish-brown slip, which easily crumbles.
Shape 2.
STROKE POLISHED II (VII) WARE (Fig. LXVII)
Technique
There is only one type represented hitherto: spindle-shaped jug with flat base, narrow neck, swollen rim, handle from neck to shoulder.
Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of Stroke Polished I (VI).
Plain White Ware
Shape Bowls (1-5), Jugs (1-3), and amphorae are represented. The bowls without handles are of three principal types: flat, plate-shaped, with flat, broad rim pierced by two suspension-holes (I); shallow, with base-ring and rim curving in (2), imitating the corresponding Attic Black Glazed bowl; depressed, with rounded base and concave, wide, raised rim (4), imitating a metal prototype. The shallow bowl with a horizontal handle below the rim (3) and the deep bowl with two horizontal handles below the rim (5) imitate the corresponding Attic types. ~' The jugsf.r, 2) are similar to Nos. I and 2 of Stroke Polished I (VI), but the body is sometimes, more oval, and the' funneled mouth has a plain rim, or have a more globular body, concave neck, and wide, disc-shaped rim (3). The amphora has an .oval body, no defined neck-line; concave neck, down-turned rim, and handles from neck to shoulder. "
-.
..
--
..... .... ~
....
"
1.
PLAIN WHITE I WARE (Figs. X, XI)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of White Painted 1.
Shape A shape of bowl peculiar to Plain White I is the shallow bowl with flat base, rim turned in, without handles (I). The shallow bowl with pierced ledge-handles (2), the bowl of medium depth with flat base or base-ring and two horizontal handles below the rim.Ij.a, b), and the bowl on a low foot (4) are similar to thecorrespondingWhite Painted I types, but the footed bowl-has only one handle. The strainer is also similar to the White Painted I type, buthas.only one handle. ' : The cups (I, 2) with flattened or flat base and high loop-handle are peculiar to Plain White 1.
86
POTTERY
PLAIN WHITE WARE
Jugs with round base and squat body (I) are similar to the corresponding White Painted I type; jugs with flat base and narrow, tapering neck (2) are peculiar to Plain White I; jugs with base-ring and concave neck (3 a, b) are similar to the corresponding White Painted I type, though the variety with a rather wide neck (3 b) does not seem to be represented in that ware; jugs with wide, almost cylindrical or tapering neck (4 a, b) are similar to the corresponding Black Slip I type, and the jug on a low foot and with depressed body (5) is a development of the same type; the jugs with pinched rim (6 a,b) are similar to the corresponding White Painted I types. The amphora is only represented by varieties of the type with handles from rim to shoulder (I, 2).
the handle-ridge jug with a funnel-shaped mouth and flattened base (2) is evidently influenced by the corresponding handle-ridge jugs and juglets of Black-on-Red I (III). The jugs Nos. 3-5 and 7 are derived from the corresponding shapes of Type II, while jug No.6 is related to the Coarse jug NO.7 b and the Black-on-Red I (III) jug NO.5. Jugs Nos. 8-10 represent shapes usual in White Painted III and Bichrome III. The horn-shaped vases (1,2) are developed from the types of Plain White II; the handle is sometimes lacking (I), and the mouth is wide and funnel-shaped. The only type of amphora hitherto represented has handles from rim to shoulder. Its ring-shaped mouth and stiff handles seem to be explained by the fact that a stone prototype is imitated.
2. PLAIN WHITE II WARE (Fig. XVII)
Technique
.
Wheel-made; clay and slip like those of White Painted II.
4. PLAIN WHITE IV WARE (Figs. XLIV, XLV)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of White Painted IV.
Shape Bowls (1-9), goblets (I, 2), jars, and jugs (1-6) are represented. The shapes are in general derivative from those of Plain White I, and show the same traits of development as were described for the White Painted II Ware. New shapes and varieties of shape not represented in Type I are the footed bowl with three vertical handles (9), the goblets without handles (I, 2), the sack-shaped jug (5), and the jug with short, wide neck (6), which shows influence from the corresponding type of the Coarse Ware.
3. PLAIN WHITE III WARE (Fig. XXVII)
Technique Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of White Painted III.
Shape Some shapes are similar to those of White Painted III and Bichrome III, but there are also several shapes peculiar to Plain White III, most of which, however, are derived from the corresponding types of Plain White II. Bowls (1-5), jugs (1-10), horn-shaped vases (I, 2), and amphorae are represented. The hemispherical bowl with flattened base (I) is derived from bronze prototypes. The wide, funnel-shaped bowl with flat base and flat, out-turned rim (2) and the shallow bowl with iraisedc.straight rim and one horizontal handle at the rim (3) are shapes and varieties of shapes peculiar to Plain White III, but the bowl of medium depth with two rudimentary handles below the rim (4) and the bowl of angular outline and with two horizontal handles below the rim (5) are shapes and varieties of shapes represented by White Painted III and Bichrome III. The handle-ridge jug with flattened base and ring-shaped mouth (I )is a new type, and
Shape Shallow and deeper bowls, with flat base or base-disc, plain or flat rim (1-·4), are very common. Some bowls have a flat base and a horizontal handle at the rim (5). The cup is similar to the squat cup (I) of Red Slip II (IV), but has a base-ring. The goblets (I, 2) are actually a combination of goblets and stemmed bowls. The stemmed, bowlshaped jar, with short neck and handles from rim to shoulder (I), is related to the corresponding jars of Bichrome IV, which, however, are also provided with horizontal handles. New types are the wide (2) and narrow (3) torpedo-shaped jars. The handle-ridge juglets (I, 2) and handle-ridge jug with flat base and splayed rim (3) are similar in shape to the corresponding specimens of the other wares of Type IV. The handle-ridge jug with round base, biconical neck, and down-turned rim (4) is a new shape, and so are the globular depressed jugs with flat base, short concave or straight, tapering neck, annular rim, and handle from below rim to shoulder (5-7). The globular depressed jug with slightly concave neck, annular rim, and handle from rim to shoulder (7) is similar to No.6, except for the higher attachment of the handle. The sack-shaped and cylindrical juglets with round mouth (8, 9) are developed from the corresponding type of Plain White III; the sack-shaped variety with round base is rare, and the usual type is the cylindrical juglet with angular' shoulder and bottom. The pear-shaped jug with short, splayed neck (10) is derived from the corresponding type of White Painted III: the body is slimmer, the neck narrower and somewhat taller than in Type III. The depressed jug with a wide, slightly concave neck and handle from rim to shoulder (I I) is similar to the corresponding type of Black-on-Red 11 (IV). The jugs with a pinched rim (12-17) are similar to the corresponding specimens of the other wares of Type IV. The sack-shaped juglet with round base and pinched rim (13) is very rare. The spout-jug with a handle from rim to
88
POTTERY·
PLAIN WHITE WARE
shoulder (18) has the sack-shaped, angular body characteristic of Type IV. The amphorae with horizontal shoulder-handles (I, 2) have a groove around the neck (I a, b), the rim is collar-shaped and sometimes grooved (2). The amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder (3) are of the usual Type IV.
6. PLAIN WHITE VI WARE (Figs. LXI-LXIII) . Technique
Wheel-made; red-brown clay and white slip, sometimes "stroke-polished". Shape
5. PLAIN WHITE V WARE (Figs. LVI, LVII)
Bowls (1-6), jars (1-4), jugs (1-17), amphorae (1-4), and hydriae are represented. All the bowls are without handles and of the following principal types: shallow of varying width, with curved sides and plain rim (I, 2); shallow, with gently splayed sides, plain (3) or flattened (4) rim; wide, with splayed sides and curved, out-turned rim (5); chalice-shaped, with high base (6). Some jars (I) are of the same shape as No. I b of Bichrome Red III (VI); others are oval, with erect, ring-shaped rim and horizontal handles on the shoulder (2); wide, of curved biconical torpedo shape, with two vertical handles at the shoulder (3); narrow, torpedo-shaped (4 a, b), with a vertical handle at the shoulder. The jugs show a greater variety of types: juglets with narrow and short neck,ring-shaped rim, and handlefrom neck to shoulder (I, 2) or from rim to shoulder (3), similar in shape to the corresponding specimens of Red Slip IV (VI), though only juglets with handle from neck to shoulder are hitherto represented by that ware; depressed juglet with short, concave neck, splaying rim, and handle from rim to shoulder (4); sack-shaped or bobbinshaped juglets with splayed rim, sometimes a short, concave neck, and handle from rim to shoulder (5 a-e); globular depressed jugs with raised base-ring, ridge around the neckline, concave, narrow neck, ring-shaped mouth, and an elevated handle from neck to shoulder (6); ovoid jugs with the greatest width at the shoulder, slightly concave neck, and a handle from below rim to shoulder (7); protome-jugs (8) similar in shape to NO.4 of Bichrome Red III (VI); ovoid jugs with the greatest width at the shoulder, tapering neck, splayed lip, a handle from rim to shoulder, with flat base (9 a) or base-ring (9 b); jugs with wide mouth and without or with distinct neck-line, flat base or base-ring, concave, splayed neck, and a handle from rim to shoulder (10-12); oval jug with wide, tapering neck, annular rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder (13); jugs with pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder, globular or oval, with flat base, short, concave neck (14 a, b) or with base-ring, somewhat taller, concave neck, and profiled rim (15); jugs with pinched rim, depressed shoulder, base-ring, narrow neck, and a raised handle from rim to shoulder (16); squat spout-jugs with short, concave neck and a handle from rim to shoulder opposite the spout (17). Some amphorae (I) are of similar shape to Nos. 2 and 3 of White Painted VI; others are conical, with convex sides, short, narrow neck, and erect handles on the shoulder rising above the mouth (2); pear-shaped with knobbed base and handle from neck to shoulder (3); bulging body, slightly concave, rather short neck, ring-shaped rim (3 a); somewhat slimmer body, slightly concave, longer neck, out-turned rim (3 b); rather angular shoulders, almost cylindrical, longer neck, swollen rim (3 c); amphorae with swollen neck, knobbed
Technique
Wheel-made; clay and slip similar to those of White Painted V. Shape
Bowls (1-7), goblets, jars (1-4), jugs (1-10), rhyta (I, 2), amphorae (1-7), and hydriae are represented. . The bowls are without handles, except the shallow bowl NO.7, which has one horizontal handle at the rim. The goblet represents the combination of a stemmed bowl and a goblet known from the specimens of Plain White IV. The small, squat jar with a splayed, raised rim and without handles (I) is a rare type. The usual type is the torpedo-shaped jar with two vertical handles (2-4). The body of the jar is either lTIore evenly curved than in Type IV and gradually tapering towards the pointed bottom (2), or the straight and angular outline of Type IV becomes double-curved (3, 4)· All the jugs have a handle from rim to shoulder, usually rising above the rim. The juglets with narrow neck and round mouth (I a, b) have a biconical body, those with wide neck and round mouth have a tapering neck with or without angular shoulder (2 a, b), or the neck widens upwards (3). The neckless jugs with splayed rim and round mouth have an almost cylindrical (4 a),bobbin-shaped (4 b) or sack-shaped body (4 c-e). The jugs with a pinched rim (5-10) show the characteristic features of Type V noted in the description of the painted wares. The rhyta (I, 2) are unique types and clearly imitate metal prototypes. Of the amphorae, those with horizontal shoulder-handles (I, 2) are of the usual Type V, those with erect shoulder-handles, rising above the mouth (3-·5) are new types. Nos. 3 and 4 seem to have developed from No. I of Plain White IV: the neck of Type V has shrimped and the handles have been raised above the rim. No. 5 seems to be a transformation of the torpedo-shaped jar, with its vertical handles exchanged for the erect handles of thenew type. New types are also the conical amphorae with short, narrow neck, ring-shaped rim, and handles from neck to shoulder (6, 7). The hydriae have a biconical body, almost straight neck, and swollen rim.
!
POTTERY
COARSE WARE
base, and handles from neck to shoulder, bobbin-shaped, with swollen rim (4 a); slim, conical, with swollen rim (4 b). The hydriae are of the same shape as those of White Painted VI.
Coarse Ware (Figs. LXX, LXXI) Technique
7. PLAIN WHITE VII WARE (Figs. LXVII-LXIX) Technique
Wheel-made; red-brown or red clay and white or reddish slip. Shape
Bowls (I-II), jars (1-4), jugs (I-I9),amphorae (1-7), and hydriae are represented. The shallow bowls without handles are of normal width or wider, with flat base or basering, plain, flat, in-turned or down-turned rim (1-9), and are derived from the corresponding specimens of Type VI. The wide bowl with two horizontal handles at the rim has a basering and flat, down-turned rim (10). The deep bowl without handle has double-curved sides, flat base, and flat, out-turned rim (I I), and represents a new shape. Of the jars, NO.2 with conical body is a new shape, while Nos. I, 3, 4 are derived from the corresponding specimens of Type VI; No. I is narrower than Type VI and has no handles or projection on the body; NO.4 is sometimes clumsier built than Type VI, and the neck is thick and rather convex, or the neck is taller than that of Type VI and more concave. Of the jugs, No.6 seems to be a new variety, a transformation of the bottle, represented in White Painted VII, into a jug, and similar to the jug NO.4 of White Painted VII. The other jugs are derived from Type VI and show the general stylistic traits of Type VII. The amphorae with base-ring and shoulder-handles (I a, b) have usually a slimmer and stiffer body than those of Plain White VI; the shoulder is sometimes rather angular and the neck narrower and taller than in Type VI. The amphora with pointed base and erect handles on the shoulder (2) is narrower at the shoulder and wider towards the base than Type VI, the lip is down-turned, and the neck-line sharp-edged. The amphorae with tap-shaped bottom and handles from neck to shoulder (3-5) have lost the gently curved outline of Type VI; the body is usually slimmer and stiffer (3); if wide (4), it is rather angular and has the greatest width at the middle of the body; if plummet-shaped (5) the shoulder is angular and the sides sometimes straight; the neck is often cylindrical, the handles flattened, angular, and straight, and the tap-end more elongated. The amphorae with base-ring and handles from neck to shoulder (6, 7) are peculiar of Type VII. The hydriae are similar to the type of White Painted VII.
Wheel-made; only occasionally hand-made (Amathus, Tomb 7, 177); black or brown clay, very gritty, sometimes with a brown wash. The Lapithos vases are brown in colour, more carefully smoothed, and have rather thin walls; the clay of the Amathus vases is very coarse, usually black; some specimens from Amathus have a reddish-brown clay like those from Stylli and Idalion. Shape
Bowls (1-7), cups (I, 2), jugs (I-II), cooking-pots (1-5), tankards, amphorae (1-5), and hydriae are represented. The majority of the bowls are without handles (1-5), shallow, of medium width, with flat base and plain or sometimes contracted rim, or wide, with flat rim; the shallow bowl with a horizontal handle and ashaft opposite that at the rim (6) is of the same shape as the corresponding type of White Painted I; the bowl with two handles (7) has a flat base, defined shoulder and out-turned rim. The cup is shallow, with profiled, out-turned rim and vertical band-handle (I), or deep, with bulging body, profiled rim, and handle from rim to body (2). The majority of the jugs (1-9) have a wide, very short or taller neck and a handle from rim to shoulder. Some varieties are represented: the body may be squat, depressed globular or oval, the base round or flat and the neck concave or almost cylindrical. Less common are the spindle-shaped juglet (10) similar to the corresponding type of Plain White VII, but with moulded rim, and the jug with a pinched rim (I I). The cooking-pots have a squat body, round base, plain (I), out-turned (2) or moulded (3) rim, and handles from rim to shoulder; or they are deeper, with round base, raised rim, and horizontal (4) or vertical handles on the shoulder (5). The hand-made tankard is a unique type. The amphorae are of two principal types: with vertical shoulder-handles (I, 2) or handles from rim to shoulder (3-5). Nos. I and 2 have a depressed body, round base, concave or almost cylindrical neck, sometimes with sharp-edged neck-line; NO.3 has a globular depressed body, round base, short and wide neck widening upwards; NO.4 has a depressed oval body, flat, raised base, short, wide and concave neck; No. 5 has an oval body, flat, raised base, almost cylindrical and somewhat taller neck. The hydria is similar to the type of Plain White VII.
INTRODUCTION
SCULPTURE
he artistic ideas expressed by the sculptures allow us to divide these into different styles. There are, however, sculptures which cannot be classified in styles, because , they are not produced with artistic intentions, but only for religious purposes to be used as votive offerings. These sculptures have been called idol plastic (d. below, pp. 12 5 ff. and Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 777). We can only distinguish different types of these sculptures and not styles. There are also sculptures which form an intermediate stage between these two categories; they are not pure idol plastic, but they are so roughly modelled, and the character of style is so vaguely rendered that they do not allow of a minute, stylistic analysis. They stand between the handicraft products and the art sculptures, and can only be stylistically determined in proportion to their artistic expression. It has been pointed out in the classification of the Kition sculptures (op. cit. III, p. 55), that the leading works within each style are few in number. They have inspired the artists of the great mass of sculptures, which thus represent the same style of art as the leading works, though in a conventional or rougher form. In order to understand the genetic process of art illustrated by the development of the different styles, it is necessary not only to study the way in which the various artistic elements are composed, but also to analyse and define these elements themselves. An examination of. the Cypriote sculptures of the periods here in question shows that their styles represent various combinations of three elements of art. These elements are: the Cypriote, the Egyptian, and the Greek. In certain styles one of these elements is represented entirely or predominantly, in others they are combined. In accordance with this point of view we can distinguish the following styles: Proto-Cypriote, Neo-Cypriote, Cypro-Egyptian, and Cypro-Greek. The Proto-Cypriote styles comprise the sculptures which are characterized by a predominant influence of the Cypriote element. In the Neo-Cypriote style this element is transformed and modified, partly by Egyptian (Eastern Neo-Cypriote style) and partly by Greek influence (Western Neo-Cypriote style), but the Cypriote element is still
T
93
dominant. The Cypro-Egyptian style is characterized by a Cypriote imitation of Egyptian prototypes. The Cypro-Greek styles divide into the following groups: Archaic, First and Second Sub-Archaic, and Classical Cypro-Greek styles. The Archaic and Sub-Archaic styles represent an artistic synthesis of Cypriote and, Greek elements, while the Classical Cypro-Greek style is characterized by a Cypriote imitation of Greek prototypes and is therefore artistically a phenomenon analogous to the Cypro-Egyptian style.' The sculptural form is not, however, only determined by the artistic ideas of the sculptors, but also by the technique and the material. The majority of the Cypriote sculptures from the periods in question are made in terracotta and in limestone. The different technique and material of these groups of sculpture make it necessary to study the stylistic development within each group separately. In addition, there are a few sculptures of marble and of bronze, but they are too sporadic to be brought into a stylistic system, and can therefore only be considered as additional specimens to the terracotta and limestone sculptures of the respective styles. Foreign sculptures, like pottery and other objects of foreign origin, are not included in the typological system, but are only considered in the chapter on foreign relations. In the excavation reports of the preceding volumes of this publication the sculptures of each site have been classified in a number of local styles. The relation of these to the styles of the general classification given below is shown by these diagrams. Terracotta sculptures PROTOCYPRIOTE
I
NEO-CYPRIOTE
I
CYPRO-GREEK Sub-Archaic
First
AjIA IRINI ......... 1
I-II
Western
Second
Eastern
I III-IV I V-VI I
VOUNI. ............. /
-
I
-
MERSINAKI ........ 1
-
I
-
-
1
-
I
-
/
I
Archaic
,
VII
I
I I
-
I
I-II
-
I
1""':"11
Classical
First
i I
Second
-
I
-
I
-
III
I
-
I
IV
III
I
-
I
IV
Limestone sculptures
I
PROTOCYPRIOTE
1
NEO-CYPRIOTE
CYPRO-GREEK
CYPROEGYPTIAN First
I
Second
Western
\ I
-
I
IA
VOUNI·········I
-
-
MERSINAKI ....
-
I I I
II
1
I ARSOS········ .. I
I
Eastern
Archaic
I
1
KITION ........
Sub-Archaic
-
I I
-
I
-
IB
-
I
I
-
I
-
I I
-
I
-
III
I
-
I
1 In Gnomon XV, 1939, pp. 13 fT., Prof. B. Schweitzer has criticized my view on the chronology, stylistic development,
1
I
I 1
II-III I-II
-
I I-II
IV
I
V-VI
I I I I
First
I
Second
IV
I
V
III
I
IV
III VII
1
I
IV -
II
I Classical Sporadic specimens of unknown provenance
and cultural relation of Cypriote sculpture. I shall not enter upon a polemic discussion, but refer to my treatment of the
SCULPTURE
94
PI. I.
It can be seen from these diagrams that the Cypro-Egyptian style is not represented by terracotta sculptures, and the reason for that is given below, p. 357; further, that the second Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style is represented only by stone sculptures (cf.p.:122) and theCypro-Classical style of stone sculptures only by sporadic specimens of unknown provenance. Finally, it should be mentioned that several terracotta statuettes from Arsos in the report .not assigned toa local style (e. g., Swed.Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII) belong to the' Eastern Neo-Cypriote-style.
.Tbe Prato-Cypriote Styles TH~ 'f'I~ST
,PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLE::
Terracotta Sculptures As can be .seen fromthediagram, p. 93, the first Proto-Cypriote style comprises sculptures similar tothoseofAjiaIrini, Styles I and II. The Ajia Irini sculptures Nos. 1 + 1618 + 1619 and 1728 + 1740 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLXXXIX, CXCI) may be taken as representatives of the beginning and No. 2102 (op. cit. II, PIs. CXCVII, CCII) as a representative of the end of the long series of sculptures included in this style. The body form is deliberately neglected, the modelling is crude and rustic. The body is conceived as an unorganic structure. It is often only a tube, oval in section, without modelled legs, and this holds good both for the roughly and more carefully worked sculptures. When the legs are occasionally modelled" they and the arms are shaped like wooden stumps, and the fingers are stiff pegs. The arms are often mechanically attached to the body by means of pins inserted through holes. The figures are strictly frontal; the feet are either isolinear or one foot is slightly advanced. When a walking: movement is attempted, e. g., on the sculpture Ajia Irini No. 1470 (op. cit. Il,Pl. CCI, 2, 3), the legs are placed one behind the other, vertical and parallel with each other. The arms ate. usually vertical, or one arm is bent upwards and advanced, or both arms are advanced for carrying a votive gift. The proportions of the different parts of the body are neither in accordance with nature nor with any artistic principle, but are apparently accidental. In fact, the type of body is that of the idol plastic on an enlarged scale. The figures are dressed in a short tunic or a long girdled chiton with overfold. The dress is also rendered quite schematically. Sometimes the surface is raised or the details are only indicated by painting, the folds of the chiton below the girdle subject in this volume, and the reader may thus judge whether my opinion is well grounded or not. .In my opinion Prof. Schweitzer's statements are typical products of arm-chair archaeology. His two principal errors are that: he pays no attention to the evidence of stratigraphy for the chronological
question, and looks at the development of Cypriote sculpture as , a:' phenomenon within the sphere of Greek art, entirely overlooking the Proto-Cypriote sculpture, or rather denying its existence.
Terracotta sculptures. First Proto-Cypriote style.
THE PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLES
95
are sometimes incised, sometimes rendered plastically by parallel, curved ridges, and the seams are marked by ridged lines. The face varies somewhat, and accordingly we can distinguish between two typological groups of the first Proto-Cypriote style, corresponding to Styles I and II of the Ajia lrini sculptures. The head is short, triangular or trapezoid with a broad forehead in the first group, and gradually passes into the oval shape of the second group. From a technical point of view there is a difference: all the heads of the first group are hand-made, while some faces of the second group are cast in a mould, e. g., Ajia lrini Nos. 1470, 1490, 1549 + 1991 (op. cit. II, PI. CCl). The beard of the first group is almost pointed or trapezoid, sometimes ending in spiral curls, and is usually worked in parallel, vertical grooves; the beard of the second group is rounded off or square-cut, sometimes rather short and marked with stamped circles. The nose is strong and projecting; the cheeks are prominent, but more smoothly modelled in the second group. The eyes are large and sometimes with prominent eyeballs. The ears are always roughly modelled. Details of the face, such as eyes, moustaches, beard, hair, etc., are painted in a dark colour; the skin is sometimes rendered with red paint. The stern, almost ferocious expression of some sculptures of the first group is gradually softened, the grim lips with the corners drawn down are straightened or slightly protruded, beaked, almost triangular, and the vigorous modelling remains. We have seen that the body is only a necessary, but artistically uninteresting, support to the head. The primitive form of the body contrasts with the vivid expression of the face, on which the mind and interest of the artist are entirely and exclusively concentrated. The faces are full of individuality, the intention of the artist being to express personal temperament and character, not a general type. This expression is intensified to a portrait-like character, but rendered in a severe, geometric form. This combination of harsh form and subjectiveness imparts to the faces a dynamic tension. They are spontaneous products of a fresh and young art directly sprung from the desire to render human feelings and human ideas for the first time in monumental plastic, artistically the clearest expression of the spiritual characteristics of the Cypriotes. Nothing therefore can teach us more of the Cypriote ideals of art than a stylistic study of these faces, and nothing can be more entirely different from Greek art. Only if we deliberately free ourselves from the artistic views acquired through a study of Greek art, shall we be able to understand and appreciate the principles of Cypriote plastic described above.' We shall see that this Cypriote sculpture forms part of Near Eastern art, but it has also characteristics of its own, and the name Proto-Cypriote has therefore been considered an appropriate one for the sculptural style in which the Cypriote ideas of plastic are expressed in monumental form for the first time. Limestone Sculptures As shown by the diagram, p. 93, the limestone sculptures of the first Proto-Cypriote style comprise sculptures which show the same stylistic features as those of Style I at Arsos. 1 Only occasionally is a terracotta 'plastic marked by similar artistic principles found in Greece, e. g., in Crete (Ann. Brit.
School Athens VIII, p. 276, Figs. 2,3; p. 279, Figs. 5-7. Direct or indirect connections with Cypriote art cannot be proved.
SCULPTURE
Pi. II.
It is a distinct group of sculptures, which is hitherto represented by only a few specimens. The chef-d'oeuvre among the Arsos sculptures is Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXV, a
female statue with board-shaped body, right arm vertical, left arm across the body, and holding a bull with the hand. The modelling of the body is very shallow, in flat planes; it has more the character of a relief than a round sculpture, and the back is only roughly cut. The breasts are conical elevations, and the arms are only separated from the torso by grooved lines. The artistic form has preserved the original shape of the limestone slab out of which the figure is sculptured. The axial frontality is emphasized by the large pendants of the four necklaces and the right hand located approximately in the axial line of the body. Unfortunately, the face has been much damaged, but its character and style are clearly recognizable. The head is oval in shape with a strong chin; protruding lips; large, prominent, staring eyes with sculptured lids, the upper ones prolonged to the side; the brows shaped like flat, arched bands. A veil covers the hair, which falls in a compact mass down the back of the head to the shoulders. The ears are ornamented by large and heavy rings. All the characteristic features of the· Proto-Cypriote limestone sculptures in general and particularly their first style are represented by this grand figure: the hieratic and frontal position, the conventionalized and shallow modelling of the body contrasting with the minute and naturalistic rendering of the personal accessories; and the expressive face, with the huge, dominating eyes. The colossal head, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XXXIX, is a male counterpart to the female Arsos sculptures, but represents a somewhat more advanced stage. The head is oval in shape. The eyeballs are large and prominent, the brows are very wide and rendered as arched, plain relief bands. The cheeks are prominent. The nose is thick and projecting; the lips are protruding. Oil the chin is an almost rectangular beard of contiguous, wide and flattened locks ending in spiral curls. The head is crowned by a conical cap or helmet with upturned cheek-pieces and knob-shaped top. The hair falls down the neck in a com. pact mass at the back of the head, and peeps out of the helmet in front in a row of small spiral curls over the forehead. The expression of the face reflects a rustic simplicity with accumulated resources of force, and indicates a personality with self-confidence and an authoritative appearance. The head,op. cit. I, PI. XLIX, 289, is of the same general type, but the eyes are narrower and less prominent; the style is more advanced. On a comparison of this group of limestone sculptures with the corresponding terracotta works, we find that the limestone sculptures show the closest similarity to the second group of the terracotta sculptures of the first Proto-Cypriote style, i. e., those represented by Style II at Ajia Irini, though the terracotta sculptures are of a more rustic kind than the technically superior stone figures; this difference in technical skill must be borne in mind, when these terracotta and limestone sculptures are compared with each other. The broad, arched eyebrows of the colossal head in the Cesnola collection described above should be compared with those of Ajia Irini Nos. 1536 and 1549 + 1991 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CC, 3; CCI, 5), and it should be noticed that, although arched eyebrows are represented also in the second Proto-Cypriote and later styles, only the sculptures of the second group of the first Proto-
Limestone sculptures. First Proto-Cypriote style.
THE PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLES
97
Cypriote style have the same broad eyebrows characteristic of the colossal head in question; the front hair of small spiral curls peeping out of the helmet is similar to, e. g., that of Ajia Irini No. 2102 (op. cit. II, PI. CXCVII); the prominent eyeballs are found on Ajia Irini No. 1549 + 1991, where they are separately attached to the eyes. The prominent cheeks and the beard of locks ending in spiral curls characteristic of the colossal head appear already at the beginning of the first Proto-Cypriote style (cf. op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXIX), but continue in the second Proto-Cypriote style, and do not therefore speak against a synchronistic connection of the colossal head with the second group of the first Proto-Cypriote style. The protruding, almost beaked mouth of the same head is a characteristic feature of the terracotta sculpture from the second Proto-Cypriote style and onwards, and is apparently to be considered as an influence from the limestone sculpture. In view of this it is noteworthy that already the terracotta plastic of the second group of the first Proto-Cypriote style shows a tendency towards representation of this particular type of mouth (cf. p. 95). We thus see that there is cumulative evidence that the earliest stone sculptures hitherto found are contemporary with the later phase of the first Proto-Cypriote style: the typologically earliest Proto-Cypriote sculpture is hitherto only represented in terracotta. THE SECOND PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLE Terracotta Sculptures As shown by the diagram, p. 93, the terracotta sculptures of the second Proto-Cypriote style form two groups, each with particular features of its own, the first group comprising sculptures similar to those of Ajia Irini, Style III, and the second group including sculptures similar to those of Ajia Irini, Style IV. The artistic advance compared with the first Proto-Cypriote style is evident, and is shown by the characteristic traits of the bodies and the faces. The body of the Ajia Irini sculpture No. 1767 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCV, I) is almost square in section, its different parts are fairly carefully modelled and well accentuated with an attempt at a tectonic structure a quite unique case. The majority of the bodies are, however, of another type. It shows a decided tendency to flatness. The tubular body of the first Proto-Cypriote style occurs only occasionally and only in the rougher shaped sculptures. Very often the body is quite board-shaped and only slightly bulging over the breast. This is the typical shape of body in the corresponding stone sculptures. It is a form which is not natural from a technical point of view in the coroplastic art, to which the tubular, often wheel-made body is more appropriate. The flat body of the second Proto-Cypriote style may therefore be considered as influenced by the contemporary stone sculpture. The difference in the structure of the body corresponds to a difference in the dress, too, and its relation to the body. Thus the sculpture Ajia Irini No. 1767 is dressed in a short-sleeved tunic and kilt with side-folds and held together by a belt. The dress does not conceal the outline of the body. The dress of the other sculptures consists, as a rule, of a long chiton and mantle. It covers the body
SCULPTURE
PI. III. entirely and conceals its outline. Sometimes the details of the dress are only painted, but in some cases they are rendered plastically and more carefully, e. g., the mantle with a fringed border of the Ajia Irini sculpture No. 1028 + 2077 and a statuette from Salamis (op. cit. II, PI. CCVIlI; Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, PI. IX). Both in the painted and plastic rendering of the dress a desire to achieve an ornamental effect can be noticed: attention may be directed to some fragments of sculpture found at Salamis, with a rich, painted decoration of the dress (Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., A 1°7-119), and to the Ajia Irini sculpture No. 1044 + 2495 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCV, 2), where the sweeping and symmetrical outline of the dress and the strictly parallel, heavy curved edges of the folded chiton below the girdle in front contrast with the narrow and irregular incisions of the mantle. There is, of course, .a number of roughly worked sculptures in this style, too, but in the better worked specimens the crude and rustic modelling of the body prevalent in the first ProtoCypriote style is overcome. It suffices to compare the Ajia Irini sculptures No. 1728 + 1740 (op. cit. II, PI. CXCI, 3) and No. 2102 (op. cit. II, PI. CCII) of the first Proto-Cypriote style with No. 1767 (op. cit. II, PI. CCV) of the second Proto-Cypriote style; furthermore No. 2106 + 2103 (op. cit. II, PI. CXC) of the first style with No. 1028 +2077 (op. cit. II, PI. CCVIII) of the second style, and No. 1566 (op. cit. II, PI. CXCV, I, 2,) of the first style with "No. 1044 + 2495 (op. cit. II, PI. CCV, 2) of the second style. The advance of the second Proto-Cypriote style is also shown by the fact that the proportions of the figure are adjusted better, and the different parts of the body are assimilated into an artistic unit. The figures are strictly frontal, but the head is occasionally turned slightly to the side (Ajia Irini, No. 2°72+ 2075, op. cit. II, PI. CCXIV, I). The feet are usually isolinear. Only occasionally one foot is advanced. The position of the arms varies. They are vertical or advanced, or one arm is vertical and the other one advanced, or lifted in a gesture of adoration, or slung in a fold of the mantle and bent across the breast. The heads of the first group of sculptures are usually oval in shape, but the trapezoid shape survives in some specimens. Typologically early are the Ajia Irini sculptures Nos. 1767 and 1044 + 2495 (op. cit. II, PI. CCVI, 5, 6). The cheeks and eyeballs are prominent, the modelling is vigorous, the lips of No. 1767 are pursed into a grimace of a smile, while those of No. 1044 + 2495.are more gently smiling. The nose is prominent, the forehead is straight and broad, and the head is covered by a conical cap. The beard is short and indicated by paint only, or by stamped circles. Other sculptures show a more advanced style. A very fine specimen is the head illustrated in Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. XXXV, 288. his decidedly of an individual, life-like character. Severity and dignity mark this face. Another representative of this class of sculptures is the head illustrated in OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PI. XIV, 3, 4. The head is oval, with a long, vertically grooved beard, rather thin nose, large eyes, and "feathered" eyebrows. This head illustrates very well the stylistic development from the latest specimens of the first Proto-Cypriote style, represented by the Ajia .Irini sculpture No. 2102 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCVU, CCIl). We may observe how the expression becomes gradually less passionate and fierce, the faces reflect tranquillity and maturity, a faint or disappearing smile hovers on the lips, the beard
Terracotta sculptures. Second Proto-Cypriote style.
PI. IV.
Terracotta sculpture. Second Proto-Cypriote style.
THE PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLES
99
is closely trimmed or long as before, but the cheeks are rounded and smoothly modelled. A masterpiece of this type is the Ajia Irini sculpture No. 1028 + 2077 (op. cit. II, PI. CCIV). Other specimens of the same category are the statuette in Journ. Hell. Stud. XII 1891, PI. IX, with moustaches, long tripartite beard, "feathered" eyebrows, and rather semilunar eyes; and the head in Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. XVII, 131 (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1452) with semilunar eyes and somewhat pointed beard. The bodies are all hand-made and the majority of the heads, too. Some heads, however, have been cast in a mould, e. g., Ajia Irini Nos .. 936, 1037 + 2454, 1724, 1725 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCIX). The heads of the second group (op. cit. II, PIs. CCX-CCXV) are almost triangular or trapezoid; the cheeks and the nose are rather prominent; the lips are pursed, almost triangular, and slightly smiling; the chin is shaven or provided with a long beard of oval or rectangular shape, plain or worked in vertical grooves, sometimes with incised arrowhead pattern between the vertical grooves; the eyes are almond-shaped or lancet-shaped; the hair falls along the back of the head in a compact mass with slightly concave sides, and the head is covered by a cap, a helmet, or bands. Gradually the accentuation of the lines of the face becomes less distinct, and the modelling loses much of its energy, e. g., Ajia Irini No. 2°72 + 2075 (op. cit. II, PI. CCX). The end of the second Proto-Cypriote style is characterized by the initial influence from other styles, e. g., a sculpture in the Cyprus Museum, Nicosia (unpublished), Ajia Irini Nos. 936, 1037 + 2454, 1724, 1725 (op. cit. II, PI. CCIX), and Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LV, 1, 2, which show some similarity to the sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style (cf. pp. 106 f.); further Ajia Irini Nos. 904, 2°71, 2079 +2105 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXIII, 4, 7, 8; CCXV, 2), which illustrate the gradual transition to the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. Limestone Sculptures
''I'
~"f ~,
As shown by the diagram, p. 93, the limestone sculptures of the second Proto-Cypriote style show the same stylistic features as those of Style I A at Kition and Style II at Arsos. They are by far more numerous than those of the first Proto-Cypriote style. A good idea of the stylistic qualities of the sculptures may be obtained by a comparison of two specimens representing the earlier and the later phase of the style. The statue, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XLVII, 284, is a representative specimen of the earliest sculptures of this style. The body is flattened, of the board-shaped type, with isolinear feet; the left arm is vertical with clenched hand; the right is bent across the body and slung in a fold of the himation. The figure is dressed in a plain chiton and a mantle with fringed border. The head is oval; on the chin is a long, rectangular beard, grooved in tresses with incised cross-lines between the vertical grooves; the lips are protruding and triangular; the cheeks are vigorously modelled; the nose is strong and prominent; the eyes are large, leaf-shaped, with high, ridged eyebrows. The head is crowned by a conical cap. The statue, op. cit. I, PI. XLIII, 280, may be taken as a representative of the latest phase of the style. The figure is rather full-bodied, and was standing with the left leg advanced.
100
SCULPTURE
PI. V.
The left arm is vertical, and the right arm is bent across the breast, with clenched fist. The figure wears an Egyptian kilt held by a belt. There is no trace of a chiton, and the . indication of the navel above the belt of the kilt and the red-painted nipples show that the upper part of the body was naked. This is also proved by the modelling of the body, whose surface is worked with meticulous care and delicacy aiming at a rendering of the skin. The arms and the preserved right hand show the same fine modelling. Below the neck is a wide, pectoral collar. The head is oval, with a closely trimmed beard rendered with rows of small curls; the lips are rather small and delicately worked; the cheeks are smoothly rounded; the nose is rather short and thin; the eyes are fairly large and wide, but the eyeballs are not prominent; the eyebrows are rather low ridges; the forehead is wide,and the head is covered bya Cypriote imitation of the double crown of Egypt with the uraeus in front. While the structure of the body and the representation of the dress, etc. betray Egyptian influence, the character of the face is mainly Proto-Cypriote -. and the stylistic features of the' face alone are decisive for the determination of the style (cf. below) - but shows also some influence from the contemporary Neo-Cypriote style (cf. p. 101). Between and around these two representatives of the style, all the other specimens can be placed. Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XLIX, 290, Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 80, and Swed. Cyp. Exp. In, PI. CLXXXVIII, 1-4, are early specimens characterized by vigorously modelled cheeks, thick,strong nose, protruding lips, and prominent, often large eyes. The eyebrows are usually ridged; the "feathered", ridged eyebrows of Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XLIX, 290 are noteworthy: they are common in the terracotta sculptures, and are evidently to be considered as an influence from the terracotta plastic. Op, cit. I, PI. XXXV, 220 and 222 also belong to the early group. No. 220 is female and No. 222 is male, but if the attributions of the different sexes are disregarded, e. g., the long beard and conical cap of No. 222, the typification of the faces is almost identical: the finn, pursed lips, the wide, leaf-shaped eyes, the staring look, and the high, arched brows are characteristic of both these heads. The life-size statue, op. cit. I, PI. XLIV, 281, has a board-shaped body and the same dress and posture as op. cit. I, PI. XLVII, 284, but the characteristics of the head show that it belongs to a more advanced stage of the style: the nose is not so projecting, the lips are straight and less pouting, and the eyes are less prominent and narrower than those of the sculptures mentioned above. The head, Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 67, belongs also to the same advanced group of sculpture: the lips are straight and not much pursed, the cheeks are more smoothly modelled, the eyes are still large, but rather almond-shaped, a shape which becomes common in the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style, and are less prominent. The statue, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. II, 4, is dressed in a short-sleeved chiton and an Egyptianizing kilt,and wears an Egyptian wig;·the left arm is vertical, the right one is bent across the breast, and the hands are clenched. The posture, the treatment of the dress, and the less board-shaped structure of the body are traits characteristic of the typologically advance d sculptures of the style, and the same is indicated by the character of the face. The heads, Limestone sculptures. Second Proto-Cypriote style.
THE PROTO-CYPRIOTE STYLES
101
op. cit. I, PI. XIX~ 3 I, 33, 35 and Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCVI, belong to the same group as the statue just mentioned, and these four heads crowned by a frontlet may further be compared with the other similar heads illustrated on Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XIX and belonging to the Neo-Cypriote style in order to illustrate the stylistic distinction between the advanced group within the second Proto-Cypriote style and the Neo-Cypriote style. No. 31 is typologically most advanced, and No. 35 represents an intermediate form between Nos. 31 and 33, but it stands nearer No. 33 than No. 31: the angular, beaked lips, the rather prominent cheeks, the large, semilunar eyes, the high upper lids, and arched, raised brows of No. 33 contrast wIth the softly curved lips, the evenly smoothed cheeks, the leaf-shaped eyes, concave upper lids, and flatter, curved brow-lines of No. 31. The head, Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCVI, stands near No. 33; the front of the face is sharply defined from the sides, and the whole structure of the head is firmly built up with strongly accentuated facial features. A group of sculptures belongs to this latest phase of the style, exemplified by the statue, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XLIII, 280, described above. Other typical specimens are op. cit. I, PIs. IV, 6; XXXIII, 212; XXXV, 224; XXXVI, 232; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVII, 4The tendency towards a more round-bodied structure, similar to that of No. 280, is represented by Nos. 6 and 212 as is also the Egyptian influence on the dress. Some of these sculptures show already certain stylistic features characteristic of the Neo-Cypriote style. In fact, there is a gradual transition between the second Proto-Cypriote and the NeoCypriote style, and it is sometimes rather difficult to distinguish between the latest sculptures of the one style and the earliest sculptures of the other. The same phenomenon was observed in the classification of the corresponding terracotta sculptures. The head of No. 212 can be compared with Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XXXV, 223, which belongs to the Neo-Cypriote style. At first sight, these heads seem to be rather similar, but the chin and cheeks of No. 212 are vigorously modelled, while those of No. 223 are smoothly worked, the lips of No. 212 are pursed, while those of No. 223 are softly curved, the eyes of No. 212 are wider and more prominent than those of No. 223. The head, op. cit. I, PI. XXXVI, 232, is very similar to No. 212, which places it in the same transitional group. Gp. cit. I, PI. XLI, 263 is characterized by an expression of mourning and a delicate, fine modelling, which is often characteristic of the N eo-Cypriote style, but the eyes are large and wide, the brows are high and arched, and the severe form, characteristic of the Proto-Cypriote style, is preserved. To sum up: The second Proto-Cypriote style represents a' development of the first Proto-Cypriote style. In the earlier phase of the style the Proto-Cypriote features are still predominant. The later phase passes gradually into the Neo-Cypriote style. The bodies are often rather flat, sometimes quite board-shaped and entirely covered by the dress, a long chiton and a heavy, plain mantle wrapped around the body over the left shoulders. The sides of the bodies form a concave line, and they usually widen downwards. The feet are isolinear, peeping out of the plain surface of the chiton. The position of the arms varies somewhat. The left arm is usually vertical, with clenched fist, and the right arm is bent
102
SCULPTURE
across the breast, sometimes slung in a fold of the mantle. Only the flute-players, who hold a double flute or a tambourine in their hands, have both their arms bent across the chest. In the later phase of the style, especially, the structure of the sculptures is more fullbodied, and the dress consists of a short chiton leaving the legs free. The chiton is often combined with a kilt of Egyptianizing type held by a girdle around the waist. Occasionally there is no chiton and the dress consists of an Egyptianizing kilt only. In this case, the naked part of the body is modelled with a meticulous care and delicacy aiming at a rendering of the skin - quite different from the diagrammatic form of the flattened, board-shaped bodies and the deliberate negligence of their modelling. The sculptures of this second type of body have usually the left leg advanced, and the position of the arms is the same as that of the board-shaped sculptures. As a rule, however, the left arm is vertical, and the right arm is bent across the chest. The first type of body is purely Cypriote, as explained already in the classification of the terracotta sculptures. The structure of the body and the representation of the dress of the second type betray Egyptian influence, but we are still justified in including these sculptures in the Proto-Cypriote style, because the character of their faces is altogether Cypriote. It has already been pointed out that it is a typical feature of Cypriote sculpture in general that the artistic intentions are almost exclusively concentrated upon the modelling of the face and the rendering of a characteristic expression, while the form of the body is deliberately neglected. There are exceptions to this rule, where the structure of the body is influenced by other artistic ideas, in the present case by Egyptian art. However, if this influence does not affect the character of the face, it has not affected the essential thing in the Cypriote art of sculpture. Only if the style of the face betrays an Egyptian or Greek form, are we justified in speaking of a Cypro-Egyptian or Cypro-Greek style. On the other hand, even if the bodies are entirely of a Cypriote shape, but the features of the face are modelled in accordance with the ideas of Egyptian or Greek art, the sculptures in question have to be assigned to the Cypro-Egyptian and Cypro-Greek styles respectively (cf. Swed Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 54 f.). In general, the facial types of the first group are the same as those of the corresponding terracotta sculptures. The heads are usually oval, rather long, of a strained structure, with powerful chin and cheeks. The front of the face is sharply defined from the sides. The eyes are large, wide, and rather prominent, semilunar or leaf-shaped, with a staring, fixed look. The lips are usually protruding, with their corners drawn up, but there is no smile, rather a grimace. The male heads have a long or a closely trimmed beard. The hair falls in a compact mass at the back of the head, and the head is covered by a veil, a conical cap or helmet, or it is sometimes wound by a fillet or turban. On the top of the head, the hair is often arranged in contiguous plaits ending in spiral curls on the forehead. In the later phase of the style, the faces are sometimes broader; the lips are almost straight, less protruding, and finally gently curved; the eyes are less prominent and sometimes narrower; the forms are softer; the surface is smoother and the modelling more delicate and refined. The earlier, rather austere expression becomes gradually milder. Even this group thus: shows a development corresponding to that of the. terracotta sculptures. An Egyptian influence
THE CYPRO-EGYPTIAN STYLE
1°3
appears sometimes in certain details, e. g., a wig-shaped hair, an Egyptian double crown, etc., corresponding to the Egyptian influence in the type of body and dress of some sculptures, but these accessory details do not affect the Proto-Cypriote character of the face.
The Cypro-Egyptian Style As mentioned above, p. 94, this style is represented only by limestone sculptures (cf.
p. 357)· The masterpiece by which the Cypro-Egyptian style is represented in its purest form is the Arsos head, Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXIX, I. The head is oval with well accentuated chin, small mouth with gently curved lips, rather short and broad nose, large almond-shaped eyes with realistically sculptured upper lids, and the ears much better worked than is usual in Cypriote sculpture. The head is covered by a veil. The surface has been carefully finished by polishing. The figures, Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. XII, 14 and XIII, 15, resemble each other very much, No. 14 is a harp-player and No. 15 a flute-player. They are both dressed in tunics with short sleeves, the bodies are rather flattish, and the surface is worked in broad, smooth planes. The heads are oval with rather narrow chin; small mouth; small, broad nose; narrow, long, level eyes; wig-shaped hair. Op. cit. I, PI. XXIV, 58 is a hawk-headed figure with both arms bent across the body and dressed in an Egyptianizing shemti. Ohnefalsch-Richter, K!pros, PI. XLIX, 4 shows a female figure with a purely Cypriote, board-shaped body WIth. concave sides. The right arm is vertical, and the left arm is bent across the body, holding a roughly shaped object (bowl?) in the hand. The character of the head, on the other hand, is entirely in the Cypro-Egyptian style: a rather broad face with small lips and nose; narrow, very long eyes; long hair covered by a veil, falling in a compact mass down the back of the head and in two plain tresses on either side of the neck in front. Characteristic products of this style are the earliest Hathor capitals and stelae (Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XVIII, 27; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CC, 1-3). The type was later on modified according to the artistic canons of the subsequent styles, and it survived until the end of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LVII). Another type of the Cypro-Egyptian sculpture is represented by the Ajia Irini figures Nos. 1095, 1228 (op. cit. II, PI. CCXXXIX) and the statuette, Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. L, 2. Both the Ajia Irini figures are provided at the back with a pilaster in the Egyptian fashion. They stand with the left leg advanced; the vertical arms are attached to the body; the hands clenched (No. 1095) or open (No. 1228). The body has a prominent chest and is contracted at the waist; it is dressed in a short tunic, leaving the legs free. The body of No. 1228, on the other hand, is entirely covered by a long, plain chiton with overfold. The faces are negroid, with full, protruding lips and broad, flattened nose. The eyes of No. 1095 are long and narrow, and carefully modelled, with incised brow-lines. On No.
SCULPTURE
1°4
PI. VI.
1228 the eyes are only indicated by carved depressions. The heads are covered by conical caps. The face of No. 1095 is of a softer modelling than that of No. 1228, and the whole figure of the latter sculpture is coarser and less worked than No. 1095. The female statuette,
op. cit., PI. L,
has a Cypriote, board-shaped body, with isolinear feet, peeping out of the long chiton, which covers the body. The arms are bent across the body, and their hands grasp the legs of a votive quadruped. The face is of negroid type with thick lips and broad, flattened nose. The eyes are long and prominent, the brows are flat ridges, and the hair falls in a compact mass at the back of the head and in two plain tresses in front to the breast, the same Egyptianizing hair-style as occurs on the Arsos head and op. cit., PI. XLIX, 4. These are some typical sculptures of the Cypro-Egyptian style. They may be increased by some specimens, but in comparison with the sculptures of the other styles those of the Cypro-Egyptian style are few in number. This fact should not be taken as an indication of'a small contribution of the Egyptian element in the development of the Cypriote art of sculpture, because, as shown below, Egyptian art has played a considerable part in the formation of the Neo-Cypriote style. In this style, however, the Egyptian element is combined with, transformed, and dominated by, the creative power of Cypriote art. In the Cypro-Egyptian style there is no such artistic synthesis of Cypriote and Egyptian elements. There is no question of a transformation of the Egyptian elements according to Cypriote rules of art; but of a Cypriote imitation of some traits of Egyptian art of sculpture. Occasionallythere is also a technical resemblance to the Egyptian sculptures in the pilaster at the back of the two Ajia Irini figures. The imitation of the Egyptian prototypes does not usually include the body structure, which sometimes may be quite board-shaped. When the statue is more full-bodied, it shows an Egyptian influence in the position of the legs and arms, in the smooth broad planes of the surface, and in the imitation of the Egyptian dress, but the same Egyptian influence occurs also, as we have seen, in the last phase of the second Proto-Cypriote style and further, as will be shown subsequently, in the Neo-Cypriote style. The Cypriote imitation of the Egyptian prototypes is principally concentrated upon the characteristics of the head. The face is ovoid in shape with .rather broad forehead; narrow, rounded chin; rather. small, delicately shaped lips without smile; gently rounded cheeks; straight nose with usually broad nostrils; narrow, long, level eyes; smooth, thick, wigshaped hair, or long hair falling in a compact mass at the back of the head and in plain tresses in front, down the shoulders. The modelling is meticulous but shallow; the planes of the surface pass softly into each other. The influence, however, is not equallyrepresented in all the sculptures. Most Egyptian of all is the Arsos head, and no sculpture in which Egyptian prototypes are more purely imitated than in this head has ever been found in Cyprus. 2,
Limestone sculptures. Cypro-Egyptian style.
THE NEO-CYPRIOTE STYLE
1°5
The Neo-Cypriote Style The Neo-Cypriote style, as already indicated, comprises sculptures of two groups, which have some stylistic traits in common, but also distinctive features of their own. The one group is mainly represented within the eastern and southern parts of Cyprus and the second within the western and northern areas of the island. The first group may therefore conveniently be called the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style and the second one the Western Neo... Cypriote style. We have here a sculptural correspondence to the ceramic division of Cyprus into a western and an eastern area of culture during the Cypro-Archaic period(cf. p. 64), and the same thing holds good for the distribution of the sculptural groups as for the pottery styles within these cultural areas, viz., that the frontier between them was fluid, the connections sometimes intimate, there were mutual influences, and sculptures of one group are sometimes found within the area of the other group. Terracotta Sculptures The terracotta sculptures of this style correspond to those of Styles V and VI at Ajia Irini. The bodies are usually flattened and oval in section (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXV, 3, 4; CCXVII; CCXVIII), though sculptures with a tubular body are also found (op. cit. II, PI. CCXIX, 2, 4). The minor figures of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style are cast in moulds and reproduced in relief against a flat background (op. cit. III, PIs. CCII, 4-9; CCIII). The feet, when preserved, are isolinear, and the figures stand in a strictly frontal position. The position of the arms varies: very often the left arm is vertical and the right arm bent across the chest, with the hand holding an object, a tympanon, some votive gift, etc., or it is stuck in a fold of the dress. Sometimes the arms are vertical with the hands extended straight. These attitudes are already represented in the Proto-Cypriote style, and show the Neo-Cypriote connections with it. There is a tendency to keep the arms and hands close to the body, so that the whole figure forms a firm block. This type of body is also Proto-Cypriote, where it is particularly represented by the stone sculptures. Some moulded female figures of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style have both arms grasping the breasts or placed in the gesture of "Venus pudique" (op. cit. III, PI. CCIII, 10-12). The dress often consists of a long chiton and a mantle rendered in a plain and conventional manner, with the borders and seams indicated by relief lines and the folds of the girdled chiton by curved ridges as in the Proto-Cypriote styles (op. cit. II, PIs. CCXVII, CCXIX, 2). Several female figures of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style are dressed in a transparent, thin chiton, below which the details of the body appear, or are even quite naked (op. cit. III, PI. CCIII, 3,4, 6-12). In the characteristics of the head, Proto-Cypriote features are also transformed and modified in the Neo-Cypriote style. The modelling tends towards a canonic form, with regular features and less individual variations than before. The modelling is smooth and shallow, no details are accentuated, and the different parts of the face merge softly into 'one another.
106
PI. VII.
SCULPTURE
Two types of heads are represented: the one characteristic of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote and the other one of the Western Neo-Cypriote style. The Eastern type is round and wide, with softly modelled, sometimes rather flabby, cheeks, fleshy round chin, large, usually semilunar or almond-shaped, sometimes leaf-shaped, eyes, the nose usually with thickened tip, and full, but small lips (Cesnola, Atlas I1,Pls. XVIII, 135; XXX, 249, 250, 256; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XIII, I, 2; XLVI, II; XLVIII, 3, 4; LV, 3-6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. CCII, 7-11; CCIII, 3-12). The Western type is more narrow and elongated, sometimes rather trapezoidal, an inheritance from the second ProtoCypriote style; the structure of the face is thinner and more firmly built up than in the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style, the form more restrained; the eyes are usually leaf-shaped and more seldom semilunar; as a rule, the mouth is straight and rather thin (Cesnola, Atlas II, PIs. XVII, 127; XVIII, 133; XXXVII, 299; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLVI, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXV, 3,4; CCXVIII; CCXIX). The sculptures of both the Eastern and Western groups have often "feathered" eyebrows. The straight "feathered" brows in high relief, which are found in the second Proto-Cypriote style, occur only occasionally; the curved and flattened "feathered" eyebrows fit better the level and smooth character of the style. Contiguous, "feathered" locks laid on the crown of the head and falling in flat, incised locks with rounded ends along the necks to shoulders are a characteristic hair-style of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLVIII, 3). A wig-shaped hair-style occurs in both groups of the style. Large earrings, hair-rings, pendants, and necklaces are often abundantly represented, particularly in the Eastern style. Conical helmets and a turban-shaped cloth are usual head-dresses in both groups. The details of the face, such as eyes, lips, moustaches, beard, hair, etc., are painted in a black or red colour as in the preceding styles. It has already been pointed out that the geographical frontier between the areas of the two groups of .sculptures is fluid, and some sculptures are not characteristic exponents of eith er group, but show traits of both. Thus the statue from Ajia Irini, Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXVI, CCXVII, though found within the western area, shows many features of the Eastern style, and also the Ajia Irini sculptures, op. cit. II, PIs. CCXVIII, I, 2; CCXIX, I, 2, 4, attributed above to the Western style, are not absolutely pure representatives of this style, and some sculptures chiefly with features of the Eastern style are correspondingly not free from influences from the Western style (e. g., Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. XXX, 256; Handb. Cesn. Colt., No. 1457; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LV, 3, 4). Thus both the connections between the two groups and their distinctive marks are equally obvious. As will be further demonstrated in the chapter on the foreign relations, the sculptures of the eastern group in particular show Egypto-Syrian influence, while the western group has Ionian relations. On the whole, however, the Cypriote element is still more predominant in the characteristics of the terracotta plastic than in that of the stone sculptures, and the development and continuation of the second Proto-Cypriote style is clearly illustrated by the Neo-Cypriote terracotta sculptures. It was pointed out above that a group of sculptures of the latest phase of the second Proto-Cypriote style show some N eo-Cypriote features, and Terracotta sculptures. Eastern N eo-Cypriote style.
PI. VIII.
Limestone sculptures. Eastern Neo-Cypriote style.
THE NEO-CYPRIOTE STYLE
1°7
the transition between the two styles is gradual. On the other hand, the difference between these latest specimens of the second Proto-Cypriote style and those of the Neo-Cypriote style is equally clear. A study of the heads, op. cit., PI. LV, i-4 is illuminating in this respect. The head of PI. LV, I, 2 belongs to the second Proto-Cypriote style and those of PI. LV, 3, 4 to the Neo-Cypriote style. The faces of the heads are cast in moulds of rather similar form, and at first sight the heads may not seem to be stylistically different, but on closer inspection the modelling and the retouched work prove to be clearly distinct, and permit us to assign the heads to the different styles mentioned. The heads of PI. LV, 3, 4 with their subtle modelling, regular features, and placid, serene expression contrast with the clumsy nose, prominent chin, protruding lips, and the more rustic and robust type of the head of PI. LV, I, 2. Limestone Sculptures The sculptures of this style correspond to those of Style I B at Kition and of Style IV at Arsos. There are two types of body, the board-shaped and the full-bodied type, both represented already in the second Proto-Cypriote style. The sculptures of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style have an entirely board-shaped body (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. XVI, 21; XLV, 282; LV, 352; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 236, 242; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XLII, 6; XLIX, 5; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXC, 1-8), but some sculptures of the Western Neo-Cypriote style are also of the board-shaped type (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. X, 12; XLVI, 283; LV, 354, 356; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 68, 253; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. VI, 1,2). As a rule, the sides of the board-shaped bodies have the same concave outline as before, but sometimes the body is almost vertical or doublecurved (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLI, 5, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XIII, 2, 3). The feet are isolinear and peep out of the long chiton. The bodies are entirely covered by the dress, a plain, long chiton, usually with a plain mantle wrapped around the body over the left shoulder, or more often, over both shoulders, or an Egyptianizing shemti, also worn by sculptures of the Cypro-Egyptian and second Proto-Cypriote styles (pp. 100, 102 f.). The position of the arms is very often the same as in the Proto-Cypriote styles. As a rule, the left arm is vertical, and the right one is bent across the chest, sometimes holding a flower or some other minor object, sometimes slung in a fold of the mantle. The variety with the right arm vertical and the left one bent across the breast is less common. The position with both arms vertical and with clenched fists is very characteristic. The types of flute-players and tambourine-players, etc. with their arms bent across the body and their hands holding their respective instruments are still represented by several specimens. The serpent charmer, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XXXII, 209, has the same position of the arms, holding the snakes with both hands, and the kriophoros, op. cit. I, PI. XVI, 21, has the arms bent obliquely upwards across the chest, both hands holding the legs of the ram, which is carried on the shoulders and around the back of the head of the kriophoros. This attitude of the arms and those of the musicians and other artists mentioned above are determined
1
108
PI. IX.
SCULPTURE
by the action illustrated by the sculptures, and the same holds good for the votaries carrying the animal to be sacrificed with both hands in front of the body. The full-bodied torsos are exclusively found in the Western Neo-Cypriote style, so far as the present evidence goes. They are characteristic for the kouros sculptures (op. cit. I, PIs. XI, 13; XXV, 60-65; XLVIII, 285; LVIII, 401; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 7). The dress consists of a tunic with short sleeves and "bathing-drawers", a kilt held by a belt around the waist, or an Egyptianizing shemti. The left leg is advanced. Both arms are vertical or slightly advanced, with clenched fists. Usually the arms adhere closely to the sides of the body, but occasionally they are detached from it, at least partly. A slender structure and a delicate and subtle refinement of the details of the body in the carefully worked specimens are characteristic of the Neo-Cypriote style, but the main difference between the second Proto-Cypriote and the N eo-Cypriote style is shown by the different characteristics of the faces. No details are much accentuated in the Neo-Cypriote faces, and the front part of the face is not so sharply defined as in the Proto-Cypriote style. The rounded forms, the smooth and broad planes of the surface and the shallow modelling correspond to the characteristics, mentioned above, in the shape of the body, and link up the NeoCypriote style with the formal qualities of the Cypro-Egyptian style. It was emphasized in the classification of the terracotta sculptures that the character of the faces tends towards a canonic form, and the same holds good for the stone sculptures. There is much less individual difference between the faces than in the Proto-Cypriote styles. A few types are created, but the personal varieties disappear rapidly the more the standardized forms become predominant. The expression of the faces is tranquil and harmonious, resigned, and sometimes melancholy. Even when a faint, sensitive smile hovers on the lips, it is rather a sad than a gay smile. The Proto-Cypriote temperament is active, the Neo-Cypriote is passive. The principal facial types are as follows: female heads with long hair falling down the back of the head which is covered by a veil, sometimes with an additional turban-shaped head-dress, large earrings, hair-rings, and necklaces; male heads with similar head-dress, long or wig-shaped hair, beardless or with a closely trimmed beard; male heads with a long beard, conical cap or a turban-shaped head-dress; beardless kouroi, usually with a frontlet; kouroi of a similar type, but with a conical cap and occasionally a closely trimmed beard. Stylistically, the heads are divided into the same two groups as those of terracotta. The heads of the eastern group are rather broad with full, rounded cheeks and a wide forehead, those of the western group are longer and narrower, sometimes rather trapezoidal and of a firmer, less elastic structure than those of the eastern group. The eyes of the eastern group are usually large and semilunar, sometimes almond-shaped, and the mouth is rather small, but with full, sensual lips. The eyes of the western group are usually narrower and leaf-shaped, and the mouth is somewhat longer than in the eastern group and with thinner lips, which are sometimesfaintly smiling. Naturally there are some instances of specimens transitioenal between the two groups. As mentioned above, the eastern group in particular shows a relationship to Syrian and Egyptian art, while the western group has Ionian relations. On the other hand, the connection with the Proto-Cypriote style is quite evident, as already Terracotta sculptures. Western Neo-Cypriote style.
PI. X.
Limestone sculptures. Western Nco-Cypriote style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
109
shown in the classification of the terracotta sculptures, and transitional specimens between the second Proto-Cypriote and the Neo-Cypriote styles are mentioned above, pp. 99, 101. With regard to this, Neo-Cypriote seems to be the proper name of this style, which is a transformation and development of the Proto-Cypriote style, partly related to Syrian, Egyptian, and Ionian art, but still with the Cypriote element playing the central, combining, and dominating role. Bronze Sculptures In Altes Museum, Berlin, there are Neo-Cypriote bronze sculptures: a large statuette from Limniti of rather Egyptianizing style and another larger statuette from Tamassos, with the left foot advanced, right arm lifted, left arm vertical with clenched fist, a peaked helmet on the head, and dressed in a loin-cloth. These statuettes are unpublished. A bronze head found in Cyprus and now in the Louvre (de Ridder, Bronzes antiq. du Louvre I, No. I, PI. 3; Ant. Plastik W. Amelung z. 60. Geburtstag, pp. 246 ff., Figs. 3, 4) is a fine specimen of the Western Neo-Cypriote style. Particularly in profile the Cypriote features are obvious; further, the feathered eyebrows and the purely ornamental hair-curls on the forehead are non-Greek and typically Cypriote, so that the Cypriote origin of the head cannot be doubted. In the Cyprus Museum there are two small bronze statuettes of the Neo-Cypriote style. Both have the left arm vertical, the right arm is bent across the chest, both with clenched fists, and the figures are dressed in a short, girdled chiton.
II
n , I
The Cypro-Greek Styles THE ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE
, c-
i1
Terracotta Sculptures An artistic synthesis of Cypriote and Greek elements of such a nature that we are justified in calling it Cypro-Greek is not found before the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. The terracotta sculptures of this style correspond to those of Style VII at Ajia Irini and Styles I and II at Mersinaki and Vouni. The interrelations of these local styles (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 782 f.; III, pp. 269, 385 f.) make it evident that we can distinguish between two main groups within the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, the first group comprising sculptures corresponding to those of Style VII at Ajia Irini and Style I at Mersinaki and Vouni; the second group comprising sculptures corresponding to those of Style II at Mersinaki and Vouni. The figures of the first group have a frontal position, usually with both arms vertically down the sides and with clenched hands; more seldom one arm is advanced or bent across the chest and stuck in the folds of the mantle, or lifted in a gesture of adoration. The body
SCULPTURE
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
is oval or almost circular in section, with horizontal or sloping shoulders. The statue, op. cit. III, PI. CXIV, is noteworthy with its enormously wide, horizontal shoulders, giving the upper part of the body a trapezoid shape, by which a pronounced male form seems to be intended; the left arm is advanced and the right arm lifted in a gesture of adoration; the feet.are almost isolinear. The body is always hidden by the dress, which consists of a chiton with short sleeves, sometimes covered by a mantle. The dress is plain, with no modelled details; the borders are only indicated by raised edges. The general structure of the body is thus of the same diagrammatic shape as in the preceding styles. The shape of the heads reveals the character of the style. The faces of the Ajia Irini heads (op. cit. II, PIs. CCXX-CCXXIII) are entirely made by hand, while those from Mersinaki and Vouni (op. cit. III, PIs. LXX, I; CXII-CXIV) are moulded, though vigorously remodelled. This different technique accounts for the somewhat different expression of the Ajia Irini heads on the one hand and those from Vouni and M.ersinaki o.n the other. Besides, several of the Ajia Irini sculptures are of a rough workmanship, and this difference in quality must also be considered when judging the stylistic character of the heads. The heads are ovoid in shape with a strong chin, sometimes rather pointed, which gives the face an almost triangular shape. The lips usually protrude markedly, with a vivid smile; in the Ajia Irini sculptures this smile is often exaggerated to a grimace. The cheeks are prominent and sharply defined, the nose is often prominent, sometimes thick, curved, and clumsy, but the more carefully made and moulded specimens have a thinner, straight nose aligned with the sloping forehead. The eyes are occasionally semilunar, but usually almond-shaped or lancet-shaped and sometimes placed obliquely; the eyebrows are archshaped and occasionally ridged. The chin is often clean-shaven, but some figures have a long beard and painted moustaches. The hair falls in a compact mass down the back of the head, with concave or sometimes straight sides. The Ionian-Greek elements were combined with Cypriote stylistic features to an artistic unit. The structure of the body is the same in the second group as in the first one. A characteristic representative of the group in this respect is the life-size male statue Mersinaki No. 759, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. CXX): the body is almost board-shaped, the dress is indicated by a plain elevation, the right armis raised in a gesture of adoration, the left arm is bent across the body, the chest is bulging, and the shoulders are wide. The same type of b?dy is also shown by the female statue, Vouni No. 39 (op. cit. III, PI. LXXI, 4), of which, however, only the upper part of the body is preserved. If only the body of a sculpture is preserved, it is, therefore, impossible to attribute it with certainty to the one or the other group ofthe style. The artistic criterion of two groups is given by the different modelling of the faces. All the faces in the second group are made in moulds. The moulds are few in number, so that there is not a great variety in the general types of the faces, but the retouched work of the artists makes it possible to determine the individual specimens and to distinguish between earlier and later sculptures, so that even heads cast in the same mould may be attributed to different stages of the style (cf. op. cit. III, pp. 269, 386). For instance, if we, compare the Vouni heads Nos. 480 and
52 + 53 + 60 b (op. cit. III, PI. LXXIII), which are cast in the same mould and both belong to the second group, it is evident that No. 52 + 53 + 60 b is typologically later: the modelling of the surface is superficial, the cheeks and chin are slack, heavy, and rather fat, in contrast to the vigorous modelling of No. 480. In general, the sculptures of the second group show a further development of the stylistic features characteristic of the first group. This becomes clear on a comparison of some of the typical representatives of the two groups. Compare, for instance, the female heads of Mersinaki Nos. 635 and 679 + 807 (op. cit. III, PIs. CXII; CXIII, 2, 3) with those of Mersinaki Nos. 769 + 782, 793, 806 + 815, 822, and 989 (op. cit. III, PIs. CXXI, 3, 4; CXXII, 1-3; CXXIII, 3, 4). The former sculptures belong to the first group and the latter to the second group. The sculptures of the first group have a prominent, heavy nose and protruding lips with a vivid smile; the eyes are somewhat oblique, large and widely open, with a staring, fixed gaze; the chin and cheeks are bone-hard and thin, almost skeletal, as if covered only with skin; on account of the flat cheeks and pointed chin the shape of the face is more or less triangular. In contrast to this, the sculptures of the second group have a less prominent, thinner nose; a faint smile hovers on the gently curved lips; the eyes are horizontal and narrow, sometimes with half-closed lids, giving a dreamy expression to the gaze; the chin and cheeks are still vigorously modelled, but they have flesh on the bones, and their outline is rounded, giving an oval shape to the face. Similar stylistic features also distinguish the corresponding female sculptures from Vouni. We may compare Vouni No. 488 (op. cit. III, PI. LXX, I) with Vouni No. 477 (op. cit. III, PI. LXX, 2, 3). No. 488 shows the characteristic features of the sculptures of the first group, except that the eyes are somewhat narrow, but they are placed obliquely, and the modelling of its nose, lips, chin, and cheeks places it decidedly within the first group; No. 477, on the other hand, with its full and rounded face, faint smile, and narrow, horizontal eyes is identical with the Mersinaki sculptures of the second group. If we continue the comparison to the male heads, we notice similar stylistic criteria. We may compare the faces of the life-size statues Mersinaki Nos. 767, etc. and 759, etc. (op. cit. III, PIs. I; CXIII, I; CXIX, 3; cf. also PIs. CXIV and CXX). The former face is a typical specimen of the first group and the latter of the second group. The large, prominent, and slightly oblique eyes, the protruding, almost triangular mouth with its grimacing smile, and the projecting cheeks of the former sculpture contrast with the level, smaller, and horizontal eyes, the gently curved, slightly smiling lips, and the more smoothly rounded cheeks of the latter sculpture. The whole expression of the former sculpture reflects an eruptive force, an outburst of vitality, while the latter sculpture expresses a strength gathered within itself, of calm and restraint. The stylistic features of each group are thus clearly defined. On the other hand, it is evident that the sculptures in question represent a continuous stylistic development of the Cypro-Greek Archaic terracotta plastic from its beginning to its end. They form therefore a typological unit in relation to the other Cypro-Greek sculptures, and in this general classification they have therefore been grouped together into one principal style, the early
110
III
II2
SCULPTURE
PI. XI.
and late stages of the development being treated as groups within this principal style instead of separate styles. A similar grouping together of the local styles - and for the same reason was made in the classification of the Proto-Cypriote sculptures (d. above). Limestone Sculptures Within these, two typological groups can also be distinguished, the. first group comprising sculptures corresponding to those of Style I at Mersinaki and Vouni, of Style II at Kition, and of Style V at Arsos, and the second group comprising sculptures corresponding to those of Style II at Mersinaki and Vouni, of Style III at Kition, and of Style VI at Arsos. In the first group, two different types of body are represented: one type is board-shaped and the other more full-bodied. The board-shaped body is the old-Cypriote type, which, as we have seen, is represented from the beginning of the Proto-Cypriote style. The body is, however, not quite flat, the breast is more or. less bulging, usually with a marked ridge between the upper and lower part.of the chest, and the sides of the body are less concave than in the preceding styles. There are still a few figures with the Egyptian type of body, but, as a rule, the strong Greek dement manifests itself very clearly also in the style of the body, and sometimes the structure of the body is entirely Greek, e. g., Mersinaki No. 712 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXI). These types of body form the two extremes; in addition, there are many sculptures which represent an intermediate stage between the purely board-shaped and the full-bodied torsos, a coherent series from the one extreme to the other. Sculptures of this kind are, e. g., Kition Nos. 62 + 182 + 370, 218 + 178, 371 + 457, 530 +539 (op. cit. III, PIs. X, I, 2; XI, 3, 4; XII, I, 2; XIII, 6). All.the'figures stand in a frontal position, usually with the left leg advanced, but sometimes withisolinear feet. The attitude of the arms varies: both arms along the sides of the body and. slightly' advanced, with clenched hands, or the one arm in this attitude and the other arm.bentacross the body, either in the Egyptian fashion or slung in a fold ofthe dress or, ifa.female.figure, holding a flower, fruit, etc., in the hand. These are the typical attitudes of,the votive sculptures .which are not represented in a particular kind of action. Such sculptures as flute-players, tambourine-players, Heraklesfigures, etc., naturally have the atms~placed as required for the action represented, i. e., the flute-players and tambourinepla.yetsholding their instruments with their hands, the Herakles figures with the right arm uplifted, holding the club at the back of the head, etc. The male dress usually consists .of a .chiton with sleeves ending at the elbows and very often a mantle wrapped around the body over the left shoulder. The figures with body of the Egyptian type wear a dress of the usual Egyptianizing kind (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. XXX, 201; XLII, 279). The dress of the Apollon figure, Mersinaki No. 712 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI.CXI) is noteworthy: a short mantle wrapped around the shoulders and falling in front in folds along the sides of the torso, leaving most of the body uncovered. Nudity in the representation of the male body is a non-Cypriote feature, and naked figures are Terracotta sculptures. Archaic Cypro-Greek style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
II3
therefore very rare in Cypriote art; the few sculptures of this kind usually represent gods, and show a strong influence from Greek art. The increased interest in the structure of the body is, however, shown by the fact that its outline is often visible through the dress. The dress of the board-shaped sculptures is, as a rule, only rendered as a plain, raised surface; the mantle of the full-bodied figures is usually sculptured with a few conventionalized, flat folds ending in zigzag fringes. The female figures are sometimes dressed only in a plain chiton, but very often they have a mantle of the Ionian oblique type with more or less carefully worked folds (Op. cit. III, PIs. XII, I, 2; XIII, 6; CXCI, 3). The Vouni figures and other sculptures of a similar kind have a peculiar dress, which consists of two chitons and a mantle with broad fringes, draped obliquely across the body and over both shoulders; the front of the garment above the legs is cut in a plain surface, and the outline of the garments and its folds are drawn rather than sculptured; above the waist, the garments are given different treatment: the upper chiton being notched and that of the lower chiton being worked in vertical, grooved folds (op. cit. III, PI. XLIX, 3-6). Passing to an examination of the corresponding parts of the second group of sculptures we find that the parallel series of board-shaped and full-bodied torsos continue. There is also the same marked ridge between the upper and lower parts of the chest, though somewhat rounded off, and the chest in the latest sculptures of the group forms an even convex line. The board-shaped bodies are usually still flattened and quite rectangular, with straight sides. The attitudes of the legs and arms are the same as before. The later sculptures of this group display a general tendency to have their legs isolinear, and at the same time the arms are less advanced: a sign of increased conventionalism and stereotyped form. The masterpiece of the sculptures with a full-bodied torso is the life-size Vouni kore No. 16, etc. (op. cit. III,Pls. LI, LII). In the structure of the body and in the character of the face this figure stands nearest the Ionian-Greek prototypes. The figures of this class have the same frontal position as the board-shaped sculptures, usually with the left leg advanced. The attitude of the arms is sometimes different from, and less stiff than, that of the first group. The arms of the male figures are usually advanced and slightly bent forwards, so that they are entirely detached from the sides of the body. Other attitudes are also represented, as before, when required by the particular action of the figure: the arm may be raised in a gesture of adoration or uplifted, holding a spear, etc.; the arms of the Herakles figures are kept in their canonic attitude. The Herakles figure No. 19, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. XXII) has a unique attitude, standing with both legs in profile and the left leg slightly bent, while the torso is seen en face and the head in three quarter profile. The female figures have their arms in the same attitude as was common in the first group, i. e., the left arm down the side of the body, the hand holding some folds of the mantle, and the right arm bent across the chest, holding a fruit, a flower, or some other minor object in the hand. The dress of the board-shaped sculptures is only a plain, raised surface; the dress of the less board-shaped figures is usually worked in a few simple folds; the figures with 8
SCULPTURE
PI. XII. full-bodied torsos may sometimes wear only a plain dress, but, as a rule, it is folded, and on the most carefully worked sculptures, e. g., the Vouni kore No. 16, etc., the drapery is treated with remarkable attention. This kore is dressed in a linen chiton and a woollen mantle, which is draped over the left shoulder; the folds of the mantle are gathered in two rhythmical groups down the left leg and the right side; in the space between these groups the drapery is marked by a pecked surface between curved ridges. A characteristic feature already found in the first group is that the body is visible through the dress, and the difference in stuff between the thick, woollen mantle and the thin linen chiton is rendered plastically. Naked figures of the same kind as before are occasionally represented (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 85; Suied. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. XVIII, I; XXII; XXVII, 4, 5). This increased interest in the structure of the body and the treatment of the dress betray the Greek influence, but this is shown more clearly by the character of the face. In the first group this neo-creative artistic impulse is very strong, and it dominates the early sculptures of the second group, too, but towards the last stage of the style the artistic force decreases, and the style ends in stagnation. This process is clearly illustrated by the style of the faces, as shown below. The sculpturesof the first group (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. XXI, 43; XXIII, 52, 53; XXX, 201; XL, 257,258; XLII, 279; XLIX, 292; LIX, 403-406; LX, 407; LXII, 428; LXVII, 446, 449; LXXXII, 540; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C22-24, 38, 72, 76,79, 100, 110, 149, 211";'Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. VII-XII; XLVIII, XLIX, 1,2; CXI; CXC, 9, 10; CXCI, I, 2) have a long: and rather narrow head with sharply defined lines between front and sides. If the sides of the face converge much towards the chin, the forehead becomes relatively broader, and the face obtains a rather triangular shape. This is a survival of the old Proto-Cypriote type. The different parts of the face are much accentuated, the horizontallines of the face by a deeply cut area around the mouth, by the pursed, protruding . lips, and by the large, leaf-shaped, prominent eyes; the vertical line by the strong, projecting nose, which is usually on a line with the sloping forehead. Clear structure, distinct lines, force and energy mark this style, contrary to the shallow modelling and smooth transitions between the different parts of the face, characteristic of the Neo-Cypriote style. A few, typologically early sculptures (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. VIII, 10; XXIII, 54; XXV, 62; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. VIII;~ IX, 4) have a mouth with rather severe or only slightly smiling lips, but usually there is a vivid smile on the lips. Gradually the eyes become narrower, sometimes of the myrtle-leaf shape and less prominent, but, as a rule, they are placed more or .less obliquely, corresponding to the curved lines of the smiling lips. Many of the male heads are beardless; others have closely trimmed beard, plain or worked in spiral curls, sometimes combined with a small- moustache; the more advanced figures have often a long beard with or without moustache, sometimes plain or notched or worked in rows of spiral curls, or occasionally in vertical, thin grooves and ending with small spirals. The hair shows different modes and is rendered in various ways. Some figures retain the plain Egyptianizing wig; others have long hair, which falls in a compact mass
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
at the back of the head; it may be plain or sculptured in contiguous tresses rendered by grooved lines, sometimes with transverse tresses above the forehead; it may be parted in the middle and arranged in locks hanging down the chest, three locks on either side of the neck; sometimes the long hair is rendered by narrow grooves, with front curls above the forehead. Other figures have half-length hair with concave sides, falling in a heavy, plain mass on the neck, as is usual in the earlier styles, but other figures have half-length hair worked in spiral curls or contiguous, notched tresses with rows of front curls; finally, the hair may be short, but this latter type is more common in the second group. The head may be uncovered, sometimes with a wreath or a taenia around the hair, or it is covered by a veil or a conical cap. The female hair falls sometimes in a compact mass at the back of the head, with a row of curls in front and twisted tresses on either sideof the cheeks; or it may be arranged in contiguous tresses from the forehead and down the back of the head, with three tresses on either side of the neck in a similar fashion to some of the male figures; others, apparently of a more advanced stage, have the hair parted in the middle, wrapped up with bands into a bonnet-shaped coiffure, usually collected in a heavy mass in front. A diadem, plain or with relief decorations, is sometimes round the head. Necklaces, pendants, and earrings of various shape are also common female ornaments. The more Greek in character the sculptures are, the fewer ornaments they wear: the overladen ornamentation is a Cypriote feature. The faces of the second group (Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. LIX, 4°2, 406; LXV, 431; LXVII, 445, 447, 451, 452; LXXII, 468-474; LXXV, 480-484, 488; LXXXII, 537, 538, 541, 542; LXXXVI, 570; CIII, 677, 678; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 85, 88, 90, 91, 93, 98, 99, 101, 106, 111-115, 132, 138, 15°-152, 213, 280, 281, 311, 313, 316; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. XIV-XXVI, L-LX, CXV-CXYII, CXCI, 4-6) show a development of the stylistic features characteristic of the first group, and gradually the differences become marked, but there is a certain number of sculptures which have features characteristic of both the groups, and are therefore to be considered as transitional. To show the difference between the two groups, it is very instructive to compare the Vouni head No. 17 of the first group (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLVIII) with that of the Vouni kore No. 16, etc. of the second- group (op. cit. III, PI. L). The face of the kore is not marked by the same Archaic vigour which characterizes the head No. 17. The rounded and smooth forms, the faint smile and the horizontal eyes of the kore contrast with the sharply defined structure, the vivid smile, and the oblique eyes of head No. 17. We may also compare the Vouni head No. 17 with other female heads of the second group, e. g., the Arsos head, op. cit. III, PI. CXeI, 4, 5, and the British Museum heads, Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 313, 316. These have the same coiffure and head-dress, and are of the same type as Vouni No. 17, which makes the comparison still more instructive. The Vouni head No. 17 is clearly the earliest of the heads, and the head, op. cit. I: 2, C 313, belongs to a somewhat earlier stage of the second group than the other two. The same stylistic development also holds good for the male heads. Let us compare
1I6
SCULPTURE
PI. XIII.
the heads, op. cit. I: 2, C 149, 151, and 152. C 149 belongs to the first group: the eyes are oblique, there is a vivid smile on the lips, the beard is worked in transverse bands of grooving; C 151 is properly speaking a transitional specimen between the two groups: the eyes are slightly oblique, but the curls of hair and beard are fuller, and less sharply shaped, and the smile is fainter; C 152 belongs to the developed second group: the mouth is straight, with no smile, and the eyes are horizontal. The stylistic characteristics of the second group can be summed up as follows. The faces are more softly modelled than in- the first group, giving them a smoother, rounded shape; the sides of the face are not sharply defined from the front, and the different parts are not so much accentuated. The modelling of the earlier sculptures of the group is still good, but becomes more and more shallow and conventional. The head of the board-shaped sculptures is shorter in profile than in the first group, and has a vertical, flat back. The smile is still fairly vivid in the early stage of this group, but somewhat restrained in the later stage, and finally it disappears altogether. The Egyptianizing coiffure and the long hair with transverse tresses above the forehead are not found any more; otherwise the hair and beard are similar to those of the first group, but the style with the hair cut short or tied up, with rows of spiral curls in front and a wreath around the head, becomes more and more usual; the spiral curls of the beard are sometimes more freely arranged or are simplified into notched rows or hatched rows divided by horizontally curved grooves. In the later stage of the group, the rendering of the hair follows the general tendency to conventionalism with shallow and somewhat careless incisions and notches. It is instructive to compare the rendering of the coiffure of Kitian No. 487 of the first group (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. IX, 3) with that of Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. LXV, 431, of the second group, because this detail is significant for the stylistic character of the groups. Both the figures have the same coiffure, with three tresses hanging in front on each side of the neck. The first figure has the tresses straight, stiff, and sculptured in rather high relief, while those of the latter figure are made in low relief and attached to the body, following its rounded outline. The female coiffure is similar to that of the first group, but shows the same tendency to conventionalism and stereotyped form as the male coiffure, particularly in the later stage of the group. We thus see that the fresh Greek influence, which dominates the sculptures of the first group, fades rather soon in: the second group, though the Vouni kore and other sculptures show that the Greek element is still vigorous in the early stage of the group. The two famous limestone sarcophagi in the Metropolitan Museum (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1364, 1365; Ant. Denkm. III, I, PIs. I-VI) are interesting specimens of relief sculpture executed in this style. No. 1365 belongs to the earliest and No. 1364 to the latest phase of the style. No. 1365 has preserved some Neo-Cypriote traits, e. g., the naked female figures on the one short side of the sarcophagus and the Bes figures on the other short side. No. 1364 shows Cypriote traits in the rendering of the faces and the drapery, but the armour and other accessories are entirely Greek, as are also the scenes pictured and the mythological representations. Another exquisite specimen of the relief sculpture is the slab decorated with a represent-
Limestone sculpture. Archaic Cypro-Greek style.
PI. XIV.
Limestone sculptures. Archaic Cypro-Greek style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
II7
ation of Herakles and the cattle of Geryon (Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. CXXII, 912). Finally, I draw attention to the stele of a warrior from Lysi (Rep. Dep, Antiq. Cyprus, I936, Part II, Nicosia 1939, PI. XXXIV, I). The inscription, aIONr~IO[~] KAPaIANO[~], in the upper right-hand corner of the stele, assigned by T. B. Mitford (Arch. f. Papyrusforsch. XIII, 1939, pp. 13 f.) to the 3rd cent. B. c., must be secondary. The warrior wears an Athenian helmet and metal armour, with his left hand he grasps a round shield, and with the right hand he holds a spear over the shoulder. The style of the relief is strongly influenced by Athenian art. It is a remarkable fact that the Archaic Cypro-Greek relief sculpture is in general more Greek and less Cypriote than the corresponding sculpture in the round. The relief sculpture, which is a rather rare phenomenon in Cyprus, was evidently practised by sculptors who where in close contact with Greek art. THE FIRST SUB-ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE Terracotta Sculptures The first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style comprises sculptures corresponding to those of Mersinaki and Vouni, Style III. A few sculptures of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style form an intermediate stage between this and the first Sub-Archaic style (d. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 386). A good representative of this class IS Mersinaki No. 982 (op. cit. III, PI. CXXIV). Which are the characteristic features of the first Sub-Archaic style? Let us answer the question by examining some of the typical representatives of the style. The beginning of the series of sculptures is represented by Mersinaki No. 768, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. CXXIX, I) and the end by Mersinaki No. 761, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. CXXIX 2). The body of No. 768, etc. represents a further development of the type characteristic of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. In the shape of the body there is a continuous line from Mersinaki No. 767, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. CXIV) via Mersinaki No. 759, etc. (op. cit. III, PI. CXX) to Mersinaki No. 768, etc. The bodies have enormously wide shoulders; the attitude of legs and arms is identical, following the conventional scheme; the dress is only modelled as a plain, raised surface. Those are the similarities, and the differences which indicate the line of development are as follows: No. 767, etc. has a body with a rather depressed front and back, typically board-shaped, and the shoulders are exactly horizontal; No. 759, etc. has a somewhat more rounded body, the breast is bulging, and the shoulders are slightly sloping; No. 768, etc. has a well rounded body, the bust is normally curved, and the shoulders are distinctly sloping. Consequently, in the shape of the body the artist of No. 768, etc. developed the inherited, Archaic style, but did not introduce a new form. The artist of No. 761, etc. does that. The body of that sculpture is fairly realistically shaped, and legs and arms are represented as organically joined to it, while the limbs of No. 768, etc. are mechanically stuck on the body. True, the attitude of No. 761, etc. is entirely frontal, and the right arm is raised in a gesture of adoration, but the forearm is
II8
SCULPTURE
PI. XV. free, and the left arm has also been advanced and is stuck to the body as that of No. 768, etc. The bodies of both the figures are hidden by the dress. This covers the body of No. 768, etc. like a stiff armour, but it emphasizes the outline of the body of No. 761, etc. Further, the dress of the latter figure is no longer merely a plain, raised surface: the folds of the chiton are rendered by vertical, grooved lines, and there are transverse, wavy folds towards the border of the mantle, which is draped in the Greek fashion. This new structure of body and modelling of the dress are typical of the developed first Sub-Archaic style, of which Mersinaki Nos. 841 and II03 (op. cit. III, PIs. CXXX; CXXXI, I, 2, 5) are other good specimens. The modelling of the dress of No. II03 is noteworthy: the fine folds of the chiton are rendered by incisions; the heavy mantle is wrapped around the body in the Greek fashion, below the elbows in front, with a flap falling down from the left shoulder, and the folds are rendered by ridged lines in a fairly realistic way. This idea of rendering body and dress is un-Cypriote, being exactly the opposite to the Cypriote ideal of art, for which the body is a geometric figure, and manifests therefore a new artistic conception, evidently influenced by contemporary Greek art. Only a sporadic attempt at rendering a full-bodied torso occurs in the earlier terracotta plastic (p. 97), but this type of body is not typical in the koroplastic Cypriote art before the first Sub-Archaic style. In the stone sculpture a similar. influence upon. the structure of the body already appears in the second ProtoCypriote style (pp. 100 ff.), but the koroplasts seem to have adhered to the inherited, old-Cypriote style of the body for a much longer time than the sculptors. This is easily understood when one realizes that the full-bodied prototypes which influenced the Cypriote artists were of stone. The character of the face is also fundamentally different from that of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. The faces are made in moulds, but the moulding was only used to obtain the general form of the face, and in details there is much retouched work, which imparts individual differences even to faces cast in the same or similar moulds. It seems, for instance, very likely that the faces of Mersinaki Nos. 710 and 841 (op. cit. III, PIs. CXXXI, 3-5; CXXXII, 3) were cast in the same mould, but the distinct and somewhat rigid features of No. 841 contrast with the gentle and limp modelling of No. 710. To a certain extent the difference may be explained by assuming the mould having been rather worn when the face of No. 71o was cast, but that does not explain the difference entirely. .Usually only the faces are moulded, and ears, beard, hair, and accessories such as jewellery, diadems, wreaths, etc. are entirely modelled by hand and subsequently added. The features of the faces are very characteristic of the style. The Archaic smile has entirely disappeared, and the lips are usually straight and stiff. If a smile hovers on the lips, it is no longer of the Archaic type, but a fainter and more natural smile. The eyes are sometimes entirely indicated in paint or the eyeballs are plastically rendered by slight elevations (op. cit. III, PIs. CXXIX; CXXXII, I). The modelled eyes have the same stiff and sharp-edged lids as are typical of the contemporary stone sculptures (op. cit. III, PIs. LXXIV; CXXX; CXXXI, 3-5; CXXXII, 3-5). On the whole, the character of the faces shows a much more pronounced break with the Archaic tradition than in the stone sculpture of the
Terracotta sculptures. Sub-Archaic Cypro-Creek style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
II9
corresponding style, which, as we shall see, soon lost contact with contemporary Greek art and stagnated in a stereotyped and conventionalized form. This seems to be explained by the difference in technique between the sculpture in stone and in terracotta. Greek terracotta moulds were easily transported to Cyprus, and could serve the Cypriote koroplasts as models, while the stone sculptors had" to work without Greek prototypes. Imported Greek moulds, however, were very few. Most of the moulds were certainly of Cypriote origin, and the Cypriote koroplast betrays himself also in the retouched work, as mentioned above. This is still more the case with the parts of the head which were entirely modelled by hand and subsequently added to the moulded face, i. e., ears, hair, beard, etc. The ears are sometimes only plain discs or very roughly shaped without details, but sometimes they are more meticulously modelled. The beard is usually formed as a mass of small pellets, round or spirally shaped, and the board-shaped type of the preceding styles does not occur. This new technique evidently aims at a more realistic rendering of the curls of the beard. The front curls of the hair-are also often rendered in the same way, while the rest of the hair is marked by incised lines. Limestone Sculptures The sculptures of this -style correspond to those of Style III at Vouni and Mersinaki, to Style IV at Kition and to Style VII at Arsos, as shown by the diagram, p. 93. In .the Archaic Cypro-Greek style the Cypriote and Greek elements form an artistic unit. The Greek element may be represented in varying degrees. Some sculptures are very close to the Greek prototypes, others are more Cypriote in character, particularly the more conventionalized or roughly worked figures~ but there is an artistically coherent series from the one extreme to the other, from the leading sculptures, the masterpieces, which show a strong Greek influence, to the more roughly worked specimens with boardshaped bodies and a higher degree of Cypriote character in the style of the faces. Moreover, the stylistic development from the earlier group to the later group of the style corresponds to the development of the approximately contemporary Greek Archaic art itself. In other words, during the Archaic Cypro-Greek style the Cypriote sculpture is in close contact with, and keeps pace with, the contemporary Greek art. In the early stage of the first Sub-Archaic style this contact is still kept: there are sculptures which in the character of the face show influence from the Greek art in the transitional period between Archaic and Classical art. There are also occasional attempts to adopt the structure of the body and the "Standmotif" of the contemporary Greek art (d. below). These instances of continuous contact with the Greek art are, however, only found in the very beginning of the style, and they are sporadic phenomena without consequence for its development. The contact with Greek art is soon broken, and Cypriote sculpture develops into a Sub-Archaic art, stagnated in a stereotyped and conventionalized schedule. The first Sub-Archaic style is therefore Cypro-Greek in another sense than the Archaic. The latter is sometimes more Greek than Cypriote and the Greek element is a stimulating, creative
120
PI. XVI.
SCULPTURE
force. The first Sub-Archaic style becomes very soon more Cypriote than Greek, and .the Greek element is only a traditional form. There is still, however, an artistic affinity between the better worked sculptures and the rougher specimens, which are inspired by the former, and reflect the same style of art, though in a more conventionalized form. In order to demonstrate the stylistic differences between the Archaic and first SubArchaic Cypro-Greek styles it is instructive to compare representatives of the same type of sculptures in both styles. The specimens of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style are naturally to be chosen among the typologically latest sculptures, i. e., those of its second group, in order to have a decisive test. Let us begin with a comparison of bearded male heads. Compare, for instance, the head, Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2,C 152, of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, with the head, op. cit. I: 2, C 154, which belongs to the first Sub-Archaic style. C 152 is still a representative of the genuine, though fading, Archaic art. C 154 is Sub-Archaic: the curls of the beard are worked in a conventionalized way with zigzag tresses below; the moustache hangs slackly; the modelling of the face is shallow; the eyes are evenly leafshaped with ridged lids; the Archaic spirit ofthe expression has gone. C 155 and 156 represent successive stages of development in the first Sub-Archaic style, and an Arsos head (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXCII, I, 2) belongs to the same class. The female heads of the styles in question show a similar typological difference. The three Arsos heads in op. cit. III, PIs. CXCI, 4, 5; CXCII, 3, 4; CXCIII, I, 2, are representatives of the type with diadem-shaped hair-style. The first head belongs to the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, the others to the first Sub-Archaic style. The first head still preserves the genuine Archaic form in the shape of the face and its details: eyes, nose, cheeks, the smiling lips, etc. The other two heads resemble each other, but differ essentially from the first one: the eyes are flat and evenly leaf-shaped with sharp-ridged lids, the modelling is rather flat, but details, e. g., the embossed ornaments of the head-dress, are in exaggerated relief, .the contact between the idea of the artist and the form is broken, and we notice the beginning of a confectionary art. A still more advanced stage of the same type of head is represented by Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LV, 8, where the face has become an almost unplasticrnass with languid features and carelessly modelled details. A characteristic class of relief sculptures is formed by the tomb-stones with banquet scenes, a Cypriote version of the Greek funerary reliefs (Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. CXXI, 897, 898,901, 9°2). The sculptures of the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style can be divided into two groups, of which the first is typologically earlier than the second. The parallel series of board-shaped and full-bodied torsos continue. In the first group there are occasional specimens which still show the artist's interest in the modelling of the body, e. g., Mersinaki No. 983 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXXVI). The structure of its body and the rare phenomenon that it is naked, give evidence of the Greek influence, still found sporadically in the early stage of the style, as mentioned above. Very often the bodies are board-shaped or show a tendency to become so, and even the more full-bodied figures: arenot so much worked plastically. This holds good not only for the sculptures of Limestone sculptures. Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
121
a rather small size, but for the life-size figures, too, e. g., Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. LXIV, 430 and LXVIII, 453. The attitude of legs and arms, as a rule, follows traditional rules. The left leg is sometimes slightly advanced in the first group, but sometimes the feet are isolinear or almost so; the latter attitude is usual in the second group, or if the feet are not strictly isolinear, no longer the left leg, but, as a rule, only the left foot is slightly advanced. Occasionally the figures are seated, e. g., Vouni No. 62, representing a Cypriote version of Isis with the Horus child (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXIV). In the early stage of the first group there are a few attempts to adopt the "Standmotif" of contemporary Greek art, e. g., Kition Nos. 347 + 510, Vouni Nos. 482, 489, and Mersinaki No. 983 (op. cit. III, PIs. XXVIII; LXIII, 4; LXIV, I; CXXVI): the strict law of frontality is broken by an attempt to represent a dynamic standing position, where one leg supports the weight of the body and the other leg is bent, and the medial axis of the torso describes a curved line, but there is no displacement of the hips. As a rule, the figures are covered by a dress: the naked Mersinaki sculpture No. 983 is an exception, as mentioned above. In the first group there are some attempts at a richer treatment of the drapery than before - another sign of influence from contemporary Greek art. These attempts result, however, only in vain imitations of the Greek prototypes, and show the inability of the Cypriote artists to adopt them, and the artistic gap which now exists between Cypriote and Greek art. The folds of the meticulously worked sculptures are rendered plastically, but with stiff, parallel or curved, sharp-edged ridges covering the surface of the dress in monotonous repetition. The folds of the less carefully worked specimens are grooved in a technique which usually is more in the nature of design than plastic. This "designed" dress occurs already in the first group, and becomes predominant in the second group. The grooves are usually very carelessly and roughly drawn. Unsuccessful attempts to reproduce the fine ripples of the chiton by wavy lines may be noted (op. cit. III, PI. LXIII, 2). The upper border of the mantle across the chest becomes more and more concave, and the lower border of the chiton follows the curve of the feet and sometimes descends in a bow-shaped mass between them: a characteristic feature of the general slackening of the forms (op. cit. III, PIs. LXVI, 3, 4; LXVII, 4, 5; LXVIII, I, 3; LXIX, I). In the early stage of the first group there are a few sculptures whose faces show that renewed Greek influence traced in the structure of the body and the treatment of the dress. Sculptures of this kind are, e. g., Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. LXXIII, 475, and Kition No. 239 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXIX, 6). The Cypriote element, however, soon becomes predominant. The modelling of the faces is standardized, and their expression is conventional and lifeless. The eyes are evenly elliptical and sculptured with sharp-edged lids. The smile has almost disappeared or it is sometimes exaggerated into a grotesque grimace. If the artists were thus not capable of giving the faces of the sculptures a new and characteristic expression, they concentrated their interest upon other details, the beard, the hair, the attributes such as diadems, jewellery, etc. Sometimes the male hair is short and freely curled or arranged in contiguous, twisted tresses with a taenia around the head, but usually it is short or tied up, with rows of front curls; the top hair is curled or rendered in fine
122
SCULPTURE
PI. XVII.
grooves, and around it is a wreath, very often with thick berries placed on the uppermost row of the front curls. The artists excel in the distinctive modelling of the cork-screw curls of hair and beard. The female coiffure is similar to that of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, except that its modelling shows the same attention as the male coiffure. In the second group the face is usually rounded off to an unelastic mass, the features are relaxed, the smile is very faint or has entirely disappeared. A few sculptures are still modelled with a certain technical care, but in general they are almost handicraft work and whole-sale art. Cypriote sculpture is moving rapidly towards its doom, and the period of decadence begins.
THE SECOND SUB-ARCHAIC CYPRO-GREEK STYLE This style is not represented by the terracotta plastic, a fact explained by the technical difference of the terracotta plastic from the sculptural work. To the koroplasts it was easy to make Abformungen of the heads cast in imported Greek moulds of the Classical period, and thus they obtained a sufficient supply of moulds to make all the terracottas in the Classical Cypro-Greek style. In stone, only the sculptures of large size and artistic importance were made in the Classical Cypro-Greek style, while the great mass of sculptures was made in the second Sub-Archaic style. Limestone Sculptures This style comprises sculptures corresponding to those of Style IV at Mersinaki and Vouni and Style Vat Kition (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. XXXV; XXXVI, 1,2; LXIX, 4, 5; CXXXIII). It is a direct continuation of the later group of the first .Sub-Archaic style: the sculptural art of the second Sub-Archaic style degenerates further into handicraft work, gradually passing into pure idol plastic. The body of the figures is usually quite board-shaped; the feet are isolinear or almost isolinear; the legs are nearly straight, and the attitude of the arms keeps to the conventional and monotonous positions already common in the first Sub-Archaic style. The folds of the dress are marked by incised, careless grooves . .The shape of the head is a characteristic feature. In the first Sub-Archaic style, the back of the head was very often flat, especially in the second group of the style, but now the face,too,is usually flat, so that the nose sometimes is almost aligned with the chin. The smile has entirely disappeared, and the lips are only thin ridges. The eyes are sometimes only oval pellets; if the eyeballs are sculptured, they are flat; sometimes the eyes are not plastically marked at all. The cheeks and chin are full and slack; the hair is marked by careless, grooved lines. The modelling of the details of the head is reduced to a minimum, and the face is bare of expression. The same stylistic traits are demonstrated by the relief sculpture, as shown by the tomb-stones (Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. CXXI, 892). The degeneration of plastic art is carried almost as far as possible, as mentioned, ending in pure idol plastic. Terracotta sculptures. Classical Cypro-Greek style.
THE CYPRO-GREEK STYLES
THE CLASSICAL CYPRO-GREEK STYLE Terracotta Sculptures This style comprises sculptures corresponding to those of Style IV at Vouni and Mersinaki, as shown by the diagram, p. 93. Only a few bodies belonging to sculptures of this style have been found, and most of them are very fragmentary. In general, the body form is similar to that of the Sub-Archaic style. The faces display the characteristic features of the style. They are all moulded and subsequently retouched. Three different categories of facial types can be distinguished. The first category comprises faces cast in moulds of Greek origin, e. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. CXXXIV; CXXXV, I, 7. These faces are characteristic representatives of the 4th century Greek art. Beard and hair, etc. may be separately added as in the preceding style, but sometimes they are moulded in one piece with the face, e. g., op. cit. III, PI. CXXXV,7; both the beard and the hair have, however, been worked over in a Cypriote fashion, so that very little is left of their original moulded shape. The second category comprises faces cast in moulds of Cypriote origin, e. g., op. cit. III, PIs. CXXXV, 2, 3, 6; CXXXVI, 1,4-7. These Cypriote moulds may sometimes be Abformungen of Greek prototypes. The character of the faces shows a strong influence from the 4th century Greek art, but their Cypriote workmanship is also apparent. We may compare Mersinaki Nos. 632 and 1087 with each other (op. cit. III, PI. CXXXV, 6, 7). The former head belongs to the first category and the latter to the second. The Cypriote copyist of No. 1087 betrays himself by the lax structure and the conventionalized modelling of the face and, further, the diagrammatic form of the eyes with the lids indicated only by relief lines in the old Cypriote manner, and the lack of interest in details. Even the beard subsequently added as a mass of small, plain pellets contrasts with the more naturally shaped beard of No. 632, though the latter, as already mentioned, has been worked over and remodelled to a certain extent by the Cypriote koroplast (the left part of the beard, which has been restored in plaster, should be left out of account). The same or similar criteria of the Cypriote workmanship are valid also in relevant parts for the other heads of the second category. Most Cypriote is Mersinaki No. 685 (op. cit. III, PI. CXXXV, 4), in which the Cypriote character is apparent already in the triangular, geometric shape of the face with its pointed chin. The third category introduces a new type of sculpture in the history of Cypriote art, the realistic portrait. Specimens of this category are represented by Mersinaki Nos. 662, 656, and 655 (op. cit. III, PIs. CXXXV, 5, 8; CXXXVI, 2, 3). No. 662 is the most conventional of these portraits, but it has suffered much from detrition of the surface, so its original quality is lost to some extent. No. 656 gives the impression of a portrait mask. The eyes are prominent with a staring gaze and heavy upper lids; the mouth is somewhat oblique, the lips thick and irregularly shaped, the right part of the lip being thicker than the left part; the moustaches and beard are rendered by punctured, raised surface. No. 655 is
4
12
PI. XVIII.
SCULPTURE
the most remarkable of the portraits, and looks almost like a product of modern art. The eyes are small, and the iris is indicated; the moustache is a veritable "Schnurrbart", and the curls of the beard are rendered by thin scratchings. The subtle modelling and the characteristic small irregularities in the details of the face impart to it a very realistic effect. This last group of sculptures passes over to the first Cypro-Hellenistic style. There is a fundamental artistic difference between the terracottas of the Archaic and Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek styles on the one side and those of the Classical Cypro-Greek style on the other. The heads of the former style, both the hand-made and moulded specimens, show a synthesis of. Cypriote and Greek elements of art, while the moulds of the latter style, as shown above, are either imported Greek moulds or Abformungen of heads cast in such moulds. There is no longer a combination of Cypriote and Greek stylistic elements, but a Cypriote reproduction and imitation of Greek prototypes. The only Cypriote contribution consists of a certain carelessness in the retouching and the modelling of the details of the face which were not moulded. Limestone Sculptures The Classical Cypro-Greek style comprises a series of sculptures which imitate works of Greek artists from the later part of the 5th and beginning of the 4th cent. B. C. The only Cypriote element in this style consists of the more or less successful attempt to imitate the Greek works. It is no longer a combination of Cypriote and Greek elements of at t, but only a combination of Cypriote technique and Greek prototypes. The. head No. 1314 in Handb. Cesn. Coil. is unfortunately not illustrated in that handbook, and is not published in the Cesnola Atlas. It is very similar to the more damaged head, Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1315, which is published in Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. CV, 684, though the illustration is not adequate.:Both heads evidently imitate the style of the Polykleitan school. The head of a beardless youth, PI. XVIII, 2 (op. cit. I, PI. CV, 685), is of Phidian type, and the bearded head, PI. XVIII, I (op. cit. I, PI. CV, 689), is an imitation of the style represented by the Olympian Zeus of Phidias. These heads are typical specimens of the earliest works of the Classical Cypro-Greek style, and though they may be still much later than the corresponding Greek types; it seems likely that they date from the end of the 5th cent. B. C. The head, PI. XVIII, 3 (Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. XCVII, 665), is clearly related to Athenian tomb figures of the 4th cent. B. C. Another type is shown by the head in op. cit. I, PI. CXXXIX, 1035. It is very damaged, but the deep-set eyes, the fullness of the lower part of the face, and the attitude of the head seem to attempt the manner of Skopas. It is, however, a very mediocre work from the technical point of view. The same holds good for the heads in Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1317 (unfortunately not illustrated), and the tomb figure from Marion (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PL CLXI, 5). These latter sculptures are works by inferior artists, and their Cypriote character is more pronounced on account of the less skilful technique. Limestone sculptures. Classical Cypro-Greek style.
MINOR AND ANIMAL PLASTIC
~arble
Sculptures
Marble sculptures of this style in the Cyprus 1\1useum are fragments of a tomb relief and a frieze. The tomb relief represents a bearded man and a female figure, apparently the husband and a daughter, standing in front of the seated deceased wife and mother, of whom only the left arm and fragments of the dress remain. The work closely imitates Athenian prototypes of the 4th cent. B. C. The frieze represents a contest of Greeks and Amazons. The Greeks are fighting on foot, probably with spears in their right hands to judge by the position of the legs and the attitude of the right arms, of which, however, only small parts are preserved. In their left hands they carry round shields. They are dressed in armour and have helmets on their heads. The Amazons are galloping on horses with double-axes in their hands. Not only the motif, but also the stylistic treatment and the composition recall the frieze of the Mausoleum, The wavy fold of the flowing mantle worn by one of the Amazons on the Cypriote frieze has many parallels on that of the Mausoleum. A spacious composition with the contour of each figure standing out against the background and a repeated grouping of three figures are characteristic features of both the friezes. The composition of the Cypriote frieze is, however, very loose in comparison with that of the Mausoleum, It is to be hoped that this interesting Cypriote frieze will soon be published.
Minor and Animal Plastic Terracotta Figures The majority of the terracottas are idol plastic. A minute classification of the different types of this plastic has been made in the excavation reports of the preceding volumes. In this general classification only the main types can be considered, and the readers are referred to the excavation reports for further particulars. Some types approach to art sculpture or are transitional between the pure idol plastic and art sculpture.
Human and Semi-human Figures The statuettes of this type are pure idol plastic. They have a cylindrical body, solid, or hollow, which widens towards the base. The feet are never indicated, but the female statuettes have the nipples marked by conical pellets. The arms are projecting, curved stumps, usually uplifted. The head is very roughly shaped, with a thick, projecting nose, and the eyes are usually indicated by circular pellets, the mouth sometimes by an incised line and the ears by small, attached pellets. The face has often a bird-like, beaked appearance. Sometimes the female heads are crowned by a fan-shaped or rectangular head-dress, probably indicating a polos. The heads of the male statuettes have usually a pointed top indicating a conical I.
126
SCULPTURE
cap or helmet. Only occasionally this cap is more carefully and separately modelled. Sometimes the heads are of an extremely large size in comparison with the body. All the statuettes are made in the so-called "snow-man" technique. Details of the face and the dress are painted with dots and lines in mat black and red colours. The majority of t~e statuettes are of this shape. Occasionally other varieties are found, e. g., a seated figure with the head bent back, left arm bent and touching the breasts, a lyre-player, a flute~player, group of figures performing a ring dance, etc. All these statuettes are o~ a. small SIze, ~ut there are also a few specimens of a larger size, though of the same principal ty~e, with a tubular, wheel-made body; the female breasts marked by globular pellets; uphfted or adv~nced arms; a roughly shaped head, with a big, projecting nose; globular eyeballs; heavy, r.Idged eyebrows; a short, very sloping forehead. Alongside these human figures, there are specimens of mixed animal and human shape. The Ajia Irini minotauri, Type I (ef. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 785) are typical representatives of this group of statuettes.. . Within this type two groups can be distinguished: the first (A) IS typologIcally less advanced than the second (B). Specimens of Group A are illustrated in op. cit. I, PIs. XLIX, 4, 5; LXVIII, 6, 13 + 16, 14, 29, 44, 52; specimens of Group B in op. cit. I, PI. LXVIII, 18, 31; II, PIs. CLXXXII, II, 14; CCXXVII; CCXXIX, I, 2; CC.XX:CVI, I, 2 . . 2. The statuettes of this type are also pure idol plastic. They vary m SIze, some be~ng about 20 em. in length and others about 50 em. or more. There are also several techmcal differences, and some figures are less roughly modelled, with more details indicated, etc., but they all belong to one and the same general type. The larger statuettes always represent single figures, but the smaller statuettes also represent scenes and objects of daily life, e. g., winnowing and grinding corn, kneading dough, baking cakes, scenes at a court, groups of figures, horsemen, dancers, chariots with warriors, etc. The smaller statuettes have usually a solid, cylindrical body with a more or less splayed base. Sometimes the body is hollow, cylindrical or trumpet-shaped and wheel-made, while the solid body is always hand-made. Only occasionally the body is roughly modelled with torso, legs, and feet indicated. The female breasts are indicated by pellets. The arms are only stiff stumps. The hands are often not indicated, but sometimes by a flattened end of the arms; some figures have even roughly modelled thumbs, while the other fingers are indicated by painted lines. The arms are usually kept vertically o~ almost so, along the sides of the body, but other positions also occur: both arms are uphfted or ad:ance~, or bent upwards, or one arm is vertical and the other bent over the breast ~r uphfted m an attitude of adoration. In the latter case the non-vertical attitude of the arm IS thus determined by the representation of the action of the figures, and that holds good for the o~her cases, too, e. g., figures represented as flute-players, tambourine-players, e~c., .or wa~nors carrying swords and shields in the advanced hands, or votive bearers bnngmg ~mmals or other votive gifts, or horsemen with their arms on the neck o.f th~ horse, ~r dn~ers of chariots holding the horses' reins, etc. The technique of modelhng IS a mO~Ified kind of the "snow-man" technique of Type I. This accounts also for the rather accidental sha~e of the head, which is oval, rectangular, square, trapezoid, or wedge-shaped. Of the details
MINOR AND ANIMAL PLASTIC
127
of the face sometimes only the nose, the ears and, on the male specimens, the beard are plastically rendered; the nose is a pinched projection, the ears are small pellets and the beard a flattened elongation of the chin. On the more advanced specimens the eyes, mouth, and hair are also plastically indicated by added pellets, raised surface, and incisions. The head is covered by a helmet, a conical cap or a veil kept in place by bands. On some of the more advanced specimens the dress, too, is indicated plastically: the border of the chiton by ridges and the mantle by a raised surface. These details of face and dress were also indicated by paintings in black and red. The larger statuettes are properly only enlarged specimens of the small figures. The body is always hollow, tube-shaped with splayed base, and wheel-made. A few specimens have modelled feet. The attitudes of the arms are similar to those of the small statuettes:, the less roughly worked specimens have sometimes modelled fingers. The modelling of the face also shows the same stages of very summary or more meticulous plastic as shown by the small figures. On the roughly made specimens, the pinched nose, the pellet ears, and the plain, flat beard are the only plastic details. On the more worked specimens, the eyes, mouth, hair, and dress are plastically rendered; the nose is not merely a pinched projection, but more or less roughly modelled; sometimes the brows or even eyelids are indicated in relief. The head-dress is the same as that of the small figures. Semi-human figures of this type are represented bye. g., the Ajia Irini minotauri, Type 2 (ef. op. cit. II, p. 785) and similar specimens. Statuettes of all the varieties included in this type are illustrated in op. cit. II, PIs. CLVIII, 3-5; CCXXVIII, 1-4; CCXXIX, 3-8; CCXXX-CCXXXII, 5; CCXXXIVCCXXXVI, 3-8; CCXXXVII; CCXXXVIII; III, PI. LXXVII, 7-14; Handb. Cesn. Colt., Nos. 2110 ff. 3. This type comprises statuettes of a more advanced "snow-man" technique. Both small and larger statuettes are represented as in the preceding group, and the varieties are generally the same. Two technical classes can be distinguished. The faces of the one class are cast in moulds, those of the second class are hand-made, but are modelled with greater care and more details than in the preceding group. The body may be of the same shape as in Type 2 or is more carefully modelled in imitation of the contemporary plastic art. Semi-human figures of this group are represented bye. g., Type 3 of the Ajia Irini minotauri. Sometimes the modelling both of the small and the larger statuettes is developed to such a degree that the faces show a decided tendency to stylistic expression, and these figures form a transitional group between the pure idol plastic and the art sculpture (cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 790 ff.), the word transitional not being taken in a genetic, but only in a typological sense, i. e., the figures form a mixture of both these categories of plastic. The statuettes which can be stylistically determined, i. e., those with moulded heads and the more carefully worked specimens of the hand-made class, can be divided into five groups: A, B, C, D, E. Group A recalls the first Proto-Cypriote style, Group B the second ProtoCypriote style, Group C the Neo-Cypriote style, Group D the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, and Group E the Sub-Archaic style. Statuettes of these groups are illustrated in op, cit.
129
SCULPTURE
MINOR AND ANIMAL PLASTIC
II, PIs. CCXXXII, 6-15; CCXXXIII, 9-11; III, PI. LXXVIII, 1-4, 6, 8; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 2063-2065. 4. These statuettes are entirely cast in moulds, and they have been taken into account in another context. Those of Cypriote workmanship are included in the Neo-Cypriote and Cypro-Greek styles, and those of foreign origin are dealt with in the chapter on foreign
Coll., Nos. 1080 ff.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXI, 4, 6; III, PIs. LXXVI, 1-6; XCVIII, 5; CXLVIII, 3-5). The statuettes include animal and human figures, such as bulls, horses, donkeys, cocks, doves, etc., and tambourine-players. Contrary to the corresponding terracotta statuettes, classified in various types, the stone statuettes are of very little typological interest, and it seems therefore quite useless to classify them in types: the majority are only debased and unartistic versions of the art sculptures of the different styles described above. Several animal and semi-human figures belong, however, to the art sculpture, and can be included in the stylistic development of that sculpture. In particular, the lions and sphinxes are so numerous that they can be arranged in a stylistic series. Thus the lion figures, Cesnola, Atlas I, PIs. LXXXIV, 550 and XCV, 641, are evidently the earliest hitherto found and may be called Proto-Cypriote, while the lions, op. cit. I, PIs. LXXXIV, 548 and XCV, 642, represent the Neo-Cypriote stage of development, and so does the sphinx, op. cit. I, PI. XVII, 24. In the Archaic Cypro-Greek style we may include the lions, op. cit. I, PIs. XXVII, 93; XCV, 635 and Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXX, 3. Of the sphinxes, Cesnola, Atlas I, PI. C, 673 is an early representative of this style, and later specimens are op. cit. I, PIs. XCIX, 671; C, 672; CIV, 680, CVI, 691-694To an early stage of the Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style we may assign the sphinxes of op. cit. I, PI. CIV, 679, and the lion sculptures, op. cit. I, PIs. LXXXIV, 549; XCV, 637; CXXI, 898, 901, are characteristic specimens of this style in general. Finally, the sphinxes, op. cit. I, PI. CXXVI, 920, and the lions, op. cit. I,Pls. XXVII, 83; XCV, 638, show stylistic features characteristic of the Classical Cypro-Greek style.
~28
relations.
Animals The animal statuettes can be divided into f~ur main types. I. This corresponds to Type I of human figures, and comprises both small and larger specimens. The small statuettes have a solid body; they are of a thin, stiff, rather abstract structure, with long head, pointed nose, projectingeyes, and small ears. The larger statuettes have a hollow, wheel-made body. The bull statuettes, Types 2-4, found in the temenos of Ajia Irini are typical of this class. The minute classification of these statuettes in three local types shows the gradual advancement of one and the same general type. Accordingly this type can be divided in two groups like the corresponding human figures of Type I. The first group (A) comprises the less advanced specimens and the second group (B) the ~or~ advanced (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pk CLVII, 14, IS; CLXXXII, 4, 5; CCXXIV, 3-6; CCXXV, I, 2; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 208L) . 2. This type corresponds to Type 2 of the human figures. The small statuettes have usually a solid body, but sometimes it is tubular and wheel-made. The shape ismore fullbodied, but at the same time laxer, less geometric. There is a tendency towards a more realistic form as regards the more advanced and more carefully worked specimens (e. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXVI, 3-6), but the roughly made specimens are still of pure "snowman" technique (e. g., op. cit. II, PIs. CCXXV, 6; CCXXVI, I, 2). The larger statuettes have a tubular; wheel-made body. These are, as a rule, ofa more natural shape and more carefully worked than the small ones, but there is a gradual development from the statuettes of a pure "snow-man" technique to those of a more advanced modelling, and they all belong to one and the same general type (op. cit. II, PIs. CLXXXII, 6; CCXXV, 5,6; CCXXVI, I, 2; III; PI. LXXVII, 2, 3, 6; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 2085). 3. This type comprises statuettes corresponding to Type 3 of the human figures. The heads of the animals are sometimes cast in moulds and attached to a hand-made or wheelmade body, similar to those of the preceding type (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLXXXII, 7; CCXXVI, 7; III, PI. LXXVII, I; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 2073). 4. This type comprises statuettes which are entirely cast in a mould (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLVII, 17, 18; III, PIs. LXXVII, 4, 5; CXLVI; CXLVII, I).
Bronze Figures In comparison with the numerous works of idol plastic, particularly in terracotta, those in bronze are rather few (d. Journ. Hell. Stud. XI, 1890, p: 89, Fig. 9; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, 3, 4; specimens in the Cyprus Museum). Noteworthy is a group representing a man ploughing, two wrestlers (Brit. Mus. Cat., Bronzes, Nos. 182, 183), and a man leading an ox (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, 6, 7). Bronze figurines of animals are also rare. They are represented both by works of idol plastic (e. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 17; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, I) and of a more developed style, e. g., the statuetteofa stag found at Ajia Irini (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXL, 8), but this may be of foreign origin (d. p. 337).
Limestone Figures Apart from the stone sculptures classified above, the Cypriote sanctuaries and tombs have yielded many specimens, usually of small size, which cannot be attributed to any particular style, but belong to the class of sculpture which has been called idol plastic (Handb. Cesn. 9
13 1
IRON
OTHER ARTS AND CRAFTS
IRON SWORD .3
2
IRON Sword (Fig. 19) 1.
2.
8
•
1
Narrow, straight-edged sword with midrib; flat hilt with flanged wavy sides and rounded, splayed top (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIV, 2; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4725; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXLIX, I, 2). Leaf-shaped, broader sword with double-curved sides; midrib; wide hilt-tang without flanges (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIV, I; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4726, 4727).
-
•
~
1
Dagger (Fig. 19) 7
1.
2.
Narrow, straight-edged dagger; midrib; cross-bar; flat hilt with rounded, splayed top (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXI, 10). Leaf-shaped dagger with double-curved edges; top of blade strengthened by fillet; thin, straight tang ending in a conical knob (op. cit. II, PI. CXLIX, 5)·
•
.. 9
BUTT- SPIKE 10
11
12
~
~
~
...
14
13
Spear-head (Fig. 19) 1.
2
Spear of "Sigynna" type, four-sided (Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. III, 1910, p. 108; Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, No. 1437)' a, b. Leaf-shaped spear-head, narrow and lancet-shaped, or broader and triangular; with low (a) or high (b) midrib; tubular socket without or with slit along one side (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIV, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXLIX, 2, 4; CLXXI, 2-7; III, PI. XLIV, 3)·
SPEAR-
HEAD
Butt-spike (Fig. 19) 1.
2.
Tubular butt-spike with pointed end (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXI, 8, 9)' Butt-spike, four-sided in section; tubular socket (op. cit. III, PI. XLIV, 4)·
1
2a
2b Fig. 19. Arts and Crafts. Iron.
o 1
• 2
132
ARTS AND CRAFTS IRON
Arrow-head (Fig. I
2
133
20)
a-c. Leaf-shaped arrow-head, several variations; the blade may be narrow and lancetshaped, or broader, with or without midrib; straight tang, sometimes beaded (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXLIX, 7, 9, II; CLXXI, II, 12; CCXLI, I; III, PI. XLIV, 5). a, b. Four-sided arrow-head; straight or double-curved sides; straight tang (op. cit. II, PIs. CLXXI, 13-15; CCXLI, 2; III, PI. LXXXVII, 2, 3).
IRON ARROW- HEAD
1
HELMET
3
5
't
•
6
7
• • +
Shield Circular shield boss with central, conical spike (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 575). Helmet (Fig.
20)
Cheek-piece of spiked helmet of Assyrian type (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVHI, 14, 15)· Armour (Fig. 20) Splint armour of the type,represented by Amathus, Tomb 2, No. 57 (Swed. Cyp.Exp. H,· PI. CL)~ 2. Splint armour of the type, represented by Idalion No. 236 (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXII). 3. Splint armour of the type, represented by the second specimen from Idalion (Acta archaeol. -IX, 1938, p. 169, Fig. 5). I.
10
1b
20
1c
2b
ARMOUR 9
Cuirass 1
Fragments of curved pieces of a cuirass covered by bronze sheathing (Swed. Cyp.Exp. II, PI. V, 77). 10
Axe (Fig.
21)
Chisel-axe; head with straight or slightly curved edge and rounded top; sometimes circular hole near the top (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIII, I). 2. Chisel-axe widening towards the edge; shaft-hole; possibly half part of a double-axe (op. II, PI. CXLIX, 12). 3 a, b. Pick-axe; shaft-hole in the middle; straight or curved pick (op. cit. II, PIs. V, 63; CXLIX, 13, 14; CLXXIII , 2). 4. Axe with thin, long blade, splaying towards the cutting edge; thick-flanged back; narrow head with projections (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXIII, 3). I.
at.
Knife (Fig. I
21)
a-d. Leaf-shaped knife; single cutting edge; straight or almost straight blade, narrow or broader; back of blade sometimes curved; flat tang with rivets (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLlII 4; Il,Pls. CXLIX,· 15,17,18; CLXXIII, 6, 7; III, PIs. XXXVIII, I; XLIV, 6). j
2
.3 Fig.
20.
Arts and Crafts. Iron.
134
IRON
ARTS AND CRAFTS
a-e. Leaf-shaped knife; single cutting edge; curved blade; flat tang with rivets. The blade may be rather narrow or broader; both the back and the edge are curved, concave or convex (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LVI, 5; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 3; II, PIs. CXLIX, 19; CLXXIII, 8-10). 3. Leaf-shaped knife; double cutting edge; midrib; narrow, short tang (fragments not illustrated).
2
135
IRON
SICKLE
SPIT 7
AXE
:f
Sickle (Fig. 21) Sickle with arch-shaped blade and narrow, flattened tang (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXVII, 4)' Chisel (Fig. 21)
1
30
2
3b
4
KNIFE
Wedge-shaped chisel; rectangular in section (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLI, 12). 8
9
11
12
14
15
16
.'.,
Spit (Fig. 21)
~?
Long, narrow spit; square in section; a hole at the upper end (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIII, 12). ':r ...
Spade (Fig. 21) Spade with roughly trapezoid blade and flat tang (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXVII, 5). Strigil (Fig. 21) Strigil with curved blade, semicircular in section; large loop-handle (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LVI, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLI, 2). Tweezer (Fig. 21)
10
- ---
1b
CHISEL 17
lc
19
~
~
1d
20
2b
2c
20
2.
Tweezer with convex, broad arms, splaying downwards; top ending in a loop (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLI, 3)' Tweezer with convex, thin arms; loop-shaped top, with or without attached ring and pin (op. cit. II, PI. CLII, 4). Rod (Fig. 21)
-
2e
STRIGIL
'. 1<
2d
T\../EEZER
;.1 .~
I.
-
:~
e,
~~
SPADE
Rod, circular in section, with a disc attached to the shaft (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, r, 2). Pin (Fig.
2
22)
Straight pin with a head in shapeofabutton or knob, sometimes in other material (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 5; II, PI. CLXXIII, II). Fig.
21.
Arts and Crafts. Iron.
ROD 23
LEAD
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Fibula (Fig.
22)
Fibula with stilted fore-end (= Type 2 of bronze fibulae); small, flat catch; straight pin, sometimes wit9 circular disc; bowsometimes beaded and swollen (Swed Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. VIII, 2: 16; CLI, I). Earring (Fig.
LAMP-STAND
IRON PIN
2
11
22)
FIBULA
Circular or oval earring with overlapping ends; sometimes thickened below (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIII, 13, 14)' Finger-ring (Fig. 22)
EARRING
LAMP
Plain, circular finger-ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIII, IS). 2.; Circular finger-ring with oval bezel (op. cit. II, PIs. CLI, 14; CLXXIII, 16). 3. Horseshoe-shaped finger-r~ng with oval bezel (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXIII, 17-19). 1.
Lam p (Fig.
137
22)
Open, saucer-shaped lamp; flat base; flat, wide rim; pinched wick-holder (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIII, 20). FINGER-RING
Lamp-stand (Fig. 22) Lamp-stand consisting of a straight shaft on a tripod base, and on the top of the shaft, a circular plate with upturned edge to receive the lamp and hooks to suspend implements for trimming the wick (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLI, 13)' Nail, Rivet, Cramp Nails with button-shaped heads, rivets with flattened, splayed ends, cramps, etc. (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 577; III, PI. LXXXVII, 6).
1
2
3
LEAD RING
Mounting
SLINGER'S BULLET
MOUNTING
Pieces of plain mounting on wooden or leather objects (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, P.577).
LEAD
WE I GHT PYXIS'
Ring (Fig.
22)
PLAQUE
20
Circular rings of silver-lead, probably used as earrings (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLI, 14)· . Slinger's Bullet (Fig. 22)
Spindle-shaped slinger's bullet (Swed.
Cyp~
Exp. III,.PI. LXXXIX, 8).
Fig.
22.
Arts and Crafts. Iron and Lead.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Mounting (Fig. 22) Mountings of varying shape: boss-shaped, cylindrical, biconical, strip-shaped, trapezoid, etc. (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIV, 2-6).
BRONZE
..
BRONZE
.. 1
2
3
139
SPEAR - HEAD
BUTT-SPIKE
........ 4
14
5
9
10
8
Pyxis (Fig. 22) Squat, round pyxis with circular cover (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLI, 15). Plaque (Fig. 22) Rectangular plaque, probably a miniature copy of a table of offerings (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXXVIII, II). Weight (Fig. 22) Square weight, 88.79 gr. (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIV, 7). One weight (Syria XIII, 1932, pp. 189 f., Fig. I) has an inscription in Cypriote syllabary: pa . ni ·1111 . si, i. e., king Ni(kokles?, -kokreon?), (the weight of) 4 shekels. The weight is 44.2 gr.
15
1b
-
16
-
2a
BRONZE
2
a, b. Spear-head of the "Sigynna" type (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXVII, 2, 4). a, b. Leaf-shaped spear-head with low or high midrib; tubular socket, without or with slit along one side. The shape of the blade varies: long or short, narrow (a) or broader (b) (op. cit. III, PI. LXIV, 5; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 7; II, PI. CLI, 3-6; III, PIs. XLV, I; CCIV, I). Butt-spike (Fig. 23)
',I· t 17
-+-
18
•
19 ~
•• 20
::i : .~
J;
.;.--;
1c
1b 10
la
1d
,
•••
•
2
22-
23
.A.
A .J..
3
i~
24
't
25
26
~
A
j 6
4·
5
2b
ARR o 'vi - HEAD
20
SHIELD
Butt-spike, circular or four-sided in section; tubular socket (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIII, 1-3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIV, 11-13; III, PIs. XLV, 2, 3, 17; LXXXVII, 7).
I, 2.
Arrow-head (Fig. 23) a-d. Leaf-shaped arrow-head with straight tang. The shape of the blade varies: short or long, narrow or broad, with or without midrib; sometimes with flange at head of tang (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIV, 14-17; III, PI. XLV, 5, 6). 2 a, b. Four-sided arrow-head with straight tang; straight or double-curved sides (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4779-85; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLI, 7-10; CLXXIV, 18, 19; CCXLI, 5, 6; III, PIs. XXXVIII, 7; XLV, 7-10; LXXXVII, 8). 3. Three-edged, solid arrow-head with short, tubular socket; sometimes barbed (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXIV, 20; III, PI. XLV, 4, 14).
21
~-~
_so
f{
Spear-head (Fig. 23) I
• •
2b
I
3 Fig. 23. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
14°
BRONZE
ARTS AND CRAFTS
4. Three-tongued arrow-head with tubular socket (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXIII, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIV, 21, 22; III, PIs. XLV, II-I3; LXXXVII, 9)' 5. Barbed, two-edged arrow-head with long, tubular socket, pierced by rivet-hole (op. cit. III, PI. XLV, 16). 6. Barbed, three-tongued arrow-head with short, tubular socket, sometimes pierced by rivet-holes (op. cit. III, PI. XLV, 15).
BRONZE
SHIELD
HAMMER
PE RIPHE RAL BAND
Shield (Figs. 23, 24) Central discs and peripheral bands of the metal mountings of the shields are preserved. The central discs are flat, with a button-shaped boss pierced by a nail (I); with a spike of straight or concave sides (2 a, b); with a wide central boss encircled by embossed rings alternately forming angular interruptions (3). The discs are decorated with ornaments and pictoral representations in repousse; concentric strings of beads and ridges; guilloche pattern; stylized flowers; animals, lions .attacking bulls, etc. (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXLII, s; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXV, I, 3).1 The peripheric bands are of different width and diameter depending on whether they were mounted around the edge of the shield or further in, between the edge and the central boss. These bands are often decorated with ornaments and pictoral representations in repousse in the same way as the central bosses: beaded strings, running spirals, rows of circles, 'guilloche pattern, lotus trails, animals, Hathor heads, etc. (0hnefalsch -Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 12; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXV, 4-6).
HELMET
1
AXE 8
SHOVEL MACE-HEAD
SCEPTRE
13
12
Helmet (Fig. 24) Mounting to cap-shaped leather helmet with hinged neck-cover; pierced by holes along the edge for attachment to the leather (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIX, 2). 2. Mounting to nearly hemispherical leather helmet with tubular spike; pierced by triangularly placed holes for attachment to the leather (Op. cit. II, p. 535, No. 130).2 3. Conical helmet with spiked top, cheek-pieces, and neck-cover; unpublished (Kukahn, Der griech. Helm, p. 14). 1.
1
2
SHEPHERD'S CROOK
TWEEZER 17~
Axe (Fig. 24) I. 2.
Double-axe with splayed cutting edge; central shaft-hole (Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. III, I I). Double-axe with splayed, curved cutting edge; central shaft-hole with tubular socket, surmounted by a large, torus-shaped knob (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXXVI, 4)'
2 By mistake, a part of an incense-lamp (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXV, 2, cf. Fig. 27: 22) has been described as shield-boss in the excavation report. 2 In the excavation report (loe. cit.) the fragments of this mounting have been erroneously described as fragments of 1
a bronze bowl with rim bent inwards and as the central spike of a shield. Only the subsequent mending work and the discovery of the pierced holes made clear that the fragments belong together and form a mounting to a helmet.
Fig. 24. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
BRONZE
Hammer (Fig. 24)
narrow tang. Some varieties are represented. The excrescence is sometimes plain, but often in the shape of a volute capital; it may be decorated with a relief figure, e. g., a Medusa head, a siren, etc.; the edge of the mirror is usually plain, but occasionallyraised, with a female head attached to the disc (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXI, 3; Exc. in Cyp., p. 67, Figs. 84, 85; p. 102, Fig. 148: 2, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. LXVI, 2, No. 17; CLIII, 1-3). 3. Circular mirror without handle. The exposed surface of the disc decorated with concentric mouldings (op. cit. II, PI. CLIII, 6). 4. Circular mirror as Type 3, but with a swinging handle attached to the disc by means of attachments in the shape of bulls' heads (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXI, I, 2).
Hammer, square in section, widening towards the head; central shaft-hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVI, IS). Chisel (Fig. 24) Flat chisel with splayed edge (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLV, 19). Mace-head (Fig. 24) Mace-head with two hemispherical lobes, radially grooved; central shaft-hole (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LI, 2). Sceptre (Fig. 24) I. Sceptre mounting, consisting of a cylindrical tube, open at both ends with melon-shaped projection in the middle (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLI, 17; Rep. Dep. Antiq. Cyprus, I935, Nicosia 1936, PI. XII, Fig. I). 2. Sceptre mounting, consisting of a cylindrical tube, ending in three bull's heads (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LII, 2; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XCVI, 8). Shepherd's Crook (Fig. 24)
Palette (Fig. 25) Flat, disc-shaped palette, with raised edge (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIII, 7). Toilet and Surgical Instruments (Fig. 25) Probes, dipping-rods, ear-picks, spatulae, etc. of slightly varying shape (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX, I, 8, I I, 12, 18; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLII, I, 2; CLXXVI , 18, 19; III, PI. LXXXVII, I I).
Shepherd's crook with tubular socket and double-curved upper end (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LV, 2; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 14).
Fish-hook (Fig. 25) Barbed fish-hook (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLVI, 2).
Strigil (Fig. 24) Strigil with curved blade, semicircular in section; large loop-handle (Swed. Cyp. Exp. .II, PIs. CLI, II; CLXXVI, 17; III; PI. XLV, 18).
Needle (Fig. 25) Straight needle with an eyelet at the upper end (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 8; II, PI. CLXXVI, 9, 10; III, PI. CCIV, 4, 5)'
Tweezer (Fig. 24) Tweezer with thin, straight arms; loop-shaped top (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 6). 2. Tweezer with broad, convex arms; sometimes with bent-in catch; loop-shaped top, sometimes moulded, with or without attached ring and pin (op. cit. II, PIs. CLII, 5; CCXLI, 7-9). Shovel (Fig. 24) 1.
Rectangular shovel with straight or slightly concave sides; pinched back corners; long, straight, twisted shaft with loop-shaped top, in which a plain ring is attached (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXVII,S; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLII, 14; CLXXIX, 17; III, PI. LXXXVII, 10). Mirror (Fig. 25) I. Circular mirror, from which projects a straight, narrow tang (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. LIX, I, No.2). 2. Circular mirror supported by a rounded excrescence, from which projects a straight,
Pin (Fig. 25) Straight pin without head or with slightly thickened top (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLII, 8; CLXXVI, II, 12; III, PIs. XLVI, 12, 13; LXXXVII, 16). 2. Straight pin with a plain head of various shapes: globular, oval, button-shaped, floweror fruit-shaped, etc. Occasionally the head is in some other material: rock crystal, amber, faience, gold, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIX,S, 10; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIII, 10-13; II, PIs. CLII, 7; CLXXVI, 13)' 3. Straight pin with upper end spirally twisted (op. cit. II, PI. CLII, 6). 4. Hooked pin, in shape of modern hair-pin (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVI, 14)· 1.
Fibula (Fig. 25) I a, b. Fibula with semicircular bow, four-sided (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIII, 4) or round (Richter, 'Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, No. 921 = Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4731, not illustrated; specimen in Cyprus Museum) in section.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
a. Fibula with stilted fore-end; bow thin, angular in section; fore-end sometimes flat and without beads; other specimens are beaded, and the bead on the fore-end is near its lower end (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I,PI. CLIV, I; II, PI. CLII, 15). b. Fibula with stilted fore-end; bow thin or slightly swollen, circular in section; fore-end and beads as Type 2 a (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIII, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 2, 3; II, PI. CLII, 12). c. Fibula with stilted fore-end; bow more or less swollen, provided with protuberances or rings (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXJII, 10; Exc. in Cyp., p. 68, Figs. 92, 93; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 4; II, PIs. CLII, 9, 10, 18; CLXXVII, 5, should be 4, see List of Corrections, Vol. IV: 3). d. Fibula with stilted fore-end; bow provided with thick, beaded mouldings; plain part of bow flattened and broad (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIII, 8, 12; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLII, 13, 17). 3 a. Fibula with symmetrical bow tending towards an angular shape; provided with rather small, beaded mouldings at the ends (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIII, I I; Exc. in Cyp., p. 68, Fig. 94; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLI, 10). b. Fibula with bow tending towards an angular shape; provided with thick mouldings of beads and collars on top of bow (Verhandl. Berl. Ges. f. Anthrop., 1899, p. 340, Fig. XXV, 12-14; Lindos I, PI. 9, No. 122; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 6). 4 a. Fibula of triangular, broken-backed shape; plain (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXIII, 9). b. Fibula of triangular shape; richly moulded with beads, discs, double-axes, etc. and surmounted by a knob (op. cit. III, PI. LXIII, 5; Exc. in Cyp., p. 68, Figs. 95-97; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 7).
BRONZE
BRONZE
2
1 TOILET
MIRROR
9,
Spiral hair-ring with close coils (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 8). 2. Spiral hair-ring with cork-screw coils (op. cit. II, PI. CLII, 21). 3. Circular hair-ring with overlapping ends decorated with mouldings and incisions; the rings are often gilt (op. cit. II, PI. CLII, 19).
2
Circular earring with overlapping ends; sometimes thickened below; plain or twisted (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 5; II, PIs. CLII, 22; CLXXVI, 21-23; CCXLI, II, 15; III, PI. LXXXVII, 12, 13). a, b. Boat- or leech-shaped earring; plain or with beaded mouldings (op. cit. II, p. 569, No. 1499; PI. LIX, 2: 3).
10
12
13
14
15
17
¥
PALETTE
3 19 20 21
NEEDLE
22
23
24 25
26
27
PIN
28 29
30
31
32
r
FISH-HOOK
2
3
4
FIBULA
1Q
1b
2d
Finger-ring (Fig. 26) 1.
16
11
Earring (Fig. 26) 1.
SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS
7
Hair-ring (Fig. 26) L
AND
Finger-ring round in section; plain (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, .PI. CLXXVI, 25; III, PI. CCIV, 7-9).
4a . 10
Fig. 25. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
4b
ARTS AND CRAFTS
BRONZE
1 47
EARRING
2. Finger-ring with flat coil, narrow or wide (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 6; II, PIs. CLII, 20; CLXXVI, 26). 3. Finger-ring with overlapping ends (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 7). 4. Finger-ring with a small gap between the ends (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVI, 27). 5. Finger-ring with round or oval bezel hammered flat (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVI , 28). 6. Finger-ring with bezel twisted spirally (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVI, 29).
3·00 o
2
0 7
,
'
"
1
3
Toe-ring (Fig. 26) Toe-ring of round wire with slightly overlapping ends (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 9).
1 Bracelet (Fig. 26)
3
2
BRACELET
I. Plain, circular bracelet (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 8). 2. Bracelet with a small gap between the rounded, flattened or knobbed terminals (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVII, I I; III, PI. XLVI, I). 3. Bracelet with the terminals in shape of snakes' heads (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVII, 12). 4. Bracelet with overlapping terminals, sometimes prolonged into a spiral coil (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXVII, 9, 10; III, PI. CCIV, 6).
2
1 Necklace Necklace of beads in shape of a pair of human breasts (Handb. Cesn. Coil., No. 4857, not illustrated). Bead and Pendant
3
BLINKER :'''''':'''.''''''>C.".,~"!.,·"",'f;i''~'''''''W~''''<"",,'~.~';\ .~...._..~,.......~.; ......... ·l.r...
·.~"i:ei.';;~i~t;..;;.¥i......-;;..~~ir;~
,;l,
BELL
Beads and pendants of various shapes: pairs of human breasts and figures (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4857-4859, not illustrated). Bell (Fig. 26) Conical bell, sometimes pierced by triangular holes; loop at the top (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXVIII, I, 2; Stoed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIX, II, 12). Clasp (Fig. 26) Rectangular clasp consisting of 8-shaped links within a bordering frame (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 13). Horse-bit (Fig. 26) Horse-bit of two linked bars between cheek-pieces of flat open work, sometimes decorated with relief palmettes (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLV, 2; Handb. Cesn. Coil., Nos. 4772-3; Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 3841). Fig. 26. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
CLASP
148
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Blinker (Fig. 26) Sole-shaped blinker; rather narrow or broad. The shaft is either straight-sided or concave. SOIne specimens are quite plain, others are decorated with a ridged shaft ending in an embossed lotus bud in the centre of the blinker, or an eye-shaped ridge in the same place for receiving an inlay of some other material. More seldom there is a richer ornamentation of flowers, animals, etc., e. g., griffons, papyrus, lotus flowers, etc. (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. LXX, 4-6, 8; CXLI, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVI, 1-4).
BRONZE
BRONZE HINGE
149
NAIL. RIVET" CRAMP ~. 2
T
7
6
8~ 9\J
10
_.
5
11
4
, 12
Front-band (Fig. 26) Horse's front-band consisting of two pieces, joined by hinges. Decoration of palmettes and volutes, papyrus, lotus flowers, sun and crescent ornaments, and representations of figures in Egyptianizing style, embossed and incised (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 1-3, 7).
19
LAMP - STAND
20 21
16
Hinge (Fig. 27) Hinge consisting of an oblong sheet with straight, short sides, one long side convex and the other with wavy outline; three cylindrical sockets placed vertically in the middle (Swed. Cyp. Exp. n, PI. CLXXVII, 14). N ail, Rivet, Cramp (Fig. 27) These are of the same shapes as those ofiron (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 582; PI. CLII, 25-27; III, pp. 105, 272; PIs. XXXVIII, 3, 4; XLV, 20-24; LXXXVIII, 6).
INeE N SE - LAMP
FLUTE Lam p (Fig. 27) Saucer-shaped lamp with flat base; flat rim; pinched wick-holder (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLIV, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIX, 18). 2.. Saucer-shaped lamp with flat base; wide, flat rim, channel-shaped wick-holder; sometimes small, ornamental figures, e. g., conventionalized birds on either side of the wickholder (Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: 7; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXIX, 19).
.15
20
1.
2b
INCENSE - BURNER
Chain (Fig. 27) Triple chain for suspending a lamp of 8-shaped links fixed to a circular ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, IS). Lamp-stand (Fig. 27) I.
Lamp-stand consisting of a conical or cylindrical socket, mounted on a wooden base, supporting a foliage capital composed of rows of lotus petals curled downwards (Cesnola, Atlas III,PI. LI, 3; Exc. in Cyp., p. 67, Fig. 88; p. 102, Fig. 148:6 +6 a;OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PI. XLIII, 9, 10).
1
2
1 Fig. 27. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
2
ARTS AND CRAFTS 2
a. Lamp-stand on a tripod base resting on horse's feet; long, solid shaft, which terminates in a Cypriote volute capital supporting a small plate to receive the lamp (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXVII, I). b. Lamp-stand on a tripod base and long shaft surmounted by a plate to receive the lamp and sometimes with one or more hooks to suspend instruments for trimming the wick (Cesnola, Cyprus, Fig. on p. 336; Handb. Cesn. Colt., Nos. 4971-6). Incense- burner (Fig. 27)
I.
2.
BRONZE
BRONZE
BOVL
Q7
~LATE
4~~~
6c=r==T7
~_~~
3
,6
~te;:j> \j0
Ladle-shaped incense-burner with flat, tall handle; expanded, rounded top; suspensionhole near the top and a bull's protome (Cyprus Museum). Incense-burner with tubular, splayed foot; rounded, shallow bowl (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXIX, 2).
4
8'Z:I7
20
lb
7~
5
'et)
l1c=J3'
70
7b
Incense-lamp (Fig. 27) Incense-lamp, shaped like a large candle-stick standing in a wide saucer (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LV, 3-5). Tripod (Fig. 27)
12~ 7c
6
Tripod with upright ring and straight legs (Hall, Vrokastro, PI. XXXIV, 3). 2. Tripod with bowed legs (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXII, 2). I.
Flute (Fig. 27) Flute of two sliding cylinders, perforated by eleven holes on one side and three on the other, uncertain date (Cesnola, Salaminia, p. 56, Fig. 54).
80 16
Plate (Fig. 28)
~
Flat plate with broad, out-turned rim (Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, Nos. 614, 615; Cyprus Collection, Stockholm, Ace. No. 367 n). Bowl (Fig. 28)
Shape a, b. Hemispherical or somewhat less than hemispherical bowl; rounded base; plain rim, sometimes contracted. Some bowls have a moulded ridge below the rim (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLIX, 1-4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 12, 14, 16; II, PIs. CLIII, 8; CLIV, I; CLXXX, 4). , 2. Rather shallow bowl with rounded or flattened ba:~e; plain or flattened rim (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 15; II, PI. CLIII, 9; III, PI. LXXXVIII, 10). 3. Shallow bowl with base-ring or raised base (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 13; II, PI. CLIII, 10). 4. Shallow bowl with rounded or flat base; central boss; plain rim (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXX, 3). 5. Shallow bowl with raised base .and central boss (Richter, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, No. 535).
9
8b 10
I
20
"~~~ 11
~---------12
13 Fig. 28. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
152
ARTS AND CRAFTS
6. Shallow bowl with rounded base; gently double-curved sides; flat rim (Cesnola, Atlas III,PI. XLVIII, 3). 7 a-c. Shallow bowl with round or flattened base, or low base-ring; raised rim, straight or concave and out-turned; plain or ribbed body (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLIV, 2; CLXXX, 6; III, PI. LXXXVIII, II). 8 a, b. Hemispherical or rather shallow bowl with rounded base; plain rim; one or two handles, plain or surmounted by lotus flowers (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLIV, I; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLIII, 5; CLIV, 4, 7). 9. Hemispherical bowl with foot; splayed rim; horizontal handles below rim (op. cit. II, PI. CLIV, 3). 10. Very shallow bowl with round base; one suspension handle fastened by loops attached to a reinforcing tubular flange (Exc. in Cyp., p.I02, Fig. 148: 8, 9). II. Shallow bowl with base-ring; flat rim with rivets; a single swinging handle, of which the attachment terminates at each end in the head of an animal (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVII, 3). 12. Wide, shallow bowl with rounded or flat base with reinforcing band around rim and kept by transverse bars ending in balls; handles fastened to spools; sometimes ornamental spools around the edge (op. cit. III, PI. XLVII, 2, 4). 13. Wide, shallow bowl with flattened base or low foot; plain or out-turned rim; erect handles fixed by rivets (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIV, 8).
BRONZE
153
BRONZE
-----LADLE 4
-~--
/' CAULDRON
5
9~
JUG
,
)
f/ -
1
Decoration Some bowls are decorated with representations of figures, embossed and engraved, which are described in Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. XII, 1946), pp. I ff., where their stylistic classification is also given. Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4561 belongs to the first Proto-Cypriote phase, Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, p. 94, Fig. I to the second Proto-Cypriote phase, Cesnola, Salaminia, p. 53, Fig. 53 to the Neo-Cypriote group, and Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4560 to the second Cypro-Egyptian phase.
1
2
5
2
6
!I
'i)
'!
3
7
Fig. 29. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
Cauldron (Fig. 29) Cauldron with depressed, rounded body, marked shoulder-line; short, erect mouth; to be placed on tripod stand (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLV, I).
Jug (Fig. 29) Oval jug with flat base; no neck-line; short, rather wide neck with plain rim; handle from rim to shoulder (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. L, 3). 2. Oval jug with flat base or base-ring; short, cylindrical neck; plain or ring-shaped rim; handle from rim to shoulder (op. cit. III, PI. XLVI, I; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXIX, I). 3· Depressed oval jug with base-ring; narrow neck; out-turned, moulded rim; elevated handle from rim to shoulder (Swed. Cyp.Exp. II, PI. CLIV, 6). 4· Cylindrical jug with base-ring; angular shoulder; short, narrow neck; pinched mouth; handle from rim to shoulder (Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: 5). 1.
Strainer (Fig. 29) Strainer with narrowed, sack-shaped bottom, pierced by holes; flat rim; horizontal handles at the rim (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XLVIII, I; LII, I). Ladle (Fig. 29) I, 2. Cup-shaped or deep ladle fitted to a long, perpendicular handle, usually ending in a swan's. head; handle sometimes attached by a hinge (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXI, 4; Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: I, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIV, 5).
154
BRONZE
SIL VER
AR TS AND CRAFTS
155
objects and wooden implements, boxes, furniture, sarcophagi, etc. Most of the mountings are plain, or only decorated with simple, geometrical ornaments in embossed work. Some of them are decorated with a richer ornamentation of rosettes, lotus flowers and buds, palmettes, geometrical designs and representations of figures in embossed work (OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PI. LXX, 9-II; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 10, II; II, PIs. CLII, 23, 24, 30; CLXXVIII, 1-13; CLXXIX, 1-10,13; III, PIs. XXXVIII,S, 8,9; XLVI, 6, 9-II, 14-17, 20, 21, 24; LXXXVII, 17-20; LXXXVIII, 1-5).
MOUNTING
Weight (Fig. 30) Weights of different shapes: square, rectangular or in shape of a truncated pyramid. They weigh 3.78, 22.53, 38.02, 44.96, 45.52, 67.50 gr. One weight (Idalion No. 733) has an inscription reading two shekels. It weighs 22.53 gr. (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXX, 13-16).
SILVER Needle (Fig. 31) Straight needle with eyelet (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLVII, I). Fibula (Fig. 31)
• 19
Fig. 30. Arts and Crafts. Bronze.
5. Depressed ovoid jug with flat base; tapering, straight-sided neck; pinched rim; handle from rim to shoulder (Cyprus Museum). 6. Globular jug with base-ring; long, tapering neck; pinched lip; handle from rim to shoulder (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLVI, 2). 7. Oval jug on low foot; short, narrow neck; handle from rim to shoulder; tubular spout on shoulder opposite the handle (op. cit. III, PI. XLVI, 3)· Mounting (Fig. 30) Mountings of different shapes and use: button-shaped, or disc-shaped, sometimes pierced by staples, with or without attached ring; rectangular, strip-shaped, socket-shaped; of various forms, sometimes in shape of animal's feet; figural representations, e. g., birds, animal's heads; handles of different shape; etc. These mountings were used on leather
a, b. Fibula with arched bow, as Type 1 of the bronze fibulae; plain or beaded (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 4, 6-9). 2. Fibula with stilted fore-end, as Type 2 of the bronze fibulae; beaded (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 18). 3. Fibula, with bow tending toward an angular shape, as Type 3 of the bronze fibulae (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 2, 3). 4. Fibula with angular bow, as Type 4 of the bronze fibulae (op. cit. III, PI. XLI,S). I
Girdle (Fig. 31) Girdle of rectangular plaques joined by hinges; bell-shaped pendants fastened by means of short chains in rings along the lower border of the plaques; embossed and granulated decoration of representations of figures in heraldic position framed by rectangular borders of geometric and floral designs (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXV, 1-4; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. II, 1887, PI. 8: 1-2a ) . Hair-ring (Fig. 31) Spiral-coiled hair-ring, flat in section (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 12).
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Earring (Fig. 31) I a,b. Circular or oblong earring, sometimes with a pendant attached below (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 16-18; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 3, 5; CLXXX, 20; III, PI. CCIV, 14). 2 a, bvBoat- or leech-shaped earring, plain or with beaded mouldings (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 4-6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 4; CLXXX, 21; III, PIs. LXXXIX, 13; CCIV, IS, 16). 3. Earring of twisted wire, usually ending in an animal's head (Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. II, I I). 4. Earring of flat, semilunar disc (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CIX, 2, No. 12). 5. Disc-shaped earring (Exc.in Cyp" PI. XIV, 9). 6 a, b. Spiral earring or ear-pendant; plain or with terminals in shape of animal's protome (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 1,3-5, 13, 14; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII,S; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 8, 8 A; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXX, 19; III, PI. CCIV, 13). Finger-ring (Fig. 31) I.
2.
3. 45. 6.
Circular finger-ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 6, II; CLXXX, 22). Circular finger-ring with oval bezel, hammered out of the ring (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 23; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 38, 44; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 7, 8; CLXXX, 23). Stirrup-shaped finger-ring with oval bezel (op. cit. II, PI. CLV, 9). Dome-shaped finger-ring (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII,. 22). Circular finger-ring with rectangular bezel forming a separate plate (op. cit. III, PI. XLII, 21; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 45). Swivel finger-ring with setting for seal (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XXVI,S, 7; XXVII, I, 8; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 7, IO; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 35,
SILVER
SILVER
fiBULA
7
GIRDLE
. EARRI NG
l) '() 1a
1b
20
18 ,
NEEDLE
(0 6a
6b
HAIR-RING
PENDANT- RING
41 , 42 ) .
BEADO .38
7 a, b. Finger-ring with fixed setting for bead; occasionally a double setting-box (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXVII,S; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 40, 43; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 10, 12). PENDANT
Pendant-ring (Fig. 31) Swivel-ring with an oval or brooch-shaped hoop, sometimes with a suspension-tube (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XXVI, 1-4, 6, 8-10; XXVII, 2-·4, 6, 7, 9-12; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 16).
2
Bead (Fig. 31) Beads of various shapes: biconical, cylindrical, etc. (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7, II).
1
J Fig. 31. Arts and Crafts. Silver.
J9
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Pendant (Fig. 31) Pendants of various shapes: (1) geometrical: rings, discs, cylinders, sometimes ending in a bird's head, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLII, 24; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 13, 14, 17; CLXXX, 24); (2) in shape of flowers, buds, drops, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 16-18, 20); (3) in shape of animals (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXIX, 14); (4) human heads or figurines (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 19; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 9).
SILVER
SILVER BRACELET
Bracelet (Fig. 32) I.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
Bracelet with a gap between the rounded or flattened terminals, sometimes decorated with engraved, geometrical ornaments (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XL, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 19; CLXXX, 25; III, PI. LXXXIX, 17). Bracelet with terminals in the shape of animal's heads, snakes, goats, lions, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XL, 1, 3, 7, 9-II, 13; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 20; III, PI. LXXXIX, 16). Bracelet, hollow, made in two halves joined by means of a rivet and with terminals in shape of snake's heads (op. cit. III, PI. XC, 2, 3). Bracelet with overlapping terminals or spirally wound (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XL, 4, 5, 8, 12; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XC, 1). Broad, band-shaped bracelet, sometimes richly engraved with lotus- and cable-pattern or with panels of winged figurines, lions, men, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 1I). Narrow, band-shaped bracelet; plain or decorated with simple, incised ornaments (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXXIX, IS).
159
2
3 8
10
11
12
TOILE T AND SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS REEL
MOUNTING
19
Frontlet (Fig. 32) Rectangular frontlet with embossed ornaments of palmettes, volutes and lotus flowers (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXIII, 4, 7). 2. Frontlet widening ill the centre (Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 4317, 4318; not illustrated). I.
Mouth-piece (Fig. 32) Mouth-piece with embossed lips (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 10; OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, p. 499). Toilet and Surgical Instruments (Fig. 32) Spoons for toilet use, similar to those of bronze (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIX, 1-6). Mounting (Fig. 32) Button-shaped, disc-shaped, rectangular, strip-shaped, and horn-shaped mountings for different use; plain or decorated with embossed ornaments of lotus flowers, buds, and
Fig. 32. Arts and Crafts. Silver.
representations of figures: animals in heraldic position and human heads (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XXXVIII, I, 2; XXXIX, 21; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLV, 21; CLXXXI, 1-4; III, PIs. XLVII, 2; LXXXIX, II, 12). Reel (Fig. 32 ) Reel, probably used for winding thread (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 8-5 1). 4
Shape
Bowl (Fig. 33)
1. Shallow bowl ,:ith rounded base and plain rim (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVI, I). 2. Shallow bowl WIth rounded or flattened base; plain rim; engraved and embossed deco-
GOLD
ARTS AND CRAFTS
160
Deep bowl with base-ring; body of gently double-curved outline; plain rim; two horizontal handles below rim (op. cit. III, PI. XC, 5). 12. Deep bowl on low foot; curved sides; distinct, bulging shoulder; out-turned rim; two . horizontal handles on shoulder (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV, I). I I.
SILVER BOWL
1
Decoration
2 1
7
8
9
2
Some of the shallow bowls are decorated with representations of figures, embossed and engraved, which are described in Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. I ff., where their stylistic classification ~s also given. Handb. Cesn. Colt., No. 4557 belongs to third Proto-Cypriote phase; op. at. No. 4555 to the Neo-Cypriote group; op. cit., No. 4552 to the thirdCypro-Egyptian phase; Journ. Hell. Stud. LIII, 1933, PIs. I-III to the first Cypro-Phoenician phase; H.andb. Cesn. Colt., Nos. 4554, 4556 and Perrot & Chipiez, Hist. de l'art III, p. 779, FIg. 548 to the second Cypro-Phoenician phase; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4553 and Perrot & Chipiez, op. cit. III, p. 771, Fig. 546 to the third Cypro-Phoenician phase; Oriental. Archiv III, 1912/13, PI. XXXII, 43 to the Cypro-Greek group. . Jug (Fig. 33) Globular jug with disc-base; cylindrical neck; flat, out-turned rim; handle-ridge; handle . from neck to shoulder (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIV, 3). 2. Globular jug with flat base; tapering neck; pinched rim; handle from rim to shoulder (op. cit. III, PI. XXXIV, 4). 3. Jug w~th squat body; short neck; pinched rim; handle from rim to shoulder, base missing (op. at. III, PI. XXXIV, 2, 5). . 1.
10
11
12
3
Fig. 33.· Arts and Crafts. Silver.
ration of geometrical and floral designs, representations of animal and human figures, as described in Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4552 ff. and Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 4881 (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXIII, I, 3, 4)· 3. Shallow bowl with out-turned, curved rim (op. cit. III, XXXVIII, 3)· 4. Shallow bowl with central boss and plain rim; sometimes embossed ornaments around the boss (op. cit. III, PIs. XXXVI, 3-5; XXXVII, I, 2, 4)· 5. Shell-shaped, shallow bowl (Cyprus Museum). 6. Shallow bowl with flat base, ribbed body and flat rim (Cyprus Museum). 7. Shallow bowl with round or flattened base and splayed rim; body with embossed ornaments of lotus petals on the body (op. cit. III, PI. XXXVII, 3, 5)· 8. Hemispherical bowl with round base and plain rim (op. cit. III, PI. XXXV, 3; Exc. in Cyp., p. 66, Fig. 78). 9. Shallow bowl with round base and raised, splayed rim (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXVI, 2; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XC, 4)· 10. Deep bowl with rounded or flat base; plain or gadrooned body; raised, splayed rim; sometimes engraved birds on the rim; sometimes an embossed kymation ornament below lip (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXXV, I; Exc. in Cyp., p. 66, Fig. 79; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XC, 6, 7).
GOLD Needle (Fig. 34) Straight needle with eyelet (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLVII, 5). Pin (Fig. 34) Straight pin with a head in shape of a pomegranate (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. III, 4, 5). Fi bula (Fig. 34) Fibula with thin, arched bow, as Type I of the bronze fibulae (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XLI, I). Hair-ring (Fig. 34) 1.
2.
II
Spiral hair-ring, often with terminals ending in protomes (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII,24; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 29). Circular hair-ring with overlapping moulded terminals (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 3; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 22).
162
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Earring (Fig. 34) a, b. Circular or oval earring. There are several varieties. The wire may be rather thin or thicker, sometimes ending in loops secured in the ear by a thread; a usual decoration is a cluster of "mulberries" attached below (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XIII, IS, 16; XIX, 21, 22; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, I, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 2-4, 6-9, II; II, PI. CLV, 31). 2 a-c. Boat-shaped or leech-shaped earring. There are several varieties. The body of the ring varies in width. Some rings have beads at the upper ends of the body; some are provided with pendants attached below; the body is plain or decorated with filigree ornaments (Cesnola, Atlas Ill, PIs. XIX, 17-20, 23, 24, 32, 35, 36; XXIII, 29-36; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, II, 12, 14; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. CLXXXII, 7; CCXVII, 18; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 24). 3. Lobed earring with the body divided into lobes, on which are ornaments in filigree work (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XIII, 4, 5). 4. Cloisonne earring with the body replaced by a cloison ornament and pendant below (op. cit. III, PI. XX, IS), 5. Circular earring of twisted wire; plain (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 25). 6. Circular earring of twisted wire, ending in an animal's head (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. XIV, XV; Exc. in Cyp., PIs. XIII, 21, 25; XIV, 22; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 32; III, PI. CCIV, 22). 7. Earring of flat, semilunar disc; usually ornamented in filigree work (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XX, 20, 21; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIII, 9). 8. Disc-shaped earring; sometimes covered with granulation (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, I). 9 a, b. Spiral earring or ear-pendant; plain or terminals decorated in filigree work; or ending in animal's protome (op. cit. III, PI. XVII, 6-18; Exc. in Cyp., PIs. XIII, 1-6; XIV, 1-4; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 22; LXVII, 8; CLXXXII, 16). 10. Spiral ear-pendant in the shape of a long loop, twisted back at the ends in opposite directions; decorated with pyramidal clusters of balls (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 23). I
GOLD
EARRINGOOO ·0
GOLD NEEDLE 1
FIBULA
PIN 2
.'3
10
DO'~'Q'O 1b
2b
HAIR - RING
'0
2c
5
7 2'}
.32
9a
8
NOSE - RING
9b
.36
41
37
.39
38
1.
3
2
6
43
0
i;
o 5
46
44
47 45
7
40
0
Finger-ring (Fig. 34)
lt2
10
FINGER - RING
Circular or oblong nose-ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PIs. LV, 2: 13; CLV, I).
Plain, circular finger-ring, round in section (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 31; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, IS). 2. Circular finger-ring of flat coil, narrow or wider; sometimes with encircling ridges (op. cit. I, PI. CLV, 16, 18-20). 3. Circular finger-ring with bezel; engraved or embossed ornaments; the bezel hammered out of the hoop (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXX, 21; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 46; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLVI, 3, 5).
2a
18
6 Nose-ring (Fig. 34)
O'~
8 Fig. 34- Arts and Crafts. Gold.
0 9
48
10
ARTS AND CRAFTS
4. Stirrup-shaped finger-ring with bezel (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXX, 20; OhnefalschRIchter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 47). 5. Circular finger-ring with bezel forming a separate plate (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXX, I, 7, 10). 6. Dome-shaped finger-ring with bezel forming a separate plate (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros,PI. CLXXXII,34)' 7. Finger-ring with a signet in other material threaded on the ring or mounted in a setting suspended on the ring, i. e., a swivel-ring (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXV, 3-10, 12, 13, 15)· 8. Finger-ring in cloisonne work with three settings abreast between volutes and lotus flowers (Handb. Cesn, Coll., Nos. 4°7 1, 4072). 9. Finger-ring with setting to receive bead or signet of other material, the setting fixed to the ring (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XXV, I I; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXII, 32;Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLVI, 4). 10. Finger-ring with three settings in series, containing a beryl between two garnets; ornaments in filigree work (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4073).
GOLD 7
GOLD
5
BEAD
PENDANT- RING 2
1 8
2
2
5
3
Pendant-ring (Fig. 35) Swivel-ring with oval brooch-shaped hoop, usually with a suspension-tube (Cesnola, Atlas III, PL XXV, 14). 2. Ring with setting suspended from another ring (op. cit. III, PI. IV, 27, 30; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIII, 13; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 12, 14; CLXXXII, 36). I.
Bead (Fig. 35) I.
2.
3. 4. 5.
Plain bead of various shapes: globular, oval, biconical, cylindrical, double-cylindrical, bobbin-shaped, disc-shaped, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. III, 8; V, 7; VII, 2, 3; IX, 5; X, I, 5, 7; Sued. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 36; III, PI. CCIV, 18-20). Ribbed bead of similar shapes; the double-cylindrical type sometimes with rosette ornament (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. III, 8; V, 7; VIII, I, 2; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XXXVIII, 18; CLXXXII, 37; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 16; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 22; II, PI. CLV, 28, 35). Bead of similar shape, but ornamented with granulated or filigree work in geometrical or floral designs (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. VI, 2, 3; IX, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCV, 4). Bead in shape of animals: frogs, tortoise, grass-hoppers, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. IV, 7, 26). Link· of alternate double-lotus flowers and pairs of circular bosses (op. cit. III, PI. IX, 3).
3
Pendant (Fig. 35) I.
Pendant of geometrical shape: rings,plaques, discs, cylinders, etc.; plain or decorated with geometrical or floral designs in granulated filigree, or embossed work (Cesnola, Fig. 35. Arts and Crafts. Gold. \
10
166
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Atlas III, PIs. III, I; VIII, 3; XIX, 28; XXIV, 23; XXIX, 2; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 16; CXLIV, 6; CLXXXII, 26; CCXVII, 9; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. XLIV, 57; II, PI. CLXXXI, 7). 2. Pendant in shape of flowers, buds, fruits, drops, eyes, etc.; plain or decorated as preceding (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. III, 3, 8; IV, 38-44; V, 7; VI, 2, 3; VIII, 2; X, I, 3-7; Ext. in Cyp., PIs. XIII, 7, 8; XIV, 13; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 13, 18-20; CXLIV, 2, 5, 14, 15; CLXXXII, 23; CCXVII, 5, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 26, 33; III, PI. XLVII, 4)· 3. Pendants and amulets in shape of animal's heads, Gorgo heads, Hathor heads, winged sphinxes, human heads and figurines, etc. Often decorated as Type 2 (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. III, 8; IV, 8, 25, 28, 29, 31-37; V, 3; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 19,20; OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 17, 21, 23; XXXVIII, 18; CLXXXII, 22; CCXVII, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLV, 30).
GOLD
GOLD BRACELET
2
5 Necklace
3
The necklaces are composed of the various beads and pendants classified above, sometimes in combination with beads and pendants in other materials. It should be observed that the necklaces of the Cesnola collection are of modern make-up without any certain proof of the original composition of the beads, but only display a possible arrangement of those elements which may belong together (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. III, 8; V, 7; VI, 2, 3; VII, 2, 3; VIII, 1,2; IX, 3-5; X, 1-7; Exc. in Cyp., PIs. XIII, 18; XIV, 16; OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PIs. XXXIII, 15; LXVII, 12; CLXII, I; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 13; II, PI. CLVI, 8; III, PI. CCV, 2-4). Chain (Fig. 35)
FRONTLET 1
2 MOUNTING
13
it 1~
MOUTH - PIECE
15
24
Chain of fourfold, plaited wire with hook-and-eye fastening between solid terminals, plain or ornamented with lion's heads and filigree work (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 5; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIII, 26). Bracelet (Fig. 36) Bracelet with a gap between the ends, which are plain or decorated with encircling lines (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. II, I, 2). 2. Bracelet with a gap between the ends, which are in shape of an animal's head: goats, calves, lions, etc. There are some varieties of the type: the wire may be circular or bentin opposite the ends; the animal's heads are sometimes ornamented in filigree andgranulated work; 'the wire may be of solid gold or of gold-plated bronze (op. cit. III, PI. I, 2, 3; Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIII, II, 12; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. IV, XCI). 3. Bracelet, round in section, with overlapping terminals (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. I, I; II, 4). 4. Band-shaped bracelet,,dosed with a hinge and clasp; decorated with panels in cloisonne work, containing a rosette of cloisonne work; the end panels with embossed plaques showing lion's head in Egyptian style (op. cit. III, PI. II, 5).
C:'
':A' ,;r-'
~"!
-
1
I.
19
1a
e
REEL
I.
2a
2b
20
1b
2
BOWL
28
22 23
, ~
2c
2d
J Fig. 36. Arts and Crafts. Gold.
168
TERRACOTTA
ARTS AND CRAFTS
5. Band-shaped, grooved bracelet, with a gap between the flat ends, which are decorated with ornaments in granulated and cloisonne work (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. ,XXXIII, 9). Frontlet (Fig. 36) Leaf-shaped frontlet, plain or with simple, pounced ornaments of dotted lines, etc. (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 24; II, PI. CLVI, 9)· 2. Narrow or wider, rectangular frontlet; often decorated with embossed ornaments of leaves, flowers, volutes, palmettes, etc. Some of the frontlets show tendency of being widened in the centre, as Type 3 (Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 6, 25, 35; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLVI, 13). 3. Frontlet, as preceding, but widened in the centre on both sides (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XII, I, 3). 4. Frontlet, as preceding, but one side straight, the other widened to a peak in the centre. The strip may be narrow or wide and the peak large or small (op. cit. III, PI. XII, 2,4-8). I.
Mouth-piece (Fig. 36) a, b. Mouth-piece without lips marked; plain or decorated with embossed and impressed ornaments, geometrical or floral (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. XI, I, 2, 5; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 2). 2. Mouth-piece with lips marked in embossed work (op. cit., PI. CXLIV, 13; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLVI, II, 12). I
Mounting (Fig. 36) Mountings of various shapes: (I) circular, flat or button-shaped mounting, plain or with embossed or impressed ornaments of circular lines and rosettes (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 2; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 10, 17, 21, 23; II, PIs. CLVI, 7; CLXXXI, 9; III, PIs. XCIII, I, 2; CCIV, 17, 21); (2) rectangular mounting, decorated with representations of figures in embossed or impressed work (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 4; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PIs. C, 3, 4; CI, 5; CXCIX, 3; ef. Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. I, 1886, p. 132; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., No. 1487; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 5, 12, 14; II, PI. CLVI, 6; III, PI. XLVII, 3); (3) strip-shaped (op. cit. III, PI. XLVII, 6). Four styles of the decoration (a-d) can be distinguished within Type 2: a represented by Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 5; b by op. cit. I, PI. CLV, 12, 14; II, PI. CLVI, 6; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. C, 4; c by op. cit., PIs. C, 3; CI, 5; CXCIX, 3; Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell., No. 1487; d by Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. V, 4. Reel (Fig. 36) Reel probably used for winding thread {Olmefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XXXIII, 10,11).
Bowl (Fig. 36) Shape Shallow bowl, plain or with engraved and slightly embossed ornaments (Cesnola, Cyprus, Fig. on p. 316, cf. Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4551; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCV, I). Decoration The bowl, Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4551, is decorated with designs as described in Opusc. archaeol. IV, p. 13, where it is shown that the style of the decoration assigns it to the first Cypro-Egyptian phase. TERRACOTTA Spindle-whorl (Fig. 37) Conical spindle-whorl; sometimes with truncated top (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLVII, I; CLXXXI, 10, II). 2. Cylindrical spindle-whorl; sometimes with slightly concave sides (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 19; III, PI. XCIII, 8). 3. Flat, circular spindle-whorl (op. cit. III, PI. XLVII, 10). I.
Loom-weight (Fig. 37) I.
2.
Roughly oval loom-weight, tapering towards the pinched top, which is pierced by a hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIII, 7). Oval, flat loom-weight, pierced by central hole (op. cit. III, PI. XCIII, 9). Pendant (Fig. 37)
Pendant not in shape of figure (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLI, 17). 2. Pendant in shape of figure (Exc. in Cyp., P: II2, Fig. 164: 14).
I.
Lam p (Fig. 37) Bowl-shaped lamp, roughly round, with flat bottom; two suspension-holes near the rim (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 2501-7; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXI, 22). 2. Deep, saucer-shaped lamp with base-ring; pinched wick-holder; plain rim (Cyprus Collection, Stockholm, Ace, No. 693 a, b; d. Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. 19 f.) 3. Saucer-shaped lamp with rounded, flat or raised base; rounded, flattened, or flat rim; pinched wick-holder; sometimes the rim is compressed in two places so as to hold two wicks (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1°°5-1008; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLVII, 2-5; CLXXXI, 19; CCXLI, 18; III, PIs. XXXVIII, 12, 13; XCIII, 4, 5). 4. Saucer-shaped lamp with flat base; deeper body; wide, flat rim; channel-shaped wickholder (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1013; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXI, 20). I.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
5. Saucer-shaped lamp, usually with a curved shaft-handle and two pinched wick-holders, one on either side of the base of the handle. These "lamps" may have been shovels for carrying hot coals (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXXXVIII, 1002-1004; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLXXXI, 21; CCXLI, 19; III, PI. XCIII, 6). 6. Hellenic, open lamp with flat bottom; in-turned rim; short nozzle. Black glazed (op. cit. II, PI. CLVII, 6). 7. Hellenic lamp with base-ring; low, cylindrical body; wide top hole; short nozzle; a horizontal handle opposite the nozzle. Black glazed (op. cit. II, PI. CLVII, 7). 8. Hellenic, watch-shaped lamp; narrow top hole; short, thick nozzle, horizontal handle opposite the nozzle. Black glazed (op. cit. II, PI. CLVII, 8).
TERRACOTTA
TERRACOTTA
SPINDLEVJHORL
Incense-lamp (Fig. 37) Incense-lamp, shaped like a large candlestick standing in a wide saucer (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 796-8). Incense- burner (Fig. 37)
18
Ladle-shaped incense-burner with flat, tall handle; a suspension-hole near the rounded top of the handle. The handle is usually decorated with geometrical, painted ornaments and sometimes with a bull's protome at the top (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. CXIII, 888; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 18).
3 INCENSE - BURNER
OFFERING RECEPTACLE
Offering-receptacle (Fig. 37) Tube-shaped offering-receptacle, cylindrical or rather conical; pierced by holes; sometimes decorated with birds in high relief or a female figure standing in a niche (OhnefalschRichter, Kypros, PI. XVII, 2-4). 6
Chapel (Fig. 37)
7
Models of chapels probably used as offering-receptacles (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CXXIV, 4, 5).
8
Smelting-pot (Fig. 37)
INCENSE-
Smelting-pot in shape of a deep bowl with convex sides and flat bottom; ovoid depression to contain the metal (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. LXI, 2, No. 19).
LAMP
CHAPEL
Mould Mould for casting terracotta statuettes (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 275).
.:i(
BOX
32
SME LTI NG-POT
Box (Fig. 37) Rectangular box standing on four short, rounded feet; pierced projections for fixing lid (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PLXCIII, II). Fig. 37. Arts and Crafts. Terracotta.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
FAIENCE
FAIENCE
FAIENCE FINGERRING
Finger-ring (Fig. 38) Flat, thin finger-ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX; 8).
PENDANT AMULET
Necklace (Fig. 38) I. Plain necklace of small, disc-shaped beads (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX, 7, 9). 2. Composite necklace of beads of various shape (op.·cit. II, PI. CLIX, 13). Bowl (Fig. 38) Fragments of bowls; some with handles in shape of lotus flowers (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX, 27, 28).
4
Tnrtl'Ej "0
§J 5
6
7
AND
i19~2W
Bead (Fig. 38) Beads of various shapes: (I) disc-shaped bead (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 22; II, PIs. CLXXXIII, 2; CCXLI, 23); (2) square bead (op. cit. II, PI. VII, 2, No.2); (3) globular or depressed bead, plain or ribbed (op. cit. II, PIs. CLIX, 2; CLXXXIII, 2; CCXLI, 20; III, PI. XCIII, 13); (4) biconical bead, plain or ribbed (op. cit. II, PIs. CLXXXIII, 4; CCXLI, 21; III, PI. CCIV, 12); (5) rosette-shaped bead (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLI, 24); (6) cylindrical bead; long or short; usually plain, sometimes with several tubes attached to each other, when used in a necklace of more than one string (op. cit. II, PIs. CLIX, I, 12; CLXXXIII, 5, 6; CCXLI, 22); (7) bobbin-shaped bead (op. cit. II, PI. CLIX, II). Pendant and Amulet (Fig. 38) I. Pendants and amulets not in form of figures, in shape of rosettes, drops, lotus buds, Horus eyes, etc.; sometimes mounted in other material, gold, silver, etc. (Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 21, 27; Swed. Cyp. Exp.lI, PIs. CLIX, 20; CLXXXIII, 8; CCXLI, 25, 29). 2. Pendants and amulets in shape of animals: birds, hippopotami, monkeys, fishes, cats, etc. (op. cit. II, PIs. CLIX, IS, 21, 22, 26; CCXLI, 26-28). 3. Pendants and amulets in shape of deities and demons: the Horus-child, the Nile-god, Hathor, Nefertum, Ptah-seker, Bes, Patake, etc. (op. cit. II, PIs. CLIX, 14, 16-19, 23-25; CCXLI, 30-32, III, PI. XCIII, 12).
3
2
o
Spindle-whorl (Fig. 38) Hemispherical spindle-whorl with flat base; vertical ribs radiating from two concentric circles in relief around the central hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX, 10). Spoon Spoon with handle terminating in a swan's head (Exc. in Cyp. p. 125; not illustrated).
173
3
ARYBALLOS
BO'vJL
35
GLASS
BEAD
At1o" 2
1
3
4
5
6
7
~5tp 'rYJ ~ 8 9 AMPHORISKOS
ALA8ASTRON
JUGLET
5"1
PENDANT
1
2
1
2 Fig. 38. Arts and Crafts. Faience and Glass.
174
ARTS AND CRAFTS
GLASS
Aryballos (Fig. 38)
J uglet (Fig. 38)
Aryballos of bombylos shape, occasionally decorated with a double-head of Silenus (Exc. in Cyp., p. lIS, Fig. 166: 2, 4; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. XCIII, 3).
Oval juglet on low foot; short neck; pinched rim; handle from rim to shoulder (Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. XVII, I; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX, 4 1 ) .
Bottle Fragment of a pilgrim bottle decorated with concentric bands of incised, geometric ornaments (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIII, 10).
17S
Amphoriskos (Fig. 38) Pyriform amphoriskos with knob-shaped base; narrow neck; wide rim; handles from below rim to shoulder (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLIX, 42 ) .
Jug (Fig. 38) Oval, slender jug with narrow neck; flaring rim; handle from below rim to shoulder (Exc. in Cyp., p. lIS, Fig. 166: 3).
STONE Spindle-whorl (Fig. 39)
Miscellaneous Vases (Fig. 38) Duck-shaped vase (Exc. in Cyp., p. lIS, Fig. 166: S). 2. Fragment of a vase in shape of a bunch of grapes (loc. cit., Fig. 166: I). 1.
GLASS Ring (Fig. 38) Plain, circular ring (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 21). Bead (Fig. 38) Beads of various shapes: (I) globular, sometimes depressed or with tendency to square or cylindrical shape (Sued. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLIX, 29, 30; CCXLII, 1-3; III, PI. XXXIX, 4); (2) triangular (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLII, 4); (3) conical (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXIII, IS); (4) biconical (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 17); (S) pentagonal (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 18); (6) cylindrical (op. cit., PI. CLXXXIII, 19; III, PI. XCIII, IS); (7) button-shaped (op. cit. III, PIs. XXXIX, S; XCIII, 14); (8) fluted (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLII, S); (9) rosette-shaped (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 13). Pendant (Fig. 38) I.
2.
Pendant not in form of figures (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLII, 6). Pendant in form of figures (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLII, 7). Alabastron (Fig. 38)
I.
2.
Sack-shaped alabastron with rounded base; short neck; out-turned rim; vertical handles on shoulder (Cesnola, Salaminia, PI. XVII, 4, 6, 7). Cylindrical alabastron with rounded base; short neck; broad, flat rim; vertical handles on shoulder (Fossing, Glass Vessels, p. 61, Fig. 29).
Button-shaped spindle-whorl with one side flat, the other convex (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 26; III, PI. XXXIX, 3). 2. Conical spindle-whorl; sometimes decorated with geometrical, incised ornaments (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 27; II, PIs. CLX, 14, IS; CLXXXIV, 2; CCXLII, 18). 3· Biconical spindle-whorl; sometimes decorated with incised lines and small cirdes(Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXIV, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 28, 29; II, PI. CLXXXIV, 4; III, PI. XXXIX, 2). I.
Loom-weight (Fig. 39) Depressed rounded loom-weight with a hole bored lengthwise (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIV, 2). Mace-head (Fig. 39) Mace-head with ribbed body and rings around the edges of the central hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLII, 10). Grinder (Fig. 39) Elliptical, saddle-shaped grinder (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 28). Pestle (Fig. 39) Conical pestle (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 32 ) . Whetstone (Fig. 39) Flat, rectangular whetstone (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXIII, 34). Net-sinker (Fig. 39) Disc-shaped net-sinker, pierced by a central hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIV, 3).
ARTS AND CRAFTS STONE
177
STONE SPINDLE -\.JHOR L
10
~r\ csi:»
A
7
'\:7
2
3
MACE-HEAD 13
/'
I.! \
Pendant and Amulet (Fig. 39) Pendant not in form of figure, pyramidal, prismatic, etc. in shape (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLII, 19, 20). 2. Amulet in shape of a roughly shaped idol (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLII, 21, 22). 3. Amulet with representation of figures of a more advanced Archaic style (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXIV, 2; Swed. Cyp. Exp. ~I, PI. CCXLII, 23).
",- "-~~ ,,,
~
I.
~;\t,t ~~::
--';
BEAD
17
;
-',
1 2 PENDANT
6
'1j ~t"~"
Offering-stand (Fig. 39) Offering-stand, consisting of a shallow, rounded bowl supported by a wide, conical foot (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIV, 8).
34 5 AND AMULET
1
2
3
BO'WL
PLATE
Plate (Fig. 39) Flat plate or dish with flattened base (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXV, 7). Bowl (Fig. 39) Shallow, open bowl with rounded or flat base; sometimes with lug-shaped handles at the rim; sometimes decorated with painted ornaments (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCIV, 6). 2. Shallow bowl with raised base (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXV, 6). 3. Shallow, rounded bowl with a tripodic base (op. cit. III, PIs. CXII, 4; CXV, 8, 9; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXIV, IS), 4. Deep bowl with incurved, horizontal rim (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, 2). 5. Bowl, square in outline, with a circular, shallow depression (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XLVII, 13). Ladle (Fig. 39)
1
2
I.
1.
2.
ALABASTRON
2
JAR
AMPHORISKOS
JUG
Shallow ladle with flat base; rounded sides; plain rim; short, thick shaft handle with splayed end (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PLCCXLII, 24). Ladle with the handle in shape of a swimming girl embracing the lotus-patterned bowl with her arms (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXII, I). Fig. 39. Arts. And Crafts. Stone. 12
3
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Alabastron (Fig. 39) Alabastron with sack-shaped body and knobs, sometimes perforated, on ,either side of the body. The material is usually alabaster, only occasionally rock-crystal (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. LXXV, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLX, 24; III, PI. XCIV, I).
STONE
STONE
CRATER
Jar (Fig. 39) Oval jar; flat base; large, pierced lug-handles on the shoulder; decorated with encircling relief bands and floral ornaments, etc. (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXI, 2).
':=.. .....'
BOX
SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE SCEPTRE
• •• 60
BEAD 13
'v/EIGHT
7~
00lJ
'0.
11+
10
15
17
C)1'Qii7;
18
~
PENDANT 19
Fig. 40. Arts and Crafts. Stone and Semi-precious Stone.
21
20
22
i80
ARTS AND CRAFTS
SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE
BONE
BONE
COMB
4
Sceptre (Fig. 40) Sceptre of agate, in shape of a six-lobed knob with tubular socket above and below (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 3001). Bead and Pendant (Fig. 40) Miscellaneous beads and pendants of agate, sard, cornelian, jasper, onyx, chalcedony, rock-crystal, etc.; various geometric, floral, and figure shapes; often used as insets of rings or links of necklaces, as described above, but also used as independent ornaments (Cesnola, Atlas III, PIs. IV, 7; VI, 2-3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CLX, 16-18; CLXXXIV, 20-7; CCXLIII, 1-4).
BEAD
PIN 5
6
7
SPINDLE 'WHORL
E@;~jj 3 12
ROUNDEL 11
~i~ ~:;~
BOBBIN
~
1.3
2
BONE Spindle-whorl (Fig. 41) Conical spindle-whorl, decorated with incised, concentric circles (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. 365, No. 55). Bobbin (Fig. 41) Bobbin with knobbed ends and a concavity in the middle (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXV, 9). Flute
2
1
14
16
MOUNTING
~ 17
+
HANDLE 1.5
., 19
18
1
BOX 20
2
3
21 22
AMULET 23
Flute with slightly expanding ends; bound with bronze at frequent intervals; damaged; uncertain date (Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 3848-3849). Comb (Fig. 41)
1
Comb with double-sided teeth; decorated with an incised band of guilloche framed by bands of parallel lines (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 32).
Straight pin; thickening towards the upper end, but without head; sometimes decorated .with simple, geometrical, incised ornaments (Seoed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 30). 2. Straight pin with head in shape of a knob, a pomegranate, etc.; incised and relief ornaments as Type 1 (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 31; II, PI. CLX, 9).
-3
Fig. 41. Arts and Crafts. Bone.
Roundel (Fig. 41)
Pin (Fig. 41) 1.
2
1.
2.
Flat roundel, thin or thick, sometimes with an incised line around the periphery; a central hole (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 33, 35). Button-shaped roundel with one side flat, the other slightly convex; central hole; often decorated with incised ornaments of rosettes, concentric lines, bands of rope pattern, etc. (op. cit. I, PI. CLIV, 34, 36).
Bead (Fig. 41) Ring-shaped bead of rounded outline (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXLIII, 6). 2. Button-shaped bead Cop. cit. II, PI. CCXLIII, 7). 3. Disc-shaped bead Cop. cit. II, PIs. CLXXXV, 12; CCXLIII, 8). ; 1.
Handle (Fig. 41) Cylindrical handle: (1) without head; sometimes decorated with incised lines (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXV, 6); (2) with knob-shaped or cylindrical head; sometimes decorated
182
ARTS AND CRAFTS
GLYPTICS
as preceding (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXV, 8; (3) ending in a head in shape of an animal (op. cit. II, PI. CLX, 10).
The engravings of the seal-stones comprise various styles: the linear (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLIII, II, 12) and conventionalized (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLIII, 13-15) styles corresponding to those of the cylinders, the full-bodied style (op. cit. II, PIs. CLXXXVI, 2; CCXLIII, 16), in which the floral motifs and figures are rendered in a more naturalistic way, and the Egyptian style (op. cit. II, PI. CCXLIII, 17-19), which imitates the representations on the Egyptian scarabs.
Mounting (Fig. 41) Mountings, usually to objects of wood, of various shape: square plaques, lotus buds and flowers, papyrus, etc. (Ssced. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLX, 6, II, 12). B ox (Fig. 41) Narrow cylinder, probably used as a needle-box; decorated with incised lines and bands (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLX, 7, 8). 2. Wider, cylindrical box; sometimes decorated with carved relief sculptures (Poulsen, Der Orient u. d. [ruhgr, Kunst, p. 130, Figs. 143, 144). 3. Rectangular box with sides decorated in relief work, e. g., a lion attacking a stag (Cyprus Museum). I.
Am ulet (Fig. 41) Amulet in shape of figure (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLX, 13).
GLYPTICS The following classes of glyptics are represented: cylinders, seal-stones, scarabs, and scaraboids. The scarabs and scaraboids have been classified in Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Appendices II and III, pp. 83 I ff. The majority of the cylinders are of steatite (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4333-57; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. XXIII, 2, No. 59; CLXXXVI, 19,20; CCXLIII, 20, 21; III, PI. XLVII, 8); a few specimens are of lapis lazuli (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXVI, 18), sard (Cesnola, Atlas III, PI. CXIX, 9), haematite (op. cit. III, PI. CXX, 6, 14), and white paste (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4358-9). The seal-stones are of steatite, haematite, agate, chalcedony, and faience (op. cit. pp. 443 ff.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLIV, 21; II, PIs. VII, 2, No. 51; VIII, 2, No. 13; XVIII, 2, No. 76; XXVI, 2, NO.4; XXIX, I, No. 78; 4, No. 21; CLXXXVI, 2; CCXLIII, 11-19). Various shapes are represented: conical, dome-shaped, pyramidal, gable-shaped, cylindrical with contracted middle, four-sided, flattened, square, oval, flower-shaped, flat with animal or human figures on top. The engraved representations on the cylinders comprise two styles: the conventionalized style with geometrical designs and stylized floral and figural representations (op. cit. II, PI. CLXXXVI, 18; III, PI. XLVII, 8) and the linear style with the designs rendered purely linear (op. cit. II, PIs. CLXXXVI, 20; CCXLIII, 20, 21).
INTRODUCTION
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Introduction he relative chronology has been worked out on a basis of the sequence of pottery types found in tombs and settlements. The questions of method as regards the use of these kinds of material for such a purpose have been discussed in Gjerstad, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, p. 263. It is obvious that if a relative chronology is to be built upon material from tombs only, it is a conditio sine qua non that an unbroken and representative series of tombs from every period concerned is available for study. For the periods here dealt with, the material yielded by the tombs fulfils these requirements, and is therefore of fundamental importance for establishing a relative chronology. The material from the settlements adds supplementary evidence of control to the chronological data yielded by the finds from the coherent series of tombs. The stratigraphical method has the advantage that the contents of a layer which has accumulated later than another layer is certainly also chronologically later, if stratigraphical conditions are normal (d. below). The material from the tombs, on the other hand, has the advantage that the objects are usually entirely or almost entirely preserved. In regard to Cypriote pottery, where very often small deviations in shape and decoration are of decisive importance for their attribution to the one or the other typological class, it would have been impossible to establish a relative chronology on potsherd material alone, and sometimes the attribution of potsherds to a certain typological class can only. be made on a basis of the study of completely preserved pots of the corresponding class. In this way the materials from the tombs, the settlements and the temples are complementary to each other. Before using the ceramic material for the purpose in question, we must, however, critically examine its' chronological criterion and accordingly exclude those parts which are of no or uncertain chronological value. In tombs where burials have taken place subsequently on the same level, the tomb-gifts of the different burials were usually mixed, and if the subsequent burials belong to different periods, such a tomb is without chronological value. This holds good to a certain extent even when the subsequent burials took place on succes-
T
sively raised levels, because very often tomb-gifts of an earlier burial were re-used on the occasion of a later burial and mixed with the later tomb-gifts. This is especially the case in the Amathus tombs, where a great number of burials took place within the comparatively small chambers. Stratigraphy in tombs is not therefore always such a safe chronological criterion as may be thought. Tombs with one or a few burials from the same period or tombs with distinctly separated burial layers, where there is no indication that the contents of the layers are mixed, are therefore the only tombs which count in yielding material for establishing a relative chronology. The material from the stratigraphical -excavations in settlements has also its restrictions from a chronological point of view. If the strata are undisturbed,. and the habitation has been uninterrupted and successively accumulated, a stratigraphical excavation is a safe and much quicker method than tomb-digging for obtaining material illustrating the chronological sequence of the culture developed on the site, but desertion of the site, cutting away layers for the purposes of levelling, the presence of later diggings or walls sunk in earlier strata, etc., may destroy the stratigraphical evidence. The' same disturbing factor which sometimes occurs in the stratification of the tombs, i. e., the transportation of objects from one level to another, may also occur in the stratification of settlements and temple-sites, etc., though in a smaller degree (d. Szced. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 804 ff.). In consequence, only material of such a kind to fulfil the demands of being safe chronological criteria has been taken into account in establishing the relative chronology; tombs and stratigraphical series which do not fulfil these demands are accordingly excluded. Finally, we have to consider the possibility, common to both the finds from the tombs and from the settlements, that the material found on a particular site may have only local significance. The limitations of results which might arise from this are, however, avoided by the fact that the material used comes from excavations carried out on sites which are geographically widely separated. Stratigraphical excavations were carried out at Idalion, Kition, Ajia Irini, and Vouni; tombs yielding material of chronological importance were excavated by the Americans at Kurion and by the Swedes at Lapithos, Vouni, Marion, Amathus, and Stylli. On the basis of this material the following relative chronology has been worked out. The time from the beginning of the Iron Age to the beginning of the Hellenistic Age has been divided into three main periods: Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic, and Cypro-Classical, called so in accordance with the corresponding and approximately. contemporary periods of the Greek culture. These names have been chosen both for practical and historical reasons. It was deemed practical not to invent entirely new terms, if this could be avoided, and I hope nobody will object to that. Furthermore, the Greek colonization of the island at the end of the Bronze Age introduced into Cyprus an important Greek element of culture, and it is therefore also historically justifiable to name the Cypriote periods after the corresponding Greek periods. On the other hand, the first element of the compound terms, viz., Cypro-, accentuates the role of Cypriote culture in relation to Hellenic civilization.
186
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
POTTERY
Pottery ...o
ull!;u0.!I
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
III
On a survey of the ceramic material found in the tombs and the strata of this period we find that it can be divided into three sub-periods, each being characterized by a particular combination of pottery types. These sub-periods are called Cypro-Geometric I-III. Furthermore, it is possible to distinguish between an earlier and a later stage, called A and B, within each of these sub-periods. The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Geometric I is registered by the diagram, p. 187. Cypro-Geometric I A is represented by Amathus, Tomb 221, Kurion, Tombs 25,26 (Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, pp. 56 ff.), Lapithos, Tombs 4°6,417,420,4221, 50311, (Opusc. archaeol. III = Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. X, 1944, pp. 76 f.), 6°3, Marion, Tombs 65, 70, and Cypro-Geometric I B by Amathus, Tomb 211, Lapithos, Tombs 407, 412, 4281, 6011, 6021. As can be seen from the diagram, the Cypriote pottery of Cypro-Geometric I A consists almost entirely of specimens of Type I. The coarse ware, though registered in the diagrams, is not accounted for, because it is not typologically determinable in the same way as the other wares: White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Painted, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White. The foreign pottery is represented by a few specimens of Syrian White Painted, Polychrome, and Black-on-Red Ware. In Kurion, Tomb 26, two Mycenaean III C: I vases were found. These are heirlooms, which were kept in the family a considerable time before they were deposited in the tomb (cf. op. cit. III, p. 88). In the earliest tombs, Kurion, Tombs 25, 26 and Lapithos, Tomb 420, there are also some survivals of Late Cypriote III pottery, and the tombs at Kurion also yielded some specimens of a peculiar hand-made ware. , In Cypro-Geometric I B, the overwhelming mass of the pottery is still of Type I. A number of vases are, however, typologically late specimens of the respective class of pottery, and in some tombs a few vases appear which are transitional between Types I and II or developed Type II: White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White. Thus in Lapithos, Tomb 412 there are 2 specimens of Type I-II and one vase of Type II against 12 of Type I; Lapithos, Tomb 4281 contained 3 specimens of Type I-II and 3 of Type II against 51 of Type I; in Lapithos, Tomb 6011 there is one vase of Type II against 4 of Type I; Lapithos, Tomb 6021 yielded one specimen of Type I-II against 3 I of Type LAll the tombs of Cypro-Geometric 1 B registered in the diagram contained 105 specimens of Type I, 6 of Type I-II, and 5 of Type II. Adding the 484 vases of Type I found in the tombs of CyproGeometric I A we thus obtain -' for the whole period Cypro-Geometric I - a total number of 589 vases of Type I against 6 of Type I-II and 5 of Type II.
'"
II
'"
M
"'''' ...'" '".... .r
I
-
....
\0
....
'" ...0
M
.r .r
I :;) III ":lAW
...
'"
'"
....
M
.r
....
...
...
... ....
M
....0
...
....
.r
...
;:;r--
MIT)
I
MOl
t"'--\O ...
....
'" '" M
'"
...
.r",oo....
'"
II d!lS JJ:l1lll:I
N
00
'"
I d!lS JJ:l1lll:I I
'"
'"
I P
'" II P
M \0 \0
Eo<
-
...
'" -;
-
M
....
a-
00
-
......a-
'"
'"
\0
-
'"
188
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
POTTERY ~
~
M
-0
01
tI"l
-
'
M~
-0
~
01
~
-eM
;t
'
01 01
;JS~UO;)
-
III ;JdAJ,
e-
01
tI"l
~
~
r---o r--N r-01
~
tI"loo
00
0-0
M~
~
01
~
00
O\O\1f'lION tI"l ~
tI"l
~
o
~
-
;t
~
tI"l~ ~
M
~
-
"
U!Uld
~
~
M
d!IS P;JlI
~
tI"l
-
~
til
01
E-<
1----1-----1------~
M M r--
01 _01
~
01
tI"l
01
-0
r--
;J~~M
r-,
'0
p.lI .wOJljOA\Od !:
I::
.~.~
6 tr: ~
~
'l1 .wo'q~!lI 1-------'''------=--=--1-------
palI-UO-JPUIII
r r -'
1--------------1--
;Jwo~q:>Alod
01
~
~
~
0
~-o
~
~
01
~
-0
~
II
;J~!qM
U!Uld U!Uld
'
01 01
;JS~UO;)
;J~~M
tI"l
~
M
III-II
01
~
~
1
~
~
~
~
01
~
~
Nr--
~
~
~
01
lJjl-l
N'N
1-4
01
~
-0
I d!IS J[:>uI\I
~
~
~
_I ;JWO.Tq:>!II dns J[:>uI\I
II-I pa~u!ud d!IS-J[:>llIII
:::: I
C
loo.
.~
.l:::
~ ;: '" ~
C,)
c
c3
~
~
01 01
'
~
01
'
NNM
0-
N
01
~
01
I
The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Geometric II is registered in the diagram, p. 188. Cypro-Geometric II A is represented by Amathus, Tombs 19, 2211, Lapithos, Tombs 408, 413, 4251-11, 601 II , 602 11, Marion, Tomb 63, and Cypro-Geometric II B by Amathus, Tombs 611-IV , 10\ 141- I1I , 1511, 21 II , 24, Lapithos, Tombs 4011, 4 II , 429. The diagram shows that the Cypriote pottery of Cypro-Geometric II A consists of a majority of vases of Type I: White Painted, Bichrome, Polychrome White, Black Slip Painted, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, Plain White, and a minority of vases which are transitional between Types I and II or developed Type II: White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White. Against 169 specimens of Type I, there are 16 of Type I-II and 67 of Type II, i. e., the vases of the latter two classes amount to only about 50 % of those of Type I. The foreign pottery consists of a few specimens of Syrian wares: Bichrome, Bichrome & Polychrome Red, and Red Slip Ware. In CyproGeometric II B, the ceramic conditions are considerably changed: the pottery of Type I is in the minority, Type II in the majority, and single specimens of Type III appear. Type I is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White; Type I--II and Type II by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Painted, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White; Type II-III and Type III are represented by White Painted, Black-on-Red, Grey Polished, and Plain White. Against 58 vases of Type I, there are 17 of Type I-II, 148 of Type II, I of Type II-III, and 7 of Type III. This statistical proportion between the different wares should not, however, be mechanically used as a criterion for assigning a group of finds to either Cypro-Geometric II A or B, so that a group is always assigned to Cypro-Geometric II A, if it contains a majority of TypeI and a minority of Type II, and to Cypro-Geometric II B, if the proportion of these types is reversed. The typologically early or late character of the vases within each class of pottery must also be considered. Thus, Amathus, Tomb 19, which contained 8 vases of Type I and 15 of Type II, has still been assigned to Cypro-Geometric II A, because the vases of Type II are early in style; furthermore, Lapithos, Tomb 4II, which yielded 12 vases of Type I and 10 of Type II, has still been assigned to Cypro-Geometric II B, because the vases of both the types are late in style. We thus see that the proportional' combination of pottery types characteristic for Cypro-Geometric II A and B holds good for these two periods as a whole, but not always; though usually, as regards each single group of finds within the periods, and the same applies to the chronology of each group of finds within all periods. The foreign ware found in the tombs of Cypro-Geometric II B is considerably more numerous than in Cypro-Geometric II A, and amounts to about 10 % of the total number of vases. It consists of the usual Syrian wares: White Painted, Bichrome, Polychrome, Black-on-Red, Red Slip, and Plain White. The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Geometric III is registered in the diagram, p. 190. Cypro-Geometric III A is represented by Amathus, Tombs 7 1, 15I1I , 181, Lapithos, Tombs 40111, 402, 4031, 40311, 404, Stylli, Tomb 9, and Cypro-Geometric III B by Amathus, Tombs III, 14IV , Lapithos, Tombs 403 III, 407 (Dromos), 410 (Niche), 421, 4 2211, 427, 42811, Stylli, Tombs 7, 81-II , 15.
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
POTTERY
......
... '" AI adA.!. AI-III adA.!. -.0 I'- 00
... "' ...
III adA.!.
... ... '"
III-II adA.!. II adA.!.
00
-
I'-
00
-
...
... '" - '"
...
-
Io-l....
I adA.!.
I-l
...
r-, "'If"
.q-
...
-
1-----------------1-N
0 I'-
...
N '" '
;
11---,-------1--------1-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - pa~ awo.:npHI ;:
I::
....~ .s... ~ £
awo.lq:J!H
...
palU!Bd al!qM.
N
as.lBO J
III al!qM. U!IlId III-II al!qM U!IlId
...
...
pa~-UO-:lPIlIH
'
'"
N
N
N
'" ...
N
N
N
...
N
...
... ... ... 0...
'<1"'"
N
...
(III) I d!lS pa~ III d!IS :l{:JllIH
...
N
N
N
......
...
... ... II awo.lq:J!H d!lS :l{:JIlIH
I'-
lI1 ....... M V
'
'
-.0
'
...
...
N '
III awo.lq:JHI
.q-
00
-
-.0
...
N
0
-
1-4.q-N'I-4N
N I'-.0
...... ... I'-
'"
'" ...
-
N
III al!qM. awo.lq:JAlod ....
...
'"
... ...
M
-
o.
... '" ... '" N
'"
...
...0 ...
... ...
...
0
N
... ... '" I'-N I------------------I_=_ 'e
00
-
AI-III p alU!lld al!qM. III p alU!lld al!qM III-II palU!Bd
N "'00
... N
al~M
II palU!Bd al!qM.
... '"
The diagram shows the following combination of the pottery types in Cypro-Geometric III A: a small number of Type I, a single transitional specimen between Types I and II, a majority of Type II, and a great number of Type III. Against 24 vases of Type I, there is one of Type I-II, 114 of Type II, and 88 of Type III, i. e., Type I amounts to about 20 % and Type III to about 75 % of Type II. Type I is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White; Type I-II and Type II by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White; Type III by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Red Slip, Grey Polished, and Plain White. We thus see that not only a new combination of pottery types characterizes Cypro-Geometric III, but also the intrusion of new wares not represented before: Black-on-Red, Red Slip, and Grey Polished. Occasional forerunners of these wares began to appear in the tombs of Cypro-Geometric II B, as shown above, but they are not regularly found before CyproGeometric III. The foreign pottery is represented by some specimens of Syrian wares: White Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red. In Cypro-Geometric III B, the combination of the pottery types has changed considerably. Type I has practically disappeared and is represented by a single vase in Lapithos, Tomb 403111. It may have been re-used and removed from the strata of the earlier burials in the tomb. Type II has decreased very much in number and is represented by 37 specimens. Of Type II-III there are 8 vases. Type III is the predominating ware and is represented by 113 vases a great majority. In Cypro-Geometric III A, Type III, as shown above, amounts to about 75 % of Type II; in Cypro-Geometric III B, Type II forms only about 33 % of Type III. Finally, there are single specimens of Type III-IV and Type IV. These different pottery types are represented by the following wares: Type I by Black Slip; Type II by White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White; Type II-III and Type III by White Painted, Bichrome, Polychrome White, Black-on-Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, Grey Polished, and Plain White; Type III-IV and Type IV by White Painted. The foreign pottery found in the tombs consists of a few specimens of Syrian wares: White Painted, Bichrome, and Bichrome Red. The chronological sequence of the Cypro-Geometric period demonstrated by the ceramic finds from the tombs is entirely in agreement with the evidence yielded by the stratigraphical excavations. The excavation at Kition affords the best chronological material of that kind. At Idalion there were no distinct strata of Cypro-Geometric I and II (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 624), and for the Cypro-Geometric period the stratification at Idalion is therefore less instructive. The stratigraphical conditions are about the same at Ajia Irini, where Cypro-Geometric I and II are not represented by layers separated from each other, but only by a dump of mixed waste material (op. cit. II, p. 815 ff.). A stratigraphical sequence of clearly separated layers from the beginning to the end of the Cypro-Geometric period was found only at Kition, and the excavations at this place are therefore of a great chronological importance. On comparing the chronological sequence obtained by material from the tombs with that yielded by the stratification of settlements we must bear in mind that the local chrono-
POTTERY
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
logical periods determined by the architectural history of a place very seldom coincide with the general chronological periods. It is natural that the periods in question overlap to a certain degree, so that the general periods may begin and end within the local periods. The local periods at Kition, in which we find the combination of pottery types characteristic for the Cypro-Geometric period, are Periods 1-3 A. If we study the statistical list of potsherds published in op. cit. III, pp. 68 ff, and the supplementary and corrected list published in Opusc. archaeol. III, p. 84, n. 2, we find that the pottery of Period I A consists of a quantity of Late Cypriote III sherds (White Slip, Red Slip Wheel-made, Levanto-Helladic, Debased Levanto-Helladic, and Proto-White-Painted) together with a number of Iron Age sherds of Type I (White Painted I and Black Slip I). The Late Cypriote III sherds were found in the lower part of the strata of the period, in the earth on the solid rock (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 70). In Period I B, the Iron Age pottery of Type I is predominant; there are only three stray sherds of Type I-II and two survivals of Proto-White-Painted. In Period 2 A, Type I is in the majority, but Type II is almost equal in number. In Period 2 B, Type II is in absolute majority and forms about 66 % of the determinable number of sherds; Type I is decreasing and covers only 12 %; Type III appears for the first time and covers about 22 % of the sherds. In Period 3 A, Type I has entirely disappeared; Type II and III are about equal in number; there is only a stray sherd of Type IV. Consequently, the stratigraphical material shows the same sequence of pottery types as the series of tomb-groups from the Cypro-Geometric period: Type I is predominant at the beginning (Cypro-Geometric I), then Type II gains the upper hand (Cypro-Geometric II), and finally Type III appears, ousts Type I, and deprives Type II of its supremacy (Cypro-Geometric III). The division of the Cypro-Geometric period into three sub-periods is thus confirmed by stratigraphical evidence, but it can be seen, that the local building periods do not entirely coincide with these sub-periods, as mentioned above. Thus Period I A covers the end of Late Cypriote III and the beginning, i. e., first quarter of Cypro-Geometric I, while Period I B can be assigned to the middle and late part of Cypro-Geometric I. Period 2 A dates from the first part of Cypro-Geometric II, but Period 2 B continues to about the end of the first quarter of Cypro-Geometric III. Period 3 A, finally, covers the remaining part of Cypro-Geometric III (d. op. cit. III, pp. 70 f.).
A-AI
193
;)dA.L
....
....
"'
;)S~llO;)
....
....
.... \0 N
.... ....
....
"!"
....
"!"
....
.... '"
\0
N
....
N
\0 '0
....
N
....
.... ....
0-
'0 N
....
'0\0 N
'" ....
(A-AI) III-II p a lI - uo -'P ' UI
....
....o
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD A chronological study on the ceramic material of this period makes clear that it can be divided into two sub-periods, called Cypro-Archaic I and II, and within these sub-periods an earlier and a later stage, called A and B, can be distinguished, in the same way as in the Cypro-Geometric period. The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Archaic I is registered by the diagram, p. 193· Cypro-Archaic I A is represented by Amathus, Tomb 11 11, Marion, Tombs 4, 6 AI, 101, 9 8 , Stylli, Tombs 4,5, 61- II , 101, 121, 13, 14 A, 171- 11, and Cypro-Archaic IB by Amathus, 13
III
P;)~U!lld ;)~!qM.
;)~!qM.
N
N
~
'" N '"
N
....
(III) I P;)lI- u o - J[:JllIII
P;)~U!lld
00
\0
'" '0
AI
.... '"
'"
0 N '0 N
....
POTTERY
:RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Tombs z, Z3 II-IV, Marion, Tombs 6 All, loll, 13, 64, 79, 86, 87, Stylli, Tombs ZI, 3, loll, IZII, 16. The diagram shows that the pottery classes of Cypro-Archaic I A consist of a majority of Type IV, represented by lIZ specimens, and a large minority of Type III, represented by 88 specimens. In addition, a single specimen of Type II is represented by the White Painted II amphora found in Stylli, Tomb 14 A. This amphora, however, must be considered as an old heirloom, which happened to be deposited in the tomb a long time after its manufacture; -it is an odd, occasional piece without any connection with the typical wares of the period, in this respect to be compared with e. g., the Late Helladic III amphora, found in Idalion, Tomb 3, of the Cypro-Geometric period (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 637,
No. Z4). Type III is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Red Slip, and Plain White; Type IV by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Red Slip, Grey Polished, and Plain White. Only a single specimen of foreign wares was found in the tombs registered here, viz., the White Painted Syrian pilgrim bottle found in Amathus, Tomb II II. This poor representation of the foreign wares is only due to chance, and is by no means typical of the period. In Cypro-Archaic I B the combination of the pottery classes displays a remarkable change: against 19 vases of Type III, there are 9 of Type III-IV, lIZ of Type IV, and 4 of Type IV-V. The number of Type III has thus decreased considerably. Type IV is in an overwhelming' majority, and a few transitional specimens between Types IV and V appear. As regards the pottery, the chronological line of demarcation between Cypro-Archaic IA and B is thus mainly formed by the interrelations of Types III and IV: of the total number of these types, 44 % are Type III and S6 % are Type IV in Cypro-Archaic I A, while only c. 14 % are Type III and c. 86 % are Type IV in Cypro-Archaic I B. In the latter period Type III is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red; Type III-IV by Plain White III; Type IV by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, Plain White; Type IV-V by Bichrome and Black-on-Red. The foreign ware is rare in the tombs examined here, and consists of Syrian Black Varnished, Red Slip, and local Greek Sub-Geometric pottery. The scarceness of the foreign pottery is due to chance, as in the tombs of Cypro-Archaic I A, and does not give a representative picture of the import of foreign pottery in the period in question. The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Archaic II is registered by the diagram, p. I9S· Cypro-Archaic II A is represented by Amathus, Tombs loll, II Ill-IV, Marion, Tombs sl, 6 B, 8, 6z I-II, 7z1, 7S, 77, 78, Sz, 8S1, Stylli, Tombs ZII, II, and Cypro-Archaic II B by Amathus, Tombs 3, 13lll , Marion, Tombs SII, 7, SO, 63II, 66, 7 1, 73, 74, 81 A, B, 84, 89, 93-97· The pottery of Cypro-Archaic II A, as shown by the diagram, forms a combination of Types III-V. Type IV is in the majority and is represented by 143 vases. Of Type V there are 90 vases, and this class of pottery thus forms a large minority. Type IV-V is represented by 14 vases, and of Type III there are not more than 8 specimens. Moreover,
b U.§!;}JOd '" N 1 1 - - - - - - .-;}S'-.Ill---'o:)I-I----:-~;--~=-:-~--I--=----------=--=------=--:....:'-----.:=---~'--.:.. - co
IA IA-A
;}dA.L ;}dA.L
~
----------_._------- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --------
A ;}dA.L
-=--------------------
A-AI ;}dA.L AI ;}dA.L III ;}dA.L
co U)
11--,--------1------------1 P;}ZllID }pllJH P;}.rn.§~d
~
>J:lllJH --- - ---- -
;}S.Illo:)
IA
--- ----- · - - - 1 - -
co
;}~~1.JA\ U~llld
A-AI ;}~~1.JM. U~llld AI ;}~~1.JM U~llld (A) III p;}1.Jsnod A;}.ID (AI) II p;}1.Jsn od >J:lllJH (IA) AI dns P;}"U (A) III dns P;}H (AI) II dns P;}"U IA-A dns >J:lllJH A dns >J:lllIH
A-AI Al
dns >J:lllIH d~IS >J:lllIH (A) ;}~~1.JM ;}WO.I1.J:l AIOd
~
---------------1-
1---------------------11-------------------
(A) III P;}"U-uo->J:lllIH (AI) II P;}"U- uo->J:lllIH
AI ;}WO.I1.J:l~H III ;}WO.I1.J:l~H
'"
~
---------1---------------co
196
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
the vases of the latter class of pottery occur only sporadically in a very few tombs. Type III is represented by White Painted and Bichrome; Type IV by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, Black Polished, Plain White; Type IV-V by Bichrome, Bichrome Red, Polychrome White, Black Slip, Plain White; Type V by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Polychrome White, Black Slip, Red Slip, Grey Polished, Plain White. The foreign pottery is only represented by two specimens of East-Greek Archaic bowls, which, however; give a very incomplete picture of the foreign imports during this period. Cypro-Archaic II B displays the following differences from Cypro-Archaic II A: Type III has disappeared entirely; Type IV has decreased in numbers so much that it now forms a small minority of only 16 vases; Type V is in an overwhelming majority and represented by 172 vases; in the latest tombs there are a few transitional specimens between Types V and VI. The interrelations of Types IV and V in Cypro-Archaic II A and Bare very important from the chronological point of view, and form the safest chronological criterion. Of the total number of these wares, c. 60 % are Type IV and c. 40 % are Type V in Cypro-Archaic II A, while only c. 9 % are Type IV and c. 91 % Type V in CyproArchaic II B. Type IV is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, and Plain White. Of these, Plain White is commonest and represented by 9 specimens; White Painted and Bichrome are represented by two specimens each, and Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, and Red Slip by only one specimen each. Type IV-V is represented by a single vase of Plain White; Type V by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, and Plain White wares. Bichrome and Plain White are commonest, the first represented by 47 specimens and the latter by 42. Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, and Red Slip form a medium group from the point of view of frequency, Bichrome Red being represented by 30 specimens, Black-on-Red and Red Slip by 21 specimens each; White Painted is less common: of this ware there are 8 vases; Black Slip is only represented by 3 vases. Type V-VI and Type VI are represented by single specimens of Black Slip, Red Slip, and Plain White. The foreign pottery consists of East Greek Archaic fabrics, Black Figured and Black Glazed Greek wares. The excavations at Ajia Irini, Idalion, and Kition have supplied the stratigraphical material for the chronological determination of the periods in question. As regards the use of this material, the same holds good as mentioned above, viz., it has not been collected from a series of mechanically fixed levels, but according to the natural stratification of each site, and these strata represent local building periods, which do not always coincide with the general chronological periods, but sometimes overlap each other. The local periods which fall entirely within the Cypro-Archaic period are at Ajia Irini, Periods 3 B-6, at Idalion, Periods 5 and 6, and at Kition, Periods 3 B-6. The stratified ceramic material found in the layers of these periods can be studied in the statistical lists of potsherds (op. cit. II, pp. 619 ff., 815 L;'lII, pp. 68 ff.), For the sake of convenience, I give below a summary of these lists for the sites and periods concerned.
TYPE
iv-v
I
0.6
%
I
1.6
%
N. B. Op. cit. II, p. 816, Square Q4 (Period 6), for White Painted IV 7 read White Painted IV I, for White Painted V I read White Painted V 7.
IDALION
i Period 5
I
TYPE II
TYPE III
I
3
I 0.8 %
I
27 7·7 %
I
I
TYPE III-IV 24 6·9%
TYPE IV
I I
I
231 66 %
I
I
Period 6
0.2
TYPE IV-V 13 3·7 % 33 8%
%
I
TYPE V
TYPE VI
1
2
I 52 I %. I 14·9 3 5 I 75·9 % /
I I
0·5
%
KITION
I I
TYPE II
I I
1%
I
Period 3 B Period 4 Period 5 Period 6
I I
I
I
TYPE III
I
42 43·3 % 19 16·7 %
I
I I
I
1.5 % -
- ..----
_.~
I
I I
13 13·4 % 16 10·5 %
I ·1
2.1 %
0.2
%
.
TYPE III-IV
I
Hellenistic
I
.
I I I
TYPE IV
I
24 35.8 %
I
41 4 2.3 % 72 63·1 %
2 4. 2%
I
TYPE IV-V I
I
I I I I
TYPE V
I I
10 8.8 %
0·9 %
I
4 6%
I
38 5 6.7 %
I
40 83-3 %
5 10·4 %
I I
I I
It. should be n~ticed that in the number of potsherds from Periods 4 and 6 of Ajia Irini are included the mtact vases belonging to these periods and registered in the Diagram of pottery, (op. cit. II, facingp. 812); further, that the specimens from Period 5 consist only of the numbered vases found in the layer of that period, as no potsherds at all are registered from the period in question. It can be seen that the potteryofPeriod 3 B at Ajia Irini consists of a majority of Type III (60·3 %), a great number of Type IV (32.4 %) and a few of Type II (7.3 %); in Period 4 the pottery of Type IV is in an overwhelming majority and forms 74.8 % of the total pottery, Types III (7. 8 %) and V (16.8 %) are in minority, but Type V is more numerous
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
than Type III. In Period 5, Type III has disappeared definitely, only Types IV and V are represented, and Type V is in the majority, forming 63.2 % of the total pottery against 36.8 % ofType IV. In Period 6, the combination of pottery types shows an increased majority of Type V, which forms 74.6 % against 23.8 % of Type IV. Consequently, this stratified series of pottery confirms the chronological evidence given by the sequence of tombs by showing that the Cypro-Archaic period begins with a majority of Type III, continues with a majority of Type IV, and ends with a majority of Type V, and the local periods are thus related to the general ones: Period 3 B ends about the middle of Cypro-Archaic I, Period 4 continues to about the second third of Cypro-Archaic II, and Periods 5 and 6 fall within Cypro-Archaic II, but the quantity of Type IV still found in Period 6 shows that it did not cover the latest stage of Cypro-Archaic II (cf. op. cit. II, p. 818). The pottery of Period 5 at Idalion consists of a great majority of Type IV, a minority of Type V, some specimens of Type III, and stray sherds of Type II; in Period 6, there is an overwhelming majority of Type V, a minority of Type IV, Type III has disappeared, there are only stray sherds of Type VI, and the single Hellenistic sherd must be intrusive, without any chronological significance. This combination of pottery types shows that the local periods at Idalion coincide better than those of Ajia Irini with the general chronological division of the Archaic period: Period 5 covers approximately Cypro-Archaic I and overlaps only slightly the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II, and Period 6 covers the rest of Cypro-Archaic II, continuing to the very end of that period or the beginning of CyproClassic I, as shown by the stray sherds of Type VI (d. op. cit. II, p. 625). The pottery of Periods 3 B-6 at Kition presents the following stratigraphical series: Period 3 is represented by an equal number of Types III and IV and a stray sherd of Type II; in Period 4, Type III (16.7 %) is on the decline, Type IV (63.1 %) is the dominating ware, and Type V (8.8 %) is represented by a small minority; in Period 5, Type V has gained the upper hand, forming 56.7 % against 35.8 % of Type IV, while Type III has almost disappeared; in Period 6, finally, Type V is in an overwhelming majority forming 83.3 % of the total pottery. This stratigraphical series agrees with that from Ajia Irini, and the local periods also coincide approximately, except that Period 6 at Kition continues to the end of Cypro-Archaic II (d. op. cit. III, p. 71). Consequently, the stratigraphical evidence is consistent and shows that the beginning of the Cypro-Archaic period is characterized by a combination of Types III and IV, that gradually Type IV becomes predominant, but subsequently Type V intrudes and gains the upper hand towards the end of the Cypro-Archaic period. The stratification thus confirms the evidence given by the chronological division of the Archaic age into two periods: Cypro-Archaic I, characterized by a combination of Types III and IV, with a predominance of Type IV towards the end of the period, and Cypro-Archaic II characterized by a combination of Types IV and V, with a predominance of Type V towards the end of the period.
POTTERY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD The chronological material admits a division of the Cypro-Classical period into two sub-periods, called Cypro-Classic I and II; within these, an earlier and a later stage, called A and B, can be distinguished, as in the Geometric and Archaic periods. The diagram, p. 200, shows the combination of the pottery types in the tombs of CyproClassic I. Cypro-Classic I A is represented by Marion, Tombs 141, 23, 24, 26, 31, 3 2 (Niche I), 35, 4 2, 441, 471-11 a, 561, 591, 92, and Cypro-Classic I B by Marion Tombs I I · ' 14 , 15, 18, 29, 32 (NIche 3), 38, 4 1, 4411, 46, 4711b , c, 49, 51, 56II, Vouni, Tomb 12. The pottery of Cypro-Classic I A, as can be seen from the diagram, consists of a majority of Type VI (II7 specimens) and a fairly large minority of Type V (48 specimens). In addition, there are some vases which are transitional between Types V and VI. Type V is represented by Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, Black Polished, and Plain White; Type V-VI by Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, and Plain White; Type VI by White Painted, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, Black Lustrous, Stroke Polished, and Plain White. Of foreign pottery, there is a stray specimen of "Ionian" (East-Greek) ware and a considerable quantity of Attic pottery (Black Glazed and Red Figured). The foreign pottery forms 13.5 % of the total sum of pottery. In Cypro-Classic I B, Type V has almost disappeared and is represented by only 2 specimens. In addition, there are 2 vases which are transitional between Types V and VI. Type VI is the dominating ware and is represented by 119 specimens. Of the total number of !ypes V and VI, there are 29 % of Type V and 71 % of Type VI in Cypro-Classic I A, while there are only 1.7 % of Type V and 98.3 % of Type VI in Cypro-Classic I B. In a few tombs which can be assigned to the end of the period, there are single vases of Type VI-VII and Type VII. Type V is represented by Bichrome Red; Type V-VI by Black-on-Red and Bichrome Red; Type VI by White Painted, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip, Red Slip, Black Lustrous, Stroke Polished, and Plain White; Type VI-VII by Stroke Polished and Plain White; Type VII by Red Slip and Plain White. The foreign pottery is very common and forms 39.2 % of the total sum of pottery. It consists altogether of Attic ware, Black Glazed and Red Figured. The pottery from the tombs of Cypro-Classic II is registered in the diagram, p. 20r. Cypro-Classic II A is represented by Marion, Tombs I 4III , 25, 39, 40, 431, 45, 57, 601, 1-11 67 , and Vouni, Tombs 2, 3, 6, 13, 15, and Cypro-Classic II B by Marion, Tombs 16, 21, 22, 27, 30, 32 (Niche 2), 34, 36, 371-II, 43II , 48, 53-155, 5911, 6011, 8511,9 1, Vouni, Tombs 4, 7-9, III, 14The pottery of Cypro-Classic II A consists of vases of Types VI and VII. There are also some transitional specimens between these two types. Type VI is in the majority and is represented by 110 vases, but Type VII forms a large minority of 89 vases. Type VI thus forms c. 55 ~ and Type VII c. 45 % of the total number of vases of these types. Type VI is represented by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Black Slip,
202
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
POTTERY
pottery is numerous and forms 25.1 % of the total sum of pottery. It consists entirely of the contemporary Attic ware, Black Glazed and Red Figured. In Cypro-Classic II B the pottery consists of the same types, but Type VII has now become the dominating ware. Type VI is represented by only 26 vases, but Type VII by 273 specimens. Type VI thus forms 8.7 % and Type VII 91.3 % of the total number of vases of these types. Stray specimens of Hellenistic pottery occur in the latest tombs of this period. Type VI is represented by White Painted, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, Stroke Polished, and Plain White; Type VI-VII by Red Slip, Stroke Polished, and Plain White; Type VII by White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, ~troke Polished, Black Lustrous, Red Lustrous, and Plain White. The foreign pottery consists of the contemporary Attic ware, Black Glazed and Red Figured. It is not so numerous as in Cypro-Classic I B and II A, but still forms 18 % of the total amount of pottery. Only at Kition and Vouni were some stratigraphical soundings of strata from the Cypro-Classical period carried out. They yielded rather scanty material, which so far, however, is in accordance with the evidence given by the sequence of tombs (d. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 67 ff., 280 ff.).
SUMMARY The distribution of the pottery within the different periods is summed up in the following diagram:
I LateIIIcypr., I Cypro-Geom,
I A
I Cypro-Geom,
I B
Cypro-Geom.
I1A
Cypro-Geom.
lIB
Cypro-Geom.
III A
Cypro-Geom.
Cypro-Archaic
III B
I A
Cypro-Archaic
I B
Cypro-Archaic
I1A
%
I
1.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
Type I
%
I
95·5
I
7 1.6
I
27·2
II
10.6
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
0·7
Type II
%
98.6
I ,
I
I I I I
I I I
4·5
28·4
69·5
5°·4
24·3
0·5
I Type
I
I
I
I II I Type IV I Type V
%
%
I
I Type VI I Type %
%
%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
II
I I
3·3
39·0
43. 8
14.0
3·3
II
0·7
\
I
I
74·3
VII
I I
I
I
I I
55·7 83.0
59·3
I
I
I
0 3. 1 (Type IV-V)
I
37·4
I
I I I I
I
I Cypro-Archaic Cypro-Classic
Cypro-Classic
Cypro-Classic
Cypro-Classic
lIB I A
I B
I1A
lIB
I
Type I
Type II
I I II
I
I
I
I
I I
I
2°3
I Type III I TypeIV
, Type V
I Type VI i Type VII
I
%
I
I
-~I-'
I
%
8,4 -
----
I I
9 0.5 29. 1
%
I
1.1
I
7°·9
I
96.0
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1.6
I
55,3
I 8. 7
I I I I
% ---
2·4
44·7
9 I. 3
This diagram speaks for itself. We see that Type I is absolutely predominant in CyproGeometric I A; in Cypro-Geometric I B it is still dominant until the end of the period, when some stray specimens of Type II begin to appear. In Cypro-Geometric II A, Type I still keeps the upper hand, but Type II increases in quantity, and in Cypro-Geometric II B, Type II is in the great majority. Type I is on the decline, and at the end of the period there appear some stray specimens of Type III. In Cypro-Geometric III A, Type II is still in the majority, but the number of Type III increases rapidly, while Type I is outclassed. At the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III B, the last stray specimens of Type I disappear, Type II greatly decreases, and Type III is the dominant ware. Some stray specimens of Type IV appear towards the end of the period. At the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I, Type II disappears, Type III is still in the majority during the earlier part of the period, but Type IV soon gains the upper hand. In CyproArchaic I B, Type III begins to be rare, while Type IV strengthens its position as the dominant ware. Towards the end of the period, a few specimens of Type V indicate the arrival of a new period. In Cypro-Archaic II A, Type III disappears very quickly, while Type IV is still in the majority, but Type V increases rapidly in number and attains the majority towards the transition between Cypro-Archaic II A and B. In the latter period, Type V is represented by an overwhelming majority of specimens, Type IV is outplaced and disappears towards the end of the period, when instead some specimens of Type VI occur sporadically. In Cypro-Classic I A, Type VI attains a majority very soon, and Type V decreases rapidly in number. Sporadic representatives of the latter type still occur at the beginning of Cypro-Classic I B, and occasional specimens of Type VII begin to appear at the end of the period, but the dominating ware is Type VI. The latter ware is still in the majority during Cypro-Classic II A, but Type VII gradually almost equals to it, and in CyproClassic II B, Type VI is outclassed, and Type VII becomes sovereign. Each period and each successive stage within the periods is thus characterized by a particular combination of pottery types. The interrelation of the different wares, which also
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
POTTERY
Ill"
80
-e
... ..c::
III
5
-oe ,
~
.s Po
Ill-.& 8
-5 -5g.Q0
l:0
75. 6
I
76.7
Cypro-Geom.
I B
Cypro-Geom.
Cypro-Geom,
%
AI
I
%
%
I
2.6
13. 1
I
I
51.1
Cypro-Geom. III A I
36. 1
II B
I
28.6
Cypro-Archaic
22·9
I I
I 16·7
I I
I
13·2
I
I
I
I 23. 6
I
I 0·9
23
% 7·2
25·9
17·6
I
,,-
~p.,
iii"
Ol /0
%
%
%
_0
I
I
I 3. 1
4·3
I
0·9
4 1.2
I
I
p:;
I I I I
I
I A
I
80.8
Cypro-Geom,
I B I
79·3
I
7 8.6
II B
I
6+5
III A
I
52.8
III B I
52.2
I
54·2
12
Cypro-Geom.
5.2
Cypro-Geom.
6·7
Cypro-Geom.
7.8
9·3 8.1
I B
I
27. 1
Cypro-Archaic II A
I
14. 1
Cypro-Archaic
Cypro-Archaic II B
Cypro-Classic Cypro-Classic
I
I B
I
Cypro-Classic II AI Cypro-Classic
II
HI
I
5. 1
7. 6
4·3
7
25·3
I
I
18·7
[
I I
I
I
I
26·4
I 26·7
I
I
29. 2
I
4
I AI
I
31.3
1.9
I I
I
16·5
I
11.3
3·5
3.8
1.4
16
16·7
I
I I I
I
I 12·5
I
I
5.6
I
0·3
0·9
I
I I I
1.2
2.1
0·9
I 9
4·7
11.9
I 3·5
I 5·7
I
I
0.8
7. 6
2·5
7·5
24. 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
5·7 5. 1
I
0.8
I 1.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.8
0·5 0.6
I
I
I 1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19. 1
I 1.4
I
I
I Cypro-Archaic
I B
I
56·3
II A
I
4 0.8
II B
I
30.4
I
I
I
I
1.7
28·3
Cypro-Classic
I Cypro-Classic
4. 6
I
I
I
U.81
I
U·S
I
55·7
67·3
73. 1
shows some distinct and characteristic features within the successive periods, is summed up in the diagrams, pp. 204 f. . Let us first consider the interrelations and chronological sequence of the decorated pottery. White Painted (the variety Black Slip Painted included) and Bichrome (the varieties Black Slip Bichromeand Polychrome included) form the one main group with ornaments painted on a light ground. Black-on-Red and Bichrome Red form the second main group where the ornaments are painted on a red ground.
I
I
I
I
15·5
14·7
13·2
23
I
I I I
I
I
I
26.8
0·9
I I
24·7
16·7
I I
10
IAI
II A I
6.2
I
I
29
27·3
7·9
I I
I
20.2
I I
%
II
5·2
II
80.8
9·3
I
II
I 21.4
I 65·4
66
I
8.1
19·2 20·7
79·3
II 7.8
%
78.6
6·7
75·2
II
I I I
80.6
9·4
6·7
14
11.4
7. 1
I I
I
32.1
I
I
1.2
I
9
I
I 7.6
II B
I
4
I
I B
24·3
I
I
Cypro-Classic
I
%
12
Plain
34. 6
34 24. 8
19·4
_..
I
I
0.6
Cypro-Classic
23·5
43·7
I
I
Cypro-Archaic
I
7·2
Decorated
PI. Who
%
%
I
I A
9·4
10·4
II A
I Cypro-Archaic Cypro-Archaic
I AI
%
Cypro-Geom,
Cypro-Georn.
%
I
I
I
I:l
.OJ
I
I
I
I
%
I
I
I
"8... rn
I
I
..c:: ~
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::l ~
..!
III .~
"0 p.,
U)
~
I
I
::l ~
III
.~
......0 -e III p::;
I 14·7
::l
U)
o.~
15·5
11.2
I
"
..c::
U)
...8
..!
"'d
iii"
I
I
I
..!
% I
I
13·4
I
Cypro-Geom, III B I
I
::l
"'d I:l"'d
& rn
U3
... .s ~
..c::
iii"
~~p.,
5·2
80
0
.~-
65·5
II AI
I:l
8..!
B..!
.&
III
-e III
U)
0
p::;
I
8rn 0...
p.,U3
III
III
III
...
III
"'d
"'d
p::;
".~
Cypro-Geom.
>.
0
2&:
Bl. 81., Red 81., Black-on-Red, Bl. & Gr. Pol., Bichr. Red Bl. & Red Lustr., Str, Pol.
White Painted, Bichrome, etc.
I
2°5
23·5
28·3
43·7
I
19·4
55·7
67·3
I 17.8
I
II
I 25·3
I
80.6
10·4
II II
69. 8
57·7
I I
I
24. 2
II
81
I 13·3
9. 1
I
4 2.3
75·8
19
73. 1
3°·2
I
II
II
19·4
I I
86·7
9 0.9
The diagrams show that the first group, White Painted and Bichrome, is the only decorated pottery during Cypro-Geometric I and II. Of the second group, Black-on-Red begins in Cypro-Geometric III (a few stray specimens at the end of Cypro-Geometric II B disregarded), and Bichrome Red does not appear before Cypro-Archaic I B. White Painted is commonest in Cypro-Geometric I, and decreases gradually in number until iCyproArchaic II B when it reaches a minimum, and continues in approximately the same quantities during the Cypro-Classical period. Bichrome is rare in Cypro-Geometric I, but then increases gradually in quantity, so that it becomes more numerous than White Painted in the Cypro-Archaic period. In the Cypro-Classical period, it suddenly falls off to a trifle. Black-on-Red culminates inCypro-Geometric III Band Cypro-Archaic I A, i. e., very soon after its introduction. In Cypro-Archaic I B, it begins to decrease in quantity,
206
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
but it is then supplemented by its sister ware, Bichrome Red, which culminates in CyproArchaic II Band Cypro-Classic I A. During the latter period, it is commonest of all the decorated wares. As shown by the diagram, p. 205, the second, "red" group of decorated pottery keeps its position very well as compared with the first, "white" group during the whole Archaic period: the second group remains approximately equal, but the first group decreases in number, so that there is 54.2 % of the first group against 26.4 % of the second in Cypro-Archaic I A, while the numerical relation in Cypro-Archaic II B is 30.4 % and 27.3 % respectively. In Cypro-Classic I A, the second group finally gains the ascendency over the first one, with a representation of 20.2 % against 4 %. The plain pottery presents the following chronological distribution. Black Slip is common during the Cypro-Geometric period, but occurs afterwards only in small numbers. Red Slip begins in Cypro-Geometric III contemporaneously with the introduction of its decorated counterpart, Black-on-Red. It succeeds Black Slip as the principal plain ware of the "coloured" class, increases gradually in number during the Cypro-Archaic period, but does not reach its maximum before Cypro-Classic 1. Black and Grey Polished are represented by a few specimens from the end of Cypro-Geometric II to the beginning of CyproClassic 1. Black Lustrous occurs sporadically during the whole Cypro-Classical period, but Red Lustrous only towards the end of that period. Stroke Polished, too, is altogether a Cypro-Classical ware. It increases considerably in quantity during Cypro-Classic II, when it becomes the predominant ware of the "coloured" class. There remains the Plain White Ware. This is represented from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric to the end of CyproClassic. Apart from a fairly numerous representation, possibly occasional, in CyproGeometric I A, its amount is fairly consistent and modest until Cypro-Archaic II, when it suddenly increases in number. By Cypro-ArchaicII B it is the most common ware, in Cypro-Classic I B it has attained absolute majority, and it increases continuously in quantity until the end of the Cypro-Classical period, when it forms 73.1 % of the total amount of the pottery, i. e., it occupies the same dominating position as was held by White Painted in Cypro-Geometric 1. Let us finally consider the statistical relationship of the total of decorated wares to that of the plain wares. The diagram, p. 205, shows that the decorated wares are predominant from Cypro-Geornetric I to the end of Cypro-Archaic I, they are still in the majority during Cypro-Archaic II, but the plain wares increase in number, and at the beginning of the Cypro-Classical period they have gained the upper hand. They increase their predominance continuously until the end of the Cypro-Classical period: in Cypro-Geometric I the decorated wares amount to 80.8 % and the plain wares to 19.2 %, in Cypro-Archaic I the relation is approximately the same, or 80.6 % and 19.4 %respectively. In Cypro-Classic I A the plain wares form 75.8 % against 24.2 % of decorated wares, and at the end of the Cypro-Classical period the plain wares form 90.9 % of the total pottery. The pottery of the Geometric and Archaic periods is thus principally "decorated", but that of the Classical period is definitely "plain". It should be noted that these statistics are built upon material found in tombs. The plain domestic and storage ware is of course always more numerous in the settlements.
SCULPTURE
2°7
Sculpture The relative chronology of the sculpture from the periods in question is based upon finds in datable tombs and the stratigraphical evidence afforded, above all, by the excavations at Ajia Irini and Vouni. The finds from the excavations of the temenos at Ajia Irini form the solid basis for our knowledge of the development of Cypriote sculpture in the Archaic period. This is due to the extraordinary conditions of finds, which are described in the excavation report (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 797 ff.). As regards the chronological determination of- the sculptures, we are therefore not only dependent on stylistic criteria, but the typological method can be supplemented by stratigraphical evidence. The chronological sequence of the Ajia Irini sculptures has been established by the excavations (op. cit. II, p. 813). The earliest specimens of monumental plastic were found on the te/menos floor of Period 4, and no sculptures of this kind were discovered in the earlier culture strata. In minor plastic, the art plastic begins earlier, however, as shown below (p. 211). Subsequent sculptures of monumental plastic were found on the floors of Periods 5 and 6. If we substitute the terminology of the general classification of sculpture for that of the local Ajia Irini styles, we obtain the following fixed points for the relative chronology. The first Proto-Cypriote style of monumental sculpture begins in Period 4, but a late specimen of its second group belongs to Period 5. The second Proto-Cypriote style also begins in Period 4, but continues into Period 5. The majority of the typologically less. advanced sculptures belong to Period 4 and the majority of the others to Period 5. A single sculpture (No. 904), which is almost Cypro-Greek in style, was found on the floor of Period 6. The Cypro-Egyptian style at Ajia Irini is only represented by two stone sculptures of the "negroid" class. These were found on the floor of Period 4. The N eo-Cypriote style begins in Period 5 and continues in Period 6, and the first Cypro-Greek style is represented only in Period 6. The stratified pottery shows that Period 4 dates from the middle of Cypro-Archaic I to about the end of the first third of Cypro-Archaic II. Period 5 lasted to about the middle of Cypro-Archaic II and Period 6 to about the beginning of the last quarter of Cypro-Archaic II. These are the chronologically fixed points. In order to determine more closely the chronological sequence of these styles it is necessary to supplement the stratigraphical evidence with stylistic considerations, and for that purpose we have to introduce absolute dates into the discussion, because the narrow chronological limits here concerned cannot conveniently be expressed in any other way. In the following discussion I therefore presuppose the absolute dates of the Cypro-Archaic periods given in the chapter on Absolute Chronology, where it is shown that Cypro-Archaic I dates from c. 700-600 B. C. and Cypro-Archaic II from 600-475 B. C. Accordingly Period 4 of Ajia Irini can be assigned to c. 650-560 B. C., Period 5 to c. 560-540 B. C., and Period 6 to c. 540-500 B. C. As only one sculpture of the first Proto-Cypriote style dates later than 560 B. C., it is
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
SCULPTURE
evident that the style came to an end about that date or very soon after. Circa 560 B. C. may therefore be considered as the approximate lower date. The upper date, c. 650 B. C., is given by that of the beginning of Period 4. We may thus assign the earlier sculptures of the first Proto-Cypriote style to the later part of the 7th cent.B. C. and the later sculptures from the end of the 7th cent. to about 560 B. C. The second Proto-Cypriote style has come to an end about 540 B. C. One sculpture was found on the floor of Period 6,and should therefore be dated later than c. 540, but it is much influenced by Greek art, and we may therefore infer that the second ProtoCypriote style, as such, did not continue beyond c. 540 B. C. The style begins in Period 4, as we have seen, but at what date within that period is a matter of stylistic and other
The sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style were found in about equal numbers on the floors of Periods 5 and 6, and it is therefore reasonable to suppose that it lasted approximately as long after c. 540 B. C. as it began before that date. If we fix it chronologically between c. 5Eo and 520 B. C., we cannot be far from correct. Its upper date cannot be earlier than c. 5Eo B. C., because its earliest sculptures show stylistic contact with the latest specimens of the second Proto-Cypriote style, and its lower date cannot be considerably later than c. 520 B. C., because the style had apparently disappeared before 500 B. C. This is shown by the fact that it is not represented among the earliest Vouni sculptures, which can be assigned to approximately that date (d. below). Considerations of a historical nature tell us that the style cannot have lasted a long time after c. 545 B. C., because it is closely connected with the Egyptian dominion over Cyprus (cf, pp. 362, 370), and that came to an end c. 545 B. C. (p. 471). Circa 520 B. C. may therefore be accepted as the approximate lower date of the style. The classification of the sculptures has shown that Greek elements were incorporated in the latest phase of the second Proto-Cypriote style and in the N eo-Cypriote style, but the Archaic Cypro-Greek style is not found earlier than Period 6 at Ajia Irini, i. e., it is not earlier than c. 540 B. C. On the other hand, it cannot have begun much later than that date, because it includes the great mass of the sculptures from Period 6, or 17 specimens of a total number of 22 sculptures. We shall see that the introduction of the Archaic CyproGreek style can be connected with the Persian conquest of Cyprus (pp. 362, 370). This occurred in 545 B. C., and I am therefore inclined to date the beginning of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style to c. 540 B. C. or shortly after that date. The chronologically fixed points for the ending phase of the Cypro-Archaic and CyproClassical periods are given by the sculptures found in the palace of Vouni and in tombs from the periods in question. The majority of the sculptures found in the palace of Vouni belong to the Archaic and first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek styles; in addition, there are two specimens in stone of the second Sub-Archaic style and a single representative in terracotta of the Classical Cypro-Greek style. The palace was built c. 500-490 B. C. and was destroyed c. 380 B. C. Late specimens of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, but none of the first SubArchaic style, were found in the filling below the floors of the third building period of the palace, which dates from about the middle of the 5th cent. B. C.; furthermore, the only specimens of Cypriote sculpture found in the fillings below the floors of the fourth building period of the palace, which dates from the very beginning of the 4th cent. B. c., belong to the later group of the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style (d. Suxd. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 288 f.), These are the stratigraphically and chronologically fixed points, from which we have to start. The earliest Vouni sculptures belong to the first group, of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, i. e., they join directly onto the Cypro-Greek sculptures found at Ajia lrini, and the sculptural series is thus unbroken. The Ajia Irini finds show that' the Archaic Cypro-Greek style began c. 540 B. C., and on the evidence from the excavations of Vouni we can assign the end of the style to c. 450 B. C. The sculptures of the first group found at Vouni are
208
considerations. A terracotta statuette of the second Proto-Cypriote style was found in Tomb XXVII at Kameiros (d. p. 330), and this tomb cannot be dated earlier than c. 600 and not later than c. -575 B. C.' The beginning of the style must therefore be assigned to a date sometime before 575 B. C. Further, so many sculptures of this style were found on the floor of Period 4 that the style must have begun a considerable time before the end of that period, i. e., c. 560 B. C. On the other hand, the style represents a development of the first ProtoCypriote style and must therefore have begun later than that, i. e., c. 650 B. C. Paying attention to these facts we cannot be far wrong if we place the beginning of the second Proto-Cypriote style at c. 600 B. C. We have seen that the majority of the typologically more advanced sculptures belong to Period 5 and most of the typologically less advanced to Period 4. If we therefore suppose that the earlier and later stage of the style covered an approximately equal period, we cannot be far from the truth if we assign the earlier stage of the style to c. 600-'560 B. C. and the later stage to c. 580-.540 B. C. TheCypro-Egyptian style must have begun before c. 560 B. C., as shown by the stratigraphical evidence,' but how long before that date? It is an imitation style explained by the Egyptian conquest of Cyprus (cf: p. 357), and this seems to have taken place shortly after 570 B. C. (p. 467). The beginning of the Cypro-Egyptian style may therefore be assigned to that date, and its lower date ought to synchronize approximately with the end of the Egyptian domination in Cyprus, i. e., c. 545 B. C. KNOBLAUCH, Stud. s: archi-griech, Tonbildnerei in Kreta, Rhodos, Athen 'u. Bsotien, p, I58-assigns the aryballos in the form of a squatting' man found .in the, tomb to c. 625 B. C., and JENKINS, Dedalica, p. 60, n. 2 attributes the double-headed Rhodian figurine discovered in the tomb to his "Eleutherna" group ("Late Dedalic", c;63o-620 B. C.). Payne, on the other hand, dates similar aryballoi in the form of a sqatting man to c. 600--575 B. C. (PAYNE, Necrocorinthia, pp. 176, 180). Iii this context I cannot discuss the evidence for the chronology of early Greek sculpture, a problem which still needs much study before the present uncertainty will yield more definite results. 'However, the date of the tomb is independent of rthe date of the statuettes found in it, and can
willing to date the Corinthian objects earlier than c. 600--59 0 B. C., and since he assigns the Rhodian terracotta statuette to 630--620 B. C., he considers this to belong to an earlier burial group -in the tomb. There were two persons buried in the tomb, but there is no evidence that one burial took place a long time after the other. Friis Johansen's and Payne's chronology of the Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pottery has to be somewhat lowered (cf. AIrnRSTROM, Der geom. Stil in Italien, pp. 32 ff., with further references and kindinformation from Dr. Akerstrom about the result of his subsequent chronological investigations; cf. also Arch. Anz., 1943, pp. 4 17 ff.). Early Corinthian should be assigned to c. 600-575 B. C. Greek Cronology has to be revised on the new Cypriote
be based on the date of the Late Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian p~tteryfound'in the tomb. Jenkins (loc. cit.) is not
evidence.
1
14
2°9
210
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
SCULPTURE
very few, while the second group is represented by numerous specimens. We may therefore infer that the style represented by the first group came to an end shortly after the construction of the palace, i. e., shortly after c. 500-490 B. C. From a stylistic point of view, it is not justifiable to assign its end later than c. 480 B. C., because all the sculptures of this group have clear contact with Greek sculpture of the Late Archaic period. As shown in the classification, the latest sculptures of the second group are marked by a conventionalized style, no longer inspired by the Greek Archaic art, and one is therefore justified from a stylistic point of view in dating them later than c. 480 B. C. The earlier sculptures of the second group still show contact with the late Archaic Greek sculptures, and we may therefore assign the beginning of the style represented by the second group to a little before 480 B. C. Consequently, the first group of the first Cypro-Greek style may be assigned to 540-480 B. C. and the second group to 500-450 B. C. Style III of the Vouni sculptures belongs to the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style, as we have seen. Style III begins on Vouni about the middle of the 5th cent. B. C. As shown by the general classification of sculpture, the first Sub-Archaic style includes some sculptures which are not represented in Style III at Vouni, viz., sculptures which show influence from Greek art in the transitional period between Archaic and Classical art. In view of this, it is necessary to assign the beginning of the style to c. 470 B. C., so that its opening phase overlaps the concluding phase of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. As we have seen, this is a usual phenomenon in the chronological sequence of the Cypriote styles, and it is a priori only natural and in accordance with the general process of development. In order to fix the end of the first Sub-Archaic style we have to consider that the second Sub-Archaic style is a direct and debased continuation of it, and this style had apparently begun only a short time before the destruction of the Vouni palace, as it is only represented by two specimens. We cannot therefore be far wrong if we assign the end of the first SubArchaic style to c. 380 B. C. Of the period thus covered by this style, i. e., 470-380 B. C., the first part is reserved for the earlier sculptures and the second part for the later sculptures of the style. The earliest sculptures of the Classical Cypro-Greek style more or less imitate Greek works of the late 5th cent. and the beginning of the 4th cent. B. C., and may accordingly be assigned to that period. The later sculptures of this style can for similar reasons be assigned to the subsequent part of the 4th cent. B. C., and end at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. This date is supported by finds of sculptures of this style in tombs dating from Cypro-Classic II, e. g., the stone sculpture found in Marion, Tomb 53 (op. cit. II, p. 331, PI. CLXI, 5); head of large terracotta statuette from Marion, Tomb 22 (op. cit. II, p. 243, PI. CLVIII, 14); head of similar statuette from Marion, Tomb 60 (op. cit. II, p. 361, PI. CLVIII, 18); terracotta sculptures from Marion, Tomb 30 (op. cit. II, p. 26I,PI. CLVIII, 13); terracotta sculptures from Ohnefalsch-Richter's excavations at Marion: Necr. I, Tomb 54 (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. CLXXXVI, 3); Necr. II, Tomb 69 (op. cit., PI. CLXXXVII, 3); Necr. II; Tomb 72 (op. cit., PI. CLXXXVII, 2); between Necr. t and III, tomb excavated 1885 (op. cit., PIs. CLXXXVI, 2; CLXXXVII, 4). The Marion tombs
excavated by the Swedish Expedition date from Cypro-Classic II, as shown by the excavation report; those excavated by Ohnefalsch-Richter can be assigned to the same period; Attic vases of the 4th cent. B. C. and Cypriote pottery of Type VII (White Painted VII and Polychrome VII) were found in these tombs (op. cit., pp. 472, 475 f.). We have finally to consider the chronology of the second Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style. From what has been said above about its connection with the closing phase of the first Sub-Archaic style, and on the basis of the finds from Vouni, we may assign its beginning to c. 400 B. C. It continued into the Hellenistic period. The relative chronology of the minor and animal plastic is also based upon finds in datable tombs and the stratigraphical evidence from excavations in s~nctuaries and settlements. We begin with the terracotta plastic. Human and semi-human figures of Type I belong to the Cypro-Geometric period; Group A begins in Cypro-Geometric I and Group B in Cypro-Geometric III. Figures of Type 2 begin in the Cypro-Archaic period, contemporaneously with the sculptures of the first Proto-Cypriote style, but the type continues in the Cypro-Classical period. Statuettes of Types 3 and 4 follow the chronology of the corresponding styles in which they can be included or to which they approach, i. e., the ProtoCypriote, Neo-Cypriote, Archaic Cypro-Greek, and Sub-Archaic styles, with one important exception: some statuettes of Group 3 A (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXXIII, 10, II) related to the first Proto-Cypriote style are somewhat earlier than the earliest monumental sculptures of that style, and can be assigned to the first half of Cypro-Archaic I (cf. op. cit. II, pp. 806 ff., where it is shown that the dated statuette mentioned above can be assigned to Period 3 B at Ajia Irini). This fact proves that the Proto-Cypriote style was already developed in minor plastic before the monumental sculpture of the same style was created (cf. p. 207). Animal figures of Type I date from the Cypro-Geometric period; Group A begins in Cypro-Geometric I and Group Bin Cypro-Geometric III. Types 2 and 3 begin in CyproArchaic I, but continue in the Cypro-Classical period; Type 4 has a similar chronological range, but is particularly represented in the Cypro-Classical period. The animal figures which can be stylistically determined follow the chronology of their corresponding styles: the Proto-Cypriote, Neo-Cypriote, Archaic Cypro-Greek, Sub-Archaic and Classical Cypro-Greek styles. Stone and bronze figurines of idol plastic occur in the Archaic and Classical periods, and are only debased versions of the art sculpture of their respective period.
2II
212
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Other Arts and Crafts The chronological sequence of the miscellaneous and minor objects cannot always be determined within such narrow limits as pottery and sculpture, for several reasons. First of all, the types of these objects are much more persistent than those of pottery and sculpture, and they therefore often range through a considerable time. Secondly, some types have not hitherto been found in scientific excavations, and they can therefore be chronologically determined only by typological criteria. Finally, some types are represented by a very few or even single specimens, and the fact that they occur exclusively in one or another period may very well be due to. chance. With regard to all these facts I shall sum up the chronological evidence. Only the dates of the general types are considered in this survey. For details, i. e., dating of the particular specimens and the varieties of the general types, one is referred to the excavation reports.
IRON Swords of Type I occur already at the end of the Bronze Age. The type continues in the Iron Age down to Cypro-Archaic II (1.1 28). Swords of Type 2 have not yet been found in datable strata. Daggers have not been found before Cypro-Archaic II (1. 319); Type 2 continues into Cypro-Classic II (M. 43. 29).· Spear-heads of Type I are found already in Cypro-Geometric I (Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. III, 1910, pp. 107 ff., II6 f.). It cannot yet be ascertained if they continue after that period. Many fragments of rods which may have belonged to such spear-heads were found at Idalion in the Archaic period. Type 2 occurs from Cypro-Geometric I (M. 68. 21) to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 168). Butt-spikes of Type I have not yet been found earlier than Cypro-Archaic II (1. 24, 350, 446) and those of Type 2 not earlier than Cypro-Classic I (V. 167). Arrow-heads of Type I a have not been found in an Iron Age context earlier than the Archaic period (A. 2. 6o), but the type already occurs in the Bronze Age; Type I b has not been found earlier than Cypro-Geometric III (I b: A. 13. 25), but this type represents also a Bronze Age tradition; the advanced, beaded specimens of Type I c occur only in the Classical period (M. 43. 19). Type 2 a begins in Cypro-Archaic I (1. 220, 727 a, II77) and Type 2 b in Cypro-Archaic II (1. 346, 1461). Both continue in the CyproClassical period (2 a: V. 454 a; 2 b: V. 454 b). Single specimens of shield mountings (1. 375), splint armour (A. 2. 57; 1. 236), and cuirasses (A. 2. 77) have been found in the Cypro-Archaic period. Cheek-pieces to helmets date from the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 505, 1071). 1
For abbreviations of the names of this and other excavation sites, cf, Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. XVIII.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
213
Axes of Type I have not yet been found earlier than Cypro-Archaic II (1. 440, 1058). Type 2 cannot with certainty be assigned to a period earlier than the beginning of CyproArchaic II (A. 2. 23), and continues until 'Cypro-Classic II (M. 36. 14). Type 3 a appears already in Cypro-Geometric II-III (A. 7. 168), and continues into Cypro-Archaic II (1. 1340); Type 3 b belongs to the Cypro-Classical period (M. 37. 26; 43. 28). Type 4 is only represented by a single specimen dating from Cypro-Archaic II (1. 384). Knives of Type I a occur from Cypro-Geometric I (A. 15.60; 25. 4) until Cypro-Classic II (M. 14. II; 25· 30; 27.7,9; 34· 6; 43. 37,45;45. 4); Type I b begins in Cypro-Archaic I (A. 7. 122), and continues into Cypro-Classic II (M. 39. 36); Type I c is not represented before Cypro-Archaic II (1. 490), and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (K. 622; V. 185 a); Type I d is found in the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 303). Type 2 a occurs from Cypro-Geometric I (L. 420. 46; 602. 27) to Cypro-Archaic II (M. 62. 42); other varieties of Type 2 with known context are Cypro- Archaic (b: 1. 190, 1286; c: A. 16, II; 1. 462, 1472; d: A. 2.72). Type 3 has not yet been found earlier than Cypro-Geometric III (A. 13. 16; 18. 19), and continues into the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 727 b). The sickles found date from the Cypro-Classical period (V. 348). Of chisels (A. 2. 62), spits (1. 293), and spades (V. 448), only single specimens have been found in datable strata of the Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods. Strigils already occur in the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 739 a), but are not common before Cypro-Classic II (M. 22. 17,4 1; 34· 13; 36. 15; 37. 20; 43· 52; 55· 9; 72.3,29; V. 8. 53)· Tweezers are rare and their chronological sequence cannot therefore be ascertained. It can only be stated that the earliest specimens of Type I are Cypro-Archaic (A. 1. 2248, 2286), and a single specimen of Type 2 is Cypro-Classical (M. 14. 22). Rods with a disc attached to the shaft have been found in tombs of Cypro-Geometric II (L. 411. 32 b, c). Pins are represented from the Cypro-Geometric period (L. 41T. 25) to the end of the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 557, 638, II26, 1204 b). The fibulae correspond to those of Type 2 of the bronze fibulae; the plain variety is Cypro-Geometric I (A. 15.63), that with swollen, beaded arch is Cypro-Archaic I (A. 5.16). Earrings are rare; the few specimens found date from the Cypro-Archaic period (1. II4 e, 251). Finger-rings of Type I are also rare. They are of the simpliest possible type, and may have been used in any period. Those found date from the Cypro-Archaic period (1. 1458). Type 2 is found from Cypro-Archaic I (1. 250), Type 3 from Cypro-Archaic II (1. 32, 33, 50, 155, 157,460, 488 e, 1315, 1332, 1352, 1353, 1487, 1497, 1501, 1502, 1515, 1521, 1525). Both continue to the end of the Cypro-Classical period (Type 2: M. 22. 40; V. 2. 24; Type 3: M. 52. 17; 56. 38 b). Lamps are rare; those found date from Cypro-Archaic II (1. 171), and the lamp-stands from the Cypro-Classicalperiod (M. 34. 48; 58. 17).
214
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
LEAD The lead objects are so few in number that no chronological sequence can be established. For the date of the single specimens I refer to the excavation reports. BRONZE Spear-heads of Type I follow the chronology of the corresponding type of iron. Type 2 is represented from Cypro-Geometric I (L. 602. 26) to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 171). Butt-spikes occur from Cypro-Archaic I (I. 407) to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 163, 170, 172, 193, 198 a, 235 b, 244 a, 282). Of the arrow-heads, the single specimen of Type I a was found in a stratum of Cypro-Archaic I (I. 272), but the type is represented already in the Bronze Age. Iron Age arrow-heads of Type I band c have not hitherto been found earlier than Cypro-Geometric III (I. 49, 485), but Type I b is a primitive shape. Type I d is further developed in the Cypro-Archaic period (I. 271, 379, 666), and goes down to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 205 a, 220 b). Type 2 begins in Cypro-Archaic I (2 a: e. g., I. 893, 1097, 1103, etc.; 2 b: e. g., I. 53, 196, 265, 270, 277, etc.), and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (2 a: e. g., M. 43. 14 b, 18, 21, 31, 32, 54 b, etc.; 2 b: e. g., M. 43. 54 c; V. 178 a, 202 a, 204 a, 277, 278, 354, etc.). Type 3 is rare. It begins in the Cypro-Archaic period (I. 113 d, 370), and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (V. 174 c, 188). Type 4 is represented by a few specimens in Cypro-Archaic I (I. 738, 1°92); it is very common in Cypro-Archaic II (e. g., I. 256, 259, 357, 430, 693, 836, 965, etc.), and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (e. g., V. 174 a, b, 200, 205 b, c, 208 a, 220 a, 237, etc.). Types 5 and 6 occur only in the Cypro-Classical period (5: V. 220 c; 6: V. 184 a). Shield mountings, central discs of Type I, occur already in Cypro-Geometric I (A. 21. 38, 51), and terracotta figures with shields provided with a central disc of this type (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. XXXI, 257, 259, 263) show that it was used also in the Archaic period. Peripheral bands have not hitherto been found in strata earlier than Cypro-Geometric III (I. 194), and together with central discs of Type 2 are common in the Cypro-Archaic period (e. g., I. 21, 133, 137 b, c, 298, 299, 704 a, 740, 794, etc.). The non-existence of shield mountings assignable to the Cypro-Classical period is of course due to chance. The pieces of helmets of known find-contexts date from the Cypro-Archaic period (I. 130, 315). Rich material for the chronology of helmets is given by their representation in sculpture (cf. pp. 378 f.). The few specimens of axe-heads have not been found in a known context. For typological reasons they can be assigned to the Cypro-Archaic period. Hammers, chisels, mace-heads, sceptres, and shepherd's crooks are only represented by single specimens, and for their datings one is therefore referred to the excavation reports. The sceptre of Type 2 has not been found in a dated context, but can, for typological reasons, be assigned to the end of Cypro-Archaic II or beginning of Cypro-Classic I.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Strigils do not appear before the Cypro-Archaic period (I. 149), and are common in the Cypro-Classical period (e. g., M. 37. 16; 44. 27, 39; 52. 16; 56. 9; V. 222). Of the tweezers, the single specimen of Type I is Cypro-Geometric I (L. 428. 25), while Type 2 is not found earlier than Cypro-Archaic I (A. 7. 47; A. I. 2292, 2355, 2712, 2714). Only a few shovels can be chronologically determined; the earliest dates one (A. 18.46) from Cypro-Geometric III and the latest (V. 541) from the Cypro-Classical period. Mirrots of Types I and 2 begin in Cypro-Archaic II (M. 72. 34), and continue in the Cypro-Classical period (e. g., M. 14. 12; 25. I; 34· 56; 38. I; 41. 33; 45· 2; 46. 13; 47· 25; 53· 23; 55· 40; 56. 14; 57· 8; 58. 22, 38; etc.). Type 3 belongs to Cypro-Classic II (M. 53· 28; 67. 37), and Type 4 can be assigned to the same period for typological reasons. The single specimen of palette found in a known context is Cypro-Geometric (A. 6. I). Single spatulae have been found already in the Cypro-Geometric (A. 6. 2) and CyproArchaic periods (I. 75, 511), but the great majority of the toilet instruments and all the surgical instruments are Cypro-Classical (M. 14.21; 34. 53; 41. 32; 47· 24; 53· 24; 55. 20, 45; 58. 79; etc.). Needles occur from Cypro-Geometric I (M. 65. 10) to Cypro-Classic II (M. 72. 26). The single specimen of a fish-hook found in a datable stratum is Cypro-Classical (V. 202b). Pins of Type I occur from Cypro-Geometric I (M. 69. 21) to Cypro-Classic II (M. 43. 15; V. 3. 46 b). Type 2 begins also in Cypro-Geometric I (L. 406. 15 b, 17 b, 101; 417. 5, 7; 422. 6), and continues to the end of Cypro-Geometric III (L. 403. 49; A. 13. I). Type 3 is Cypro-Archaic (A. 7. 78; 8. 47). Type 4 is also Cypro-Archaic (I. 1117)· Fibulae of Type I have !lot yet been found in dated strata or tombs, but can, on typological grounds, be assigned to the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric period (cf. Blinkenberg, Fibules gr. et orient., pp. 63 f.). Type 2 a is represented in Cypro-Geometric I (L. 417. 99), and continues in CyproGeometric II (L. 425. 21). Type 2 b begins also in Cypro-Geometric I (L. 406. 15 a, 16, 17 a, 102; 422. 3, 4; 428. 24; 602. 41; 603. 9; A. 15. 62; 22. 9), is still fairly common in Cypro-Geometric II (L. 4°8.51 a; 409. 13 b, 15; 411. 23 b, 24; 425. 19,22), and disappears during Cypro-Geometric III (L. 403. 51). Type 2 c is represented by a single specimen from Cypro-Geometric II (A 22. 51), is common in Cypro-Geometric III [L. 401. 59; 403. 23; 428. 8; A. 14. 65 (C. G. II-III); 18. 29,50, 52], and continues in CyproArchaic I (A. 5. 24, 29; A. 7. 79, 165, 19°-192; II. 18, 91) and Cypro-Archaic II (A.8. 121, 128; 9. 71, 72; I. 167). Type 2 d is represented by a single specimen from CyproGeometric III (A. 18. 34), and is more common during Cypro-Archaic I (A. 5· 39; 7. 80, 189) and Cypro-Archaic II (A. 4. 4, 5). Type 3 a has not been found in dated strata earlier than Cypro-Archaic I (I. 180; A. I. 2313), and continues in Cypro-Archaic II (A. I. 2705). The earliest specimen of Type 3 b belongs to Period 4 in Idalion, i. e., it may date from Cypro-Geometric III, but it is not necessarily earlier than the beginning of CyproArchaic I (I. 1141), and it is clearly represented in that period (I. 267). Type 4 has not been found in dated strata earlier than Cypro-Archaic I (I. 435), and continues in CyproArchaic II (I. 355).
RELAT~VE
216
ARTS AND CRAFTS
CHRONOLOGY
The following diagram illustrates the chronological sequence of these types of fibulae:' Type I
I
C.G.I1
C.G. I
1---
C. G. III
I
C. A. I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
---I
I
I
za
I
zb
I
zc
I
I
zd
I
I
I I
-
1---
---I
I
I
3
4
I
\
C. A. II
I
I
I
I
I
Types 3 a and 4 have been considered to be early types starting c?ntemporarywith Types I and 2 a, b. Blinkenberg (op. cit., p. 242) derives Type 3 a from hIS Sub-~ycenaean Type II 12, and accepts (op. cit., pp. 248 f.) the view held by Ohnefalsch-Rlcht:r and Myres that Type 4 begins. in the early Cypro-Geometric period. Our present eVld~~ce speaks against an early date for these fibulae. Type 3 a is derived from a subsequent S!nan variety of the Sub-Mycenaean type (d. p. 382).The assertion that a fragmentary specImen of Type 4 b was found together with theCypro-Geometric I group of pottery from a tomb at Kition (Verhandl. Berl. Ges.]. Anthrop., 1899, p. 331, Fig. XXII; Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Lioerp, III, 1910, PI. XXIX, 5) cannot be used as chronological evidence, because the group of pottery is not homogeneous: the majority is Cypro'-Geometric I, but the flask, ibid., PI. XXIX, 8 AlB, is Middle Cypriote III. It is thus evident that this group of pottery acquired by Ohnefalsch-Richter in March 1895 contains intrusive specimens added by the dealer. As an intrusive element we must also consider the fibula fragment of Type 4 b. Hair-rings of Type I are represented already in the Cypro-Geometric period, the earliest specimen hitherto recorded dating from Cypro-GeometricIIjL. 409. 14), but they are already represented on a faience head of the Late Bronze Age (d. p. 389). Two datable specimens of Type 2 belong to the Cypro-Classical period (M. 46.2), but they are frequently represented in Archaic sculpture. Type 3 is Cypro-Classical (M. 38. 7; ~I. 38; 44· 5~). Earrings of Type I occur frem Cypro-Geometric I (L. 420. 15), are still common In Cypro-ArchaicII (A. II. 72 b;L 381, 624, 813, 837, 998, etc.), and continueto :he end of the Classical period (M. 21. Dr. N. 2, No.2), though they seem to be rare dunng that period. Type 2 a :s a Late Bronze Age type (E. 19. 53; I. 532 , 928, 937, 12~9; cf. p. 385), though not hitherto found in known Iron Age context before Cypro-Archaic II (I. 1499)· Typez b .is not found before Cypro-Classic I (M. 46. 3)· i
An unbroken line
indicates that the type is common, a broken line that it is rare.
217
Finger-rings of Type I are represented from the early part of Cypro-Geometric(L. 408. 68; 425. 20) to the end of the Cypro-Classical period (V. 14.29). Types 2 and 3 also occur from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric (2: L. 428. 28, 83; A. 22. 33; 1\1. 69. 22; 3: L. 4°6.4°; 420.79), but have not been found later than Cypro-Archaic (2:1. 697, 1089; 3: A. 8. 127; I I. 15; S. 17.40). Type 4 is frequently represented in the Cypro-Archaic period (e. g., I. II4 b, 253, 289, 1016, 1296, 1312, 1498, etc.). Type 5 has been found in strata of Cypro-Archaic II (I. 744, 798), but is represented in iron from the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I (p. 213). Type 6 is represented already at the end of Cypro-Geometric III (A. 18. 45), and continues until Cypro-Archaic II (I. 1272). Bracelets of all types have not been found earlier than Cypro-Archaic (e. g., I. 125 a, 275, 314, 376, etc.). Types I and 2 have also been found in the Cypro-Classical period (I: V. 175 e, 313; 2: V. 187 b), and silver specimens of Types 3 and 4 are represented in the Cypro-Classical period (cf. p. 220), which shows that this type like the others continued in the period mentioned. Toe-rings, pendants, clasps, horse-bits, chains, hinges are represented by single or rare specimens, so that no chronological sequence can be established. For the date of the objects in question I refer to the excavation reports. The blinkers hitherto found belong to the Cypro-Archaic period (I. 148, 164, 302, 416, 835). The horse's frontlets can be assigned to the same period for stylistic reasons. Nails, rivets, and cramps have been found in great number from Cypro-Archaic I to Cypro-Classic II. That no specimens found belong to the Cypro-Geometric period must be due to chance. Lamps of Type I occur from Cypro-Archaic I (I. 1443) to Cypro-Classic II (V. I. 64 +65). Type 2 is represented by a single dated specimen from Cypro-Archaic II (1.459). Lamp-stands of Type I have been found in tombs of Cypro-Archaic II (Exc. in Cyp., p. 83, d. Fig. 88; p. 102, Fig. 148: 6 +6 a), and for typological reasons Type 2 a can be assigned to the end of Cypro-Archaic II, and Type 2 b is typical of the Cypro-Classical period, as can be seen from the corresponding specimens in iron. Incense-burners of Type I occurred in the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic periods, as can be seen from the corresponding specimens in terracotta (cf. Fig. 37= 27, 28). Type 2 is found in the Cypro-Classical period (V. 537). Incense-lamps are Cypro-Archaic (I. 1088). Tripods of Type I are Cypro-Geometric (cf. p. 403), and Type 2 continues in the CyproArchaic period (cf. p. 404). The single specimen of a flute is of uncertain date. Plates occur in Cypro-Classic II (Marion tomb, unpublished). Bowls of Types I and 2 occur from Cypro-Geometric I (I: L. 4°6.33; 417.17; 2: L. 420.2) to Cypro-Classic II (I: M. 22.26; 2: M. 34.8). Type 3 appears already in Cypro-Geometric I (A. 22. 6, 7), but is not found later than the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I (A. II. 43). Type 4 is not found earlier thanCypro-Archaic II (I. 17, 18, 27, 129). Type 5 is represented by a single specimen dating from Cypro-Geometric III (cf. below). Type 6 is identical in shape with a class of pottery bowls of TypeTV (d. Fig. XLII, 13),andcan
218
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
ARTS AND CRAFTS
therefore be assigned to the Cypro-Archaic period. Types 7 a-c are represented by single, dated specimens, of which 7 a belongs to Cypro-Geometric II (A. 6. 12), 7 b to CyproClassic I-II (V. 424), and 7 c to Cypro-Archaic II (I. 81). Type 8 a appears first in Cypro-Geometric I-II (A. 21. 42), and dated specimens continue until Cypro-Geometric III (A. 13. 8). Imitations in pottery show, however, that the type survived in the CyproArchaic period (cf. Fig. XLIII, 20). Type 8 b is represented by a single specimen found in a tomb of Cypro-Classic I-II (M. 58.37). Type 9 is represented by a single, dated specimen from Cypro-Archaic II (A. 10. 6 +12 +46). The dated specimens of Type 10 are from Cypro-Archaic II (cf. Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: 8, 9 and the pottery found in the tomb, p. 107, Fig. 154). The single specimen found of Type II is a decorated bowl of the second Cypro-Egyptian phase and dates therefore from Cypro-Archaic I (cf. below). Type 12 is Cypro-Archaic (I. 2), and Type 13 is Cypro-Classical (M. 34. 10; 58. 36, 37). Of the decorated bronze bowls, that of the first Proto-Cypriote phase (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4561) dates from the later part of Cypro-Geometric III, that of the second ProtoCypriote phase (Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, p. 94, Fig. I) from Cypro-Archaic I, that of the Neo-Cypriote group (Cesnola, Salaminia, p. 53, Fig. 53) from Cypro-Archaic II, and that of the second Cypro-Egyptian phase (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4560) from Cypro-Archaic I. For the datings, cf. Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. XI, 1946), pp. 15 ff. The cauldron is of uncertain date. The strainer can be assigned to the early CyproGeometric period on the evidence of the similar pottery Types I-II (cf. Figs. III, I; XI, I; XVI, I). The earliest ladles found date from Cypro-Archaic II (I. 15; Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: 4, cf; the pottery of that tomb, p. 107, Fig. 154) and the latest one from Cypro-Classic II (M. 25. 16; 34· 43)· Of the jugs, Type I is of uncertain date. Type 2 is similar to pottery specimens of Type V (Fig. LIII, 18), and may thus be assigned to Cypro-Archaic II; Type 4 corresponds to pottery specimens of Type V (Fig. LIII, 19), and has been found in a tomb of CyproArchaic II (Exc. in Cyp., p. 102, Fig. 148: 5, cf. the pottery found in the tomb, p. 107, Fig. 154). Type 3 dates from Cypro-Classic II (M. 34. II). Type 7 has some resemblance to pottery specimens of Types IV and V (Figs. XLII, 3; L, 3,4), and can therefore be assigned to the Cypro-Archaic period. Types 5 and 6 are similar to pottery specimens of Type IV (cf. Figs. XXXV, 3, 4; XLI, 14; XLIII, 13), and can therefore be assigned to the same period. For the date of the remaining bronze objects, mountings, weights, etc., which are of such a nature that they do not form a typological sequence, one is referred to the excavation reports.
The single, dated specimen of a needle belongs to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 228 b). The fibulae can be dated on the evidence of the corresponding bronze types. Only one specimen, corresponding to the bronze Type 2 c has been found in a safe context and dates from Cypro-Archaic II (A. 9. 174). The girdle was also found in a tomb of that period (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, pp. 368 f., cf. pottery illustrated by Fig. 253). The hair-rings of narrow spiral coils have not been found in a known context. The corresponding bronze specimens appear already in Cypro-Geometric (cf. p. 216). Earrings of Types I and 2 a are represented in the Cypro-Archaic and the CyproClassical periods (I: I. 92; M. 31. Dr. N. 3, NO.5 b; 58. 40; 85. 10; 2 a: I. 348), but Type 2 b, like the corresponding bronze type, is only represented in the Cypro-Classical period (M. 59.32; 67.43; V. 559 b; V. 1. 56; 3.43 a, b, 45). Type I is, however, represented in bronze and gold already from Cypro-Geometric I (cf. pp. 216, 221) and Type 2 a in bronze and gold from the Late Bronze Age (cf. p. 216). It is therefore apparently only due to the scarceness of silver that hitherto these types are not represented earlier in that metal. Type 3 has not been found in a known context but the corresponding gold specimens are Cypro-Classical (cf. p. 221). Type 4 is Cypro-Classic II (V. 16. 12). Type 5 has not been found in a known context, but the type was in vogue from the very end of Cypro-Archaic and in the Cypro-Classical period, as can be seen from representations of it in the sculpture (cf. the corresponding gold type). Type 6 a appears in Cypro-Archaic (I. 1004), and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (M. 26. 10; V. 3.44); Type 6 b has been found in a tomb of Cypro-Classic II (Exc. in Cyp., p. 123, T. 2II). Finger-rings of Types I and 2 are represented from Cypro-Archaic (I: A. 7. 186; A. 10. 2; M. 83. 22-24; 2: I. 345, 354; M. 72. 37 a) to Cypro-Classic (I: M. 44. 56; 2: M. 34. 61; 39· 37)· Type 3 has been found hitherto only in Cypro-Classical tombs (M. 44. 56; 67. 44 b, c), but specimens of this type in other metal are already represented in Cypro-Archaic (cf. p. 213). Type 4 is represented by a single, dated specimen from Cypro-Classic I-II (M. 58. 30), but the type occurs already in the Late Bronze Age. Dated specimens of Type 5 have only been found in Cypro-Archaic II (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 498, No. 45, Marion, T. 235, Necr. II). Type 6 is represented from the beginning of Cypro-Archaic (A. 23. 16); it is common in Cypro-Archaic II (M. 83. 25-27), and a few specimens date from the Cypro-Classical period (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 499, No. 42, Marion, T. 35, Necr. III). Type 7 begins in Cypro-Archaic II (op. cit., p. 498, No. 43, Marion, T. 106, Necr. II; p. 499, No. 40, Marion, T. 244, Necr. II), and continues in the CyproClassical period (V. 16,9, II). Pendant-rings occur from Cypro-Archaic II (M. 62. 40), and specimens of those with oval hoop continue in the Cypro-Classical period, as can be seen from the style of the representations on the gems. Beads are rare; those of known context are Cypro-Classic I (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7, II, the tomb wrongly assigned to the 6th cent. B. C., cf. op. cit., p. 417), but, as shown by the corresponding gold specimens (cf. p. 222), these types of bead are earlier.
SILVER Silver objects were evidently not common before the Cypro-Archaic period. Of objects from known and certain contexts, only a rectangular mounting (A. 18.42) is pre-Archaic, and dates from Cypro-Geometric III.
219
220
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Pendants of Type I are found from Cypro-Archaic II (A. 9. 17; 10. 5; 1. 719) to CyproClassic II (M. 21. Dr. N. 2, NO.3; 40. 17 b). For the date of each single variety and specimen one is referred to the excavation reports. Types 2-4 are Cypro-Classical, as far as can be judged from typological features and on the evidence of specimens of known contexts (V. 292 r; Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LXVII, 7, 9; on the date of the tomb d. above). Bracelets of Types I and 4 are recorded from Cypro-Archaic II (I: M. 62. 18, 39; I. 77, 90; 4: A. 25. 2), and continue in the Cypro-Classical period (I: M. 60. 5, 6; V. 292 k, 1; 4: V. 292 n). Types 2, 3, and 6 have been found hitherto only in Cypro-Classic (2: M. 60. 6o; V. 292 h-j; 3: V. 2920; 6: V. 292 m). Of these, the variety of Type 2 with terminals in the shape of snakes' heads is represented in bronze already in Cypro-Archaic I (d. p. 217). Types has not been .found in a known context, but can be assigned to the CyproArchaic period for stylistic reasons. All the frontlets have been found in uncertain contexts, but the style of their decoration assigns the earliest specimens to the Cypro-Archaic period, and they seem to have continued in the Cypro-Classical period. The toilet and surgical instruments follow the chronology of the corresponding bronze types. The mouth-piece can be assigned to the Cypro-Classical period on the evidence of the corresponding gold types. The reels occur from the very end of Cypro-Archaic or beginning of Cypro-Classic (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 499, No. 51, Marion, T. 174, Necr. II), and continue to the end of the latter period (loc. cit., Nos. 48-50, Marion, T. 12, 42,48, Necr. III). For the date of the different varieties of mountings one is referred to the excavation reports, as far as they are found in known contexts. For the chronology of the silver vases we possess a few dates given by finds of certain context. Bowls of Types 8-11 have been found in Cypro-Classical tombs and strata (8: Exc. in Cyp., p. 66, Fig. 78; d. p. 83, T. 80; 9: V. 292 b; 10: V. 292 c; Exc. in Cyp., p. 66, Fig. 79; d. p. 83, T. 83; II: V. 292 d). These are the fixed points yielded by the known conditions of finds. For chronological determination of the other vases we are entirely dependant on typological evidence, comparisons with pottery and bronze specimens of similar shape, and the data given by foreign material of a similar kind (d. pp. 217 £.,405 ff.). Of the decorated silver bowls, that of the third Proto-Cypriote phase (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4557) dates from the early part of Cypro-Archaic II, that of the Neo-Cypriote group (op. cit., No. 4555) from Cypro-Archaic II, that of the third Cypro-Egyptian phase (op. cit., NO.. 4552) from the same period, that of the first Cypro-Phoenician phase (Journ. Hell. Stud. LIII, 1933, PIs. I-III) from the later part of Cypro-Geometric III, those of the second Cypro-Phoenician phase (Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 4554, 4556; Perrot, & Chipiez, Hist.de l'art III, p. 779, Fig. 548) from Cypro-Archaic I, those of the third Cypro-Phoenician phase (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4553; Perrot & Chipiez, op. cit. III, p. 77 1, Fig. 546) from the. earliest part of Cypro-Archaic II, and that of the Cypro-Greek class (Oriental. Archiv III, 1912/13, PI. XXXII, 43) to the later part of Cypro-Archaic II. For these datings, cf. Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. 15ff.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
221
GOLD The single example of a needle dates from the Cypro-Classical period (V. 239). Pins and fibulae have not been found in known contexts. For typological reasons they can be assigned to the Cypro-Geometric period (d. p. 21 5). Hair-rings of Types I and 2 are Cypro-Classical (I: M. 57. 15; 2: M. 57. 12; 59.22; 60. 66, 73). Hair-rings of Type I are, however, earlier (d. p. 216). Earrings of Type I a, b occur from Cypro-Geometric I (L. 417.8, 10, 16; 420. 18, 19, 21; 422. 2) to the end of,Cypro-Geometric III (L. 403. 32, 35, 36, 89, 38; A. 13. 12). Type 2 is represented by a single, dated specimen from the end of Cypro-Classic I (M. 41. 22), but we know that it represents a Late Bronze Age type (p. 216; Exc. in Cyp. pl. X. 41215)· The elaborate specimens of Type 2 b, c can be attributed to the Archaic period for stylistic reasons. The Cypriote contexts of Types 3 and 4 are not known, but their style and finds abroad (p. 387) assign them to the Cypro-Archaic period. Type 5 is found in the Cypro-Classical period (M. 5 I. 8). Type 6 seems to appear at the endofCypro-Classic II (Exc. in Cyp., p. 83, Kurion, T. 80, No. I; p. 85, Kurion, T. 69, No.2). Type 7 can be assigned to the same date (op. cit., p. 82, Kurion, T. 73, No.2). Type 8 has not been found in a known Cypriote context, but sculptural representations of earrings of this type show that it appeared at the very end of Cypro-Archaic and continued in the Cypro-Classical period (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. LI-LIII; LIV, 5; LVIII,S; LIX, I, 2; LX, I; LXIII, I; etc.). Type 9 has been found in Cypro-Classical tombs (Exc. in Cyp., p. 82, Kurion, T. 73, NO.4; p. 125, Amathus, T. 256), but at least Type 9 a is earlier (d. p. 389). Type 10 has also been found in a Cypro-Classical tomb (M. 60.2). The only rings used as nose-rings were found in a tomb of Cypro-Geometric I (L. 406. I) and II (L. 425. 13), but several sculptures show that nose-rings were in use also during Cypro-Archaic II (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, PI. LV, 1-7). Finger-rings of Type I are represented from the early part of Cypro-Geometric (L. 408.65) to the end of that period (L. 403. 34). Specimens of this type in bronze and silver are, however, found to the Cypro-Classical period (d. pp. 217, 219). Type 2 is also represented from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric (L. 417. 2, 3;420. 14, 17), and continues in CyproGeometric II (L. 408. I; 409. 2; 425. 10, II). Later specimens have not hitherto been found in a known context, but in bronze they are represented also in Cypro-Archaic (d. p. 217). The earliest specimens of Type 3 have been found in Cypro-Archaic II (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 498, No. 46, Marion, T. 179, Necr. II), and continue in Cypro-Classic II (M. 34· 57; 60.76). The single dated specimen of Type' 4 belongs to the Cypro-Classical period (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 498, No. 47, Marion, T. 181, Necr. II), but in iron the type is already represented in Cypro-Archaic II (p. 213). Type 5 is from unknown contexts, but the style of the representations on the bezel shows that the type was Cypro-Archaic. The only dated specimen of Type 6 belongs to Cypro-Classic II (op. cit., p. 499, No. 34, Marion, T. 6, Necr. II), but the type is older (d. p. 390). Silver specimens of Type 7
222
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
ARTS AND CRAFTS
are found from Cypro-Archaic I (p. 219). The style of the representations on the bezel of other specimens show that the type continued in the Cypro-Classical period (Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, Nos. 294, 295). The only ring from known context belongs to the end of Cypro-Classic II [Exc. in Cyp., p. 82, Kurion, T. 73, No.6 (gold-plated)]. For stylistic reasons, Type 8 can be assigned to the Archaic period, Type 9 is Cypro-Classical (M. 58. 18a), and Type 10 belongs to Cypro-Classic II for stylistic reasons. Pendant-rings of Type I are from unknown contexts, but in silver the type occurs in Cypro-Archaic II (p. 219). The specimens of Type 2 from known contexts are CyproClassic II (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 498, No. 36, Marion, T. 24, Necr. I; Exc. in Cyp., p. 82, Kurion, T. 73, NO.5)· Beads of Types I and 2 are represented from the Cypro-Geometric to the Cypro-Classical period. For the date of the different varieties of which the context is known, one is referred to the excavation reports. Types 3-5 have not been found in a dated context. For stylistic reasons they cannot be dated earlier than the Cypro-Archaic period, and they were probably in use also in the Cypro-Classical period. Pendants of Type I occur from the Cypro-Geometric to the Cypro-Classical period. For the date of the different varieties from known contexts one is referred to the excavation reports. Type 2 and 3, to judge from the style of the earliest specimens, date from the end of Cypro-Archaic. They continued in the Cypro-Classical period, to which those with a known context belong. The necklaces follow the chronology of their respective beads and pendants. Chains have been found in tombs of the Cypro-Classical period (op. cit., pp. 83 f., Kurion, T. 83, No. I). Bracelets of Types I and 3 have not been found in a known context. In silver Type I occurs from Cypro-Archaic II and continues in the Cypro-Classical period (p. 220), and Type 3 is of the same date. Type 2 is Cypro-Classical (V. 292 e-g), Type 4 is CyproArchaic to judge by the styIe, and Type 5 has not been found earlier than in the CyproClassical period (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 377, NO.9, Marion, T. 24, Sect. I), and the corresponding silver specimens are of the same date. Frontlets of Type I have been found in the Cypro-Geometric period (L. 425. 7, 8; A. 6. 19). Type 2 is also represented in that period (A. 15.3), continues to Cypro-Archaic II (A. 10. I), and seems to last into the Cypro-Classical period (Exc. in Cyp., p. 119,Amathus, T. 88). The exact contexts of Types 3 and 4 are unknown, but the style of their embossed ornaments and datable finds abroad (p. 397) place them in the Cypro-Classical period. Mouth-pieces have not been found in safely dated tombs before Cypro-Classic (M. 57.13; 58. 5; 60. 4), but the embossed ornaments of Type I show that this type was already represented in the Cypro-Archaic period. Reels date from the Cypro-Classical period (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 377, Nos. 10, II, Marion, T. 24, Sect. I). Mountings of Type I are very common in the Cypro-Geometric period, from its beginning (L. 422. I, 12; 428. 10, 18-23) to its end (L. 403. 2, 4, 33, 37, 46, 50, 9 1, 93-(5),
and continue in th~ Cypro-Archaic period (I. 834). The earliest specimens of Type 2 belong to Cypro-Geometnc I (L. 417. I, 13-15) and the latest to the Cypro-Classical period (V. 336). Type 3 has been found in the Cypro-Classical period (V. 229 a, 44 1). The four style~ of the embossed ornaments on the mounting are thus dated: Style I is Cypro-Geometnc I. (L. 4.17. I, 13-. 15~; Style 2 is Cypro-Geometric III (L. 403. I, 3, 40, 41, 92), and continues m the begmnmg of Cypro-Archaic I (A. 8. 142); Style 3 has not been found ~n a kno;vn. c.ontext, but can be assigned to Cypro-Archaic on stylistic evidence. Style 4 IS Egyptlamzmg, and can be assigned to Cypro-Archaic II, but the style lingered on in Cypro-Classic I (V. 336). Of the two gold bowls recorded, the plain specimen found in Arsos contained the gold necklaces which are illustrated in Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCV. These necklaces date from Cypro-Archaic, and the bowl may therefore be assigned to the same period. The style of the ~ec~rated bow~ (Handb. Cesn. Colt., No. 4551), assigning it to the first Cypro-Egyptian phase, indicates that It dates from Cypro-Geometric III. For this dating, cf. Opusc. archaeol. IV, p. 16.
223
TERRACOTTA Spindle-whorls of Types I and 2 occur from Cypro-Geometric (I: L. 406.9 a; I. 1433; 2: L. 4 13. 3)· .Type 1 contin~es in Cypro-Archaic (S. 2. 18; 10. 18; 17. 4, 8; I. 11°7). Type 2 appears also m Cypro-Classic (V. 286). Type 3 is represented by a single Cypro-Classical specimen (V. 179). Lamps of Type I are only represented by a single specimen found in Cypro-Archaic II (I. 550). The type is, however, probably earlier. Type 2 is Cypro-Geometric II (Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. 19 f.), Type 3 is represented from Cypro-Geometric III (S. 7. 2; I. 97 1, ~420) to Cypro-Classic II ~M. 25· 3 1; 34· 49; 40. 9; 53.20; 55. 22; 60.4°, 82; etc.). Type 4 IS only repre~ented by a. single specimen of Cypro-Archaic II (I. 1398). Type 5 begins in Cypro-Archaic II (I. 664; A. I. 9 23,.945), and continues in Cypro-Classic (V. 133 c, 380, 43 8,443). Types 6-8 are Cypro-Classical (6: M. 72. 13; V. 3. 42; 7: M. 58. 35; 8: M. 36. 25; 39. Dr. 2). . The other types of terracotta objects are only represented by sporadic specimens from known contexts. .For the date of the individual objects, one is referred to the excavation reports and for the others to stylistic considerations.
FAIENCE Beads?f Type 1 have been found in Cypro-Geometric II (L. 401. 58), continue in CyproGeometnc III (A. 18·43) and Cypro-Archaic I (A. II. 82 b; A. I. 2658 b). Types 2-6 do not appear before Cypro-Archaic or the end of Cypro-Geometric III (2: A. 4. 2; 3: A. 8·57; 12. 3, 4, II c; I. 197; 4: A. I. 2750 c; 5: A. I. 2569; 6: A. 4. 15, 60; 7.7°; II. 82 a;
224
ARTS AND CRAFTS
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
12. 12; K. 564). Type 7 has not been found before Cypro-Archaic II (A. I I. 7 2 a). Types 3 and 7 are also represented inCypro-Classic I (3: V. 387; 7: M. 26. II b). The pendants are not commonly found earlier than Cypro-Archaic, but specimens of Type 3, which, however, may be imported, occur already in Cypro-Geometric II (A. 14· 5; 15. 2, 29)· . The necklaces follow the chronology of the beads and pendants. Type I, consisting of flat, disc-shaped beads, is thus represented first in Cypro-Geometric II (A. 14· 3 I; 21. 49, 50), while Type 2 has not been found earlier than Cypro-Archaic (A. 9· 100). The other types of faience objects are only represented by sporadic specimens from known contexts. For the date of these one is referred to the excavation reports and for the
SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE Beads of semi-precious stone begin to appear in tombs and strata of Cypro-Geometric I (L. 422.7; A. 22. 31), and continue into Cypro-Classic II (V. 2.25 a). The agate sceptre can be assigned to the Archaic period for typological reasons: it is similar to the bronze sceptres dating from that period. For the date of individual objects of the types of bead one is referred to the excavation reports and stylistic considerations.
BONE
others to stylistic considerations. GLASS The earliest glass objects are found in Cypro-Archaic, and they continue in Cypro-Classic, but the specimens of each type are too few to draw any safe conclusions from the absence of a type in the one or the other of these two periods. For the date of individual specimens one is referred to the excavation reports.
The types of bone objects are usually represented by a small number of specimens, and their chronological distribution seems to be fortuitous to a great extent. Thus no objects have been found in a safely dated context of the Cypro-Classical period, which must be due to chance. The roundels are the only type of object which seems to indicate a definite chronological sequence: they are exclusively found in Cypro-Geometric (L. 403. 126; 413..1; 417. 12 b, 92; 420. 25; 425. 18). For the date of the single objects of the other types one IS referred to the excavation reports and stylistic considerations.
STONE Spindle-whorls of Type I are only represented by a single safely dated specimen from Cypro-Geometric III (L. 403. 39). Types 2 and 3 occur from Cypro-Geometric I (2: M. 68.24; I. 3. 25, 101; 3: L. 4°6,9 b; 422. II; 4 28. 27) to the end of Cypro-Archaic II (2: I. 1008; A. I. 2672; 3: I. 500; K. 567; A. I. 2580, 2589)' Beads of Type I are only represented in Cypro-Geometric (A. 15· 47)· Types 2 and 3 occurin Cypro-Geometric, Type 3 already in Cypro-Geometric I (2: A. I. 2024; 3: A. 19· 22; 22. 32; L. 403. 48 b) and continue in Cypro-Archaic (2: A. I. 2295, 2525; 3: A.II. 80; I. 1034). Type 4 has been found in Cypro-Archaic (A. I. 2288). Type 5 is of uncertain period, probably Archaic (A. I. 2132, 2730 b). Type 6 is Cypro-Classical (V. 255, 4 13 b). Alabastra begin in Cypro-Archaic (I. 1513), but are not common before Cypro-Classic (M. 22.23; 36. 16; 47. 37; 53.21; 55· I; V. 457, 458; V. I. 4 2, 59-63, 100; 3· 17; 6·4;
225
GLYPTICS C~lind~rs are represen~ed
in the Geometric period from Cypro-Geometric I (A. 15· 59), continue m Cypro-Archaic (I. 369, 390; A. I. 1550, 2752) and sporadically even in CyproClassic I (V. 160). The seal-stones are also represented from Cypro-Geometric I (A. 22. 4), and continue into Cypro-Archaic II (A. 25.21; I. 643; A. I. 1119,2112,213°, 2286,2661, 2684, 2689, 2696, 2699). The full-bodied and Egyptianizingstyles of the seals are only represented in Cypro-Archaic, while the linear and conventionalized styles are represented in Cypro. Geometric and continue in Cypro-Archaic.· For the dating of the scarabs one is referred to Appendices I and II of Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 825 if.
7. 2, 23, 37; etc.). All the other types of stone objects are only represented by sporadic specimens from known contexts, and for their chronology one is therefore referred to the excavation reports. To the objects without known contexts only tentative dates based on stylistic c?nsiderations can be given, as proposed in Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1515-1560, 1601-17°°.
15
ARCHITECTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Architecture SANCTUARIES AND HOUSES Material and Construction ong the architectural elements the walls, as being the most important in this respect, will be principally taken into consideration; the rubble-walls may, however, be ignored, as the construction of most of these is too universal to be of any value as a means of comparison. The investigation is thus limited to the ashlar walls occuring in the palace of Vouni. 1 It may first be noted that walls with only one side lined with orthostatic blocks, the remainder consisting of rubble-stones, are used in the architecture of Asia Minor. This type of wall is represented in the Hittite architecture of Boghazkeui, in the building now called Temple V.2 While most of the foundation walls of this building are constructed of rubble-stones, part of exterior foundation walls, to the N. and E., are specimens of the technique above mentioned." The orthostats are made of limestone blocks, they are well-cut and smoothed on the outside, but unworked behind, and embedded in the rubble-stones. Further, we find this method of construction used in the walls of the large masonry of Level 10 in Alishar Huyuk.' Orthostatic walls of a similar kind are also represented in the palaces of Eastern Anatolia and North-Syria, e. g., in Sendjirli,' Carchemish," Eyuk,7 Sakje-Geuzi," Tell Halaf," etc. The orthostats consist here of basalt or limestone, and a remarkable difference as to their
K .
1 In Corolla archaeol., pp, 145 ff, I have already published a paper on the architectural connections of the palace at Vouni. My views are still the same as those expressed there. As regards the palace at Vouni, I therefore confine myself to quoting the conclusions drawn in that paper, to which I refer for a full discussion. To this, I add some new material and supplementary evidence given by other architectural monuments in Cyprus. For general principles, cf. the paper quoted, pp. 150 f. and GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, pp, 291 ff, 2 KRAUSE, BogazkOy, Tempel V, pp. 9 ff, a PUCHSTEIN, Boghaskdi, Die Bauwerke, p. 168, PIs. 47-49. KRAUSE, loco cit.; PIs. 3, I I. The foundation walls of the other
four buildings are in a different technique. They are, as a rule, built of large orthostats covering the whole width of the walls; cf. PUCHSTEIN, op, cit., PIs. 34, 42, 44. « The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1930-32, II, pp. 2, 18, Figs. 65-70.
Ausgrab. in Sendschirli I, p. II (Fig. 3); II, pp. 91 (Fig.), 99 (Fig.), 123 (Fig. 30), 125 (Fig. 33); III, PIs. xxxvq ff. 5
8
Carchemish I, PI. B.
I;
II, PIs. 17, a; B. 17 a.
7 CHANTRE, Mission en Cappadoce, pp. I ff., Figs. 4, 5, 10; Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. I, 1908, PIs. II, III. 8 Ibid., pp. 107 ff., PIs. XXXVIII-XLII. 8 v, OPPENHEIM, Der Tell Halaf, pp, 85 ff.
227
structural use is that, as a rule, they were used to cover the lower part of the upper brickwall, but in some cases they were used in the same way as in Boghazkeui and Vouni, i. e., for lining the foundation walls of rubble-stones. 1 The orthostats are sometimes plain, as in Boghazkeui and Vouni, but often decorated with representations of figures forming a relief frieze. This kind of wall is used at monumental places in the palaces, while the other walls are ordinary prick-walls built on foundations of rubble-stones. It is well known that orthostatic blocks of this kind with relief decoration are also frequently used in the walls of Assyrian palace architecture. 2 In Babylonia and Egypt, on the other hand, this type of wall is not represented, but in Greece a similar kind of mural technique was used. It is common feature of Greek temple walls that a series of orthostats faces the outer side of the wall as a sort of dado below the normally constructed upper part of the wall. This seems to be a survival from the period of sun-dried 'bricks, when the orthostats and their backing were alone of stone." The relief decoration of these orthostatic blocks occurs only in the Eastern group. This decoration is a later artistic embellishment, but the origin of this peculiar mural technique seems to have been its practical purpose of protecting from moisture the lower part of the brick-walls and thus preventing them from being undermined." This brick-wall technique was later on applied also to the construction of stone foundations. This seems evident especially from its use in the walls of the palace at Vouni. Walls of this construction are there used exclusively in the monumental entrance-building, consequently at the same place as in the brick-buildings, while foundation walls of a much more solid construction were used at less important places in the palace. The decorated orthostatic walls appear in Tell Halaf in the znd millennium B. C. This technique consequently occurs at an earlier date in the Syrian province than in Assyria, and it is therefore natural to search for its origin outside Assyria, and more especially in a province where clay and stone are found together as building materials. The fact that brick-wall buildings exist in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris up to the mountain region, where stone was also easily accessible, has induced F. Wachtsmuth to locate the origin of the orthostatic technique in that district, i. e., in the district of Mitanni.' Th's may be true as regards the typical Syro-Anatolian group, of which the Greek group, however, is quite independent. The Cypriote mural technique of this peculiar kind bears a closer resemblance to that of Anatolia and Syria than to that of Greece. The type of wall with a double-sided revetment of ashlar blocks and an inner filling of rubble-stones etc. does not occur in eastern Anatolia and further E., but it appears in Boghazkeui, where the cella in the S. W. corner of the court of Temple V is built according 1
Ausgrab. in Sendschirli II, p. 124, Figs. 31,31 a; Carche-
misb II, pp. 146 f. 2 PLACE, Ninive et l'Assyrie, passim; LAYARD, Monum. of Nineveh, passim. ",ROBERTSON, Handb. of Greek & Roman Archit., p. 50; ANDERSON & SPIERS, The Archit, of. Anc, Greece, pp. 66, 69, 80. Cf. DAWKINS, Artemis Orthia, pp. 10 ff., Figs. 5-7; Olympia II, pp. 31 f., PIs. XIX, XXIII. KOLDEWEY
(Ausgrab. in Sendschirli II, p. 195) thinks that the kyanos frieze of the Mycenaean palaces belongs to this structural type. I think that the kyanos frieze, like the wall-tiles of the Minoan palaces, should be compared with the glazed bricks facing the walls in the Syrian and Babylonian buildings (cf. Carchemish II, pp. 154 ff.), « Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. XLVI, 1931, p. 39. 5 Ibid., pp. 37 f.
228
FOREIGN RELATIONS
to this technique. 1 Further W. it is more common. In the palace of Knossos, the W. wall has large orthostats as lining-blocks and an inner filling of clay and small rubble-sto~es. On the top of the orthostats are notches for the insertion of wooden cross-beams supportmg the upper brick-wall, which is now missing.' Of similar construction, but entirely of stone, are the walls with uniform lining of ashlar blocks - not alternate orthostatic and recumbent blocks - and an inner wall of rubble-stones, which are common in the Minoan palaces, 3 and are represented also in the palace at Mycenae} The orthostatic type of wall is also used in later Greek architecture, e. g., in Assos, Miletos, Priene, Delos, Pergamon, Malka Toumba, Eleusis, Pella, Eresos on Lesbos. In Assos some of the walls of the "Bazaar" on the S. side of the market are built according to this technique. 6 In Miletos there are typical walls in the same technique: in the eastern hall of the S. market" and at the S. W. corner of the N. market;' at both places the recumbent blocks, placed lengthways, cover the whole width of the wall; furthermore, in the Gymnasium, where there are specimens of both solid and filled walls; the latter are rather narrow, and therefore the interspaces between the lining blocks are narrow, too." All these walls date from the Hellenistic period. Among the walls in Priene belonging to this class, those of the temple of Athena Polias 9 and some of the house-walls 1 ° should be noticed. In Pergamon some walls of the "Gebiiude III" on the Acropolis and other buildings, 11 and in Delphi the walls of the treasure-houses of the Cnidians" and the Massaliotes" belong to the same category. The Pergamenic walls are Hellenistic, and the Delphian treasurehouses date from the 6th cent. B. C. A length of wall excavated in MaIka Toumba, near Kavalla, presents an interesting feature, connecting it with the W. wall of Knossos: it consists of a single layer of orthostatic blocks with an inner filling of small stones; on the top of the filling are transverse grooves at certain distances, marking the place of wooden cross-beams, which supported the upper brick-wall. 14 , In Eleusis there is a facade wall of a gateway in this technique dating from the time of Peisistratos (D 1).16 Buildings in Pella are recorded to have walls of this kind," and at Eresos on Lesbos 1 PUCHSTEIN, op. cit., p. 167, PI. 47; KRAUSE, op. cit., p. 44, PIs. 14, IS.
o Ann. Brit. School Athens VII, p. 3, Fig. I; EVANS, Pal. of Minos I, p. 128, Figs. 95, 96.
Op. cit. I, p. 348, Fig. 250; p. 352, Fig. 253 a; p. 353, Fig. 253 b, and passim (Knossos); Mon. Ant. XII, 19°2, PIs. IV, V, VII (Phaistos). 3
4 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 1I2 (the grave circle); pp. 189 f., Fig. 37; pp. 234 f., Fig. 46.
o CLARKE, Investig. at Assos, p. 75; some of the walls of
'the Heroon (p, 109) and of the temple at the agora (p. 23) are built of alternate ashlars and rubble-stones like a few
of the Vouni walls; shell-walls with facing stones of uniform blocks occur in the 3rd city-gate (p. 203). 6 Milet I: 7, pp. 31 ff., Figs. 30, 31. 7 Milet I: 6, p. 35, Fig. 50. B Milet I: 9, p. 6, Figs. 9, 10. .9 Priene, pp.. 95 ff. lOOp. cit., pp. 300 f. 11 Altert. v. Pergamon V: I, Tafeln, PIs. II, III, V, #/1. 12 Bull. Corr. Hell. XXXVII, 1913, pp. 24 ff., Fig. 5. 13 Ibid., pp. 25, 38. 14 Op.cit. XLVI, 1922, p. 532, Fig. 14. 16 NOACK, Eleusis, p. 27, Fig. 10; PIs. 20, d; 23, C. 16 IIpIX1!.'t. rij~ 'Apx. 'E'tIXtp., 1914, p. 139.
ARCHITECTURE
229
there are square fortification towers with walls of this type, with occasional transverse blocks.' Later on, the Romans adopted this technique of lining concrete walls with ashlar blocks. This construction of walls was called emplekton by the Greeks; Vitruvius describes it, and distinguishes between the Greek and the Roman emplekton:' The box-walls are only a technically improved variety of emplekton walls. Vitruvius calls the transverse blocks diatonoi.: The Roman walls are left out of this survey. Box-walls are represented, e. g., in Eleusis, Priene, Miletos, albia, Pergamon, Assos, and Isaura. In Eleusis a terrace wall from the post-Persian period is constructed in the box-wall technique, with an inner filling of small rubble-stones, but the wall is one-sided, as it forms only the outer facade of the terrace filling. In Priene some of the house-walls are built on these lines, the outer facades only having a regular lining of the box-wall type, while the inner faces are made of roughly dressed stone. The inner filling consists of rubble-stones. The walls of the magazine hall in the S. market of Miletos have marble blocks in the facades and an inner filling of poros chips and rubble-stones. The building is assigned to the late Hellenistic period. 7 The harbour gate of the N. market also has a substructural wall for the stylobate of the entrance, with raised blocks between each pair of facing blocks, and an inner filling of small rubble-stones and mortar. The columns were placed above the transverse blocks. This structure, however, maybe early Roman in date. The box-wall technique is common in Pergamon: it is used in the walls of the buildings on the Acropolis, both the "Gebdude I-V" and other buildings. Sometimes the alternation of the blocks is very irregular: there are examples of walls with successive layers of horizontal orthostatic blocks and with only a few transverse blocks inserted here and there. The walls of Assos built in this technique are the following: some walls of the "Bazaar" on the S. side of the market and most of the walls of the stoa on the S.'side of the market." The fortification walls of Isaura are good samples of the box-wall construction. They are assigned to the time of King Amyntas.v Unlike the other types of walls here referred to, box-walls do not appear in the prehistoric period, though their origin can be traced back to that period. In Sendjirli there are examples of brick-walls strengthened by a wooden frame-work of 0
6
6
8
9
1 KOLDEWEY, Die ant. Baureste d. Insel Lesbos, p. 23, PI. 27. Apart from these, shell-walls of alternately orthostatic and recumbent blocks are fairly common, especially in Asia Minor, but they are left out of account here. a DURM, Baukunst d. Etrusker u, Romer, pp. 207 f.,. Fig. 2 I I. Some walls of the Hatra buildings are excellent examples of such walls in the Ori~nt. Cf. ANDRAE, Hatra I, PIs. IV, V; II, Figs. 190,200,201; p, 139, Fig. 233; Pis. VIII-XI. 3 Vitruv., De archit, II, 8, 7. 4 Loc, cit.
6
NOACK, Eleusis, p. 91; Pis. 23, b; 24, c, d; 27, b.
6
Priene, pp. 301 f., Fig. 320.
7 Milet I: 7, pp. 156 ff., 167 f., 177, Figs. 175, 176, PIs. III, XXI, XXIII. 8
Milet I: 6, pp. 45 f., Pis. XII, XVIII.
Altert, v. Pergamon V: I, pp. 2 ff., Pis. I ff. CLARKE, op. cit., pp. 23; 29, 31, 37, 75. 11 SWOBODA & KEIL & KNOLL, Denkm. aus Lykaon., Pamph, u. Isaur., pp. 120 ff. 9
10
23 0
ARCHITECTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
beams corresponding to the recumbent and transverse raised blocks in the stone walls;' in Boghazkeui a similar kind of construction seems to have been used;" in Troy, too, the existence of such walls, strengthened by a wooden frame-work, has been ascertained, but there the beams were placed farther apart from each other, so that the correspondence to the stone-walls is not so close.' In Knossos- and Mycenae" such a wooden frame-work is used in walls of rubble-stones. The influence of these structures with a wooden framework on the technique of pure stone walls of the box-type seems obvious: the technical experience displayed in the construction of the former walls was made use of in the construction of the latter ones. This general survey of wall-constructions in foreign countries corresponding to some of the typical wall-constructions in Cyprus shows that the technical features characteristic of that island are also represented in the architecture of Greece and the Near East, particularly the Syro-Anatolian region. A construction of great interest is the arrangement for the sudatory of the palace at Vouni.s This is the earliest sudatory with hypocaust arrangement hitherto found in the Mediterranean. It belongs to the second building period of the palace and thus dates from c. 470 B. C., while the earliest hypocaust hitherto found in Greece, that of the bath in Olympia,' dates from c. 100 B. C. The hypocaust at Vouni represents a more primitive solution of the heating problem than that of Olympia: at Vouni small fire-chambers are situated below the sudatory, and the hot air was conducted vertically through holes in the wall to the room above; in Olympia there is a single fire-room, from where the hot air was horizontally conducted through a channel below the hollow floor of the sudatory. In Vouni the building material was stone and lime-mortar, in Olympia brick. The origin of the hypocaust system is an unsolved problem, and the material is still too fragmentary to admit a solution. The fact that the hypocaust was not introduced before c. 100 B. C. into the bath establishment at Olympia, which was in continuous use from the 5th cent. B. C., seems to indicate that it was not a Greek invention. The same is indicated by the fact that the first palace of Vouni, including the znd building-period, when the hypocaust was built, does not show any connection with Greek architecture, as we shall see. Everything we know about the Greek bath from literary evidence tends also to show that the hypocaust system was not used in Greece during the Classical period.' On the other hand, outside Cyprus the hypocaust system has not yet been found in the Near East before the Roman period, and if this system was not a Cypriote invention, we must therefore assume that it was introduced into Cyprus from some part of the Near East, where, if such be the case, it still remains to be discovered. Further excavations will decide the question. At present we can only ascertain that the change from the primitive hypocaust system used at Vouni Ausgrab. in Sendschirli II, p. 160, Fig. 69; pi. XXXII. "PUCHSTEIN, op, cit., p. 165. a DORPFELD, Troja u, Ilion, p, 87, Fig. 26; p. 91, Fig. 29· • EVANS, op. cit. I,pp. 347 ff., Figs. 251, 252. • Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, pp.67; 87 ff., 240, Fig. 20; Pis. XIII, d; XVI. 1
•
6 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 130 f., 212 f. • KUNZE & SCHLEIF, IV. Ber. iiber d. Ausgrab. in Olympia, pp. 5 I ff., 96. 8 VAN ESVELD, De balneis lavationibusque Graecorum, pp. 66 ff., 178 ff., 222 ff.
23 1
to the more advanced type represented in Olympia must have taken place sometime between the 5th cent. and c. 100 B. C. Finally, it may be noted that the arrangement for heating water in the kettle of the caldarium is similar in Vouni- and Olympia, where such an arrangement is found already in the 5th cent. B. C.2 but especially similar to the arrangement at Vouni is that of the "Sitting-bath III" in Olympia dating from c. 300 and the 3rd cent. B. C.:· the water of the boiler inserted in a wall of the bath-room was heated by the fire lit in an adjoining fireplace. Finally, I would draw attention to another structure: the type of cistern' used in the palace of Vouni. In particular, the bell-shaped variety- is exactly similar to cisterns found in Samaria,' both in construction and in shape. Cisterns similar to those of Vouni were also used in Greece' and there is the same arrangement for clearing the water as at Vouni.s Form and Plan The architectural ideas of the Cypriote Iron Age are represented in a monumental form by the palace of Vouni. It has been shown that the first palace of Vouni is related to that particular type of the Oriental court-house which is called the "liwan house".· Symmetry, axiality, and frontality are characteristic of the house-plan. The rooms are grouped round a central court, rudiments of the side-liwans are preserved by the stylobate in front of the tripartite group of rooms, the reception rooms are located in the entrance building, thus, all the essential features of the Vouni palace are the same as those of the liwan house. It may be objected that the middle room in the background of the court is not open and therefore not of the liwan type, but, as shown below, the liwan room is represented in Cypriote architecture already in the prehistoric period, and in view of the fact that an open room is often transformed into a closed room,» the absence of the liwan room does not upset the principal fact, that the plan shows resemblance to that of the liwan house. The liwan type of room is represented in Cyprus already in the Stone Age (a Neolithic hut at Lapithos)» and in the Middle Bronze Age (a house at Kalopsida).» It was known in Minoan architecture, and had there developed into a fixed, tripartite type. 1. From pictures on Roman coins it is evident that the temple of the Paphian Aphrodite was of that same type, consisting of three cellae, of which the middle was of the open type.» It seems very Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 228 f. KUNZE & SCHLEIF, op, cit., pp. 37 f., 96. a Op. cit., pp. 47 f., PI. 16; cf. also the "Sitting-bath III B" (op. cit., p. 50, PI. 17), with a conduit leading from the fireplace to the kettle. • Swed. Cyp. Exp III, pp. 163 ff.; Plan X. " Op. cit. III, p. 167 (in Rooms 19, 26, 61). Unfortunately no section runs across these cisterns, so that their shape is not shown by Plan X. 6 REISNER, FISHER & LYON, Harvard Exc. at Samaria, p. 41, Fig. 9; p. 146, Fig. 67; Plan 4. • Hesperia II, 1933, p. 129; III, 1934, pp. 345 ff., Fig. 27; Exc. at Olynthus VIII, pp. 307 f., PI. 76: I; XII, PI. 101. 1
2
8 The water was first conducted to a basin and the dirty particles in the water filling this basin sank to the bottom before the water reached the upper edge of the basin and poured into the cistern (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 167, cistern of Room 83); cf. Exc. at Olynthus VIII, PI. 76: I; XII, PI. 101. • Corolla archaeol., pp. 159 ff. 10 Bonner Jahrb. 127, 1922, p. 222. 11 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, pp. 24 ff., Fig. 19; Plan X. 12 GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, pp. 27 ff., Fig. 3. 13 Cf. BLINKENBERG, Le temple de Paphos, Kebenhavn 1924. a WESTHOLM, The Paphian Temple of Aphrodite, in Acta archaeol. IV, 1933, pp. 201 fr.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARCHITECTURE
likely that the later temple adhered to the plan of the original building, which can be dated back to the late Bronze Age. In Cyprus, too, the liwan architecture seems therefore already to have developed into the fixed, tripartite type in the Bronze Age. The temple type represented by the sanctuary at Paphos continued from the Bronze Age in the Cypro-Geometric period, as shown by.the painted representation of such a temple on a Bichrome jar of CyproGeometric III (Fig. XXII, 3). The design on this jar thus bridges over the chronological gap between the supposed existence of the tripartite type in the Bronze Age and its later, actual remains in the Archaic and Classical periods. . Outside Cyprus, we encounter the liwan room as early as in the buildings of Tepe Gawra VIllI and in the 9th cent. B. C. a liwan house appears at Sendjirli.. A house with three rooms in the background has been excavated in Beth-shemesh. It belongs to Stratum III of that site, i. e., c. 1200-1000 B. C.' Tripartite buildings at Gerar- and Tell enNasbeh- may also belong to the same type, though it is not certain if they should be reconstructed as buildings with three separate rooms or as three-aisled rooms with two inner rows of columns." In the 6th cent. B. C., the liwan type appears as a foreign element in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar at Babylon! The Persian residency at Lachish- (Tell ed-Duweir) shows a striking resemblance to the palace of Vouni, and the Persian "Sun-temple" from Lachishvrepresents the same tripartite type. used in sacred architecture. These buildings are approximately contemporary with the palace of Vouni. In domestic architecture, the liwan type is further represented by the palace excavated at Larisa in Asia Minor-s and.by the Etruscan house, Atrium Tuscanicum." The same type of architecture is also represented by Etruscan temples's and tombs.v As everything tends to show that the Tyrseni emigrated from Anatolia, it is natural to suppose that they brought with them this type of architecture from Anatolia, where it is at home, as shown
both by early hut models and later buildings! Already in the Classical period the Greek domestic architecture was influenced by the liwan type, as shown by the houses at Olynthos,> and in the Hellenistic and Roman periods the liwan architecture was widely spread, and is represented all around the Mediterranean both in sacred and profane buildings. This later development of the liwan architecture does not, however, concern us here, and will be dealt with in the chapter on Cypro-Hellenistic and Cypro-Roman architecture (VoL IV: 3). For our present purpose it is sufficient to consider those representatives of the liwan architecture mentioned above, which are earlier or approximately contemporary with the first palace of Vouni, and from the local distribution of these buildings we are able to state that the liwan house is represented within a defined area in the Near East, with a centre around Syria, Cyprus, and Anatolia. The first palace. of Vouni thus affords evidence of Cypriote connections with the Syro-Anatolian area of culture. We have seen that these architectural connections can be traced back through the Bronze Age right down to the Neolithic period, when the primitive "hut-stage" of the liwan architecture is already represented in Cyprus. The architectural remains thus confirm what is indicated by an examination of the foreign relations of the early remains of Cypriote culture, on the whole, viz., its close relation to Anatolia and Syria.v. We are therefore justified in considering the liwan architecture as characteristic of the cultural disposition of the aboriginal Cypriote population, as "Eteocyprian". The first palace of Vouni is thus entirely Oriental and Cypriote in style, an architectural manifestation of the "Eteocyprian" element. The second . palace. of Vouni is characterized by the-transformation of the state-rooms in the entrance building into a megaron-shaped main room with side-rooms attached to each long side forming a tripartite block at the background of the court. It is generally accepted that the megaron was brought into Greece by the first Greek invaders, at the beginning of the Middle Helladic period. During the whole. prehistoric period it preserved its character as a detached house, and if other megara or rooms were attached, as e. g., in the Mycenaean palaces, they were added as separate blocks. IIi historic times, the isolation of the megaron was broken up in domestic architecture, as shown by the houses in Priene.' We cannot trace how this happened, our knowledge of post-Mycenaean, early Greek domestic architecture being rather scanty. We know, however, that the megaron house was not the only type occurring: houses in Aigina,' Megara,· Dystos,' Olynthos, s Delos,' Thera," etc. prove that the unified type of house with rooms grouped around a court was also in use. The Priene houses show us the influence . of this unified
23 2
1 SPEISER, Exc. at Tepe Gawra I, pp. 24 f., 27 f., 33 fr.; Pis. IX-XI. ~ Ausgrab. in Sendschirli IV, Pis. IL, L; Bonner Jahrb. 127, 1922, pp. 221 f. :i GRANT, Ain Shems Exc, I, PI. XXV; GRANT & WRIGHT, op. cit . .V,pp. 52 ff., Fig. 6. 4 PETRIE, Gerar, PI. IX, ET~EY. 5 BADii, Bxc. at Tell en-Nasbeh, PP.30 ff.; Fig. XII. 6. THIERSCH (Zeitschr. f. alttest, Wiss., N. F. IX [50], 1932, p. 76) includes also a building at Sichem in this class of architecture, but that definitely consists of a three-aisled room with two inner rows of columns. V. MULLER (Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXVI, 1932,PP. 415 f.) has justly pointed out that Thiersch confuses two architectural types: a building with three separate rooms and a room divided by two rows of columns. A building at Tell el-Hesy (BLISS, A Mound of Many Cities, p, 72; VINCENT, Canaan, p. 64, Fig. 35), which has been considered to be of the liwan type; must .also be excluded. . 7.WACHTSMUTH, Der Raum I,pp. 24,.. 131. 8 Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1933, Pl. III (p. 192); op. cit., 1936, PI. IX (p. 188). o Op, cit. 1936, PI. IX.
Larisa am Hermos I, pp. 30 ff. Corolla archaeol., pp. 162 ff. The controversy on the matter of whether Atrium Tuscanicum is related to Oriental or Italic architecture originates from the different opinions as to whether the atrium originally is a court, which has been' almost covered, or a room with a hole in the roof for the smoke, i. e., whether Atrium Tuscanicum is a court-house or a hallhouse. To the reasons in favour of the former view given in the' paper quoted above can be added the fact that Prof. A. Maiuri's diggings (Not. Scavi, 1930, pp. 391 ff.; 1942, pp. 404 ff.; 1946, pp. 130 ff.) below the present floor-levels of several houses in Pompei have proved that the atrium had originally no impluvium, indicating that it had no compluvial roof; the floor consisted only of beaten earth,i. e., the atrium was an entirely uncovered room, a court. 12 KIRSOPP LAKE, The Archaeological Evidence for the "Tuscan-Temple", in Mem. Amer. Acad. .Rome XII, 1935, pp. 89 ff. It is an important fact that not only the plan of tht temple, but also its relation to the court agrees with the architectural type here in question, as shown by the temple at Orvieto, where the cella is placed.at the rear of the court and on its axial line (Not. Scaoi, 1934, p. 75, Fig. I). 13 AKERSTROM, Stud. iiber d. etrusk, Griiber, p. 30. 10
II
233
,
CHANTHE, Mission en Cappadoce, PI. XX, I; Journ. Hell. Stud. L, 1930, p. 245, Fig. 3 and Arch. Anz., 1930, p. 146, Fig. 23 (terracotta models of sacred buildings found in Lemnos). For the later Hellenistic and Roman buildings of this type, see Vol. IV: 3. 2 There is no liwan room, but the. tripartite group of rooms is already represented; these open usually onto a portico on one side of the court, but sometimes these porticos have developed into a regular peristyle court (Exc. at Olynthus II, Figs. 116, 120, 129, 142, 153, 182, 229, 267; cf. Amer, Journ. Archaeol. XXXVI, 1932, pp.1 18 ff., Fig.. 2). ' 1
GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, pp. 294ff.; Stoed. Cyp. Exp. IV: I. 4 Priene, pp. 285 ff., Figs. 301 ff., Pis. XXI, XXII. s Arch. Anz., 1925, pp. 8 ff. 6 'E'f''fjfJ-. 'ApXawL, 1890, pp.. 36 ff., PI. 4. 7 Athen. Mitt. ,XXIV, 1899, pp, 463 ff., Fig. 5, PI. V. s Cf, above. o Delos VIII, Pis. III-IV, XIII, XIV-XVII, XIXXXII, XXIII-XXVI, XXIX, XXX. 10 Thera III, pp. 137 ff. 3
234
FOREIGN RELATIONS
type on the detached megaron house. The process is the opposite at Vouni: there a megaronshaped room is incorporated in a unified building. The palace at Nippur offers a parallel to this process.' In that palace, megaron-shaped rooms are incorporated into a building of central court type displaying Babylonian element of architecture. The palace at Larisa mentioned above shows us how a pre-existing megaron was incorporated in a palace of the liwan type.' The fact that the original entrance rooms of the Vouni palace were a d apt e d to. a megaron explains its peculiar features with doors in its longitudinal walls, by which there is direct communication between the megaron and the side-rooms. The. original conditions are thus preserved as much as possible, and the megaron, consequently, becomes incorporated as the middle section of a tripartite complex of rooms." The second palace of Vouni thus marks a combination of Cypriote and Greek elements with two originally separate types combined: the Syro-Anatolian central-court house of the liwan type and the Greek megaron. , Oriental and Greek elements, which are combined with each other in the palace of Vouni, are also represented in sacred architecture. Some types of this architecture, e. g., the open temenos (the first type in the classification of architecture) and the detached chapel (the second type) are, as a rule, too simple and undifferentiated to allow any conclusions as regards architectural relations and connections. Open air sanctuaries and simple chapels of this kind are found in different parts of the world, and are not limited within a defined area of culture. It is, however, noteworthy that the Cypro-Archaic temenos at Ajia Irini shows striking similarity in characteristic details to Minoan-Mycenaean open air sanctuaries,' and as the Cypro-Archaic temenos is a direct continuation of the Cypro-Geometric, it may be that this latter one also displayed similar Minoan-Mycenaean parallels, though on account of the primitive and easily destroyed building material this cannot be definitely proved. In view of the fact that the open air sanctuaries are known from the Cypriote Amer. )ourn. Archaeol. VIII, 1904, pp. 403 ff., PI. XIV. garon is never an entrance-building, but always placed in the background of the court. An entrance-megaron does not 2 SCHEFOLD (Larisa am Hermos I, p. 33) has entirely exist. The argument that only a single wall forms the difference misunderstood the interrelations of the palaces at Vouni between the first and the second palace of Vouni overlooks and at Larisa, and I therefore repeat once again: at Vouni we the revolutionary effect of this simple process. As pointed have 1. a palace of the liwan type; 2. the entrance rooms of out, p. 29, this completely changed the architectural printhis palace are transformed into a megaron; at Larisa we have ciple and idea of the palace, which underwent a complete 1. a megaron; 2. a building of the liwan type attached to the reversal; its earlier facade became the back and vice versa. megaron. Schefold has not been able to see the fundamental In this way, from being located in the entrance-building the difference between the first and the second palace at Vouni. Accordingly he tries to prove that a megaron is the principal reception-rooms were placed in the back of the court with a megaron-shaped central part in the tripartite complex form also of the first palace, if not in plan, at least in superstructure: "Nun hat aber Gjerstad die erste Periode des Pa- of rooms, i. e., first and only by closing the earlier entrance a megaron-shaped main room was introduced into the palace, lastes von Vuni fur giinzlich ungriechisch erklart, obwohl and this megaron was placed in the back of the court, where den Hauptunterschied zur zweiten Periode eine einzige Mauer bildet: Die Riickenwand des Megaron fehlt in der the megaron always is placed. 3 MOLLER (Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXVII, 1933, II. alteren Periode. Das Megaron ist also nicht nur der repra599) is not sure whether the buildings of the second palace sentative Hauptbau, sondemauch der Eingang des Palastes. were made to give the main complex the appearance of a Sowohl von aussen, wie vom Hof des Palastes aus konnte der megaron, but in addition to the reasons given above, cf. fragliche Bau nicht anders als ein Megaron aussehen; hier ibid., pp. 593 ff., 65 8. den Birrgern, dort dem Hofe feierlich zugewandt." This is 'Arch. f. Rel soiss. XXX, 1933, pp. 35 1 ff. a very unsuccessful attempt at defending a mistake. A me1
ARCHITECTURE
235
Bronze Age we must, however, also reckon with the probability that the occurrence of this type of sanctuary in the Iron Age represents a continuation of indigenous traditions. A more definite and characteristic architectural form is represented by the third type of sanctuary described in the classification of architecture, i. e., the sanctuary consisting of an exterior court, an inner enclosed court, and a roofed-in chapel attached to the inner court, but forming no architectural unit with it (pp. 19 ff.). A striking parallel to the particular variety of this type, represented by the sanctuary of Anat at Idalion, is given by the temple at Byblos pictured on a coin of Macrinus.' This sanctuary cannot be identified with the temple remains found at the excavations of Byblos.' The sanctuary illustrated on the coin consists of an open, rectangular court surrounded by a wall divided by half-columns. An altar with a conical baetyl is erected in the court. The entrance to the court is on the one short side. A covered chapel with entirely open front, i. e., a liwan, is attached to the temenos, but there is no direct communication between that ana the chapel. The sanctuary of Anat at Idalion corresponds exactly to this type: we have a rectangular court with an altar and a surrounding wall, the entrance to the court on one of the short sides, and a chapel of the liwan type attached to the enclosed temenos, but without direct communication with it. The Archaic sanctuaries on the acropolis of Kition are similar in type though partly in a more incomplete state of preservation. It is of interest to note that the chapel of Idalion is attached to the court along the short front side, while that of Kition is attached to one of the long sides of the court, exactly as in the Byblos sanctuary. On the other hand, the Kition chapel is not a Ii wan. Such varieties in details do not affect the general plan and type. Let us now consider the architectural relations of the fourth type of sanctuary (p. 22). It will be remembered that this type consists of one or two courts, the one court behind the other, and a chapel or a temple cella placed in the background of the innermost court and opening on to it, so that the cella and the court form an architectural unit. The ideal plan of this type of sanctuary is given when the axial line of the cella coincides with that of the court and the entrance to the court. In other words, we have here the same axial, frontal, and symmetrical plan which is typical of the liwan architecture, as mentioned above. The temples with one or three cellae are only variants of the same type, the number of cellae depending upon the requirements of the cult, whether one god or a triad was worshiped. The principal and decisive criterion of the type is the relation of the temple to the court. This type of sanctuary is also represented within the same area of culture as the other representatives of the liwan architecture. Thus it is represented in Etruria, where temples with one cella are found side by side with those of three cellae.' A parallel phenomenon is afforded by the tomb architecture: the type of tomb with one inner chamber opening at the rear of the exterior chamber' corresponds to the temple with one cella in the same way as the tomb with three inner chambers corresponds to the temple type with three 1 RENAN, Mission de Phenicie, p. 177; PERROT & CHIPIEZ, Hist, de l'art III, p. 60, Fig. 19; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PIs. X, I; LXXXII, 7; CXXVI, 3; Syria VIII, 1927, p. 116, Fig. I.
2 Syria X, 1929, pp. 206 ff.; XI, 1930, pp. 166 ff.; DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, pp. 74 ff. 3 KIRSOPp LAKE, op, cit., pp. 114 ff. 'AKERSTROM, op. cit., pp. 25 ff.; Figs. 4: 2, 5.
ARCHITECTURE
237
FOREIGN RELATIONS
cas~s, F: Oelmann has compared this Persian type of sanctuary with Nabataean of identical shape~ and. has suggested pre-Hellenistic Syria as the common home of origm for both the Persian and Nabataean temples of this type.' Future excavations and re~earch work i~ Syria will decide that question. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods this type of architecture is very common (Vol. IV: 3). If we compare the form of this architectural type as developed in Mesopotamia on the one hand and in Cyprus and Anatolia on the other, w~ find that we can distinguish between an eastern and a western form. In t?e western vanety the cella is emphasized as a separate room, and is not surrounded by SIde-chambers, the narrow-fronted shape of the cella becomes more usual the more the type travels ,westwards, the tendency towards free areas is emphasized, and the rooms around the cour~ disappear. In th~s way the, structural form becomes clearer, the leading architectural. Ideas are more logically apphed, and the axiality is more emphasized by the fact that a single separate structure is placed on the axis of the building.s The type of sanctuaries mentioned above shows Oriental relations. Connections with Western. architecture, corresponding to the incorporation of the megaron in the palace . of Vouni, are represented by the sanctuaries of the Greek temple type.' .Not only the pla~, but also the adornment of the architecture show connections both WIth Greec~ and WIt~ the ?rient. The antefixes, the Doric columns, fragments of Doric enta~lature, the Ionic capital, and the Ionic frieze (pp. 23, 125) indicate the Western relatI?ns, Th~ polygonal column in the temenos on the western acropolis of Idalion and the Cypriote vanety. of ,the Hathor capital found in the palace of Vouni (p. ,24) afford instance~ of Egyptian influence. There are also Archaic Hathor capitals closely imitating the Egyptian prototypes, but the specimens found did not serve as architectural adornment so far as the present evidence goes, but seem to have been used as votive stelae. They are treat~d above in the classification of sculpture (p. 103). The so-called Proto-Ionic pilasters e. g: m t~e ~ombs at Tamassos (p. 42) give evidence of Syrian connections. Proto-Ionic capitals similar to, t~e C!priote s~ecimens have been found at Megiddo, Samaria, Ramath Rahel, and Medeibiyah m T~a~sJorda~, and the ultimate origin of this type of capital has been re~raced to the Syro-Hittite region.' These Syro-Cypriote capitals have exercised a strong influence upon the formation of the corresponding Etruscan capitals.' ,To sum ~p: The ~ypriote architecture during the Iron Age shows connections both WIth the Orient and WIth Greece. The Oriental and Greek elements are usually represented separately, so that the monuments are characterized either by the Oriental or the Greek type, .but sometimes they are ~ombined in the same building as in the second palace of Vouni, So far as the present evidence goes, the Oriental element is much more dominant
in both cellae and to the house type t the Atrium Tuscanicum, with three rooms at the rear of the atrium (ef. above). That the history of this temple goes back to early times in the Orient is proved not only by the Cypriote and Anatolian-Etruscan temples, but by a long series of sanctuaries in the Orient beginning with the temple which Ituria, the dynast ofEshnunna, erected to the deified Gimilsin, the recognized lord of Ituria and a king of the 3rd dynasty ofUr. The cella of the temple is wide-fronted, provided with a niche in the back wall and side-rooms; and the court is surrounded by rooms.' The building is characterized by strict axiality. A similar type of architecture is represented by the S. E. temple of Gig:..par-ku in Ur. In front of the cella is a wide-fronted pronaos.' The temple of Ningal of Kurigalzu and that of Enki in Ur belong to the same category- as well as the sanctuary at Ishtshali.· If weproceed to a survey of the Assyrian architecture, we can quote the following structures as material of comparison: the temple of Ashur in Kar-Tukulti...;Ninurta built by Tukulti Ninurta I (1260- 1232 B. C.)5 and the banqueting hall of Sennacherib (7°5- 681 B. C.).· These buildings closely resemble each other. The principal room in the rear of the court is wide-fronted, that of the temple is provided with a niche in the back wall. Characteristic are the long side-halls. The, porticos supported by pillars in the court of the banqueting hall of Sennacherib indicate western influence. This building is strictly axial, while neither the north nor the eastern entrance leading to the court of the temple of Assur in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta is on the central axis of the temple cella. In the Neo-Babylonian period there are' many specimens of this architectural type, e. g., Ehursagkalamma in Kish,' the temple Z in Babylon,' the Marduk temple Esagila in Babylon," and the so-called Temple of Nebuchadrezzar in Ur." The temple of Nabu in Borsippa" and the temples of Ninmach and Ishtar in Babylon" are also of similar plan, though the entrance is not placed axially in relation to the court. As a rule, there is an accumulation of rooms around the court and the cella, but the small, so-called temple of Nebuchadrezzar breaks this rule. 'The shape of the cella is, as always, wide-fronted, has side-chambers and usually a pronaos. A Persian representative of this architectural type is furnished by a fire-temple in Susa from ,the 4th cent. B. C." This temple is therefore approximately contemporary with the Vouni sanctuaries. True, the form of the temple itself with its quadratic, hypostyle cella and double entrance halls has nothing to do with the Cypriote type of cella, but there is the same relation of the temple cella to the court, the same axial, frontal, and symmetrical plan as in the Cypriote sanctuaries; in other words, the architectural syntax is the same 1
FRANKFORT, Tell Asmar, Khafaje, and Khorsabad, pp.
12 ff., Fig. 3. 2 Antiq. Journ. VI, 1926, pp. 66 ff., PI. XLIV. 3 Op.cit., X, 1930PP. 323 f., PI. XXXVII; WOOLLEY, Ur Exc. V, PI. 73· • FRANKFORT, Progress of the Work of the Orient. Inst. in Iraq, pp, 74 ff., Fig. 60. S ANDRAE, Das wiedererstandene Assur, pp. 123 f., Fig. 42
(p. 92). • Op, cit., pp. 151 ff., Figs. 19, 20 (1;>. 40).
7 S
WATELlN, Exc. at Kish III, pp. I ff., PI. II. KOLDEWEY, Die Tempel von Babylon u, Borsippa, pp.
18 if., PI. V. 9 WETZEL, Die Stadtmauern von Babylon, PI. 9· 10
WOOLLEY, op. cit., pp. 319 ff., PI. XXXV.
KOLDEWEY, op. cit., pp. 50 if., PI. XII. Op. cit., pp. 4 ff., PI. III; REUTHER, Die Innenstadt von Babylon, PIs. 29, 30. 13 WACHTSMUTH, op. cit. I, p. 116, Fig. 50. 11
12
temp~e~
1 Arch. Anz., 1921, pp, 273 ff. MULLER (Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXVI, 1932, p. 416) opposes the view of Oelmann. Cf., however, WESTHOLM, The Temples of Soli, pp, 170 if. 2 Cf. Opusc. archaeol. III (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec, X, 1944), pp. 40 ff., 70 ff.
3 For Doric capitals .resembling those in Cyprus, cf. Fouilles de Delphes II, 3: I, p. 33, Fig. 41. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PP.579 f. 5 ENGBERG in MAY, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, PP.39 if. . • Studi Etruschi II, 1928, pp. 627 ff., PI. XLVIII; ANDRAE, Die ion. Siiule, p. 16.
• 238
FOREIGN RELATIONS
than the influence from the Greek architecture. The Greek influence is manifested by the incorporation of a megaron-shaped room in the palace ofVouni and occasional imitations of the Greek temple architecture. The types of Oriental architecture represented in Cyprus indicate connections with Syria and Anatolia, and to judge from the material hitherto available, the liwan type plays a dominant role in the Cypriote Iron Age architecture. This type of architecture can be traced back to the Neolithic period in Cyprus, and an examination of the early remains of Cypriote culture, on the whole, proves its close relation to the culture areas of Syria and Anatolia. It is therefore justifiable to consider that particular type of architecture as "Eteocyprian". The Iron Age architecture of Cyprus is thus composed of an "Eteocyprian" majority and a Greek minority of elements together with a few Egyptian elements in the structural adornment.
TOMBS The great majority of the tombs, the usual type of a rock-cut chamber, entered by a rock-cut shaft, form a continuation and development of the various forms of this type occurring in the Late Bronze Age of Cyprus. A new type which gives evidence of the foreign relations is the chamber tomb of Mycenaean type found in Lapithosvand Kurion,» The earliest of these tombs are CyproGeometric 1,3 and the latest date from Cypro-Geornetric 11. 4 The shape of these tombs, with their long and narrow dromoi, the sides of which are convergent, is identical with that of the Mycenaean chamber-tombs,' so that there can be no doubt about their connection with each other. The Mycenaean tombs of this type continue until Mycenaean III C: I, but not later, the earliest Cypriote tombs in question date, as mentioned, from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric 1. Thus there is a gap between the latest Mycenaean and earliest Cypriote tombs of 25-50 years depending upon whether the final date of Myc. III C: I is assigned to IlOO or 1075 B. C." How is this to be explained? It seems necessary to combine the appearance of the Mycenaean type of tomb in Cyprus with the arrival and settlement of the Mycenaean colonists in Cyprus during Late Cypriote III B (Vol. IV: I). We must therefore suppose that tombs of this type were used by these Mycenaean colonists already in Late Cypriote III B. Only one Late Cypriote III B tomb containing colonists' pottery, Proto-White-Painted Ware, has been found, viz., Lapithos, Tomb 503, but unfortunately the shape of this tomb is unknown! We must therefore wait until the shape of the Mycenaean colonists' tombs of Late Cypriote III B is known, and in the meantime , Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. 195, Fig. 72: 6-9; p. 2°3, Fig. 75; p. 211, Fig. 76: 1-10; p. 217, Fig. 77; p. 224, Fig. 80: 1-3, 6-9; p. 235, Fig. 87: 1-3, 8-10; p. 247, Fig. 94: 3-5; p. 257, Fig. 98: 1-4. " Amer. Joorn. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, p. 58, Figs. I, 3. 3 Lapithos, Tombs 406, 407, 4'10, 412, 414, 417, 420, 422, 428; Kurion, Tombs 25, 26. 4 Lapithos, Tombs 408, 409, 413, 415, 418.
_ For similar Mycenaean tombs, cf. e. g., Archaeologia LXXXII, 1932, pp. 4 ff., 121 ff.; BLEGEN, Prosymna II, Plans 3-52; Asine, pp. 151-192. " FURUMARK (Opusc. archaeol. III, pp. 259 ff.) assigns the final phase of Mycenaean III: C I, i. e.,Myc. III: C I C, to 1125-1075 B. C. 7 Ibid., p. 76, n. 2.
ARCHITECTURE
239
we must acquiesce in the supposition that the chronological gap will be filled when the colonists' tombs have been found. The shaft-tombs found at Amathus and the built tombs represent another line of the foreign relations. Built tombs appeared in Cyprus already in Late Cypriote I and II, hitherto only at Enkomi, and they can be associated with the intensive Syrian influence particularly on eastern Cyprus during the periods in question.' A Cypriote development from the built tombs of Enkomi to those of the Iron Age cannot be proved, and we are therefore obliged to interpret these Iron Age tombs as an indication of a renewed foreign influence. Dr. A. Westholm has treated this subject-in a separate paper." I can therefore be brief and refer to his article. It turns out that tombs similar to the shaft-tombs, revetted by stones, and to the monumental built tombs of the Archaic period are found on the Asiatic mainland in Syria and Palestine. Shaft-tombs, sometimes, as in Cyprus, provided with an entrance passage, occur at Gaza' Ras el Ain, near [erusalern,: Ugarit,» Mari,» Sendjirli,' and other places. They occur from the Copper Age down to the Iron Age. Monumental built tombs similar to the Cypro-Archaic are hitherto known in Syria mainly from Ugarit.s The earliest of these tombs date from the 17th-16th cent. B. C., and they cover the whole ~ate Bronze Age. As no such tombs of the Iron Age have been found hitherto in Syria, It c~nnot at present be proved that the Cypro-Archaic tombs are directly influenced by Synan prototypes, but we must reckon with the possibility that there has been a Cypriote development from the Cypro-Geometric shaft-tombs, revetted by stones, to the monumental built tombs of the Cypro-Archaic period, a development parallel to that on the Asiatic mainland during the Bronze Age. A striking indication of the cultural connection with Syria and Palestine illustrated by these tombs is the fact that, as also pointed out by Westholm, they are localized within the southern and eastern parts of Cyprus, i. e., that area of the island which already in the Bronze Age and later in the Iron Age was under strong influence from the Asiatic mainland. 9 We thus see that the tombs show the same foreign connections with the Asiatic mainland and with Greece as indicated by the palace and temple architecture. 'SJOQVIST, Probl. of the Late Cypr. Bronze Age, pp. 147 ff.; pp, 165 ff.
" Opusc, archaeol. II (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Suec, V, 1939), pp. 29 ff., 52 ff. a PETRIE, Ancient Gaza II, p. 2, Pi. LIII; III, PIs. VI, VII, XII, XIII. Quart. Dep, Antiq. Palest. VI, 1938, pp. 101 ff., Figs. 3-6. s SCHAEFFER, Ugaritica I, pp. 57, 71, 83 f., Figs. 45, 60, 75--'77. 4
" Syria XVI, 1935, pp. 8 f., Pi. II, 4. 7 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli II, pp. 140 f., Figs. 44, 45. 8 SCHAEFFER, op. cit. I, PIs. XVI, XVII; pp, 85 ff., 92 f., Figs. 78-80, 86, 87. 9 Opusc, archaeol. II, p. 55. Westholm justly rejects the theory that the Syrian built tombs are influenced from the Aegean. More likely they should be connected with Mesopotamian built tombs (ibid., p. 58).
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Pottery CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN EGYPT A Black-on-Red I (III) jug with tubular spout on the shoulder and handle from neck to shoulder has been found in the necropolis of Sanam in the neighbourhood of N apata. 1 The jug is decorated with' encircling lines and concentric circles on the shoulder. The tombs are assigned to the time between Pi'ankhy and Amtalqa (c·73 0-c. 530 B. C.), and the tomb where this Cypriote jug was found is considered to belong to an early group of the tombs. A fragment of Black-on-Red I (III) Ware, apparently forming part of the body of a juglet, was found in the mastaba 607 at Lahun. 2 The fragment is decorated with encircling lines and small, concentric circles." The mastaba was built in the XIIth Dyn.,' but was re-used in the XXIInd-XXIVth dynasties," and the Cypriote fragment belongs to the equipment of this later burial period. Similar fragments were found in Tombs 6o? and 8516 and belonging to burials of the same period, i. e., XXIInd-XXIVth dynasties. A 7 fragment of a Cypriote handle-ridge juglet was also discovered in Tomb 602. In the collections of the University College, London, there is a White Painted V jug with pinched rim, handle from rim to shoulder, and the body decorated with encircling lines. This jug was found at Gurob.v.If we disregard the sporadic finds of Cypriote pottery in Nubia, no such pottery of the Iron Age. has been found in considerable numbers S. of the. Fayum.' Proceeding along the Nile from Lahun and Gurob to the N. we reach Memphis, where a fragment of a White Painted IV jugletwas found in the temple of Merenptah." The fragment consists of the lower part of the body of a globular juglet with disc-base, and is decorated with large concentric circles around the body." It was found.in the court-yard of the temple; but about the conditions of finds nothing is recorded. In the collection of the l'Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. X, 1923, pp. 89, 97, 124, PI. XXXI, 8 . I LXVII , 2 PETRIE, BRUNTON & MURRAY, Lahun II, p. 38 ,P. 56. Another fragment of a jug (op. cit., PI. LX, 9 8 M) found in this tomb may be Cypriote. "Vases with similar decoration are illustrated in Swed.
Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXXXVI, 5; II, PI. CXIII, I I . • PETRm, etc., op. cit. II, pp. 29 f. 5 Op, cit. II, Register, PI. XLVIII. It should be observed that the XXIlnd dyn. is used in the Lahun publication as a general term for the XXIlnd-XXIVth dynasties (op. cit. II, p. 36). 6 Gp. cit. II, p. 38, PI. LV A, 36. The vexed problem as regards the origin of the Black-on-Red Ware is discussed below, p. 270, n. I, where it is shown that there are two groups Thi of Black-on-Red, one of which of non-Cypriote origin. IS is proved by chronological evidence, and to some extent by technical and typological evidence. The Black-on-Red fragments referred to here, on the other hand, do not show any
non-Cypriote characteristics, and are assigned to a period which does not exclude the probability of their Cypriote origin. Until we have evidence for the contrary, we may therefore consider them as Cypriote. 7 Op, cit. II, pp. 31, 37, PI. L (bottom left). The jug is not published. In RANDALL MAcIVER & WOOLLEY, Areika, p. 19 there is reference to a Cypriote jug similar to No. 1057 a in Cat. 8 9
Cyp. Mus., p. 71, PI. IV. The jug is not illustrated in the Pu blicat ion , and it has not been possible to find it again
among the objects from the, excavation. The identification of the jug is therefore somewhat uncertain. 10 PETRIE, Memphis I, p. I I, PI. XXIX (fragment to the left in the bottom row). 11 A similar aryballos is illustrated in Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CVI, 8. The fragment from Memphis is now preserved in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum, and has the Reg. number 1908 10-1 35
5.
University College, London, there is a Black-on-Red II (IV) juglet, which was also found at Memphis, and a Bichrome IV juglet probably found at the same site. The former specimen has an oval body, short neck, pinched rim, and a handle from rim to shoulder. It is decorated with encircling lines around the body and probably concentric circles on the shoulder, though this cannot be ascertained on account-of the damaged surface. The latter specimen has a globular body, ridged neck, wide flat rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder. It is decorated with groups of concentric circles around the body.' In the delta, Cypriote pottery has been found in Naukratis, Tell Tebilleh, and Defenneh. Naukratis has yielded a considerable number of Cypriote sculptures(cf. pp. 318 ff.). The pottery is less numerous, and only the following specimens are known: a Black-on-Red III (V) globular miniature hydria with base-ring, neck widening upwards, swollen rim, horizontal handles on the belly, a vertical handle from below rim to shoulder, and decorated with encircling lines around shoulder and belly;' a Black-on-Red II (IV) handleridge juglet with funnel-shaped mouth and flat rim; encircling lines around lower part of neck; upper part of neck and rim covered with mat, red paint;" fragments of Plain White V large bobbin-shaped jars with pointed base and erect loop-handles on the shoulder.' Jars of this type were found from Level 230 to 320 in the temenos of Apollon and in the town outside the sanctuaries, at the E. of the S. wall of the temenos of Apollon from Level 280 to 310, and in the S. and S. W. parts of the town at about Levels 320 and 335." The levels in the sanctuary of Apollon are those of the first to third temples.' A number of Cypriote vases are recorded from Tell Tebilleh: a White Painted III handleridge juglet decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles on the shoulder"; a White Painted III bird-shaped askos with a swallow-tail, pinched mouth, a handle from rim to back, and decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles as a frontal ornament"; a Bichrome III-IV handle-ridge juglet decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles on the shoulder"; a White Painted IV juglet with short, wide neck, a handle from rim to shoulder, and decorated with vertical rows of concentric circles on the body;v a Black Slip IV piriform juglet with handle-ridge;" a White Painted V biconicaljuglet with short neck, pinched mouth, and decorated with encircling lines and groups of concentric circles on the body." Both these jugs are unpublished. C 3133 in the Cairo Museum. a C 3132 in the Cairo Museum. A similar juglet is illustrated in Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXV, 6. " 4 Naukratis I, PI. XVII, 17, 20, 21; cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp, II, PI. LXXXVI, r. This type of jar is typical of Cyprus, and occurs in great quantities among the pottery from the habitation sites, e.g., the palace of Vouni (op. cit. III, p. 263, PI. LXXXI, 7), but it is also found in tombs (op. cit. II, PIs. LXXIX, 2; LXXXVI, 1; CXXXIII, 1). The type is originally Cypriote, but was widely spread, and has been locally manufactured in Rhodes (Clara Rhodos III, PI. IV; IV, PI. VIII), in the same way as many other Cypriote fabrics were imitated on that island (cf. below). The specimens found in Egypt and Palestine (cf, below) may therefore 1
2
16
to some extent have been exported from Rhodes, but the majority must be considered as Cypriote, so much the more as the clay and technique of most specimens I have been able to examine are entirely Cypriote. " N aukratis I, pp. 20 ff, 6 Ann. Arch. & Anthrop, Liverp. XXI, 1934, pp. 67 ff., PI. X. 7
In the Cairo Mus., No
8
Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,
9 10 11 12
No. No. No. No. No.
39971. 39974. 39972. 39975, 39973.
8 . 25
+ 6.23
24 2
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
The excavations at Defenneh have yielded Plain White V bobbin-shaped jars with pointed base and erect loop-handles, the same type as those found at Naukratis,' and there is also non-ceramic evidence of Cypriote connections with that site (cf. pp. 469 f.). Some of the jars were discovered in the building to the E. of the camp (Sites 50 and 5 I), others in Rooms 2, 3, 4, 9, 27 of the camp.' In this survey of Cypriote Iron Age pottery found in Egypt, I have excluded some specimens which were considered to be Cypriote in earlier days, but which our present knowledge has proved to be Syro-Palestinian. Specimens of this kind are, e. g., some of the pottery from Nebesheh,' Tell er-Retabeh,' Shaghanbeh,· and Tell el-Yahudiyeh:- aryballoi, pilgrim bottles, barrel-shaped jugs, etc. It is easy to understand that this pottery was mistaken for Cypriote parallels,' and the corresponding Syro-Palestinian pottery was unknown at that time. The Syro-Palestinian origin of the pottery in question has, however, now been recognized. "
dynasty.' Tomb 202 yielded a Bichrome I-II barrel-shaped juglet and Tombs 227 and 229 White Painted II juglets of similar shape, all decorated with encircling lines and bands.' Tomb 227 contained scarabs of the XXth dynasty and Tombs 202 and 229 scarabs of the XXIInd dynasty.' Finally, mention should be made of a stray specimen of a Plain White V jar with pointed base and erect loop-handles found in the cemetery 600 4 and a White Painted V jug from the town-site, E Q Pit,' assigned to the XXVIth dynasty. Besides the pottery registered above, the excavation of Tell Fara has yielded several specimens of another ware which is considered to be Cypriote: I refer to the Black-on-Red Ware." We know that there is a large and numerous class of Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware,' but there is also a non-Cypriote fabric. This is represented in Syria and Palestine already in Early Iron Age I, while the Cypriote fabric is not earlier than c. 850 B. C., and the SyroPalestinian class differs both in artistic and technical respects from the Cypriote one." As regards the Black-on-Red specimens found in Tell Fara, I must say that I have not seen one specimen among those examined by me which I would call Cypriote, and there are also chronological reasons against the supposition of their Cypriote provenance, since they are all found in tombs dated earlier than the appearance of the Cypriote Black-on-Red." We leave Tell Fara and proceed to Tell jemmeh, supposed to be the site of ancient Gerar, S. of Gaza and N. N. W. of Tell Fara, approximately midway between these two sites. The excavation of this mound has brought to light several specimens of Cypriote Iron Age pottery." In Chambers EM and EP (i. e., Rooms M and P of Stratum E), two White Painted I barrel-shaped vases were found at Level 185." The vases are decorated with encircling lines and bands vertically around the body and winged latticed lozenges below the neck between the encircling bands.» A White Painted V jug with short tapering neck, pinched rim, and a raised handle from rim to shoulder was found in Chamber 0 of Stratum B, at Level 19713 and pieces of Plain White V jars with pointed base and erect loop-handles in various rooms of Strata Band C,> The Black-on-Red pottery, the bulk of which was found in Strata G and H at Levels 183-185,15 is altogether of the non-Cypriote class.v
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA On the road from Egypt to Palestine is Tell ez-Zuweyid, identified by Petrie with Anthedon. The excavations of this tell brought to light some pottery said to be Cypriote: Black-on-Red and White Painted." The specimens of the latter class consist only of sherds; to judge from the decoration, at least one specimen is White Painted 1.10 The Black-on-Red pottery, as far as can be ascertained, is of the non-Cypriote category (d. below). The excavations of Tell Fara have yielded a number of Cypriote Iron Age vases. In Tomb 223 a White Painted I pilgrim flask was found; the tomb contained a scarab of the XXIIild dynasty." Tomb 506 contained a White Painted I deep bowl with a low foot, double-curved outline, and two horizontal handles below the rim. It is decorated with encircling bands around rim and belly, and between those a metope decoration of latticed lozenge flanked by vertical, parallel Iines.v The tomb contained a scarab of the XXth 1 PETRIE, Tanis II, p. 64, PI. XXXIII, 6. A specimen of this type found in Defenneh is kept in the Egyptian department of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (No. 87625) and another specimen in the Cairo Museum (C. 2790). 2 Op. cit., p. 66; cf. numbers to the right of PI. XXXIII, 6. The jars in question were considered by Petrie to be Greek, since on one piece a sign D. was found incised on the pot while wet (op. cit., p. 64, PI. XXXIII, 6). This sign, however, may very well be the Cypriote sign for ja (COLLITZ, Samml. griech. Dial.cInschr, I, Schrifttafel, facing p. 80). 3 PETRIE, op, cit., PI. III. 4 PETRIE, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, PI. XXXVI, 4, 8, 9, IS· o Op. cit., PI. XXXIX L, 32.
"NAVILLE & GRIFFITH, The Mound of the Jew, Pis. XII-XV. ? Cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. XCII, 2; XCVI, 6; CII, 2; CIII, I I; CVI, 4-1°; etc. \ "Cf. ALBRIGHT, An Anthropoid Clay Coffin from Sahdb in Transjordan, in Amer, Journ. of Archaeol. XXXVI, 1932, pp. 301 ff, 9 PETRIE, Anthedon, pp. 7, 12. 100p. cit., PI. XXXI, 31. 11 Beth-pelet I, PI. LXVIII. The tomb group is deposited in the Institute of Archaeology, London, where I have examined it. The scarab is illustrated in op. cit. I, PI. XLIII, 525. 12 Op. cit. I, PI. XXXI, 325; cf. PI. LXIX. An exact parallel
to this bowl, both in shape and decoration, is given by Lapithos, Tomb 420, No. 92 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p, 239. PI. LII, 4th row, znd fro left). This type of bowl is very common in Cyprus (op. cit. I, Pis. CXXIV, 6-IIj CXXV, 1-5; II, PI. XC, 5-7). Tomb 506 is also deposited in the Institute of Archaeology, London. 1 Beth-pelet I, PI. XXXI, 3 24. 2 These tomb-groups are deposited in the Institute of Archaeology, London. The juglets are illustrated in DUNCAN, Corp. of Palest. Pottery, No. 86 B, D, F; the juglet from Tomb 229 also in Beth-pelet I, PI. XXXIX, 86 D. 3 Scarabs from Tomb 202 are illustrated in op. cit. I, PI. XLIII, 507, 508, those from Tomb 227 in op, cit. I, PI. XXXI, 318-323, and from Tomb 229 in op, cit. I, PI. XXXIX, 435-444. 4 DUNCAN, op, cit., No. 47 Y. o Beth-pelet II, PI. LXXXVIII, 87 D 1. 6 Specimens of this ware, all handle-ridge juglets, have
243
been found, e.g., in Tombs 201, 206, 2II, 221, 227, 229, 236 (cf. op, cit. I, Pis. XXXIX, 82 G3; XL, 83 G2; XLI). ? Cf. pp. 68 fI. B Cf. p. 270, n. I. 9 The Tell Fara tombs which contained this pottery are all assigned by Petrie to the XXth and XXlInd dyn., or with some necessary modifications in his chronology to the r rth - 9th cent. B.C. (cf. Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res. XII, 1932, p. 72). 10 For the fragment of a Cypriote stone sculpture found here, see p, 322. 11 PETRIE, Gerar, p. 22, PI. LX, 86. 12 This type of vase is very common in Cyprus. An exact parallel is illustrated in Szoed. Cyp. Exp.II, PI. XCI, 2. 13 PETRIE, Gerar, p. 20, Pis. XLVII, 4; LX, 87 d. 14 Op. cit., PI. LIV, 43 r-u. 15 Op. cit., p. 9, PI. LX, 82 e-g, k; cf. PI. LXII. 16 Some of these vases have been described as Cypriote
244
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
The excavations of Gazahave not hitherto yielded a great amountof Cypriote pottery. Several specimens of Black-on-Red Ware have been found in the tombs, but they are all non-Cypriote, except probably a Black-on-Red I (III) jug with two handles from neck to shoulder. This jug was found in Tomb 1°74- 1 This tomb dates from the XXIInd dynasty. Passing along the coast to the N. we reach Askalon as the next station where Cypriote Iron Age pottery has been discovered. This amounts, however, to very little in comparison with the numerous specimens of Cypriote Bronze Age pottery found here.' In fact, I have only noticed a single sherd of Bichrome IV Ware which can be identified with certainty as Cypriote." This sherd was found in Stratum t of W. J. Phythian-Adams' stratigraphical excavation of the site.' The Black-on-Red handle-ridge juglet found in Stratum 0 of the same excavation is probably of the non-Cypriote kind.' Our next halting-places are Tell el-Hesy and Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) situated inland to the S. E. of Askalon and N. E. of Gaza. Among the finds from the excavations of Tell el-Hesy there is a White Painted III barrel-shaped juglet of Cypriote provenance. It is now in the Louvre.' The barrel-shaped body is of the rather elongated type, and the neck widens upwards into a funnel, both features characteristic of Type III. The juglet is decorated with vertical encircling lines around the body. Tomb 147 at Tell ed-Duweir yielded a few vases which are of Cypriote origin: a Blackon-Red I (III) globular juglet with handle-ridge and flaring rim, decorated with encircling lines and three groups of concentric circles; a Black-on-Red I (III) oval juglet with neck widening upwards, pinched rim, handle from rim to shoulder, and decorated with groups of concentric circles of different dimensions;' further, an early White Painted V jug was found in Square H 14 at Level 264. 8. This jug has a globular body, short and tapering neck, pinched rim. It is decorated with intersecting concentric lines and a bird as frontal ornament." A "perfume flask" found in a tomb assigned to the 8th cent. B. C. is also claimed as an import from Cyprus.' There are several specimens of Black-on-Red among the pottery finds, but they seem to be non..Cypriote, except the two vases from Tomb 147 mentioned above. Possibly a sack-shaped juglet from Tomb 120 is Cypriote." To the N. of Askalon, along the coastal route of the Philistine plain, no sites with Cypriote Iron Age pottery have been reported yet, but further inland, between the coastal plain and Jerusalem, there are two places which require our attention in that respect: Beth-shemesh to the S. and Gezer to the N. The harvest of Cypriote pottery is, however, rather poor. in the' excavation report (op. cit., p. 20). One sherd, PI. LXII, WE, may be Cypriote, but it cannot be ascertained whether it is Black-on-Red or White Painted, etc.; its provenance could be determined only by an examination of the clay and technique. 2 PETRIE, Ancient Gaza II, PI. XXXV, 69 P 2. The other Black-on-Red specimens from Gaza seem to be non-Cypriote. 3 Palest, Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1923, p. 64, PI. I; cf, above" p. 243. 'This sherd was seen by.me while studying. the stratigraphical material of potsherds kept in the Palestine Museum, Jerusalem.
Cf. the sections in op. cit., 1923, pp. 61 ff., Figs. 2-4· Ibid., Pl. II, 13. 7 DUSSAUD, Les monum. palest. et judaiques, p. 107, Fig. 150. Whether the Black-on-Red Ware found at Tell el-Hesy (e.g., PETRIE, Tell el Hesy, Pl. VIII, 164) is Cypriote or not is impossible to ascertain, as the material is not available for examination. B Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1934, p. 170; information given by the excavators. • Ill. London News 191, 1937, p. 946, Fig.. 18. 10 Palest. Expl, Quart., 1938, p. 247· 11 Information given by the excavators. 5
6
245
The excavations of the Palestine Exploration Fund at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems) yielded, among other finds, a White Painted I squat juglet with flat base, concave and narrow neck, handle from neck to shoulder, and decorated with encircling bands around rim and belly.' A Bichrome II jug can be registered among the finds of the Haverford College excavations at Beth-shemesh.s It is a jug with oval body, a spout (now missing) on the shoulder, and a cylindrical neck, once with a basket-handle across the mouth, which, together with the handle, is missing. It is decorated with encircling lines and bands around the belly and concentric lines around the base of the spout. The jug was found in Room 397 of the Iron Age II settlement.' A White Painted sherd found in Stratum III should also be mentioned.' A fragmentary Black-on-Red juglet claimed to be Cypriote is, however, of non-Cypriote origin. 5 In Gezer, a Bichrome I barrel-shaped vase decorated with encircling lines and bands was found in Tomb 96.6 This contained a mass-burial of perhaps a hundred persons. Among the pottery found at Gezeris also a fragment of a Black-on-Red I (III) vase decorated with encircling lines and pendent winged lozenges.' The Black-on-Red Ware found in Tombs 31 and 59 may be non-Cypriote,' The excavations in the Tyropoeon valley, Jerusalem, have shown that Cypriote pottery of the Iron Age found its way to the Holy City itself: a fragment of Bichrome IV decorated with encircling lines was found in the debris of Room 44 of the so-called Low Level together with finds dating mainly from the Iron Age and the Hellenisticperiod,' Some Cypriote Iron Age pottery is reported from jericho Of the vases considered to be Cypriote, some are not,» but the following specimens seem to be of Cypriote origin: a Black-on-Red II (IV) handle-ridge juglet,» a Black-on-Red II (IV) sack-shaped juglet,« and a bull's protome belonging to a Red Slip III (V) jug,> In Gibeah, N. of Jerusalem, a fragment of a White Painted I barrel-shaped jug was found in the second city of Gibeah.v The fragment is decorated with a row of latticed, winged 1 The jug is kept.in the Palestine Museum. It was found in Tomb I, but is not illustrated or mentioned in the publication (Palest. Expl. Fund, Ann. I, 1911, pp. 69 ff.; II, 1912-1913, pp. 53 ff.). 2 GRANT, Rumeileh, p. 21, Fig. 2:14. The jug belongs to the collection of the Haverford College Museum. An exact parallel among the material found in Cyprus is represented by Amathus, Tomb 7, No. 77 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 35; PI. XII, 4th row, r st from the left). 3 By a lapsus calami the jug has been assigned to Early Iron Age I (GRANT, op, cit., p. 63). Room 397, where the jug was found, belongs to the Early Iron Age II settlement (op. cit., Map I). 'GRANT & WRIGHT, Ain Shems Exc, IV, PI. XXXVIII, 3; V, p. 132. 5 cit. IV, PI. LXI, 39; V, pp. 132 f. 6 MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer I, p. 337; III, PI. XC, 6. 7 Op. cit. III, PI. CLXXIII, 12. BOp. cit. I, pp. 315, 329 f., Fig. 171:6; III, PIs. LXXVI, 12; LXXXIV, 25. 9 CROWFOOT & FITZGERALD, Excavations in the Tyropoeon
or.
Valley, Jerusalem (Palest. Expl. Fund, Ann. V, 1927), London 1929, p. 67, PL XI, 24. 10 SELLIN & WATZINGER, Jericho, p. 146. For the revised chronology of the excavations, cf. Ann. Amer. Sch, Orient. Res. IV, 1924, p. II, n. 2. As far as I know, no Cypriote Iron Age pottery has been found in the recent excavations conducted by Prof. J. Garstang. 11 SELLIN & WATZINGER, loco cit., Nos. I, 2, 5. Nos. I and 2 are Black-on-Red pottery of non-Cypriote origin, and No. 5 is Bichrome Syrian Ware. 12 Loc. cit., No. 3, Blatt 30:G, 3. 13 Loc. cit., No. 4, Blatt 30: G, 4. 14 Loc. cit., No.6, Fig. 17I. 15 ALBRIGHT, Excavations and Results at Tell el-Ftd (Gibeah of Saul), in Ann. Amer. Sch, Orient. Res. IV, 1924, p. 87, PI. XXXI, 7. The bull's head, ibid., p. 24, PI. XXXII, 22, which once belonged to a protome vase, does not seem to be a Cypriote import, but may be influenced by Cypriote protome vases, e.g., those illustrated in Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXX, 2, 3.'It was found in- Gibeah III.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
lozenges between encircling lines and bands, and has belonged to a barrel-shaped vase similar to that found in Tell jemmeh. Gibeah II can be identified as the town where Saul lived. It can thus be assigned to the later part of the I rth c~nt. B. C., but it lasted into the early part of the loth cent. B. C.' At the time of David, however, it fell into decay ' (Gibeah II B). Further N. on the road to Samaria is Tell en-Nasbeh. Among the finds from this site there is reported a bird-shaped vase, which is said to be Cypriote. 2 We pass now within the boundary of Samaria, and note that a Black-on-Red I (III) juglet of Cypriote origin has been found at Balata.s It is a globular juglet with handle-ridge and flaring rim. It was found in Square K 5, but other conditions of the finds are unknown to me. More important Cypriote finds have been made at Samaria itself. The Cypriote pottery found there' consists of the following specimens: I. Bichrome IV fragment of the border of a stemmed goblet; around the rim a metope decoration of rosette and vertical row of papyrus flowers separated by vertical, parallel lines; 2. Bichrome IV fragment of a similar goblet; 3. Bichrome IV fragment of a similar type with part of a lotus flower ornament preserved below the border; 4. Bichrome IV fragment of a similar goblet with a metope decoration of rosettes and chess-board pattern separated by vertical, parallel lines, and a part of a lotus flower ornament preserved below the border; 5-9. Black-on-Red I (III) and II (IV) fragments of bowls, jugs, and handle-ridge juglets decorated with encircling lines, crossed lines, concentric circles.' The find contexts were as follows according to the notes of the excavators.' No. I was found in S3 C,? N. of street and about level with its floor; No.2 in S8 d S, deep black debris near Greek Fort Wall; NO.3 in S8 e, deep black debris W. of Greek Fort Wall; NO.4 in SII v, below floor of subterranean corridor; No. 5 in S8-8I8, deep; No.6 in S8 c, southern edge, deep; NO.7 in S8-840; No.8 in Bas. 13 sub; NO.9 in S7-772. We thus see that the pottery was found in the "black debris" when it was not found in subsequent fillings and disturbed layers. This "black debris" is post-Israelite, and can be assigned to the Greco-Babylonian period (700-500 B. C.).· Extending our route to Galilee we begin our survey in Tanturah, the ancient Dor, situated on the coast to the S. of Mount Carmel. The Cypriote pottery discovered during the excavations of that site consists of a fragmentary White Painted III juglet with handle-ridge, ALBRIGHT, op. cit., p. 52. Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1930, p. 17. The Black-on-Red Ware found at Tell en-Nasbeh is altogether non-Cypriote (Palest. Mus., Nos. 32.2570, 32.2571, found in West Cemetery, Tomb 32). Some other finds of dubious Cypriote origin may be mentioned in this context. Apart from several specimens of non-Cypriote Black-on-Red found at Tell Beit Mirsim, there is also a fragment which to judge from the illustration seems to be White Painted I (ALBRIGHT, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, in Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient Res. XII, 1932, p. 65, PI. 30:3). 3 No. I. 822 in the Palestine Museum. • No Cypriote pottery seems to have been found during the recent excavations of the British School of Archaeology, 1 2
Jerusalem. The pottery described here was found by the earlier American expedition, and has been published in the excavation report of that expedition: REISNER, FISHER & LYON, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, Cambridge,' Mass. 19 24. 5 Op, cit. I, p. 281, Nos. 2 a-d, 3 a-d, Fig. 157 (No.3 e is not illustrated). • Op, cit. I, p. 281. ? For this and the following abbreviations, see op. cit. I, pp. XXIX and 35 (note); e.g., S3 c means section c of Strip 3; S8 d S means south part of section d of Strip 8; S8-818 means Room 818 of Strip 8; Bas. 13 sub means filling below the Basilica, etc. • Op, cit. I, pp. 54 f.
POTTERY
247
decorated with concentric circles on the shoulder, and a specimen of White Painted V Ware, also decorated with concentric circles.' . Near Haifa on the N. E. slope of Mount Carmel there is an Iron Age necropolis. The tombs excava~ed have yielded some specimens of Black-on-Red pottery. Some specimens are non-Cypnote, but others may be Cypriote.s Excavations at the pilgrim's castle of 'Atlit have brought to light a necropolis with probabl~ Phoenician tombs, which also contained some Cypriote Iron Age pottery. Blacko~-Red IS represented by several specimens, but the majority is non-Cypriots.« Tomb L 23 YIelded, however, a fragment of Cypriote Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware decorated with concentric circles.' This sherd was found in the disturbed filling of the shaft of the tomb together with fragments of Red Figured and White Grounded lekythoi, Black Glazed kylikes, etc. In the filling of the shaft of Tomb L 35 there was a pointed base of a Plain White pithos with erect loop-handles, which may be non-Cypriote.' The western chamber contained remains of several burials from different periods. The latest burial dates from the early Hellenistic period, and lay high up in the filling of the chamber, level with the doorsill.s On the rock benches of the chamber floor there were burials from the Classical period dated .by two silver coins of the Sidonian type, probably from the early 4th cent. B. C.? Remams of the earliest burial were found in the slot between the benches, and contained among other finds a fragment of Black-on-Red II (IV), which seems to be Cypriote. It is decorated with broad and large, concentric circles.' The remains of this earliest, Archaic burial were, however, mixed with objects of the Classical burial on the rock benches." There remains to be mentioned the find of fragments of Plain White pithoi with pointed base and erect loop-handles, which, however,may be non-Cypriote. They were deposited in Tombs L 16 and L 24· Only the loop-handles of the pithos in Tomb L 16 and the base and handles of that found in Tomb L 24 are preserved.» Tomb L 16 contained two burials, one (a-I) on the shaft floor, the other (b-I) in the side-chamber. The loop-handle pithos belongs to the latter burial, which apparently is the earlier one. The best chronological data are given ?y a lekythos ,:ith black-figure palmettes, incised and painted above in white, and by a Jasper scarab WIth a representation of Isis suckling Horus in the papyrus marshes of Buto. The ~ekythos .dates fr.om the en~ of the 6th or beginning of the 5th cent. B. c.- Tomb 24 contamed bunals of different penods. The later, Hellenistic burial in the upper side-chamber (b) does not concern us here, since it has no relation to the Cypriote finds. These occurred 1 Brit. School Arch. Jerus. Bullet., NO.7, 1925, p. 81; Palest. Mus., Inv. Nos. 2893, 2991. 2 Op, cit., NO.5, 1924, PP.48 ff., PIs. II, III. Unfortunately most of the material, which was packed in cases in the Palestine Museum, .was not accessible. 3 Quart. Dep. Antiq. in Palest. II, 1933, p. 63, PI. XX; sherds from Tomb L 7. A fragment of the same kind of ware was also found in Tomb L 22 (ibid., p. 82); other specimens from Bur. I and IVa (op. cit. VI, 1938, p. 139, Fig. 4: 1, 2; p. 142, Fig. 6:1, 3, 4). • Gp. cit. II, p. 84.
s
Ibid., p. 101.
s The burial is dated by the early Hellenistic lamp, ibid., p, 103, Fig. 92. ? Ibid., p. 102. 8 Ibid., p. 104; PI. XX, sherd to the right on the top row. " This is proved by the fact that sherds of a Black Glazed kylix and a silver coin of the Tyrian type from the late 5th or early 4th cent. B.C. were found in the slot (ibid., p. 104). 10 Ibid., pp. 60, 95; PIs. XIX, 407; XXXII, 85 8. 11 The lekythos is illustrated ibid., PI. XVIII, 415 and the scarab ibid., p. 62, Fig. 18.
249
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
iri1ihe undisturbed part of the filling of the shaft, together with burial a-II and immediately below. the cover-stones. 1 The burials in question date from the Persian period. We proceed to the N. of Mount Carmel, to the plain of Acre, where we stop at Tell Abu Hawam. On a survey of the. pottery found at the recent excavations of this site we note as certainly Cypriote only a White Painted II jug. 2 This has an oval body with a spout on the shoulder. Part of the neck and the mouth, once with a basket-handle, are missing. The decoration consists of encircling lines and bands around the belly and the neck." This jug was found on the floor-level in Stratum III, by the excavator tentatively assigned to IIoo-925 B. C.' In addition, some fragments of Plain White amphorae with pointed base and erect loop-handles" may be Cypriote imports, but the clay and slip indicate rather a local manufacture in imitation of the Cypriote prototype. These fragments were found inStratum II (late 6th to early 4th cent. B. C.). Some specimens of Black-on-Red Ware were also found, but they are all of the non-Cypriote class." Black-on-RedWare has been found at Tell Amr,' situated inland on the same plain. As I have not seen .the specimens, I am not quite certain whether they are Cypriote or not, but to judge by .the description they may be Cypriote. From the plain of Acre we pass in a south-easterly direction along Nahr-el-Mukatta, the ancient Kishon, to the plain of Esdralon, where Megiddo and Thannak and further East Beth-shan mark the route of the Cypriote Iron Age pottery down to the valley of Jordan. The German excavations at Megiddo did not yield very much Cypriote Iron Age material;" the only specimen which seems to be of Cypriote provenance is a Black-on-Red I (III) handle-ridge juglet with oval body and funnel-shaped mouth; it is decorated with encircling lines around the belly and neck and with small, concentric circles onthe shoulder.> This juglet was found in the burnt debris, which marks the destruction of the palace of Schumacher's Stratum V." The recent American excavations have brougth to light more Cypriote material. of the period concerned and contributed very much to our knowledge of the historical development of the place.» In. the tombs, a bowl and two juglets of the
non-Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware have been found,' but so far only a single specimen of genuine, Cypriote pottery, viz., a fragmentary Bichrome'll bowl.' The Cypriote pottery so far .discovered in the settlement includes the following specimens: a White Painted I bowl of the same shape as that found in Tell Fara and decorated with latticed lozenges below the rim between encircling bands around the rim and belly;' a Bichrome II amphora with oval body, slightly concave neck, out-turned rim, and handles from rim to shoulder; it is decorated with encircling lines and bands around the body and a metope system round the neck with rectangular fields crossed by diagonal lines separated by vertical bands of zigzag lines framed by straight, parallel lines;' fragment of a Bichrome II bowl decorated with encircling lines and bands around rim and belly and between these a metope pattern of crossed lines framed by vertical bands of parallel lines;" Plain White VI amphorae with pointed base and erect handles on the shoulder rising above the mouth;" finally, specimens of Black-on-Red Ware, specified below. The White Painted I bowl was found in Stratum VI.' On my visit to the Oriental Institute of Chicago in 1937, the Bichrome II amphora was said to have been found in Stratum V, but, being found in 1935/36, it does not appear among the finds from that stratum in "Megiddo I, Seasons of 1925-.34, Strata I-V", quoted above. The Bichrome II bowl is assigned to Stratum V and the Plain White VI amphorae to Stratum I. Of the Black-on-Red pottery, the majority seems to be of nonCypriote origin. Certainly Cypriote is a Black-on-Red III (V) sherd found in Stratum II.· Some of the other specimens can be easily distinguished as non-Cypriote from their clay and slip. Thus a jug- with pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder is of a gray clay unknown in the Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware. Its shape and decoration resemble those of Black-on-Red II (IV), but the slip is burnished, a technique which in Cyprus is represented only in Black-on-Red I (III), but is not found in Black-on-Red II (IV), cf. pp. 68 f. The non-Cypriote origin of the jug is confirmed by the fact that it was found in Stratum V, i. e., even with the latest possible date of this stratum (d. p. 421) the jug is c. 200 years older than the Cypriote Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware. Three bowlsw are of a shape corresponding to Black-on-Red II (IV), but the slip is burnished, and they were all found in Stratum V. Another bowl-' with round base and incurved rim is also of a shape represented in Cypriote pottery of Type IV, but the burnished slip. and the fact that the bowl was found in Stratum IV and thus is older than the appearance of Type IV in Cyprus prove its non-Cypriote origin (d. p. 248, n. II). A wheel-burnished Black-on-Red fragment» found in Stratum IV
8
1 Ibid., pp. 95 f. "Op. cit. IV, 1935, p. 21, PI. XIII, 74. 3This jug is similar to that found in Beth-shemesh (cf.p. 245). , Op. cit. IV, pp. 5 ff. sOp. cit. III, 1934, .PI. XXIII, 12, 13. "The pottery in question comprises a deep bowl with horizontal, erect handles decorated with encircling lines and bands and small, detached, concentric circles below the rim (op. cit. IV, p, 6, Fig. 8); a globular handle-ridge juglet and a sack-shaped juglet, .both with the usual black painted decoration(ibid., p. 22, Nos. 86, 87, PI. XIII). All these specimens were found in Stratum III. , Brit. School Arch, Jerus. Bullet., No. 2,1922, PI. VI. s Ibid., p. IS. "The "Graeco-Phoenician" ware mentioned by SCHUMACHER, Tell el-mutesellim I, p. 53, consists of a sack-shaped juglet decorated with encircling lines (WATZINGER, Tell
el-mutesellim II, p. 55). Watzinger rightly considers this juglet to be only an imitation of Cypriote pottery (apparently of the White Painted class), but also the "kyprische Kanne" (op. cit. II, p. 84, Fig. 79) considered by him to be a Cypriote import is nothing but a Palestinian-Syrian product. lOOp. cit. I, PI. XL, e. . II Schumacher's results are stratigraphically rather confused, and particularly is this so for his Stratum V. The buildings are, however, for the most part to he equated to Stratum IV of the American excavations (information given by Mr. Geoffrey Shipton). As mentioned, the juglet in question was found in the destruction debris.. WATZINC;ER (op. cit. II, p. 91, cf. pp. 79 f.) assigns the destruction to the conquest by Tiglath-Pileser III, in 733 B.C., but the American excavators prefer to date it about a century earlier. 12 FISHER, The Excavation of Armageddon, Chicago 1928; GUY, New Light from Armageddon, Chicago 193 I; ENGBERG & SHIPTON, Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age
The bowl was examined byrne in Chicago, and I can vouch for Pottery of Megiddo, Chicago 1934; LAMON, The Megiddo Water System; Chicago 1935; MAY, Material Remains of the . its Cypriote .workmanship, about which Mr. Shipton seems to be uncertain. Megiddo Cult, Chicago 1935; GUY & ENGBERG, Megiddo 'No. A. 824. Tombs, Chicago 1938; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I,Chicago s LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 30, No. 14I. 1939; SHIPTON, ·Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata "Op. cit: I,PI. 12, Nos. 63, 64. VI-XX, Chicago 1939; LOUD, The Megiddo ivories, Chicago 'SHIPTON, loco cit. 1939· s LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 29, No. 109. 1 GUY & ENGBERG, op, cit., Pis. 66: 16 (T. 73); 74: 17 (T. _ Op. cit. I, PI. 8, No. 176. 76 A); 160: 25 (T. 73). These specimens are called Cypriote lOOp. cit. I, Pis. 30, Nos. 139, 140; 32, No.· 169. in the publication. 11 Op. cit. I,PI. 28, No. 95. 2 Op. cit., PI. 72,: 8 (T. 221 B). 120p. cit. I, Pl.: 29, No. 108. 3 SHIPTON, op. cit., p. 6, § IS; PI. I, No. 17; Chart No. 37.
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
250
is also probably non-Cypriote. A purely Cypriote shape characteristic of Black-on-Red I (III) is represented by an open bowl with two handles found in Strata V-IIL1 It is decorated with encircling lines and isolated, concentric circles near the rim. As the conditions of find do not speak against a Cypriote origin of this bowl, I am inclined to consider it an import from Cyprus. Possibly Cypriote is also a Black-on-Red fragment, which seems to be Type III and was found in Strata V-IV,2 further, a handle-ridge juglet- and a two-handled bottle,' both of Type IV and found in Strata V-III. The Cypriote origin of the two latter specimens is, however, somewhat dubious if the slip, as stated, is burnished. In Thannak a considerable number of Black-on-Red vases was found.' Those illustrated comprise the following specimens: upper part of handle-ridge juglet with funnel-shaped mouth;" handle-ridge juglet with oval body and funnel-shaped mouth, decorated with encircling lines around belly and neck and concentric circles on the shoulder;' globular juglet with raised base (neck and handle missing), decorated with four large, concentric circles on the body and small, concentric circles on the shoulder;" sack-shaped handleridge juglet decorated with encircling lines around body and neck;" I have not been able to handle these vases, and cannot therefore say with absolute certainty if they are Cypriote or not, but to judge by their shape and decoration, it is probable that Figs. 8, band 94 are Cypriote, Fig, 8, b belonging to Black-on-Red I (III) and Fig. 94 to Black-on-Red II (IV). The remaining two specimens may be Cypriote, and in such a case Fig. 44 would belong to Black-on-Red I (III) and Fig. 97 to Black-on-Red II (IV). All the vases were found in Sellin's "Zweitoberste Schicht", and Fig. 8, b and eight other specimens in the layer of burnt debris in the "Nordburg", which marks its destruction." The relation of the level of the other vases to this layer of destruction is, however, not clear, and the date of the destruction itself is uncertain." The excavations at Beth-shan" have yielded a fairly good harvest of Cypriote Iron Age pottery, but only a few specimens have been published hitherto." The material can be studied in the collections of the Palestine Museum and the Pennsylvania University Museum. In the Palestine Museum there are fragments of White Painted and Bichrome I-III and a rather fine specimen of a Bichrome III amphora with broad, ovoid body, almost straight neck, and handles from rim to shoulder. It is decorated with encircling lines and bands lOp. cit. I, PI. 29, No. 107. 20p. cit. I, PI. 17, No. 88. 3 cit. I, PI. 5, No. 123· • Op, cit. I, PI. 17, No. 87· • SELLIN, Tell Ta'annek, pp. 17, 44, 73, 75,79, Figs. 8, i,
os.
44,94,97·
" Op. cit., Fig. 8, b. 70p. cit., Fig. 44. "Op. cit., Fig. 94. "Op. cit., Fig. 97. 10 Op. cit., p. 17. 11 SELLIN, in op. cit., pp. 100 ff., argues that the destruction was more probably due to· the Scythian invasion (626 B.C.) or the Egyptians under Necho (609 B.C.) than the Assyrian invasion under Sargon (722 B.C.).
12 The principal reports of these excavations so far published are: ROWE, The Topography and History of Beth-shan, Philadelphia 1930; FITZGERALD, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan, Part II, The Pottery, Philadelphia 1930; ROWE, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan, Part I, Philadelphia 1940; cf, also Mus. Journ. XIII, 1922, pp. 32 ff.; XIV, 1923, pp. 227 ff.: XV, 1924, pp. 101 ff., 171 ff.: XVI, 1925, pp. 307 ff.: XVII, 1926, pp. 295 ff.; XVIII, 1927, pp. 9 ff., 4 11 ff.; XIX, J928, pp. 145 ff.; XX, 1929, pp. 37 ff.; Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1927, pp. 67 ff., 148 ff.; 1928, pp. 73 ff.; 1929, pp. 78 ff.; 1931, pp. 59 ff.; 1932, pp. 13 8 ff.; 1934, pp. 123 if. 13 The principal publication of the pottery hitherto appeared is FITZGERALD, op. cit. II.
around the belly, and on the neck there is a metope ornamentation of stylized four leaves in the fields, separated by vertical bands of lines and chess-board pattern! In the Pennsylvania University Museum there are fragments of a Bichrome III large handle-ridge jug, and a Bichrome IV-V amphoriskos, both decorated with encircling lines and bands.' Besides the White Painted and Bichrome pottery, a quantity of Black-on-Red Ware was found. Of this a Black-on-Red II (IV) oval jug (neck missing) decorated with concentric circles and intersecting lines- and two fragments of Black-on-Red I (III) juglets with one or two handles from neck to shoulder- are certainly of Cypriote provenance. A Black-on-Red III (V) or Red Slip III (V) bull's protome once belonging to a protome-vase of the kind referred to above (p. 245) is also most probably a Cypriote import.' As regards the other Black-on-Red vases,' they seem to be altogether of the non-Cypriote class. Finally, the kernoi referred to as Cypriote in the preliminary reports- are not Cypriote, but only of similar types to those found in Cyprus. We have now to consider the question of the stratigraphical contexts of the Cypriote Iron Age pottery found at Beth-shan. This is a very difficult question, because exactly those layers where the Cypriote pottery has been found, i. e., Strata IV-VI, have been subject to disturbance in many ways, and the original dating of the levels has been much adjusted, and may still be subject to corrections." The stratigraphical conditions are vexed, and FitzGerald admits that the principal difficulties for the excavators have been "that the floor-levels cannot be exactly determined. The floors were usually of hard clay, and the debris is so hard that the excavation often reached the stone foundations of unbaked brick walls without encountering any trace of a floor. It must be admitted that occasionally objects work up or down from their proper level; thus, three or four fragments from the Seti temple were found to fit onto pieces from the Rameses or the Amenophis level."> In regard to the stratification of the particular strata here concerned it should be observed that FitzGerald includes the ceramic material from Strata IV and III (Late Ramesside, Hellenistic, and Roman Levels) into one group in his chronological division of the pottery, because "the long period indicated by the title of this division is represented by a relatively shallow stratum, in which floor-levels are rarely distinguishable. Here, therefore, we are obliged to estimate the age of particular pieces by their characteristics rather than, as in the lower divisions, by their situation."> The stratification of Stratum V is also intricate and disturbed. This stratum originally assigned to the time of Ramses lIn was later on considered to date from the reign of Ramses III, and its date was subsequently lowered to the rzth-c-roth cent. B. C!2 or even IIth-ioth cent. B. C.13 Stratum VI has also been Pal. Mus. Jerus. Bull., NO.4, 1927, PI. III, 2. Inv. Nos. 29-1°3-558 and 29-103-530. 3 FITzGERALD, op. cit. II, PI. LI, 5. 1 Pennsylvania University Museum, Nos. 29-102-883, 29-103-508. 5 FITzGERALD, op. cit. II, PI. LI, 10. o Op. cit. II, PIs. XLVII, 27; L, 10, 35-38; other specimens in the Pennsylvania University Museum and the Palestine Museum. 1
2
7
Mus. Journ. XVII, 1926, p. 300; XVIII, 1927, p. 23;
XX, 1929, p. 69. "Cf. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLV, 1941, p. 485. • FITZGERALD, op, cit. II, pp. I f. lOOp. cit. II, p. I. 11 Palest. Expl, Fund, Quart. Statem., 1932, pp. 138 if. 12 Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res. XVII, 1938, pp. 76 f.; Palest. Expl. Quart., 1940, p. 81. 13 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLV, 1941, p. 48.5.
252
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
partly disturbed by subsequent structures. It was originally assigned to the time of Seti 1,1 but is now attributed to the end of 13th-12th cent. B. C.2 or 12th-early r rth cent. B. C. 3 In view of the disturbed stratification we may disregard every attribution to a certain level if its date is not in agreement with our knowledge about the date of the Cypriote pottery. Returning now to an examination of the levels at which the Cypriote pottery has been discovered we find that pottery of Type I (White Painted I, Bichrome I) is reported from Stratum VI, 4 but the same type of pottery has been found in Stratum IV. 5 Specimens of Type III [White Painted III, Bichrome III, Black-on-Red I (III)] are reported from Stratum V,s but also specimens of Type IV-V (Bichrome IV-V).? Finally, specimens of Types IV and V [Black-on-Red II (IV) and III (V)] were found in Stratum IV.8 We thus see thatthe Cypriote finds fully verify the disturbed stratigraphical conditions described above. Before the establishment of the French mandate' in Syria and the series of systematic excavations carried out by different expeditions under that regime, we knew next to nothing about the early culture of Phoenicia. True, material was not altogether missing, but its scientific value is rather reduced, as it has not been found in systematic excavations. The most important of the collections with material of this kind are in the Istanbul Museum and in the American College in Beirut.' These collections contain a number of Cypriote Iron Age vases, which have been found in the vicinity of Beirut, at Sidon, Tyre, Caesarea Philippi, and. in the Beka'. We begin our inventory of the pottery found in systematic excavations with the finds from Khirbet Selim, E. ofSaida.> Two tombs have been examined at this place. The one dates from the Iron Age. Some vases which are imports from Cyprus were found among the Syrian. goods belonging to the Iron Age burials; These vases comprise a White Painted II and.a. Bichrome II barrel-shaped juglet decorated with encircling lines around the body and the neck; furthermore, a White Painted II globular juglet decorated with large, concentric circles on the body; finally, specimens of Black-on-Red I (III) and Red Slip Wares. In a tomb excavated at Quara-yet, near Saida, the following Cypriote pottery was found: a Bichrome II barrel-shaped jug (neck and handle missing) decorated with encircling bands around the body; neck and handle of a Bichrome II juglet; a Black-on-Red I (III) hemispherical bowl with two horizontal handles, decorated with encircling lines around rim, below handles, around the base, and inside the base." The famous tomb of Ahiram at Byblos has also yielded some fragments of Cypriote Iron Age pottery.» This consists of White Painted and Bichrome III-IV wares, including small fragments decorated with encircling and intersecting lines and bands, concentric
circles, etc.; further, a fragment of a neck of an amphora with metope decoration of stylized ornaments of four leaves separated by vertical bands of paralle1lines and concentric arrowheads; a large fragment with a bordering ridge and decorated with encircling lines around the bord.er ~nd below the b?rder, vertical rows of concentric circles separated by single ~oncentn.c CIrcles of a larger SIze with a broad periphery. All these fragments were discovered m the. filhng of the dromos. We know that the tomb itself with the magnificent sarcophagus of ~hlramdates from the end of the rjth cent. B. C.I The Cypriote pottery, which can be assigned to the later part of Cypro-Archaic I, cannot therefore belong to the equip t f h .. l buri men o t e ongma urial, but is intrusive, apparently in connection with a subsequent plunderin of the tomb.: g
RoWE, The Topogr, and Hist, of Beth-shan, pp. 23ft". 2 Ann. Amer. Soh. Orient. Res. XVII, .1938, pp. 76 f. 3 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLV, 1941, p. 485. 4 Palest. Mus., Nos. P. 3516, 3547. 5 Palest. Mus., Nos. P. 2801, 2808. s Pennsylv. Mus., Nos. 29-102-883, 29-103-508, 29- 103-558. ? Pennsylv. Mus., No. 29-1°3-53°. I
FITzGERALD, op. cit. II, PI. LI, 5, 10. o Sir. L. Woolley has published a study on the American College collection of Syrian finds of Cypriote pottery in Syria II, 1921, pp. 177 ff., PIs. XIX, XX. 10 So far as I know, these excavations conducted by Mr. Albanese are unpublished. The finds are in the Beirut Museum. 11 Information given by Mr. Emir Chehab. 12 MONTET, Byblos et l'Egypte, pp. 218 ff.; PI. CXLIII. 8
253
. Cyp~iote pottery, among which Black-on-Red I (III) jugs with pinched rim and a handlend~e juglet, was found in Hama. They were discovered in a well-dated urn cemetery, earlier than 720 B. C.: but ~hiefly from the 8th cent. B. C. Similar Black-on-Red pottery and fragments of White Painted ware have also been found in "Niveau E" of the t 3 Khan Sheikhun is a village situated on the route from Hama to Aleppo, about 4 .sms. from Hama. A tell to the S. of the village has been excavated by Comte du Mesnil du Buisson. !he Iron A~e settlement comprises four superimposed cities. A Bichrome II barrel-shaped Jug of. Cypriote prov~nance and decorated with vertical, encircling lines and bands was found m the second city.' The date of this city is uncertain. The excavator thinks that it was founded by Tiglath-Pileser III ~. 735 B. C. This chronology is, however, entirely dependent on the date of the Cypriote vase, which is assigned to the 8th-7th cent. B. C. by the excavator,' but that is too Iowa date: the vase can be assigned to the 9th or early 8th cent. B. C. Excavations ~t T~ll Sukas a~d Qal'at er-Rus have yielded a good many Cypriote Iron Age sherds, White Pamted and Bichrome, The stratigraphical material from these excavations was mos.t kindly sh~wn. to me in Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania, but it is still unpublished and until the publication has appeared no conclusions can be drawn from the material.' Tell Sukas and Qal'at er-Rus are both situated near Jebleh, the latter site on the sea-coast, N. W. of Jebleh and Tell Sukas. N. of these places is Ras Shamra, the ancient Ugarit, well known through Schaeffer's excavations. Very few objects from the Iron Age .have been found. Among the ceramic material from a soundi~g fro~ th~ toP. down to 2.70 m. there are, however, twostraysherds of plates, decorated WIth encircling hnes and . bands, which are entirely in the technique of the Black-on-Red II (IV) Ware.? Syria V, 1924, pp. 135 ff. Ibid., p. 143. The pottery fragments are assigned to the 7th cent. B.C. by R. Dussaud. This is approximately right, as we have seen. 3 INGHOLT, Rapp. prelim. sur sept. camp. de fouilles a Hama pp. 97 f., II8, PI. XXX, 2. ' 4 Syria XIII, 1932, p. 180; PI. XXXVII, No. 278,. 5 Loc. cit. I
2
A
Short notices of these excavations are published by W.
F. ALBRIGHT in his Archaeological Research in Palestine Transjordan, and Syria, in Amer. Journ. Archaeol, XXXIX' 1935, p. 146, and by K FO~R in Bericht fib. d. VI. intern: Kongr.f. Archdol., 1940, pp.. 360 ff.; cf. also Arch. f. Orientforsch, XIV, 1941-1944, p. 101. t These sherds were kindly shown to me by Prof. Schaeffer. They are at. present in Musee des Antiquites nationales, S:t Germain. .
254
FOREIGN RELATIONS
From Ras Shamra we continue to the N. along the coast to the mouth of the Orontes river, where Sir L. Woolley has recently excavated a mound called Tell Sheikh Yusuf after an Alouite saint, whose cenotaph is situated on the highest point of the mound. The results of this excavation are of greatest importance as regards the foreign relations of Cyprus in the Archaic period, and they therefore deserve our full attention.' The tell is situated at the mouth of the Orontes river, as already mentioned, close to the modern port al Mina at the gulf of Sueida. To the S. of the river is Mount Kasios, to the N. is the site of Seleukeia, and beyond that Mount Pieria separating the Orontes valley from the gulf of Alexandretta, the ancient Sinus Issicus. From the mouth of the Orontes.which was navigable up to Antioch, a road led inland up the river valley to the rich and densely inhabited plain of Amk and thence further on to Aleppo, from where the routes dispersed to Mesopotamia. As rightly pointed out by Woolley in his excavation report, the Orontes route is the shortest and best way from the Mediterranean sea to the Mesopotamian countries, and an archaeological exploration of the sites along this route is therefore very likely to elucidate the problem of the interrelations of the Asiatic mainland and the Mediterranean cultures. The results of the excavation have fully proved the justification of this supposition. 2 The mound has been excavated from the top and to the rock. The excavator distinguishes ten culture strata. Of these the ninth and tenth layers could not be distinguished stratigraphically; only a difference of orientation of the stone foundations of the buildings founded on the rock has induced the excavator to assign two layers to these foundations, but there was practically no rise of level during the period in question, which was probably very short. 3 It seems therefore correct to reduce the number of strata to nine. The habitation represented by these strata covers a time from the Crusading to the Sub-Geometric period with a considerable gap between the end of Stratum 2 and the beginning of Stratum 3 and a smaller gap between Strata 4 and 5. In each stratum there were remains of buildings, the walls of which had been built' of mud-brick on foundations of rough stones. The plan of the buildings and their contents show that we have to do with ware-houses and magazines of importing merchants.' The imported goods have disappeared, but their containers, the pottery, have remained, and the archaeological importance of the site lies in this stratified ceramic series. In the bottom stratum the pottery was Late Geometric or Sub-Geometric. It was very abundant in spite of the thinness of the layer. Much of it has been imported: it is entirely Greek, as it seems, mainly of the Insular and Rhodian styles. Other specimens are evidently of local manufacture. Layer 8, which covered the bottom stratum, contained quite a different combination 1 A preliminary but very instructive excavation report is given by WOOLLEY in Antiq. Joorn. XVII, 1937, pp. I if. A supplementary report in Journ. Hell. Stud. LVIII, 1938, pp, I ff., 133 if. Most of the ceramic material from the excavation is kept in the British Museum, where I was able to study it thanks to the courtesy of the excavator and Mr. F. N. Pryce, at that time keeper of the Greek and Roman Department of the Museum.
2 The importance of this region for the corresponding cultural connections in the prehistoric period has been displayed by Woolley's soundings at Sabouni (cf, below) and, above all, at Atchana. 3 Cf. Antiq. Journ. XVII, 1937, p. 10. • Ibid., PIs. III, IX. X.
POTTERY
255
of pottery types: the Late Geometric and Sub-Geometric styles are only represented by a very few specimens, and the overwhelming majority of the pottery is Cypriote. This consists of the following wares: White Painted and Bichrome III, White Painted and Bichrome IV, and Black-on-Red II (IV). Of the latter ware, only a few specimens are represented. A good deal is genuine Cypriote pottery, imported from the island, but a considerable quantity is apparently of local origin, i. e., made by Cypriotes in Syria. This is shown by the structure of the clay and also by the somewhat uncanonic and peculiar type of ornamentation. This local Cypriote ware is usually of good quality, and it is by no means imitation work. Its somewhat different style from the ordinary Cypriote products can be entirely explained by the fact that the potters were working in a foreign environment and therefore freer from traditional schedules. A deep krater decorated with two bulls in heraldic position on the shoulder, a large amphora with the typically Cypriote ornamentation of lotus flowers, and fragments of similar vases decorated with floral and animal motifs] show that potters of first rank w~re working for the trading factory at Tell Sheikh Yusuf. True, there are some specimens of inferior quality, which may be the work of native assistants imitating the products of the Cypriote kilns. The imported Cypriote ware, on the other hand, belongs usually to the ordinary mass production class. This is very natural, because that pottery was to a great extent containers for the imported goods, but as regards the vases of a more artistic kind, it was evidently deemed practical to have them made by potters working on the spot instead of taking the risk of breakage during their transport from Cyprus.s As regards the percentage of specimens of the different pottery classes in relation to each other, it should be observed that Type III is represented by numerous specimens, but there is also a considerable number of Type IV. This combination of pottery is typical of the early part of Cypro-Archaic I, and the amount of potsherds of Type III may indicate that the beginning of the period represented by Level 8 coincides with the beginning of Cypro-Archaic 1. In Level 7 the ceramic conditions are quite changed. The Cypriote ware continues, but it is now mixed with some Sub-Geometric and a greater quantity of early Orientalizing 1
Ibid., PI. XII.
WOOLLEY (ibid., p. 10) very rightly points out that some part of the pottery is local, but I cannot share his opinion as regards the relation of this local ware to that made in Cyprus and the historic interpretation of the ceramic material. I quote Woolley: "The Iron Age pottery of Cyprus makes its appearance suddenly in the island; it has little connexion with any Bronze Age fabrics, and is certainly not descended from any of them. From the outset it exhibits a fully developed style, and since that style was not developed in Cyprus by any stages that can be traced to-day, the theory has often been put forward that is was introduced there ready-made from the Asiatic continent. The local distribution of the two characteristic systems of decoration the concentric circle and the 'metope' - between the northern and southern sides of the island, and the fact that these two systems in Syria tend to occur in distinct cultural centres, 2
give colour to the suggestion that there was an invasion of Cyprus at the beginning of the Iron Age by two kindred but distinct tribes whose original home was probably in Asia Minor. The evidence of Tal Sheikh Yusuf is quite consistent with this in so far as it shows that the pottery of the mainland and of Cyprus is in many cases scarcely distinguishable, and the similarity of products is a strong argument for the relation of the makers; but here, as in Cyprus, the ware is not properly speaking at home; it makes its appearance suddenly and has no history of local development behind it." Woolley thus interprets the local Cypriote ware at Tell Sheikh Yusuf as indicating a station of one of the tribes which invaded Cyprus at the beginning of the Iron Age, a halting-place of this tribe on its way to the island. This is an untenable idea in view of the fact that the earliest Cypriote pottery found at Tell Sheikh Yusuf dates from c. 700 B.C. (cf. pp. 423 f.),
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Greek pottery to such a' degree that the Cypriote and Greek wares are fairly balanced. The Cypriote pottery consists exclusively of Type IV [White Painted and Bichrome IV, Black-on-Red II (IV)], and the Greek pottery is mainly Rhodian. Levels 5 and 6 actually represent only successive stages of a single period, and it is not possible-to detect any great, stylistic difference between the pottery of the two levels. Their contents may therefore be treated as a unit. The Cypriote pottery has now much decreased in number, and is represented by specimens of Type IV (White Painted and Bichrome IV) and a few representatives of Type, V (White Painted and Bichrome V). This combination of pottery types shows that the period represented by Levels 5 and 6 came to an end shortly after the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II. The Greek pottery is in the great majority and consists of Rhodian, Orientalizing ware; "Ionian bowl" fabric; Proto-Corinthian, ovoid aryballoi with incised scale pattern; a fragment with painted remains of a bearded archer with horizontally divided hair; Proto-Corinthian ware with fine, linear ornamentation of the kind found, e. g~, in the Regolini-Galassi tomb at Cervetri;' also some fragments of Corinthian ware are said to be among the finds from these levels. Levels 1-4' do not concern us here, as they do not contain any specimens of Cypriote pottery." The importance of this excavation for the Greek chronology of the periods in question and for our knowledge of the cultural interrelations of Greece and the Near East cannot beover-emphasized, but the results are no less important for Cypriote archaeology in both these respects. For the first time we have a well stratified and well examined site with masses of Cypriote pottery in relation to Greek wares, and besides that we have irrefutable evidence of an Archaic, Cypriote trading factory in Syria, depicting the way in which commercial and cultural connections were established. About· 5 kms. further up in the Orontes valley there is a small hill called Sabouni. The hill is natural and consists of a flat-topped mass of conglomerate. It is surrounded by fortification walls of mud-brick and rubble. Soundings made here yielded a series of potsherds from Attic Red Figured to Late Bronze Age wares. Among the pottery there are Cypriote Archaic sherds of the same kind as those found at Tell Sheikh.Yusuf.s The Syrian Expedition of the Chicago Oriental Institute has excavated at Chatal Htiyuk and Tell Judeideh, and while this is being written, work is still carried out at Tell Tainat.s All these sites are situated in the plain of Antioch, Chatal Hiiyuk and Tell Judeideh near the town of Rihaniyyah, Tell Tainat East of jisr al-Hadid, where the highway between Aleppo and Antioch crosses the Orontes river. These excavations are conducted with the strictest method, and will mark a new era in the archaeological exploration of North Syria. Considerable quantities of Cypriote Iron Age pottery have been found. Only summary and preliminary reports have been published, and I shall therefore confine myself to pointing out certain facts and particulars which are of importance for Cypriote chronology. A chronological fixed Cf. Rom. Mitt. XXII, 1907, p. 131, Fig. 20. This chronological evidence is of great importance for the date of the Regolini Galassi tomb. There is no longer anything to prevent us from assigning it to the beginning of the 6th century B.C. 1
For the fragments of Cypriote stone sculptures found in Tell Sheikh Yusuf, see p. 326. 3 WOOLLEY, op, cit. XVII, pp. II f. 4 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. ~LI, I937,PP. 8 £I. 2
POTTERY
257
point is given by the building of the Assyrian Governor's residence in Tell Tainat, which can be assigned to c. 740 B. C. Cypriote pottery of Type III was found below the floor of that residence and pottery of Types III and IV above the floor. Cypriote pottery of Type I occurs only occasionally, but Type II is already represented by a considerable number of specimens. The classes of pottery represented are: WhitePaint~d, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red. The Cypriote wares form about 10 % of the total amount of pottery and about 35 % of the painted wares.' In the tombs of Carchemish, some Cypriote pottery and imitations of it have been found.s Unfortunately the finds were destroyed during the Great War 1914-1918, and Sir L. Woolley's record of the tombs published in Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. is therefore necessarily very summary. In consequence, particularly when the vases claimed to be Cypriote are not illustrated, it is impossible to decide. whether they are of Cypriote or of Syrian manufacture in imitation of Cypriote prototypes. In Tomb YC 45, a Bichrome IV 3 jug and an imitation of a Cypriote Bichrome IV jug 4 were found; Tomb YC 47 contained an imitation of a Bichrome III jug;" Tomb YC 67 a Black-on-Red.juglor.- Tomb YCSl a Black-on-Red II (IV) bottle with two handles from neck to shoulder;' Tomb YC 82 a White Painted jug;6 Tomb YD 1 a fragment of Black-on-Red ware;" Tomb YD 4 a Bichrome jug;» and Tomb YH4 an imitation of a Bichrome IV jug.» In the Istanbul Museum I have seen some Cypriote pottery from Carchemish, fragments of a White Painted II and Bichrome IV jugs, and a Black-on-Red I (III) bottle with handles from neck to shoulder. Further, I noticed a Bichrome jug of local manufacture indicating Cypriote influence. The excavations at Sendjirli have also yielded a considerable quantity of Cypriote pottery. The earliest specimen published is a Bichrome III fragment of a juglet.vProbably Cypriote is also another fragment of a juglet, which is of Type III, perhaps White Painted or Blackon-Red.» The remainder of the Cypriote pottery is altogether of Type IV: White Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red fragments.v .a jar on three bent legs,» jugs and juglets,> among which occurs the upper part of a juglet with a female face attached to the neck.» Apart from the genuine Cypriote pottery there are also, specimens of imitated and locally manufactured ware.» An animal-shaped vase» claimed to be Cypriote is, however, not of Cypriote workmanship, nor inspired by Cypriote prototypes. 1 2
3
4
Information given by Dr. R. J. Braidwood. Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. XXVI, 1939, pp. II £I. Ibid., p. 30, PI. XVI, b I. Ibid., p. 30, PI. XVI, b 2. A third Cypriote vase is
also recorded from this tomb. 6 Ibid., p. 3I,PI. XVI, b 3. 6 Ibid., p. 34. 7 Ibid., p. 35, PI. XVI, a I, 8 Ibid., p. 35.
Lac. cit.
11
Lac. cit., PI. XVI, a 2. This tomb contained also frag-
17
ments of White Painted Ware claimed to be Cypriote. was decorated with concentric circles. . 12 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, PI. 18, e. 13 Op. cit. V, p. 44, Fig. 39. From the description cannot make out whether the juglet is White Painted Black-on-Red. 14 Op. cit. V, p. 43, Fig. 36; PI. 18, k. 16 Op. cit. V, p. 46, Fig. 43; PI. 20, g-k. 160p. cit. V,Pls. 17, g;' 18, a, b (probably Cypriote), l' Op. cit. V, PI. 34, C. 18 Op. cit. V, p. 43, Figs. 37, 38; Pis. 17, h, i, k; 27. 19 Op. cit. V, PI. 21.
It
I or
f. b.
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN ANATOLIAI Until very recently no archaeological material elucidating the earlier periods of Cilician history was known, because only Hellenistic and Roman remains had been regarded by travelling scholars. In 1930 I visited Cilicia for the purpose of collecting archaeological material from the prehistoric, Early Iron Age and Archaic periods. No soundings were made, and I had to limit myself to an inventory of what could be seen and collected on the surface. I concentrated therefore upon an examination of the fragments of pottery strewn in masses on the tells and other places of ancient inhabitation as the safest and easiest means of obtaining an idea, though summary, of the cultural type of the country during the periods in question. The results of my journey are published in Rev. arch., Ser, 6, III, 1934, pp. 155 ff. It is, however, clear, that the many problems connected with Cilician culture cannot be solved without extensive excavations in the country. One of the aims of my article referred to above was to stimulate others to such excavations, and I am therefore very pleased that scientific excavation work has finally begun in Cilicia. The merit of having started this excavation work is due to Dr. H. Goldman, who has conducted excavations at Tarsos on behalf of the Bryn Mawr College, Archaeological Institute of America and Harvard University. Later on, Prof. J. Garstang started excavations at Souk Su near Mersin. It is therefore certain that before very long we shall know much more about Cilician culture than we do now, and it is of doubtful value to collect the present fragmentary and scarce evidence for the interrelations of Cyprus and Cilicia in view of the fact that the material will soon be considerably increased and the evidence more conclusive. However, I have no choice, and I shall therefore set forth our present knowledge about these interrelations based upon my observations during my travels in Cilicia and the facts hitherto supplied by the excavation work. Cypriote Iron Age pottery was found by me on the following sites: Bozjaz, Se1efke, Hiidiide, Lamas, Tomuk, Soli, Mersin (Souk su), Kazanli, Tarsos, Zeitiin, Inchirlik, M isis , Tanaverdi , and Karatash. The situation of these localities can be seen from my description, ibid., pp. 157 ff., and the map, p. 202, Fig. 19. During the exploratory journeys undertaken by the members of Dr. Goldman's" and Prof. Garstang's" expeditions, much more material has been collected, and when this has been fully published, the number of Cilician sites where Cypriote Iron Age pottery has been found will be considerably increased. Prof. Garstang has already published some interesting Cypriote potsherds from Sirkeli.' Bozjaz lies farthest to the W., in KtAt)(.[a tpaXEla. The remains of the fortified town at this place have been identified as those of ancient Nagidos.' Selefke has retained the name of Seleukeia at Kalykadnos, and occupies the site of the ancient town.· Hiidiide is a site The Greek colonies in western Asia Minor are not included in this section, but in that dealing with Cypriote pottery found in Greece (see below). " Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXIX, 1935, p. 526. "Ann. Arch. fsj Anthrop. Lioerp, XXIV, 1937, pp. 54 fr. 1
, Ibid., pp. 64 f.; op. cit. XXV, 1938, pp. 20 ff., PI. XV, 1-4· 6 HEBERDEY & WILHELM, Reisen in Kilikien, p. 157. .Op. cit., pp. 100 ff.; KEIL & WILHELM, Denkm. aus d. Rauhen Kilikien, pp. 3 ff,
259
about 7 kms, S. E. of Selefke to the right of the road leading from Selefke to Mersin. Lamas marks the ruins of an ancient settlement on the right side of the river Lamas su (the ancient Lamos) near its mouth at the seashore.' We leave KtAt)(.[a tpaXEla and descend to KtAt)(.[a 1tEOt&~, at first to the narrow coastal plain to the W. of Mersin, which is a continuation of the wide Cilician plain to the E. of the same town. About 4 kms. E. of Lamas, on the right side of the road from Lamas to Mersin, is an artificial tell called Tomuk kalesi. It is the westernmost of the tell settlements so characteristic of the Cilician plain. The ruins of Soli are situated about 12 kms. W. of Mersin between the road and the seashore." Souk su is the tell which Prof. Garstang has chosen for excavations. It is situated N. W. of Mersin, just outside the modern town. From the reports hitherto published we find that a considerab'e number of Cypriote pottery, imported and of local workmanship, has been found." The local pottery may, as suggested, have been produced in the Cypriote factory at Tarsos. The pottery, as far as can be judged from the description and illustrations, consists of White Painted and Bichrome III and IV, as well as Black-on-Red I (III) and II (IV). About 12 kms. E. of Mersin is the village Kazanli, situated near the seashore, and close by the village is a large tell marking an ancient settlement.' Modern Tarsos occupies the site of the ancient town.' The ruins culminate in a large tell, called Gozlii Kule, where Dr. Goldman started her excavations.· Leaving Tarsos for Adana we have the tell of Zeitiin to the left of the road, not far from Adana, and if we continue the route from that town to Misis, we see the tell of Inchirlik to the right of the road. Misis is the easternmost place on the Cilician plain visited by me. There are extensive ruins of an ancient town, Mopsuhestia, at the river Pyramos.r Sirkeli is situated 7 kms. from Misis in a bend of the river Pyramos.' Returning to Adana and proceeding to the S. of that town we pass the tell of Tanaverdi on the left side of the road and about 25 kms. from Adana. If We continue our route towards the sea, we reach the village of Karatash on the coast. S. W. of the village are ruins of an ancient town identified with Antiocheia at Pyramos.' The Cypriote Iron Age pottery found by me at all these places consists of White Painted and Bichrome I-V, and Black-on-Red I (III)-·III (V).'o On a comparison of this pottery with the corresponding wares in Cyprus, it becomes evident that only a part of the pottery found in Cilicia can be considered as genuine Cypriote and thus imported direct from Cyprus. The remaining part shows such technical differences from the corresponding classes of pottery found in Cyprus that one is justified in supposing that it was made locally in Cilicia. The clay is rougher than in the specimens from Cyprus, and is sometimes grey or grey-black at the core. The slip and the quality of the paint also show some peculiarities. 1 Journ. HELM,
a
Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, p. 217; op, cit., pp. 47 ff.
HEBERDEY
&
WIL-
Op. cit., pp. 42 fr.
"Ann. Arch. fsj Anthrop. Liverp. XXVI, 1939, pp. 107 ff., 115; PIs. XLVI, 8, 9; XLVII, XLVIII, 1-8. , Cf. op, cit. XXIV, 1937, p. 64; XXV, 1938, pp. 12 ff. 6 References to descriptions of the ancient remains in art. Tarsos by RUGE, in PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E., pp. 2436 ff,
• Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXIX, 1935, pp. 526 ff.: XLI, 1937, pp. 262 ff.; XLII, 1938, pp. 30 ff.; XLIV, 1940, pp. 60 ff, 7 HEBERDEY & WILHELM, op, cit., pp. II ff. S Ann. Arch. fsj Anthrop, Lioerp, XXIV, 1937, pp. 64 f. 9 HEBERDEY & WILHELM, op. cit., pp. 5 ff. ; 19 Rev. arch., Ser. 6, III, 1934, pp. 172, 175; Figs. 3; 12, I 14, A, G; Ann. Arch. fsj Anthrop, Liverp. XXV, 1938, pp. 12 fr., PI. XI, 3, 4.
261
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
This indication of a local manufacture of Cypriote pottery has been verified by the results of the excavations at Tarsos (d. below). Unlike the distribution of the Bronze Age pottery, which forms two main topographical groups roughly coinciding with the geographical division in KtAty,la tpaXeta and KtAty,la 1teOti;, 1 the Cypriote Iron Age pottery seems to be more evenly distributed throughout the whole of Cilicia. The quantity of potsherds picked up on the different sites is on the other hand very unequal: at some localities only a few sherds were found, while they occurred in masses on other sites.' This numerical difference may very well be due to chance, and excavations on the sites in question may entirely change the picture in this respect. On the other hand, the great number of sherds found on .somesites (e. g., Hiidtide, Soli, Tarsos, Misis, and Tanaverdi) and the fact that a considerable quantity seems to be of local manufacture indicate that we do not have to deal with occasional and rare specimens of import, but both with mass imports and mass fabrication on the spot. This has been confirmed by the results of the excavations at Tarsos. Only preliminary reports have been published hitherto, and we must wait for further campaigns and further reports before anything definite can be said about the archaeological status and historical significance of the Cypriote Iron Age ware in Cilicia. The following results as regards the Cypriote material from the Iron Age were obtained during the first campaign. In Section A, pottery of the Cypriote type appeared directly above the remains of a large building, which can be assigned to the end of the Bronze Age.' In Section Four, a wall appeared at about level 14.25 m.to 14.50 m. The pottery associated with this wall was almost entirely of Cypriote Iron Age types, but it has not yet been classified.' The wall is built upon another one of mud-brick, which indicates that the later building period, with the Cypriote material, was not separated from the earlier one by a long period. The stratum of this earlier period is assigned by the excavator to shortly after
relaid at least four times from level 13.60 m. to c. 13.00 m. In the floor of one of the rooms and also in the earth below the floor, Assyrian clay tablets assigned to the 7th cent. B. C. were found.' Cypriote Iron Age pottery was found at the level of this house together with fragments of Rhodian pottery of the Orientalizing style and other pottery from the Greek islands and Asia Minor, assigned to the late 7th and early 6th century B. C.2 The Cypriote pottery continued below the level of the building. It increased in quantity from level 13.0 m., and reached its numerical maximum between levels 13.50 m. and 14.50 m. The houses associated with the Cypriote pottery at these lower strata were very badly built, and seem to have been "little, if any, above the level of squatters' huts"," In the S. part of the section, the digging was carried deeper down. Between 15.15 m. and 15.90 m. much Mycenaean pottery of the Granary Style was found. In the layer immediately above this Mycenaean ware, Cypriote pottery of the Iron Age began to appear.' When the classification of this pottery from these superimposed strata has been definitely published, much new light will be thrown on the important question of the relations between Cypriote and Cilician cultures in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. At present I can only communicate some facts and particulars, which are of importance for the Cypriote chronology, partly on the basis of information obtained from the excavators. The Cypriote pottery, both the imported specimens and those locally made, consists of White Painted, Bichrome, Black-on-Red, Black Slip, and Red Slip. No pottery of Type I has been found hitherto, Types II and III are very numerous, and there is also a considerable quantity of Type IV. Of Types II and III there is a great number of locally made vases, while those of Type IV are almost altogether imported, so far as the present evidence goes. A fixed chronological point is given by the layer of destruction, which can be identified with that caused by the invasion of Sennacherib in 696 B. C. Types II and III are found below this layer. Occasional sherds of Type IV and transitional specimens between Types III and IV have been found in the debris of destruction and several sherds of Type IV above that layer. . Linguistic considerations may lead to the supposition of rather intimate cultural connections between Cyprus and Pamphylia;' but archaeological evidence is not very positive. True, the early history of Pamphylia is very little known, and it is of course possible that further researches and, above all, excavations may change the picture." On travelling in the country I have, however, come to the conclusion that there is very little material to be seen on the surface which indicates relations with Cyprus during the Iron Age.' As
260
IOOO.B. C. During the second campaign the widening of Section A yielded remarkable results. A series of kilns was found and partially excavated. They were used for the manufacture of pottery of Cypriote Iron Age types (White Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red). This is proved by numerous misfired pieces of such pottery found both in the kilns and in the area around them,' and also by the find of Black-on-Red and White Painted pottery that had been painted, but not fired." We have thus incontestable evidence that this pottery was made in Cilicia, and the conditions seem therefore to be analogous to those in North Syria, i. e., we have indications of Cypriote trading factories with the import of goods from Cyprus and the manufacture of pottery on the spot for the local demands.' Sections Four and Five were united into one and widened into Section B. In the N. end of this section, a building which is not yet entirely excavated came to light. Most of the floors have been
1
Ibid., pp. 276 and 288.
2 Ibid., p. 276; op, cit. XXXIX, 1935, p. 547, Figs. 4 1-43. a Op. cit. XLI, 1937, p. 277.
Rev. arch., Ser, 6, III, 1934, p. 182. 2,.For the nl,1ll1ber of sherdspicked up on the different alites, see the diagram, ibid., pp. 176 f. a Am,er. Journ. Archaeol. XXXIX, 1935, p. 535· 1
• Ibid" p. 543· s Op, cit. XLI, 1937, pp. 271 f.
"Op. cit. XLII, 1938, p. 41. 7 Mr. J. F. Daniel, who has studied this pottery and knows Cypriote pottery from his work at the American excavations in Kurion, believes that about 20 per cent are imports and 80 per cent of local manufacture (op. cit. XLI, 1937, p. 272.)
• Ibid., p. 279. • For the relations between the Pamphylian and Cypriote dialects, see THUMB, Handb, d. griech. Dial., pp. 297 ff. " Explorations in Pamphylia and Pisidia have been published in Journ. Hell. Stud. XXII, 1902, pp. 94 ff., 339 ff.; XXIV,
1904, pp. II3 ff.; Ann. Brit. School Athens XVI, pp. 89 ff.; XVII, pp. 215 ff.; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene III, 1921, pp. 3 ff.; VI-VII, 1926, pp. 343 ff.; VIII-IX, 1929, pp. 357 ff.; Mon. Ant. XXIX, 1923, pp. 657 ff.; LANCKORONSK1, Stddte Pamph, u, Pis., Wien 1890-92; ROTT, Kleinasiat. Denkm. aus Pis., Pamph., Kappad., Leipzig 1908; SWOBODA & KEIL & KNOLL, Denkm. aus- Lykaon., Pamph, u. ·lsaur., Brunn 1935. 7 The conditions in the Late Bronze Age seem to be of a similar kind, cf, Vol. IV; I.
262
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
a matter of fact, I was only able to find Cypriote Iron Age material at one place in Pamphylia, at the locality Varsak, some kilometers N. of Adalia. At this place there are ruins of an ancient settlement with remains from the Hellenistic and Roman periods visible on the surface and an extensive necropolis with rock-cut tombs. Near the opened dromos of one of these tombs I found a couple of White Painted V and VI sherds of Cypriote provenance. A Bichrome II barrel-shaped jug and a few Cypriote sherds found at Alishar Htiyuk remain to be mentioned: a fragment of a White Painted I bowl decorated with bands of ladder-pattern; fragments of White Painted and Bichrome II-III jugs decorated with encircling lines; fragment of Black Slip with grooved body.' Cypriote ware is reported on "many Cappadocian and Galatian sites", 2 but from the illustrations of the sherds published it is impossible to decide whether we have to do with pottery imported from Cyprus or of local workmanship, perhaps from the factory at Tarsos. A Bichrome IV stemmed bowl found at Troy- has probably not arrived overland to that city, but by sea along the Anatolian coast, where, as we shall see presently, Cypriote pottery has been found in the Greek cities. The bowl is decorated with a metope pattern and a lotus ornament in the middle. Finally, it should be mentioned that A. H. Sayee reports pottery paterae "of peculiar shape" from Thymbra near Troy. One of these paterae has a Cypriote inscription.'
Systematic excavations in the necropolis began in 1916, and were continued in 1922, both years under the leadership of Prof. Maiuri.' During these two campaigns only a few specimens of pottery with Cypriote relations were found: in Tombs I and LIII, sack-shaped handle-ridge juglets- of a shape which is characteristic for the Cypriote Iron Age pottery of Type IV,3 but this shape of juglet is also represented in Syria.' Greek vases of the 6th cent. B. C. were found together with the Cypriote pottery in Tomb 15 and late local imitations of Proto-Corinthian aryballoi, probably from the end of the 7th cent. B. C., In Tomb LIII.6 The excavations carried out by [acopi- in 1924-1928 have added more material of Cypriote provenance and imitations of Cypriote prototypes. Tomb XI (216) yielded a Black-on-Red I (III) handle-ridge juglet with globular body and decorated with vertical row of concentric circles on the shoulder.' In addition, the tomb contained only a fragment of a terracotta alabastron with encircling incisions filled with white and black colour. A Red Slip II (IV) sack-shaped juglet with handle-ridge was found in Tomb XVII (251),. which also contained the body of a rough ware juglet decorated with oblique incisions on the shoulder and fragments of a fibula with swollen bow. Tomb LI (393) contained a Blackon-Red I (III) oval jug with handle-ridge and two handles from neck to shoulder; a Blackon-Red I (III)-II (IV) oval jug with slightly concave neck, pinched rim, and handle from rim to shoulder; another, similar Black-on-Red II (IV) jug, but with cylindrical neck; all three decorated with encircling and intersecting groups of lines and concentric circles. 10 Besides a local manufacture of a White Painted IIIjug of similar shape and decoration, the tomb contained two Late Geometric Rhodian vases. Tomb LII (397) yielded a White Painted III jug with spout on the shoulder, basket-handle across the mouth of the heck, and decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles on the shoulder." In addition, this tomb contained small, plain or incised juglets,fragments of a large plate with incised star ornament, a smelting pot, and fragments of fibulae with swollen bow. In Tomb LVII (4 15) there was a typologically advanced Black-on-Red I (III) jug with concave neck, pinched rim, and handle from rim to shoulder. It is decorated with. encircling lines and concentric circles.» Of Rhodian pottery, only a Late Geometric bowl was found in this
CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND IN GREECE We begin with the finds from Rhodes and shall first examine those from the acropolis of Ialysos.To the W. of the remains of the Athena temple assigned to the 3rd-2nd cent. B. C., some irregular cavities were found in the rock. These had partly been filled in with waste from the temple building, but had originally been used as bothroi for collection of waste ex votos from the earlier sanctuaries.' The finds consist of inscriptions, statuettes, amulets, fragments of arms, fibulae, pottery, etc. dating from the 9th to the 5th cent. B. C. Among the ceramic material there are some specimens of Cypriote Iron Age pottery and local imitations (cf. n. 6) of it: a White Painted IV handle-ridge juglet (neck missing) decorated with vertically arranged, concentric circles on the body; a Black-on-Red II (IV) handle-ridge juglet decorated with encircling lines around the belly; a Red Slip III (V) sack-shaped juglet with. the lip turned down.' There was no regular stratification of the material in the bothroi. 1 Information given by Dr. H. H. von der Osten. The pottery found at Gordion and called Cypriote by Korte does not seem to be genuine Cypriote to judge by the illustrations (KORTE, Gordion, pp. 178 f.). 2 Ann. Brit. School Athens XVI, p. 100, PI. VII, I, 4, 5. Nos. 2 and 3, which are called Cypriote, are certainly not of Cypriote origin nor imitations of Cypriote prototypes. 3 DORPFELD, Troja u. Ilion, p. 309; SCHMIDT, Schliemann's Samml, troj. Altert., No. 3889. • Joorn. Hell. Stud. I, 1880, p. 78.
Clara Rhodos I, 1928, pp. 74 ff, Gp. cit. I, p. 76, Fig. 58, a painted jug rrrutatrng Cypriote ware (the vase in the middle of the bottom row). The clumsy shape and the composition of the ornaments with concentric circles below the encircling lines around the body betray the non-Cypriote manufacture. The genuine Cypriote specimens are not illustrated. They are deposited in the Museo Archeologico di Rodi, where I was able to study them. 5
6
1 MAWRI, La necropoli arcaica di Jalisos, in Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, pp. 257 ff. 2 Ibid., p. 260, NO.7, Fig. 162; p. 306, Fig. 203 (to the right in the bottom row). 3 The juglet is a rather common shape in Black-on-Red II (IV) and Red Slip II (IV); see Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXXVII, 4, but it is also represented in White Painted, Bichrome, Black Polished, and Plain White IV. • DUNCAN, Corp. of Palest. Pottery, Nos. 83 M, 84 G. 5 MAWRI, op. cit., p. 259. 6 This tomb is assigned by MAWRI, op. cit., p. 309 to the end of the 8th or beginning of the 7th century B.C. That date is, however, somewhat too early, because the Proto-Corinthian aryballoi are, as mentioned, late local imitations. 7 JACOPI, Scavi nella Necropoli di Jalisso I92 4- - I9 28 (Clara Rhodos III, 1929).
s Op, cit., p, 40, No. I (10563). • Gp. cit., p. 45, No. I (10649). As mentioned above, the vase may be Syrian, and there are many local fabrications of the type (cf, n. 4 and below, pp. 265, 267, 295 f. This particular specimen seems, however, to be of Cypriote provenance. 10 Gp. cit., pp. 85 ff., Nos. 3, 4, 6, Figs. 75, 78. The Black-on-Red I (III) jugs Nos. 3 and 4 are late in type and properly transitional specimens between Types III and IV. They are therefore rather similar to early specimens of Black-on-Red II (IV), e.g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXV, 10, 12, but the strained structure of the body, the concave neck and vigorous pinching of the lip, and the sharp-edged rim have retained much of the character of Type III. n JACOPI,Op. cit., p. 88., NO.3 (II668), Fig. 79. 12 Op, cit., p. 97, No. I (II753), Fig. 92.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
tomb. A fragment of a White Painted globular jug1 is included among the finds of Tomb LVIII (422), which also contained several vases of local manufacture, but influenced by the Cypriote pottery; in addition, a Rhodo-Geometric amphora and stamnos, fragments of jugs with a human face on the neck; some plain minor vases, and fragments of fibulae "a corpo ingrossato, a perline, a staffa, a globoletto", etc. were found.' Two globular handleridge juglets of Red Slip II (IV) Ware, which are most probably of Cypriote provenance, were found in Tomb LXVI (484) together with a non-Cypriote juglet-with pinched rim:' These are the vases which are of Cypriote provenance or at least entirely Cypriote in style and therefore in anycase made by Cypriotes whether in Cyprus or in Rhodes. The vases which are clearly of local manufacture or only show stylistic influence from the Cypriote pottery occur in greater number. Vases of this category were found in Tombs VI (201), VIII (209), IX (213), XXII (264), XXXVII (344), LI (393), LIV (407), LVI (4 14), LVIII (422), LXI (4J8) , LXII (444), LXIII (445), LXIV (448), CUI (388), CXXXII (442).The -excavations of the Ialysos necropolis were continued in 1934 by Laurenzi.' An interesting ceramic find was made in Tomb 43, viz" two barrel-shaped jugs, which closely imitate White Painted II Ware, and are decorated with vertically arranged encircling lines." The excavator considers these vases to be Rhodian imitations of the corresponding Cypriote types,becausethe clay and the varnish paint of the decoration are identical with those of the other Rhodian vases found in the tomb. The shape and the decoration of the barrelshaped jugs are, however, purely Cypriote. The other specimens of pottery discovered in the tomb consist of the typical Rhodo-Geometric pottery of the period. No Cypriote pottery is reported from the earlier diggings in the necropolis of Kameiros,' and even the later, systematic excavations started by Jacopi in 19298 have yielded much less Cypriote pottery than at Ialysos. As a matter of fact, only one specimen of genuine Cypriote ware seems to have been found, viz., a Bichrome IV spindle-shaped handle-ridge aryballos with narrow neck and a small handle from ridge to shoulder. It is decorated with encircling lines and bands, and was found in Tomb CCL· The other pottery discovered in the tomb consists of Sub-Geometric ware, including a large stemmed crater .and a bird skyphos. A few vases of local manufacture, which imitate Cypriote types, were found in other tombs." lOp. cit., p. 102, No. 20 (11798), Fig. 92. • The contents. of the tomb do not seem tobehomogeneous; the Cypriote jug belongs to the earlier burial. a Op. cit., p. 109, No. I (12024-25). - Op. cit., p. 37 (Tomb VI, NO.3); p. 38 (Tomb VIII, No. 2); pp. 38 f. (Tomb IX, Nos, I, 3, 4), Fig. 24; p. 48 (Tomb XXII, Nos. 1,2,4), Fig. 39; p. 65 (Tomb XXXVII, No. II), Fig. 54; p.87 (Tomb LI, NO.5), Fig. 75; pp. 90 f. (Tomb LIV, Nos. I, 2, 4, 5, 9), Figs. 84, 85; p. 94 (Tomb LVI, NO.3), Fig. 90; pp. 100 if. (Tomb LVIII, Nos. I, 2,.4, 6, 7,13-16), Figs. 93, 94; p. 105 (Tomb LXI, Nos. 2, 3); p. 106 (Tomb LXII, No.2), Fig. 99; p. '107 (Tomb LXIII, No. a); pp. 108 f. (Tomb LXIV, NO.3),· Fig. 101; p. 133 (TombCIII, No. I), Fig. 126; p. 144 (Tomb CXXXlI, No. I), Fig. 139.
5 LAURENZI, Necropoli Ialisie (Scavi dell'anno I934), in Clara Rhodos VIII, 1936, pp. 9 if. 6 Op. cit. VIII, p. 163, No.6, Fig. 149. 7 SALZMANN, Necropole de Camiros, Paris 1875; DELAUNAY, Note sur la necropole de Camiros, in Rev. arch., Ser, 3, XXVII, 1895, pp. 182 ff.; PORRO, Esplorazioni nel territorio di Kamiros, in Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene I, 1914, pp. 368 ff.: id., Ricognizione archeologica di Camiros, in. Boll. d' Arte IX, 1915, pp. 283 fl. 8 ]ACOP1, Esplorazione archeol.di Camiro I (Clara Rhodos IV, 1931); II (Clara Rhodos VI-VII, 1932-3)· • ]ACOP1, op. cit. I, pp. 345 ff.: NO.3, Fig. 3 85. 10 Prof. ]ACOP1, op, cit. I, pp. 349 f. quotes me as having verbally expressed the opinion that all the pottery found in Tomb CCIII, including the two late Geometric amphorae
POTTERY
Our next station is Lindos, where the Danish excavations conducted by Blinkenberg and Kinch have yielded such important results.' The expedition concentrated its work upon excavation of the temple of Athena Lindia on the acropolis. Among the numerous finds there is also a considerable quantity of Cypriote Iron Age pottery, for the most part fragmentary. I have not been able to handle these fragments and cannot therefore say with certainty whether they are altogether imported from Cyprus or partly of local manufacture, but entirely Cypriote in style. The following items are, however, registered as Cypriote by Blinkenberg:' a Bichrome IV globular handle-ridge juglet decorated with encircling lines and bands and concentric circles on the shoulder (No. 945); fragment of neck and shoulder of a similar juglet (No. 946);15 fragments of larger vases of shape indeterminable on account of the small size of the fragments; these are all of the White Painted class, and are decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles; the two fragments which are illustrated seem to be. White Painted IV (No. 947); 14 fragments of Bichrome Ware, of which the two illustrated specimens are Bichrome IV, the decoration being similar to that of the White Painted fragments (No. 948); 5 similar fragments, not illustrated, only differing as regards the slip, which has a buff colour (No. 949); a fragment of a vase, which to judge from the description is Black-on-Red, and is decorated in the same style as the preceding fragments, not illustrated (No. 950); a fragment of a White Painted III plate with a small handle at the rim and decorated with encircling lines and bands from the handle (No. 951); a Bichrome disc, probably used as a cover of a vase, the decoration consisting of filled and latticed triangles placed opposite each other and thus forming a secondary ornament of a cross bordered by lines (No. 952). In addition, some specimens of pottery were found which at least partly maybe of Cypriote provenance, but are partly of local manufacture in close imitation of the Cypriote types. These specimens consist of sack-shaped' and globular- handle-ridge juglets. The sack-shaped juglets are covered with a red lustrous slip, and their shape is similar to that of the corresponding Cypriote types of Red Slip II (IV). Blinkenberg points out that the clay of Nos. 1°35-1°38 is identical with that of the painted Cypriote specimens mentioned above, and we are therefore justified in considering these vases as Cypriote imports.' As regards the context of the Cypriote pottery mentioned above, the following remarks on the general stratigraphical conditions on the acropolis of Lindos should be made. The greater part of the culture strata had been hopelessly disturbed already in ancient times, but still more in the medieval period, above all by the construction of a great number of cisterns cut in the rock. Undisturbed fillings and deposits were only found within limited areas." An intact filling called "Couches archai'ques" was found in Squares X and XI: 7-10.7 (No.2, Figs. 393, 394), would show Cypriote influence. This must be due to a misunderstanding of what I said. The amphorae in question do not show any Cypriote influence. 1 BL1NKENBERG, Lindos I, Berlin 1931, The earlier reports and publications are all mentioned in op, cit. I, pp. I fl. • Op. cit. I, pp. 270 ff., Nos. 945-952; PI. 43. a Op. cit. I, pp. 299 f., Nos. 1°35-1°40; PI. 48. - Op. cit. I, pp. 300 f., Nos. 1043-1046.
5 Nos. 1039 (17 fragments) and 1040, on the other hand, are considered by Blinkenberg to be imitations of Cypriote types. e The stratigraphical conditions are described by Blinkenberg, op, cit. I; pp. 5 fl. 7 A description of the character of this filling, quoted from the diary of the excavators, is given in op, cit. I, pp. 44 ff.; cf. p. 6. For the situation of this filling, seePl, I.
266
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
It consisted of earth and pebbles mixed with animal bones, carbonized matter, and remains of all sorts of minor objects. This filling, which rests on the rock, had evidently been placed there to support a terraced area made in connection with a reconstruction of the temple. The latest finds in this filling can be assigned to about the middle of the 6th cent. B. C., and that gives a terminuspost quem for the erection of the new temple attributed by Blinkenberg to the building activity of the tyrant Kleobulos.' In Square IX 7, to the N. W. of the propylaea of the temple, another undisturbed small area was found, the "Grand depot d'ex-ooto"» This consists of a deposit of waste ex votos buried in a cavity of the rock. The ex votos form two chronological groups: the principal and later group comprises objects dating from 525-4°° B. C., while the latest objects of the smaller and earlier group can be assigned to about the middle of the 6th cent. B. C. a The principal deposit is supposed to have been buried at the time of that reconstruction of the temple, which Blinkenberg assigns to c. 407 B. C. After the burial of the ex votos, they were covered by a layer of earth, which seems to have been taken from the filling of "Couches archaiques", and in this way some fragments of the objects in that filling were mixed with those of the deposit forming the earlier group of objects found there.' Of the Cypriote pottery described above, the White Painted and Bichrome fragments (Nos. 947 and 948) were found in the "Grand depot d'ex-voto", where they evidently belong to the earlier group, i. e:, they are not later than about the middle of the 6th cent. B. C.; the sack-shaped handle-ridge juglets except No. 1040 were found in "Couches archaiques", i. e., the stratigraphical context is the same as for the White Painted and Bichrome fragments.' All the other ceramic specimens here in question were found in the mixed debris on the acropolis, and stratigraphical evidence for their dating is therefore lacking. The Danish excavations of Vroulia at the southern extremity of Rhodes have laid bare the remains of a military station surrounded by a defensive wall. The houses where the soldiers lived with their families, two sanctuaries, and the tombs of the necropolis outside the fortifications were excavated. 6 Among the finds there is a considerable quantity of Cypriote Iron Age pottery. A White Painted V jug was found in Tomb 12" The jug has a globular body, a short neck tapering upwards, vigorously pinched rim, and a slightly elevated handle from rim to shoulder. It is decorated with vertically arranged encircling lines around the body, a wavy line on the neck, and a stylized flower ornament on the shoulder in front. The tomb contained remains of 2 or 3 cremations. The finds of each cremation are not separated by the excavator, but his account- makes it possible to distinguish at least a later and an
earlier burial group of objects, though the finds show that there is very little chronological difference between these burials. The Cypriote White Painted jug (No.2) belongs evidently to the later group, and is associated with the aryballos of the Middle Corinthian style. The earlier groups are represented by the polychrome bowl (No. 10) and the alabastron (No.9) of the Middle Corinthian style, possibly also the alabastron (No.7) of the same style.' Much more Cypriote pottery was found in the settlement. It is regrettable that only the room and area of each object are indicated, but not the level and stratum. The stratigraphical relation of the objects is therefore entirely unknown. Fragments of White Painted IV and Bichrome IV jugs were found in the small room of the tower belonging to the fortification wall.' These jugs, of which only the lower part of the body is preserved, are decorated with encircling lines and bands and an intermediate zone of concentric circles. A Bichrome IV jug is also recorded among the finds from the "Sanctuaire principal", i. e., the temenos close to the tower. The jug has an oval body, short neck, pinched rim, and handle from rim to shoulder. The decoration is similar to that of the jugs mentioned above. a Several fragments of Cypriote pottery were found in the open place to the S. E. of the "Sanctuaire principal" and by the excavator called "Place publique". Eight fragments of a large oinochoe of Bichrome Ware, decorated with encircling lines and bands and zones of concentric circles, were discovered here.' The Cypriote provenance of this oinochoe is questioned by Dr. Kinch, and it may, of course, be an imitation of Cypriote ware. As no pottery from this find-spot is illustrated and I have not had the opportunity of studying the material, I cannot give my opinion about its Cypriote connection nor attempt any classification. About twelve jugs, mostly fragmentary, and fragments of a large amphora were found in the rooms of the houses.' Only two jugs are illustrated. The one found in Room I, 12 is a Bichrome V globular jug with short neck tapering upwards, pinched rim, and handle from rim to shoulder. It is decorated with encircling lines and bands around the body and neck and stylized flower ornament below the handle. The other jug found in Room I, 18 is White Painted V Ware of a similar shape and decorated with encircling lines and bands and a zone of concentric circles on the shoulder. The fragments of the Bichrome amphora and the jugs cannot be more closely classified for the same reason as mentioned above.' As far as the evidence goes, this is all the pottery of Cypriote provenance found at Vroulia. In addition, some sack-shaped handle-ridge juglets of local manufacture, but in close imitation of the corresponding Cypriote types, were found in Tombs 2, 6, 13, and 26.. We leave Rhodes and proceed to the W., to Thera. On that island, Cypriote Iron Age
lOp. cit. I, pp. 13 f. • For the situation of the deposit, see op. cit. I, PI. I. a A plan of the area of the deposit, a section through its layers, and an account of the observations made during the excavation are given in op. cit. I, pp. 46 fI., Figs. 4, 5. 4 Another deposit of waste ex ootos, "Petit dtfpi3t d'ex-ooto", was found in Square VII 8, but that does not concern us here, as it did not contain any pottery of Cypriote provenance; cf. op, cit. I, pp. 7 f., 55 f.
5 The find spot of the objects, if not found in the mixed debris, is indicated in the description of each item; cf. op. cit. I, pp. 271 f., 300. CA means "Couches archaiques" and GD "Grand dtfpi3t d'ex-voto". 6 KINCH, Vroulia, Berlin 1914. 7 Op. cit., p, 73, No.2, PI. 40. 8 Op. cit., p. 55 : "Dans la description qui va suivre, nous ferons Ie denombrement des objets trouves dans les tombeaux dans l'ordre meme OU nous les avons trouves,
a
c'est-a-dire depuis Ie haut jusqu'en bas." It is therefore safe to conclude that, if more than one cremation has taken place, objects with low figures belong to the later cremation and those with high figures to the earlier cremation. Objects with figures between the extremes are of course not possible to attribute with certainty to any of the burials. 1 Prof. Friis Johansen kindly informs me that the aryballos, PI. 40: 12, 6 and the alabastron, PI. 40: 12, 7 seem to be typologically earliest. This agrees with the stratigraphical evidence (cf. above). • Op. cit., p. 96; PI. 20:3. The White Painted fragment
is not illustrated, but it can be inferred from its description that it is White Painted IV. a Op. cit., p. 104; PI. 20: 7. 40p. cit., pp. II 0, 156. 50p. cit., p. 156; PI. 26: 2, 3. .6 Kinch compares the amphora with POTTIER, Vases ant. du Louvre I, p. 8, A 167, PI. 9, which is a Black-on-Red I (III) jug with two handles from neck to shoulder. 7 Nos. 5, 26, 27 in Tomb 2 (KINCH, Vroulia, Pis. 34, 36); Nos. 5 and 8 in Tomb 6 (PI. 38); NO.4 in Tomb 13 (PI. 41), and Nos. 1-3 in Tomb 26 (PI. 45).
268
FOREIGN RELATIONS
pottery has been found in the tomb discovered and excavated by A. Schiff. 1 Among the rich finds from this tomb there are two fragments of Black-on-Red II (IV). The one fragment (No. 43) consists of the neck with handle-ridge and the funnel-shaped mouth of a juglet decorated with encircling lines; the other fragment (No. 44) consists of the shoulder, neck, and handle of a similar juglet decorated with encircling lines around the body and concentric circles on the shoulder." The date of this tomb has been much discussed. We shall return to that question below (p. 425). The excavations on Delos have brought to light two Black-on-Red II (IV) jugs; one is sack-shaped, with pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder; the other one is oval, neck and handle are missing. They are decorated with encircling and intersecting lines and concentric circles. Fragments of similar vases were also found." Sporadic specimens of Cypriote pottery are also reported from a few places along the coast of the Aegean mainland. A Red Slip II (IV) sack-shaped handle-ridge juglet is reported from Dadia;' it is of the same kind as those found at Lindos. In the Br~tish Mus~um there is a White Painted V amphora, which is reported to come from Phokaia or Myrina.s The amphora is a specimen of the well-known type decorated with encircling lines, floral motifs, and, on each side of the body, a head of Hathor to the front. In the same museum -there is a Bichrome Red III (VI) jug found in Asia Minor and possibly in Phokaia. The jug has an oval body with a trefoil mouth jug on the shoulder held by a woman, and is decorated with encircling bands." The excavations at Olynthos have shown that Cypriote Iron Age pottery occasionally found its way right up to the N. coast of the Aegean. It is represented there by a Bichrome V amphora with horizontal handles on the shoulder and decorated with encircling lines and bands and a zone of superimposed stylized lotus flowers on the belly.' This amphora was discovered near Granary G, immediately below the burnt layer caused by the Persian destruction in 479 B. C. Cypriote pottery of local manufacture has been found in Athens during the American excavations of Agora. 'the pottery, which still is unpublished, consists of Bichrome V amphorae with decoration of lotus flowers on the belly and a Red Slip IV (VI) jug. It is difficult to say if the, pottery was made in Athens or imported from some place, where similar local ware was produced, e. g., Rhodes. Genuine Cypriote pottery is also reported from Athens, but particulars are unknown.' 1 Thera II, p. 313, Nos. 43, 44; Fig. 500. "DRAGENDORFF (Thera II, p. 313) mentions that Watzinger after examination of the two fragments has expressed the opinion that only No. 43 is genuine Cypriote ware and No. 44 an imitation product. I cannot express an opinion with reference to this question,as I have not been able to study the fragment. ~other fragment of a handle-ridge juglet (No. 80), which DRAGENDORFF (Thera II, p. 318) thinks may be imported from Cyprus, is not Cypriote to judge from the illustration (Fig. 516) and the description of its clay. It belongs to the class of pottery which only shows an indirect or partial influence from the Cypriote types.
Delos xv, p. 109, Pi. L, B. In the Antiquarium, Altes Museum, Berlin; cf, Lindos I, pp. 299 f. "Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases 1:2, C 852. " Op. cit. 1:2, C 983. 7 Exc. at Olynthus V, pp. 34 f.; Pis. 32, XXXIII. s The local imitations are kept in the storehouse of the American Expedition. The genuine Cypriote pottery is mentioned by KUNZE in his Kret. Bronzerel., p. 262, but without reference. Dr. Kunze has informed me that there is no doubt about the identity and the provenance of the sherds in question, but he is not able to remember where they are kept. a 4
POTTERY
The excavations of the Apollon temple (formerly called the Aphrodite temple) on Aigina have yielded some Cypriote pottery: White Painted and Bichrome IV sherds belonging to four different vases. The fragments are decorated with encircling lines and bands and rows of concentric circles! Nothing is known about their find contexts. Some Cypriote Iron Age pottery has been found also in Crete, at Knossosand Fortezza. So far only Black-on-Red Ware has been discovered: Black-on-Red I (UI) juglets with handle-ridge and one or two handles from neck to shoulder, all decorated with encircling lines and concentric circles on the shoulder. In addition, there are some vases of a similar kind which are imitations of the genuine Cypriote ware.s There are only occasional, and to some extent uncertain, instances of Cypriote pottery found in the Western Mediterranean. Tomb 212 at Gela yielded a jug with pinched rim and decorated with encircling lines around the body and simplified lotus flowers on the shoulder." This jug is either genuine White Painted V Ware or a very close imitation of it. An amphora decorated with concentric circles found at Lentini and now preserved in the Museum of Syracuse may also be of Cypriote origin.: A Stroke Polished I (VI) jug has been found at Nora in Sardinia." The vases of "Graeco-Phoenician type" found at Tharros in Sardinia" have not been seen by me, but I expect that they are Phoenician or local imitations of Cypriote types. Finally, it should be noted that Cypriote pottery ("kyprisch-spiitgeometrische Gefiisse") is reported from Emporion in Spain.' Until the finds are illustrated and examined, it is impossible to decide whether we have to do with genuine Cypriote ware or not. FOREIGN POTTERY FOUND IN CYPRUS The export of Cypriote pottery abroad corresponds to an import of foreign pottery to Cyprus. Egyptian pottery was not imported to Cyprus in the Iron Age any more than in the Bronze Age. Syro-Palestinian and Greek wares, on the other hand, are represented in Cyprus by various pottery classes. The Greek pottery is named according to their established terminology. No such fixed terminology exists for the Syro-Palestinianwares, andI have therefore attributed names to the various fabrics of that pottery only in order to distinguish them and without any intention of fixing their terminology. The Syro-Palestinian pottery comprises the following classes: White Painted, Bichrome, Polychrome, Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, Red Slip, and Plain White.· Of these, Black1
The sherds are kept in the Aigina Museum; Inv. No.
1360. " The vases are kept in the storehouses of the Candia Museum and the Villa Ariadne. A part of the finds has been published (Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, pp. 28oft'.; XXXI, pp. 62 ff.); the Cypriote pottery referred to here is not included in the published material. a Mon. Ant. XVII, 1906, pp. 126 f., Fig. 89.
4
Information from Dr. A. Westholm.
"Mon. Ant. XIV,1904;P. 215, Fig. 49. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 1041-1049. 7 Arch. Anz., 1936,P. 93. • Journ~ Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, pp. 159 f., Figs. 12 (Nos. 14, 15), 13; Steed. CYP.Exp, I, PI. CXXXIX, 17-21; p. 363, Fig. 140; II, Pis. CXXXVIII, 9- 1I; CXXXIX, 1-3, 5, 6, 8.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
on-Red, Bichroine Red, and Red Slip belong to what may be called the red group,' while the others may be called the white group. The Greek pottery comprises so-called Thessalian Proto-Geometric Ware (d. below),> Attic, Cycladic and East-Greek Geometric wares of the Mature and Late Geometric styles," Proto-Corinthian,' Corinthian,' East-Greek Archaic pottery,' Black Figured,' Red Figured and White Grounded,· and Black Glazed. The Syrian White Painted and Bichrome wares, and of the Polychrome White pottery all the specimens except onev were found in the Amathus tombs. Of the Black-on-Red,
Bichrome Red and Red Slip wares, i. e., the red group, eight specimens were found in Lapithos and seven specimens in Amathus. In the Marion tombs there was no specimen of the white group, but two vases of the red group. The small number of tombs in Marion from the periods in question (d. below) prevents of course the evidence as regards the types of pottery imported to that place from being conclusive. In Lapithos, on the other hand, the number of tombs and their standard are equivalent to those of Amathus. It seems therefore safe to conclude that pottery of the Syrian white group was imported to Lapithos only occasionally and in any case in much less quantities than to Amathus, whereas the goods of the red group found an equal number of purchasers in Amathus and in Lapithos. If we examine the quantity of Syrian pottery of both groups found in the tombs, we find that there is a total of 58 specimens of the white group against 17 of the red group, i. e., the former is about three times as numerous as the latter one. The latter ware is only represented by single or, at the most, two specimens in each tomb. The white group, too, occurs often only in small numbers, one or two specimens in each burial layer, and forms an inconsiderable percentage of the native ware. In some cases, however, the number of vases and their quantity in relation to the native ware are greater, e. g., in the second burial stratum of Amathus, Tomb 15, there were 10 specimens of Syrian pottery forming 23 % of the native ware;' in Amathus, Tomb 25, the four specimens of Syrian pottery form 25 % of the total number of vases;" a unique case is the second burial stratum of Amathus, Tomb 6, where all the three vases which belong to that stratum are Syrian."
9
1 This pottery was earlier considered to be Cypriote, but we know now that we are concerned with a Cypriote class and another one which is non-Cypriote. The non-Cypriote class is distinguished by the following characteristics: 1. there is often a grey core in the walls of the vases; 2. a bright orange, burnished surface, with the decoration applied after the burnish; 3. the surface flakes off very often ("smallpox" surface). The Cypriote ware of the corresponding class is never characterized by (I) and (3), but the technique of applying the decoration after the burnish occurs also in Cyprus, parallel with the opposite technique of burnishing after the decoration has been painted. In addition, there is also another technical variety represented in Cyprus, viz., a lustrous slip. The Cypriote and non-Cypriote varieties are also distinguished in chronological respects. The Cypriote wares do not appear before the very end of Cypro-Geometric II and the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III (cf. Relative Chronology, pp. 189 ff.), while the corresponding non-Cypriote classes are imported to Cyprus already in Cypro-Geometric I (op. cit. I, p. 230, Lapithos, Tomb 417, Nos. 65, 82). This chronological evidence from Cyprus is in accordance with that from. Palestine, Syria, and the Transjordan sites. This pottery is found in Palestine already during Early Iron Age I (Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res. XII, 1932, p. 72; Rev. bibl. XLI, 1932, pp. 277 ff.), and on the Transjordan sites it is found from the beginning of the Iron Age. Dr. Nelson Glueck's explorations have shown that the Transjordan sites were in constant contact with North Syria along the ancient "King's Highway" (Bull. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res., No. 65,1937, p. 12), and it is probable that further researches in North Syria will elucidate the problem of the original home of Black-onRed Ware. It seems to be connected in some way with the red burnished wares appearing in Syria and Palestine during the rath cent. B. C. (cf. LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, p. 164). FRANKFORT (Stud. in Early Pottery of the Near East II, pp. 164 ff.) has already tried to prove that Syria was the home of the concentric circle style so intimately connected with Black-on-Red. C. N. JOHNS (in Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. VI, 1938, pp. 129 ff.) considers Black-on-Red to be Phoenician. This cannot be proved on a basis of the present material, but it is certain that the Phoenicians spread this pottery through their trade (lac. cit.). Plain and decorated pottery with a reddish buff slip is also known from Anatolia in the "Post-Hittite-Phrygian" period (cf. The Alishar Hiiyid«, Seasons of 1930--32, II, p. 350, PI. II, 3,4), and non-Cypriote
Black-on-Red and Red Slip pottery has further been found in Tarsos (information by Dr. Sjoqvist, who had the opportunity of examining this pottery on the spot). In the early Iron Age, Cyprus was thus surrounded by a Syro-Anatolian "red ware culture" (cf. the analogous situation in the prehistoric period). 2 Handb. Cesn, Coll., Nos. 1710--II. a Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XIV, 1899, p. 196, n. 7; cf. YOUNG, Late Geom. Graves and a Seventh Cent. Well in the Agora, p. 183; Handb. Cern. csu.. Nos. 1701-1709; Exc. in Cyp., p. 103, Fig. 150; Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 23; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXXXIX, 7, 10, II; CXL, 1. 4 Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1714, 1715; Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 1501; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. CLII, 18; Exc. in Cyp., p. 124, Tomb 241. • CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. CXLIX, II06; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1716-1721, 1724; CESNOLA, Salaminia, p. 257, Fig. 246; Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, p. 312, Fig. I (b). • Exc, in Cyp., p. 104, Fig. 151:5; p. 107, Fig. 154:5; p. IIO, Fig. 160; Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, pp. 141 f., Fig. 5; KINCH, Vroulia, p. 212, Fig. 102; Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 15II, 1512; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1712, 1713, 1725,1726; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXIV, pp. 26 ff., Figs. 3, 4; pp. 93 fr., Figs. 19, 20; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CXXXIX, 4,9, 12-15; CXL, 2-4; CLXX, 24.
• Journ. Hell. Stud. XI, 1890, pp. 41 ff.; OHNEFALSCHRICHTER, Kypros, Pis. CIX, II; CX,7, Nos. 1-6; CXVIII, 6; CLXXXIII, 1-3; CLXXXIV, 2; CCXIX, 7, 8; Exc, in Cyp., p. 76, Fig. 139: 26; p, 105, Fig. 152; p. IIO, Fig. 161; p. III, Fig. 163: I, 2; Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1541-1639; Handb. Cern. cou., Nos. 1729-1748; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXLIV, 1. "OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, Pis. CXVIII, I, 2; CLXXXIV I, 3, 4; Exc. in Cyp., p. 76, Fig. 139: 73,78; p. III, Fig. 163: 3, 4; Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1645-1779; Handb. Cesn. csu.. Nos. 1749-1757; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CXLIII, 2, 5-8, 13-15; CXLIV, 2-6; CXLV, 1-9; III, PIs. LXXXIV-LXXXVI. 9 Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1801-1865; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1758-1772; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXLI; CXLII, 1-6, 8-10; CXLIII, I, 3, 4, 9-12; CXLV, 10, II~ III, PI. LXXXIII, 10-13. 10 This exception is formed by the spherical jug, No. 86, which was found in Lapithos, Tomb 417 (op. cit. I, p. 230).
27 1
We shall now examine the frequency of the different shapes of vases represented among the specimens of the Syrian white and red groups of pottery imported to Cyprus, because this is of a certain importance for the determination of the character of this import. The majority of the white group are pilgrim bottles, in exact figures 41 specimens of the total sum of 58 vases. In addition, there are 8 spherical or oval jugs with handle from neck to shoulder, 6 jars, 2 barrel-shaped jugs, and I crater. These shapes are represented in the different wares as follows: all the 22 vases of White Painted Ware are pilgrim bottles; in Bichrome Ware there are 17 pilgrim bottles and 1 barrel-shaped jug; in Polychrome Ware there are 7 spherical jugs, 2 pilgrim bottles, I barrel-shaped jug, and 1 crater; Plain White is represented by 6 jars and I oval jug. The shapes of the red pottery group are quite different. The majority are plates and bowls of various shape, with plain or profiled rim, flat base, base-ring, or stemmed foot. 7 specimens of the total sum of 17 vases belong to this category. The juglets with a handle from neck to shoulder hold second place as regards frequency, and are represented by 5 specimens. They are all related to each other in shape though different in details: the body is spherical, oval or depressed; the mouth is collar-shaped or funnel-shaped; they are often provided with a handle-ridge. In addition, there are 3 amphoriskoi and 2 jugs with pinched rim and handle from rim to shoulder. These shapes are represented in the different wares in the following way: Black-on-Red is represented by 1 bowl, I handle-ridge juglet, lOp. cit. II, p. 93 (diagram).
20p. cit. II, p. 135 (diagram).
"Op. cit. II, p. 29 (diagram).
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
272
and I jug with pinched rim; Bichrome Red by 2 juglets with sph.erical.or d~pressed. body; Red Slip by 6 plates and bowls, 3 amphoriskoi, 2 juglets, and I jug .wlth 'pmched nm: The pilgrim bottles served as containers for oil, and. the handl.e-ndge juglets contam.ed unguents. These two products were thus among the Import articles. Somevasesvparticularly the open bowls, plates, and craters cannot, on account of their shape, have served as holders but must have been imported as pottery. The number of tombs which yielded this foreign pottery is sufficiently great, and the material from these tombs is so representative that it seems justifiable to use it for statistical purposes and to attach a certain degree of generality to the conclusions based upon them, though some adjustment and corrections certainly will be made by the ~esults of fur~her excavations. The material suffers, however, from one serious defect, which I am anXIOUS to point out: the majority was found in tombs (Lapithos, Amathus), a small part in a sanctuary (Aj.: Jakovos), but nothing in settlements. It is regrettable that - apart from the scanty and partly uncertain remains in Kition and Kurion (p. 23) - no settlement from the periods in question (Cypro-Geometric I-III) has yet been excavate~, and .we must bear this fact in mind when we draw conclusions from the present matenal. It IS natural that the majority of the vases found in the tombs are of selected quality, and large ja~s and other storage vessels of rough ware are less common. The latter class of pottery IS more likely to be found in the settlements. There is an elucidating parallel from the Bronze Age. Only vases of a small size, above alljuglets of Red Lus~rous I-II .and Bla.ck Lustrous wares have been found hitherto in the tombs from the MIddle Cypnote penod, but the excavation. of only one house of the Middle Cypriote settlement at Kalopsida greatly changed the aspect. Many new types of pottery appeared, above all large ja~~ and storage vessels of rough ware! The find of the 6 large jars built into the walls of the AjlOS J.akovo~ sanctuary .and other jars found in the Turabi tombs' show that such storage vessels .wlth their contents were. exported from Syria to Cyprus inthe Iron Age, too. The comparatively small number of these storage vessels found hitherto can certainly be explained by the fact that, as mentioned above. no settlement from the Cypro-Geometric has been excavated. For a correct. judgement of the character of the interrelations of Cyprus and Syria during the period in question it is therefore necessary to reckon with a muchgreat:r number. of sto~age vessels than is shown by the present material. These amphorae and jars contained wme, . which consequently formed a considerable part of the import from Syria. . The chronological distribution of the Syrian pottery remains to be exammed. There IS clear evidence that specimens of both the white and the red group were imported to Cyprus already from the beginning of the Iron Age, in Cypro-Geometric I: 4 pilg~im bottles of White Painted Ware were found in Tomb 25 at Amathus and I Polychrome jug, I handleridge juglet, and I jug Of Black-on-Red Ware in Tomb 417 at Lapithos. The latter t~mb can be assigned to Cypro-Geometric I A; the former tomb belongs to Cypro-Geometnc I, but cannot be definitely assigned to a later or earlier stage of the period." 1 2
Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, p. 306 . Cf. Szoed. Cyp. Exp. I., pp. 361 ff., Fig. 140; p. 370; Journ.
G]ERSTAD,
Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, pp. 159 f., Figs. 3 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. 232; II, p. 135.
12
(Nos. 14, 15),13·
273
The finds from Cypro-Geometric II show that the imported pottery has increased in quantity very much. This applies both to the white and the red group. Against 5 vases of the white group from tombs of Cypro-Geometric I there are 24 vases from CyproGeometric II;1 further, only two vases of the red group (Black-on-Red) were found in the tombs of Cypro-Geometric I, but eight specimens (Bichrome Red and Red Slip) in the tombs of Cypro-Geometric IV The number of the vases of the white group seems to increase in a rejnarkable way during the later part of the period, Cypro-Geometric II B: there are 3 specimens recorded from burials of Cypro-Geometric II A,3. but 24 specimens from Cypro-Geometric II B.4 It must, however, be pointed out that the number of intact burial groups in Amathus - and these alone can be taken into consideration in this context" - is greater in Cypro-Geometric II B than in Cypro-Geometric II A, and the number of Syrian vases from the latter period is therefore most probably disproportionately small. The general tendency of the white group of pottery to increase in number during CyproGeometric II B seems, however, evident. The vases of the red group, on the other hand, seem to be fairly constant in number during the whole of Cypro-Geometric II, being represented by five specimens in the sub-period A and by three specimens in the sub-period B." The beginning of Cypro-Geometric III marks the end phase for the import of the Syrian pottery of the type found in the tombs. Burial strata which can be assigned to the transition between Cypro-Geometric II and III or the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III have yielded 6 specimens of the white group of pottery' and 2 specimens of the red group.· In the burial groups from the later part of Cypro-Geometric III, there is one Bichrome pilgrim bottle from Amathus, Tomb I I I and two White Painted pilgrim bottles and a Bichrome Red juglet from Amathus, Tomb I4 IV •• True, these burial groups date upon the whole from Cypro-Geometric III B, but their considerable proportion of Cypriote pottery of Type II shows, however, that the earliest interments may have taken place in Cypro-Geometric III A or at least not later than about the middle of Cypro-Geometric III. As regards Tomb I4 IV , the possibility must also be considered that a few vases have been taken from the earlier burial groups in the tomb - a practice which often caused confusion in the pottery sequence, especially in the Amathus tombs (d. p. 185). It is therefore no certain evidence that Syrian pottery of the types here referred to was imported to Amathus later than Cypro-Geometric III A,10 but this does not mean that the import of Syrian pottery to Cyprus ceased altogether at that time, as we shall see (p. 447). 1 The Cypro-Geometric II tombs which contained these Syrianvases are: Amathus, Tombs 6 II , I II , 10 1, 14 II- II I, Is II , 19, 21 II, 22 II, 24 (op. cit. II, pp. 29, 69, 89, 93, 113, II8, 123, 133). 2 The Cypro-Geometric II tombs are: Lapithos, Tombs 413, 425 and Amathus, Tombs 10 1, 19, 21 II (op. cit. I, pp. 221, 251; II, pp. 69, II3, II8). II. 3 Amathus, Tombs 19, 22 4 Amathus, Tombs 6 II-I II, 10 1, 14 II- I II, Is II , 21 II, 24. "Several White Painted Syrian pilgrim bottles were found in the "common large deposit" of Amathus, Tomb 22 (op. cit. II, p. 123). The tomb contained burials from
18
Cypro-Geometric I-II A (rst arid znd burial strata), but the vases of the "common large deposit" cannot be attributed to either of these periods, and all the Syrian vases, or some of them, may therefore belong to Cypro-Geometric II A. 6 Cypro-Geometric II A: Lapithos, Tombs 413, 425 and Amathus, .Tomb 19; Cypro-Geometric II B: Amathus, Tombs 10 1, 21 II. 7 Amathus, Tombs 7 I, 18 I (op. cit. II, pp. 43, 108). 8 Lapithos, Tomb 40II--II (op. cit. I, p. 178). • Op, cit. II, pp. 76, 89. 10 Amathus, Tomb 5, which yielded two White Painted pilgrim bottles, contained burials from Cypro-Geometric
274
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
From this chronological distribution of the Syrian pottery I exclude, however, the settlement pottery, the Plain White Ware. The specimens of this ware discovered hitherto in Cyprus range in time from Cypro-Geometric II to Cypro-Archaic I-II,l but the material is too incomplete to allow any conclusion to be made, as mentioned above; we must take into consideration that numerous storage vessels of Syrian origin are very likely still waiting for excavation in the storehouses of the settlements and trading factories. We turn now to an examination of the Greek pottery found on the island. The so-called Thessalian Proto-Geometric Ware (p. 270) is of Proto-Geometric origin, but in the Cyclades and Eastern Greece this ware continues in the Geometric period. Cups similar to those found in Cyprus are known from Delos, Rhodes, and Tenos.' The cups found in Cyprus must be considered as imported specimens of this Cycladic and East Greek pottery. Very little can be said with certainty about the local distribution of the Geometric pottery. All the vases with known provenance come from Amathus, except two skyphoi from Stylli, which are, however, only imitations of the Greek types. This accumulation of the Greek Geometric pottery at Amathus and its non-existence in the rich tombs at Lapithos seem to indicate that the trade with Greece during the period represented by this pottery was concentrated mainly on the harbours along the S. coast of the island. It would be very natural if that was so. The harbours of the S. coast have always been touched by ships sailing from the Aegean, from the Late Bronze Age down to the present time. From the seaports and the coastal plain there was easy access to the interior, whereas the high and steep Kerynia range along the N. coast made communications with the interior of the island more difficult. In fact, the Kerynia mountains shut off the northern coast land from the interior of the island, no towns of commercial importance have ever existed there, and the ports have only had local importance. If the Morphou bay in the W. is excluded, the whole of the interior of the island opens on to the S. coast, which therefore was much better suited for seaports with oversea traffic of more than local importance. With the S. coast I include its continuation to the E., along the Famagusta bay. The geographical suitableness of this S. coast as a basis for the oversea trade of Cyprus is also shown by the fact that four of the. most important political and commercial cities were situated there: Kurion, Amathus, Kition, and Salamis. It is therefore natural that the initial trade with Greece followed the S. coast of the island. It seems very likely that the Greek goods were imported to all the ports along this coast and to Salamis in the E. Very little of the pre-Roman
remains of that city has been excavated,' and no Greek Geometric pottery has been found there hitherto, but the two imitations of that pottery found at Stylli,> in the immediate vicinity of Salamis, seem significant. Six specimens of this pottery have been found in the tombs of Amathus.s The number of Greek vases is thus much less than that of the Syrian pottery found in the same tombs, and though the period of the Greek trade is shorter than that of the Syrian, it is quite evident that the Greek imports by no means approached the intensity of the Syrian trade. On an examination of the provenance of all the Geometric Greek vases found in Cyprus, we observe that the majority are Cycladic and East-Greek, only a wery few specimens are of Attic manufacture. This fact indicates that the direct commercial intercourse between Cyprus and Greece was mainly, if not exclusively, with Rhodes and the Cyclades. Like the Syrian pottery of the red group, the Greek Geometric pottery is only represented by one or at a maximum two specimens in each burial group, and only the Rhodian-Cycladic class is represented by more than one specimen. As regards the shapes of the vases, it is worth while observing that all the RhodianCycladic specimens are small skyphoi, and the sporadic representatives of the Attic pottery consist of large craters, an amphora, and an oinochoe. About the chronological sequence we know this much: an Attic crater was found in Amathus, Tomb 13, which dates from Cypro-Geometric III B;4 two Rhodian-Cycladic skyphoi were found in Amathus, Tomb 9 1, and can be assigned to the beginning of CyproArchaic II;5 two imitations of similar skyphoi were found in Stylli, Tomb 2, and date therefore from Cypro-Archaic 1.· Finally, one imitation of a similar skyphos was found in Amathus, Tomb 9 11• This burial group dates, on the whole, from Cypro-Archaic II,? but it is evident that some vases of this group may have been taken from the deposit of the earlier interments in Tomb 9 1 - the same practice as has been referred to above. The date of the skyphos in question cannot therefore be ascertained. Only four Proto-Corinthian (of which one is an imitation) and a few Corinthian specimens are reported from Cyprus. The provenance of the Corinthian vases is entirely unknown. Of the Proto-Corinthian pottery, one specimen was found in a tomb near Limassol and another one in a tomb at Amathus.s It is interesting to see that the only safe record of provenance indicates the S. coast of the island, i. e., the same provenance as for the Geometric pottery. As regards the shapes of the vases, it can be seen that the overwhelming majority consists of aryballoi, piriform Proto-Corinthian and globular or sack-shaped Corinthian aryballoi. About the chronological contexts of the Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian pottery in Cyprus, nothing can be said with certainty.•
III and Cypro-Archaic I, but the finds cannot be stratigraphically separated, and the Syrian pottery may therefore belong to the earliest interment in the tomb, which can be assigned to the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III. Syrian Polychrome vases were found in Amathus, Tomb 711- I II • These burial groups can be assigned to Cypro-Geometric III-Cypro-Archaic I, but they are not intact: many of the vases hav.. been taken from the deposit of the earliest burial group (op. cit. II, p. 45), which can be assigned to the transition between Cypro-Geometric II and III (cf. above). Tomb IIII, which dates from Cypro-Archaic lA, contained a White Painted pilgrim bottle, which may have been removed
from the deposit of the earlier burial group of the tomb, dating from Cypro-Geometric III B. Finally, there was found a Red Slip bowl in Amathus, Tomb 2, but that bowl probably belongs to an earlier interment than the bulk of Cypriote pottery, which is of Type IV (cf, op. cit. II, p. 15). 1 1 Amathus, Tomb 14 , which contained a Plain White juglet, dates from Cypro-Geometric II; the jars from Ajios Jakovos are built into a wall dating from Cypro-Geometric III; jars from the Turabi tombs date from Cypro-Archaic I-II. " Journ. Hell. Stud. LX, 1940, pp. 2 f.
Cf. pp. 276, 280. Journ. Hell. Stud. Xl I, 1891, pp. 59 ff. " Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 146, Nos. 13, 16. 3 Amathus, Tombs 18, 268 (Exc. in Cyp., pp, 103 f., Fig. 150; p. I I 0, Fig. 160:3), 91 - 11, 13 I (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 57 ff., Nos. 19, 76, 122; p. 81, No.2). 4 Op, cit. II, p, 83. 5 Op. cit. II, p. 64. 6 Op. cit. II, p. 148. 1
?
8
275
Op. cit. II, p. 64. Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 1501.
• The conditions of finds of the Corinthian pottery are entirely unknown. As regards the Proto-Corinthian pottery, we know that one of the aryballoi was found in an early "Graeco-Phoenician" tomb near Limassol (loc. cit.), but there is no proper record of these excavations (cf. op. cit., p. 8). The other aryballos was found by the British Museum Expedition
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
Specimens of East-Greek Archaic pottery have been found at Vouni,: Marion,' Amathus,s Salamis.sand Idalion.' This distribution shows that the ports along the S. andW. coast of the island were importers of the East-Greek goods, and from these ports they spread inland. The specimens from Marion and Amathus were found in tombs, those from Vouni, Salamis, and ldalion in settlements or sanctuaries. The tombs have yielded 16 specimens, 10 from Marion and 6 from Amathus. These figures do not seem to indicate a great increase in, the trading activity when, compared with .the amount of imported Geometric pottery, of which; as shown above, six specimens are recorded from the tombs at Amathus. It must, however, be remembered that the number of tombs of which there is a full record is very small at Amathus during the period of maximum import of the East-Greek pottery (CyproArchaic II B, cfvbelow).' In Marion, on the other hand, there are many representative tombs from the period in question, but it should be noted that against the 10 specimens of East-Greek pottery there is not a single specimen of Greek Geometric pottery from Marion. We are then justified in drawing the conclusion that much more East-Greek than Geometric pottery was imported to Marion. The quantity of the import of the EastGreek pottery is better shown by the finds in the settlements and sanctuaries than in the tombs. If we disregard Salamis, where only .soundings have been made, and consider the ceramic finds from Vouni and Idalion, we obtain the following statistical position. 101 fragments of East-Greek pottery were found at Vouni. Of these, 48 sherds were found in the "pre-palace" strata (Cypro-Archaic II B), 3 sherds in strata of Periods I and 2 (end ofCypro-Archaic JIB and beginning of Cypro-Classic I), 5 sherds in fillings which date from before Period 2 (before the first quarter of Cypro-Classic I), and 45 sherds in fillings which date from before Period 3 (before about the middle of Cypro-Classic I). For our statistical. purpose we select the finds from the "pre-palace" strata, which are uniform in character, and disregard those from the fillings, which are of mixed character, and those from Periods I and 2, which cover a rather long space of time. A total of 231 sherds are recorded from the "pre-palace" strata. The 48 East-Greek specimens found in these strata thus form about 20 % of the total 'sum of pottery. This gives us quite an expressive picture of the "East-Greek" trade with Cyprus. In Idalion the state of things is different. The East-Greek pottery is found in layers of Period 67 (approximately Cypro-Archaic II), and
specimens are represented among the ceramic material of 845 sherds- from the strata of that period, i. e., about !'3 % of the total sum of potsherds. 20 % at Vouni and !'3 % at Idalion - this difference in the quantity of East-Greek pottery at these places, the one situated on the coast, the other one in the interior of the island, illustrates how the imported products accumulated in the coastal area around the seaports, and only to a small degree penetrated inland. Both the finds from the tombs and the settlements show that the overwhelming majority of the vases consists of simple bowls and cups of the "Ionian bowl" and "Ionian cup" fabrics. Vases of a more artistic character are rather rare, as proved by the small amount of decorated pottery of the Rhodian and the Fikellura styles. Even the simple bowls and cups must, however, have been imported for their own sake, because, on account of their shapes, they cannot have served as containers. We have thus to do with mass import of simple and standardized types and occasional import of more artistic pottery products, but of course the trade was not altogether "ceramic". The large, spindle-shaped amphorae found in the Marion tombs have only served as containers for the real import goods, .in this case probably wine. There are, in addition, large Plain White amphorae of the type illustrated in Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXXXII, II, IS, which in shape are identical with the Greek types. Some of the specimens found in Cyprus are certainly made on the island, which is evident from the quality of the clay and the fact that Cypriote syllabic signs have sometimes been incised on these amphorae when the clay was wet. Other specimens may be imports, but the provenance of this plain ware is often difficult to ascertain when the clay is not of such a composition that it can be proved to be Cypriote or not. Already the fact that the Cypriote potters imitated so closely the Greek prototypes shows that they were acquainted with them, and we are therefore justified in reckoning with the import of Greek, goods contained in such Plain White amphorae. The chronological sequence of the East-Greek pottery found.in Cyprus is clearly shown by the date of respective tombs and strata. Amathus, Tomb 2 is the earliest tomb hitherto found which has yielded East-Greek pottery, viz., the lid NO.5!' The tomb contained more than one burial, but unfortunately the finds cannot be stratigraphically distinguished. The majority date, however, from Cypro-Archaic I B, and the latest pottery can be assigned to the transition between Cypro-Archaic I and II.2 Four vases of East-Greek pottery have been found in tombs from Cypro-Archaic ~I A,3 seven vases in tombsfrom Cypro-Archaic
in Tomb 241 atAmathus, but it is impossible to ascertain the date of this tomb from the unsatisfactory records in the publication (Exc. in Cyp., p. 124). It seems, however, that the tomb contained more than one burial period, because the "jug. with impressed .palmettes" represents probably. Black Glazed Greek Ware with impressed decoration. 1
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 281 f.
20p. cit. II, pp. 314 (Tomb 47, No. I), 347 f. (Tomb 58,~os: 10, 20), 399 (Tomb 73, Nos. 22, 26), 402 (Tomb 74, Dr. No. '3), 420 (Tomb 82, No. 26), 449 (Tomb 96, Nos. 6, 7), 451 (Tomb 97, Nos. 13); Cat. Cyp.Mus., Nos, 15II, 15 12. 3 Exc. in Cyp., p. 104, Fig. 151:5 (Tomb 106); p, 107, Fig.. 154:5 (Tomb 84); p. 110, Fig.. 160:1 (Tomb 137), Fig..
160:2 (Tomb 108); Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 12 (Tomb 2, No. 51), 66 (Tomb 10, No. 15). 4 Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, pp. 141 ff. G Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 557 (Nos. 988), 619 (Square F6), 624 (Squares A II-I2, 1-J I4). 6 The record of finds from the tombs excavated by the British Museum Expedition is incomplete, particularly as regards the pottery, and they must be left out of account. Of the tombs excavated by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Nos., 3, 9 II, II I V, and 13 II 1 belong to Cypro-Archaic II B, but Tombs II IV and 13 II 1 contained only 3 vases each, so that there are only two proper burial groups from the period in question. 7 Except the jug, No. 988, which was found in a layer of Period ig.
277
II
1 From this total sum I have excluded the sherds of Plain White and Coarse ware, which are recorded in the statistical list of potsherds from Idalion, but are excluded from the corresponding Vouni list. 20p. cit. .11, pp. 15 f. 3 Op. cit. II, p, 69 (Amathus, Tomb 10II, No. 15); p. 421 (Marion, Tomb 82, No. 26); Exc, in Cyp., p. 104, Fig. 151: 5 (Amathus, Tomb 106); p. 110, Fig. 160:2 (Amathus, Tomb 108). The latter two tombs, found by the British Museum Expedition, have been assigned to Cypro-Archaic II A on the evidence of. the Cypriote pottery which is reported to have been found in the tombs. A group of pottery from
Tomb 106 is illustrated in op. cit., p. 104, Fig. 151; .the Cypriote pottery from Tomb 108 cannot be identified and classified on a basis of the vague and incomplete descriptions in the publication (op. cit., p. 121), but we can identify three specimens of the pottery material found' in the tomb from the satisfactory descriptions in the Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases 1:2, C 933, 947, 958. In view of this incomplete material and the entire lack of stratigraphical observations during the excavations, the date of these tombs and, in consequence, that of the East-Greek pottery found in them are somewhat uncertain.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
II B,' and three vases in tombs from Cypro-Classic I A.. This is entirely in agreement with the chronological evidence afforded by the finds in the settlements and sanctuaries. The oinochoe No. 9.88 from Idalion belongs to Period 5 of that site, i. e., it is not earlier than the second quarter of Cypro-Archaic 1.3 All the other specimens of East-Greek pottery from Idalion were found in strata of Period 6, which date from Cypro-Archaic IV At Vouni the bulk of the East-Greek pottery (disregarding that from the mixed fillings, d. above) was found in the "pre-palace" strata, and dates therefore from Cypro-Archaic II B,6 but a few specimens were also found in the strata of Periods I and 2, and may therefore date from Cypro-Classic I A.6 The import of the East-Greek pottery seems thus to begin in the later part of Cypro-Archaic I, increases in quantity in Cypro-Archaic II A, reaches its maximum in Cypro-Archaic II B, and ceases during the Cypro-Classic I A. As regards the dates of the different classes of the East-Greek pottery found in Cyprus, the following may be noted. The only representative of the Rhodian Orientalizing style found in a datable tomb, viz., the amphora from Amathus, dates from Cypro-Archaic II A. The specimens of the Fikellura style cannot be dated on the evidence from Cyprus, because their find context is unknown. The large, spindle-shaped amphorae of White Slip Ware date from Cypro-Archaic II B and the earlier representatives of the "Ionian bowl and cup" fabrics from Cypro-Archaic II A, while the later specimens continue until the beginning of Cypro-Classic I. The local distribution of the Black Figured Ware is approximately the same as that of the East-Greek pottery. It has been found in the towns of the coastal region: Vouni,: Marion,' Kurion,' Amathus,> Kition," Salamis,> and also in the interior of the island: Idalion> and Tamassos.» Black Glazed Ware is found alongside it as its contemporary plain variety. The quantity of these wares imported in relation to the native Cypriote pottery, and to the other imported fabrics is difficult to estimate. Very few Black Figured vases were found in the tombs excavated by the Swedish Expedition, and they cannot therefore be used for statistical purposes. A considerable amount of vases was found in tombs during the earlier excavations, above all at Marion,v but their unsatisfactory publication makes them equally useless for the purpose in question. It is clear that the quantity of Black 1
Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 400 (Marion, Tomb 73, Nos.
22, 26); pp. 402 f. (Marion, Tomb 74, Dr. NO·3); p. 449 (Marion, Tomb 96, Nos. 6, 7); p, 451 (Marion, Tomb 97, No. 13); Exc. in Cyp., p, 107, Fig. 154:5 (Amathus, Tomb 84). About the date of the latter tomb the same remarks are applicable as those made in the previous note. 1, No. I); 2 Sued. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 316 (Marion, Tomb 47 p. 350 (Marion, Tomb 581, Nos. 10,20). 3 Op, cit. II, p. 625. 4
Loc. cit.
o Op. cit. III, pp. 283 f.
• Op. cit. III, p. 286. 7 Op. cit. III, pp. 281 f. 8 Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1541 ff. (all the vases without other provenance indicated); Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 202 (Tomb 7, NO.4); p. 321 (Tomb 50, NO.9); OHNEfALSCH-
RICHTER, Kypros, PIs. CIX, II; CX, 7; CXVIII, 6; CLXXXIII, 1-3; CLXXXIV, 2; CCXIX, 7, 8. o Exc. in Cyp., p. 76, Fig. 139 (Tomb 26); Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 182, Tomb 71. 10
Exc. in Cyp., p. 105, Fig. 152:4, 5 (Tomb 129); p. II 0,
Fig. 161 (Tomb 78); p, III, Fig. 163: I, 2 (Tombs 95, 38); Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1638-1639 (Tomb 91); Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 24 (Tomb 5, No. I). 11 Op. cit. III, pp. 68 ff.
Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, pp. 143 ff. Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 620 (Square F 7), 622 (Square 'G IO), 624 (Squares A II-IZ, 1-J I4). 14 Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1542, 1567, 1592. 16 HERRMANN, Das Grdberfeld von Marion auj Cypern, 12 13
pp. 13, 17 f.
POTTERY
279
Figured Ware imported, including the corresponding Black Glazed, is much less than the Red Figured Ware, including the corresponding Black Glazed, but its quantitative relation to the East-Greek ware is uncertain. The ceramic material yielded by the excavations in the settlements and sanctuaries is inconsistent in evidence. To judge by the finds from Vouni, Black Figured would be much less numerous than the East-Greek Ware,' but the evidence from Idalion- indicates the opposite, and the excavations at Kition, where no East-Greek pottery was found, yielded 20 specimens of Black Figured and the contemporary Black Glazed Ware.· The quantity of the imported pottery seems to have been very unequal in the different parts of the island. The imported goods naturally accumulated in the seaports more than inland, but some ports were evidently preferred to others. Marion has been at least one of the main importers, if not the main. The Black Figured vases allotted to the Cyprus Museum at the division of the finds from the earlier excavations at Marion amount to 107 specimens.' The great majority of the imported vases are kylikes, a large minority are lekythoi; amphorae, oinochoai, skyphoi, and alabastra are represented by a smaller number of specimens. So far as the present evidence goes, all the Black Figured vases found in Cyprus date from Cypro-Archaic II B. No specimen has been found yet in a tomb of a later or an earlier period,s and the evidence from the finds in the settlements and sanctuaries confirms this , or at least does not contradict it. In Idalion, Black Figured and contemporary Black Glazed pottery found in strata of Periods 6 and 6 All are therefore not later than the end of CyproArchaic II, and may not be earlier than Cypro-Archaic II B.6 In Kition, pottery of this kind was found principally in strata of Period 6, but a few specimens in a stratum of Period 5. As the former period ends approximately contemporarily with Cypro-Archaic II,and the end of the latter period can be assigned to the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II B,7 it can be seen that the dating evidence from the finds in the tombs is not contradicted: no Black Figured pottery is of later date than the end of Cypro-Archaic II, and may not be earlier than the beginning of Cypro-Archaic II B. At Vouni, finally, some fragments of Black Figured Ware were found in the "pre-palace" stratum, and date therefore from CyproArchaic II B.8 , The Red Figured and the contemporary Black Glazed pottery are found over the whole of Cyprus. In consequence of the great mass import, it was spread to almost every part 1 Only 5 specimens were found in the "pre-palace" strata against 48 East-Greek sherds (cf, above, p. 276). 2 17 specimens of Black Figured and the contemporary Black Glazed ware against II East-Greek sherds (cf, pp. 276 f.). a Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 68 ff. The total number of sherds from the strata where these 20 specimens were found, 'amounts to 144, and the Black Figured lind Black Glazed wares thus form c. 14 % of the total sum of pottery. 4 Cat. Cyp, Mus., Nos. 1541 ff, (all vases except those with other provenance indicated). 6 Of the tombs found by the Swedish Expedition, Marion, Tombs 7 and 50 contained Black Figured pottery. They date from Cypro-Archaic II B (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp.
202, 322). So far as the evidence goes, the tombs containing Black Figured pottery and found by earlier expeditions date from the same period, e.g., Amathus, Tomb 129 (Exc. in Cyp., p. 105, Fig. 152:4, 5); Kurion, Tomb 26 (op. cit., p. 82); Marion, Necr. II, Tombs 62 (OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, p. 366, PI. XXIV, I), II8 (loc. cit., PI. XXII, I), 140 (op. cit., pp. 370 f., PI. LXII, I), 145 (op. cit., pp. 3 67, 473, Pis. XXIV, 6; CLXXVII, I). There are, of course, many other tombs which yielded Black Figured pottery, but they cannot be exactly dated on account of incomplete or missing excavation reports. 6 Swed. Cyp, Exp. II, p. 625. 7 Op. cit. III, p. 71. 8 Op. cit. III, pp. 283 ff.
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
280
1
of the island, but the import trade was, as before, mainly concentrated on a few seaports. Thanks to' extensive excavations we know that Marion was still one of the main importers, but for historical reasons it seems very likely that Salamis was another principal place for the import trade with Greece after the ascension of Euagoras I to the thron~ (p~. 49° ff., 501 ff.). The tombs of the Salaminian necropolis have not, however, been sCIentifically excavated, and the pre-Roman strata of the town itself have only been sounded." Hundreds of tombs with finds of Red Figured and Black Glazed pottery have been excavated in earlier times, but the tomb-groups have been broken up, and the excavation reports, if existing at all, are so incomplete that they can only be used as supplementary secondary material for a study of the character and history of the interrelations of Greece and Cyprus as revealed by the pottery (cf. below). In the first p~ace we ar~ .therefor~ referred to the reports of the Swedish excavations at Marion, Vouni, and Kition,' which alone afford statistically safe material. 4 The earliest specimens of Red Figured and the contemporary Black Glazed pottery appear in tombs of Cypro-Classic I A. In these tombs, the imported wares form 13·5 % of the total sum of pottery. During Cypro-Classic I B the Attic wares increase very much in quantity and form 39. 1 % of the total sum of pottery. In Cypro-Classic II A, the number of Attic vases decreases to 25.1 %, and in Cypro-Classic II B there is a further decrease to 18.0 %. The maximum of the import of Attic pottery to Marion thus falls within the end of the 5th cent. and beginning of the 4th cent. B. C. On an examination of the amount of Attic pottery in each tomb, we find that itis missing altogether in 6 tombs out of r j from Cypro-Classic I A, in 2 tombs of 13 from Cypro.. Classic I B, in none of 9 from .CyproClassic II Ai and in 8 tombs of 18 from Cypro-Classic II B. The number of the AttIC vases approximately equals or even exceeds that of the Cypriote pottery in some tombs, e. ~., Tombs 1411, 29, 4711 b-c, 5611 from Cypro-Classic I B, Tomb I4 III from Cypro-Classlc II A, and Tombs 34 and 36 from Cypro-Classic II B.5, . Themajority of the vases are Black Glazed. Of a total sum of 261 vases, 136 specimens, or c. 52 %, belong to this category. 90 vases, or c. 34 %, are Black Glazed with decoration of impressed ornaments. Only 33 vases, ore. 13 %, are Red Figured Ware, and 2 specimens, . or c. 1%, are White Grounded. Black Glazed is represented by 47 bowls without handle (Type A)," 38 one-handled bowls or cups (Type B), and 23 two-handled bowls, i. e., skyphoi, etc. (Type C), 17 gutti, 9 kylikes, and 2 lekythoi. Commonest are the bowls of Types A I and B 1. Black Glazed A good illu,stration of the inequality in the distribution of
those used as a material for establishing the relative chronology
Attic pottery is given by a comparison of their number in the necropolis at Marion and Korakas near Vouni. Contrary to the mass import of Attic ware in Marion, only a single speeimen, a Red Figured lekythos, was found in the 16 CyproClassical tombs at Korakas (cf. op, cit. III, p. 332, Tomb '4)' . 14, N . o. .' 2 Cf. pp.275 f.
(cf. above). . ' 5 The quantitative relation between the Cypnot~ and, Attic pottery in these tombs is illustrated by the following fl~res (in each case, the first figure indicates the nun: ber of Cypriote vases and the second one the number of Attic vases): Tomb 14II : II !'oJ II; Tomb 14TH: 3 !'oJ 10; Tomb 29: 2 !'oJ 3; IT bTomb 34: 25 !'oJ 24; Tomb 3 6: 7 !'oJ 12; Tomb 47 c: 6H: 10 !'oJ 21; Tomb 5 12 !'oJ 13· 1 • Cf. for this and the following types op, cit. II, pp. 85 if.
1
3
4
Gp. cit. II, pp. 181 ff.; III, pp. 68 ff., 280 if. The statistical material given below is only taken from
tombs which contain exactly datable burialgroups, i, e.,
281
with impressed decoration is represented by 52 bowls without handle (Type A), 4 one- handled bowls (Type B), and 34 two-handled bowls, i. e., skyphoi, kantharoi, etc. Commonest are the bowls of Types A 6 and C I. Red Figured is represented by 21 gutti, 10 lekythoi, I oinochoe, I skyphos, and White Grounded by 2 lekythoi. The majority of Red Figured are thus gutti and lekythoi. Most of the vases are second rate mass products, and only a few are works of artistic quality. These results are confirmed by the finds from the excavations in the settlements and sanctuaries. The Attic pottery found in the palace of Vouni forms 20-25 % of the total ceramic material. I The bulk of the pottery consists of fragments of Black Glazed bowls, skyphoi, kantharoi, and kylikes, plain or with impressed decoration. Red Figured is much less numerous, and White Grounded pottery is only represented by a very few specimens. Gutti and lekythoi are the commonest shapes, amphorae and kylikes are only represented by a few specimens. The Attic material from the excavations of the sanctuary of Melkart at Kition is very fragmentary, and the shapes with few exceptions cannot therefore be determined; the statistical relation of Black Glazed and Red Figured to each other and to the Cypriote pottery is, however, approximately the same as at Vouni.s The finds from the earlier excavations of tombs in different places on the island also confirm the results given above, so far as they can be used as evidence for this purpose: Black Glazed is in an overwhelming majority, and the commonest shapes are bowls and skyphoi; the Red Figured pottery is less numerous and usually of second rate quality. Gutti and lekythoi are common shapes. Artistic master-pieces and other shapes, amphorae, kylikes, oinochoai, etc., are exceptional.' As regards the evidence of these earlier finds for the chronology, it should be noted that representatives of the earliest Red Figured and White Grounded pottery with known conditions of finds, e. g., a Pasiades alabastron and a Hermaioskylix, . were found in tombs which can be assigned to the very end of Cypro-Archaic II.4 Consequently the import of Attic Red Figured and Black Glazed pottery starts at the end of Cypro-Archaic II and the beginning of Cypro-Classic I, and continues without interruption to the end of Cypro-Classic II. It reaches its maximum towards the end of the 5th cent. and the beginning of the 4th cent. B. C. The import trade was concentrated to a few seaports, but the wares were transported inland, and reached almost every place in Cyprus. Marion ~nd S~lamis, the latter town probably only from the time of Euagoras I, were the principal importmg centres. The great amount of the imported pottery proves intimate and important c~mmercial relations. Some of the vases, e. g., the gutti and lekythoi, were probably only contamers for the real import article, in this case oil. The bowls, skyphoi, kantharoi, etc., cannot, however, have served as containers, but must have been imported for their own sake. It is a mass import of simple and standardized types; products artistically of the first class are rare. 1 The registered Attic vases form c. 20 % of the total sum of vases and the sherds c. 25 % of the total sum of sherds (op. cit. III, pp. 262 ff., 280 ff.), . "Gp. cit. III, p. 70. 3 Cf. Cat. Cyp. Mus., Nos. 1645 if. 4 These vases were found by Ohnefalsch-Richter in Marion,
Necr, II, Tombs 70 and 84, which can be assigned to the end of Cypro-Archaic II by the finds of very late Bichrome Red II (V) pottery (OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PIs. XXIII, I; LXII, 2). About the date of Tomb 174, Necr, II, where Kachrylion and Hermaios kylikes were found (op. cit., p. 497), nothing can be ascertained.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
CERAMIC CONSTITUENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IRON AGE The repertory of forms of Late Cypriote III pottery shows an initial fusion between M ycenaean, Cypriote, and Syro-Palestinian elements, and in the pottery of Cypro-Geometric I this assimilation has been accomplished. 1 We may mention the following forms inherited from the Late Cypriote III pottery and derivative from Mycenaean III C: I types: dishes with three handles;' shallow- and deep' bowls; bowls on low foot;' kalathos-shaped bowls;' goblets;' cups with verticals or with rising loop-handle;" cylindrical» and globular» jars; some jugs with pinched rim," though jugs of this type are also represented in the Cypriote stock of shapes, and some varieties of the type are probably of Cypriote derivation (d. below); jugs with narrow neck and handle from rim to shoulder;" spout-jugs with baskethandle;" stirrup-jugs; 15 amphorae with horizontal" or vertical> handles on the body; amphorae with handles from rim to shoulder> and with handles from neck to shoulder;« hydriae;« 10pUSC. archaeol. III (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Suec., X, 1944), p. 80. 2 Fig. 1,3; cf. FURUMARK, Myc. Pottery, p. 75, Fig. 21, Form 97, Type 322 (p, 641). h Fig. I, 7-10; cf, Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 33, Fig. 9, c; PI. XI, k, Bnt. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 659 ff.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXVII, 4, 5 (Enkomi, Tomb 18, No. 86; Tomb 6, No. 73); other specimens: Enkomi, Tomb 6, Nos. 13, 92 (PI. LXXIX, 2); Tomb 10, Nos. 20, 30 (PI. LXXXI, I); Tomb 18, Nos. 26, 32, 35, 63, 67, 76, 79, 80, 87 (PI. LXXXVIII, I); Tomb 18, Side-chamber I, Nos. 18, 23, 27, 28, 62, 66-70, 72, 73, 75 (PI. XC); Tomb 19, No. 18 (PI. XCI).
, Fig. II, I, 2; cf. Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 33, Fig. 9, b, e.f; p. 49, Fig. 12, b; p. 107, Fig. 25, c; Pis. VII, a, b; VIII, a, c, d; X, b; XI, m, n; BLEGEN, Korakou, p', 62, Figs. 86, 103 (right); Asine, p. 366, Fig. 237, No. 36; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C '397 ff.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXVIII, 3-7, 6 Fig. 11,3-5; cf. Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 33· Fig. 9, a; A then. Mitt. XXXV, 1910, p. 28, Fig. 6; Amer, Journ. Archaeol. XL, 1936, p. 191, Fig. 4; Kerameikos I; Pis. 22, 23. Fig. 11,9-11; cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: I, A 949; Corp. Vas. Ant., Gr. Brit. 293, Fasc, 7. PI. 9: 6, 8; Ann. Brit. School Athens VI, pp. 83 f., Figs. 25, 26; XXV, PI. XI h, I,' EVANS, Pal. of Minos II: I, p. 136, Fig. 69, G. • Fig. 111,3; cf. FURUMARK, op, cit., p. 61, Fig. 17, Type 276. 6
s Fig. 111,7, 8; cf, Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 33, Fig. 9, d; PI. XI,f, g, i,j; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: I, A 1006, 1049; BLEGEN, Korakou, p. 65, Fig. 92; Asine, p. 366, Fig. 237, No. 37; Athen. Mitt. XXXV, 1910, p. 28, Figs. 7, 8. 9 Fig. XI, 2, 3; cf. Archaeologia LXXXII, 1932, PI. XXXI, 14; Hesperia II, 1933, p. 371, Fig. 44, C, BLEGEN, Zygounes, p, 154, Fig. 144, Nos. 87, 88; 'Ap/(awA. 'E'f'"fjfJ-" 1932, Pis. 8, Nos. 100, 102-107; 13. Nos. 254, 255, 257-260, 281-2 84.
10 Fig. III, 5, 6; cf. Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 123, No. 25, Fig. 42; 'Ap/(awA. 'E'f'"fjfJ-" 1914, p. 108, Fig. 13; Myk. Vasen, PI. XVI, 104; GOLDMAN, Eutresis., p. 189, Fig. 263, No. I; Hesperia II, 1933, p. 367, Fig. 39, a. 11 Fig. 111,9; cf, Asine, p. 360, Fig. 233: 3; p. 408, Fig. 268: 6; , Ap/(awA. 'E'f'"fjfJ-., 1914, p. 106, Fig. 9; Archaeologia, LXXXII, 1932, PI. XI, II; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: I A 1022; Kerameikos I, PI. 21. 13 Fig. IV, 8-14; cf. Asine, p, 367, Fig. 238, Nos. 30, 3I; Athen. Mitt. XXXV, 1910, Pis. V, 3; VI, 7; Ann. Brit School Athens XXV, p. 32, Fig. 8, b; Myk. Vasen, PI. XXXVII, 382; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: I, A 112I; Kerameikos I, Pis. 24, 25, Inv, 435· 13 Fig. IV, 3; cf. Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 44, Fasc. I, PI. 44: I; , Ap/(awA. 'E'f'"fjfJ-., 1914, P.l04, Fig. 6, Nos. 2-4; p. 107, Fig. II; cf. Opusc. archaeol. III, p. 92, Fig. 5: 8, 9, II. 14 Fig. IV, 16-18; cf. Myk. Vasen, PI. XXI, 154; BLEGEN, Korakou, p. 67, Fig. 97 (left); i d., Zygouries, p. 168, Fig. 162, No. 351; Asine, p. 366, Fig. 237, No. 34; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 177, Fig. 102 (left sect., 3rd row fro top, and fro right); p. 194, Fig. 117. 16 Fig. IV, 20; cf, Opusc. archaeol. III, pp. 91 f., Figs.
4; 5: 4, 5· 16 Fig. V, 9-12, 14; cf. Asine, p. 397, Fig. 260: 8; Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases I: I, A 970,1023; Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 43, Fasc. I, PI. 43: 8; Opusc. archaeol. III, p. 92, Fig. 5: 2, 3· I' Fig. V, 15; cf. Ann. Scuola Arch, Atene, VI-VII, 1926, p. 121, Fig. 40; p. In, Fig. 41 (right); p. 188, Fig. I II, NO·3· 18 Fig. VI, 1""""4; d. Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 390; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, Pis. XC (and row, 5th fro left); CXXI, 7; DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, PI. CLVII, No. 1444· 19 Figs. VI,S; VII, I; cf. Archaeologia LXXXII, 1932, PI. XII,S; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: I, A 1024. 20 Fig. VII, 2; cf. Ann. Brit. School Athens XXV, p. 32, Fig. 8, c; PI. X, d-:f; Asine, p. 397, Fig. 260: I; BLEGEN, Korakou, p. 69, Fig. 100; Athen, Mitt. XXXV, 1910, Pl. VI,6.
POTTERY
ring-kernoi;: and tripod stands.s The Mycenaean prototypes are modified in the ProtoWhite-Painted pottery of Late Cypriote III, and the shapes of the Cypro-Geometric I pottery represent a further development of the ceramic types; in other words, the typological sequence from the Mycenaean to the Cypro-Geometric pottery is clear and unbroken, as shown by me in another context. 3 The Cypriote elements of shape are partly derivative from the Late Cypriote III pottery, partly of old-Cypriote inheritance. The dishes with two handles' are not related to the Mycenaean trays with two handles,' which rise above the rim, but should be considered as a Cypriote development and variety of the shallow bowl, which has been provided with a wider base. The horned handles of most of these dishes occur also on some of the shallow bow Is, and are a Cypriote feature.' The small bowls perched on the handles of the deep bowls' are an instance of old-Cypriote playfulness.s The bowls with round base and a horizontal handle' are a purely Cypriote type, and the Cypriote tradition is also indicated by the decoration which reflects the ladder-pattern of the White Slip Ware.> The bowl with round base and two handles» is - apart from the base - similar to the two-handled bowls with base-ring or low foot mentioned above, and we are therefore justified in considering the bowl here in question asa combination of Mycenaean and Cypriote elements. The conical bowl with two vertical handles» found in Lapithos, Tomb 6°3, seems also to be a Cypriote shape, though there is no exact parallel in the Late Cypriote pottery, but a Plain White hand-made bowl found in Paleoskoutella, Tomb 7, dating from the end of Middle Cypriote IIIl3 is very similar to the bowl here discussed. A hand-made bowl in the Cypriote tradition found in Kurion, Tomb 26 A, is also of similar shape, but provided with string-holes instead of vertical handles. H The decoration of the Lapithos bowl is reminiscent of the White Slip ladder-pattern, and thus supports the Cypriote origin of the bowl. The lentoid jug 16 is of Oriental origin, and is fairly common in Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. 16 The type was spread to Rhodes in Mycenaean III A: 2-C: I. It appears on the Greek mainland in the later stages of Mycenaean-III C and in Crete at the same date." It seems more probable that the occurrence of the type in Cypro-Geometric I is due to survival of 1 Fig. VII, II, 12. The ring-kernoi are represented in Cyprus (GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, p. 115, cult vessels Nos. 3, 4) and Western Anatolia (SCHMIDT, Schliemann's Samml. troj. Altert., Nos. 6°9, 610) already in the Early Bronze Age. The variety appearing in Cypro-Geometric I is, however, not of this early type, but is derivative from the Mycenaean type (e. g. Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XL, 1936, p. 31Z, Fig. 10). 2 Fig. VII, 8-10; cf, BLEGEN, Zygouries, p. 148, Fig. 138; 'E'f'"fjfJ-. 'ApXawA., 1895, PI. 10: 10. 3 Opusc. archaeol. III, pp. 73 ff. 'Fig. I, I, 2. , Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 143, Fig. 65, No. 37; 'Ap/(awA. ,hh. 3, 1917, p. 131, Fig. 94. 6 Knobbed handles are common already in Early Cypriote (GJERSTAD, op, cit., pp. 105, 120 f., 128 f.,), continue in Middle Cypriote (op. cit., pp. 142 f., pp. 164 ff.) and Late
Cypriote (SJOQVIST, Probl. of the Late Cypr, Bronze Age, pp. 32, 39, 45)· • Fig. II, 6, 7. s Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 20, 71. 9 Fig. II, 15. 10 SJOQVIST, op. cit., p, 45. 11 Fig. II, 16, 12 Fig. II, 17. 13 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXI, 6. 14 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, p. 72, PI. II, No. 22. 15 Fig. III, I I. 16 GJERSTAD, op. cit., p, 187, flasks Nos. I, 2; SJOQVIST, op, cit., p. 36; bottle, Type 3. Imported, probably North Syrian specimens: GJERSTAD, op, cit.. p. 203, Red Lustr.ous III Ware, NO.3; SJOQVIST, op. cit., p. 53, Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware, bottle, Type 2 a. I. FURUMARK, op. cit., p. 67.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
Cypriote tradition than to derivation from the Late Mycenaean specimens. In any case, the type was developed in Cypro-Geometric I to the characteristic Cypriote form known as the barrel-shaped jug1 and the globular jug with collar-shaped rim.' The globular and depressed jugs with round base, narrow concave or cylindrical neck, and handle from neck to shoulder," represent an old-Cypriote shape with ancestors back in Early Cypriote,» and the jug with base-ring and narrow neck,' has its immediate Cypriote predecessors in the corresponding jugs of .Plain White Wheel-made I-II Ware and Proto-WhitePainted Ware of Late Cypriote IIandIII.6 True, there are Mycenaean jugs ofa similar type,' but the Cypriote connection is more probable. Derivation from Cypriote prototypes can also be established for the jug with short, rather wide neck,' a shape represented by Plain White jugs of Late Cypriote III.o It has already been pointed out above that Cypriote influence is sometimes evident on the shape of the jugs with pinched rim, though derivation from Mycenaean types is also quite clear. In particular, the shape of the Black Slip I jugs, Type 3 a, b 10 is very similar to Cypriote specimens of Monochrome,» Base-ring, I ' Plain White Wheel-made,v and Black Slip Wheel-made a of the Late Bronze Age. The origin of the flaskv .has been discussed.> It seems that this flask is not a product of a single line of development: one way leads back to the Late Mycenaean cylindrical jar,v another to the Cypriote elongated flask» of the Bronze Age. The horn-shaped flaskv seems also to represent a native tradition," though no exact parallels from Late Cypriote have turned up hitherto. The Oriental origin of the annular flask» has been recognized." In Cyprus the vertical variety appears in .Middle Cypriote and the horizontal variety in Early Cypriote.v The vertical variety occurs also in Syria in the Middle Bronze Age". The horizontal variety appears in Western Anatolia and in the Aegean already in the Early Bronze Age» and it is also represented in the Mycenaean period.v The vases with animal's protome and animal-shaped
vases- have a long history of development in Cyprus beginning already in Early Cypriote.' In Middle Cypriote the types of animal-shaped vases are still more varied, 3 and were further developed in the Late Cypriote period.s A Cypriote feature is also represented bv the handle-ridge, which in Cypro-Geometric I is found only on the barrel-shaped jug;, but later on appears on several types of jugs. The origin of the handle-ridge is twofold: one line of development leads to the strapped handle of the Base-ring ware,> another line starts from the collar-shaped mouth of some of the Cypro-Geometric I jugs.s The collar becomes elongated, the handle is attached to the lower rim of the collar, and the handleridge is there.' It is well known that the handle-ridge is typical of the Syrian pottery, too, and it is likely that mutual influences from Syria and Cyprus have contributed to its appearance in both countries.
1 Fig. III, 12-15. a Fig. III, 16, 17. 3 Fig. IV, I, 2. 4 GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. III, jug NO.4. Middle Cypriote: op. cit., p. 135, jugs Nos. I, 2; p. 157, jugs Nos. I, 2; p. 178, jug No. I .. Late Cypriote: op. cit., p. 183, jug NO.5; SJOQVIST, op. cit., p. 60, Red Slip Wheel-made Ware, jug, Type I. 5 Figs. IV, 4, 5; XI, 6. 6 Cf. op. cit., p. 58, jug, Type 2; p. 60, jug, Type I a, b; Opusc. archaeol. III, p. 79, Fig. 2: 10, II. 7 Hesperia II, 1933, p. 368, Fig. 40, b; ' ApXOtWk.'E:p'tJ!1" 1932, PIs. 5, No. 23; 7, Nos. 67, 68; 8, No. 112; Archaeologia LXXXII, 1932, PI. LVII, 16. Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene. VI-VII, 1926, p. 135, Fig. 56. 8 Figs. IX, II; XI, 10. a Opusc. archaeol. III, P.79, Fig. 2: 17, 19. 10 Fig. X, I, 2. 11 SJOQVIST, op. cit., p. 32, Monochrome Ware, jug, Type 2. 12 GJERSTAD, op; cit., p. 186, jug No.6. 130p. cit., p. 204, jug NO.7. 14 SJOQVIST, op, cit., p. 63, .Black Slip Wheel-made Ware, jug,. Type 2 a, b, There are also similar jugs of Painted Wheel-made Ware (GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. 205, jug NO.4;
SJOQVIST, op, cit., p. 63, jug, Type I a, b), but these jugs seem to be of non-Cypriote origin (op. cit., pp. 90 f.) and are therefore better left aside. 15 Fig. V, 3-7. 16 DANIEL, in Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, p. 69; FURUMARK, Chronol. of Myc. Pottery, p. 125. 17 FURUMARK, loco cit. 18 DANIEL, loco cit. 19 Fig. V, 13. •0 GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. 140, flask NO.2. .1 Fig. V, 8. •• FRIIS JOHANSEN, Vases sicyon., p. 27; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, pp. 492 ff. •3 CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XCV, 816; GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. 126, jug No. 12; p. 152; ring-vases; p. 160, ring-vase; SCHAEFFER, Missions en Chypre, PI. XIX, 2. '4 SCHAEFFER, Ugaritica I, p. 64, Fig. 53, E, F; p. 66, Fig. 55 (uppermost row, vases in the middle); DUNAND, Les fouilles de Byblos I, PI. CLXIV, No. 3927. '5 XANTHOUDIDES, The Vaulted Tombs of Messard, PI. XXIX, No 4120; Exc. at Phylakopi, PI. IV, 9; SCHMIDT, op, cit. Nos. 823, 3246, 3247. .6 FURUMARK, Myc. Pottery, pp. 617 f., Type 196.
285
Some other shapes or elements of shape are also of Syro-Palestinian origin: the bowl with three loop legs,' the strainer, 9 the jar with vertical handles on the shoulder, 10 the lentoid two-handled bottle,» and the side-spouted jug with open strainer.» The bowl with three loop legs appears in Palestine already in the Middle Bronze Age,» and a bowl with spiralbent feet found at Tarsos dates even from the end of the Early Bronze Age.« The type penetrated as far as Troy, where it appears in contexts from the second to the fifth city.» It has rightly been pointed out that this tripod is not of ceramic origin, but has been copied from metal or wicker work.» In fact, a bronze basin supported by a tripod of this type has been found at Enkorni.v It seems likely that this basin is of Late Cypriote date, and it may be a Syrian import. In any case, bowls and jars supported by tripods of loop legs are common in Syria and Palestine during the Late Bronze Age. 18 In Cyprus it is represented in pottery from Late Cypriote III,a and in the Iron Age it continues both on the Asiatic mainland» and in Cyprus. The bowl with a hemispherical strainer in the bottom is known from Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age, but the type must be still older in Syria,» and the lentoid ~wo-handled bottle (pilgrim bottle) is a characteristic Syrian type, which appears in Syria and Palestine in the Late Bronze Age, and continues in the Iron Age." It is intimately connected with the lentoid jug with a handle from neck to shoulder. As stated above (p. 283); this jug was introduced into Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age, and the two-handled 1 Figs. VII, 5-7, 13-15; VIII, 24. • GJERSTAD, op. cit., pp. 130 f. 3 Op. cit., pp. 176 f. 4 Op. cit., pp. 187 f., 196. 5 Op. cit., p. 186, jugs Nos. I, 2; SJOQVIST, op. cit., p. 36, jug, Type 3; bottle, Type I; p. 39, jug, Type I a. 6 Figs. III, 12-14, 16, 17; VIII, 10, 14, IS. 7 Figs. XIII, 7; XVI, 3, 5. 8 Fig. II, 12, 13. 9 Figs. III, I; XI, I. 10 Fig. III, 10. 11 Figs. V, I; VIII, 22; X, 6. I' Fig. IV, IS. 13 OTTO, Studien zur Keramik der mittleren Bronzezeit in Paliistina, in Zeitschr. deutsch. Paliist.-Ver. 61, 1938, p. 2 0 3,
PI.. 10: 30-33; Ann. Arch & Anthrop., Liverp. XX, 1933, PI. XXXI (left). U Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLIV, 1940, p. 78, Fig. 3 6. 15 SCHMIDT, op, cit., Nos. 1739, 1740, 2330, 233 6. 16 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, p. 239. 17 SCHAEFFER, op. cit., p. 87, PI. XL (p. IIO) • 18 OTTO, op, cit., p. 203. 19 Opusc, archaeol. III, p. 78, Fig. I: 23. .0 Ann. Arch. & Anthrop, Liverp.VI, 1914, PI. XXVI, (d); XXVI, 1939-40, PIs. IX, 2, 3~X, 3, 4; XIII, 1-8; XIV, d. .1 OTTO, op, cit., p. 265, PI. 9: 31. . aa DUNCAN, Corp. of Palest. Pottery, No. 85. OTTO, op, cit., p. 23 6 considers this type to be of Cypriote origin and introduced into Syria and Palestine from Cyprus. This is absolutely impossible, as the type does not appear in Cyprus earlier than-Cypro-Geometrlc I.
286
bottle was also taken over by the Cypriotes before the end of the Bronze Age.: The type was, however, spread to the Aegean already in the Middle Minoan ~eriod. The Cre:an potters often changed the lentoid shape into a globular one, and provided the bottle with a base. That was the normal shape taken over by the Mycenaeans,' and Mycenaean ~ot~les of this type are also found in Cyprus.' The type introduced into Cyprus ~t the ~egl~m~g of the Iron Age is, however, of the baseless lentoid shape, so that a Syn~n derivation IS evident and Mycenaean influence excluded. Syrian imported ~ottl~s of thIS type a.r~ also often found in tombs of Cypro-Geometric I (cf. p. 272). The Jar WIth depressed, piriform or biconical body and vertical handles on the shoulder is a Syrian shape, which can be traced back on the Asiatic mainland at least to the end of the Middle Bronze Age.' In Cyprus 6 this shape was first introduced in Middle Cypriote 111 5 and Late Cy~riote 1 in c?nsequence of the great Syrian influence on the Cypriote culture at that penod. The sl.de-spouted jug with open strainer occurs also in the Mycenaean rep~rtory of forms,' b~t .It form.s a~ instance of Oriental influence,6 and it is firmly rooted m the Syro-Palestinian region. • • In Cyprus it is found from Late Cypriote 111. 1 0 Mr. Daniel who has studied the Mycenaean and Cypnote relations of the pottery found in the Cypro-Geometric I tombs at Kurion, has also analysed the derivation of the pai~ted ornaments of that pottery.v An examination of the whole material confir~s the conclus~o~s based on the pottery from Kurion, viz., that the ornaments show practically no S~yhStiC connection with those of the native painted pottery of Late Cypriote, i. e., White Slip, but their prototypes are mainly Late Mycenaean. The~e wer~ transf0.rmed into the ProtoWhite-Painted designs of Late Cypriote III B, and tna that intermediary stage they develo.p into the ornaments of Cypro-Geometric I, parallel with the formation of the Proto-Geometnc decoration in Greece - a stylistic sequence which I have tried to make clear in another context." Daniel lists four Cypro-Geometric ornaments as absent from Mycenaean pottery, viz., swastika, free-standing latticed lozenge with snake-like appendages at the four corners, broad zigzag line and pendent lines at neck-base. The swastika occurs o~Myce~aeanIlA-B pottery," but since it is absent from the later Mycenaean pottery, this ~ypnote ornament does not seem to be of Mycenaean derivation. The other ornaments mentioned have predecessors in Late Mycenaean and Sub-Mycenaean ornaments." As mentioned, the survivals of purely Cypriote ornaments of the Late Bronze Age are 1 2
POTTERY
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXIV, 3· FURUMARK, op. cit., P: 32. It appears already in Mycenaean
III, A: I. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases I: 2, C 561 ff.; Stoed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXIX, 3, 4· 4 Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. VIII, 1939, pp. 21 ff.; Pis. VIII, a; IX, b; XIII, a; XIV.!, i; XIV B. 5 A specimen found at Kalopsida (Stockholm, Statens Hist. Mus., Inv. No. 18082). 6 Op. cit. VIII, pp. I ff.; PI. III, I. The shape continued in Late Cypriote II (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXVII, I). 7 FURUMARK, op. cit., pp. 608 f. 8 Op. cit., p, 32.
9 DUNCAN, op, cit., No. 67 D 2, 4, 6 ( D 5: Addenda below No. 4 1), G-L, (N: Addenda below No. 41), O-Q, S 2,4; GUY & ENGBERG, Megiddo Tombs, Pis. 8: 12; 68: 8. 10 Opusc, archaeol. III, p. 79, Fig. 2: 14· 11 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLI, 1937, pp, 76 ft. 12 Opusc. archaeol. III, pp. 89 ft. 13 FURUMARK, op. cit., p. 359, Fig. 61, Mot. 48: I (p. 360); cf. p. 270, Fig. 35: 7, 8 (fill ornament). 14 Op. cit., p. 411, Fig. 71, Mot. 72: 11-14; 73: ab, ac, ae, af (pendent lines at neck-base and lozenge with pennons or spirals; cf. Asine, p. 305, Fig. 209: 2, p. 401, Fig. 263: I); Myk. Vasen, Pis. VII, 41; XXII, 159; Asine, p. 301, Fig. 207: I (broad zigzag lines).
very scanty: they are confined to poor relics of the White Slip ladder-pattern,' which, moreover, soon disappear. While the Cypriote elements contribute considerably to the development of the ceramic shapes, they are of no importance for the formation of the decoration of the Iron Age pottery of Cyprus. The reason for this is very easy to find: the monotonous ornaments of the White Slip Ware lacked the artistic force to maintain themselves in the painted pottery of Late Cypriote III, and, in consequence, White Slip disappeared almost entirely during that period. This new Cypriote style of pottery, created at the beginning of the Iron Age, was further developed in the succeeding periods according to the aesthetic principles of each period, the native preference of form, and the influences exercised by Greek and Oriental art. The stylistic development has been demonstrated in the classification of the pottery; the foreign influences are discussed below.
t }";
INFLUENCES TO AND FROM THE EAST The Cypro-Geometric I-II pottery, as we know, comprises the following main classes: White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White. White Painted and Plain White continue the Proto-White-Painted and Plain White wares of Late Cypriote III, and Black Slip is technically connected with a part of the Bucchero Ware of the same period, viz., the wheel-made "pseudo-bucchero" variety of that ware. Only the bichrome technique cannot be derived from the ceramic conditions in Late Cypriote III, when that technique was quite unknown in Cyprus. Influence from the W. is excluded, since this technique is not represented there at this time. On the other hand, it is characteristic of several classes of painted pottery in the Orient including those of Palestine and Syria,' and in view of the fact that polychrome Syro-Palestinian pottery was imported to Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I and that there is evidence of stylistic connection between the Syro-Palestinian and CyproGeometric I pottery (cf. below) it is reasonable to consider the bichrome technique of the Cypro-Geometric pottery as due to Syro-Palestinian influence. During Cypro-Geometric I-II the Syrian pottery of the Black-on-Red, Bichrome Red, and Red Slip wares is imported to Cyprus, as we have seen. It appears in comparatively small quantities with only one or two specimens occasionally represented in each tomb. It is altogether different from the contemporary Cypriote pottery, there is no connection between them, neither in shape, nor in decoration. In Cypro-Geometric I-II this imported Syrian pottery forms less than 2 % of the total sum of pottery. In Cypro-Geometric III the Black-on-Red and Red Slip Wares amount to 21.5 % of the total sum of Cypriote pottery; in Cypro-Archaic I these wares and the Bichrome Red variety- increase in quantity to 34 % and in Cypro-Archaic II to 36.5 %. It cannot be doubted that these wares, from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III, are Cypriote. Their clay and technique are Cypriote, and differ from those of the corresponding Syrian wares. In shape and decoration there 1 2
Fig. II, 15, 17; cf. p. 50. Cf. Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, p, 282.
3 This variety does not appear before Cypro-Archaic I B (cf. p. 194).
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
is a combination of Cypriote and foreign elements, in the shapes with a preponderance of Cypriote elements 1 and in the decoration a predominance of foreign ornaments. 2 The typical decoration, the concentric circle style, intrudes even upon the ornamental field of the earlier Cypriote wares, White Painted and Bichrome,' so that an entirely new Cypriote style of pottery is created, marked by an artistic synthesis of the Cypriote and foreign elements. The ceramic conditions are thus similar to those of Late Cypriote III and the beginning of Cypro-Geometric: we have reached the stage in the relations of two cultures to each other when their products no longer run parallel, but form an organic unit, and this stage seems to arise when a foreign people immigrates and coalesces with the native popu~ ation.' In accordance with the supposed original home of the earlier imported pottery, It is indicated that the immigrating people came from Syria. The immigration took place at the very end of Cypro-Geometric II and the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III. We shall see how this archaeological evidence can be combined with, and explained by, historic
influenced by Syrian bowls of this shape found, e. g., at Chatal Htiyuk,' and the Plain White V rhyton with an animal's protome- is an imitation of the magnificent metal rhyta from Achaemenid Persia.' That the Syrian influence on the Cypriote pottery was not only active in the pre-Classical period is shown by the Red Slip IV (VI) and Plain White VI jugs.' Their prototypes must be the corresponding Syro-Palestinian jugs,» whose history begins earlier than that of the Cypriote jugs.· Other instances of Syrian influence on the shape of Cypriote pottery are mentioned below, pp. 292 ff., e. g., the jars with vertical handles on the shoulder, the juglets with cylindrical, bobbin-shaped, or sack-shaped body, the sackshaped handle-ridge jug with a mushroom-mouth, the jug with upward tapering neck and pinched rim, and the handle-ridge juglets with a funnel-shaped mouth. These shapes were modified by the Cypriotes, and these modified Cypriote types have, as shown below (pp. 292 ff.), influenced the Greek pottery. For that reason they have been included in the section dealing with influences on the West. Several ornaments appearing on the pottery of Cypro-Archaic I are of Oriental derivation: the guilloche and rosette pattern, the network of rosettes, the open palmette, sacred tree, and lotus ornaments, figures of sphinxes, hunting and chariot scenes. The home of the guilloche-pattern is the Near East, from where it penetrated to Egypt in the Middle Kingdom and to the Aegean in Late Mycenaean times.' In Late Cypriote it is also represented on specimens of metal work.' In the Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods this ornament is unknown in Greece, where it reappears with the disintegration of the Geometric style and the beginning of the period of Oriental influence. In Cyprus, too, this ornament disappears in the Early Iron Age. 9 When it is found again on the pottery of Cypro-Archaic I, it seems evident that it is partly of textile derivation (d. pp. 290, 301) and the textile prototypes may therefore very well be of Cypro-Geometric III date. This is corroborated by the fact that the ornament occurs also on other products of Cypriote handicraft, viz., the metal bowls from Cypro-Geometric III (d. pp. 152, 218). The Cypriote guilloche is used either horizontaly as an encircling band or vertically often combined with rosettes in a metope decoration. The horizontal guilloche is common on the Phoenician metal bowls. The vertical guilloche is characteristic of Syrian art.: where it appears already on Syrian
288
events (p. 436).. During' the Archaic period Syria and Cyprus formed in many respects one single area of culture, as shown by different groups of handicraft and art (pp. 35 2 f., 357 f., 375 ff.), and it is therefore sometimes difficult to say whether the influence is Cypriote or Syrian. The difficulty of determining the origin of influence is of course particularly great in the case of less complicated shapes and ornaments. In the following paragraphs I shall limit myself to those instances of ceramic influence which seem to me to be definitely established. Clear Syro-Palestinian influence on the ceramic shapes of Cyprus is shown by the wide' and narrow," torpedo-shaped jars. These appear in Cyprus from the beginning of CyproArchaic I, but are much older in Syria and Palestine, where the same types are found before that date, in Early Iron Age I-II,? while their predecessors are represented in the Bronze Age.' These jars are very common in the Punic territories in the western Mediterranean." The ovoid depressed jars of Red Slip I (III) and n (IV) wares" are evidently derived 12 from Syrian prototypes," and the bowl with round base and the rim more or less bent in are also influenced by Syrian metal bowls. The type appears in Cyprus suddenly in Cypro.Archaic 1. The metal bowls were brought by the Phoenician trade to Etruria, where they also gave rise to imitations in pottery.v The White Painted IV bowl with wide, out-turned rim» is Cf. pp. 68 f . 2 Cf. p. 6 9· It is typical that the circle style introduced by Type III of Black-on-Red does not become dominant before Type IV of the earlier Cypriote wares, White Painted and Bichrome, an artistic confirmation of the gradual coalescence of the immigrants with the native people. 4 Cf. above, p. 282, and GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. 294. sF'Ig. XLIV , 10. • F"Ig. XLIV , II. ? DUNCAN, op, cit., Nos. 43, 4 6, 47. 8 0 . N p. CIt., o. 43 . • Cf. GAUCKLER, Necrop, puniques de Carthage, passim; Amer. .'1ourn. Arch. XXXI, 1927, pp. 306 ff. The Punic jars follow the same line of development as the Cypriote Types IV and V. 1
3
10
Figs. XXVII, 2; XLIII,
I.
11 Cf. the Syrian jar found in Cyprus (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II PI. CXXXVIII, 10) and Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. XXVI 1939-40, Pi. XXIII, B 3°· 12 Figs. XXVIII, 4; XXX, 10. 13 AIrnRSTROM, Der. geom. Stil in Italien, p. 81, believes this type to be of Rhodian origin, but the Syrian connections are not only proved by the Phoenician style of the engraved representations on the metal bowls of this type found in Etruria (MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie II: 2, Pls, 33 8: 4 a; 367: 8 a), but also by finds in Syria and Palestine (DUNCAN,
op, cit., No. 24 Z 2; Beth-pelet I, PI. XXXIX, 23 AS; GUY & ENGBERG, op, cit., p. 189, Fig. 186: 5; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, Pi. 28, No. 95· 14
Fig. XXVIII,S·
Information from Dr. R. J. Braidwood. Fig. I.VII, 17, 18. 3 POPE & ACKERMAN, A Survey of Persian Art I, p. 370; IV, Pls. 113, B; 114. For the cultural relations of these rhyta, cf. Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. X, 1923, pp. 69 ff. and recently Arch. Anz., 1938, pp. 762 ff., 1939, pp. 135 f.; 1940, p. 579, Fig. 15. The Louvre possesses a specimen of bronze with a protome of an ibex and another specimen of silver with a protome of a fallow-deer (CONTENAU, Manuel d'archeol. orient. III, pp. 1448 f., Fig. 879). In the Antiquarium of Berlin there is a bronze rhyton with a protome of a bull found in Syria (Inv. No. 31158); cf. also Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V. Pi. 20, a-d. These rhyta were spread to S. Russia (MINNS Scythians and Greeks, pp. 81, 197, Fig. 90; p. 211, Fig. 110; p. 219, Fig. 121), and were imitated in I
2
19
clay not only in Cyprus, e. g., in Egypt (PETRIE, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, Pi. XXXVII A) and in a peculiar way in Etruria (MONTELIUS, op. cit. II: I, PI. 244: 4). 4
Figs. I.XI, 18; I.XII, 6, 7.
Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. IV, 1935, p. 4, Fig. 7; p. 14, No.2; .'1ourn. Hell. Stud. I.VIII, 1938, p. 27, Fig. II (left); p. 153, Fig. 28, L 2, 4. s
• MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer III, PI. CI.XXXV, 6; DUNCAN, op. cit., Nos. 76 X, X 3; 77 B-D, H, J. KUNZE, Kret. Bronzerel., pp. 90 f.
. Exc. in Cyp., Pi. VI, 547. • It is still found on an ivory comb from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric I (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CI.IV, 32). ?
8
FOREIGN RELATIONS
cylinders of the znd millennium B. C.1 Later it is found sporadically also in Assyrian art. 2 Syria is thus indicated as the land whence the Cypriotes received the guilloche pattern. The rosette ornament, like the guilloche, is represented in Late Cypriote and used to decorate specimens of the metal work.s It is also found on gold discs from Cypro-Geometric I-III,4 so that the ornament is continuously represented in Cyprus from the Late Bronze Age to Cypro-Archaic I, when it appears in the decoration of the pottery. The rosette ornament on the pottery is, however, more likely of foreign derivation. It is often syntactically combined with vertical guilloche bands into a metope pattern. As ornaments of similar kind occur on the dress painted on terracotta sculptures,' the textile prototypes of the ceramic pattern is evident. It can further be ascertained that the pattern forms a syntactic unit. We may conclude that since the guilloche element of this unit has been introduced from the E., the same holds good also for the rosette element of the same unit. Though there is evidence for an unbroken survival of the rosette ornament from the Late Cypriote period, we may therefore also reckon with a renewed influence from the E. in the formation of this ornament in Cyprus. Finally, the eight-leaved, solid rosette ornament on the Cypro-Archaic pottery is of the Assyrian type.' The Assyrian rosettes have often more than eight leaves, but in this context I take only the eight-leaved rosette into consider" ation, since that type is the one represented in Cyprus. The solid, eight-leaved rosette is not ultimately of Assyrian origin: it occurs in Egypt already at the time of the Old Kingdom, 7 and is also represented in Mycenaean art,' but in the rst millennium B. C., before its appearance in Cyprus, it is a characteristic Assyrian ornament, which is also represented in Syrian art.' It is therefore likely that the eight-leaved, solid rosette ornament was transmitted to Cyprus from Syria, i. e., from the same region whence the guilloche pattern came to Cyprus. The network pattern of six-leaved rosettes» has a similar story of origin. It is a popular ornament in Assyria and Phoenicia,v and appears also on the Cypro-Phoenician metal bowls in Cyprus.v The fact that the pattern is painted on the dress of terracotta statues» shows that it was also used in textile work like the rosette and guilloche ornaments. The open palmette copies Phoenician prototypes,» and the sacred tree of superimposed open palmettes or other plant ornaments and flanked by opposed animals also indicates 1 WARD, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, p. 152, Fig. 401; p. 192, Fig. 543; p. 237, Fig. 712; p. 289, Figs. 882, 883; p. 300, Fig. 936; p, 318, Fig. 1009. The ultimate home of the guilloche is, however, Mesopotamia, where this ornament occurs from Early Dynastic times (FRANKFORT, Cylinder Seals, p. 240). 2 PERROT & CHlPIEZ, Hist. de l'art II, p. 771, Fig. 443. 3 Exc. in Cyp., Pis. VIII; X, 223; XII, 16. 4 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 5, 10, 23. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae. A 107 ff.; Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, PI. X. 6 PERROT & CHlPIEZ, op, cit. II, p. 306, Fig. 122; p, 566, Fig. 265; pp. 772 f., Figs. 444, 445; GADD, The Stones of Assyria, Pis. 7 (p, 30), 17 (p. 80).
7 MASPERO, L'archeol. egypt., p. 205, Fig. 190. s FURUMARK, op. cit., p. 281, Mot. 17: 24.
9 POULSEN, Der Orient u. d. fruhgr. Kunst. p. 47, Fig. 35; DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, PI. CVIl, Il54 (a); FRANKFORT, op. cit., Pis. XLII, i; XLIV, g. 10 A network of four-leaved rosettes is found in Egyptian and Mycenaean art, but it has no direct relation to the Assyrian and Syrian type (KUNZE, op, cit. pp. 123 ff., 126). 11 Op. cit., pp. 126 f.; PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op, cit. II, p. 251, Fig. 96; p. 736, Fig. 398; PI. X. 12 Op. cit. III, p. 779, Fig. 548. 18 Cf. n, 5. 14 POULSEN, op. cit., pp. 29 f.; KUNZE, op. cit., p. 149.
POTTERY
Syrian influence,' but it is modified in the Cypriote style. The corresponding ornaments on the Cypro-Phoenician metal bowls (p. 161) may have served the Cypriote potters as a source of inspiration. The lotus ornament of Cyprus is not uniform. The varieties and modifications are many, but, in the main a twofold influence, from Egypt and from Syria can be noticed.' The Cypriote lotus flower with three petals is evidently of Egyptian derivation, while the flower with two lateral petals and three inner ones corresponds to the Phoenician type.' There are intermediary forms between these main types, and the Cypriote preference of form manifests itself in the tendency towards a simplified and diagrammatic modification of the prototypes. The network pattern of rosettes, the palmette, and the lotus ornaments are common on the pottery from Cypro-Archaic I, but at least the network pattern of rosettes and lotus ornaments appear already on the pottery of Cypro-Geometric III B. The Hathor heads decorating a group of Cypro-Archaic II amphorae- are of course copied from Egyptian prototypes. Further evidence of Egyptian influence is given by attempts to draw Egyptian hieroglyphs enclosed in cartouches- and by the blue paint, which occasionally replaces the black paint on the decoration of the Bichrome Ware, and resembles the blue-painted pottery of Egypt. 6 Sphinxes, hunting and chariot scenes are known as ornamental motifs of gold and ivory objects from Late Cypriote, but there is no evidence of a continuous tradition of these ornaments from Late Cypriote to the Archaic period, when they appear on Cypriote pottery. Hunting and chariot scenes are well-known representations in Oriental art of the rst millennium B. C., and occur also on the Cypro-Phoenician metal bowls. These may have inspired the Cypriote potters to their attempts in the same genre. 7 Sphinxes of Greek type are mentioned below, p. 311. Those considered heres seem to be rustic imitations of Oriental prototypes. Some of the winged sphinxes' have a conical helmet. They are dressed with aprons in front; the wings are straight, and are attached to the middle part of the body. This shows that the prototypes were Phoenician.v The sphinx on the so-called Hubbard amphora (p. 62) has Syrian spiral hair, and thus indicates Syrian connections as well as the representation of the seated figure sucking liquid through a pipe.» The reciprocal influence of Cyprus on the pottery of Syria is illustrated by the vases found in Syria and imitating Cypriote prototypes. The Syrian provenance of this pottery is proved by its local clay and the imitation work by the modification of the shapes, and the rather clumsy and rude manufacture. The majority of the vases are Bichrome, a few are White Painted, Black-on-Red or Bichrome Red. Influence from the Cypriote decoration 1 WARD, op, cit., p. 304, Fig. 955; p, 316, Fig. 997; FRANKFORT, op. cit., PI. XLV, i, k. 2 I disregard the lotus ornament on the Tridacna shells, which in my opinion are not of Cypriote manufacture. Blinkenberg has advanced the theory that these shells were manufactured by Cypriotes in Naukratis (Lindos I, pp. 175 ff.), but the evidence is in favour of Poulsen's opinion that the shells are Phoenician (POULSEN, op. cit., pp. 65 ff.), 3 Cf. op, cit., p. 10.
Brit. Mus. Cat.• Vases I: 2, C 852-854. Handb. Cesn, Coll., Nos. 673, 732, 757. 6 Handb. Cesn. csu; Nos. 747-750. 7 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 736, 837. sOp. cit. I: 2, C 838-840. • Op. cit. I: 2, C 840. 10 POULSEN, op. cit., p. 21, Fig. II; PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E., art. Sphinx, pp. 1735 f. 11 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, pp. 62 f. 4
6
293
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
is also evident particularly from the appearance of the characteristic ornament of bands of latticed, winged lozenges pendent in the front of the jugs.' This Cypriote influence appears already in the beginning of the Iron Age: White Painted bowls and amphorae, which closely imitate Cypriote White Painted I-II specimens, have been found at Tell Judeideh.2 Tainat," Neirab.s Carchemish," Sendjirli,' and other Syrian and Palestinian sites' have also yielded many native imitations of Cypriote prototypes from different periods. This imitation ware should be distinguished from the Cypriote, local pottery manifactured in the Cypriote trading factories in Syria, e. g., at Tell Sheikh Yusuf and Tarsos (pp. 254 ff., 260).
The annular flask of the vertical variety, the history of which can be traced back in Cyprus and Syria at least to the Middle Bronze Age (p. 284), appears in Greece in the Proto-Geometric pottery,' and, was commoner in the Archaic period. It has been found in Rhodes,' the Cyclades,' Crete,' Aigina,> Athens, 6 Boiotia,' Corinth, 8 Argolis,· Carthage," Magna Graecia," and the Etruscan territory." A faience jug of this type found in Egypt bears the name of Amasis IV 3 That Cyprus was the centre of expansion for this type is indicated by the fact that all the varieties (with the annular body round or square in section, with one or two handles, with or without foot) are found in Cyprus.v The origin of the bird-shaped vases has been located in Egypt 1 6 and the Near East,16 but the particular type here in question, i. e., with a bird's head, necked mouth, with a handle on the back does not seem to be anywhere earlier represented than in Cyprus, where it occurs in Middle Cypriote," though similar vases with protomes of other animals than birds appear already in Early Cypriote III.'8 In Egypt there are occasional specimens influenced by this Cypriote type of bird-shaped vases from the Middle Kingdom> and the Hyksos period.v It ~eems likely that this type entered Egypt via Palestine; though in view of the commercial relations between Cyprus and Egypt during Middle Cypriote» one must also reckon with the possibility of direct influence from Cyprus. In Palestine a birdshaped vase of the Cypriote type, but of local manufacture, has been found at Jericho. 22 It dates from the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age. No bird-shaped vases manufactured
INFLUENCES TO AND FROM THE WEST We have seen above, p. 285, that the bowl with loop legs was taken overby the Cypriotes from the Syro-Palestinian region already in the Late Bronze Age. The type is particularly common in Cypro-Archaic 1. At the end of that period it suddenly disappears. In Crete the bowl with loop legs appears at the end of the 8th cent. B. C., and is common during the 7th cent.,8i. e., during the same period as in Cyprus. In view of the many other indications of cultural relations between Cyprus and Crete it cannot be doubted that the introduction of the bowl with loop legs into Crete was due to Cypriote influence. This extended also to the Cyclades and Athens,· where it manifested itself already in the Proto-Geometric» and in the severe Geometric styles. 11 The jar with biconical body and vertical handles on the shoulder surviving from the Bronze Age in Cypro-Geometric I (p.286) was fairly common in Cypro-Geometric III and in the Archaic period.> The shape is apparently derived from metal prototypes. From Cyprus it was spread further W. and is represented within the Rhodo-Ionian area of penetration: in Rhodes,> the Milesian colonies at the Black Sea,14 in Crete,> and in Sicily.> Several of the Greek specimens imitate the metal prototypes, which is particularly clear from the shape of the handles. Syria II, 1921, PIs. XVIII, 16-18; XIX, 19-2 2, 24-29,31, 32; XX, 33, 34, 37-45; cf. also for the ornaments LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 36, No. 14· 2 The finds are exhibited in the Museum of the Oriental Institute, Chicago. 3 Sherds kindly submitted to me by Dr. Braidwood. 4 Syria VIII, 1927, p. 207, Fig. 14; Nos. 6o, 61. 6 Cf. p. 257. 6 Cf. loc, cit. • Interesting are the pottery finds ~called "Cypro-Phoenician" by Dr. Nelson Glueck from Saliyeh in Transjordania (Ann. Amer. Sch .. Orient. Res. XIV, 1934, pp. 14, 17, 20, PIs. 22, 23); DUNCAN, op. cit., No. 68 F2 (plain barrel-shaped jug); Quart. Dep, Antiq. Palest. VI, 1938, pp. 130 ff., 139 ff., Figs. 4-: I, 2;6: I, 3, 4; cf. also p. 270, n. I. At another Transjordan site, Rujm el-Hawi, part of neck and the collarshaped rim of a jug ·has been found, and is said to show 1
Cypriote affinities. To judge from the illustration the fragment may belong to a White Painted III jug or a native imitation of the corresponding. Cypriote type (Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res. XVIII-XIX, 1939, p. 267, Pi. 19, B 5)· 8 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, pp. 239 ff.; PIs. VII, 7; VIII, 2; XII, XVII, XVIII; XX,S; XXIV, I, 3· • Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, p. 215, Fig. 58 (Thera); Delos, XV, PI. XXXIX, 33; XVII, PI. XI,S (Delos). 10 Kerameikos IV, PI. 9, No. 918. 11 Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLIV, 1940, PI. XX, I. 12 Figs. XVIII, 14; XXXI, II; XLVIII, 10; LII, 4; LIII, 10. 13 KINCH, Vroulia, p. 215, Fig. 103. HOp. cit., p. 219 (specimens in the museum of Odessa). 16 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 141, Fig. 134; p. 142, Fig. 137; pp. 164 f., Figs. 176 a-e; p. 172, Fig. 192; p. 192, Fig. 212. 16 Mon. Ant. XVII, 1906, pp. 91 ff., Figs. 57, 58 (Gela).
1 Kerameikos IV, PI. 25, No. 2033. The statement by FRIIS JOHANSEN, loc. cit., that this type of flask does not appear in Greece before the end of the Geometric Age, is not therefore correct. Cf. for this type also Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 494. It was introduced into Egypt during the XVI 11th dyn. [GARSTANG, El Ardbah, PI. XXI; RANDALL-MACIVER & MACE, El Amrah and Abydos, PIs. XLIV (Abydos, Tomb 16 B; jug with two handles); L(Abydos, Tomb 17)], probably via Syria and Palestine: the jug found at Abydos, Tomb 17 seems to be of Syrian Red Ware fabric and an annular flask with two handles (cf. the specimen found in Abydos, Tomb 16 B) has been found at Gezer (MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer III, Pl. LXXXI, 2 a). 2 Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. I, 1886, p. 148, No. 3039; KINCH, Vroulia, pp. 45 ff., Figs. 18-20; PI. 31: 3 a; Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 81, Fasc. 2, PI. 80: 10; Lindos I, PI. 47, No. 1010; PI. 48, Nos. 1056, 1057. 3 Thera II, .p. 314, Fig. 501. 4 Ann. Brit. School Athens XII, p. 26, No. 3850, Fig. I (P.25); Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 362, Fig. 474; p. 494, Fig. 593. 6 FURTWANGLER, Aegina, PI. 120: 102. 6 Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. II, 1887, p. 56, Fig. 21 (GRAEF, Ant. Vasen v~ Akrop, zu Athen, No. 351). • Arch. Ans., 1896, p. 209, No. 20; NICOLE, Cat. vases Mus. Nat. d'Athenes, Suppl., No. 841, PI. IV, manufactured by the. potter Mnasalkes; 8 COLLIGNON & COUVE, Cat. vases Mus. nat. d'Athenes, No. 583, PI. XXIII; FRIIS JOHANSEN, op, cit., PI. VIII,"4; cf. also Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 86, Fasc. 2, PI. 85: 9
(Corinthian, said to have been found at Athens); Athen. Mitt. LIV, 1929, p. 27, Fig. 20: I (found in Samos). • WALDSTEIN, Arg: Heraeum II, p. 143, Fig. 83. 10 Mus. de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie I), PI. XXI, 7 (Corinthian). 11 Mont. Ant. XXII, 1913, PI. XXXIX, 2 (Cumae). 12 MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie II: 2, PI. 323: 2 (Falerii); PI. 361: 20; Mon. Ant. XV, 1905, PI. VIII, 4 (Rome). Similar Italic specimens: Arch. Anz., 1917, p. 102, Fig. 30; SIEVEKING & HACKL, Kgl. Vasensamml. zu MiinchenI, No. 623, PI. 26; Boll. d'Arte, N. S. VIII (22), 1928, p. 169, Fig. I. 13 v. BISSING; Fayencegefdsse, (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), pp. XV f.; No. 3767. 14 Figs. V, 8; XIV, 2; XIX, 16; XLIII, 14. 15 Journ. Egypt. Arch. XII, 1926, pp. 52 ff. 18 FRANKFORT, Stud. in Early Pottery of the Near East I, pp. III ff. l' Corp. Vas .. Ant., France 188, Fasc. 5, PI. 4: 20-23; U. S. A. 134, Fasc. 4, PI. I: II; POTTIER, Vases ant. du Louvre I, PI. 6: A 67; GJERSTAD, op, cit., p. 176, NO.5. 180p. cit., p. 131, Nos. 1-5. 18 KNOBEL, MIDGLEY, etc., Hist. Studies, p. 42; PI. XXII, 15. 20 Journ. Egypt. Arch. XII, 1926, p. 68, PI. XIII,S. The bird-shaped vases with a handle (KNOBEL,MIDGLEY, etc., Hist.Studies, PI. XXIII, 24), attributed by MURRAY (ibid., P.43). to the Predynastic period, seems to belong to the Hyksos period; 21 GJERSTAD, op, cit., P.307;Swed;Cyp. Exp. IVn. 22 Ann. Arch. .4:. Anthrop: Liverp. XXI,I934' p.127, Pls, XXVI, 8; XLIV.
294
FOREIGN RELATIONS
in the Base-ring and White Slip wares of Late Cypriote have hitherto been found in Cyprus. Only bull-shaped- and fish-shaped- vases are represented in the wares mentioned, but it is quite possible that some of the bird-shaped vases of White Painted Ware mentioned above date from Late Cypriote. Their find contexts are unknown, and White Painted Ware is found down to Late Cypriote II B. In any case it cannot be doubted that, when birdshaped vases of the Cypriote type appear in Greece in the Mycenaean period,' they indicate a cultural contact with Cyprus so abundantly proved by other archaeological evidence from the period in question. When the bird-shaped vases appear again in Cyprus during Late Cypriote III and particularly from the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric period, this may be due to a revival of the old-Cypriote tradition or, as Akerstrom 4 thinks, to a reintroduction of this type of vase from the W. in connection with the Mycenaean colonization of Cyprus. In the same way, the occurence of bird-shaped vases in Greece during the Geometric and Archaic periods may be interpreted as a continuation of the Mycenaean specimens or as a renewed influence from Cyprus, as Akerstrom thinks.' The evidence is in favour of his opinion, because these bird-shaped vases are found in Greece along the great commercial route: Cyprus-Rhodeso-Crete'-Italy,s indicated by so much other evidence. A single specimen has also been found in Athens. 9 The bird-shaped vases with conical body» have influenced the Cretan pottery, as shown by similar vases found both in Crete» and Thera.» In Rhodes the type was also taken over, and the bird-shape was still more emphasized by modelling the mouth into a bird's head.'> Another variety of the type is represented by the vase in the shape of a siren.» From Rhodes the variety with a bird's head was spread westward and penetrated as far as Etruria,v where it was further modified into a fish-shaped body with a female mask in front.» The Cypriote history of the juglets with cylindrical, bobbin-shaped or sack-shaped body, out-turned rim, and a handle from rim to shoulder" begins in Cypro-Geometric II, so far as the present evidence goes. At this early date (950-850 B. C.) these juglets are not found within the Greek culture area, and for chronological reasons they cannot therefore be of Greek origin. Neither can they be derived from native Cypriote forms. Some of the Cypriote juglets have a round base, and their shape is very similar to some Syro-Pale1 GJERSTAD, op, cit., pp. 187 f., animal-shaped vase, Nos. 2-6. 3 Op. cit., p. 196, animal-shaped vase. 3 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 173, Fig. 100 (Ialysos); IIpa'lt~. rij~ , ApX' 'E~atp., 1937, pp. 85, 89, Figs. 3, 9: 5 (Antheia). 4 AKERSTROM, Der geom. Stil in Italien, pp. 64 f. o Op. cit., p. 65. 6 Jahrb. deutsch. Arch. Inst. I, 1886, p. 136 (Kameiros); illustrated in op, cit. XXII, 1907, p. 214, Fig. 6; Clara Rhodos III, p, 147 (Tomb CXLI, NO.5), Fig. 142 (Ialysos). • Ann. Brit. School Athens VI, p, 84, Fig. 26 (Knossos); Amer. Journ. Archaeol. V, 1901, p. 308; Fig. I (Kourtes); Ann. .Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 91, Fig. 65; p. 200, Fig. 221; p. 277, Fig. 351; p. 385, Fig. 496 (Arkades); Arch. Ans., 1933, p, 306, Fig. 17 (Fortezza).
s AKERSTROM, op, cit., pp. 64, 81 f. (Etruria).
MAXIMOVA, Les vases plast. dans l'ont. II, PI. XI, 43. Fig. XXXVI, 12 and OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. CCXVI,9· 11 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 99, Fig. 74 b. 13 Thera II, p. 311, Fig. 499 g. 13 KINCH, Vroulia, p. 56, PI. 34 (Tomb I, NO.3); p. 60 (Tomb 2, No. 19); p, 80 (Tomb 20, No. 15); Lindos I, pp. 297 f., Nos. 1026-1033, PI. 48. 14 WEICKER, Der Seelenvogel, p. 103,Fig. 34; MAXIMOVA, op, cit. I, pp. 145 ff.; II, PI. XXIX, 110, I II; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 479, Fasc. 10, PI. 93: 4, 8. 15 FURTWANGLER, Beschr. d. Vasensamml. im Antiquarium I, No. 1310; MAXIMOVA, op. cit. II, PI. XI, 46 (Tarquinia), 16 Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 217, Fasc. 5, PI. 214: 7. - I' Figs. XVII, 24; XXVII, 18; XLV, 3-5, etc.
POTTERY
stinian juglets with round base. 1 Since their history goes back to the Bronze Age, I am inclined to co~si~er them as the ancestors of the Cypriote juglets. The Cypriotes modified the SyroPalestinian shape, and made the base flat. When the Cypriote production of this modified type of juglet was fully developed in Cypro-Archaic I, it was widely spread in the Medi~errane~n, both in the E. and the W. Thus Syria and Palestine received back a native type In modified form. Imported specimens were imitated and new modifications of the Cypriote prototypes were created. It is difficult to say - I have not been able to handle the specimens, and they are omitted entirely in the excavation report - whether the juglets found at Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) are imported- from Cyprus or of local manufacture. Those found at Gezer are certainly Palestinian imitations of the Cypriote models. 3 In the Greek culture area this type of jug became very popular, and was included in the stock of shapes of several ceramic workshops. We find it in Rhodes,' Samos,s and Troy,» in Histria and other Milesian colonies at the Black Sea .. From Rhodes and Ionia the type was spread further W., first to the Cyclades- and the Greek mainland,' then to the Greek colonies in the W.I0 and to Etruria." The shape was developed by Ionian, Corinthian and Attic potters, under influence from metal handicraft, into the type of jug conventionally called olpe,» and subsequently the shape of the small jug was also influenced by metal prototypes,» The sack-shaped handle-ridge jug with wide mushroom-mouth and handle from neck to shoulder is a Phoenician type, which was introduced into Cyprus, where its shape was modified: the mushroom-mouth shrinks, and the body looses its rounded outline, which gradually becomes straighter and sharp-edged.» The Phoenician type is found in great quantities in Carthage» and other Phoenician colonies.» The Cypriote type, which was imported to Rhodes, was also imitated there by the native potters,I' and the type was also 1 Cf. Fig. XLV, 9 with DUNCAN, Corp. of Palest. Pottery, No. 50 S.
• Cf. p. 243. 3 MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer III, PI. CLXIX, 14; cf. DUNCAN, op. cit., No. 53 Z 2,4. The juglet of Cypriote type, MACALISTER, op. cit. III, PI. CLXIV, 13, is said to have been found in a stratum of Macalister's third Semitic period. This statement must be due to a misinterpretation of the stratigraphical conditions.
9
10
295
4 KINCH, Vroulia, pp. 154 f., PI. 26: I, 5, 14, 18 a, b; Clara Rhodos III, p. 177 (Tomb CLXXVII, NO.4), Fig. 171, PI. III; op. cit. VIII, p. 177, Fig. 166; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 270, Fig. 170, No.2 (Ialysos); Clara Rhodos IV, p. 62 (Tomb VI, No. 12), Fig. 34; p. 272 (Tomb CXLIV, No. I), Fig. 302 (Kameiros); Lindos I, Nos. 2565-2575, PI. 123.
s BOEHLAU, Aus ion. u. ital. Nekropolen, p, 42, PI. VIII, 17; Athen. Mitt. LIV, 1929, p, 31, Fig. 23: 3, 4. 6 SCHMIDT, Schliemann's Samml. troj. Altert., No. 3891. • LAMBRINO, Les vases arch. d'Histria, pp, 164 ff, s Thera II, p. 21, Fig. 30; p. 71, Figs. 237, 238; p. 3 14, Fig. 504; Delos X, PI. XXXVII, 13 1-134. 9 Exc. at Olynthus V, PI. 35, P 62,63; PI. 39, P 73; GRAEF,
op. cit., No. 308; Hesperia IX, 1940, p. 410, Fig. 53 (Athens); Lindos I, p. 618 (Athens and Eleusis). 10 Mon. Ant. XVII, 1906, p. 105, Fig. 69; p. 667, Fig. 4 88 (Gela); p. 668 (Megata Hyblaia, Syracuse, Cumae); Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, PIs. XLIX, I; LXVIII, 2, 3; LXX, 2 (Cumae); Ann. Mus. d'hist. nat. de Marseille XIII, 19 14, PI. IX, Nos. 2, 3 (Massilia), 11 AKERSTROM, op. cit., pp. 82 f., PI. 21: 3, 5. 12 POTTIER, Cat. vas. ant. du Louvre III, p. 725. 13 Cf. Lindos I, p. 618. 14 Cf. Cypriote specimens, Figs. XXXVIII, 8; XLI, 4; LIII, 14; LVI, 17., 13: BI.-on-R. II (IV) jug 2, Bichr. R. I (IV) jug I, Bichr. R. II (V) jug 4, R. Slip III (V) jugs I a, b. 10 Mus. de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie I), p. 156, PI. XXV, 18; Rev. arch. Ser. 3, X, 1887, p. 156, Fig. 3; Corp. Vas. Ant., U. S. A. 129, Fasc. 3, PI. XLIV, 22; Pologne 54, Fasc. I, PI. 54: I; Mon. Ant. XXX, 1925, p. 184, Pt. II, 6; GAUCKLER, Necrop, puniques de Carthage I, PIs. LXXXVII, XC, C, CLIII, CLXXII, CCIX, CCX, CCXIl. 16 WHITAKER, Motya, p. 297, Fig. 73; Mon. Ant. XIV, 1904, PIs. XIX-XX, 2 (Nora, Tharros, cf. ibid., p. 197). I ' Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926, p. 306, Fig. 20 3, to the right in the bottom row (Ialysos); Clara Rhodes III, p. 65 (Tomb XXXVII, No. I I), Fig. 54; p. 144 (Torno
297
FOREIGN RELATIONS
POTTERY
modified by the eastern Greeks into a characteristic and new shape. Jugs of this modified 4 Cypriote type are found in Rhodes/ Samos," Thera," the Greek settlements in Sicily, and in Egypt. 6 This type was further developed into the Attic lekythos. The jug with upwards tapering neck and pinched rim" has a history similar to the jug with mushroom-mouth (p. 295): the type is of Syrian origin, was taken over by the Cypriotes, and appears also in the Cypriote metal work (Figs. 29: 10, II; 33: 14); by the Phoenicians it was transferred to their western colonies,' and was included in the stock of Etruscan pottery shapes.' . The handle-ridge juglets with a funnel-shaped mouth' is a Syrian type, which was included in the Black-on-Red I (III) pottery and subsequently modified by the Cypriotes. Handleridge juglets influenced by the Cypriote type have been found in Rbodes,» Crete," the Cyclades,v and Sicily.v Other jugs and juglets from Rhodes,a Crete,> theCyclades," Athens," and the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia> do not, as those mentioned first, closely imitate the Cypriote prototype, but the Cypriote influence is still conspicuous. Particularly the handle-ridge of the jugs betrays this influence. The juglet with beaked neck produced by potters e. g. in Rhodesv, on the Cyclades, 20 and at Cumae" is evidently a variety of the corresponding Cypriote juglet with straight neck." This seems also to have influenced the shape of a variety of Italo-Corinthian juglets. The handle-ridge of the Italo..Corinthian specimens particularly confirms the supposition
of Cypriote influence. 1 They are evidently related to Cretanjuglets, and that seems to indicate the route of influence. 2 The globular jug with round base found in Tomb XLV at Kameiros- isa clear imitation of the corresponding Cypriote jug of Type II represented by specimens of White Painted and Bichrome II.4 Some Rhodian jugs imitate very closely a shape characteristic of the Cypriote jugs of Type IV6 with pinched mouth: the oval-globular body, the cylindrical neck, and the turned-in rim contribute to the Cypriote character of these Rhodian products, and the Cypriote connections are also evident from the concentric circle decoration of these jugs.' The barrel-shaped jug is a characteristic Cypriote type, which has attracted the interest of foreign potters, and its shape has been imitated in various parts of the Mediterranean; The specimens found in Egypt,' Rhodes,' and Crete' are fairly closely related to the Cypriote prototype. The Attic and Boiotian jugs> have developed the pointed and knobbed ends into projections in the shape of railway-buffers, and one jug is provided with a base-disc or a wide, short foot. Other specimens found in Etrurian show further modifications of the type: the barrel-shaped body has flat ends and a stemmed. foot. The sack-shaped jug with pinched rimv is another Cypriote type of pottery which has given rise to imitations in Rhodes,v Crete,> the Cyclades,» and Boiotia.v The decoration of the Rhodian, Cretan, and Cycladic specimens - encircling lines and concentric circles - shows their closer contact with the Cypriote prototype than the Boiotian jug. Jugs with pinched rim and usually decorated with encircling and intersecting lines, concentric circles,v etc. frequently found in Rhodes clearly imitate Cypriote prototypes.v Similar jugs are known from other places, e. g., Cretev and Athens.v Sometimes the Cypriotes modelled a human face on the neck of jugs» and occasionally
CXXXIl, No. I), Fig. 139, though this specimen is more of the Phoenician type; Pi. II, Tomb XVIII, No. I (Ialysos); op. cit. IV, p. 51 (Tomb IV, NO.5), Fig. 22; p. 359 (Tomb CCV, NO.4), Fig. 399 (Kameiros). lOp. cit. III, pp. 82 f., (Tomb XLVIII, Nos. I, 2), Fig. 73; IV, p. 387, Fig. 445; Lindos I, Nos. 1041, 1042, Pi. 48. 2 BOEHLAU. op. cit., p. 147, Pi. VII, 3, 4, 6,7· • Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, Beil. XXII, I. 4· 4 Mon. Ant. XVII, 1906. p. 676, Fig. 503 (Gela). Similar specimens were found at Syracuse and Megara Hyblaia (loc. cit.). . 6 PETRIE, Nebesheh and Defenneh (in Tanis II, etc.), Pi. XXXV, 44 (the camp of Daphnai). Similar jugs were also found at Naukratis, as mentioned in op, cit., p. 64· 8 Figs. XXVII, 6; XXXV, 3, 4; XLI, 14; XLIII, 13· 7 Very common in Carthage: GAUCKLER, op, cit. I, PIs. XX, LXXIX;C, CLIII, CLXIII, CLXXIl, CCIX-CCXI; Mus. de l' Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie I), p. 156, Pi. XXV, 12; Mon. Ant. XXX,1925. p. 184; Pi. II, 5; Corp. Vas. Ant., Pologne 54, Fasc. I, Pi. 54: 3; U. S. A. 129, Fasc. 3, Pl, XLIV, 25; WHITAKER, Motya, p. 297, Fig. 73; Amer. Jour;n. Arch. XXXI, 1937, p. 309, Fig. 20. 8 E. g., Mon. Ant. XV, 1905, PIs. VII, 7; XXI, 10; Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark.zoc, Fasc, 5, Pi. 197: i-4; Gr. Brit. 445, Fasc. 10,"Pi. 14: 9,10; 452,Fasc.lo, Pi. 21: 17, 18. 9 Fig. XXV, 9, lo;cf. Figs. XIX, 4; XXII, II, 12; XXVIII, 17-20, etc, 10 KINCH, Vroulia. Pi. 37 (Tomb z,No. 29); Clara Rhodos III, p. 39, (Tomb IX, NO.4), Fig. 24; p. 91 (Tom.b LIV,
Nos. 9, 10), Fig. 85; p. 94 (Tomb LVI, NO.3), Fig. 90; p. 100 (Tomb LVIII, Nos. 1,2), Fig. 93;P. 108 (Tomb LXIV, NO.3), Fig. 101; p. 134, Fig. 126 (Ialysos); VI-VII, p. 124 (Tomb XXXIX, NO.3), Figs. 135, 137; p. 201 (Tomb LXXXIII, NO.4), Fig. 240 (Kameiros); Lindos I, Pi. 48, No. 1043. 11 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 107, Fig. 84; p. 260, Fig. 314; p. 301, Figs. 399, 400 (Arkades); Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, p. 254, Pi. IX, 8-11 (Knossos); XXXI, p. 66, Fig. 10, Nos. 28, 29 (Episkopi); Corp. Vas. Ant., Gr. Brit. 381, Fasc; 9, Pi. I, 6 (Psychro). 12 Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, pp. 160 ff., Beil. XIX, 8, II; XX, I (Thera) . I. Mon. Ant. XVII, 1906, p. 212, Fig. 168 (Gela), 14 Clara Rhodos III, p. 86, Fig. 76 (Ialysos); VI-VII, p. 76, Fig. 83; p. 190, Figs. 224, 225 (Kameiros); VIII, p. 172 (Tomb 51, NO.9), Fig. 161 (Ialysos). 15 Ann. Brit. School Athens VIII, Pi. IX, d (Praises): XXXI, Pi. XII (Fortezza). 16 Delos X, Pi. IX, 38. 17 Athen. Mitt. XLIII, 1918, PIs. IV, I; VI, 5· 18 Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, Pi. XL, 7 (Cumae). 19 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, 1926; p. 307, Fig. 204 (Ialysos); Clara Rhodos III, p.66 (Tomb XXXVII, No. 12), Fig. 54, Pi. II (Ialysos}}.kINCH, Vroulia, PIs. 34 (Tomb 2, NO.5), 4-1 (Tomb IS, No.2). 20 Thera I1,p. 19, Fig. 18. 21 Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, Pi. XL, 6. 22 Figs. XXVIII, 2IfXXXVIII, I I , 12; XXXIX, 9, 10.
1 SIEVEKING & HACKL, Kgl. Vasensamml. zu Munchen I, Pi. 29, Nos. 720, 723, 724, 733, 736; ALBIZZATI, Vasi ant. dipinti del Vaticano, Pi. 14, Nos. 193, 194; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XV, 1900, p. 184, Figs. 24, 25; Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, Pi. LV, 2; Not. Scavi, 1940, p. 383, Fig. 5: 15-18. Connection with the Corinthian juglets is shown by the fact that the handles run from rim to shoulder, whereas on the Cypriote specimens from neck to shoulder. 2 Cf. e. g., SIEVEKING & HACKL, op. cit., Pi. 29, Nos. 723, 724 with PAYNE, Necrocorinthia, p. 270, Fig. II4. a Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 131, Fig. 151. 4 Fig. XVI, 4. 5 Figs. XXXV, I; XXXIX, I. 6 Op. cit. VI-VII, p. 198, (Tomb LXXXII, No.6), Fig. 232 (Kameiros). 7 PETRIE, op. cit. Pi. XXXIV, 29 (Daphnai). 8 Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 66, Fasc, 2, Pi. 65: 3 (Massari-Mallona), 9 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 272, Fig. 337 (Arkades), 10 Athen. Mitt. XIII, 1888, p. 288 (with Fig.): NICOLE, Cat. vases Mus. Nat; d'Athenes, Suppl., No. 778, Pi. III. The decoration of the former jug also betrays Cypriote influence.
11 Not. Scavi., 1928, pp. 454 f., Pi. IX; AKERSTROM, Der geom. Stil in Italien, pp. 63 f., Pi. 12: 4 (Bisenzio); MINTO, Marsiliana, Pi. LI; a third specimen mentioned by AKERSTROM, op. cit., p. 64 in the Museum of Tarquinia. 12 Figs. XXXVIII, 21, 22; XLVI, 12; XLIX, 5; LII, 8. 13 Clara Rhodos III, p. 106 (Tomb LXII, No.2), Fig. 99 (Ialysos). 14 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, Pi. VIII, 6 (Knossos); Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 225, Fig. 253 (Arkades), 15 Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, Beii. XIX, 6 (Thera). 18 Op. cit. XXVI; 1901, p. 35, Fig. I. 17 Figs. XXV, 18; XXXIX, 2; XLI, 13. 18 Clara Rhodos III, p. 37 (Tomb VI, NO.3); p. 38 (Tomb IX, No. I), Fig. 24; pp. 85 if. (Tomb LI, Nos. 1,5), Fig. 75; pp._ 94 f. (Tomb LIV, Nos. I, 2, 4-6), Figs. 84, 85; IV, p. 350 (Tomb CCIII, No. I), Fig. 392. 19 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, I93I.P. 229, Fig. 261; p. 316; Fig; 413; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, p. 252, Fig. 18. 20 Cf.p. 300. 21 Figs. XXIX, II; XXXV, 10; XXXIX, 14, 15; XLII, 4, 5·
29 8
FOREIGN RELATIONS POTTERY
on other 'vessels, too. Jugs of this category have inspired Rhodian potters to similar plastic representations. 1 A connection with Cyprus is corroborated by the fact that the shape of Rhodian vases also betrays Cypriote influence, but when we find human masks, e. g., on a hydria from Boiotia- and also attached to the necks of Etruscan bucchero vases,> we can.not take this as an evidence of Cypriote influence, since the shape of these vases speaks against such a supposition. It is well-known that vases with human faces on t~e neck ~~e commo.n in Troy, and one may therefore consider the possibility of an Anatohan. tr~dltlOn of this kind, from whence both Cyprus and Etruria derived their types.s This IS, however, a mere guess. . The Cypriote jugs with a protome or a tubular spout on the shoulders were evidently popular in Crete, and inspired the Cretan potters to provide their jugs with protome. or tubular spouts.' One jug, from Fortezza,r clearly imitates both the shape and t~e decoration of the Cypriote prototypes. Jugs of this type were spread further W. to the Pumc settlements in North Africa. a The Cypriote amphorae with pointed base and erect l~op-hand~eso were locally manufactured in Rhodes,> and some of the specimens found m Palestine and Egypt may also be of local manufacture.» . . A Black Figured amphora found at Amathus» is of Cypriote shape WIth hor~zontal handles on the body, and a Black Figured jug found at the same plac~ also s~ows ~nfluence from the Cypriote type with pinched rim.> It seems likely that thIS occas~onal ~nfluence f~om Cyprus on the shapes of the Black Figured pottery was due to a consideration of the Importer's taste. . . . We have seen that the Cypriote influence represented by mutations of pot~e~ shapes reached Sicily and Italy (cf. above), and this influence also penetrated .to. Sardinia, w~ere an amphora found at NoraH is clearly influenced by ~he ~hape characte~Istic ofthe Cypnote amphorae of Type V (biconical body and. neck wldem~g .upwards). . We turn now to an examination of the influences as indicated by the decoration, The ornament consisting of concentric pendant arcs is represented already in the Mycenaean period. IS It is supposed to have survived in Cypriote pottery of the early Iron Age and to have reached Greece from Cyprus in the 8th-7th cent. B. C.n It should be noted, however,
299 that there is no early Iron Age pottery in Cyprus decorated with this kind of ornament. The1 ~arliest Cypriote pottery thus decorated dates from the. beginning of Cypro-Geometric III, 1. e., the later part of the 9th cent. B. C., and connection with the Mycenaean hook~haped .orn~ment cannot therefore be proved. I think, however, that Friis Johansen is right m considering the Greek ornament as derivative from Cyprus and not vice versa, since the ornament appears somewhat earlier in Cyprus than in Greece; in Greece the ornament occurs almost exclusively on juglets with a handle from rim to shoulder (the type discussed 06 on p. 3 ), while it is found in Cyprus on vases of different shape; finally, the vertical rows of concentric circles, which form a characteristic ornament of the Greek juglets referred to also indicate a Cypriote influence. Greek vases decorated with this ornament have been found in Rhodes,» the Cyclades, 3 Aigina,» Phaleron.« Sicily,> and Cumae.t This area of extension indicates the main route of commerce from Cyprus via Rhodes to the islands and coasts of the western colonies of Greece - a trade route indicated by so much other evidence.
Th~ many conta~ts between Cypriote and Cretan pottery make it highly probable that the bichrome techmque of decoration used on the Cretan vases from the end of the 8th cent. and the 7th cent. B. C. is due to influence from Cyprus, a where the bichrome technique was much in favour (p. 28 7). Characteristically Cypriote is the rhomboid ornament flanked by opposing triangles gradually transformed into wings.s This motive occurs also on Cretan pottery of the 7 th cent. B. C., where the flanking part of the ornament is further developed into bees.> The Cypriote type of bird with one wing raised above the neck is also common in Crete and the Cyclades, but very rare in other parts of Greece. This may indicate another connecti~~ link between Cypr~s, Crete, .and the Cyclades, but we must also reckon with the possibility of a parallel survival of Mmoan-Mycenaean tradition in Crete and in Cyprus.» Anoth~r char~cteristic C!priote ornament, which appears at the very beginning of CyproGeometnc III, IS that of mtersecting lines sweeping over the body of the jugs in vertical and horizontal series. This ornament was adopted by Rhodian potters,» and was also spread 1
Cf. p, 55.
KINCH, Vroulia, PI. 41 (Tomb 17, No.6); Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII, p. 306 (Tomb LIII, Nos. 14-21), Fig. 203 (Ialysos; ornaments not visible on the illustration); Clara Rhodos III, p. 65, Fig. 55 (Ialysos); VI-VII, p. 46, Figs. 39, 40; p. 49, Fig. 45; p. 73, Fig. 78; p. 132 (Tomb XLV, NO·4), Fig. 148 (Kameiros); Lindos I, pp, 301 ff., Figs. 4 0-42; PI. 48, Nos. 1050, 1053. 3 Thera II, p. 179, Fig. 370 a, b (Thera, Paros); p. 3 15 (Melos); Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, p. 175 (Thera); Delos X, No. 529, PI. VII (ornament in question not visible on the illustration). 2
1 Clara Rhodos III, p. 94 (Tomb LVI, No.2), Fig. 90; pp. 101 f. (Tomb LVIII, Nos. 13-16), Fig. 94. 2 Arch. Ane., 1898, p. 191, Fig. 5. 3 DUCATI, Storia dell'arte etrusca, p. 296, PI. 123, No. 322; Corp. Vas. Ant., Danemark 217, Fasc, 5, PI. 214: 2, 3; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, H 213 if. 4 Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XV, 1900, pp. 162 f. s Figs. XIX, 12, 13; XXIX, 7-9; XXXV, 6; XLII, 3; L, 3, 4; LIV, 4-9· S Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p, 1I4, Fig. 93; p. 148, Fig. 147; p. 212, Fig. 236; p. 315, Fig. 412; p. 420, Fig. 553; p. 489, Fig. 592 C, No. 13; p. 503, Fig. 596 (Arkades); Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, p. 249, Fig. 15 (Knossos).
Op. cit. XXXI, p. 63, Fig. 8. Mus. de l'Algerie II (Mus. de Constantine), pp. 107 f., PI. XII, 1-3.o Figs. LVII, 23; LXIII, 10. 10 Clara Rhodos III, PI. IV (Ialysos, Tombs LXXVII, CXXI, CXXIX); IV, PI. VIII (Kameiros, Tombs CXXXI, CXLII, CXLIX, CLVIII-CLX, CCX). 11 Cf. pp. 241, n. 4; 242; 247 f. 12 Exc. in Cyp., p. 1I0, Fig. 161. 13 Op. cit., p. 105, Fig. 152: 4; cf. p. 104, Fig. 151: 3. It Mon. Ant. XIV, 1904, PIs. XIX-XX, 5. 15 E. g. Fig. XLVII,!. IS FURUMARK, Myc. Pottery, p, 299, Fig. 47, Mot. 19: 49-59. 17 FRIIS JOHANSEN, Vases sicyon., pp. 42 f. 7
a
4 FURTWANGLER, Aegina, p. 435, No. 17; PI. 127: 4. s FRIIS JOHANSEN, op. cit., p. 43. sLoe. cit. 7
Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, pp. 228, 264, 278, PI. XLII, 4 a.
a FRIIS JOHANSEN, op. cit., p. 59, n. I; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, pp. 280 ff. o Swed. Cyp. Exp, II, PIs. XCV, I; CIX, I; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 851. 10 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, pp. 293 ff., Fig. 39. 11 Ibid., pp. 28 9 f. 12 Clara Rhodos III, p. 37 (Tomb VI, NO.3); pp. 4 8 f., Fig. 39; pp. 94 f., Figs. 84, 85. For the encircling and intersecting lines are often substituted broad bands, sometimes alone forming the whole decoration, a simplified style, quite uncharacteristic for the Cypriote pottery, even if such broad bands are occasionally used in the Cypriote decoration [cf. e. g., the Rhodian jug, op. cit. III, p. 95, Fig. 85 (bottom row, right), with Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CVII, I]. The shapes of the Rhodian specimens, on the other hand, are not infrequently very similar to, and sometimes identical with, the corresponding Cypriote types, and it is therefore
FOREIGN RELATIONS
3°0
POTTERY
to the Cyclades,' Crete," and Athens. 3 The Athenian specimens are late Geometric dating from the second half of the 8th cent. and from the beginning of the 7th cent. B. C.; the Cretan jug was found in Tomb Rat Arkades, and dates from the 7th cent. B. C.; the juglet found in Thera seems to be of Cretan provenience, and also dates from the 7th cent. B. C. The earliest Rhodian specimens are of the 8th cent. B. C., and imitate prototypes of CyproGeometric III, but most of them. are evidently influenced by Cypro-Archaic I types, and thus date from the 7th cent. B. C. The eye-ornament appearing in Cyprus from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III particularly on the lip of the jugs with a pinched rim has been transmitted westwards to Greece, where we find it used in the same position on similar jugs of e. g., the Rhodian and Fikellura fabrics. 4 The part played by Cyprus in the transfer of the guilloche ornament (cf. above, p. 289) to Greece is particularly clear as far as concerns the vertical guilloche pattern. This appears on Cretan bronze shields,' on Rhodian, Naukratite, Cretan, Cycladic, Proto-Attic, and Proto-Corinthian pottery.' It occurs already on Oriental cylinders of the znd millennium B. C., but in the rst millennium B. C. there are no exact Oriental parallels to the Greek specimens except in Cyprus, where it is very common on the pottery of Type IV dating from Cypro-Archaic I. 7 We are justified in considering Cyprus to have contributed to the penetration of this ornament into Greece. This becomes particularly evident if we look at the ornaments on a hydria from Sitia in Crete- and amphorae from the Cyclades.' These ornaments, which are executed in reserved technique on a dark background and framed by vertical parallel lines, closely imitate the Cypriote prototypes. Another indication of connections with Cyprus is given by the fact that the combination of rosettes and guilloche, a characteristic Cypriote feature,> appears on the Cretan bronze shield mentioned above and also in Proto-Attic pottery.v Kunze denies that the Cypriote pottery could have contributed to the transference of this ornament to Greece, because the Cypriote pottery is provincial, of rather bad style, was not exported to Greece, and is hardly of such an early date as the Greek specimens decorated with the ornament in question. An aesthetic opinion of the Cypriote pottery is Irrelevant to the problem. Cypriote vases of the style here in question were exported to the W. and have been found at Troy, 12 and the close imitation often difficult to distinguish Rhodian and Cypriote specimens ofthe undecorated wares (Red Slip and Black-Grey Polished) on other evidence than the different clay and slip. 1 Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, p. 162, Beil. XX, 6(C 64). 2 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 302, Fig. 401. 3 Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XIV, 1899, p. 212, Figs. 90, 91; Athen. Mitt. XLIII, 1918, pp. 143 ff, Pi. VI, 2; npaM. 't'ij~ 'ApX.. 'E'ta~p., 1934, p. 36, Fig. 9; YOUNG, Late Geom. Graves and a Seventh Cent. Well in the Agora, pp. 174 f., Fig. 133 (p. 183); Hesperia VIII, 1939, p. 227, Fig. 21. 4 PFUHL, Malerei u. Zeichn, d. Griech. I, pp. 138, 157; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXIV, p. 58. s KUNZE, Kret. Bronzerel., Pl. I. • Op. cit., pp. 95 f., with references. 7 Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pl. CLXVII, 3; Brit. Mus. Cat., <
Vases, I: 2, Pi. VII; CESNOLA, CXXI, 922. • Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene
Atlas
II, Pis. CXVIII, 912;
X-XII, 1931, p. 593, Fig.
641. • Thera II, pp. 212 f., Figs. 419 a, 420; Delos XVII, Pl. III, 5a, 6a. 10 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pl. CLXVII, 3; Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, Pl. VII; CESNOLA, Atlas II, Pl. CXXI, 922; cf. KUNZE, op, cit., p. 96. 11 BUSCHOR, Griech. Vasen, p. 37, Fig. 43; cf, Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXV, Pl. 54, C. 12 Cf. p. 262. It is not clear from the description if the fragments found were decorated with guilloche pattern, but the type of the pottery (Bichrome IV) is identical with that on which guilloche ornaments occur.
3°1
o~ the Cypriote prototype particularly illustrated by the ornament on the Siti h d . t e oth er vases denotes acquaintance with Cypriote exports On th th hilda y n~ and out also by Kunze this Cypriote 0 tati . e 0 er an , as pointed , rnamen anon IS most p b bl d . d f prototypes, and we should therefore also reckon with th ~ob;. Y henve .rom textile exported to Greece served as an 0 I e pro a ] ity t at Cypnote textiles rnamenta source of inspirati t G k . pottery and metal in the same way the d .d C' IOn 0 ree artists in I h 11 as cy 1 to ypnote potters 1 s. a return below (p. 304) to the question of the chronologic~1 C ypnote and Greek pottery fabrics. interrelation of the The concentric circle ornament was also introd d j Cypro-Geometric III as we know and in C uce . into ~yprus at the beginning of minant role in the decoration of the C . ypro-Archalc I this ornament played a predoypnote pottery Thi ". I I " influence upon the decoration of some f h' IS eire e stye has exercised an o:: judging the matter one must rememb:: ~h: e conte~por.ary Greek pottery, but in Proto-Geometric and Geometric p tt . G concentnc Circle ornament occurs on o ery m reece and the C . t '. ornament can therefore by itself hardl b .d ' . yprlO e concentnc Circle the corresponding Greek ornament s Yth ~ consi ered to have mfluenced the creation of considered We hav h ' 0 a, on the contrary, a reversed relation' must be
conse~uently,e~heo~:::~
~;~;:~~fr~lote
ano.t~er
and, ::: circle styl\has origin (pp, 287 f.), with each other Th h . e ornaments ave ongmally nothing to do . ey may, owever, have mfluenced each oth t I order to settle that question it is necessar . er a a ~te~ stage, and in clusivelycharacteristic of the one g ~ to e~qU1re whether some stylistic qualities ex-
appears that the developed Cypriote :~:e s:yV~ h::: bor~owded ~Yflthe other one. It then ation of th xercise an m uence upon the decorThus the palrticublarly in Rhodes, the Cyclades, and Crete. , us eire es ands of circles fr d b ' I' . covering the sides of jugs and sin I 'f " arne y encirc ing lines are typically Cypriote, and when ;ee :~~up: 0 concentnc Circles placed on the shoulder
s;s~::e;~:::;~IG~::~igPUoottery,.
Cycladic, and Cretan pottery,> this is certai~1 e ;~~e orna~ent~1 syntax used on .Rhodian, is further corroborated by the fact that y f h 0 Cypnote influence, a conclusion which 1For the g 'U h many 0 t e Greek vases thus decorated also show U1 oc e pattern used as a textile ornament ) F' cf. PERROT & CHIPIEZ Hist de l'art II 7 1, F' ' 5, Ig. 99; p. 107 (Tomb LXIII, NO.2)' p 108 (Tomb ' z X , . , p. 7 Ig. 443' LXIV ' . D e os VII, Pis. XII, XIII. ' " No. 3,) F'ig, 101. The group of tremulous lines 2 A B' S which occur on th . " . nn, rtt. chool Athens XXXI p 63 Fig 8' Th II e imrtatron specimens, are not typical' ' ' . , . , era 6, ofthe Cypriote rep' ertoi f p. 179, Frg, 370; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VI-VII ' . orre 0 ornaments. They are represented p. 279, F'rg. 178, NO.7, to which parallels . , 192, In Syria Palestine A' Black- R d II ,,' , sra M'inor, the East-Greek region (IV), are illustrated in Szoed. Cyp. Exp. iI PI ~;;I . SIcIly, an~ Italy (cf. besides the instances quoted in Clar~ CLXVIII , 12,. CLXXXVII, 4 (bottom row ,s , 5, F' Rhodos: Lmdos I p 306 F' 9th ' fr I ft " , rg, 42,. The ra II, pp. 179, 314 A. I. 205). The freely drawn concentric circle~ ar f~ ,e, -rgs, 370, 502, 5°4; Athen. Mitt. XXII, 1897, p. 245' XLIII' evidence of the local char~cter of th I I e su ~Ient 19 18, pp. 145 ff.; Rom. Mitt. XIII, 1898, pp, 333 ff· ~NDALL' d .,e a ysos specimen MACIVER Vili quote d above. Other instances of local manufacnne, onI' ' I I anoo, y In Ant XXXI . 6 an I Early Etrusc., Pi. 33: 2, 7'' Mon . part mfluenced by Cypriote prototypes aze found' Cla . ,92 , I, P. XV,S). Further, the syntax of the Rhodos I,p. 7, 6 F'rg, 58 (cf, p. 262 n. 6)' ~III p 7In(T ra ornaments'are " circles b . non-Cypri10te.. the rows 0 f concentnc 3 VI, NO.3); p. 38 (Tomb VIII, No . 2)''p are s.ometimes by parallel lines, the circles are separ, . 3'8 ('Tom bOImX ated b ' framed r No. I), Fig. 24; p. 48 (Tomb XXII Nos 2. 4) F ' : y ZIgzag mes or united by groups of oblique and 39, tremulous lines,n a d the concentric " CIrcles are sometimes Pp. 85 ff. (Tom b LI, Nos. I, 5), Fig. '75; p.'" 94 (Tombrg.LVI. lace NO·3), Fig. 90; p. 100 (Tomb LVIII No 2) F' ,~d on the lower part of the body below the encircling p. 1°5 (Tomb LXI,Nos. 2,3); p. 105 (T~mb LX~I ~. 93; lines - all stylisti.c features entirely unknown to the Cypriote , os, 2, syntax of decoration, <
,
l'
,
POTTERY
3°3
FOREIGN RELATIONS
3°2 Cypriote influence as regards their shape (d. p. 297)· The system of horizontal rows of concentric circles framed by encircling lines does not afford the same unquestionable criterion of Cypriote influence, because, though characteristic of Cypriote pottery, this also represents an independent Greek decorative system, but when we find these ornaments used in the same places on vessels of similar form as the Cypriote ones, and the ornamental syntax is similar, we may also consider these horizontal rows of concentric circles as an indication of Cypriote influence, e. g., rows of concentric circles on the raised rim of bowls, on the neck and body of jars, jugs, and amphorae, etc.' This influence extended to Sicily and Italy.' Most of the rows of concentric circles in Sicily and Italy seem, however, to indicate Greek rather than Cypriote influence. Some painted pottery in western Anatolia," on the other hand, seems to be influenced by the Cypriote concentric circle-decoration. Poulsen' and Friis johansen' have already pointed out that the Rhodian lotus flower was derived from the Phoenician type with two larger petals, which was also represented in Cyprus (d. above, p. 29r) . Kunze considers the prototype to be Assyrian, though he admits the possibility, but by no means the necessity, of Phoenician transmission.' The prototype of the Rhodian lotus must, however, have five petals, like the Phoenician variety, and the Assyrian lotus has usually nine petals,' as the corresponding Egyptian prototype. The Phoenician lotus is a simplification of this type, which is evident both from the reduction of the petals and the diagrammatic rendering of the calyx. The Phoenician and Rhodiall lotuses thus belong to the same typological category, and there is, therefore, no reason to doubt the derivation of the Rhodian lotus from the Phoenician type. As the Phoenician type was also represented in Cyprus, the main interest in this context is therefore to discuss the question whether Cypriote influence has contributed to the formation of the Rhodian lotus or not.' Since the Phoenician and Cypriote lotuses are of the same type, the question would seem to be impossible to settle, but on closer examination we obtain 2, PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. II, pp. 316 ff., Figs. 13 1, 13 135, 13 PUCHSTEIN, Die ion. Saute, pp. 16 r., Figs. 17, 18; 6; ANDRAE, Farbige Keramik aus Assur, p. 18, Fig. 10; PIs. 12; 14, b; 19. True, two specimens with only five petals are known from Assyria (op. cit., p. 18, Fig. 9; PIs. 13; 14, a), but they are of late Assyrian or even post-Assyrian date, and cannot therefore be considered as the prototypes of the Phoenician lotus. On the contrary, we are justified in considering these late sporadic and irregular Assyrian specimens as influenced by the Phoenician type. Further, KUNZE (op. cit., p. 101) tries to show that the Phoenician type of lotus was sometimes more than five-petalled, but the specimens referred to by him (POULSEN, op, cit., P: 54, Fig. 49; p. 68, Fig. 69; p. 69, Fig. 71) are not conclusive, because, as already pointed out by poulsen, on the first specimen, an ivory relief from Spain, the lotuses are copied from Assyrian prototypes, as shown by the shape of the calyx, and on the second and third specimens, decorated tridacna shells, the Phoenician artists have freely copied Egyptian proto7
1 E. g., Delos xv, PIs. XXXIX, 51; XL, 53; Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 210, Fig. 23 2; p, 213, Fig. 237; p. 216, Fig. 242; P: 217, Fig. 243; p. 218, Fig. 244; p. 221, Fig. 249; p. 224, Fig. 252; p. 225, Fig. 253; p. 235, 87, Fig. 272; p. 236, Fig. 276; p. 242, Fig. 284; p. 244, Figs. 2 288; p. 25 6, Fig. 307; etc.; Journ. Hell. Stud. LX, 1940,
p. 5, Fig. 2 a. " Cf, AKERSTROM, Der, geom. Stu in Italien, PIs. I: 5; 27: 6. 3 KORTE, Gordion, pp. 178 ff.; Arch. Anz., 1934, pp. 4°1 f., Fig. 28 (p, 39 6). The concentric circle_decoration of the Iron Age pottery in central Anatolia has no Cypriote connections, the ornamental syntax being quite different from 28 that of Cyprus (cf, The Alishar Huyak, Seasons of 19 and 19 29, I, pp. 247 ff., Figs. 320, 321, 323; PIs. XXX-XL, XLVI; II, p. 43, Fig. 44; Seasons of 193°-3 2, II, pp. 353 ff., Figs. 403, 404, 408, 421-4 24, 433, 437-439, 449, 450,452-456,458-462,464-471; III, pp. 53 ff., Figs. 58, 64, 67)· 'POULSEN, Der Orient u. d. fruhgr. Kunst; p. 89· 6 FRIIS JOHANSEN, op. cit., pp. 121 ff, B KUNZE, op. cit., pp. 101 f.
F"rg. 42. Cypriote (left) and Rhodian (right). lotus ornaments.
a clue to the problem. It turns out that details of the I t only in Cyprus, have inspired the Rh di . 0 us ornament, which are represented 0 Ian vase-painters to a correspon dimg development of th e motiif. I refer first to the C . lotus wi . 1 ypnote otus WIth larg t 1 e ou er peta .. s strongly recurved as spIra s and centre latticed or decorated'WIith a rosette 1 This d ornament as been further devel d b h '. geometncize rendering of the h e petals into real spirals and add d oPd . Y t e ~hodlans, who transformed the recurved , . e a ragrammatic flower h d b ti - ea etween the spirals and the centra ower" instead of the petal s F th 1fl h ome rmes inserted at this pl . h C ur er, t e small ring at the base of f h ace m t e ypriote ornaments lotuses- i . se 1C . many 0 t e early Rhodi vera ypnote specimens.' Finally th th Ian otuses' IS also typical of. l ' f h ' e ree-petalled type f rom t e Egyptian lily,« is represented by exactl simil o. otus, .1. e., the type derivative The appearance of these Cypriote e li .! ~I ar speCImens m Cyprus and Rhodes . . P cu ranties m the fo f f h . rma IOn 0 t e Rhodian lotus ornaments indicate that their prot t Th 0 ypes were not only Ph .. b 0:1l1Clan, ut also Cypriote. ere are also certain indications that the" . fl pictorial style introduced by the pottery of Cypro-Geometric III has excercised ti te G an in uence on the d mporary reek pottery. I refer to L G .' ecora rve motifs of the conKerameikos in Athens. The interior :f t~~e b eolm:tnc bowl found in the necropolis at women in front of a deity seated on a th IS ~whshiS decorated with a group of dancing has a st nikimg parallel in that found on rone th WIt 11 der feet on a st 001.7 ThiIS representation the sphinx included in the decoration of :h::-:~ e Hubbar~ amphora (p. 62), and even from Kerameikos. On the other h d phora has ItS counterpart on the bowl . an , we must reck ith h pamter may have been inspired by . '1 on WI t e possibility that the Attic th b SImI ar representations C . as e ronze bowls of the first and second Pro . on ypnote metal bowls, such 2 The solid rosette with eight I . to-Cypnote phase (p. 15 ) . or more eaves IS found as an ornament in Proto-Corinthian , B
1 Fig. 42. "GOODYEAR XVI ( ) , The Gram mar p. 144 I 3
,3 6
types. 8 KUNZE, op. cit., p. 103 denies influence from Cyprus.
.~ OJ
the Lotus, pp. 14 1 f
.,
PI
E. g., KI~C~, 'Vroulia, p. 195 ,Ig. F' E 7 6 ,a. . g., CESNOLA, Atlas II PIs CIX 8 Cf ' . ,71" C XXI 9 6 . FRIIS JOHANSEN , 0.... " 2. y. C1't ., pp. 120 ff.
.
Atlas II, PI . CXXI PI.B 4CESNOLA, 2. , 925; KINCH, Vroulia, 6: 7 Athen. Mitt. XVIII 18 . has also drawn atte t.' 93, pp, 113 rr., Fig. 10. P. Dikaios n Ion to the b I f K . ow rom erameikos in his publication of the H bb d Athens XXXVII 6)u ar amphora (Ann. Brit. School ,p. 5·
FOREIGN RELATIONS POTTERY
Proto-Attic, Theran, and Rhodian art, but above all in the Corinthian pottery.' It is generally agreed that this type of rosette is derived from the corresponding Assyrian ornament (cf. p. 290).2 If Cyprus, where, as we know, this type or rosette was represented, contributed to the penetration of the ornament into the Greek world it is impossible to say, as no particularly Cypriote criteria of style are found in the Greek ornaments. The same holds good for the open palmettes and sacred tree of superimposed plant ornaments. Friis Johansen is in favour of the theory that the superimposed ornaments, which appear in different Greek wares of the Orientalizing period, are derived from Cypriote prototypes,' but the theory cannot be proved. Similar ornaments are also found on the Asiatic mainland, whence the Cypriotes no doubt borrowed them (pp. 290 f.), and in so far as no Cypriote peculiarities of style are reflected by the Greek ornaments we must content ourselves with the general statement of their Oriental origin. The role played by Cyprus in the cultural contact between the Orient and Greece should not be over-estimated as was usual in earlier days nor underrated as is often the case in our time. The contribution of Cyprus to the cultural exchange here in question was considerable, but there was also much direct contact between the Asiatic mainland and Greece. Some concluding remarks. The fact that' some Oriental ornaments, e. g., the guilloche pattern and the superimposed plant ornaments are not hitherto represented on Cypriote pottery earlier than Cypro-Archaic I, while they appear on Greek pottery usually assigned to the end of the 8th cent. B. C., should not lead us to believe that Cyprus took no part in the transfer of these ornaments to Greece, because - apart from the fact that the date of the early Orientalizing Greek pottery is probably somewhat too high, and should be reduced accordingly- - the prototypes were in many cases non-ceramic, both in Cyprus and in other parts of the Near East, and these nonceramic prototypes may of course have been included in the well documented Cypriote export trade to Greece during the 8th cent. B. C. The Cypriote potters may sometimes have made use of certain motifs somewhat later than their Greek colleagues, but for that reason the role played by Cyprus in the transfer of these motifs should not be considered less important than that, e. g., of the Phoenicians, in whose ceramic art they were never introduced so far as our present evidence goes. Finally, we should remember that floral designs and pictorial motifs - breaking up the strictly geometrical decoration of the earlier Iron Age pottery of Cyprus - are represented already in Cypro-Geometric III, and the Cypriote counterpart to the Greek Orientalizing style is thus quite as early, and earlier than the earliest possible date of the latter. We proceed to an examination of the Greek influence on the shapes of Cypriote pottery. The basket-shaped vessels of White Painted and Bichrome 115 seem to be derived from the corresponding open-work kalathoi, which appear in Proto-Geometric Greek pottery, and continue in the Geometric period and subsequently.' On the other hand, open-work 1 2
3
PAYNE, Necrocorinthia, p. 53. Loc, cit.; PFUHL, op. cit. I, pp. 113, 116. FRIIS JOHANSEN, op, cit., pp. 58 f.
In addition to the new Cypriote evidence I refer to that of Tell Sheikh Yusuf (pp. 254 ff.), Perachora (PAYNE, 4
Perachora, p. 77, cf, particularly n. 2) and to the conclusions of AKERSTROM, op. cit., pp. 32 ff., with further references. 5 Figs. XIII, 3; XVI, 2. • HALL, Vrokastro, p. 127, PI. XXXI; Jahrb. deutsch, arch. Inst, III, 1888, p. 341, Fig. 23; Athen. Mitt. XVIII.
3°5 vessels of this kind have been found in P I f l ' type. seems therefore to be ultimately O/~;i~:~a~ r;a~y I~ the Late Bronze Age;: and the specimens must be found in the 0' t b c envation, but more and safely dated . nenelore the questi b d fi . ' DIshes and bowls with handles t ' " on can ne e nitely settled, ermInatIng In outwa d t d . : II ",r - urne , pointed ends appear in Cyprus at the very end of Cypro-G eometnc and m Cypro ' III ,2 and are I obvi vious y influenced by the G' d S " , - G eometnc e~m,-,tnc an ub-GenmAtr' G k di h , . similar handles. 3 and the sa I h ld v ~ IC :ee IS es and bowls with . me a so 0 s good for th I d I handle affixed to the rim of th di h b .e ater eve opment of this type of 4 in Cypro-Archaic 1.5 e is or owl. ThIS type of handle appears in Cyprus a'
The shallow bowl with flat rim pierced b tw ' Cyprus in Cypro-Archaic I is also fo d"y RhO dsuspenswn-holes,. which appears in Mil . , u n In 7 the Cyclad D I 1 esian area of colonization e g H' t . d i E 0 es .' es, e. g., e OS,8 the I: d ' . ., IS ria,> an In truna 10 The d ' f h h .' ecoratron 0 t e specimens roun in Rhodes and Etruria I a so s ow connectIOn ith h f Ii s WI t at 0 the Cypriote bowls: on their flat rim there are groups of tran Etruria, Rhodes and Cyprus thus I: sverse mes or band strokes,« The bowls found in , rorm a group of p ti I I ' . bowls found in Etruria are of I I f ar ICU ar y mtimate relationship. The manu acture and co Rh d' oca b owls appear contemporaneously in C d ' . py 0 Ian prototypes. These yprus an In Rhodes 12 Th . h more common and characteristic of the Rh d' d' h . e suspension, oles are The stemmed bowl of Bichrome IV War:14I~: IS es and b~wI~13 :han of the Cypriote. Ionian stemmed bowls IS The C ' , ~ been made In ImItation of the Rhodoypnote speCImen IS provid d 'th ' h . e WI stnng- oles at the rim a characteristically Cypriote feature h' h ' ' I h ' W IC IS not found in the Rh d I . n t e Greek Sub-Geometric pottery there i h " 0 0- oman prototypes. foot to the bowl and the occasional . sac aractenstIc tendency to add a stemmed ' specunens of Cypro Ar h' I II . h d an stemmed foot» are evidently infl d b G - C aic WIt profiled rim uence y reek protot 17 Thi . fl a stemmed foot is sometimes ext d d I ypes. IS In uence of adding . en e a so to other pottery typ' 18 A not h er Influence from Greek pott ' h es. ery IS s own by th" eta11' " represented, e. g., in Red Slip II (IV) 19 Thi ~ r:n IC profile of the cup, 8 . IS type of cup IS WIdely spread and is common 1. 93, PI. VIII, I, No. 4; 'Etp"fJp.. 'ApzatoA. 1898 ' Fig, 27,' Tiryns I ff.: W ., , p. 107, 8 Delos x PIs XIII 68 6 XIV ' pp. 95 ., ALDSTEIN, Arg. Heraeum II X "" 9; , 70; op. cit. XVII PI
PI . LIX , 20 a.
Q~art. Dep. Antiq. Palest. IV, 1935, PI. XVII foun~ In stratum V (c. 1400-1230 B. C.) at Tell Ab H'
'
LIlli 19,
20.
'
.
LAMBRINO, Les vases arch. d'Histria pp, 187 f F' 151-154. ' " igs. 2 FIg'S XVII ( u awam. 10 AKERST " , , 9 end of Cypro-Geometric II). XVIII 11 Cf "F' ROM, op, cit., pp. 83 f., PI. 22: 1,3. 3 E. s; YOUNG, op. cit., p. 3 1, Fig. 18. P s~ F' ' 2: . ig. XXX, 8; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II PI. CXVIII p. 113 Fig 8 . 6 ., ' . , ig, 39, 12 The spec'rmeris hiIt h erto found ' , ' ,9, II. , . 0, pp. I 3 f., Figs. 114, 115; cf. Thera II in Rhodes date from th p, ISS· , , 6 t h cent. B. C., but the two bowls which were" d' e 4 E Et . d I roun In , g., Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII I 6 rUrJ an Imitate Rhodian prototypes may be assigned to Fig. 81' p 118 F' , 931, p. 106, 75- 6aSO B C (f A ,lgS. 97 a, b; pp. 120 f., Figs. 100 a b. p 13 " C. KERSTROM, op. cit., pp, 84, 86). : · 247, F IgS, 293 a, b, etc. ' , ,. Cf. LAMBRINO, op, cit., pp. 238 f 5 Figs. XXXVII, 7 8 14' XL 7 14 Fig. XXXI, 2. . 6 F" ' , -r-s ,. 15 E igs. XXX, 8; XXXVII, 6. D' . g., KINCH, Vroulia, PIs. 4: 2; 5: I; 6: I ' 7' I ' 8· I ' 7 C,lara Rhodos III, pp, 187, 19 0 (Tomb CLXXXI N A e~os X, .PI. XIII, 62, 65, 67; XVII, PIs. XLI~ 'X~V: ~,Flg. 185, PI..I (Ialysos); IV, p. 278, (Tomb CLIV: N:~'6~' :.~. ~~LIV, 1929, p. 28, Fig. 21: 9; p, 32, Fi~. 24: g. 311 (Kamelros). A plate from Vroulia (KINCH V I" g . VIII, 12; XLIV, 6, 7; XLVI S' LVI PI. 37, Tomb N ' rou ta, 17 AKERST " . " , 3 I. diff 3, o. 2) has also suspension-holes but is 18 F' ROM, op, CIt., p. 60. f s. o irrerenr s h a p e . l g XXXI, 14; XXXII, I, 3 6· XLVI 6 19 Fig. XLII, 2 0 . . . . " ,. 20 I
276' ,
9
I:
FOREIGN RELATIONS POTTERY
e. g., In Crete and the Cyclades.' It seems that it reached Cyprus from that part of Greece. Greek stemmed craters with horizontal-vertical handles have of course served as models to the Cypriote potters, when they produced the types of jars illustrated by Fi~. XXXII, I, 6. We know that an Attic crater of this type has been found at Amathus.s In FIg. XXXII, 6 the decoration on the shoulder is also clearly influenced by the Greek prototypes. The short neck of the Cypriote specimens is a native peculiarity due to influence on the form of the stemmed crater by the normal type of jar. . Certain juglets with short neck and handle from mouth to shoulder a~e of a typ~ which in Greece can be traced back to the Mycenaean period,' and also appears In Cyprus In Late Cypriote III and Cypro-Geometric 1.' In Greece this type conti?ues i~ the later G~ome~ric period, the Proto-Corinthian broad aryballos being derived from ~t,. and In the A~chalc penod it was widely diffused within the Greek area of culture, from S~ctly and I~aly In t~e W. to Rhodes and Ionia in the E.5 In Cyprus, on the other hand, this type of juglet disappears after Cypro-Geometric I, and is not found again until Cypro-Archaic 1.6 It is th~refo~e evident that the type was introduced twice into Cyprus from Greece, the first time In connection with the Greek colonization of Cyprus in Late Cypriote III and the second time in the Archaic period in consequence of the intimate cultural interrelations of Cyprus and Greece during that period. It cannot be doubted that the juglet was introduced in Cyprus from the Rhodo-Ionian region. . Ionian bowls were imported to Cyprus in great numbers, as we have seen," It IS therefore no surprise that their shape was imitated by the Cypriote potters of the 6th cent: B. C.6 Bowls of this type are represented in e. g. Bichrome V, Black-on-Red III (V), and Bichrome Red II (V). .. . The carinated bowl of White Painted V Ware,' represents a shape which IS found In the East-Greek pottery.v The shape at first imitated by the Cypriotes was soon incorporated by them in their ceramic repertory, and was later developed in the pottery of Types VI and VII (Red Slip and Plain White wares)» according to the stylistic principles characteristic of that pottery. Shallow bowls with down-turned rim. similar to the Cypriote.s~ecimensof Type "y1 2 are common in the East-Greek region,» and In general the characteristic, down-turned nm of Type V seems to be due to Greek influence. 1 Cf. e. g., Thera II, p, 151, Fig. 365; Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, · 1903, p. IIS, F rgs, 24, 25. 2 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pi. CXL, I (Tomb 13, No.2). 3 FURUMARK, Myc. Pottery, p. 603, Form 28. PAYNE (Necrocorinthia, pp. 5 f.) advances the theory that the ultimate origin of this shape of juglet can be traced back to Cypriote jugs (Red Polished and White Painted, loc. cit., Fig. 2, A, B) from Early and Middle Cypriote and to Syrian jugs (loc. cit., Fig. 2, C) from Middle Bronze Age. This theory cannot be maintained. The vases referred to by Payne are jugs of large or fairly large size, in any case not of the miniature size characteristic of the juglet in question. Secondly the typological similarity does not go beyond the fact that the jugs referred to have a handle from mouth to shoulder.
Thirdly the typological links .between the. s~pposed early prototypes and the later specimens are missing. • Fig. IV, 3. . . 6 FRllS JOHANSEN, op, cit., p. 19; Lindos I, pp. 301 ff. 6 Fig. XXVIII, 22. 7 P. 277. 8 Figs. XLVIII, 2; LII 2; LIII, 7. 9 Figs. XLVI, 2; .XLVII, .1 3. . 10 BOEHLAU, Aus ton. U. teal. ~ekropolen, Pi. VIII, 3, Naukratis I, Pi. X, 9; Athen. Mitt, LVIII, 1933, p. IIS, Fig. 58 a. 11 Figs. LXI, 8, 9, 31; LXVI, 9; LXVII, 16. 12 E. g. Figs. XLVI, I; XLVII, II, 12, 14; LIII, 1. 13 LAMBRINO, op, cit., pp. 188 ff., Figs. 154, ISS; KINCH, Vroulia, Pi. 27: 1.
POTTERY FOREIGN RELATIONS
Fi. . Black-on-RedI (III) bowl in Rijksmuseum Kroller-MUller,' g 43 Otterlo, Holland.
. t of a' group' of warriors with spears arid round shields the figures consIS . '. . d .h b e se~n that . . h . d se arated by swastika ornaments. The warnors are painte WIt m.archmg to the. ng t an .p . d .. 'f the bowl and we must suppose that they t naint as the linear ecoration 0 , f h h riote artist in imitation of Greek prototypes on the pottery 0 t e t e same. rna pat were deSIgned by a. Cyp . h . tar of Greek influence on Cypriote ceramic art already Anot er ms ance . . f L ate G eome t r ic period G' . III' afforded by the ornament conslstmg of g.roups o. . . Cypro- eometnc IS 11' III appeanng m . . found j Cyprus for the first time on pottery of Type . ch~vrons. This °firnll~ment ISmOe~:inl~he Sub-Geometric Greek pottery and very popular It IS a common mg orna . in the East-Greek fabrics.' . C ro-Archaic I-II. The ornaThe ?reek is, from two main groups
influ~nce howevf:~;o~:~:rti:~i:a:~or~eri:~tion
:;t:t~:~~~f:;:~l~YP~~n~:~:i;:i~r::;:eDc~~:':b~:o:;r~:tili~'~~l~~a::e:~
from Rhodes was pre omman influence from this part of the Greek world continued, the Crete. In the 6th cent. B. C. . fl f the Attic Black Figured pottery asserts but in the later part of the century m uence rom. . ' . . B. C. Attic influence IS absolutely predommant.. . th Itself, and fr~m the 5 ce~'l t' the first group: rosette inscribed in concentnc CIrcles;" 0 . The followmg orn~ments e on semicircles in the spaces or diagonally divided panels fth cross of four leaves m a panel wh d' 1 .'diagonally divided panel with filled triangles ~ithhcircular r.i4ngressoerrvPea~c~:~s:ni~s~ri~:~0~:s~oncentric circles;' maeander pattern;" bands m t e spaces, 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 814, 815; Swed. Cyp. E g Athen. Mitt. LVIII, 1933, p. IIZ, Fig. 55; p. 1I5, Fig. ;9;'~. 1I7, Fig. 62; Beii. XLI, 9; Amer.Journ. ArchaeolPI XXI II " 3' BUSCHOH, Griech .. Vasen, p. 17, XLIV ,194°,· 1
Fig. 16. . . E II a Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 869; Swed. Cyp. xp, , Pi. CVII, 4·
Exp. II, Pi. CLXVI, 7· 4 Op. cit. II, Pi. CVIII, 3· 5 Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 704· " E . g., ..F'lg. XXXII ._ _ , 5 J 6', Corp. Vas. Ant., France 343, Fasc. 8, Pi. 20.
of key-pattern' and maeander hooks;" rows of rays;' rows of leaves or buds;' rows of filled circles;' rows of filled triangles, particularly: on the rim of bowls;" transverse bands on the flat rim of bowls;' zigzag line with dots in the spaces;" cross with dots between the arms;" star-ornament;". rosette of dots;!' circles surrounded by dots;» radiated circles.v lotus ornament influenced by the Rhodian type; 14 wreath of leaves." True, many of these ornaments are widely spread, and also occur in other Greek vase classes than in the Rhodian pottery, but in view of the fact that there is so much evidence of direct and intimate relations between the Rhodian and Cypriote cultures we arejustified in considering the ornaments in question as mainly inspired by Rhodian prototypes. Only in some cases, when an ornament is very characteristic of the pottery of the Cyclades and Crete, we may consider the possibility of influence from those quarters, with which Cyprus was. also in direct connection during the period in question, though less intimately and on amuch smaller scale than with Rhodes (pp. 262 ff.). Thus the rosette ornament inscribed in concentric circles is more characteristic of the Theran style» than of the Rhodian, and its introduction into the decoration of the Cypriote pottery may therefore be due to influence from the Cyclades. This ornament carries on a Mycenaean tradition,« and appears among the ornaments of White Painted I as a survival of that tradition, but later on it disappears in Cyprus, to be introduced again in the beginning of Cypro-Archaic 1. The cross of four leaves and the diagonal pattern are also ornaments of Mycenaean origin,> and the cross of four leaves is found in the ornamental motives of White Painted 1,19 but, like the rosette inscribed in circles, it disappears as a ceramic ornament after Cypro-Geometric I until Cypro-Archaic I, when it reappears together with the diagonal pattern. The reserved cross inscribed in concentric circles is represented already in White Painted I and II, but the ornament of tho~e wares is of quite another style than that here in question dating from Cypro-Archaic 1. In this latter ornament the reserved cross is narrow, and the sections of the central circle are entirely filled, while the cross of the former ornament is usually rather wide, and the sections of the circle are latticed. On the other hand, the Cypro-Archaic ornament is stylistically identical with the corresponding Greek ornaments. We know that Attica is the earliest centre of the maeander decoration of the Geometric period. Attic Geometric pottery has been imported to Cyprus 30
1 E. a E. 8 E. 4E. 5 E. "E. CXX, 7 E. 8 E. "E. 10 E. 11 E. CXX, 12 E. 13 E.
g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 855. g., OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CLXXX, 1. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 851. g., op, cit. I: 2, C 851, 959, 963, 964. g., op, cit. I: 2, C 853. g., Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CX, 3, 5; CXIX, 6; 1-3. g., op, cit. II, Pi. CXVIII, 9, 11. g., Corp. Vas. Ant., France 192, Fasc. 5, Pi. 8: 10. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pi. CV, 9. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Vast I: 2, C 854. g., op, cit. I: 2, C 850, 853; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pi. 3,4,6. g., Corp. Vas. Ant., France 340, Fasc. 8, Pi. 17: 3, 9. g., op, cit., France 343, Fasc, 8, Pi. 20; 5.
14 E. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 990; Rev. etud. gr, VI, 1893, p. 36, Fig. 2. 15 E. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 965. 18 Thera II, p. 160 f. 17 KARO, Schachtgrdber v. Mykenai, PIs. XL, 264; XLIII, 255; LXV, 710, 712, 713. 18 FURUMARK, Myc. Pottery, p. 373, Fig. 65, Mot. 55. 19 Steed.. Cyp. Exp, II, Pi. XCII, 1. "0 This ornament is widely diffused. We know that it occurs already in the Proto-Geometric pottery (e. g., Kerameikos I, Pi. 71), and that it was in use for. a.long time. The later Cycladic or Rhodian, or Cretan specimens have probably served as prototypes of the Cypriote. ornament. Cf. Bull. Corr. Hell. XXXV, 1911, p. 356, Fig. 7; p. 377, Fig. 38; DUGAS, Ceram. des Cyclad., p. 123; Ann. Brit. School Athens, XXXI, p. 80, Fig. 20: 12.
310
FOREIGN RELATIONS
as mentioned above (pp. 270, 275), and one may therefore believe that the Cypriote imit~ted the Attic maeander ornaments. Chronological and stylistic reasons speak, however, agamst such a supposition. The Cypriote maeander ornaments date from Cypro:Archaic I, the 7th cent. B. C., while the imported Attic pottery can be assigned to the 8th cent. B. C., and the only specimen of the imported vases with known find contexts, an Attic crater, was actually discovered in a tomb oflate Cypro-Geometric III, i. e., the 8th cent. B. C. (p. 275). Further, the shape of the vases and the style of the maeander ornaments imi:ate~ by the Cypriotes decidedly point to Rhodes and the Cyclades as the source of derivation. The type of bowl found in Stylli, Tomb 21 is common in Rhodes and t~e Cyclades,' and the maeander with reserved spaces dotted on a Bichrome IV jar (crater)' m the Louvre and on a Bichrome IV amphora in Museo Archeologico, Florence- also indicates connections with Rhodes and other islands, where maeander ornaments of this peculiar type are represented on pottery from Tenos,s Sames,' and on a gold diadem from Kameiros.' In consideration of the fact that the late Geometric style of Eastern Greece survived in the first part of the 7th cent. B. C. it is obvious that even chronological reasons are in favo~r. of a R~odian .and Cycladic origin of the Cypriote maeander ornament. The pattern consistmg of zl~za~ hnes with dots in the spaces may be considered to be too simple to be used as a cntenon of artistic influence but in view of the fact that this ornament is absolutely unknown in Cyprus from the beginning of the Iron Agesuntil Cypro-Archaic II, when it appears only occasional~y, I am inclined to interpret this phenomenon as an influence from the contemporary Cycladicor Rhodian> pottery, where this ornament is fairly common. The fact that it also occurs in other vase classes is, as pointed out, of no significance in this context. The rows of leaves and buds are represented in the Rhodian pottery, but the closest parallels are formed by Cretan specimens," and the filled triangles on the rims of bowls occur also in Crete.> Other ornaments than those mentioned above are common in the Rhodian pottery, and form cumulative evidence of the Rhodian influence on the decoration of the Cypriote pottery. Some of these ornaments, e. g., the rows of rays, filled circles, star-ornament, dotted circles, etc., are widely spread, and occur in many other vase classes, but, as we have shown this fact can be disregarded in the particular case here in question. The' ornaments of the second group, i. e., those indicating influence from Attic Black Figured and Red Figured pottery, are easily distinguished. The palmettesv and cocks» Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 146, No. 13. Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 19°3, pp. i30 f.; DUGAS, op, cit., pp. 114 f.; Clara Rhodos III, p. 87, Fig. 77; VI-VII, p. 200, Figs. 240, 241. 3 Fig. XXXII, 5; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 343, Fasc. 8, Pi. 20: I, 2, 4. 4 Unpublished. 5 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VIII-IX, 1929, p. 229, Fig. 32, NO.5· 6 Athen. Mitt. LVIII, 1933, p. 68, Fig. 17, c. , Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 199, Fig. 239. s It is found on the White Slip pottery of Late Cypriote (GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, P: 199), but this 1
2
ornament has no chronological context with the one here in question. • Cf. Delos XVII, Pis. XX, 9 a; LXVIII, A: C 10; Athen. Mitt. LIV, 1929, p. 144, Fig. I. 10 A similar pattern in Lindos I, Pi. 46, No. 979; KINCH, Vroulia, p. 210, Fig. 95. 11 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 148, Fig. 147; p. 153, Fig. 156 b; p. 246, Fig. 292; p. 364, Fig. 477; p. 366, Fig. 480; p. 404, Fig. 520; p. 434, Fig. 581; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, Pi. XIV. 12 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 108, Fig. 86 a. 13 OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, Pi. XXII, 2 b, c. 14 Op. cit., Pis. LXII, I; CLXXX, I.
POTTERY
3 1I
appearing on Cypriote pottery of the later part of the 6th cent. B. C. are clearly inspired by the corresponding Black Figured ornaments. Influence from the figure decoration of the Greek vase-painting of the 6th cent. B. C. can also be seen in the representation of a lion attacking a bull and sphinxes of the Greek type,1 while the olive and laurel wreaths, 2 the palmette- and lotus-frieze,' the ivy trail sometimes with berries.s the palmette trail,« the egg- and-dart pattern,' etc., clearly indicate Red Figured designs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We know that Cyprus was colonized by Anatolians mixed which Achaean tribes and Mycenaean Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age. A cultural combination of the Greek and Cypri?te elements was a result of the colonization, and is reflected by the pottery of Late Cypnote III. Some Syro-Palestinian elements were also incorporated in this unified product - a phenomenon which may indicate that the first invaders, the Anatolians mixed with.Achaean tribes, arrived in Cyprus via the Syrian coast.' The pottery of the early Iron Age IS a development of the Late Cypriote III pottery, and represents a further coalescence of its different elements. Consequently, a Cypriote culture of combined native Mycenaean and some Syro-Anatolian elements was confronted by the foreign world at the beginnin~ of the Cypro-Geometric period. Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia
Alrea~y in Cypro-Geometric I, immediately after the colonizing process had been accomphshed and the new conditions were more stabilized, there is ample evidence of Cypriote connections with Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia, and the contact thus established was further developed d~ring Cy~ro-Geometric II-III and the Cypro-Archaic periods, but the character of the mterrelatlOns of Cyprus and these countries is not uniform, and changes moreover from time to time. In Palestine,. Cypriote pottery.from the periods in question has been found at many places, mostly m Judaea and Galilee, but also in Samaria. There can be no doubt about the character of the interrelations. The pottery is entirely Cypriote in type, shows no sign of local ma~ufacture, and mus.t there~ore be considered as imported from Cyprus. We thus have evidence of commercial relations between Cyprus and Palestine. The commerce followed the old t~aditio~al routes used in the Bronze Age. The northernmost landing places for the Cypnote ShIpS were the ports along the plain of Acre, N. of Mount Carmel, where Tell Abu Hawam, near Haifa, is hitherto the only place from which specimens of Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 975. Op. cit. I: 2, C 985; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc. 8, Pi. 24: 5, 7-9. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984. 4 Lac. cit.; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc. 8, Pi. 24: 4, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. C, 6, 7; CXVIII, 6; cxxn, 3. 1
2
5 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, .Fasc, 8, Pi. 24: 5-7, 9. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc, 8, Pi. 24: 4. , Opusc, archaeol, III (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Suec, X, I 944), pp. 107 if.
310
FOREIGN RELATIONS
as mentioned above (pp. 270, 275), and one may therefore believe that the Cypriote imit~ted the Attic maeander ornaments. Chronological and stylistic reasons speak, however, agamst such a supposition. The Cypriote maeander ornaments date from Cypro:Archaic I, the 7th cent. B. C., while the imported Attic pottery can be assigned to the 8th cent. B. C., and the only specimen of the imported vases with known find contexts, an Attic crater, was actually discovered in a tomb of late Cypro-Geometric III, i. e., the 8th cent. B. C. (p. 275). Further, the shape of the vases and the style of the maeander ornaments imi~ate.d by the Cypriotes decidedly point to Rhodes and the Cyclades as the source of derivation. The type of bowl found in Stylli, Tomb 21 is common in Rhodes and the Cyclades,' and the maeander with reserved spaces dotted on a Bichrome IV jar (crater)' in the Louvre and on a Bichrome IV amphora in Museo Archeologico, Florence- also indicates connections with Rhodes and other islands, where maeander ornaments of this peculiar type are represented on pottery from Tenos,' Samos,' and on a gold diadem from Kameiros.t In consideration of the fact that the late Geometric style of Eastern Greece survived in the first part of the 7th cent. B. C. it is obvious that even chronological reasons are in favo~r. of a R~odian .and Cycladic origin of the Cypriote maeander ornament. The pattern consisting of zI~za~ lines with dots in the spaces may be considered to be too simple to be used as a cntenon of artistic influence but in view of the fact that this ornament is absolutely unknown in Cyprus from the beginni~g of the Iron Age 6 until Cypro-Archaic II, when it appears only occasional~y, I am inclined to interpret this phenomenon as an influence from the contemporary Cycladicor Rhodianv pottery, where this ornament is fairly common. The fact that it also occurs in other vase classes is, as pointed out, of no significance in this context. The rows of leaves and buds are represented in the Rhodian pottery, but the closest parallels are formed by Cretan specimens,» and the filled triangles on the rims of bowls occur also in Crete.» Other ornaments than those mentioned above are common in the Rhodian pottery, and form cumulative evidence of the Rhodian influence on the decoration of the Cypriote pottery. Some of these ornaments, e. g., the rows of rays, filled circles, star-ornament, dotted circles, etc., are widely spread, and occur in many other vase classes, but, as we have shown this fact can be disregarded in the particular case here in question. The' ornaments of the second group, i. e., those indicating influence from Attic Black Figured and Red Figured pottery, are easily distinguished. The palmettesv and cocks» Stoed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 146, No. 13. Athen. Mitt. XXVIII, 1903, pp. i30 f.; DUGAS, op. cit., pp. 114 f.; Clara Rhodos III, p. 87, Fig. 77; VI-VII, p. 200, Figs. 240, 241. 3 Fig. XXXII, s: Corp. Vas. Ant., France 343, Fasc. 8, Pi. 20: I, 2, 4. 4 Unpublished. • Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene VIII-IX, 1929, p. 229, Fig. 32, NO·5. 6 Athen. Mitt. LVIII, 1933, p. 68, Fig. 17, c. ? Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 199, Fig. 239. 8 It is found on the White Slip pottery of Late Cypriote (GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, p. 199), but this 1
2
ornament has no chronological context with the one here in question. 9 Cf. Delos XVII, PIs. XX, 9 a; LXVIII, A: C 10; Athen. Mitt. LIV, 1929, p. 144, Fig. I. 10 A similar pattern in Lindos I, Pi. 46, No. 979; KINCH, Vroulia, p. 210, Fig. 95. 11 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 148, Fig. 147; p. 153, Fig. 156 b; p. 246, Fig. 292; p. 364, Fig. 477; p. 366, Fig. 480; p, 404, Fig. 520; p. 434, Fig. 581; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXIX, Pi. XIV. 12 Ann. Scuola Arch. Atene X-XII, 1931, p. 108, Fig. 86 a. 130HNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. XXII, 2 b, c. 14 cit., PIs. LXII, I; CLXXX, I.
or.
POTTERY
3I I
appearing on Cypriote pottery of the later part of the 6th cent. B. C. are clearly inspired by the corresponding Black Figured ornaments. Influence from the figure decoration of the Greek vase-painting of the 6th cent. B. C. can also be seen in the representation of a lion attacking a bull and sphinxes of the Greek type,l while the olive and laurel wreaths, 3 the palmette- and lotus-frieze,» the ivy trail sometimes with berries,» the palmette trail,' the egg- and-dart pattern,' etc., clearly indicate Red Figured designs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We know that Cyprus was colonized by Anatolians mixed which Achaean tribes and Mycenaean Greeks at the end of the Bronze Age. A cultural combination of the Greek and Cypri?teelements was a result of the colonization, and is reflected by the pottery of Late Cypnote III. Some Syro-Palestinian elements were also incorporated in this unified product - a phenomenon which may indicate that the first invaders, the Anatolians mixed with.Achaean tribes, arrived in Cyprus via the Syrian coast.' The pottery of the early Iron Age IS a development of the Late Cypriote III pottery, and represents a further coalescence of its different elements. Consequently, a Cypriote culture of combined native Mycenaean and some Syro-Anatolian elements was confronted by the foreign world at the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric period. Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia Already in Cypro-Geometric I, immediately after the colonizing process had been accomplished and the new conditions were more stabilized, there is ample evidence of Cypriote connections with Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia, and the contact thus established was further developed d~ring Cy~ro-Geometric II-III and the Cypro-Archaic periods, but the character of the mterrelatlOns of Cyprus and these countries is not uniform, and changes moreover from time to time. In Palestine,. Cypriote pottery from the periods in question has been found at many places, mostly m Judaea and Galilee, but also in Samaria. There can be no doubt about the character of the interrelations. The pottery is entirely Cypriote in type, shows no sign of local ma~ufacture, and mus.t therefore be considered as imported from Cyprus. We thus have evidence of commercial relations between Cyprus and Palestine. The commerce followed the old t~aditio~al routes used in the Bronze Age. The northernmost landing places for the Cypnote ShIpS were the ports along the plain of Acre, N. of Mount Carmel, where Tell Abu Hawam, near Haifa, is hitherto the only place from which specimens of Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 975. Op. cit. I: 2, C 985; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc. 8, Pi. 24: 5, 7-9. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984. 4 Lac. cit.; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc. 8, PI. 24: 4, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. C, 6, 7; CXVIII, 6; CXXII, 3. 1
2
s Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, .Fasc, 8, PI. 24: 5-7, 9. • Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases I: 2, C 984; Corp. Vas. Ant., France 347, Fasc, 8, PI. 24: 4. 7 Opusc. archaeol. III (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Suec. X, 1944), pp. 107 ff,
3 12
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Cypriote Iron Age wares are reported. From the plain of Acre, the Cypriote goods were transported across the plain of Esdraelon, past Megi.ddo .and Thannak, to ~he northern valley of Jordan, to the city of Beth-shan, the important junction fo~the connections hetw.een the coast and the inland. To the S. of Mount Carmel, past Atlit and Dor, the Cypnote goods were carried by ship along the Palestinian coast to the se~ports of the Philistine plain, to Askalon and Gaza, which were the southernmost landmg. places. F~om these seaports, the wares were brought inland along the caravan routes to vanous places m Judaea, to Tell Fara, Tell Jemmeh, Tell el-Hesy, and Lachish in the S., and further to Gezer, Bethshemesh and Jerusalem in the N. If the trade routes and the local distribution of the wares thus practically coincide with those of the Bronze Age, there is a remarkable inequality in the quantity of the imported goods in the Bronze and in the Iron Ages. We have seen that Cypriote wares flooded Palestine in great masses during the Late Bronze Age, b~t the Iron Age pottery is represented by a comparatively small number of vessels. This implies that the commercial connections were less intimate and regular during t~e Iron ~ge than during the Bronze- Age, but still the quantity of Cypriote pottery f~und-~n Palestine is sufficiently great to show that we have to reckon with more than occasional intercourse. The pilgrim bottles and the handle-ridge juglets were containers for oil and unguents, and the large amphorae and jars contained wine. So far as evide~ce goes, these produc.ts were thus among the import articles. The shape of several of the Imported vases makes It, however, impossible to consider them as containers, and they ~ust theref~re have ~een imported for their own sake. The artistic superiority of the Cypnote pottery in companson with the Palestinian explains the cause of this ceramic import. To judge by the number of the different classes of Cypriote pottery !ound in Pale~tine, the commerce was' fairly important during Cypro-Geometric I-II. It increased considerably during Cypro-Geometric III and the Cypro-Archaic period. . In Syria, the finds of Cypriote pottery increase in number every year and the Importance of the Cypro-Syrian connections becomes more and more evident. A great part of the Cypriote pottery found in Syria is imported as in Palesti~e. Cypriote ships see~ to have discharged their goods at almost every seaport of the Synan coast. To the S., SIdo.n and Tyre must have been influential import stations, and from there the wares ~pread inland by the caravan routes. The sporadic material recorded from the S. part of Syna must, h.owever be enlarged by the result of further scientific excavations, before any safe conclusions can be drawn. In North Syna, the mouth of the Orontes valley was the principal import region for the Cypriote goods, as shown by the recent excavations. From the seaports, such as Tell Sheikh Yusuf, the merchandise was transported by the land route through the Orontes valley to Tainat, Judeideh, Chatal Hiiyiik, and further down to H~ma and Khan Sheikun, where the caravans met those from the southern seaports, destined .for Coele Syria and further East. Carchemish is the easternmost site with finds of C~pr.IOte pottery. As in Palestine, the local distribution of the Cypriote Iron Age ware coincides approximately with that of the Bronze Age, which is natural, since the pri.nc~pallandroutes have, for geographical reasons, always remained the same. We know that mtimate commer-
POTTERY
cial relations. be.tween Syria and Cyprus existed already in Cypro-Geometric I. During Cy~ro-Geometr.Ic ~I and. III we have ample ceramic evidence that Cypriote import to Syria was steadI~ymcreasmg, and the trade was further developed in the Archaic period. In contrast with the conditions in Palestine, there is not only evidence of commercial connections between Cyprus and Syria, but we know now that the Cypriotes from time to time founded trading factories there. Tell Sheikh Yusuf is one of these trading factories. It w~s founded by a group of Greeks, but was soon abandoned by them and taken over by Cypnotes, who dominated the import trade at this place in the 7th cent. B. C. until about the ~iddle.of Cypro-Archaic I, as shown by the fact that the ware-houses and magazines of this penod were almost exclusively filled with Cypriote pottery, partly imported and partly made on the spot by Cypriote potters. About the middle of Cypro-Archaic I, or c: 650 B. C., the Greek merchants returned and a union between the Greeks and the Cypnotes seems to h~ve been.established, indicated by the fact that the quantity of Cypriote and Gree~ wares IS approximatelv equal in this trading factory. During the 6th cent. B. C. the Cypriotes were almost ousted by the Greek competition, and when, after a short ~nterval, the factory was refounded again at the end of the 6th cent. B. C., it was entirely in the hands of Greek merchants. The discovery of this trading factory with its warehouses and mag.azines presents a vivid picture of Cypriote commercial activity in the 7 th cent. B. C., and Illustrates the way in which commercial and cultural connections of regular and more than temporary character were established. This trading factory at Tell Sheikh Yusuf was not the only one of its kind, and probably not the earliest one. We know that there were others,' and most probably we have to reckon with several such Cypriote factories founded from time to time along the Syrian coast. So far as the evidence goes, the trade products were the same as indicated by the Palestinian material, i.e., wine, oil, unguents, and pottery. In Cilicia, Cypriote Iron Age pottery is very common, and has been found at different ~la~es fr~m. Bozjaz in the W. to Misis in the E. The types of pottery and their quantities md~cate mtrmate commercial connections during the Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic penods. The pottery is of two kinds: one is of Cypriote provenance and imported to Cilicia, the other is made in Cilicia by Cypriote potters. This typological division of the pottery has been proved correct by the results of the excavations at Tarsos, where a series of kilns used for baking this "Cypro-Cilician" pottery has teen found. The commercial connections beh;een Cyprus and Cilicia are thus analogous to those between Cyprus and Syria: Cypriote tradm~ factories existed in Cilicia, too. The Cypriote merchandise was shipped to these factones, where pottery was also manufactured by Cypriote ceramists. At Tell Sheikh Yusuf the trading factory was a small separate settlement; at Tarsos it seems to have been topographically incorporated into the Cilician town. The shapes of the vases indicate the same conclusions about the trade products as those found in Palestine and Syria, i. e., some vases were probably only containers for the imported goods, wine, oil, unguent, etc.; others, 1 The existence of a similar trading factory is indicated by the discovery of ~ temple with Cypriote sculptures at Amrit, see pp. 325 f.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
both those imported and those locally made, e. g., bowls, plates, cups, etc.; cannot have been used for that purpose, but must have been on the market to be sold as pottery. Evidently the artistic quality of the Cypriote pottery in comparison with the ceramic products in Cilicia made it popular there as well as in Palestine and Syria. The factory at Tarsos was established in Cypro-Geometric II, and flourished in CyproGeometric III. It does not seem to have been re-established after the invasion of Sennacherib in Cilicia, in 69 6 B. C. From the Cilician coast-land, the Cypriote goods penetrated inland, as shown by the pottery found at Alishar R iryiik and other sites in Cappadocia and Galatia. The Cypriote pottery found in Troy, however, indicates transport by sea along the coast of Western Anatolia. From the Classical period very little Cypriote pottery has been found in Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia. This does not of course indicate that the commercial connections between Cyprus and these countries were almost entirely severed during the Classical period, but must be explained otherwise. The Cypro-Classical pottery was artistically poor, could not compete with the Greek wares on the market, and was therefore no longer a want~d export article' further, several specimens of Plain White jars and amphorae used as contamers may not have been recognized as Cypriote when found in scattered fragments on the habitation sites, whereas the smallest fragment of a painted ware is easily identified; finally, certain export articles were of a kind not packed in vases (d. pp. 489, 50 0 f.): ., The reciprocal evidence for the intercourse between Cyprus, Syria, and Palestme IS provided by the finds of ceramic products from these countries in Cyprus. The Syrian and Palestinian trade seems mainly to have called at the seaports of the S. coast of Cyprus, while the Syro-Anatolian trade also touched the ports on the N. coast. The shapes of the vases, as always, only inform us about a part of the products. Those indicated by the Syrian vases are unguents, oil, and wine, the unguents by the handle-ridge juglets, the oil by the numerous, pilgrim bottles and the wine by the large jars of Plain White Ware. . The mutual cultural influences caused by this commercial intercourse are also partially shown by the pottery: Cypriote elements in shape and decoration are imitated by the Syrian potters and vice versa. The interrelations of the Cypriote a~d Syrian pottery of .the white group remain always those of an imported ware to the natIv~ one; the mutual mfluen~es do not eradicate the differences between the native and foreign elements, and the natrve industry always retains the dominant role. Even in Syria and Cilicia, where Cypriote trading factories existed, and Cypriote pottery was manufactured in the foreign environments, there is no artistic synthesis of Cypriote and native elements; in spite of the mutual influences the ceramic products of these countries form parallel lines, each marked by distinct peculiarities and they do not merge into a single, unified product. The interrelations of the Cypriote and Syrian pottery of the red group are similar during Cypro-Geometric I-II, but at the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III the conditions are suddenly changed. From that date, the Black-on-Red and Red Slip wares are Cypriote, and represent in shape and decoration a combination of Cypriote and Syrian elements of art. Further, the influence of this pottery extends even to the earlier White Painted and Bi-
POTTERY
chrome wares, so that an entirely new Cypriote art of pottery is formed, characterized by an artistic unification of the foreign and Cypriote elements and indicating an immigration of Syrian tribes to Cyprus at this date. Egypt No Egyptian pottery has ever been imported to Cyprus. The Egyptian imports to Cyprus entirely consist of objects other than pottery (d. p. 415 ff.). The ceramic material defining the relations between Cyprus and Egypt is thus confined to the Cypriote pottery found in Egypt. This is altogether imported and gives therefore evidence of commercial connections between the two countries. The trade products indicated by the pottery forms are the usual ones: oil and unguent packed in the handle-ridge juglets and wine in the large Plain White jars. The earliest Cypriote Iron Age pottery hitherto found in Egypt is of Type III, and we have therefore no ceramic proof of commercial intercourse before Cypro-Geometric III, but finds of other material indicate earlier connections (p. 417). Most of the pottery has been found in the Delta, at Naukratis, Tell Tebilleh, Defenneh, and no pottery of certain Cypriote provenance is recorded S. of Lahun, except a stray find in Nubia. The finds are thus distributed within a much more restricted area, and the number of vases hitherto discovered is much smaller, than in the Bronze Age. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that even the Cypriote material bearing upon the cultural connections with Egypt is, to a great extent, non-ceramic, and the pottery gives therefore a very incomplete picture of the interrelations of Cyprus and Egypt. Though no Egyptian pottery has been found in Cyprus, the Egyptian influence on the Cypriote pottery is not altogether lacking. The Egyptian variety of the lotus ornament and the Hathor heads, the hieroglyphic signs, and the blue paint appearing on the pottery of Cypro-Archaic I-II give evidence of Egyptian influence. Greece Cypriote Iron Age pottery has been found at Ialysos, Kameiros, Lindos, and Vroulia on Rhodes; Dadia, Thera, Delos, Phokaia or Myrina, Athens, Olynthos, Aigina, and Crete. Somewhat dubious finds are reported from Sicily and Spain, while Cypro-Classical pottery has occasionally been discovered in Sardinia. Cypriote pottery of local manufacture has also been found at some of these places. The earliest ceramic evidence of Cypriote contact with Greece in the Iron Age is afforded by the fact that Cypriote influence on the shape of the Proto-Geometric pottery can be recognized, and the influence continued in the Geometric period: the annular flask, the loop legs, bird-shaped vases, and imitations of globular jugs of White Painted II afford the evidence. This means that the earliest contact dates already from Cypro-Geometric I, and that it continued during Cypro-Geometric II. During Cypro-Geometric III, the commercial and cultural relations between Cyprus and Greece become more intimate, and are further developed in the Cypro-Archaic period, as shown by the numerous finds of Cypriote pottery of Types I II-V. The overwhelming majority
FOREIGN RELATIONS
of the pottery, about 90 %, has been found on Rhodes, and only a few specimens are reported from the other places mentioned above. Many of the vases found on Rhodes are of Cypriote provenance and thus imported. Others, as shown by the clay and the slip, were evidently made locally, but the mat paint, the shape, and the decoration are purely Cypriote, and show no signs of imitation work. They are analogous to the locally made pottery of the Cypriote trading factories in Syria and Cilicia. No remains of such a Cypriote trading factory have been discovered hitherto on Rhodes, but the considerable number of imported vases, on the one hand, and the quantity of locally made pottery, on the other, indicate that the commercial connections were fairly intimate, and that Cypriotes were stationed on Rhodes for some time. It is therefore probable that the Cypriote trade with Rhodes was organized in a similar way as in Syria and Cilicia. W. of Rhodes, the Cypriote trade products only penetrated in small numbers occasionally, and it is an open questio~ if. the Cypriote pottery found there, on the islands and along the coast of the Aegean, signifies direct commercial intercourse with Cyprus. It may equally well be reshipments from Rhodes. The numerous Cypriote vases found on Rhodes and their infrequency W. of that island seem to indicate that Rhodes served as a commercial and cultural clearing centre between· Cyprus and Greece during Cypro-Geometric III and perhaps Cypro-Archaic I. In Cypro-Archaic II the Cypriote trade was based on other factories as well, e. g., Samos, as shown by the finds of sculpture (pp. 332 ff.). The considerable Cypriote import trade to Greece during Cypro-Geometric III is accompanied by an increasing influence on the shape and decoration of the Greek pottery. I refer to the evidence afforded by the handle-ridge jugs and juglets, the barrel-shaped jugs, the . jugs decorated with intersecting concentric lines, the Cypriote syntax of concentric circles, the concentric pendent arcs, the Cypriote birds with raised wings, occasional pictorial motifs, e. g., the scene of dancing women in front of a seated deity, a motif perhaps not inspired by the corresponding scenes on Cypriote pottery, but by the similar representations on Cypriote metal bowls. It seems also likely that textiles decorated with vertical guilloche and rosette pattern have transmitted this typically Cypriote pattern to Greece already in Cypro-Geometric Ill. Most of the shapes and ornaments mentioned above continued to excercise their influence on Greek pottery in the Archaic period, when they were increased by a great number of others specified in detail above. The Greek influence was not only of a considerable intensity, but extended also to places and countries which only occasionally came into direct contact with Cypriote ceramic products or had only indirect experience of them. We can trace this Cypriote influence from Rhodes and the East-Greek region to the Cyclades, Attica, Crete, Sicily, and Italy. Though the Cypriote vessels imported to Crete are not very numerous, the artistic interrelation of the ceramic products of Cyprus and Crete is sometimes- fairly close, which has induced some scholars to consider several Cretan vases tobe of Cypriote provenance, whereas actually one is only dealing with Cypriote influence. Among the vases found in Sicily and Italy, which have also been wrongly considered Cypriote by some scholars, there are only a very few .and dubious Cypriote specimens. The other vases in question show. only Cypriote influence, which must be indirect.
POTTERY
We can trace the route of this Cypriote influence back to Rhodes via the Rhodian colonies in Sicily. The reciprocal evidence for the intercourse between Cyprus and Greece is formed by the finds of Greek pottery in Cyprus. If we first consider the conditions during the Geometric and Archaic periods, we find that the majority of the imported Greek pottery is of East-Greek origin, and there are comparatively few specimens of West-Greek provenance (Attic Geometric, Proto-Corinthian, and Corinthian) before the import of Attic Black Figured, which began in Cypro-Archaic II B. This is entirely in agreement with the evidence of the Cypriote pottery found within Greek territories, viz., the earliest commercial and cultural contact between Cyprus and Greece during the Iron Age was mainly with the East-Greek region via Rhodes. Cypriote imitations of probably Greek kalathoi show the sporadic intercourse during Cypro-Geometric I-II, thus verifying the ceramic evidence, from the Cypriote side. During Cypro-Geometric III the Greek trade with Cyprus increases as indicated by the finds of Greek Geometric pottery on the island, but the Cypriote imports to Greece were, however, more important, as shown by the considerable number of Cypriote vases found in Greece in comparison with the few Greek specimens found in Cyprus, and by the comparatively small influence of the Greek pottery on Cypriote ceramic art in comparison with the much greater Cypriote influence on the contemporary Greek pottery. Dishes and bowls with handles terminating in outward-turned, pointed ends, the ornament of groups of chevrons and occasional imitations of late Geometric pictorial scenes, e. g., on the Black-on-Red I (III) bowl in Rijksmuseum Krcller-Mulle r - these are the few instances of Greek influence in Cypro-Geometric III. In Cypro-Archaic I-II there is a steadily increasing import of East-Greek pottery. Finally, at the end of the Archaic period, in Cypro-Archaic II B, the Attic trade begins to conquer the Cypriote market, as shown by the considerable import of Black Figured vases. The trade products were discharged at the seaports on the S. andW. coasts. At the end of the Archaic period the conditions are exactly opposite to those of the earlier stage of the Cypriote and Greek commercial interrelations: Cypriote exports are rapidly decreasing, and the Greek trade is predominant. This increase of Greek imports to Cyprus in the Archaic period is accompanied by an increased Greek influence on Cypriote ceramic art, as demonstrated in detail above. During the Classical period, Cypriote pottery has not been found imported in Greece, but masses of Greek pottery have been found in Cyprus. The Greek ware imported to Cyprus is almost entirely Attic: Red Figured, White Grounded, and Black Glazed. The imported pottery was only to a small degree of East-Greek origin. The Athenian trade, which, as has been shown, .began to conquer the Cypriote market at the end of the Archaic period, becomes absolutely predominant during the Classical period. Cyprus is definitely drawn within the Athenian sphere of commerce. As a result of mass import, the Attic ware is spread to almost every place in Cyprus; it invades the island as no other foreign ware during Iron Age, in fact; to a degree that is only equal to the import of the Mycenaean ware during the Bronze Age. The trade was, however, concentrated in a few seaports, of which Marion until the end of the 5th cent. B. C. seems to have been the principal one.
3 18
FOREIGN RELATIONS
The import trade starts at the end of Cypro-Archaic II and the beginning of CyproClassic I and continues without interruption to the end of Cypro-Classic II. The finds in the Marion tombs illustrate the importance and intensity of these commercial relations, and indicate that the trade reached its maximum at the end of the 5th cent. and the beginning of the 4th cent. B. C. From the end of the 5th cent. B. C., i. e., from the beginning of the reign of Euagoras I, Salamis must have been the main port of the trade with Greece, though this cannot be proved by ceramic evidence, as long as Classical Salamis is an archaeological terra incognita. The trade products indicated by the pottery forms are the same during the Archaic and the Classical periods: oil was carried in the Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian aryballoi, in the gutti and lekythoi of the Attic ware, and wine was transported in the plain amphorae. Specimens of high artistic quality, both Geometric, Archaic, and Classical, ~ere naturally imported for their own sake, but the same also holds good for many ceramic products of a simple and standardized type, as shown by their shapes. The mass import of this kind begins with East-Greek pottery in Cypro-Archaic II, but during the Classical period the Attic pottery becomes predominant. It is clear, however, that the pottery reflects only a section of the trade. We have seen that no Cypriote pottery has been found hitherto in Greece during the Classical period, and we may therefore infer that no, or very little, Cypriote pottery as such was imported. The reason for this is obvious: the Cypriote pottery of the Classical period had no artistic qualities, and had not even the technical finesse of the standardized common Attic ware. For probable finds of fragments of Plain White container-vases, the Cypriote provenance of which may not have been recognized by the excavators, the same thing holds good as was said above. The ceramic material does not therefore give a complete picture of the varied character of the foreign relations. It must be supplemented by other evidence, both archaeological and literary. This will be done in the following chapters, and we begin with a study on the foreign relations as indicated by the sculpture.
SCULPTURE
origin indicating that the majority of the sculptures have been imported. Gardner and ' Ohnefalsch-Richrsj- have already pointed out the close stylistic relations between the Cypriote sculptures and those found at Naukratis. Some scholars, however, have not been so willing to admit a Cypriote origin for the sculptures in question, and there has been a marked tendency to disclaim their Cypriote character as much as possible. Thus, among the Naukratite sculptures in the British Museum, only two specimens" are considered by Mr. Pryce to show affinities to Cypriote sculptures, but according to him neither is of Cypriote origin. Cypriote influence is also admitted in certain details of two other Naukratite figures,' and a third figures is considered to show a mixture of Rhodian and Cypriote styles. This is certainly an underestimate of the part played by Cypriote sculpture in Naukratis: a great number of sculptures which are obviously Cypriote are not identified as such. Deonna, on the other hand, attributes to a Cypriote school several figures which are certainly not 6 Cypriote. This latter group, represented by nude Apollines and heads and fragments of similar figures,' does not concern us here. The Cypriote sculptures consist of both male and female votive statuettes and heads and fragments of such, of which a few belong to the earlier, but advanced stage of the second Proto-Cypriote style and the majority to the N eo-Cypriote style. Their Cypriote character is proved by their exact counterparts among the sculptures found in Cyprus: e. g. the fragment of a man holding a kid upright by the legs in front of him;" a man carrying a ram on his shoulder and holding it by the feet with the right hand;» male votaries dressed in chiton and mantle, with the one arm vertical and the other one bent across the breast and slung in a fold of the mantle;» male votary wearing belt and shemtii» female votaries with board-shaped body, often wearing necklaces, the one arm vertical and the other bent across the breast with a cup, a flower, a bird, a goat, etc. in the hand;» similar figures holding a tympanon;» lyre-players;" seated figure wearing chiton and mantle, the right arm bent across the breast and slung in a fold of the mantle;» seated woman with a child across her lap, of the "nursing mother" type. 16 Naukratis II, pp. 55 ff. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, pp. 49 1 f.; PI. CCXIV. "Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, p. 183 (B 457-8). < Loc. cit. (B 462-3). s Loc, cit. (B 451). 6 DEONNA, Les "Apollons archaiques"; pp. 302 ff. 7 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. J: 1, B 438, etc. "Gp. cit. I: I, B 450; cf. the statuette from Cyprus: OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. L, 2. • University College, London, Fig. 44; cf. the statuette from Cyprus, Fig. 45. 10 University College, London, Figs. 46,47. The Cypriote specimens have usually the right ann slung in a fold of the mantle, as Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 48; CisNOLA, Atlas I, PI. LV and passim, but there are also specimens with the left hand bent, as Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 49. 11 University College, London, Fig. 48; cf. the figures from Cyprus: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. IX, I I . 12 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 452, 456-45 8; EDGAR, Greek Sculpture (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), PI. I, 27429, 27610; 1
2
Sculpture CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN EGYPT The excavations at Naukratis have brought to light a great number of sculptures of different types and origin: some are Greek/ some seem to be local imitations of Cypriote types,' but the majority are clearly of Cypriote origin. This does not mean that all these sculptures have been imported from Cyprus. We know that Cypriote sculptors were established at Naukratis, as shown by an inscription found during the excavations. 2 On the other hand, the limestone of the sculptures in question is in most cases of Cypriote 1
E. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I:
I,
B 438, 442.
2
Cf. pp. 366 f.
"Ann. Brit. School Athens V, p. 32.
cf. the Cyprus specimens: Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 234, 23 6; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. X, 12; XXXIV, 216; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PIs. XLIX, 5; L, 3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXC, 1-4. 12 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 455; cf, the Cyprus specimens: op. cit. I: 2, C 242, 253; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXII, 207, 208; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. LI, 2, 8. 14 Brit. Mus. Cat. Sculpt., I: I, B 459; cf, the figures from Cyprus: Sued. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVIII, 7; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XII, 14. For later specimens, ef. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 327 ff. 15 Op. cit. I: I, B 462; cf. the statuette from Cyprus: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXVIII, 249. The only difference is that the Naukratite specimen is male and the Cypriote female. The conical cap and face of the Naukratite statuette are entirely Cypriote. 16 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I; I, B 463; cf. the Cyprus specimens: op, cit. I: 2, C 414; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXVIII, 246, 247, 251, 252; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. XXXVII, I, ~.
32 0
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Fig. 44. Votive Statuette from Naukratis, Fig. 45. Votive Statuette from Cyprus. Fig. 4 6. Votive Statuette from Naukratis. University College, London. Cyprus ColI., Stockholm. University College, London.
It is thus a fact that a great many of the Naukratite sculptures show a general stylistic similarity to Cypriote sculptural art, and also correspond exactly to individual specimens of Cypriote sculpture. This indicates that the sculptures in question are of Cypriote workmanship, and this conclusion is further supported by the fact that we know that Cypriote sculptors worked at Naukratis, as shown by the inscription referred to .above. It is thus certain that all the Cypriote sculptures found in N aukratis were not imported from Cyprus. Apart from the inscription, this can be proved in one case: the unfinished state of one of the statuettes' provides the evidence. From the artistic point of view' it makes no difference whether the sculptures are imported or not, because artistically they are all Cypriote. For some sculptures no exact counterparts can be found in Cyprus. Of these, the figure of a hunter" is, however, entirely Cypriote in style and workmanship. He wears a Cypriote cap with upturned cheek-pieces, and the dress is also Cypriote. It is provided with a Greek inscription, from which we know that it was dedicated by a Greek (Kallimachos?)to Aphrodite, in whose temenos it was found. The Cypriote sculptures of terracotta found at Naukratis are much less numerous than those in limestone: a torso of a female statuette, with the right arm bent across the breast and holding-a tympanon by the hand;' a horseman;' a male head wearing a helmet of early Neo-Cypriote style;" Neo-Cypriote female heads;' fragment of a draped male figure, dressed in a mantle 'twisted round the waist and falling over the advanced left arm.' This figure seems to belong to the end of the 5th or to the beginning of 4th cent. B. C. Some of the sculptures found in the temple of Apollon can be stratigraphically determined. An examination of the stratification of the site shows that we can distinguish four successive temples, Apollon I-IV.8 Apollon IV can be assigned to the Persian period, Apollon I-III are pre-Persian. Apollon I comprises three phases, A, B, C. The earliest finds of sculpture Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 456; cf. p. 183. I, B 451. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., B 325; cf. the Cyprus specimens: op, cit. A 81, 95; OHNEFALscH-RlcHTER, Kypros, PI. CCX, 8; Suied. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 3-5. 4 Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., B 328: "Cypriote type" (not illustrated). " Naukratis I, PI. II, 5; cf, Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXIX, 3. 6 Naukratis I, PI. II, 2, 3; cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 3. 7 Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., C 606 (not illustrated), compared with Cypriote specimens, op, cit., A 401-404, 439. 8 Ann. Arch. & Anthrop, Liverp. XXI, 1934, pp. 67 ff. In Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXIV, p. 86, n. 2, R. M. Cook has thrown doubt upon the reliability of my analysis of the stratification of the successive temples and the dates proposed. His objections are that "Naucratite A" and the Ionian bowls cannot have persisted until the end of the 6th cent. B. C., and that early Attic Black Figure cannot have been found in a stratwn dating shortly after c. 550 B. C. The chronology of early Black Figure is still very uncertain. Only two fragments of those found at Naukratis are illustrated. They are certainly earlier than c. 550 B. C., but that they are 1
a Op. cit. I:
21 Fig. 47-48. Votive Statuettes from Naukratis. University College, London.
earlier than the beginning of the 6th cent. B. C. cannot be ascertained: there are various -indications that the initial date of the Black Figured pottery is somewhat later than is now usually accepted. If we assign the vases represented by the sherds illustrated in the publication of Naukratis to the beginning of the 6th cent. B. C., these vases may of course very well have been destroyed at c. 550 B. C., and the sherds in question have happened to come in the stratum where they were found at that date or shortly after. It is hardly necessary to state that a certain stratwn may contain earlier and later objects, and that the latest objects date the stratum in question. As regards the final date of "Naucratite A" and the Ionian bowl fabric it suffices to draw attention to the fact that "Naucratite A" has been found in Rhitsona, Tomb 46, dating from c. 500 B. C. (Journ.' Hell. Stud. XXIX, 1909, p. 308; cf. op. cit. XLIV,.. 1924, p. 206), and Ionian bowls have been discovered in Marion, Tomb 47, dating from Cypro-Classic I A (Swe{J. Cyp. Exp, II,p. 3i6), i. e., c. 475440 B: C., and in Marion, Tomb 96, dating from CyproArchaic II B (op. cit. II, p. 449), i. e., c. 540-475 B. C. The objections against my analysis of the stratification in the temple of Apollon at Naukratis are not therefore justified, so far as I can see.
appear in the layers of Apollon I B, which yielded the Cypriote terracotta head of the early Neo-Cypriote style. Neo-Cypriote terracotta heads and fragments of limestone sculpture were found in the layers of Apollon I C. In the collections of University College, London, is the upper part of a terracotta . statuette with a moulded head of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style attached to a body of the "snow-man" technique. 1 Two other moulded heads in the same collections seem also to be N eo-Cypriote, but their style is more Syrian.' All these terracottas were found in Egypt, probably at Memphis.' In conclusion, I draw attention to an alabaster head of uncertain provenance, bought at Tantah.' It is Neo-Cypriote or made by a foreign sculptor in close imitation of Neo-Cypriote prototypes. 5
CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA A fragment of a Cypriote limestone figure was found at Tell Jemmeh in the S. wall of Room B M at about Level 199.6 It is a fragment of a Herakles figure dressed in a folded chiton ending at the knees and wearing a lion's skin, of which a flap is visible at each side, and the tail falls straight down along the right leg.' Only the lower part of the thighs, covered by the dress, and a part of the right leg below the knee, are preserved. The figure can be assigned to the Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style, and dates, to judge by the folds of the chiton, from the early 4th cent. B. C.8 In tracing the city wall of Tell es-Safi the excavators found that a part of it was covered by an ancient rubbish heap. This must have been thrown there when the rampart was in ruins. It contained a heterogeneous collection of objects, including a "large number of specimens of small stone statuettes of a well-known Cypriote type". ° All the sculptures "Were found in fragments, "none of which fitted together to form a whole figure." Only the mest representative specimens are illustrated in the excavation report." These comprise four heads and four fragments of bodies. Of the heads, one represents Herakles clad in lion-skin and with the club lifted above the crown of the head; the style is Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek of an early stage; the expression has preserved something of the Archaic vigour." The two female heads to the right of Herakles are rather poor and late specimens of the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style, and the male head to the left of Herakles belongs to the second Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style." The torso fragments are representatives of Cf. for the type: CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XXIX, 235· 2 Cf. for the type: op, cit. II, PI. XXII, 175, 179· 3 Unpublished. • EDGAR, op, cit., PI. I, 27427. 5 Both the hair-style and general type of the face are represented by Cypriote prototypes of superior workmanship, as Handb. Cesn, Coll., No. 1269 (not illustrated). 6 PETRIE. Gerar, p. 18, PI. XV, 8. 7 Cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXXVI, I. 1
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
32 2
PETRIE, Gerar, p. 18, assigns the figure to c. 700 B. C., but this date is certainly an error. ° BLISS & MACALISTER, Exc. in Palestine, p. 146 . 10 Qp. cit., PI. 75. . 11 For the Herakles head, cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 216; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXIII, 3, 5; Coll. de Clercq, Cat. V, PI. III. 12 For the female heads, cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 102; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. LXVII, 439-442; Szoed. Cyp.
323
the same styles as the heads. The sculptures have naturally been used as ex votos in a temple. The fact that there are Herakles figures among the sculptures seems to indicate that the god venerated in the temple was the one identified with Herakies by the Cypriote Greeks and called Melkart' by the Phoenicians. Terracotta statuettes of horsemen modelled in the "snow-man" technique are often called Cypriote, but the type was introduced into Cyprus from the Asiatic mainland, and only specimens with distinct Cypriote traits are here taken into consideration. These qualifications are fulfilled by a statuette of a horseman found at Ain Shems;' if this statuette is not imported from Cyprus, it imitates very closely the Cypriote type. It was discovered in the repository of Tomb 8, and can be assigned to the 6th cent. B. C. The excavations of the temple of Eshmun at Sidon have brought to light a number of Cypriote sculptures in limestone and terracotta." The best preserved specimens are deposited in the Museum in Istanbul, while several fragments, mostly of great dimensions, were left at Saida.' Among the limestone sculptures we note the upper part of a Neo-Cypriote statuette representing a beardless youth with the left arm vertical, the right arm bent across the body, wig-shaped hair, and dressed in a plain tunic with belt;' a Neo-Cypriote head of a beardless youth with long, plain hair;' and the body of a male statuette of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, carrying a quadruped by the right hand and dressed in a mantle falling over the left shoulder. 7 The terracotta sculptures comprise three Neo-Cypriote heads of beardless youths, of which two are crowned by a conical helmet of the Cypriote type,' and the third has a turban-shaped fillet (almost missing) above the forehead;' further, the torso and thighs of a male statuette dressed in a girdled tunic ending above the knees, with tassel fringes hanging along right side, the right arm bent across the body and carrying a quadruped." This terracotta statuette belongs to the second Proto-Cypriote style.v The N eo-Cypriote limestone sculptures and the terracottas were found outside the S. W. angle of the temenos," the Cypro-Greek limestone figure in the tunnel.» Among the finds of the excavations carried out by G. Contenau at Sidon, there are also several Cypriote sculptures in limestone and terracotta. Unfortunately an exact stylistic determination of the sculptures is not possible on account of the summary descriptions and the missing or defective illustrations, but it can be ascertained that a considerable Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 128; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. III, Exp. III, PI. LXIII, 2. For the male head, cr. CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pis. CXII, XCIII, passim; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXXV, 2. 1
Cf, op. cit. III, p. 75.
2
Pale Expl. Fund. Ann. II, 1912/13, Pis. LIV, 3; LV.
3
Rev. bibl. XII, 1903, pp. 69 if.
4
Ibid., pp. 76 f.
8
5 Fig. 49: 2; op, cit. XII, PI. VII, 7; cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXVI, 70. 6 Fig. 49: I; Rev. bibl. XII, PI. VII, 6; cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C IS; for hair-style, cr. also CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXIII, 54. 7 Fig. 49: 3; Rev. bibl. XII, PI. VII, I; cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. L, 294; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. XLII, 4;
Pis. XVI, 2; XIX, 3; XXVII, 2; XXXI, 3. 8 Figs. 50: I; 5 I: I; Rev. bibl. XII, PI. IX, 12, 13. Since the publication, No. 12, preserved in the Istanbul Museum, has been mended and joined to the upper part of a body, cf. Fig. 50:· 1, It carries a quadruped with its right hand in front of the body, and forms an exact parallel to Stoed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXVIII, 3. 9 Fig. 51: 2; Rev. bibl. XII, PI. IX, 14; cr. CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XIX, 149; .Stoed. Cyp, Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 1-4. 16 Fig. 50: 2; Rev. bibl. XII, p. 75, Fig. 9 his; PI. VIII, 9. 11 Cf. the dress and modelling of the legs, Swed. Cyp. Exp, II, Pis. CXCVIII; CC, I, 2; CCI, 1-3. 12 Rev. bibl. XII, pp. 73 f. 13 Ibid., p. 73; cf. op, cit. XI, 19°2, p. 503.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
Fig. 51. Terracotta heads from Sidon.
2
3
4
Fig. 49. Votive Statuettes from Sidon. Istanbul.
5
number of draped limestone torsos "de style chypriote" were found and also fragments of terracotta statuettes both in the "snow-man" technique and of the more developed types, dressed in a mantle with diagonal folds and the arms kept close to the sides.' The sculptures date from" both the Archaic' and later periods. A head of Archaic Cypro-Greek style' bought in: Tyre may -have been found there or in the vicinity. . A colossal limestone head" acquired from. Greville Chester in 188sand now in the British Museum is said to come from Byblos (Jebeil), Itis Neo-Cyprioteinstyle, wearing a notched, conical cap and a long beard worked in vertical grooves, with spiral ends; the eyes are long and lancet-shaped, placed obliquely, with sculptured lids and ridged-brows; smiling, protuding lips. Two male limestone heads with a wreath around the head were found in the French excavations at Byblos. The onehead- belongstbanearlystage of the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style and the other- to the 'later stage .of the samestyle. Further, a boardshaped torso of a Cypriote statuette of limestone" is recorded from the same excavations. Excavations carried out at Amrit, on the site of ancient Marathusvat equal distance from the main route and the temple known under the name of Ma'abed, have brought to light a great nurn.berof limestone sculptures, of which the majority is of Cypriote workmanship.' Already in 1873 the site was discovered, and a good' many sculptures were Syria I, 1920, p. 310, Fig. 105. Cat. Sculpt.' II, No. 440. The provenance of the Cypriote statuette, ibid., No. 439, is quite uncertain. a Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 74. 4 DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, PI. XLII, No. 1888. 1
2 MENDEL,
2
Fig.' 50. Votive Statuettes from. Sidon. Istanbul.
Istanb~l.
5 Ibid., No.13 6i . ' " Op, cit. I, No: 1052. This' torso js not illustrated and I cannot, therefore, determine its date. ? Cf., Acad. Inscr, et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus, 1926, pp. 57 f.
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
collected. 1 Among the sculptures are many Herakles figures. M. Dunand has announced that a publication of the results of the excavation will appear in the Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth 1940, but on account of the war tl.e writer has not teen able to consult this journal. The finds were most courteously shown to me when travelling in Syria in 1928. Both from the quantitative and qualitative points of view the Cypriote sculptures from Amrit are amcng t'r.e finest of these found outside Cyprus. Cnly at Naukratis and Lindos a collection of Cypriote sculptures of similar importance has been discovered. Some of the Amrit sculptures may be imported from Cyprus, others may have been made by Cypriote sculptors in Syria, but that question can only be answered when the whole material has been fully published. The sculptures do not seem to have been found in situ, but in a favissa, where they were brought from a neighbouring temple when this was cleared of old ex votos. Their great number indicates a Cypriote trading factory of the same character as that found at Tell Sheikh Yusuf (d. pp. 254 ff.). In the trading factory at Tell Sheikh Yusuf, which yielded such a great quantity of Cypriote pottery, 'several Cypriote sculptures were also found. 2 Some specimens not illustrated cannot be stylistically determined. a Those illustrated, and whose Cypriote origin is certain, include the following sculptures: a female limestone head of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote style,' a limestone torso of a Herakles statuette,' and a limestone head of a woman,' both belonging to the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style, a fragment of a draped, boardshaped torso,' a headless limestone statuette of a so-called temple-boy,' a Neo-Cypriote torso of a terracotta statuette,· the upper part of an Eastern N eo-Cypriote terracotta statuette carrying a quadruped with the arms across the chest,» an Archaic Cypro-Greek terracotta head of a woman,» the upper part of a terracotta statuette carrying a bowl (?) with both hands," some minor ·terracotta heads, is both the statuettes and lhe heads belonging to the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, and a hand-made, male terracotta head,> bearded, covered by a conical cap, and belonging to the category of idol plastic. RENAN, Mission de Phenicie, pp. 850 f. Journ. Hell. Stud. LVIII, 1938, pp. r ff., 133 ff. 3 Ibid., p. 164, MN. 387 (nearly life-size limestone head of a male figure with trimmed and curled beard, row of curls across the forehead, fillet with laurel .leaves in the hair; found in Level 2); p. 164, MN. 7 (fragment of a female limestone statuette dressed in chiton and cloak; found in Level 3); p. 167, MN. 267 (terracotta statuette of a squatting boy; found in' Level 4); p. 169, MN. 371 (male terracotta head of "Egyptian" style; found in Level 6). • Ibid., p. 168, MNN. 130, Pl. XII; found in Level 4. 5 Ibid., p. 168, MNN. 159, Pi. XII; found in Level 4. 6 Ibid., p. 167, MNN. 78, Pl. XII; found in Level 4. 1
2
• Ibid.,Pl. XII (left of Herakles statuette); level not indicated. 6 Ibid., p. 164, MN. 62, Fig. 7 (p. 21); found in Level 3. D Ibid., p. 168, MN. 370, Pl. XI; found in Levels. 10 Ibid., MNN. II I, Pl. XI; level not indicated. 11 Ibid., p. 168, MNN. 97, Pl. XI; found in Level 4. 12 Ibid., p. 19, Fig. 6 (middle); found in Level 4. 13 Loc. cit.; found in Level 4. The head in the right top comer is certainly not Cypriote, and even the others are of somewhat dubious Cypriote origin. Other specimens classified as Cypriote by the excavator, but certainly not of Cypriote origin, are MN. 425, p. 166, Pl. X and MN. 426, p. 170, Pl. XI. 14 Ibid., p. 165, MN. 92, Pl. X; found in Level 3.
327
CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE FOUND IN GREECE The excavations of the chapel at Vroulia yielded a few specimens of Cypriote sculpture in terracotta and limestone. The terracotta sculptures consist of an equestrian statuette of advanced "snow-man" technique- and another statuette representing a male votary, of which a considerable part of the torso is preserved, with the left arm vertical, the right arm cent across the body and holding a quadruped; it is dressed in a short-sleeved, girdled tunica with the folds rendered by curved grooves below the girdle.' The limestone sculptures comprise a flute-player- and a standing male figure.' A statuette of a sphinx' is also probably Cypriote. The head is missing, i. e., our safest criterion as regards the artistic determination, but the body resembles so closely that of a Cypriote sphinx found at Lindoss that the attribution of the Vroulia sphinx to Cypriote art seems justified. Both the limestone statuettes mentioned above are of fairly rude workmanship. They can be attributed to the N eoCypriote style.' On the acropolis of Lindos, where the excavations have brougth to light such a great amount of Cypriote pottery, a vast number of Cypriote sculptures were also found. These are both in limestone and terracotta. The limestone sculptures comprise about 700 specimens and the terracottas about 240. No place outside Cyprus has yielded such a great number of Cypriote sculptures as Lindos, with the possible exception of Amrit, Naukratis, and Samos, but the exact number of sculptures found on these sites cannot be ascertained, because the excavations of Amrit and Samos are only preliminarily published, and in the Naukratis publication only a select part of the finds is registered. The Lindos sculptures were found in the same facies as the pottery, i. e., in the "Couches archaiques" and in the "Grand depot d'ex-voto" (d. pp. 265 f.). Most ofthe limestone specimens were found in the "Couches archaiques" and only 24 specimens in the "Grand depOt d'ex-voto". Blinkenberg has made a careful examination of the sculptures and arranged them in groups according to the different subjects of representation, the different types of dress, position of arms, etc. In the descriptions there is also ample reference to corresponding types of sculpture found in Cyprus. The great number of sculptures found excludes the possibility, as pointed out by Blinkenberg, that they were all imported frem Cyprus. As in Naukratis, the majority, if not all, must have been made by Cypriote sculptors in Rhodes. A few of the sculptures can be assigned to the second Proto-Cypriote style, but the majority are Neo-Cypriote, The male figures of the second Proto-Cypriote style altogether KINCH, Vroulia, frontispiece; PIs. 13: I, 14: I. Op. cit., Pl. 14: 6. The best Cypriote parallel is afforded by A. I. No. 1081, Fig. 65 b. 3 Gp. cit., PIs. 13: 3, 14: 3. • Op, cit., PIs. 13: 2, 14: 2. 5 Op, cit., Pl. 14: 4. 6 Lindos I, Pl. 75, No. 1818. 1
2
• Cf. for flute-player: Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 28, 30; for the male standing figure: op, cit. I: 2, C 49, which, however, has the left arm bent across the breast, but the right arm bent across the breast is otherwise very common in Cypriote sculpture. For the dress, cf. also CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XXI, 45; XXIV, 57, 59; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXXIII, 4; CCXXXIX, 2; III, Pl. CLXXXVIII, 7.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
show the characteristic features of that style. The body is of the board-shaped type, and is wrapped in the typical Cypriote dress: a short-sleeved chiton, usually covered by the heavy, bordered cloak or a girdled chiton with overfold; the position of the arms is typically Cypriote, with the left arm vertical and the right arm with closed fist bent across the chest and thrust into a fold of the cloak, or both arms are vertical; the head is covered by a conical cap, and in the features of the face the Proto-Cypriote element is predominant. 1 The few female votaries of the second Proto-Cypriote style- are also quite similar to specimens found in Cyprus, and must therefore be considered as products of Cypriote sculptors. Most of the Lindos figures of the N eo-Cypriote style also correspond exactly to similar specimens found in Cyprus: beardless male figure with conical cap, left arm vertical, right arm bent, slung in a fold of the mantle; 2 heads, e. g., the representative specimens Nos. 1691 and 1692, of which the former is male with a frontlet around the head and the latter one female with large, Cypriote hair-rings;' female votaries, usually with one arm vertical, the other one bent across the body and holding a votive object, with the hair falling behind in a compact mass, often with necklaces and large hair-rings,' sometimes with vertical position of the arms and outstretched fingers;' male figures, with a ram carried on the shoulder, the legs of the ram around the neck of the man and held by one or both of his hands;' males and females, with bucks held in different attitudes: standing, with one
hand grasping their horns, 1 held by one hand obliquely in front of the body, 2 or one arm bent across the body,' or by both hands in front of the body;' flute-players;' lyreplayers;' tambourine-players;' seated figures, male and female," among them a ram-headed god;' recumbent figurea;" horsemen;» sphinxes';" lions" and other animals,« etc. The terracottas comprise three principal classes; idol plastic, moulded statuettes, and large figures. The idol plastic is of the typical Cypriote "snow-man" technique. Both the very primitive" and the somewhat more advanced> types are represented: horsemen, warriors, ring-dancers, tympanon-players, animals, etc . . The moulded statuettes are both male and female. The male figures form two groups. Those of the first group have only the head moulded, while the body is made by hand," those of the second group are entirely moulded.> The body is flat; the arms are vertical or the right arm is bent across the chest and slung in a fold of the mantle; the head is crowned by a conical cap or a turban. The characteristics of the face assign the statuettes to the second Proto-Cypriote and the N eo-Cypriote styles.» The female statuettes may also be divided into two principal groups. In the first, the dress is only indicated by paint, so that the body appears to be nude. The arms are vertical and kept close to the sides of the body. Personal ornaments are rare.w In the second group the dress is rendered plastically, and hides the
1 The painted and fringed border of the mantle and the painted border of the chiton worn by Lindos I, PI. 65, Nos. 1585, .1586, 1598 have their best parallels in the Cypriote terracotta plastic (Journ. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, PI. IX; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCVIII). For the dress of the torso, Lindos I, PI. 65, No. 16II, d. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XVI, 21; XXI, 45. The head, Lindos I; PI. 69, No. 1690 is similar to, e. g., those of CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XLVII, 284; LV, 355. The water demon, Lindos I, PI. 76, No. 1820' resembles the demon, OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CV, 8, though the latter is bird-shaped. Fish-shaped demons are not represented in Cypriote art, but the workmanship of the specimens is entirely Cypriote. For the hair of No. 1820, cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXV, 224; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVIII, .2, 4. 2 Lindos I, PI. 68, Nos. 1661, 1674. Cf. the Arsos head, Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVIII, 2 with that of Lindos No. 1661, the Kition torso, Swed. CyP. Exp. III, PI. XIII, 3 with that of Lindos No. 1674. _ 2 Lindos I, PI. 65, No. 1584; cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pls. XLV, 282; XLVI, 283. 'Lindos I, PI. 69, No. 1691 is similar to Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 4, and may also be compared with CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXIII, 54. For Lindos I, PI. 69, No. 1692, cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, CIS; OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI.. LIV, 1. 5 Lindos I, PI. 66, Nos. 1620, 1621, 1627, 1630, 1632, 1635, 1646; PI. 67, Nos. 1644, 1647, 1651, 1653; PI. 68, No. 1675; cf. the following Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. X, 12; XXVI, 66; 67, 69; OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PIs. XLIX, 3-5; C, 5; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 234,236, 238; cf. also Lindos I,. PI. 66, No. 1632 with
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. CLXXXVII, I and CLXXXVIII, 5 (votaries carrying bowls, though the Cypriote specimens are Proto-Cypriote), 6 Lindos I, PI. 68, Nos. 1663, 1664;d. the Cyprus specimens: Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXC, 7, 8 which, however, are of inferior workmanship. The chiton of the statuettes from Lindos is provided with a visible girdle, which is unusual in Cypriote sculpture of the female dress, while the girdle of the male chiton is often rendered plastically. Further, the chiton of No. 1664 is folded below the girdle, and the folds are rendered by vertical incisions. This is also rather unusual in Cyprus. A male figure (CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXVI, 70) wears, however, such a dress and female representatives are not altogether lacking (op. cit. II, PI. XL, 321; d. also OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CXXX, I, where also the upper part of the dress is folded). The lyre-player of Cypriote origin found in Naukratis (p. 319) has also a similar dress. This type of chiton was common in Greece, where it appeared earliest in the East-Greek area. It arrived 'there from the Orient either by sea through the Phoenicians or by land probably by means of the Lydians, The SyroAnatolian territory seems to be the place of origin for this particular dress (Athen. Mitt. XLVI, 1921, pp. 36 ff.). Since this dress is somewhat rare in Cyprus, we should better interpret its appearance in Cypriote sculpture as influenced by foreign prototypes, i. e., the votaries ordering the statuettes in i.question, both in Cyprus and abroad, were probably foreigners wearing this dress. For the parted hair of No. 1663, d. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXVI, 227; II, PI. XXX, 250; Handb. Cesn, Coll., No. 1269; Swed. Cyp. Exp, III, PI. VI, 2, 3. 7 Lindos I, PI. 70, No. 1721; PI. 71, .Nos. 1722, 1726,
1727, 1734, 1739, 1745, 1746; d. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XVI, 21, 22; Exc. in Cyp., p. 112, Fig. 164: 13; cf. p. 320, Fig. 45. 1 Lindos I, PI. 71, Nos. 1750, 1751, 1753; d. the Cyprus specimens: Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 49; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXVIII, 136. 2 Lindos I, PI. 72, Nos. 1762, 1763; cf. the statuette from Cyprus: Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXIX, 3. 3 Lindos I, PI. 72, Nos. 1764-1766; cf. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXVIII, 133, 137; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXVIII, 1-5; III, PI. CXC, 3, 4. , Lindos I, PI. 72, Nos. 1767, 1768, 1770; cf. the Cyprus specimens: OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. L, 2; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXC, 5. 5 Lindos I, PI. 69, Nos. 1703, 1704; PI. 70, Nos. 1707, 1709, 1710; cf. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XIII, IS; XXI, 42-49; OHNEFALscH-RwHTER, Kypros, PI. XLII, 3, 6; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 27-31; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. IX, I, 2; XIII, I, 4. 6 Lindos I, PI. 70, Nos. 1712, 1716, 1717; d. the Cyprus specimens: '-CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XII, 14; LVII, 379; LXVII, 441; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVIII, 7. 7 Lindos I, PI. 70, Nos. 1719, 1720; d. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXII, 207, 208; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 242, 253. 8 Lindos I, PI. 73, Nos. 1781, 1784, 1785; PI. 74, Nos. 1786, 1787, 1791; cf, the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXXVIII, 249; Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. 1132-II34. 9 Lindos I, PI. 74, Nos. 1793-1795; d. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XXXVIII, 248, 250; LXXXVII, 583, 584; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 222, 223.
10 Lindos I, PI. 74, Nos. 1796, 1797; cf, the Cyprus specimens: Handb. Cesn. Coll., Nos. II42-II45; somewhat later are: OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CCVI, 8; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 227. 11 Lindos I, PI. 75, No. 1802; d. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. LXXX; OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CLXXXVIII. 12 The sphinxes, Lindos I, PI. 75, Nos. 1804 ff., are of the Phoenician type, with straight wings attached to the middle part of the body and with an apron in front, a type which was taken over by the Cypriotes (cf. p. 291). This type of sphinx is rare in the sculptural art of Cyprus (cf., however, CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XVII, 24), but is common in the non-sculptural art. The fact that the face of the sphinxes is of the Neo-Cypriote type and similar to those of the other Cypriote figures found in Lindos indicates also that these sphinxes must be of Cypriote workmanship. 13 Lindos I, PIs. 77, 78; cf. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. LXXXIV; XCV. 14 Lindos I, PI. 78, 79; d. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. LXXX, 524, 526; OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. CCVI, 9; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXLVIII, 3, 4. 15 Lindos I, PIs. 86, 87. 16 Lindos I, PI. 88. 17 Lindos I, pp. 484 ff., Nos. 1994-2000; PI. 89. 18 Lindos I, pp. 487 ff., Nos. 2001-2022; PIs. 89, 90. 19 These specimens from Lindos should be compared with CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. IX, 66, 69, 70; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXXXII, 7, 8, IS (heads); CCXXXIII, 1; III, PI. CCII, 4, 5. 20 Lindos I, pp. 490 f., PIs. 91, 92; cf. the Cyprus specimens:
33°
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
body. The arms are vertical as in the preceding group, or one arm is bent across the body, and the hand usually holds a tympanon. Personal ornaments are abundant: large hair-rings, necklaces, bracelets, etc.' Both the groups include specimens of the second Proto-Cypriote and the Neo-Cypriote styles. A single statuette, No. 2071, seems to be entirely nude; the right arms performs "la geste pudique", and the left hand grasps the left breast.. The large figures are in a very fragmentary state of preservation, with only small parts of the torsos, legs, arms," etc. preserved. Only one head- has been preserved; it belongs to the Neo-Cypriote style, and is of excellent workmanship. To the W. of the Athena temple on the acropolis of Ialysos some irregular cavities were found in the rock. These proved to have been used as [aoissae for early ex votos, and contained material from the 9th to the 5th cent. B. C. Among the numerous objects of bronze, ceramics, faience, ivory, etc. there were also some Cypriote sculptures. Four specimens, all of terracotta, are published;' three heads and the upper part of a female statuette. This and two of the heads are Neo-Cypriote, while the third head belongs to the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style. Kameiros, next to Lindos, has yielded the greatest number of Cypriotes sculptures found on Rhodes. The site was excavated for the first time between 1859 and 1864 by A. Salzmann and E. Biliotti, and for the second time by G. Jacopi in 1929 and the following years. It is well known that the excavations of Salzmann and Biliotti were not carefully conducted, and in many cases it is not even possible to identify the find-spot of the sculptures in question. Most of them seem to have been found on the acropolis of Kameiros, but some were found in the tombs.' The recent Italian excavations have provided us with a more exact knowledge of the site.' The majority of the sculptures were found on the acropolis, near the presumed temple of Athena, in the earth filling supported by the peribolos walls. Only one sculpture, a terracotta statuette of the second Proto-Cypriote style, was found in the tombs, but this single find is so much the more important from a chronological point of view, as this tomb, No. XXVII, can be exactly dated. The statuette" is moulded, with flat body, left arm vertical, right arm bent across the body and holding a rectangular object; dressed in chiton and bordered mantle; rich personal ornaments: bracelets, necklaces, pendants, hair-rings; turban-shaped head-dress; the hair falls in a compact mass on the shoulders, and descends in two striated plaits in front; large semilunar eyes; ridged, incised brows; strong projecting nose." The tomb can be assigned to the first quarter of the 6th cent. B. C., and this gives us a valuable fixed point for the chronology of the second ProtoCypriote style (cf. p. 208). CESNOLA, Atlas II, Pl. XXVIII, 23°-232; OHNEFALSCHRICHTER, Kypros, Pl. LI, 3; Sioed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pl. CCXXXIII, 5; III, Pl. CCIII, 8-12. 1 Lindos I, pp. 491 ff., Pis. 92, 93; cf. the Cyprus specimens: CESNOLA, Atlas II, Pl. XXV; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., A 64, 78; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, Pl. LI, 7; Steed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. CCIII, 1-6. 2 Lindos I, Pl. 93, No. 2°71; cf. Suied. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. CCIII, 10. 3 Lindos I, pp. 496 ff.; Pis. 94, 95.
4 Lind~s I, pp. 498 f., No. 2087; Pl. 94; cf. the heads from Cyprus: CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pl. XXXV, 220; II, Pl. XXXVII, 299 (with "feathered" eyebrows and not only ridged as the head from Lindos).
5
Clara Rhodos I, pp. 77, 79, Fig. 60.
6
Cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I:
7
Clara Rhodos VI-VII, pp. 279 f.
I,
p. 15 8 .
8
Op, cit. VI-VII, pp. 8.. ff., Fig. 91; p. 90, Fig. 102.
9
Cf. the statuette, Szoed, Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. CCIII,
I.
33 1
The limestone sculptures are very similar to those from Lindos, and some specimens are almost identical. The affinities to the corresponding Naukratis sculptures are also evident, as pointed out by Pryce,' who, in accordance with his ideas about the artistic origin of the N aukratite series, does not believe that the majority of the Kameiros sculptures are of Cypriote origin. His reasons are: the limestone is more gritty than that of Cypriote sculptures; the nude Apollon type, which is represented at Kameiros, is avoided in Cyprus, and the man holding a lion is not of the Cypriote type.' As regards the quality of limestone, it is to be observed that this varies much in Cyprus, and on an examination of the Kameiran sculptures exhibited in the British Museum I have not found any sure proof that the limestone could not be Cypriote. As regards the stylistic determination of the statuettes in question it cannot be denied that the majority of them are entirely Cypriote in style: they have their exact counterparts among the sculptures found in Cyprus. They include flute-players;' lyre-players;' votaries with one hand vertical and the other bent across the breast and holding objects of different kinds;' votary holding an animal with both hands in front;' votary leading animal at the side;' kriophoros;' votary with vertical arms holding jug and bird;" standing kurotrophos;v female" and male" heads; seated male figure;» seated figures of Zeus Amon;» sphinxes;» and animals." Among the terracottas there are also a few Cypriote specimens: a fragment of a NeoCypriote, large h~ad with lancet-shaped eyes and heavy hair-rings;" further Neo-Cypriote, moulded statuettes, some of which fragmentary.v The specimens which show non-Cypriote peculiarities are local works influenced by the Cypriote prototypes. Single specimens of Cypriote sculptures are also recorded from other sites on Rhodes than those already mentioned: a moulded, Neo-Cypriote terracotta head from Fana;> Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, p. 159. Loc. cit. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 338, 339. 4 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 283, Fig. 4. For Cypriote lyre-players, cf. pp. 319, n. 14; 329, n. 6; for the dress, cf. p. 328, ri, 6, for the parted hair-style, cf. loco cit., and for the double tresses in front, CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pl. XXXI, 206. 5 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 341, 358-360. For Cypriote specimens, cf, p. 328, n. 5; p. 329, n. 3. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 340, 342, 343, 345. For Cypriote specimens, cf. p. 329, n. 4. 7 Qp. cit. I: I, B 348; Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 280, Fig. I. For Cypriote specimens, cf. p. 329, n. I. 8 Op, cit. VI-VII, p. 281, Fig. 2. For Cypriote specimens, cf, p, 328, n. 7. "Brit. Msa. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 344. I cannot produce a contemporary parallel votary figure from Cyprus holding both a bird and a jug. Kition No. 507+508 (Ssoed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. XXXIV, 4) holds, however, a bird in the left hand and a sack-shaped object, which may be a 'jug, in the right hand, but it is Sub-Archaic. Votaries holding a bird in, the one hand and an incense-box, a lustral spray, etc. in the other are common, and there are also instances of votaries holding a jug (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I:' 2, C 259). The workmanship and dress of the Kameiran statuette is 1
2
quite Cypriote, and there can be no doubt about its Cypriote origin. 10 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 283, Fig. 5. For Cypriote specimens, cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., A 134; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. CCII, 7, 8. 11 Brit. Mus. Cat., .Sculpt, I: I, B 388. For Cypriote specimens, cf, OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, Pl. LIV, I; still more similar CESNOLA, Atlas, II, Pl. XXIX, 235, 239. 12 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 286, Fig. 8 (left). For Cypriote specimens, cf, Steed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. CLXXXII, 2. 13 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 284, Fig. 6. No exact Cypriote parallel is known to me, but the workmanship and style are clearly Neo-Cypriote. 14 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 363. The figure is said to represent a seated woman, but in spite of the worn surface the characteristics of Zeus Amon are tracable. For Cypriote specimens of this kind, cf. p. 329, n. 9. 15 Op, cit. I: I, B 364-367. Cf. p. 329, n. 12. 16 Op, cit. I: I, B 369 ff.; Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 285, Fig. 9. Cf. p. 329, n. 14. 17 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 299, Fig. 27. 18 oi: cit. VI-VII, p. 303, Fig. 34; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., B 130-132; cf. op. cit., A 63 ff.; Suied. Cyp. Exp. III, Pl. ,CCIII. 1. Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., B 133.
332
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
a ram-headed, seated deity of limestone from Lardos, near Lindos;' a female limestone head" from an unknown site on Rhodes, of the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style. Among the finds from Dadia on the Cnidian peninsula there are several Cypriote sculptures in limestone and terracotta. The finds are, for the most part, unpublished.' Specimens of Cypriote sculptures are .preserved in the, museums of Berlin, Istanbul, arid London. They include figures of similar types to those found at Lindos: a few specimens belong to the second Proto-Cypriote style, but the majority are Neo-Cypriote; those of limestone in the Istanbul Museum are shown on Fig. 52. Terracotta horsemen of Cypriote type are also reported froin 'Halikarnassos" arid other sites in Caria.' I have not been able to study them, so 1 cannot say whether they are of Cypriote origin or not. In the collection of the National Museum at Athens there is a limestone head which is said to come from Lycia. This head has been considered to represent Omphale, but in reality it is a Cypriote head of Herakles, and can be assigned to the Archaic Cypro-Greek style.' If the find-spot is right - and a priori there is no reason to doubt it - we have another evidence of Cypriote sculpture found in Asia Minor. Among the finds in the Artemision in Ephesos a Cypriote limestone head is recorded;" on the head is a conical cap with upturned cheek-pieces; the hair falls in a plain mass on the backoftheneck; large, lancet-shaped eyes without sculptured lids; long nose; lower part of face missing. The head is of the' Neo-Cypriote style! A fragment of aterracotta face of Cypriote style is reported from Smyrna.' Thehair and beard' are "feathered", and the eyes are indicated by a raised circle with centre. Th. Wiegand publishes a limestone head found at Glyphada onSamos, to the left of the road from Chora to Tigani.· The head is N eo-Cypriote. It represents a young man wearing a notched cap with upturned cheek-pieces- the hair hangs in a plain, heavy mass along the back of the neck; the eyes are narrow, lancet-shaped, with ridged eye-brows; the lips are narrow. The remains of rings in the ears made Wiegand believe that thefigure is female, which is obviously wrong; no female figure wears a pointed cap, but many male sculptures wear earrings. 10 During the recent German excavations of the Samian Heraion a huge number of Cypriote sculptures has been discovered. They are both of terracotta and limestone. Only a few of the terracottas have' been published.v It is stated that the Cypriote terracottas are quite 1 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 390. " Gp. .cit. I: I, B 327. 3 Cf. BLINKENBERG, Knidia, pp. 204 f.; Lindos I, p. 26, n. 3; MENDEL, Cat. figur, gr. de terre cuite, Nos. 3486-3501; p. 582: "Les figurines suivantes proviennent .d'une petite fouille, executee par un particulier, avec l'autorisation -du Musee Imperialiou e1les sont entrees en' 1907. Si .reduite qu'en soit la serie, elle presente un parallelisrne curieux avec les trouvailles de Lindos, et les importations - ou imitations - de types chypriotes y tiennent aussi. une grande place." 4 Brit. Mus. cai.; Terrac., B 118. 5 'E'f'"fjfl-' 'ApzawA., 1899, pp. 51 ff., PI. 4.
"Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: r , B
2.
This type is extremely common in Cyprus, cf. e. g., op. cit. I: 2, C 52. s Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., C 413. I have not been able to study' this fragment and cannot therefore ascertain its Cypriote workmanship. • Athen. 'Mitt, XXV, 1900, p. 151 f., Fig. on p. 152. 10 E. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCI; CXCII, 2-4; CXCIII, 3; CXCV, I; and passim. 11 A then. Mitt. LXV, 1940, pp. 57 ff.; cf. also Arch. Anz., 1930, pp. 153 f., Figs. 29, 30 and BUSCHOR, Altsam. Standbilder, p. 35, Fig. 131, of which the Cypriote workmanship has now been recognized (cf. p. 334. n·7). 7
333
Fig. 52. Sculptures from Dadia. Istanbul.
as numerous as those of Greek origin found at Heraion and dating from the Geometric and Archaicperiods,' Evidently the discovery of Cypriote sculptures in Samos is ofthe same numerical category as those in Naukratis, Amrit, and Rhodes, and it seems that the Samian finds even surpass the others in quantity. They are of capital importance for the question of the interrel~tion~ of~ Cypriote and Greek sculpture. In view of this fact I am sorry to have to deal WIth this discovery before it has ,been fully published. On the basis of the material at present available, we may state that the terracottas comprise specimens both of idol ' plastic and of art sculpture. The former category includes Nos. 354, 357, 375, 481, 519,658,75°,782, 1084:" statuettes with solid or hollow cylindrical body; male and female; standing figures and horsemen; all executed in the "snow-man" technique. The head No. 481 is a representative of the advanced idol plastic, i. e., Type .3 B in the general classification, p. 127. All the other statuettes are of Type 2. ' - , ' Th.e specimens of art sculpture can be assigned to the second Proto-Cypriote and NeoCypriote styles. The torsos and fragments Nos. 99, 344, and 1477" have a flattened body, 1
Athen. Mitt. LXV, 1940, p. 58. -" Ibid., PIs. 35-37.
3
Ibid., PI. 38.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
and wear the fringed mantle, both characteristic features of the second Proto-Cypriote style (cf. pp. 97 ff.). The heads Nos. 2IO, 339, 376, and 5761 are of a rather rough, conventionalized type. The head No. 386,' on the other hand, is a fine specimen of the early stage of the second Proto-Cypriote style, while the head No. 5993 and the statuette No. 6364 take us to the later stage of the style. The sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style are represented by the bearded and helmeted male head No. 419, the female figures Nos. 600 and 1472, the female head No. 385, the feet No. I5u, and the horse No. 1473.5 To these should be added a fragment of a face published by Buscher- and later recognized as Cypriote! This fragment, Nos. 385 and 419 can be assigned to the later phase of the style, while Nos. 600 and 1472 belong to its earlier phase. The feet No. I5II and the horse No. 1473 cannot be assigned to any particular stage of the style. This is a classification of the sculptures illustrated," but we must wait for the full publication of the finds, and particularly the limestone sculptures hitherto entirely unpublished, before we can ascertain whether this classification is applicable or not to all the sculptures found. As regards the conditions of find, we know that the idols Nos. 354, 357 and the torso No. 344 of the second Proto-Cypriote style were found below "Hekatompedos II" (Fundgruppe H),9 the construction of which is assigned to the beginning of the 7th cent. B. C. The idol No. 375 and the second Proto-Cypriote head No. 386 were found below the "Siidhalle", and are therefore assigned to before c. 650-625 B. C. (Fundgruppe ]).10 On account of its find context, the Neo-Cypriote head No. 419 is dated before the construction of the bath S. of the temple.» The female figure No. 1472 was found in the bed of the river, which existed before the regulation work of Rhoikos, and seems to have arrived there in connection with this work, i. e., c. 550 B. C.12 The idols Nos. 658, 750, the second ProtoCypriote specimens Nos. 99, 210, 576, 599, 1477, and the Neo-Cypriote statuette No. 600 were found in the substructure area of the great altar erected by Rhoikos c. 550 B. C., and this date would thus be a terminus ante quem:» The Neo-Cypriote head No. 385 was discovered below the demolished foundation of the Rhoikos-temple. The latest date for the head is 55°-525 B. C., when the demolition trenches were refilled at the time of the construction of the dipteros temple.v These are the conditions of finds as known at present. For stylistic reasons Ohly assigns the idols Nos. 519, 750, 782, and 1084 to the 8th cent.
B. C./ the second Proto-Cypriote sculptures Nos. 339, 376, and 576 to the early 7th cent. B. C.,2 the second Proto-Cypriote figure No. 636 and the Neo-Cypriote specimens Nos. I5II, 1473 to the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 6th cent. B. C.3 These dates agree only partly with Cypriote evidence. The idols assigned to the 8th cent. B. C. are CyproArchaic and not older than c. 650 B. C. The second Proto-Cypriote style begins c. 600 B. C., and the date of the specimens of this style in find-groups Hand J is, therefore, too early. As regards find-group H, it should be observed that the undisturbed character of this group cannot be ascertained.' Find-group J seems to be firmly closed, unlike Group H,5 but it is evident that the latest pottery of the find-group forms only a terminus post quem for the erection of the portico and the filling below its floor. Further, I cannot see any objection to assigning the latest pottery of the find-group" to c. 600 B. C. or the beginning of the 6th cent. B. C. on the basis of the increasing body of evidence for a lowering of the traditional upper limit of the Orientalizing pottery and lower limit of the late Geometric and Sub-Geometric pottery. The Neo-Cypriote style begins c. 560 B. C., and the date of the head No. 419 is therefore also too early. The stratum where it was found was "as it seems" (anscheinend) undisturbed! Consequently there is not absolute certainty about the undisturbed character of the stratum. The dates of the other find-groups are not contradictory to Cypriote evidence, if we accept the lowest date for the closing of the find-spot of the late Neo-Cypriote head No. 385, i. e., 55°-525 B. C., and suppose that this head and the rather early Neo-Cypriote specimens Nos. 600 and 1472, whose findgroups were closed c. 550 B. C., arrived in their respective find contexts very soon after that they were made. Further, we must remember that the dates given are only approximate, and may very well be somewhat lowered. If we lower them c. 10 years, they would agree more easily with Cypriote evidence. The vast amount of Cypriote sculptures found in Samos indicates a Cypriote trading factory on that island of the same kind as in Rhodes, Naukratis, and Syria. To this factory some sculptures were no doubt imported from Cyprus, but others may have been made in the factory. Until the finds have been fully published this question cannot, however, be definitely settled. In the third cent. B. C., a terrace was formed for the sanctuary of Zeus and Athena on the top of Mount Kynthos on Delos. Among other objects, fragments of two terracotta idols were found in the filling of this terrace,' Nos. A 2679, 2965. Both these idols seem to be Cypriote, and No. A 2965 certainly is so. It is modelled in the "snow-man" technique, with cylindrical body, of which the lower part and left arm are missing, pinched nose, pellet ears, and a conical cap. It is a typical specimen of the common class of idol statuettes found in great numbers in the temenos of Ajia Irini and other Archaic sanctuaries where ex votos of terracotta were offered.' Plassart thinks that the statuette represents one of the
334
1
Ibid., PI. 37.
2
Ibid., PI. 36.
3
Ibid., PI. 39.
4
Ibid., PI. 43.
5
Ibid., Pis. 39-43.
" BUSCllOR, op, cit., Fig. 131. Cypriote sculptures are very seldom praised for their artistic qualities, but this fragment was highly estimated by Buschor: "In seiner hervorragend lebendigen Arbeit steht es gewiss auf der Hohe der fuhrenden Werke dieser Zeit" (op. cit., p. 35). Let us hope that this aesthetic appreciation will not be changed after the Cypriote workmanship has been recognized!
, Athen. Mitt. LXV, 1940, p. 58. s The terracottas Nos. 200 and 345 (ibid., PI. 38) classified as Cypriote by D. Ohly seem rather to be of Syrian workmanship or, if the clay is Cypriote, to have been made in Syrian moulds on the island. A similar statuette found in Cyprus (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCII, 9) has been classified as Syrian, p. 337, n, 3. 9 Athen. Mitt. LXV, 1940, pp. 61 f., 82, 84, 88 f., 90. 10 Ibid., pp. 61, 84, 89 f. 11 Ibid., p. 63; "spiitestens urn die jahrhundertwende". 12 Loc, cit.; cf. Athen. Mitt. LV, 1930, p. 51. 13 Op. cit. LXV, 1940, p. 63. 14 Loc. cit. and n. 2.
1 2
Ibid., p. 61. Ibid., p. 62.
Ibid., p. 63. Gp. cit. LVIII, 1933, p. 142. Corinthian pottery was among the finds. 3
4
5 Loc. cit. "E. g., ibid., Beil. XLIII, 8. , Op, cit. LXV, 1940, p. 63. • Delos, XI, pp. 61 ff., Figs. 53, 54· 9 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXX.
335
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Corybants, whom we know to have worn pointed bonnets,' but in view of the Cypriote provenance of the statuette, the- identification with the Corybants cannot be maintained, because in such a case the Cypriote sanctuaries would have been crowded with figures of Corybants. It is simply a "snow-man" idol wearing the conical cap so common in Cyprus. Specimens of Cypriote sculpture in limestone have also been found in Delos: the lower part of a Neo-Cypriote board-shaped statuette and a sphinx, also of the Neo-Cypriote style, and similar to those found in Rhodes.' Several specimens of Cypriote terracotta sculptures have been found in Aigina, at the temples of Aphaia and Apollon (formerly called temple of Aphrodite). The following specimens are recorded from the excavations of the Aphaia temple: fragment of a female head of the Neo-Cypriote style, with semilunar eyes and feathered eyebrows; one eye, the nose, and the lower part of the face are missing;" fragments of similar sculptures, among which a part of a breast- and other undeterminable fragments.' The specimens of Cypriote terracotta sculpture found at the temple of Apollon are still unpublished. They are preserved in the Aigina Museum.
I
!'
I FOREIGN SCULPTURES FOUND IN CYPRUS
i
I' i
The only specimen of Assyrian sculpture found in Cyprus is the stele erected by Sargon I I in Kition in order to commemorate the submission of the Cypriote kings to Assyria.· The material of the stele is basalt. It has a relief representation of the king in right profile. Sargon wears royal dress, his right arm is raised, and by his left hand he holds a sceptre. Above his head are divine symbols. Imported Egyptian sculptures are also very rare. In the Cyprus Museum is a small Egyptian head of red granite. Its provenance cannot, however, be ascertained, and we must therefore reckon with the possibility that this head has been imported to Cyprus in modern times. Some terracotta statuettes of Egyptian type have been found in Cyprus: seated figures, Patake, Osiris, Bes, etc.' Some of these figures may have been made in Cyprus in Egyptian moulds, but most of the statuettes were probably imported from Egypt. Some Egyptian bronze statuettes of Osiris and other Egyptian deities- discovered in Cyprus should also be mentioned. The bronze statuettes of male figures from Ajia Irini- and other bronze figurines of the so-called "warrior" type» are of Syro-Anatolian origin.v Syro-Anatolian connections seem Delos XI, p. 63. 2 Delos XI, p. 155; XVIII, PI. IV, 39, 41. 3 FURTWANGLER, Aegina, pp. 378 f.; PI. 110: I; Inv, No. II, 16z. 4 Op. cit., p. 379, Fig. 309. Inv, No. II, 118. 5 Op. cit., p. 379. Inv. No. II, 9Z. 6 MEISSNER, Babylonien u. Assyrien I, Fig. 36. 7 Exc, in Cyp., p. r rz, Fig. 164: 5, 8; p. 113, Fig. 165: 3, 4, 8, 9. 1
Rep. Dep, Antiq. Cyprus, I935, Nicosia 1936, p. 3Z; other specimens in the Cyprus Museum. 9 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 791 f., PI. CCXL, 5-7. 10 BABELON & BLANCHET, Cat. bronzes ant. de la Bibl. nat., No. 898. 11 MULLER, Friihe Plastik in Griechenland u. Vorderasien,
I
";" E: ,.. ',',e,
f
~i
I
l:~,.:.:,
. r·...~
!
I
I I
8
,;.
,~ ...-:.:.. , •.,,-~ t-~:,;.
0... ,
_
p. lIZ.
Fig. 53. Map showing distribution of (
/
" jIOO~1 KH~RSET
SELIM
,'t qUARA-YET CA E5A REA ,
n:Ll
PHILIPPI
}
ABu HA'WA . J.lAIFA -TelL AMR M
A~~~ TH
(Ec;~,DO
NNAK
BETH-SHAN
SAM RIA-. \ :; BALATA
l
GE:
A5KAL~i
IB£A~.!:-E~~JR~C~gseEH
R.
IJfRU.5ALEM
':lBC~~ .:~~~rESH
TELL EI-ZU\oiEY,' • ·lACHISl(~ <;iAZA. TELL El-HESY
- e<;ERAR (TEll ~jf}1MEH) .TELLFA'A
1000
I
KILOMETRES
Fig. 53. Map showing distribution of Cypriote Pottery and Sculpture found a broad.
\
SCULPTURE
337
also to be indicated by the bronze statuette of a stag found at Ajia Irini.' Other bronze statuettes are of Syro-Egyptian style,' and are imported from Syria. Terracotta statuettes of Phoenician origin found in Cyprus' may have been made by Phoenicians on the island, but it is more likely that they were imported from Phoenicia, because they are too few in number to indicate the existence of a Phoenician koroplast production in Cyprus. The earliest stone sculpture of Greek origin found in Cyprus is the marble statue of a kouros discovered in the dromos of a Cypro-Archaic II B tomb at Marion.' The statue dates from the last quarter of the 6th cent. B. C., and is generally recognized as a specimen of Ionian art. Langlotz has included the statue in his "Samian" group,' but that attribution cannot be proved.' A life-size marble head' in the Cyprus Museum is evidently a copy of a bronze original. A less careful replica is found in the museum of Almiros.' The Cypriote head was secured for the Museum from a coffee-house keeper in Nicosia, and though its provenance cannot be exactly stated, there is no doubt that the head has been found in Cyprus. It dates from c. 470 B. C. A third marble work of Greek origin is represented by the relief of Athena found at Mersinaki.· It is a non-Attic work, probably from the Islands. The Lansdowne relief with a similar motif, Athena regarding her helmet resting on her left hand," is later than the Mersinaki relief, which may be assigned to 440-430 B. C.» A naked kouros statuette in the Cyprus Museum seems so far to be the only Archaic Greek sculpture of bronze imported to Cyprus, if we except the sculptured handle of a bronze mirror (cf. p. 382, n. 3). The arms are vertical, the left foot advanced, and the features of the face rather roughly modelled. Of the Greek bronze sculptures from the Classical period found in Cyprus the Chatsworth head of Apollon should be first mentioned.v It was purchased in Smyrna, and was reported to have been found at Salamis in Cyprus. A. J. B. Wace has recently contributed to our knowledge about the processes by which it was cast.v It can now be ascertained that the head once belonged to a somewhat more than life-size cult statue of Apollon found in r836 by some peasants at Tamassos. The statue was smashed into pieces, but the head was bought by a Mr. Bondizano in Larnaka, who sold it to Mr. Borrell in Smyrna. In r838 or r839 it was acquired from Mr. Borrell 1 Swed. Cyp. Exp, II, PI. CCXL, 8. A statuette of a similar style has been found in Carthage, cf. GAUCKLER, Necrop, puniques de Carthage I, PI. CXXVII; for statuettes of the stag found in Anatolia and indicative of a cult of this animal, cf. Syria XXI, 1940, pp. 62 ff. a PERROT & CHI.PIEZ, Hist. de l'art III, p. 515, Fig. 351; specimen in the Cyprus Museum. 3 E. g., CESNOLA, Atlas II, PIs. IV, 23, 25, 26; XXIV, 193; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. LV,S, 6; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., A 91; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCII, 9. 4 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 325. • LANGLOTZ, Friihgriech: Bildhauerschulen, pp. 118, 124, PI. 66.
22
Fouilles de Delphes IV, 3, p. 69, n. I. Journ. Hell. Stud. XXXIII, 1913, pp. 48 f., PI. I; Arch. Anz., 1934, p. 99, Fig. 12 (p. 97); Acta Archaeol. VIII, 1937, p.86. 8 Athen. Mitt. LXV, 1940, PIs. 63-66. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 354, No. 659, PI. CX. 10 Burlington. Fine Art Club, Exhib. of Anc. Greek Art, PI. XXXV. 11 B. SCHWEITZER (in Gnomon XV, 1939, p. 13) assigns the relief to c. 420 B. C. which seems to me to be too late. I ' FURTWANGLER, Intermezzi, pp. 3 ff.; Ant. Denkm. IV, pp. 40 ff., PIs. 21-23; Journ. Hell. Stud. LVIII, 1938, pp. oo ff, 13 Loc. cit. 6
7
FOREIGN RELATIONS
by the sixth Duke of Devonshire, and has since then been included in the colle:tions of Chatsworth House.' It is unlikely that this more than life-size statue of bronze was Imported to Cyprus, and we must assume that it was made on the spot by a Greek artist invited to come to the island for the purpose of casting this cult statue. The date of the Chatsworth head has also been much discussed. 460-450 B. ,C. seems to me the most probable date from the political point of view also, because during that peri~d ~yp~us ,:as ' : short periods occupied by Athenian forces (d. below, pp. 482 ff.), culminating III Kimon s attack on the island in 449 B. C., after which date until the time of Euagoras I Cyprus was sa~e~y in Persian hands, as well as before 460 B. C. Other Classical bronze works of Greek origin found in Cyprus are represented by a statuette of a cow, two reliefs. representing a bull attacked by two lions, all three from the temple of Athena on Voum,. and a statuette of a nude athlete now in the Metropolitan Museum.' The bronze cow IS very probably a replica of Myron's famous statue,' and the bronze reliefs represent ~n Oriental n~ot~f ado~te~ by the Greeks and well known in early Greek art.' It survived until t~e Hellenistic penod. The Archaic groups of lions devouring a bull, found on the Acropohs of Athens, show the connection of this motif with the cult of Athena, and prove that the appearance of the bronze reliefs in the temple of Athena on Vouni is not without significance. Terracotta figurines of purely Greek style are not rare in Cyprus. Most of them were made on the island in imported moulds, as shown by the Cypriote clay, but others were certainly imported. Ionian," Attic,' Boiotian,s and other Greek types- are represented. It should also be noted that a female terracotta mask of Ionian origin was among the ex ootos in the main temenos of Vouni, 10 and a terracotta figure of a tortoise also found at Vouni represents a well-known Greek type," and to judge by the clay is an imported speci~e~. In the number of imported terracotta figurines I also include East-Greek aryballoi in the shape of Sileni and thick-bellied demons.» The earliest statuettes date from the late Archaic period. and they continue in the Classical period. 1
Eranos XLIII, 1945, pp. 237 f.
2 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 98, No. 152, Pis. III, XLIII, XLIV, I, 2; pp. 97 f., No. 150, Pis. III, XLII, 2, 3; p. 98, No. 151, PI. XLII, I; CESNOLA, Atlas III, PI. LXVI,S·
a Konsthist. Tidskr. IX, 1940, pp. 2 if.
• WATZINGER, Die archaischen Tiergruppen, in WIEGAND, Die arch. Poros-Archit. d. Akrop. zu Athen, pp. 214 ff.; LEcHAT, La sculpt. attique, pp. 68 if.; A then. Mitt. XLVII, 1922, pp. 92 ff.; Metrop. Mus. Art. Bull. IV, 1945, pp. 93 if. For the motifs, cf, also RUMPF, Chalk. Vasen, p. 26, Pis. CXVI, CXVII. s Athen. Mitt. XXVII, 1902, pp. 133 f.; Altert. v. Pergamon VII, 2, pp. 270 f.
6 Steed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pis. LXXIX, 3; LXXX, 10; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., A 228. 7 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXX, I; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., A 423. " Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXXIX, 6. • CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XXXII, 267 (Athena Lindia represented by Siculian statuettes). 10 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXX, I. 11 Gp. cit. III, PI. LXXVII,S; cf. Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrae., B 99, 308, 309; Lindos I, PI. 114, No. 2437; MAXIMOVA, Les vases plast. dans l'ant. I, pp. 100 ff.; Exc. at Olynthus VII, pp. 88 f., Nos. 345-348, PI. 41. 12 CESNOLA, Salaminia, p. 267, Figs. 257, 258; MAXIMOVA, op, cit. I, p. 139, Fig. 29 (cf. Arch. Anz., 1895, p. 4 2).
SCULPTURE
339
FOREIGN INFLUENCES ON CYPRIOTE SCULPTURE The Proto-Cypriote Style The style of the earliest Cypriote art sculpture has been called Proto-Cypriote (pp. 94 ff.). This name has been chosen to indicate that the features characteristic of this style form an expression of the artistic intentions of the indigenous elements of the population of Cyprus. This does not mean that the style is without foreign relations and influences, for the sculptures of this style show connection with Syro-Anatolian and Etruscan art.' Certain sculptural types which are characteristic of Cyprus are also found in the SyroAnatolian region. We may advance as instances the warrior type, the rider, and the warchariot group. In consideration of the stylistic similarity between the Cypriote and SyroAnatolian types we may assume that Cyprus derived these types from the Asiatic mainland, where they occur earlier than in Cyprus. 2 The type of body characteristic of the Proto-Cypriote sculpture is atectonic. The body is not composed of different structural parts, but is conceived as a single unit. This type of body is characteristic of all Oriental sculpture, and cannot therefore be used as a criterion of affinity to any particular branch of that sculpture. We must look for stylistic features of a more particular and conclusive kind. The cylindrical shape of body in Cyprus, represented already by the Cypro-Geometric idol plastic, is found in the Syro-Anatolian region, and must be ultimately connected with the corresponding type in Mesopotamia. It cannot be doubted that the Cypriote type forms part of this cultural connection.' Another shape of body, contrasting with that mentioned, but also characteristic of the Cypriote sculptures, is the flattened, often board-shaped, type. While the head is sculptured in the round, the body is more in relief. A similar bodily form is found in Etruria, eastern Anatolia, and North Syria. The sandstone sculptures from Vetulonia, to which I shall return below, may serve as well-known Etruscan specimens,' and other instances are given by Etruscan bronze statuettes." In North Syria and eastern Anatolia a flattened type of body is commonly represented by the bronze sculptures,' and a group of bronzes is characterized by an extreme flatness of the body.' The same tendency can be observed in the monumental stone sculpture as represented by the statue of Panammu, the statue from Palanga, those of Hadad, and the god on the lion base from Sendjirli, the statuette from Kirtch-Oglu, and others." Is this tendency towards a flat-bodied form a stylistic criterion 1 The connection between Proto-Cypriote, North Syrian, and Etruscan sculpture was pointed out by me in Konsthist, Tidskr. 11,1933, pp. 51 ff.; the interrelations of North Syrian and Etruscan art were further elucidated by HANFMANN, Altetruskische Plastik I, Wiirzburg 1936. Cf. also his article, The origin of Etruscan Sculpture, in Critica d'Arte X, 1937, pp. 158 if.
2
MOLLER, Friihe Plastik in Griechenland u, Vorderasien,
p. 152; Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLIV, 1940, p. 84. a MOLLER, op, cit., p. 131.
• GIGLIOLI, L' Arte Etrusca, PI. LXVI. " Studi Etruschi XII, 1938, pp. 267 ff., PI. XLVIII. 6 MOLLER, op, cit., pp, 107, 110; Pis. XXXVII-XXXIX. 7 Gp. cit., pp. 118 ff., PI. XLII. s Gp. cit., PI. XXXV, 366-368.
34°
FOREIGN RELATIONS
or may it be due to other reasons than artistic? It has been suggested that the soft structure of the limestone accounts for the board-shaped body of the Cypriote sculptures,' but since the Cypriote sculptors were able to cut the heads of the sculptures in the round, they would also, as pointed out by Hanfmann,> have been able to render the bodies three-dimensional, if required by stylistic norms, and when a three-dimensional form was required for artistic reasons, e. g., in the Cypro-Greek style (p. 112), we find that the structure of the limestone did not prevent the sculptors from cutting a full-bodied statue. Finally, we may draw attentionto the fact that the cylindrical type of body, which for technical reasons is natural in the terracotta plastic, and, as, shown, is frequently represented in the coroplastic art of Cyprus, was subject to influence from the flat-bodied shape, which sometimes was adopted in the second Proto-Cypriote style, apparently for stylistic reasons (p. 97). It may still be thought that the Cypriote .flat-bodied type is a sign of primitive art, but this is contradicted by the highly artistic and skilful formation of the heads. We may therefore infer that the flat-bodied type of the Cypriote sculptures was due to stylistic intentions, and .accordingly we are justified in considering this stylistic feature as a criterion of affinity between the Cypriote, Etruscan, and Syro-Anatolian sculptures, if the flatbodied type of these latter may also be considered as due to stylistic intentions as it no doubt may." Of the two tendencies in the bodily form of the Syro-Anatolian sculpture, the tendencies towards volumen and flatness of the bodies, the first one as stated, seems to derive from Mesopotamian art, and the second is a native, Syro-Anatolian feature of style.' Both the cylindrical and flat-bodied type in Cyprus has often a sweeping outline widening towards the base of the body, and this phenomenon also appears on the Asiatic mainland." We shall now turn to an examination of other criteria of affinity between Syro-Anatolian, Etruscan, and Cypriote sculpture. The feet of the Proto-Cypriote sculptures are 1 Handb. Cesn. Coll., P.130; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, pp. 4 f. 2HANFMANN, op,·cit. I,.p. 47, n. 66. "MOLLER, op, cit., p. 119; HANFMANN, op. cit. I, p. 47. There is considerable Cypriote influence upon Cretan art. in pottery and metal handicraft in the Cypro-Geometric and Archaic periods (pp. 292 ff., 377, 4°3,4°7,410). Rumpf's statement (Gnomon I, 1925, p. 327) about a strong Cretan influence on Cypriote pottery in the Geometric period is wrong. There are no Cretan vases imported to Cyprus, but, as we have seen, Cypriote.vases were imported to Crete (p. 269). The influence must therefore have been in a direction opposite to that supposed by Rumpf. I may also point out here that his denial of a Cypriote influence on the late Geometric Attic pottery (loc. cit.) is also contradicted by clear facts (pp. 292 ff.), In view of the cultural connections between Cyprus and Crete it may be thought that the flat body, the'tO'tpuiwyOY axofjp.a, characteristic of Daedalic sculpture could be due to Cypriote influence. Future research work will perhaps elucidate that question, but on the basis of the material at present available I cannot see any sufficient. reason for such an influen~e. The sculptural form, as already stated above, p,
SCULPTURE
\
93, is determined not only by the artistic ideas of the sculptors,but also by the technique and the material, In the case of. the Daedalic sculptures it seems likely. that the trunkshaped flatness of the bodies may. be explained as due to the shape of the stone blocks' from which they were cut rather than a survival of the form of the wooden' xoana, as it is sometimes believed, or an influence from the Cypriote boardshaped form. It goes without saying. that flat-bodiness in itself does not indicate artistic affinity: it all depends on the structural form of the flat body, and we know that the structure of the Daedalic body is fundamentally different from the Cypriote one: the Daedalic form is characterized by a striving after a tectonic structure, which is totally absent in the Cypriote block-shaped body. Also against a connection between Daedalic and early-Cypriote sculpture speaks the fact that no other stylistic features except the flat body are common to Cypriote and Daedalic sculpture, and this contrasts with the many and various stylistic features common to Cypriote and Syro-Anatolian art, as specified below. • MOLLER, op, cit., p. 131. " Gp. cit., pp. 155 f.
a
b
d
e
34 1
c
f
Fig. 54. a. Stone Sculpture from Sendjirli, Istanbul. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus ColI., Stockholm. c. Stone Sculpture from Mari. d. Relief from Djerabis, Brit. Mus. e. Terracotta Sculpture from Mersinaki, Cyprus ColI., Stockholm. f. Stone Sculpture from Vulci, Brit. Mus.
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
342
a
b
343
a
b
c
d
c
Fig. 55. a. Syro-Anatolian Bronze Sculpture, Staat1. Mus., Berlin. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia. c. Bronze Statuette from Brolio, Mus. Arch., Florence.
Fig. 57. a. Head of Goddess, Tell Halaf Mus., Berlin. b. Head of Sculpture from Sendjirli, Istanbul. c. Head of Statue from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Coll., Stockholm. d. Head of Bronze Statuette from Elba, Mus. Naz., Naples.
usually isolinear. When the dress reaches the feet, the latter are often seen through an excision in front. This excision may be rectangular or segmental in shape (Fig. 54). The same phenomenon, though also represented in Mesopotamia,' is characteristic of SyroAnatolian' and Etruscan" art, but it was also taken over by the Greeks.' The Syro-Anatolian sculptures very often have their arms bent forward at right angles.· This position of the arms occurs also in Cyprus and in Etruria (Fig. 55). As Cypriote a
b
c
Fig. 56. a. Relief from Ashur, Staat1. Mus., Berlin. b. Relief Statuette from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia. c. Sculpture Fragments from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence.
1 JORDAN, Uruk-Warka, p. 58, PI. 78, q, r; Syria XVIII, 1937, p. 79, PI. XIII. • Ausgrab. in Sendschirli IV, p. 365, Fig. 265; Carchemish I, p, 5, Fig. 3; MtlLLER, op, eit., PI. XXXV, 367, 368; Arch. Am:., 1943, p. 223, Fig. 10.
"GIGLIOLI, op, cit., PIs. LXX, 6; CXXII, I. p. 371, n. 3. • POULSEN, Der Orient u. d. friihgr, Kunst, p. 57; MtlLLER, op, cit., pp. 94, 100, 105, 109, 121 f., 124, 126, 134 f., 144 ff., 169, 173, 199, 206 f.
-cr,
344
FOREIGN RELATIONS
specimens may be mentioned some sculptures from Ajia Irini,: and among the Etruscan figures we may draw attention to a female figure from Vulci,s bronze statuettes from Brolio- and other places.' This attitude of the arms was only occasionally taken over by Greek sculpture.' Another characteristic position of the arms represented both in Etruria- and the SyroAnatolian area- is that with the arms bent upwards and placed obliquely on the chest (Fig. 56). This type also occurs in Cyprus,' though it is not common there, and it was also diffused to Greece.' Akin to this position of the arms is the one with the hands grasping the plaits of hair descending down the front of the body. This attitude is very common in Etruscan sculpture." That it was represented in Anatolia is shown by a bronze statuette from Cappadocia,» and it cannot be doubted that it is of Syro-Anatolian origin.v It is worth noting that the female figure of one of the alabastra found ill the Isis tomb at Vulei seizes her plaits of hair with her hands.v It seems likely that the alabastron is of North Syrian workmanship, though the place of origin is still disputed. a Anyhow the style of this figure reveals a Syrian tradition of art. The motif of grasping the plaits of hair appears also in 'Cyprus,» and was occasionally diffused to Greece, where it is represented by two ivory figures from Sparta> evidently influenced by Oriental art." A female torso from Chios> should possibly be added among the Greek specimens of this position of the arms. Finally, the habit of carrying a quadruped on the shoulder - a motif which later has such . . is found both in Cyprus" and the Syro-Anatolian region. 20 an important development . When we turn to an examination of the characteristics of the head, we find a still closer and more significant similarity between Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan art. The heads of the Proto-Cypriote sculptures are very often triangular in shape, as shown parti1
Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs: CXCIV, 2;CCXXVIII, I, 2,
5; CCXXXI, 9·
Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, D I, pp. 156 ff., Fig. I, PI. I. 2
3 GIGLlOLl, op, cit., PI. LXXXIV, 4 Kunstd. Etrusker, Fig. 180.
MUHLESTEIN, Die
Studi Etruschi, XII, 1938, PI. XLVIII. Cf. p. 371, n. 4. 6 RUMPF, Katal. d. etrusk, Skulpt., PI. I; Not. Scavi, 1893, p. 5I1, Fig. 7; GIGLlOLl, op, cit., PI. LXVI, 4. 4 6
7 Cf, HANFMANN, op, cit. I. pp. 42 f.; MOORTGAT, Die bild. Kunst d. alt. Orients u. d. Bergoiilher, PI. LIII. A torso from Tell Halaf has also this attitude of the arms (Photo, Tell Halaf Museum, H 1651). The. motif is probably derived from that with a grasping ot the breasts. 8 Sued, Cyp, Exp.II,PI.CCXXXIII, 4; WINTER, Die ant. Terrakotten .111: I, p. 14, No. ·6. 9 Ann. Brit. School Athens XV, pp. 120 f., Fig. 3, No. 34; DAWKINS, Artemis Orthia,PI. XXXVII,S. 10 POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 96 f.; HANFMANN, op. cit. I, p. 23, n. 48. 11 CHANTRE, Mission .en Cappadoce,p. 151, Fig. I15. 12 Cf. MULLER op. cit., p. 160 ("hethitisch").
13
SCULPTURE
a
345
b
Fig. 58. a. Head of Terracotta Statue from Ajia Irini, Cyprus ColI., Stockholm. b. Head of Etruscan Bronze Sculpture, Mus. Arch., Florence.
Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. 1:2, D 2 (pp. 158 f.).
14
Op. cit. I: 2, p. 158.
15
CESNOLA. Atlas II, PI. XXIV, 196.
DAWKINS, op, cit., PIs. CXXIII, 6; CLXX, 5. HANFMANN, op. cit. I, p. 23 quotes a terracotta from Selinunt (Mon. Ant. XXXII, 1927, p. 200, PI. XXX, 4) as another Greek instance of this motif, but the sculpture represents a man and a woman sitting side by side with the hands of their outer arms clasped 10 front and the hands of their adjacent arms resting on the outer shoulder of each other; the hands happen to cross the plaits of hair, but do not grasp them - the motif as described above seems to have nothing to do with the grasping of hair-plaits.
a
b
c
16
11 Another attitude with the flat hands crossed on the chest is characteristic of Syro-Anatolian and Etruscan sculpture (cf, Konsthist, Tidskr, II, 1933, p. 54, Figs. 9, 10), but is not found in Cyprus. It forms, however, another link in the connecting chain between Syro-Anatolian and Etruscan art. 18 LECHAT, La sculpt. attique, pp. 173 ff., Figs. Q-I1.
CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XVI, 21, 22; Exc. in Cyp., p. 112, Fig. 164: 13. 20 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli III, p. 214, Fig. 104, PI. XXXVII, b; IV, PI. LXIII; Carchemish II, PI. B. 22-24. 19
Fig. 59. a. Head of Bronze Statuette, Museum f. Kunatlund Gewerbe, Hamburg. b. Head of Limestone Sculpture from Arsos, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia.c. Head of Etruscan Stone Sculpture, Mus. di Villa Giulia, Rome.
cularly by the finds from Ajia Irini.' The same type of head is found in Etruria, where the head of the bronze statuette found in Elba" and the terracotta stauette from Montalto di Castro- form excellent specimens of comparison with the Cypriote types (Fig. 57). Within the Syro-Anatolian region this type of head is represented in monumental sculpture by the statue of a seated goddess from Tell Halaf,' by other sculptures from the same place,' by the statue of the god on the lion base from Sendjirli,' and by several figurines. 7 The heads are of course seldom absolutely triangular in shape - the head of the seated 1
Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXC-CXCII; CXCIV, 5;
CXCV.
"Studi Etruschi II, 1928, PI. IV, 1-4; GIGLIOI.I,Op.cit., PI. LXXXIII. 3
Critica d'Arte X, 1937, PI. 120, Fig. 4.
4 v, OPPENHEIM, Der Tell Halaf, PI. 43 .. 50p. cit., PIs. 8, b; 9, b; 10, b; II, a; 41; 45. b (left). 6 Ausgrab. i:-z Sendschirli IV, p. 365, Fig. 2 65. 7 MUr.I.SR, op. cit., PI. XXXVIII, 385.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
a
b
SCULPTURE
c
Fig. 60. a. Bronze Statuette (in part), Museum f. Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. b. Terracotta Sculpture (in part) from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Coll., Stockholm. c. Bronze Sculpture from Vulci, Brit. Mus.
goddess from Tell Halaf is nearest the geometric triangle - but assume often a longitudinal, ovoid shape, and some of the heads mentioned above show a tendency towards the ovoid shape. The same ovoid type is also represented in Cyprus and in Etruria. Many heads of this type from Ajia Irini are closely related to Syro-Anatolian specimens, 1 and others are similar to Etruscan specimens- (Fig. 58). The very sloping forehead, the prominent nose, and the straight back of the head are characteristic features of this type, and very often the mass of hair sets off abruptly from the sloping forehead (Fig. 59).3 This type of head, the characteristic features of which are common to the Proto-Cypriote, SyroAnatolian, and Etruscan specimens, is representative of the Armenoid race, which has formed a constituent part of the North-Syrian and Anatolian population.' The elevated, ridged eyebrows characteristic of the Proto-Cypriote sculptures seem to be a Cypriote version of the Syrian hollow eyebrows -once filled .with inlaid work,' though this technique also occurs in Egyptian art, and was practised already by the Sumerians. 1 Cf. Stoed. Gyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXXVIII, 6 with MtlLLER, op, cit., PI. XXXVII, 376; Stoed. Gyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXXVIIl, 8 with MtlLLER, op. cit., PI. XXXVIII, 383; Stoed. Gyp. Exp. II, PI. CCI, 6 with MtlLLER, op, cit., PI. XXXVIII, 385. Of. POULSEN, op, cit., p. 60, Fig. 59. 2 Cf. Stoed. Gyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXII, with GIGLIOLI, op. cit., PI. LXXXV,S., 3 Cypriote: Swed. Gyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVIII, I;
Syro-Anatolian: MtlLLER, op, cit., PI. XXXVII, 380; Etruscan: GlGLIOLI, op, cit., PI. LXVII, 3. 4 v. LUsCHAN, The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia, in Journ. Anthrop, Inst. XLI, 1911, pp, 221 ff.; CHRISTIAN, Altkleinasiat. Volker, in Reallex. d. Assyriol. I, pp. 76 ff.; GOTZE, Kleinasien, pp. IS if. 5 MtlLLER, op. cit., p. 158.
347
If we study the hair-style and its artistic representation, we also find several connecting traits between Proto-Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan art. A characteristic hairstyle exemplified by Syro-Anatolian bronze statuettes is of this type: the greater part of the hair falls down on the back in a compact mass of contiguous, parallel tresses, and single, twisted plaits descend on each side of the head over the shoulders to the chest (Fig. 60).1 The same hair-style is found, e. g., on the female bronze statuette from Brolio mentioned above (p. 344), a female bronze bust from Vulci,> and the female tuff statuette from the Isis tomb at Vulci (p. 343, n. 3), though this figure has two twisted plaits falling down to the chest on each side of the head. In Cyprus some figures from Ajia Irini and other places" have a similar hair-style. Other Cypriote sculptures- show a hair-style of the same kind as that of the large female head from Vetulonia:' the hair is parted, falls down freely at the back, and descends in twisted plaits on each side of the head to the chest - consequently only a variety of the hair-style just discussed. The bronze statuette from Cappadocia mentioned above (p. 344) connects this hair-style with the Syro-Anatolian region, and it is also found on ivory statuettes of Syrian origin.' In a modified form the two varieties of hair-style discussed here were taken over by Ionian art, and are found on ivory' and bronze" statuettes. Another variety of this hair-style - with the hair arranged in superimposed plaits on the head - is also a feature common to Cypriote," Syro-Anatolian.> and Etruscan" sculpture. On the top of the head the hair is often arranged in flat undulations,> the "melon" coiffure, a feature that is also common in Syrian art (Fig. 61).13 Finally, a typical detail of the hair-style is noteworthy: the front plaits of the Syrian> and Etruscan» hair-style very often end in a spiral turned outwards, and one of the VetuIonia sculptures has tresses ending in spirals turned inwards,> a variety also shown by a few sculptures from Ajia Irini (Fig. 62).11 As pointed out by Poulsen," these "Syrian" curls are stylistically different from the Egyptian Hathor curls, and in particular the curls turned inwards have no analogy in Egypt. When spiral curls of this type are found on a Medusa head carved on an ivory roundel found at Sparta, I" Poulsen rightly considers this phenomenon to indicate Syrian influence and interprets the curls of the Medusa head as dwarfed Syrian curls. 20 Specimens of the head-gear, entirely or partly preserved, are treated below in the chapter Op, cit., PI. XXXVII, 376-380. GIGLIOLI, op, cit., PI. LXXXVI, 1-3. "Swed. Gyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXVIII, 3, 4; OHNEFALSCHRICHTER, Kypros, Pis. L, 4-6; LI, 6, 4 Szoed. Gyp. Exp. III, PI. IX, I, 2, 4, 5. 5 GIGLIOLI, op, cit., PI. LXVI, I, 2. 6 Lindos I, PI. 64, No. 1582; POULSEN, op, cit., p. 47, Figs. 33-36; Iraq II, 1935, Pis. XXV, 2; XXVII, 2. • HOGARTH, Exc, at Ephesus, Pis ..XXI, 6; XXII. B BUSCHOR, Altsam. Standbilder, Figs. 5, 7. 9 Brit. Mus. Gat. Sculpt. I: 2, C 8. 10 Athen. Mitt. XLVI, 1921, p. 39, Fig. I. 11 GIGLIOLI, op. cit., PI. LXXVI. 1 2
12 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 263; Suied, Cyp. Exp. III, Pis. CLXXXVII, 3, 4; CLXXXVIII, 2-4· 13 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli IV, Pis. XXXIII, LIV, LVI, LXII; e.«. Mus. Cat., Sculp. I: 2, D 2, 3, p. 159, Fig. 3 (alabastra found in Etruria and of Syrian origin). 14 v. OPPENHEIM, op, cit., Pis. 10, b; II, a; 35, a; POULSEN, op, cit., pp, 44 ff., Fig. 36. 15 GIGLIOLI, op. cit., Pis, XLIII, 4, 5; LXXVIII, I, 2. 16 Gp. cit., PI. LXVI,S. 17 Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXI, 2. IB POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 44 f. 19 DAWKINS, op, cit., p. 229, PI. CXLI, 3. 20 POULSEN, op. cit.,p. 45.
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
a
b
a
c
349
b
a
Fig. 62. a. Upper part of Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia. b. Sculpture Fragment from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence.
b
Fig. 63. a. Part of ,Relief from Sendjirli, Istanbul. b. Head of Terracotta Sculpture, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia .•
Fig. 61. a. Heads of Stone Sphinxes from Sendjirli, Istanbul.. b. Ston~ He~d from Enkomi, Brit. Mus. c. Upper part of Syrian Alabastron found III Etruna, Bnt. Mus.
on Arts and Crafts (np, 378 f., 389, ,394, 397), but details of the head-gear represented only in sculptural art may be mentioned in this context, viz., the veil and the turban, both indicating connections with the Asiatic mainland and much used in Syria. 1 In the rendering of the beard also there are stylistic connections between Cypriote and Syrian art (Fig. 63): I draw attention to the Proto-Cypriote beards of contiguous, twisted plaits ending in spirals,' to which there are exact parallels in Syria.' The plain, contiguous plaits ending in spiral curls are a Cypriote simplification of this type of beard.' We turn to some points of contact indicated by the dress and its representation in Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan sculpture. A male figure from Vetulonia- wears around the hips a cloth in the shape of bathing-trousers, and other Etruscan figures- wear the same peculiar dress. Very close parallels to the Etruscan specimens are provided by Cypriote sculptures (Fig. 64),7 and we find a similar dress worn by Syro-Anatolian figures.' It has been suggested that this dress derives from the Minoan loin-cloth, but there is no conclusive evidence for that hypothesis.' The stele of Larth Atharnies> shows us the deceased dressed in a long body-coat ending in a wavy edge. His feet were encased in pointed shoes. If this relief is compared with relief figures from Anatolia and North Syria, e. g., with the figure of the vegetation god on a relief from Ivriz, 11 we find there the same characteristic dress. The pointed shoes, which SPELEERS, Le costume orient. ancien, pp, 36, 40. PI. III, 3. 3 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli IV, PIs. LVIII; LX. 4 PI. II, 2. 5 GIGLIOLI, op. cit., PI. LXVI, 7. s HANFMANN, op, cit. I, p. 46, n. 59; MtlHLESTEIN, op, cit., Figs. 154, 182, 195; MONTELIUS, -Civ.' prim. en Jtalie II: 2, PI. 333: 3a; Rns, Tyrrhenika, PI. 23: I. 1
2
7 Handb. Cesn. Coli., Nos. 1040-1046; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 7.
s CHANTHE, op. cit., p. 151, Fig. 113; Syria XII, 1931, p. 50, PI. XXI, 3, 4· - HANFMANN, loco cit. 10
GIGLIOLI, op, cit., PI. LXIX, I.
11
SCHAFER & ANDRAE, Die Kunst d. alt. Orients, p. 570.
a
b
Fig. 64. a. Cypriote Sculpture, Metrop. Mus. b. Sculpture Fragments from Vetulonia, Mus. Arch., Florence.
are very characteristic of the Syro-Anatolian region,' appear also in Ionian art,' together with much other evidence indicating the cultural interrelations of Ionia and the Anatolian inland. True, cultural contact is not the same as artistic relationship. A new fashion may be borrowed from a foreign people without any influence on, or relation to, the art of the country into which the new fashion is introduced. The same rule holds good here as for the hair-style and other personal accessories of the sculptures: artistic connection is only proved by similar artistic representation of the dress. If we look upon the dress of Larth Atharnies and that of the vegetation god from Ivriz from this point of view, we find that the artistic representation of the dress of both figures is similar: the same stiff and rigid 1 Besides the frequent representations in sculptural art (SPEELERS, op. cit., p. 44; HEUZEY, Hist, du costume dans I'antiquite class., p. 91), cf. also the terracotta specimens from e. g., Alishar Huyuk (The Alishar Huyuh, Seasons
of 1928 and 1929, I, p. 133, Fig. 164; Seasons of 1930-32, II, p. 174, Fig. 216). 2 POULSEN, op. cit." p. 107.
35°
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
contour and foldless plain surface are characteristic of both the Hittite and Etruscan representation of the tunic. It is worth noting that the shape of the Etruscan stele, which resembles that of the Assyrian kings, also indicates connection with the Orient. Several Proto-Cypriote terracotta sculptures from Ajia Irini wear a similar tunic of the Syro-Anatolian type with a wavy edge below descending in a rounded flap between the legs (Fig. 65).1 The border of the Syro-Anatolian tunic exemplified by the Ivriz relief is ridged, and the same holds good for the Cypriote tunic, as shown by the Ajia Irini sculptures. The Cypriote tunic is shorter than the Etruscan, which is still more in accordance with the Syro-Anatolian type. No shoes, only sandals, are represented in Proto-Cypriote art hitherto, but figures of the Cypro-Greek style wear pointed shoes." A very common dress of the Prpto-Cypriote sculptures is the long, sleeved chiton reaching to the feet, with a girdle around the waist and an overfold down to the girdle and partly covering it." An exact parallel is offered by the dress of Syro-Anatolian figures, e. g., the statuette from Kirtch-Oglu (Fig. 66 a).4 It should be noticed that the Syro-Anatolian and Cypriote overfolds are of the same type, with an arch-shaped lower end covering the girdle at both sides and leaving it uncovered in the middle. This type of chiton with a similar overfold appears also in Ionian art" - once again a sign of Anatolian influence on the culture of Ionia. Neither is this type of chiton unknown in Etruscan sculpture.sSince the style of the Etruscan figures wearing this dress is evidently influenced by Ionian art, I am inclined to consider the appearance of this type of chiton in Etruria as an indication of the Ionian influence on Etruscan art and not as evidence of direct connection with the SyroAnatolian region and with Cyprus. Finally, I draw attention to the Cypriote heavy mantle draped over both shoulders, hanging down the back and covering the chest with a wavy flap.' The same way of draping theinantle is found on North Syrian sculptures (Figs. 54 d and 67).Proto-Cypriote sculpture shows no direct stylistic connection with Assyrian art as originally thought by Myres.' That hypothesis has already been justly refuted by A. W. Lawrence,v and the political reason for Myres' Assyrian style in Cyprus, viz., the Assyrian domination of the island, no longer exists: the Assyrian domination ended shortly before 650 B. C. (p. 451), i. e., approximately at the time of the appearance of the earliest ProtoCypriote sculptures. As pointed out by Lawrence, a certain general similarity to the 1 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXCI, 3; p. 707, No. 1059; p. 709, No. 1081 (Fig. 65 b). " Op. cit. III, p. 233, No. 71; pp. 356 t., No. 689. "OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, Pis. XLIX,S; LII, 25; CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pis. XXI, 45; XXIV, 57, 59; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2; C 49; Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CXC; CXCIII, 1; CXCIV, 1, 3; CXCVI, 2--7; CCV, 2; CCXII, 4, 6; CCXIII, 7; CCXXXIX, 2; III, Pis. XV, 1; XVIII, 2; CLXXXVIII, 7; CCII, 7, 8; CCIII, 5. The overfold was thus used both in male and female dress, sometimes with a horizontal end, instead of arch-shaped (OHNEFALSCHRICHTER, op. cit., Pis. XI, 2-6; L, 5; Sued. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 1).
4 MOLLER, op. cit., Pl. XXXV, 367; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCII, 9 (Syrian terracotta statuette found in Cyprus; cf. p. 337). For the variety with a horizontal end also represented in Syria, cf. e. g., Carchemish I, PI. B. 8. s BUSCHOR, op, cit., Figs. 92, II2. _ Rus, op. cit., p. 128, PI. 22: 4. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CCXI; CCXII, 6,7; CCXIII, 7. 8 Carchemish I, p. 5, Fig. 3. 9 Handb. Cesn. Coll., pp, XXXV ff., 132 ff, 10 Journ. Hell. Stud. XLVI, 1926, pp. 163 ff, Lawrence, on the other hand, assigns too Iowa date (c. 560 B. C.) to the beginning of sculptural art in Cyprus.
a
b
35 1
c
Fig. 65· a. Part of.Ro:k Relief, Ivriz. b. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia, c. Stele of Larth Atharnies, Mus. Arch., Florence.
a
b
Fig. 66. a. Limestone. Statuette from Kirtch-Oglu, Staat1. Mus., Berlin, b. Cypriote Limestone Sculpture, Brit. Mus.
Fig. 67. Terracotta Statue from Ajia Irini Cyprus Mus., Nicosia.
Fig. 68. Terracotta Sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus Mus., Nicosia.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
earliest Cypriote sculptures is, on the other hand, shown by the Aramaean sculptures in North Syria,t and we are thus once again referred to that country for parallels to the Cypriote sculptural art. We have seen that some of the stylistic elements mentioned above are also represented in .Ionian sculpture. This is explained by the well-known fact that Ionian art has been influenced from the Syro-Anatolian region,' but this influence admitted, it is a truism to state that Ionian art, as a whole, is quite different from Syro-Anatolian. The stylistic similarity between Proto-Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan sculpture is of another and more fundamental kind. We have seen that a whole and unbroken series of representative stylistic elements forms a firm connecting link between the groups of sculpture mentioned. The similarity does not, however, only affect stylistic elements, but the whole character of the sculptural art, and this is so much the more remarkable, as most of the Syro-Anatolian sculptures referred to above are considerably older than the Cypriote and Etruscan specimens. The Proto-Cypriote sculpture is by no means identical with the SyroAnatolian and Etruscan, but shows a general similarity to them: the stylistic principles and the artistic norms "are similar. The heavy and rustic character of the Syro-Anatolian and Cypriote figures is not so apparent in Etruscan sculpture, and the pronounced voluminosity sometimes characteristic of the Syro-Anatolian sculptures is not found in Cyprus and Etruria. Particularly in Cyprus there is a predilection for that other type of body characteristic of Syro-Anatolian art, viz., the flat, board-shaped type. The essential thing common to the sculpture of the three groups is, however, that the body is conceived in an abstract form, being really only a support for the head, and the movements of the arms are restricted to a few fixed schemata. Even if these artistic principles to a great extent hold good for all Oriental art, the peculiarities mentioned above in the representation of the body form and the position of the arms suffice to establish the Proto-Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan sculpture as a clearly distinct group of art, different not only from that of Greece and Egypt but also from those of the other parts of the Near East. The best stylistic criterion is, however, given by the form of the head and the expression of the face. The" main interest of the Proto-Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan sculptors was concentrated upon an expressive rendering of the face in contrast with their diagrammatic representation of the body. The artists are often not content with rendering a general type, they emphasize individual features in a way that one may speak of a tendency towards portrait art." Sometimes the characteristic features both of ethnic type and individual are exaggerated in a caricaturist manner. The expression of the face is not effected by a careful rendering of details, but in an impressionistic, sketchy way, emphasizing the essential points and leaving out the others. We have to do with a vigorous and instinctive art which concentrates upon simplicity and characteristic traits in form and expression. If we suppose
this stylistic similarity is due to influence from one group on the others, we must consider the Syro-Anatolian region as the common source of influence, first because sculptural art was developed earlier there than in Cyprus and Etruria, and secondly because we have evidence of close cultural contact between Cyprus and the Syro-Anatolian region, as we have seen, already from the beginning of the Iron Age (pp. 25 2 ff.) and also of unbroken relations between Syria and Etruria from the beginning of the so-called orientalizing period, while the connections between Cyprus and Etruria were more sporadic and, as it seems, exclusively of an indirect nature. The Syro-Anatolian region thus appears as the common source of the Etruscan and Cypriote relations. Direct influence from the monumental Syro-Anatolian plastic is, however, excluded, because this had already ceased to exist when monumental sculpture began to flourish in Cyprus and Etruria. There remains the possibility of an influence from the Syro-Anatolian minor plastic. As a matter of fact, the Proto-Cypriote style was developed in minor plastic already in the first half of CyproArchaic I (cf.p. 2II), before the monumental sculpture of that style was created. Future excavations and researches may enable us to trace the beginning and initial phase of the style in minor plastic back to Cypro-Geometric III. In any case the creation of the monumental Proto-Cypriote sculpture means only an aggrandization of an already existing minor plastic with similar stylistic qualities to the monumental sculpture. Also in Etruria the minor plastic with Syro-Anatolian traits precedes that of monumental sculpture. If we thus for the moment leave out of consideration the problem of the origin of monumental sculpture;' it seems reasonable to consider the imported specimens of Syro-Anatolian minor plastic as a source of inspiration for that of Cyprus and Etruria, existing before the appearance of monumental sculpture, but we are then confronted with the problem how this influence could have the effect of determining the sculptural style of these countries to such a degree that even the monumental sculpture, when it appeared, shows a similar relation to Syro-Anatolian art in a continuation of the style of the minor plastic. One of the most hotly disputed points in the question of cultural interrelations is this: is it possible to transmit stylistic forms and artistic qualities from one people to another even if the peoples are ethnically different, i. e., can a people ethnically different from another absorb the cultural and, in particular, the artistic ideas of another people? The question amounts to this: are psychical qualities ethnically determined? This purely scientific question, as we know, has lately been mixed up with politics and that fact has greatly hampered an "objective examination of the problem. The political crimes committed on the basis of false doctrines should not, however, prevent us from such an examination. Some scholars consider biological heredity and ethnically determined mentality as wholly dominating factors in the formation of the cultural type, others are of the opinion that the milieu, the social institutions, and tradition are entirely determinative in that respect.
Ibid., pp. 164 f. HOGARTH, Ionia and the East, pp. 58 ff., 64 ff.; POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 100 ff.; Syria II, 1921, pp. 100 f.; V, 1924, pp. 5 ff.; MtJ'LLER, op. cit., pp. 173 f., 181, 184 ff., 187 fl., 190 f., 217 f., 224.
1 It is shown below that the idea of monumental sculpture was brought to Cyprus from Egypt. As regards the origin of the monumental in Etruscan sculpture, I shall not enter upon that problem in this context (d. HANFMANN, Altetruskische Plastik I, pp. 51, 112). I may, however, mention that I
352
1
2
3 I cannot agree with HANFMANN (Critica d'Arte X, 1937, pp. 163 ff.), who refers the tendency towards portrait art in Etruscan sculpture to the Italic, Indo-European component of the Etruscan people.
23
353
believe that the Etruscans obtained the idea of monumental sculpture from Greece. I also think that the date of the earliest monumental sculptures in Etruria (the sculptures from Tomba della Pietrera by HANFMANN, op, cit. I, p. 38, assigned to 670-660 B. C.) should be reduced.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
The truth lies in the middle between these opinions. The scholars who consider the social milieu to be entirely determinative overlook the fact that, in the main, the milieu is the result of a selective process caused by the innate mental constitution of the majority of the individuals, i. e. the milieu is the expression of the cultural disposition of the people. "The sum of innate qualities is the environment of the culture-species", as McDougall puts it. The social milieu thus harmonizes with the cultural disposition, and serves to strengthen it, though, on the other hand, a changed milieu is bound to modify the inherited qualities. The question is a psychological one, but it can also be examined from the historical point of view. Historians can contribute to the solution of the problem by studying the artistic results of contact and fusion of ethnically different peoples.' Historical experience indicates that stylistic elements may very well be borrowed from one people by another, ethnically different, people, but these elements are always transformed according to the cultural disposition and artistic principles of the people who borrowed them, and the more it is a question of artistic forms and stylistic qualities, the more difficult it seems to be for a people to borrow these from another people, if it has not the necessary psychical qualifications to use these artistic forms, i. e., has a cultural disposition similar to the other people: stylistic elements may be borrowed, but the style itself, the form of expression, the syntax of art, cannot be borrowed, because the style is an artistic expression of the cultural disposition of the artist as a representative of his people. In accordance with these views, I can only explain the similar style of Syro-Anatolian, Cypriote, and Etruscan sculpture by assuming a similar cultural disposition and ethnic connection between the peoples in Cyprus, North Syria, Anatolia, and Etruria. Historical and anthropological evidence confirms this assumption, and there need be no doubt about the ethnic element here in question. The sculptures themselves clearly indicate the Armenoid race or Homo Tauricus as it has also been called. The population of Anatolia and North Syria was racially mixed already at an early date, but the Armenoid element formed a dominant factor in the population, and has persisted as such up to the present day.' Anthropological evidence proves the existence of the Armenoid race in Cyprus already in Early Cypriote period,' and the archaeological finds from the same period indicate that the Early Cypriote culture is derivative from Asia Minor.' The Anatolian group of people, the Tyrseni,' who became the socially and politically leading element of the Etruscans, must have brought with them that strong Syro-Anatolian ingredient illustrated by Etruscan sculpture. If thus similar cultural disposition is considered to be the ultima ratio of the stylistic similarity between Proto-Cypriote, Syro-Anatolian, and Etruscan sculpture, we should not overlook the influence from the cultural intercourse stated above between Etruria, Cyprus, and the Syro-Anatolian region. This influence contributed to evoke and actualize that cultural disposition which caused
the Cypriotes and Etruscans to express themselves sculpturally in a style akin to that of the Syro-Anatolian sculptures. In addition, the immigration of Syrians into Cyprus c. 850 B. C. served to strengthen the similarity between the cultural types of Syria and Cyprus: in many ways the cultures of these two countries may therefore be considered as varities of one cultural species. We are finally confronted with this problem: from having produced only sculptures of minor art, the Cypriotes started all of a sudden, c. 650 B. C., to produce sculpture of a monumental kind. Why? The revolutionary idea behind this creation and the sudden realization of this idea require an explanation. We should not exclude the possibility of a native impulse evoked by new and creative thoughts of the Cypriotes themselves, but we must also examine the possibility of an impulse from abroad, and the latter alternative will prove to be right. As pointed out above, monumental art of sculpture had ceased to exist in Syria at c. 650 B. C., and the Cypriotes could not therefore have obtained the idea of sculptural monumentality from there. It may be thought that they obtained it from Assyria, but everything speaks against that. At the time of the genesis of monumental sculpture in Cyprus the Cypriotes made themselves free from the political dominion of Assyria. A priori it is very unlikely that this political separation from Assyria would be associated with cultural approaches and influences, and in view of the fact that Cypriote art of sculpture shows no sign of having been influenced technically or stylistically by the Assyrian plastic, we must reject the suggestion that the Cypriote idea of monumental sculpture was obtained from Assyria. Neither can we consider Greek art as the source of inspiration. Apart from that uncertainty as to the chronological priority of Greek or Cypriote monumental sculpture there is no evidence of technical or stylistic connection between the earliest monumental sculptures in Cyprus and in Greece. There remains Egypt as the only possible province of art from where the Cypriotes may have obtained the idea of monumental plastic. It is a remarkable fact that the beginning of the XXVIth Dyn. coincides approximately with that of monumental sculpture in Cyprus. We know that Psammetichos I and his successors took Greek and Carian mercenaries in their service as well as Syrian and Phoenician soldiers, and they favoured the enterprise of foreign, particularly Greek, tradesmen in the Delta. It cannot be doubted that this intensified cultural contact between Egypt and Greece effected the transmission of the idea of monumental votive sculpture to Greece. This Egyptian policy also stimulated, of course, the interrelations of Egypt and Cyprus, of which, as shown above, we have evidence already in Cypro-Geometric III. In all probability Cyprus, too, seems to have received the idea of monumental plastic from Egypt, and this probability can be proved. The sculptures of the first Proto-Cypriote style show contact with Egyptian art in the occasional attitude of the one leg placed in front of the other (p. 94), the attitude of the one arm vertical, the other bent across the chest (p. 96), and the prolongation to one side of the upper eyelids (p. 96, PI. II, 3). True,
354
1 For a discussion of the problem from a point of view similar to that taken by me, see, e. g., McDoUGALL, The Group Mind, pp. 106 ff.; SAYCE, Primit. Arts and Crafts, pp. 35 ff.; Antiquity X, 1936, pp. 146 ff; Journ. R. Soc. Arts, LXXXIV, 1936, pp. 552 ff. • GOTZE, op, cit., pp. IS ff.; CHRISTIAN, op. cit., pp. 76 ff.
3 FORST, Zur Kenntnis der Anthrop, der priihist. Beoolker, der Insel Cypern, p. 101. 4 GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, pp. 294 ff. 5 For a discussion of the Tyrseni, cf. DUCATI, Le probleme etrusque, pp. 183 ff.; PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E., Art. Tyrrhener,
1 When I speak about monumental sculpture, I refer to the votive sculptures. Cult images of monumental size seem to have existed in Greece in the Geometrical period (cf, lately Metrop. Mus. Stud. V, 1936, pp. 157 ff.), but
355
according to our present evidence no votive sculptures of monumental size are known in Greece before c. 650 B. C., and probably they are even somewhat later.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
the attitude of the arms referred to is also represented in Mesopotamian sculpture,' but only seldom, and as there is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence on Cypriote sculpture, we are justified in ranging this schema among the other indications of contact with Egyptian plastic. The attitude of the legs referred to' and the prolongation of the eyelidswere also taken over by Syrian art, but there is nothing to show that these Egyptian traits appearing occasionally in Proto-Cypriote monumental sculpture were due to indirect influence via Syria. These Egyptian traits do not essentially influence the style of the ProtoCypriote sculptures, which, as shown above, are stylistically related to Syro-Anatolian art. Only the idea of monumental plastic was received from Egypt and together with that a few isolated traits, which did not affect the Proto-Cypriote character of the style: the idea of monumentality once introduced, the sculptural style was developed according to the purely Cypriote disposition of culture with its Syro-Anatolian affinities. Particularly in the advanced stage of the second Proto-Cypriote style the Egyptian influence on the type of dress and the attitudes of legs and arms (pp. 100 ff., and p. 104) is, however, more conspicuous, and there are also traces of Ionian Greek influence, in consequence of the fact that this stage of the style was contemporary with the Neo-Cypriote style and thus to some degree subject to the same influences as the latter (pp. 99 and 101), but these subsequent modifications have nothing to do with the original stylistic status of the Proto-Cypriote style, nor do they affect the essentially Proto-Cypriote character of even the advanced stage of this style.
ments may be borrowed from one people by another, but these elements are, as a rule, transformed according to the psychical disposition of the people who borrows them. If such a tran~f~rmation ~oes not take place, we are faced with a purely imitative art. Not being an ~rtlstlc ex~resslOn of the psychical disposition of the people who produces it, such an art IS not art m the proper sense of the word, and lacks stylistic development. This is also the case with Cypro-Egyptian sculpture. It is further symptomatic that it is represented by only a very few specimens contrary to the other styles, which are represented by hundreds and thousa~ds of sculptures: No less significant is the fact that there are no Cypro-Egyptian sculptur~s m terracotta, evidently because the prototypes imitated were in stone. It may thus be inferred that the Cypro-Egyptian sculpture is a phenomenon which falls outside the general. develop~ent of. Cypriote art: not being rooted in the psychical disposition of the p~ople It hovers m the atr, has no beginning andno end. It is simply a matter of fashion explained by the Egyptian domination of Cyprus. The Egyptian influence on Cypriote sculpture is, however, not restricted to the imitation ~rt represented by the Cypro-Egyptian style. Much more important is the form of Egyptian influence revealed by Neo-Cypriote sculptures. .
The Cypro-Egyptian Style . This style, unlike, the other Archaic styles in Cyprus, is not ethnically determined. There was no Egyptian colonization of Cyprus, and the Egyptians did not contribute ethnically to the formation of the Cypriote people. On the other hand, there is a literary tradition (cf. p. 467) that a part Of the Cypriote population consisted Of Ethiopians, and this tradition has been confirmed by sculptural evidence, as shown by two sculptures from Ajia Irini and a third from Idalion.· The Ethiopians seem, however, to have been rather few in number. In any case there is no evidence that they played a role in Cyprus either ethnically or artistically. It can be seen that the sculptures representing Ethiopians do not form an artistic synthesis Of Cypriote and Egypto-Ethiopian elements, but are simply products of Cypriote sculptors, who try to render the racial traits of the Ethiopians and also imitate the technical peculiarities of Egyptian sculpture, e. g., the pilaster at the back of the Ajia Irini statuettes mentioned. The character of imitation art holds good for all Cypro-Egyptian sculpture. Consequently, the name Cypro-Egyptian has not a significance analogous to Cypro-Greek. The Cypro-Egyptian style does not represent a synthesis of Cypriote and Egyptian elements of art, but, as stated above (p. 104), is characterized by a Cypriote imitation of Egyptian prototypes. I have pointed out (p. 354) that artistic ele2 Op, cit., pp. 113, 133, 137. Ausgrab. in Sendschirli IV, n. LXVI; V, PI. 67, a-c, f; POULSEN, op, cit., p. 40, Fig. 24. 1
3
MOLLER, op. cit., p. 95.
• Swed. Cyp. Exp
II,
Pl.
RICHTER, Kypros, PI. L, 2.
CCXXXIX, 2-6;
OHNEFALSCH-
357
The Neo-Cypriote Style It has been sho~n that there is a gradual transition from the latest sculptures of the second ~roto-Cypn?te st!le to those of the Neo-Cypriote styles (pp. 99 ff.). The former already display certam traits of an Egyptian influence (loc. cit.), which is still more apparent, a~d plays an important role in forming the style of Eastern Neo-Cypriote. There is a great difference between the Egyptian influence shown by the Cypro-Egyptian style and that revealed by Eastern Neo-Cypriote. In the latter style the Egyptian elements are not imitated, but transformed and assimilated within Cypriote expression. The Egyptian elements appearing in Eastern Neo-Cypriote are transformed and modified in a way that has analogies in the art of central and southern Syria, i. e. , within the Phoenicia? area. This does not mean that the Egyptian influence reached Cyprus altogether from Syna. To some extent this was the case, as we shall see, but we must assume that t~e Cypriote sculptors were on the whole directly influenced from Egypt, all the more since Cyprus was under Egyptian rule during the time of the Eastern N eo-Cypriote style. The. reason. for the stylistic similarity between the Phoenician and Neo-Cypriote sculpture IS, I believe, to be explained by the similar psychical and cultural disposition of the peoples who produced these sculptures. It should be observed that the sculptures of E~st.ern Neo-Cypriote are mainly represented in the southern and eastern parts of Cyprus, and. It IS a fact that these parts have been infiltrated with peoples from central and southern Syna. already in Middle Cypriote,' and the Phoenician colonization of Kition naturally contributed to the reinforcement of these Syrian elements in Cyprus. We know that the art of central and southern Syria was submitted to Egyptian influence since the days of the 1
SJOQVIST, Probl. of the Late
Cypr. Bronze Age, pp. 198 f.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
359
Old Kingdom, and it is also a well-known fact that the Phoenicians made use of Egyptian motifs to a large extent. With regard to the ethnical similarity between the population of Phoenicia and that of the southern and eastern parts of Cyprus in particular it is therefore very natural that an Egyptian influence on the Cypriote sculpture in question would have a similar stylistic effect as in Syria. If we examine in detail the stylistic relations of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote sculpture, we find that the shape of the body is not, as a rule, much influenced by Egyptian art, but the position of the legs with the left foot advanced is an Egyptian feature, which appears already in the first Proto-Cypriote style.' Usually one arm is vertical and the other bent across the breast, both arms with clenched fists. This position of the arms with the clenched fists is common in Egyptian sculpture.' It is also found, though less often, on the Asiatic mainland,' and is present in the second Proto-Cypriote style, too.' The attitude with both arms holding an animal in front of the body occurs in Mesopotamia already in the jrd millennium B. C.5 Egyptian influence is indicated by the attitude with one arm vertical and the other one bent forward at right angles.' The attitude of the nude female figures with both hands supporting the breasts is very common on the Asiatic mainland.' Cypriote terracotta statuettes from the Late Bronze Age have the same posture, 8 but there is no evidence that this type survived in Cyprus during the Cypro-Geometric period, and its reappearance in the Archaic period we can, therefore, better interpret as due to a renewed influence from Syria. The gesture called Venus pudique: is also of Oriental origin,> and certainly came to Cyprus from the Syrian coast. The transparent dress clinging to the body is a very characteristic phenomenon in the terracotta art of the Eastern N eo-Cypriote style.» This feature is of Egyptian origin, but was taken over by Syrian art,» and even if direct influence from Egypt on the Cypriote specimens is not altogether excluded, it is much more probable that the influence in this case reached Cyprus via Syria. The Syrian character of the figurines wearing this kind of dress supports this, and very probably the introduction of the moulding technique used for the production of these figurines was due to Syrian influence. This particular technique, by means of which the figure is reproduced in relief against a background formed by the overflow of clay round the edges of the mould, is already represented in old-Babylonian art, and was later introduced into Syria.> As regards the dress it is obvious that the Egyptianizing shemti worn by the Neo-Cypriote
and Cypro-Egyptian sculptures shows influence from the Egyptian fashion, which was fairly strong during the period of Egyptian political dominion. We have seen that Egyptian dress also appears in the Second Proto-Cypriote style, which continued during the Egyptian dominion, but being only a matter of fashion it did not essentially influence the style of the Proto-Cypriote sculptures, as already pointed out. On the other hand, it is clear that when it appears in the Neo-Cypriote style, it forms evidence supplementary to the other Egyptian elements, which together influence the style of the Neo-Cypriote sculptures. The heads characteristic of the figures of Eastern Neo-Cypriote are often short, round, and wide, with full cheeks and rather thick lips,' a type of head which is to be considered as "Semitic". It is found in Syria,> and is clearly different from the non-Semitic, NorthSyrian type with its Proto-Cypriote relations. As mentioned above, the "Semitic" type of face is particularly evident in the moulded terracotta figurines. As regards the hair-style it should be noted that the short wig characteristic of the NeoCypriote sculptures is very common in Egypt during the Saite period.' The "feathered" hair-style;' on the other hand, is typically Syrian,> and so are the "feathered" eyebrows. 6 These appear already in Sumerian art,' and occasionally they are also found on Etruscan bronze sculptures;' another stylistic link between Syrian, Cypriote, and Etruscan art. The shape of the eyes also shows a stylistic relation to Egyptian and Syrian types, both the large, almond-shaped eyes, often of the semilunar variety, and the long, narrow type." All these varieties are known from Egypt,> but they are also found in Syria,» one or the other variety appearing in different parts of the Near East.v The Egyptian influence is, however, not restricted to a number of separate traits of style, but also affects the general character of the style, and appears in the smooth, broad planes of the surface, the tranquil and passive expression of the face, with its sensitive, melancholic smile. . The sculptures of Western Neo-Cypriote also show influence from Egyptian art, as proved by the attitude of the kouros figures with vertical arms and clenched fists. In the ProtoCypriote style there are statues with both arms vertical and the hands with bent fingers,v though the fingers are usually outstretched. The attitude with bent fingers should not be confused with that of clenched fists. It represents the natural attitude of the fingers when the arms is vertical, and is thus a kind of primitive realism, while the clenched fist, when the hand is not holding some object, is an altogether artificial and thus stylistic attitude.
1 Cf. p. 355. 2 V. BISSING, Denkmiiler iigypt. Sculptur, Pis. 5 A, 47, 50, 59, 64· 3 Kunstgesch. in Bildern I, PI. 57, No.2; SCHAFER & ANDRAE, op, cit., p. 496 4 Cf. pp. 99 if. 5 MEISSNER, Grundzuge d. babyli-assyr, Plastik, p. 56, Fig. 101; Deleg, en Perse VII, PI. XV, 1-3. 6 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 175, No. II89 (Fig. 68); cf. V. BISSING, op, cit .• Pis. II, 12, 32; DARESSY, Statues de divinites (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), Pis. I, Nos. 38.0°3, 38.006, 38.008; III, 38.032, 38.°35, 38.039; FECHHEIMER, Kleinplast, d. }[gypter, PIs. 33-35, 43-45, 47.
1 Cf. pp. 106, 108. 2MULLER, op, cit., p. 158. 3 V. BISSING, op. cit., PI. 68 A. 4 Cf. p. 106. 5 POULSEN, op. cit., pp. 71 f., 103 f.; cf. Carchemish I, PI. A. I, a; II, PI. A. 13, d; Ausgrab, in Sendschirli IV, p. 3 67, Fig. 267; Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, D 2, 3, pp. 158 fI.; ct. p. 106. 6 KUNZE, Kret. Bronzerel., p. 231. Feathered eyebrows are also found on terracotta masks partly similar to NeoCypriote faces and found within the Punic territory in North Africa [Mus. de l' Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie n, Pis. XII, 4, 5].
MULLER, op. cit., pp. 90 fI., 93 ff., 124, 134, 140, 145, 147. Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXLVIII, 6, 8; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 2014. " Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pi. CCIII, 10; Kunstmus. Aarsskr. VI, 1919, p. 27, Fig. 6. 10 MULLER, op, cit., pp. 144, 207 f. 11 Szoed, Cyp. Exp. III, Pis. CLXXXVIII, 6 (classed as Style II, should be: Style IV); CCIII, 3. 12 MULLER, op. cit., pp. 156 t. 13 VAN BUREN, Clay Figurines, pp. XLIII f., XLVI. For moulded figures from Syria, whence Cyprus directly derived the moulding technique, see Syria VIII, 1927, pp. 203 fI., Pis. L, LI; IX, 1928, pp. 307 fI., Figs. 13, 14, PI. LXXI. 7
8
7 E. g., DE SARZEC, Decouo. en Chaldee, Pis. 12, 24 bis; HEUZEY, Cat. Antiq. Chald., p, 237, No. 95; SCHAFER & ANDRAE, op, cit., pp. 467, 472; PI. XXVII. 8 Cf. Arch. Anz., 1937, p. 287, n. I. "Cf. pp. 106, 108. 10 E. g. v. BISSING, op, cit., PI. 60; Buli. Mus. Fine Arts, Boston XI, No. 66, 1913, p. 56, Fig. 7; SCHMIDT, Typol. Atlas, Nos. 410, 427, 436; SCHAFER & ANDRAE, op, cit., pp. 416 fI., PI. XXI. 11 POULSEN, op. cit., p. 69, Fig. 71; p. 72, Fig. 74. 12 SCHAFER & ANDRAE, op. cit., pp. 497, 499-509, 516518, 533, 53 6 f., 54 1-543, 554, 570. 13 Steed, Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXCI, 3.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
Many stylistic traits connect Western Neo-Cypriote with the Proto-Cypriote and particularly Eastern N eo-Cypriote styles. This holds good for the general character of the Western Neo-Cypriote style and even for individual details as well: Western Neo-Cypriote isa style parallel to Eastern Neo-Cypriote, and forms an organic development of the second Proto-Cypriote style, as stated above (p. 357). The wig-shaped hair, the turban-shaped hair-style, the long hair covered by a veil, the long or trimmed beard, the "feathered" eyebrows, the conical cap, the large hairrings and necklaces, the semilunar eyes, the full, rounded cheeks and chin, the position of the arms with one arm vertical and the other bent across the chest, and the board-shaped type of body - all these traits are in the old-Cypriote tradition and represented in Eastern N eo-Cypriote and second Proto-Cypriote styles. The frontlet and the dress of "bathingdrawers" worn by the kouros statues represent an old Cypriote tradition. Frontlets of the type in question. are represented by sculptures of the second Proto-Cypriote style, and were in vogue in Cyprus already since the Late Bronze Age! They are worn by female figures on a bronze bowl found at Dali and dating from the 8th cent. B. C.2 Remains of similar frontlets have been found in tombs from the Cypro-Geometric period.' "Bathingdrawers", as pointed out above, P.348, are also worn by Etruscan statues, and are apparently an old-Anatolian and Cypriote dress.' In these respects the foreign relations of Western Neo-Cypriote are thus the same as those of the styles mentioned, but the Neo-Cypriote sculptures and particularly those of Western Neo-Cypriote also show stylistic similarity to Ionian art. The head, Kition No. 186,. is similar to that of aSamian bronze kouros,· and the head of another Samian bronze figurine 7 has the same broad face and thick nose as a Cypriote heads discovered by R. H. Lang. The face of a Samian horseman" should be compared with that of a head in the Cesnola Collection:" the hair-style, the narrow eyes, the thin nose, the faint smile, the narrow upper lip, and the trapezoid, ovoid shape of the face - all these particulars are the same. If we disregard the Cypriote shape of the eyes and the "feathered" eyebrows of a terracotta head in the Cyprus Museum,': it has a general resemblance to a head from Ephesos:> the broad nose with spreading nostrils, the delicately worked mouth with the upper lip projecting, .the heavy chin, and full, fleshy cheeks are characteristic of both these faces. The instances of comparison can be multiplied, but those referred to may suffice. We thus see that the Western Neo-Cypriote sculpture, in particular, is stylistically related to Ionian' art, but the movement of influence was not one way from Ionia to Cyprus. We shall see that the Ionian "soft" style especially has been influenced by Cypriote sculpture, where this style appeared earlier than in Ionia (p. 369). The fact remains, however, that
this N eo-Cypriote sculpture was subject to Ionian influence. In view of the fact that no Ionian sculpture contemporary with the early Neo-Cypriote style has been found in Cyprus we must face the problem how this influence can be explained. Of course, future excavations in Cyprus may yield finds of some early Ionian sculptures, but on the bases of the present evidence I think that the solution of the problem has to be sought in the Cypriote factories in Naukratis and in the East-Greek cities, in Rhodes, and in Samos. We know that Cypriote sculptors were working at these factories already at the time of the earlier stage of the second Proto-Cypriote style (pp. 3I9, 327 ff.). These sculptors came into contact there with the Greek art of sculpture, and must have been impressed by it, for it was an art which they could understand and assimilate. The Mycenaean colonization of Cyprus had produced a hellenisation of the cultural disposition of the Cypriotes. Contact with the Ionian art of sculpture during the early part of the 6th cent. B. C. released this cultural disposition, and when impulses created by this contact were brought back with the itinerant sculptors to Cyprus, they took form in the Neo-Cypriote style. In view of this itis symptomatic that the stylistic affinity to Greek art is apparent particularly in the Western N eo-Cypriote style, represented within that part of Cyprus where the purely Achaean colonization took place, and where the Greek ethnic elements must therefore have been strongest,
Exc. in Cyp .• Pis. VIII (top frontlet); XI, 652. Cf. p. 218 (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 4561). 3 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, Pis. XLIV, I; LI, 2; LV, 2; LVII, 3. As pointed out, pp 397 f., such frontlets were also in vogue in Syria and frontlets were used in the Orient since early times. 4 Cf. loe. cit. and HANFFMANN, Altetruskische PlastikI, 1
2
PP.45 f. s Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. V,
I, 2.
• BUSCHOR, Altsam. Standbilder, Figs. 5, 7· Op. cit., Fig. 6. s Brit. Ml~S. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 9. 9 BUSCHOR, op, cit., Figs. 190-192, 198, 199. 10 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. IX. u OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. XLVIII, 4. 12 Brit. Mus. Cat.; Sculpt. I: I, B 89, PI. IV.
The Cypro-Greek Styles The process of combining Greek and Cypriote elements of art begun in Neo-Cypriote was completed in the Archaic Cypro-Greek style. The psychological reason of this process is of course the same as given for the corresponding process in the Neo-Cypriotestyle, i. e., the hellenisation of the cultural disposition of the Cypriote people, a fact that created the psychical condition for a combination of Cypriote and Greek elements of art. 1 The source of influence was not only Ionian works seen by Cypriote sculptors abroad as in the case of the N eo-Cypriote style, but also imported Greek works in marble and terracotta, including moulds. The Greek influence is much more dominant in the Archaic CyproGreek style than in the Western Neo-Cypriote. This forms a transitional style between Proto-Cypriote and Cypro-Greek, while Eastern Neo-Cypriote with its close Syro-Egyptian connections is not continued by a subsequent development. The Cypro-Greek style, on the other hand, becomes quickly predominant, as soon as it appears, and instead of the two parallel Neo-Cypriote styles one single uniform art of sculpture was created, where the Greek influence successfully conquers the Egyptian. True, some Egyptian motifs in dress and attitudes linger on for some time (d. pp. I 12 ff.), but in the character of the face, as we know, the stylistic criterion of Cypriote sculpture, the Greek influence is decisive.
7
1 Etruscan sculpture affords an analogous phenomenon. It shows close connections with the Syro-Anatolian art in accordance with the fact that the Etruscans included a strong, ethnic influx from Anatolia, but the Etruscans were also mixed with Greek elements, and accordingly they also had a Greek disposition of culture, which was realized and
accentuated when they came into contact with Greek culture. The similarity between the late Archaic sculptures in Cyprus and in Etruria is thus explained by the fact that in both these countries an Anatolian substratum has been subject to Greek influence (cf. Konsthist. Tidskr. II, 1933, pp. 63 f.),
SCULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
The introduction of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, at c. 540 B. C., coincides with the defection of the Cypriotes from Amasis and their allegiance to Persia (cf. p. 370). Had this political event some effect on this sculptural occurrence? I think so. 'the Egyptian influence on Cypriote sculpture was no longer backed by a political power, and Cyprus apparently lost its economic and cultural position in Naukratis (cf. loco cit.), from whence much of the Egyptian element in Cypriote sculpture were drawn. On the other hand, the Ionian cities in Asia Minor and Cyprus were incorporated into the Persian Empire, belonged to the same political power, and thus their cultural interrelations were facilitated. In this way it is easy to understand that the tendency towards Greek expression appearing in the Western Neo-Cypriote style was intensified, and that the Ionian influence became predominant. For geographical and political reasons it is natural that the influence from Greek art of sculpture reached Cyprus first from Ionia. I select some examples of this influence on the Archaic Cypro-Greek sculpture. An alabaster statuette of a kouros said to be from Cyprus' is probably a work of a Cypriote sculptor in Naukratis. It may have been imported to Cyprus in ancient times, but the provenance is not certain, and we must therefore reckon with the possibility that it was brought from Egypt to Cyprus in our days. The statuette is closely related to the type of kouros represented by Apollon Golenisheff.' The more than life-sized head of a kouros probably from Rhodes, and now numbered among the treasures of the Museum of Antiquities in Istanbul,' is a master-piece of Ionian sculpture, and reflections of its exquisite art are given by several Cypriote kouros figures, e. g., two heads in the British Museum.' Another head' in the same museum resembles the male head of a terracotta group from Samos." The Cypriote head, unlike the Samian, has no beard, but the shape and the features of the face are the same. Two heads in the Metropolitan Museum? are also similar to the Samian specimen, and have, similarly, a short beard, but their eyebrows are of Cypriote type. The head, Kition No. 356,8 is closely related to a head found at Naukratis- and other works of Ionian origin." Other instances of individual resemblance to certain Ionian sculptures are given by the following heads: Vouni No. 477," which should be compared with a female terracotta mask in the Museum of Rhodes" and also with the head of some Ionian terracotta figurines;" Mersinaki No. 9 89,14 which is very similar to some terracotta masks from Rhodes;" Mersinaki No. 822,'6 to be compared with the head of a terracotta statuette in the Louvre." The head of the Kition
statuette No. 4871 can be connected stylistically with a head found in Aigina- and by Lang10tz3 attributed to his Chiote school. The figure and the dress of a kore statuette from Kition- are almost identical with those of korai from Klazomenai,' and several of the Cypriote kore sculptures' bear a general stylistic resemblance to the Cycladic korai- in the same way as the naked Cypriote kouroi' are another sign of the general Ionian influence. In the later phase of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, Attic and Aiginetan influence becomes more and more pronounced. Thus a terracotta head from Ajia Irini- is stylistically related to a marble head from Eleusis in the National Museum of Athens: 10 the semilunar eyes, the cheeks, and broad mouth with a distorted smile are very much the same; only the hair is differently rendered. The kore statue found on Vouniv is somewhat later than the Acropolis kore No. 673 12 and somewhat earlier than the kore No. 641,13 i. e., it is later than 520-510 B. C. and slightly earlier than 490-480 B. C. So far as I can see the Vouni kore is stylistically more related to No. 641 than to No. 673: the horizontal eyes and the faint smile of the Vouni kore are in favour of this view. We may thus assign this statue to C. 500-490 B. C. Aiginetan influence is represented by the Kition head No. 104,14 which should be compared with a head from the propylon of the Aphaia ternple.» For the hair of the latter head and the general expression of the face one should also take, e. g., the Kition head No. 541 +27816 into consideration. Finally, it is evident that the head of the Mersinaki statue No. 759, etc." bears a strong stylistic resemblance to another bearded head from the propylon of the Aphaia temple." I shall not fatigue the reader with an enumeration of more instances of the stylistic connection between the Archaic Cypro-Greek sculptures and those of the Late Archaic schools of art in Greece. The instances quoted suffice to show that the Archaic Cypro-Greek style was at the outset subject to a strong Ionian influence, and that later on influence reached Cyprus from the Greek Mainland, from Attica and Aigina. No influence from the Peloponnesian schools of art can be noticed as yet. Greek influence is not only evident in stylistic respects, but also in representation of Greek motifs, e. g., Theseus and Antiope,v Athena entering a chariot,» sphinxes of the Greek type,» etc., and in the representation of Greek dress" and armament. 23
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. IX, 3. FURTWANGLER, Aegina, PI. 82. SCHWEITZER (in Gnomon XV, 1939, p. 14) also compares this Cypriote statuette with a head found in Thasos (Jahresh. dsterr, arch. Inst. XI, 1908, PI. I, II), but this comparison is not convincing. 3 LANGLOTZ, Friihgriech, Bildhauerschulen, p, 139. 4 Szoed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XIII, 6. 5 Bull. Corr. Hetl, XXXII, 1908, PI. III. a Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. XII, 1,2; LIV, 3; LV, 1-3; CXCI,3· 1 2
1 DEONNA, Les "Apollons archaiques" , p. 237, Figs. 163, 164. 2Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, VII, 1892, PI. 6. 3 SCHEDE, Meisterwerke der tilrk. Mus. zu Konstantinopel I, PI. I. 4 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, C 23, 24. 50p. cit. I: 2, C 25I. 6 BUSCHOR, op, cit., Fig. 178. ? CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXIII, 52, 53· 8 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. IX, 4, 5. 9 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 439 100p. cit. I: I, B 438; Ant. Plastik W. Amelung z. 60. Geburtstag, pp. 217 ff.
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. LXX, 2, 3. Clara Rhodos IV, p. 390, Fig. 446. This photo reproduces the head somewhat from below, which accounts for the fact that the expression of the face seems rather different from that of the Cypriote head. 13 E. g., CHARBONNEAUX, Les Terres euites Grecques, Fig. 8; BUSCHOR, op, cit., Fig. 134· 14 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXXIlI, 3. 4· 15 Clara Rhodos VIII, p. 54, Fig. 39; Lindos I, PI. 1I6, Nos. 2471 b, 2476. 16 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI CXXI, 4. 12 CHARBONNEAUX, op. cit., Fig. 10. 11 12
LANGLOTZ, op, cit., PIs. 82, 83. 8 Cf. above, pp. 1I2 ff. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXX. ?
10 'E'f''fjp.. 95, c.
'ApXatoL, 1889, PI. 5; LANGLOTZ, op, cit., PI.
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. L-LII; LIII, 5. PAYNE & YOUNG, Arch. Marble Sculpt. fro the Acrop., PIs. 62-64. 11
12
130p. cit., PI. 8I. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XVI, 4, 5 15 FURTwXNGLER, op. cit., pp. 259 f., PIs. 73, 74. 16 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XIX, 4, 5. 1? Op. cit. III, PI. CXIX, 3. 18 FURTWANGLER, op. cit., PIs. 71, 72. 19 Swed. Exp. III, PI. LVI, 2, 3. 200p. cit. Ill, PIs. CXLVI; CXLVII, I. 21 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. CVI. 22 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. IX, 3; X, 3: XI, 2; XII, XIII,S, 6; XVI, I, 2; and passim. 14
cs».
23
CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. CV, 688.
I,
2;
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
During the whole time of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, Cypriote sculptural art thus keeps pace with the development of Late Archaic Greek art. The failure of the Cypriote revolt in 499/8 B. C. and, in consequence, the increase of the Persian political power in Cyprus had the effect that the island was almost isolated from cultural influence from Greece until the time of Euagoras I. 1 The Cypriote sculptors, deprived of the stimulating Greek influence, were unable to find new ways of development for their plastic art. The Oriental element in Cypriote mentality gained the upper hand, and accordingly Cypriote sculptural art stagnates and, in the Oriental manner, repeats the types existing in an endless series of gradually less careful works, a typical epigon style, the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style. Only sporadically some influence from the contemporary Greek art is found: In the Herakles figure No. 347 +510 from Kition- the strict law of frontality is broken by an attempt to represent a dynamic standing position, and it cannot be doubted that this sculpture shows an attempt to appropriate the contemporary Greek "Standmotif". The Kition head No. 239 also shows influence from the Greek severe style. Other attempts at introducing the Greek "Standmotif" are represented by the Vouni figures Nos. 482 and 489" Both these statuettes have the right leg bent and showing beneath the dress. The Athena head No. 210 from Vouni- is evidently inspired by Greek prototypes from shortly before the middle of the 5th cent. B. C.,, and the Mersinaki sculpture No. 9837 reflects Greek works of nude male figures of the same date. Sometimes the Greek dress of the severe style and the Classical period is imitated, as shown, e. g., by the Vouni figures Nos. 5, 62, 489, 503, 545,' etc. As already mentioned, this influence was, however, only sporadic, and was not able to effect a new orientation of Cypriote art. There was no longer a fusion of Cypriote and Greek elements as in the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, but only an imitation of a few Greek traits. The Cypriote will of form, which determines the style, has lost its creative force, and, in consequence, the first Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style gradually passes into the second, degenerate style appearing at the end of the 5th cent. and continuing during-the 4th. cent. B. 'C. On the other hand, the works of the Classical Cypro-Greek style show a strong influence from the sculptural art of Classical Greece. As pointed out above (p. 124), they more or less closely imitate Greek prototypes of the 5th and 4th cent. B. C. from works of Poly-
kleitos and Phidias to those of Praxiteles and Skopas. Thus a head in the Metropolitan Museum ' is inspired by the type represented by the Olympian Zeus of Phidias, and other heads in the same Museum imitate types of Greek tomb reliefs from the 4th cent. B.C." and the style of Skopas.: These are some specimens of sculptures, which closely imitate the Greek prototypes, but, as shown above (p. 124), the Cypriote sculptors were not always so successful in their attempts at imitation, and accordingly some works of the Classical Cypro-Greek style reveal more of the Cypriote character, and are only general and vague representations of the Greek types. The terracotta plastic of the Classical Cypro-Greek style has a similar, but on account of its special technique somewhat different, relation to contemporary Greek art. It is an imitative art like the sculpture in stone, but the imitation consists of the use of Greek moulds for casting the faces' or Cypriote Abformungen of such faces. The bodies were made by hand in the Cypriote Sub-Archaic style. In the interrelations of the Cypriote and Greek elements there is, therefore, a fundamental difference between the Archaic and Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek styles, on the one hand, and the Classical Cypro-Greek style, on the other. The moulded faces of the former styles show a combination of Cypriote and Greek stylistic features, and they are artistically coherent with the bodily form, which is of an Archaic or a Sub-Archaic type. In the latter style this artistic coherence is broken: the faces are Classical, the bodies and also the separately added parts of the head, e. g., beard, hair, etc. are Sub-Archaic. The style of the faces no longer represents a combination of Cypriote and Greek traits, it is not an expression of a Cypriote aesthetic concept. The moulding technique has degenerated into a koroplastic method of imitating Greek prototypes. When Cypriote Abformungen are used as moulds, the Cypriote character is more pronounced, i. e., the attempt at imitating the Greek prototypes is less successful, the same phenomenon as observed in some of the stone sculptures. This renewed Greek influence must be seen in connection with the cultural policy of Euagoras I (pp. 502 ff.), but his efforts only resulted in introducing an imitation style, which has no reference at all to the Cypriote development of art. It represents an artistic phenomenon corresponding to the Cypro-Egyptian style: both are based in political grounds and not, as the other styles, in the aesthetic concepts of the Cypriote people.
3
1 This does not mean that the commercial connections w' re entirely broken. The amount of imported Attic pottery proves the contrary (cf. pp. 279 ff., 317 f.), but we know that commercial intercourse is not always the same as cultural contact. 2 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XXVIII. 30p. cit. III, PI. XXIV, 6. • Op. cit. III, PIs. LXIII, 4; LXIV, 1. 5 Op. cit. III, PI. XL. s Disregarding Cypriote peculiarities, the style of the head corresponds most closely to that of Athena Elgin (Die Antike XI, 1935, pp. 39 ff., PIs. I, II) dating from 460-450 B. C. There is aiso a certain resemblance to the bronze statuette in the Collection d'Eichthal (Gazette des BeauxArts LXIV, 1922, II, p. 22). The prototype of Athena of r
Vouni was certainly of bronze, as can be seen from the sharp-edged lines. of brows, lids, and lips. The bronze statuette in the Collection d'Eichthal is considered to be a replica of Athena Promachos. Perhaps this Athena of Vouni is a Cypriote replica of Athena Promachos. The Cypriote statuette dates from shortly after the completion of Athena Promachos, and the king Stasioikos, who built the temple of Athena at Vouni, was placed on the throne by Kimon, and he was therefore in alliance with Athens (cf. p. 483). It would only be natural and a token of this alliance if Stasioikos dedicated a replica of Athena Promachos just erected on the acropolis of Athens as a symbol of the political power of that city. . 7 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXXVI. 80p. cit. III, PIs. LVIII, I, 2; LXII; LXIV.
CYPRIOTE INFLUENCE ON FOREIGN SCULPTURE Cyprus exercised a considerable influence on the sculptural art of Syria. Future excavations will no doubt further elucidate this question, but we have already conclusive material at our disposal. PI. XVIII, I (CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. CV, 689). PI. XVIII, 3 (CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XCVII, 665); ct. DIEPOLDER, Die attischen Grabreliefs, PI. '22. 3 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. CXXXIX, 1035. • When SCHWEITZER (Gnomon XV, 1939, p. IS) advances the view that a monumental plastic in terracotta has not 1
2
existed outside Cyprus, it is difficult to understand the reason of this false statement. It suffices to refer to DEONNA, Les statues de terre cuite en Grece, pp. 19 ff., 56 ff. and to Hundertstes Winckelmannsprogramm, pp. 27 ff., with further references.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
Some terracottas acquired in Beirut and now in the British Museum' are certainly not of Cypriote workmanship, but they are similar to Cypriote terracottas of rather advanced "snow-man" technique' and moulded specimens of Neo-Cypriote type,> The clay is not Cypriote, the work is rougher than is usual in Cyprus, and the style emphasizes the Syrian traits characteristic of the Eastern Neo-Cypriote group. Evidently we have to do with works of Syrian artists influenced by Cypriote prototypes. The same holds good for a considerable part of the sculptures found at Sidon (pp. 323 ff.), A study of the unpublished material in the Istanbul Museum has convinced me that c. 20 % of the sculptures which show stylistic affinity to those of Cyprus are not of Cypriote workmanship, but produced by Syrian artists. The sculptures of this kind comprise both roughly made figures of "snow-man" technique, statuettes similar to the early minotauri from Ajia Irini, moulded figurines, and more carefully modelled specimens in imitation of Proto-Cypriote and N eo-Cypriote types. The finds from Amrit (pp. 325 f.), in particular, confirm the importance of this Cypriote influence. Apart from the numerous Cypriote sculptures found in Amrit, there are also several sculptures from that site which are evidently of local origin, but strongly influenced by Cypriote types. This I was able to ascertain on the basis of my inspection of the material in 1928, but, as mentioned, the publication of the Amrit sculptures -- if it has appeared -- is not available to me, and I cannot therefore refer to particular specimens. There is no indication of Cypriote influence on Egyptian sculpture. In Egyptian Naukratis there is, however, ample evidence of Cypriote influence on the Greek sculptures found there. A statuette, of which the upper part is preserved, is a N aukratite copy of a N eoCypriote type.' The material is alabaster, and the statuette represents a standing youth wearing a Cypriote helmet with upturned cheek-pieces, bracelets on the upper arms, and a garment across the body to the left shoulder, covering the left upper arm as with a sleeve. The copyist has misunderstood the Cypriote dress, consisting of a sleeved chiton and a mantle, and has draped the mantle over the left upper arm in the shape of a sleeve. The rendering of the hair also betrays the non-Cypriote artist: it is divided by vertical grooves into tresses with zigzag lines in relief. There are also other sculptures which reflect influence from Cypriote art, but at the same time some peculiar features, which are not typically Cypriote. Two nude kouroi- belong to this category. These kouroi differ in style from the others, which are undoubtedly of East-Greek ongin. Their body is flat, similar to the Cypriote type, the modelling is conventional and shallow, without much interest in the anatomy and the structure of the body, i. e., the bodies are very similar to those of the Cypriote kouros type,« except for the fact that they are naked. The right arm of B 441 is bent across the body in the Cypriote fashion, though, on the other hand, this attitude may also have been directly
borrowed from Egyptian art. The hair falls on the back in a flat, elevated mass, of the Cypriote type, contrary to the tressed hair of other kouroi. We thus see that both Cypriote and nonCypriote traits are represented by the figures in question. Nudity in the representation of the male body is a non-Cypriote feature, and naked male figures do not appear in Cypriote art earlier than in the Archaic Cypro-Greek style.' On the other hand, the workmanship and the shape of the body show Cypriote elements of style. Other figures of which the workmanship indicates Cypriote influence are B 448 and 449' representing youths holding a lion before them. The preserved head of B 448 is entirely of the Neo-Cypriote style.s The nude body of B 449 4 is a non-Cypriote feature, and the lion-man represented is not of the well-known Cypriote type. The lion is larger in proportion to the man than is usual in Cyprus, where, moreover, the lion-man is represented as Herakles.: Figures similar to the Naukratite type have been found at Lindos, Kameiros, Dadia, and Sidon,' consequently always at places in the periphery of the activity of Cypriote sculptural art. The motif of these sculptures is non-Cypriote, but the workmanship and the style show strong Cypriote influence. Finally, the female statuettes draped in a chiton with central folds? are evidently inspired by the Cypriote, board-shaped type, but central folds of this type are rare in Cyprus and seem to betray an Ionian sculptor. We know that such folds are particularly characteristic of Ionian art, though the motif is of Oriental derivation and is found in Syria.' When it appears occasionally in Proto-Cypriote sculpture,' this is certainly due to Syrian influence, while Ionian influence must account for the fact that these folds are sometimes also represented in the Archaic Cypro-Greek style.> The suggestion that the Naukratite statuettes in question were made by an Ionian sculptor is confirmed by the statuette B 460 : the hand of the figure holds up the central folds of the drapery, a well-known Ionian trait,» quite unknown in Cypriote art. Another centre of Cypriote influence on Greek sculpture is Rhodes. A few nude kouroi found at Lindos> are similar to the N aukratite specimens mentioned above, and show us a Greek sculptor working under Cypriote influence, but preserving the Greek tradition of the male nude figure. Other instances of Cypriote influence on the sculptures of Lindos are afforded by fragmentary figures representing a man holding a lion in front of him,> the same type as found in N aukratis; the lower part of a female statuette with a marked contraction at the waist,» a tectonic phenomenon which is not Cypriote; a female figure pressing the
Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., A 453, 454, 459-461, a Gp. cit., A 460, 461, 3 Op, cit., A 453, 454 and the moulded head of A 459, which is attached to a body of "snow-man" technique as the similar statuettes from Ajia Irini (Swed. Cyp, Exp, II, PI. CCXXXII, IS). The heads of the moulded statuettes are 1
similar to that of a Cypriote statuette published in OHNEFALSCH-R1CHTER, Kypros, PI. LI, 3. 4 Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 447. 5 Op, cit. I: I, B 441, 444. 6 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXV.
Cf. pp. 1I2 f. • Brit. Mus. Cat .• Sculpt. I: I, PI. XL. 3 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XXVI, 70; XXXVI, 225. 4 B 448 is also nude according to the description by Pryce, but he is evidently wrong; the figure was dressed in a painted garment, of which traces of colour still remain. 5 Handb. Cesn. Coll., pp. 170 ff, 6 Lindos I, p. 437. ? Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 453, 454, 460, 461. 8 Athen, Mitt. XLVI, 1921, pp. 43 ff., cf, also the Syrian terracotta statuettes published in Syria VIII, 1927, PI. L, 22, 23, 25. 30 ; IX, 1928, p. 31I, Fig. 14; XIII, 1932, PI. XXXVII, 246, 247; PEZARD, Qadesh, PI. XXII, 4, 5.The date 1
of these statuettes is rather uncertain. They are assigned to the 8th-6th cent. B. C., to "epoque neo-babylonienne et perse", or "greco-perse", but on insufficient grounds. Even if the statuettes are of the 6th cent. B. C .• it is not probable that their dress, which is closely related to the Ionian, indicates a retrograde influence from Ionia, but rather a continuation and development of the native tradition. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CC, 3; CCVII, 1. 10 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XX. 39, 40. 11 Cf. e, g. BUSCHOR, Altsam. Standbilder, p. 33, Fig. 1I8. 1. Lindos I, PI. 65, No. 1617; cf. Nos. 1618, 161 9. 13 Lindos I, PI. 73, Nos. 1772, 1773, 1775. 14 Lindos I, PI. 67, No. 1654.
S'CULPTURE
FOREIGN RELATIONS
breasts and the head covered bya veil expanded to the shoulders ;' the lower part of a female figure dressed in chiton with central folds, similar to the Naukratite specimens mentioned above" a statuette with diadem around thehead.' Some of the sculptures foundin Kameiros are also evidently influenced by the Cypriote prototypes discovered at the same place, e. g., the nude Apollon figures;' statuettes. of a youth holding a lion;' a statuette of a draped woman;" a statuette of a ,:oman wean~g a diadem;' a fragment of board-shaped torso with a central fold;' a youth with a snake cOl~ed on top of the head and the tail falling in front of the right shoulder;" a fem~e votary holdl~g an animal with both hands obliquely in front of her;" a naked man holding a buck by Its horns;" a head with wig-shaped hair." The head of the Apollon figures is infl~enced .by Neo-Cypriote prototypes, but the nudity is a non-Cypriote trait; the youth holding a hon is similar to the corresponding Naukratite type (d. p. 367); the statuette of.a draped w?man has a marked contraction of the body at the waist, like the figure from Lindos mentioned above; the woman wearing a diadem is evidently influenced by Cypriote kouroi with s~ch a diadem," which, however, is never worn by Cypriote female figures. The draperr with central folds has been discussed above, p. 367. The youth with the snake represents probably a serpent charmer, which is found in the sculptural art of Cyprus, but the type is ~iffe:ent.14 The fact that the body of the Kameiran statuette is similar to that of B 361, WhICh IS undoubtedly of non-Cypriote workmanship, indicates the same for this statuette. The .female votary holding an animal with both hands obliquely in front of her :epresents. eVldentl.y a mixture of two Cypriote schemata: the one with both hands holding an ammal honzontally and the other one holding the animal with 0.ne hand ?bliquely. The naked ~an holding a buck by its horns imitates the cor.resp~ndmg Cypr~ot~ ~ype, but the nU~lty betrays the non-Cypriote sculptor. The head with WIg-shaped hair imitates a Neo-Cypnote prototype," but reveals itself as a work of an Ionian sculptor. Cypriote influence on Greek sculpture is further represented by some statuettes found 1 Lindos I, PI. 67, No. 1655. The way the veil is rendered is non-Cypriote, but is found on several alabastra found at Naukratis, Rhodes, Gordion, and Italy (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I; ~,B 329, 464, 465; Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., B 203, 204, 460; KORTE, Gordion, PI. 6). POULSEN (Der Orient u. d. friihgr, Kunst, pp. 93 ff., 99) is of the opinion that the alabastra with heads of Oriental character are of Cypriote origin. True,' the faces of one of the alabastra from Vu1ci (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, D 4) and that from Gordion reflect Eastern Neo-Cypriote features of style (d. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: 2, D 4 with CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XVIII, 135), while the other two alabastra from Vu1ci (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. 1: 2, D 2, 3) are related to the ProtoCypriote style. On account of the close relationship of these Cypriote styles to the art in Syria we must also take a Syrian origin into consideration, and we cannot decide the question of origin until a number of alabastra have been found in Cyprus itself. In any case the alabastron from Gordion, the relevant specimen in this particular question, cannot
be considered as of genuine Cypriote workmanship for the reason given above. 2 Lindos I, PI. 69, No. 1682. 3 Lindos I, PI. 65. No. 1604. A close parallel is afforded by a statuette from Kameiros (Brit. Mus.' Cat., Sculpt, I: I; B 361). For the reason given below, this latter statuette is not of Cypriote workmanship. The close stylistic affinity between the two statuettes indicates a non-Cypriote origin also for that from Lindos. The treatment of the eyes and the mouth in particular betrays the non-Cypriote sculptor. 4 Op. cit. I: I, B 330-333. 50p. cit. I: I, B 335-337· 6 Op. cit. I: I, B 349. 7 Op. cit. I: I. B 3 6 1. 3 Op. cit. I: I, B 357. "Op. cit. I: I, B 334· lOOp. cit. I: I, B 34 6 . 11 Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 282, Fig. 3· 12 Op. cit. VI-VII, p. 286, Fig. 8 (right). 13 Cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XIX; XXV, 60, 61, 63-65.
Op. cit. I" PI. XXXII, 209· 15Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXC, ;;,
in the region of Knidos. A statuette of a nude youth- may serve as an example of these statuettes evidently influenced by the Cypriote prototypes found in this region, above all at Dadia (d. above). The head of this youth is stylistically very closely related to some Neo-Cypriote heads, especially one head in the Metropolitan Museum,' but the nude body is non-Cypriote. The many stylistic connections between Ionian and Neo-Cypriote art have been pointed out above. These connections refer above all to the Ionian works of the "soft style" (der "weiche Stil" of Buschor) represented particularly by Samiansculpture and, as shown by Buschor, introduced towards the middle of the 6th cent. B. C.3 Before we knew about the numerous finds of Cypriote sculptures on Ionian soil, it was only natural to interpret these stylistic connections as indicating an Ionian influence on Cypriote sculpture, but the fact that no Ionian sculpture from the earlier part of the 6th cent. B. C. has been found in Cyprus, while at least c. 20004 Cypriote sculptures of terracotta and limestone from that period have been discovered in the East-Greek area and lately in the great sculptural centre of Samos, must warn us against the assumption of a one-sided influence from Ionia on Cyprus. Further, the Cypriote counterparts of the so-called soft style, i. e., advanced specimens of the second Proto-Cypriote style and above' all the Neo-Cypriote sculptures, were created at a somewhat earlier date than the beginning of the soft style of the Samian sculptures, which appear shortly after the date when the Cypriote sculptures in' question were imported and manufactured in Samos (d. pp. 334 f.). The inference to be drawn from these facts is unavoidable: the stylistic similarity between Neo-Cypriote and Ionian sculpture is largely due to influence from Cyprus on Ionia and not vice versa; i. e., the Ionian sculptors assimilated certain stylistic traits characteristic of the N eo-Cypriote style, the rounded forms and rendering of the soft flesh, the delicate and slender structure of the body, its outline of gentle curves, the rather shallow modelling with smooth transitions between the planes of the surface, the subtle refinement of the details, the somewhat effeminate and sometimes languishing expression of the face. This statement may startle some scholars, who least of all like to hear about Cypriote influence on Greek sculpture and to whom such a statement is a blasphemy, but we have to submit to facts. The voices of the 2000 Cypriote sculptures cannot be reduced to silence. If somebody thinks that these Cypriote sculptures, in spite of their quantity, are of such a poor quality that they cannot have exercised an influence on Ionian art of sculpture, it should be noted that several specimens found in Naukratis, Rhodes, and Sames are of exellent workmanship and fully satisfy the demands of quality.' The evidence for a Cypriote influence on Ionian art of sculpture seems therefore incontrovertible. By stating this I do not deny the reciprocal Ionian influence on Neo-Cypriote sculpture (cf. pp. 108, 360 f.), and I do not of course proclaim an one-sided Cypriote influence on Ionian art, I only emphasize that Cyprus together with the Asiatic Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 320. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. XXIII, 54. s BUSCHOR, op, cit., p. 12. 4 An exact number cannot be given, because the excavation 1 2
14
reports do not usually inform us about the number of sculp24
tures found, but we know that at Lindos alone c. 900 Cypriote sculptures were discovered. 5 Cf. e.g. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, B 338, 439; Lindos I, No. 1692, PI. 69; BUSCHOR, Altsam. Standbilder, Fig. 131; A then. Mitt. LXV, 1940, PIs. 39,42.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SCULPTURE
mainland and Egypt has contributed to the development of these stylistic traits of Ionian sculpture. The Cypriote mentality expressing itself in the Neo-Cypriote style was akin to the Ionian mind, as can be easily understood: both were Mycenaean descendants living on the border of the Orient, though in Cyprus the Oriental milieu and influence were more predominant. The Cypriote stylistic ideas were therefore easily adopted by the Ionian sculpture. This meeting of Cypriote and Ionian sculptural art was not only limited to the East-Greek area, but also took place at Naukratis, as we have seen. Cypriote activity was thus extended over a wide front, and in this way a complicated system of mutual influences was created. The cultural expansion of Cyprus illustrated by the numerous finds of sculptures in Naukratis, Rhodes, and Samos should be seen in conjunction with the fact that Cyprus formed a part of the Egyptian Empire. Backed by the political power of Egypt, Cyprus was able to establish factories not only in Naukratis, but also in the East-Greek states, which had friendly relations with Amasis, and depended on his goodwill for their commercial connections with Egypt. When Cyprus submitted to Persia c. 545 B. C. or soon after, it entered a state of political opposition not only to Egypt, but also to Rhodes and Samos, which were not conquered by Kyros, and continued to keep their alliance with Amasis. The abrupt end of the mass import and manufacture of Neo-Cypriote sculptures in Naukratis, Rhodes, and Samos towards c. 540 B. C., and the fact that not a single specimen of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style,' which began at this date, has been found at the places mentioned - these two facts demonstrate the collapse of the Cypriote chain of factories in Egypt and on the East-Greek islands in consequence of the submission of Cyprus to Persia. In view of the recognition of this Cypriote influence on Ionian sculptural art we have obtained a starting-point for an assessment of the Cypriote contribution to the western diffusion of a number of Oriental schemata, typical also of Cypriote art. As these schemata appear earlier in Cyprus than in Greece, it is in any case impossible to interpret them as indicating a Greek influence on Cypriote sculpture, but I am anxious to emphasize that I do not consider Cyprus alone as a contributive factor. Since most of these schemata are not alone typical of Cypriote art they would of course be worthless as an indication of Cypriote derivation if the influence exercised by Cypriote art was not an established fact, and even so it is impossible to ascertain to what degree Cyprus was the contributive factor. We may, however, assume that the part played by Cyprus was not insignificant in consideration of the fact mentioned above. Among these schemata I draw attention to the following instances: the cylindrical type of body,' the body of uniform width and sometimes with marked hip-zone,' the sweeping outline of the body widening towards the base,' the wide
upper part of the body with broad shoulders and heavy anus attached, or almost attached, to the body,' the type of body with segmental section,' the isolinear feet peeping out of an excision in front,' the arms bent forwards at right angles,' the arms bent upwards and placed obliquely on the chest,' sometimes with the hands grasping the hair-plaits' or the breasts; the gesture of Venus pudique» the genitalia conspicuous beneath the dress,' the arms bent upwards, the hands holding a quadruped carried on the shoulders,> the chiton with long overfold often ending in a arch-shaped line over the girdle," varieties of the hairstyle with the hair falling in a compact mass on the back and twisted plaits over the shoulders in front, s etc. Of particular interest is the fact that the motif of the one hand lifting a flap of the garment» is earlier in Cyprus than in Ionia. It is also probable that Cyprus contributed to the distribution of the types of horseman and warrior,» the Proto-Cypriote type oflion,» and the type of centaur, both the horned variety, by me called minotaurus, and that without horns's. Finally, it seems likely that the moulding technique of terracotta figurines was transmitted by the Cypriotes,v parti-
37°
1 The finds of single Sub-Archaic Cypriote sculptures mentioned above, pp. 321, 332, do not contradict this state-· ment. • MVLLER, Friihe Plastik in Griechenland u. Vorderasien, pp. 63, 70, 88. 3 Athen. Mitt. LXVI, 1941, p. 12, Fig'. 3; PI. 6, Nos. 10, II; PI. 18, No. 1093; cf, Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCIX, 2,3. 4 Athen. Mitt. LXVI, 1941, PI. 17, No. 26; PI. 24, No. 123;
PI. 35, No. 662; cf. Szoed, Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCV, 2; CCV, 2; CCVII, I, 3; CCXIX, 2, and passim; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. VI; X; XVI, 21, 22; XXIV, 57, 59; XXXII, 211; XLIVXLVI; LV, 351-354. Also the very typical Ionian type of sweeping outline with the minimum width at the lower legs (BUSCHOR, op, cit., Figs. 86, 118, 121, 122) is represented in Cyprus (OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. L, 6; CCXIV, 7; CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XXI, 48; XXXI, 203; L, 295; Szoed.
37 1
i
Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CC, 6; CCXXXVI, 3, 5, 8; III, PIs. X, I, 2; XI, 3, 4; XIII,S, 6. 1 HOGARTH, Exc. at Ephesus, PI. XXIV, I a; KOSTER, Die griech, Terrakotten, PI. 12, c; LANGLOTZ, Friihgriech, Bildhauerschulen, PI. 58: 2. The same tendency, though somewhat less accentuated than on the statue last mentioned, is shown by the seated figures from Miletos (Brit. Mus. Cat., Sculpt. I: I, PIs. VII-XIII). For Cypriote counterparts, cf, CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. II; IV; V; VII; Steed, Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCV, 2; CCXIV; CCXV, 3,4; CCXVII; CCXIX, 2; III, PIs. CXIV; CXX; CXXIX, I. The same stylistic feature is also exemplified by the more roughly made terracotta statuettes, e. g., MVLLER, op, cit., PI. XX, 277; Athen. Mitt. LXVI, 1941, PI. 8, Nos. 346,719,851; PI. 9, Nos. 754,1437; cf, Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CCXXX; CCXXXI, 12-15; CCXXXII, 1,9,10. The Egyptian scheme of broad shoulders, narrow waist, and small flanks, which has also influenced early Greek sculpture, as we know, is different from the Cypriote scheme: the Egyptian scheme effects a triangular upper body, while the Cypriote scheme forms a rectangular block of it. • MVLLER, op, cit., p. 194. 3 HOGARTH, op. cit, PI. XXI, 6; DAWKINS, Artemis Orthia, PIs. XXX, 6; XXXV, 7; Steed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCIV, 3; CXCIX, 3; CCVII, I; CCXIV; III, PI. CXXII, 2, 3; Monum. Piot XX, 1913, PI. I. 4 Bull. Corr. Hell. X, 1886, PI. VIII; Tiryns I, PIs. IX, I; XII, 4-8 (these latter specimens show that this attitude survived into the Classical period); BUSCHOR, op, cit., Figs. 7, 39, 115- 117, 192; Athen. Mitt. LXVI, 1941, PI. 29, No. 19; DAWKINS, op, cit., PI. CLXXVIII, 5; WINTER, Die ant. Terrakotten III: I, p. 20, NO.4; Arch. Anz., 1893, p. 143, Fig. 12; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. LVI, 1941, PI. 65; cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PIs. CXCIV, 2; CCXXVIII, I, 2, 5; CCXXXI,9· • Cf. p. 344. 6 Cf. loc. cit.
7 HOGARTH, op, cit., PI. XXIV, 2; FURTWANGLER, Aegina, PI. III: 2,3; Ann. Brit. School Athens XI, p. 245, Fig. I(a); XIV, p. 59, Fig. 4, b; Amer. Journ. Archaeol. V, 19°1, PI. X, 5; WALDSTEIN, Arg. Heraeum II, p. 30, Fig. 49; PI. XLVI, No.6; cf, CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XXIV, 193; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1365 C; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. L, 4; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, I I. 3 BLINKENBERG, Knidia, pp, 205 ff.; cf. also Athen. Mitt. LXVI, 1941, PI. 10, No. 269; PI. 35, Nos. 4, 662 and Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CCIII, 10. • PAYNE & YOUNG, Arch. Marble Sculpt. fro the Acrop., PI. 102; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XXI, 1906, pp. 206 f.; cf. CESNOLA, Atlas I, PIs. XX, 39; LXIII; LXXIII; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. XV, I; XIX, 1,2; XXVIII, 2; XXXIV, 2. 10 VEYRIES, Les figures criophores, pp. 4 ff.; Jahresh. osterr, arch. Inst, XIV, 1911, pp. 7 ff., Fig. 5; NEUGEBAUER, Ant. Broneestatuetten, p. 36, Fig. 17; PAYNE & YOUNG, op. cit., PI. 2. 11 Cf. p. 350. 12 Cf. p. 347. 13 For this motif, so characteristic of Ionian sculpture, cf. MVLLER, op, cit., p. 160; PI. XLVIII, 444 and Szoed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CLXXXVII, 2 (Proto-Cypriote sculptures). The motif was probably taken over by the Cypriotes from Syria, like so many other schemata (cf, Ausgrab. in Sendschirli, Pis. LVIII, LIX), but in this case the Ionian form is much more related to the Cypriote than to the Syrian. 14 MVLLER, op. cit., pp. 208 ff.; HANFMANN, Altetrusk. Plastik I, pp. 72 f. 15 PAYNE, Necrocorinthia, pp. 170 ff., 173. 16 Cf. Bull. Corr. Hell. LIII, 1929, pp. 123, 125 f.; Amer. Journ. Archaeo!. XXXVIII, 1934, p. 129; HANFMANN, op. cit., pp. 75 f. For early specimens of the horned type, cf. the finds from Ajia Irini; the variety without horns appears also in the Geometric period as shown by OHNEFALSCHRICHTER, Kypros, pp. 225 ff.; PI. CIV, 6. 17 Athen. Mitt. LXV, 1940, p. 60.
37 2
FOREIGN RELATIONS
cularly in view of the many moulded statuettes of Cypriote workmanship, found in the East-Greek region and, at least in part, manufactured on the spot. The double-mould technique unknown in the E. was subsequently invented in Greece. As already stated, these schemata and types are not exclusively Cypriote but are also represented on the Asiatic mainland and partly in Egypt.' The diffusion routes from the Orient were sometimes certainly direct, but sometimes Cyprus served as a connecting link. The starting-points for this Cypriote influence both in the E. and the W. were the trading factories in Syria, Egypt, Rhodes, and Ionia, as already stated with regard to the pottery, and the same holds good for the influence of sculptural art. We thus see that the influence exercised by the sculptural art of Cyprus - quite naturally - is concentrated at those centres, Naukratis, Rhodes, Knidos, Samos, and Syria, where we have noted a considerable import of Cypriote sculptures. The period of this influence falls within the 6th cent. B. C., and the Cypriote styles which have exercised this influence are the Proto-Cypriote and the Neo-Cypriote styles.
Other Arts and Crafts The foreign relations of the objects classified under the heading "Other Arts and Crafts" must be treated in a different way to those of pottery and sculpture, and the reason for this is given by the nature of the objects themselves. The practical use of many of the objects has often determined their shape, and common necessity has therefore caused identical or similar types to appear in various regions which have no cultural interrelations. Only objects which have a shape geographically limited or artistically determined, or are provided with some characteristic decoration can be taken into account. But even so, their comparative value is restricted. In most cases, it can be determined whether a vase or a sculpture found abroad has been imported from the homeland or has been manufactured abroad either by homeland artists living abroad or by natives in imitation of the foreign prototypes. As regards the objects now under discussion such a distinction is not always easy. The material is less flexible than the clay and an imitator is therefore not so easily betrayed as one working in the soft material of the potter. On account of the practical use of the objects their forms are more standardized, and the artistic varieties are less pronounced than in the sculptural works, which are entirely dominated by the artistic ideas of the sculptor. Finally, small and precious objects were in great demand as articles of trade; they were re-exported from land to land I and are therefore of no value as a criterion of direct intercourse. With due regard paid to all these restrictions of the material in the field of comparative archaeology, I shall discuss the evidence of the objects in question for the foreign relations of Cyprus. We begin with the weapons. The typological relations of the swords (Fig. 19) are quite clear. There is an absolute break between the Cypriote Bronze Age and Iron Age types. The latter 1
Cf. pp. 339 ff and MULLER, op. cit., pp. 165, 180, 182, 184, 187, 194, 199, 202, 207.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
373
are instead related to a non-Cypriote group of swords, of which some specimens were imported to Cyprus since the end of Late Cypriote II. This type of sword has a wide area of disstribution in North and Central Europe, in Italy, in the Balkans, the Aegean, and the Near East, possesses a long and interresting history of development, and shows manv local 1 varieties. Its original home is still a matter of dispute. For our purpose it suffices t~ state that bronze s~urds of this :ype appear in the Aegean and the Near East in the r jth cent. B. C. and their appearance in Cyprus at the end of Late Cypriote II must be explained by the Levant?-Hella~icconnections of Cyprus. The Iron Age swords of the corresponding bronze type with straight edges are common in the Aegean,2 and are also - in addition to Cy?r~s - represented in the Near East.' The variety with double-curved edge is charactenstic of the bronze swords of Central Europe,' but also penetrated into the Levant." A tendency towards a double-curved edge is shown by the early iron sword from Ilissos 6 and the double curve is later more pronounced, as shown, e. g., by a sword fromPerachora~7 Double-curved swords of iron are also reported from Carchernish,s but they are unpublished ?o far as I know. :hat the double-curved iron swords occurred in the Levant outside Cyprus IS, however, certain from sculptural representations of them. It cannot be doubted that the swords found in Cyprus are ~f Cypriote workmanship, because they constitute the only Iron Age types of long swords m Cyprus, and are found in great numbers. It is thus evident :hat the type of sword introduced in the Aegean in Late Mycenaean times and occasionally Imported to Cyprus was taken over by the Cypriotes and made locally in the Iron Age. The short s,:ords or d~ggers (Fig. 19) show also western relations. Type I, with straight edges, appears m Greece m the 6th cent. B. C., as shown by its representation on a Corinthian Black Figured vase.s Original specimens of Types I and 2 are known from Marathon ro Athens," and other places, e. g., Potidaia, Rhodes, Halikarnassos, Samos, and Italian sites.» Some of these specimens are somewhat longer than the Cypriote weapons, and should be called swo~ds.'3 The Marathon dagger, being found on the battle-field, most probably dates from the tlI~e of the battle, and the Athenian specimen found in a well on the N. slope of the Acropolis dates from the 6th cent. B. C. on the evidence of the other material found in the well.» Type 2, with double-curved edges, is probably only a variant of the straight'NAUE, Die uorriim. Schwerter, pp. 12 ff.; BONNET, Die Waffen der Volker d. alt. Orients, pp. 78 ff.; REMOUCHAMPS, Griechische Dolch- und Schuiertformen, in Oudheidk. Mededeel., N. R. VII, 1926, pp. 42 ff.; SPROCKHOFF, Die germ. GrijJzungenschwerter. pp. 6 ff.; Kerameikos I, p. 173; IV, p. 26. 2 REMOUCHAMPS, loco cit.; Tell el-mutesellim II, p. 45, n. I; A then. Mitt. LV, 1930, Beil. XXXVII; Kerameikos I, p. 173; IV, p. 26, with further references. 3 The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1930-32, II, p. 447, Fig. 500.
• NAVE, op. cit., pp. 20 f., PI. IX, 1-4; SPROCKHOFF, op, cit., p. 50, PI. 25: 12, 15, 17. 5 Tell el-mutesellim II, pp. 45 f., Fig. 45. 6 Zeitschr. j. Ethnol, XXII, 1890, p. 2, Fig. I. 7
PAYNE, Perachora, PI. 86: 4.
Cf. RICHTER, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, pp. 401 f. REMOUCHAMPS, op, cit., p. 55, Fig. 49 d. 10 Brit. Mus. Guide to the Exhib. ill. Greek and Rom. Life, p. 101, Fig. 103. " Hesperia VII, 1938, p. 210, Fig. 44. 12 Zeitschr. j. Ethnol. XXII, 1890, p. 23, Figs. 41,42; p. 24, Figs. 43-47; p. 27, Fig. 55; BOEHLAU, Aus ion. U. ital. Nekropolen, PI. XV, 4; Brit. Mus. Guide to the Exhib. ill. Greek and Rom. Life, p. 102, Fig. 104 a, b; Mon. Ant. X, 19 01, p. 363, Fig. 81, c; MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie II, 2, PI. 252: 19. 13 Cf. REMOUCHAMPS, op. cit., pp. 59 f. (Type 16). 14 Hesperia VII, 1938, pp. 188 ff. The well was closed at the end of the 6th cent. B. C. to judge by the date of the latest objects found, two pieces of Red Figured cups (ibid., p. 188, cf. Fig. 9). 8
9
374
FOREIGN RELATIONS
edged type corresponding to the two types of swords. It is frequently represented on Greek Red Figured vases from the end of the 6th cent. and from the 5th cent. B. C,;' but it already occurs on the Phineus kylix.' Particularly the dagger from Halikarnassos mentioned above is similar to the Cypriote Type 2. A bronze dagger from Crete with a saw-edge- also resembles very much the type in question. Nothing is known about its find context, and we cannot therefore say anything for certain about its relation to the specimens of the type here discussed. It is well known that there are already Mycenaean swords with a sort of cross-bar.' The question therefore arises whether there is any connection between the Mycenaean swords and those from the Archaic and Classical periods. No originals from the Geometric period have been found hitherto, and representations of similar swords on vases or other products from the period are not absolutely conclusive.' The possibility of an unbroken tradition from Mycenaean times must be reckoned with, but the Cypriote daggers seem in any case to be derivative from the corresponding Greek specimens of the 6th cent. B. C. No daggers of this type found in Cyprus can be safely dated before Cypro-Archaic II (cf. p. 212). The spear-heads (Figs. 19, 23) of Type 1 are peculiar to Cyprus. They have been studied by J. L. Myres, who identifies them with the spear called sigynna referred to by Herodotos and others as the Cypriote javelin.· This idea was already expressed by Colonna-Ceccaldi, who also collected the literary evidence.' Myres draws attention to the Sigynnae, a people spread in the Danube basin, and trading across the Rhone valley. They are connected with the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures, which "intrusive both into Spain and into Italy, gave rise inter alia to a highly specialized series of narrow-bladed, and eventually wingless, throwing-spears, which culminate in the gaesum and the pilum.'> On the other hand we know of Siginni in the Caucasus, and the spear in question may have been introduced into Cyprus from that region, via Anatolia, in connection with the migrations of the peoples at the end of the Bronze Age. Sp. Marinatos suggests that the spear called sigynna is of Minoan origin, and was introduced into Cyprus by the Mycenaeans or directly from Crete,' but the spears referred to by Marinatos are not of the type considered here. The other spear-heads continue, and develop the types with tubular socket already introduced in Late Cypriote (Vol. IV: I). Similar shapes are common not only in countries 1 REMOUCHAMPS, op, cit., p. 20, Fig. 49 3 ; p. 55, Fig. 49 b, c; p. 57, Fig. 52. DAREMBERG & SAGLIO, art. Gladius, p. 16°3, Fig. 3607. 2
FURTWANGLER & REICHHOLD, Griech. Vasenmalerei, PI.
41• 2 Brit. Mus. Guide to the Antiq. of the Bronse Age, p. 124, Fig. 121; cf. PETRIE, Tools and Weapons, p. 30, PI. XXXVI, 169.
'REMOUCHAMPS, op, cit., pp, 37 ff. 5
Op. cit., p.' 46.
• Anthropol. Essays pres. to E. B. Tylor, Arch. fsj Anthrop. Liuerp, III, 1910, pp. 7 COLONNA-CECCALDI, Monum. ant. de et d'Egypte, pp. 116 ff, It is very curious
pp. 255 ff.; Ann. 107 ff. Chypre, de Syrie that Myres does
not quote Colonna-Ceccaldi's paper on the Sigynnae when he publishes his study on the same subject. In Ann. Arch fsj Anthrop. Liverp. V, 1912, pp. 130 f. he explains this omission in the following words: "Ceccaldi's suggestions about the Sigynnae did not seem to me to be of much value, and as I was not conscious that lowed anything to this essay, I did not see any need to quote it, in discussing a type of spear which had not been discovered when he wrote." This explanation is even more curious than the omission to quote Ceccaldi's essay, because spears of this type were discovered at the time when Ceccaldi wrote, being in the Cesnola Collection, and one of these spears was even illustrated in Ceccaldi's essay (p. 130). • Anthropol. Essays pres. to E. B. Tyler, p. 276. • Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, pp. 187 ff.
ARTS AND CRAFTS
375
around Cyprus, but are represented in various parts of the world,' and are therefore of no va~ue for our present purpose. The butt-spikes, on the other hand, are more positive in this respect..The simple, tubular butt-spikes occur already in the Bronze Age, and are of no comparative use, but the more elaborately worked specimens, both those of round and square section are clearly related to similar butt-spikes of Greek origin.' Of special interest are t~e rare ir~n butt-sp~kes of square section. They also correspond exactly to the Greek specimens, which even, hke the Cypriote pieces, have a bronze ring around the contracted waist.' The arrow-heads (Figs. 20, 23) throw some light on the question of the cultural relations of Cyprus. Type I, with leaf-shaped blade, is Widely spread in different parts of the world, it occurs already in the Bronze Age, and represents therefore a continuation and development of the Lat~ Cypriot~ t!pes. Type 2, with four-sided blade, also occurs outside Cyprus. A few specimens of similar arrow-heads have been found in Palestine,' Syria,' at Marathon,» ?odona,7.and in the Punic territory in North Africa." From Olynthos several specimens, In all 55 pieces, are recorded.' This considerable number seems to indicate local manufacture in Olynthos, but while the Olynthian arrow-heads date from the 4th cent. B. C., and were used at. the siege of the town in 348 B. C.,10 the Cypriote specimens of this type appear in masses In Cyprus already during the Archaic period. Our present evidence therefore indicates Cyprus as the centre, from which this type was spread. On the other hand it seems to be a translation into metal of an old Oriental type, which is represented in wood and bone, the "awl-shaped" arrow-head, of which four-sided specimens have been found in Egypt 11 and it was also known in the Near East." In bone these arrow-heads are represented as late as the period of the Hittite Empire,» and they occur in copper and bronze from the be~inning of the Coppe~ a.nd Bronze Age and down to the Late Iron Age. a They appear in Iron from the post-Hittite and Phrygian period in Alishar Hiiyiik.» They are sometimes round in s~ction, but usually four-sided. In my opinion we must consider the Cypriote type as denved from these Near Eastern specimens. 1
PETRIE, op. cit., PIs. XXXVII-XL.
Olympia IV, PI. LXIV, 1050-1059, 106 3, 106 5 ; DE RIDDER, Cat. d. bronzes de l'Acrop. d'Athenes, Nos. 277-3 09; Fouilles de Delphes V, pp. 95 ff.; Lindos I, p. 194, No. 600; Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 416 ff. 2
3 Essays and Stud. pres. to W. Ridgeway, p. 274, Fig. 2, b; Hesperia VII, 1938, p. 249, Fig. 79. The latter specimen is somewhat shorter than the others. .
, MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer III, Pi. CCXV -67" PETRIE Gerar, p. 15, Pi. XXVIII (bottom row, right); id.: Ancien; Gaza IV, Pi. XXX, 367. Petrie assigns the arrow-heads from Gerar to between 900 and 600 B. C.; the specimen from Gaza is a stray find. 5 Journ. Hell. Stud. LVIII, 1938, p. 147, Fig. 25: A I, A 2 may also be of this type, though it cannot be ascertained from the drawing, and nothing about the shape is mentioned in the text. The arrow-heads belong to Level 3, i, e., 43 0-375 B. C. (ibid., pp. 24, 165).
• Brit. Mus. Guide to the Exhib. ill. Greek and Rom. Life,
p. 101, Fig. 103; SCHUMACHER, Beschr, d. Samml. ant. Bronzen, p. 145; PI. XIV, 41. 7 CARAPANOS, Dodone et ses ruines, Pi. LVIII, 13, 14. "Mus. de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie IX (ColI. Farges), Pi. III, I (lowermost specimen). • Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 392 ff., Nos. 1972-2026. lOOp. cit. X, p. 392. 1) BONNET, op, cit., p, 158. 12 Op. cit., p. 159; PRZEWORSKI, Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens, p. 59. 13 The Alishar Huyuk, Seasons of 1930-32, II, p. 244, Fig. 270. 14 PRZEWORSKI, loc cit.; MACALISTER, op, cit. III, PI. LXX, I; The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1928 and 1929, I, p. 57, Fig. 65 (p. 56); pp. 151 f., Fig. 191; p. 265, Fig. 348: a 889; II, p. 65, Fig. 88; Seasons of 1930-32, I, pp. 91 f., Fig. 9 6: e 1503; p. 198, Fig. 197 (p. 197); II, p. 265, Fig. 290; p. 267, Fig. 292; III, p. 112, Fig. 107: c 007. 15 Op. cit., Seasons of 1928 and 1929, I, p. 269, Fig. 359: a 615; II, p. 70, Figs. 99, 100.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Types 3 and 4,with three-edged and three-tongued blade, actually only varieties of one principal type, and Types 5 and 6, the barbed arrow-heads, are non..Cypriote, and were introduced into the island from abroad. The type is widely diffused in the Orient, in Greece, and farther West.' Hubert Schmidt- considers their region of origin to be S. E. Europe, from where they spread to Central Europe and Greece and to the Near East and Central Asia, while Przeworski suggests Iran as the original centre of distribution.' The question cannot yet be settled,but in view of the frequency and extensive distribution of these arrowheads in the Near East it is highly probable that the type was introduced into Cyprus from the Asiatic mainland. Finally, it should be noted that the arrow-heads found in Amathus, Tomb 13,4 are of non-Cypriote type and seem to be imported specimens. Turning now to the defensive weapons we start with the shields (Figs. 23, 24). In Cyprus these Were normally round in shape during the periods here concerned. A terracotta figure wearing a shield of the "Boiotian" type' shows, however, that occasionally this type was also used in Cyprus. It indicates influence from the Syrian region, where this type of shield is represented."Only the metal mountings are preserved, which were fixed on a lining of basket-work or leather. These mountings, as we have seen, are of different types. On some shields the only mounting is a narrow central disc, others have a wider central disc and peripheric bands, and finally, there were shields which were entirely covered with a metal mounting. In the centre there was a narrow or wide boss or a spike. From sculptural representation of shields, we know moreover that the central boss was sometimes in the shape of an animal's protome.: The original homeland of the round shield is in the Near East, probably in Anatolia,' and all the varieties of the Cypriote round shields, except the one with central spike" are found in different parts of the Near East. Shields of basket-work with a narrow central disc are represented on Assyrian monuments." Actual specimens hitherto found in the Orient have nail-holes at the periphery,> and the same holds good for Cypriote specimens from Middle Cypriote III, I' while the Cypriote type of the Iron Age is provided with a central nail. Similar discs have been found in Greece,13 and since they appear there already
ARTS AND CRAFTS
in Late Minoan III B: 2 (d. p. 376, n. 13) and in Cyprus during Cypro-Geometric I, we are justified in considering them as introduced by the Mycenaean colonists. Shields with a wide central boss have also been found in the Orient,' and are represented among the Cretan shields' with their Oriental connections. Representations of similar shields on Oriental monuments' and products of Oriental origin- should be added. For the question of the Cypriote connections it is interesting to note that a shield represented on one of the Cretan specimens- shows the same angular interruption of the rings encircling the central boss as is found on the Cypriote shields of this type." The same phenomenon occurs on a fragment of a shield found at Delphi' and on Samian vase-covers of terracottamade in imitation of such shields. It is also worth noting that the ornamental bands of the Cypriote shield, i. e., wavy lines with circles in the interspaces, also occur on fragments of shield mountings from Delphi" and Olympia,> though it cannot be ascertained whether these fragments belong to shields of the type here in question. The protome shields, where an animal's protome takes the place of the central boss, are a common type with many varieties in the Near East,» from whereit spread westward to Greece, to Crete,» and can possibly be traced also in Rhodes, Olympia, and Delphi.v The shields found in Cyprus have thus connections both with the Near East and with Greece, and we may infer that Cyprus has played a quite considerable role in the development , of these types of shield and their distribution from the Orient to Greece. The shield with central spike is very common in Cyprus, but, as mentioned above, it is hitherto not represented in the Near East outside the island. There is no typological transition between the central boss and the spike, as rightly pointed out by Kunze.» These shields represent two different types. It is a remarkable fact that shields of this type occur in 1 Eurasia septentr, ant. X, 1936, p. 95, Fig. 19 (two discs found at Nablus, Palestine); several discs of this type from Luristan are kept in Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm (d. above); similar discs are already published by GODARD, Les bronzes du Luristan, PI. XXV, 75.
• KUNZE, Kret. Bronzerel., pp. 18 f.; PIs. 33, 34, 36, 4 8. SCHMIDT, H., in PUMPELLY, Explor. in Turkestan I, pp. 183 ff.; PETRIE, Tools and Weapons, pp. 34 f.; Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, p. 56, Fig. 14; p. 96, Fig. 78; PI. XX; Hesperia IV, 1935, pp. 113 ff.: PRZEWORSKI, op, cit., p. 61. • PUMPELLY, loco cit. 3 PRZEWORSKI, loco cit. 4 Seoed, Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 81 f., Nos. 3, 19-32; PI. XIX, 3. 5 CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. XXXI, 258. "Ausgrab. in Sendschirli III, PIs. XXXVIII; XL. • CESNOLA, Atlas II, PI. LXVIII, 627; shield on the tailboard of chariot; d. the description, illustration insufficient. 8 LIPPOLD, Griechische Schilde, in Miinchener arch. Stud., pp. 442 ff.; BONNET, op, cit., pp. 193 if. "I am at a loss to understand the statement by Myres (Handb. Cesn. Coll., p. 487, No. 4754) that the shield with 1
central spike was introduced into Cyprus from Assyria in the 8th cent. B. C., because in Assyria no such shields have been found, and they are not represented on Assyrian monuments (cf. below). 10 LAYARD, Monum. of Niveveh II, PIs. 15, 26, 35 (cont.v); d. Jahresh. osterr. arch. Inst, XII, 1909, pp. 18 f., Fig. 8. n Bull. des Mus. R. d'art et d'hist., Ser. 3, IV, 1932, p. 68, Figs. 17-19; unpublished specimens from 'Luristan in Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm. This' material was most courteously shown to me by Prof. T. Arne. 12 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXLII, 13. 18 These discs have been wrongly interpreted as kymbala. Cf. Kerameikos IV, pp. 27 f., with references to similar specimens in Athens, Mouliana, Vrokastro, Dictaean Cave and Idaean Cave in Crete, Dodona, and other sites. This type appears in Late Minoan III B: 2 (Mouliana, Tomb B), and is common in the Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods.
377
cit., p. 57, Fig. I, where a shield is represented in profile, and the boss is therefore safely recognizable (cf, for a similar Etruscan shield: SCHUMACHER, op. cit., No. 708 , PI. XIII, 12). Mostly, however, the shields are reproduced en face, and it is therefore uncertain whether the central ring on the shields represented should be interpreted as a boss or not; d. LAYARD, op. cit. II, PIs. 21, 33, 50; KING, Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, Pis. XV, XVII, XVIII, LII, LVIII, LIX, LXXIV. a Op.
4 E. g., on the Cretan shields (KUNZE, op. cit., Nos. 3, 6, 67; Pis. 4, 5, 10 ff., 43).
5
Op.cit., PI. 43 (No. 67, left).
PERROT & CHIPIEZ, Hist, de Part III, p. 869, Fig. 63 6. • Fouiltes de Delphes V, p. 25, Fig. 99. 8 KUNZE, op. cit., Beil. 3, a. 6
" Fouillesde Delphes V, p. 1°5, Figs. 364, 365; PI. XVII
10
Olympia IV, p. 50; PI. XX, 331.
n Olympia IV, p. 106; LIPPOLD, op, cit., pp. 457 f.; BONNET, op. cit., pp. 195 ff.; KUNZE, op. cit., pp. 64 if. Kunze attempts to show that both this type and the one with central boss, the omphalos shield, are of Assyrian origin (op. cit., pp. 57, 64 ff.), but this cannot be proved on the basis of the material hitherto available. They are found in Assyria, but also in its neighbouring countries in the Near East, where the omphalos shield is represented 'quite as early and earlier than in Assyria; the Palestinian and Luristan shields with narrow or wide boss are not dated later than 1000 B. C. (cf, Eurasia septentr. ant. X, 1936, p. 96). Moreover, the protome shields appear in Assyria for only a short period in the 9th cent. B. C., which indicates a foreign origin (BONNET; op, cit., p. 196). On the other hand, there is no sure evidence in favour of Bonnet's theory that the original homeland of these shields should be sought in Anatolia and Armenia (op. cit., p. 197). We must wait fot future finds to settle this question, and the presentmaterial allows us only to ascertain in general the Near East origin of the shields here discussed. I. KUNZE, op. cit., pp, 61 fr. I. 14
,Op. cit., p. 62. Op. cit.,PP.57 f.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Sardinia- and Spain,' as shown by the well-known bronze figures of warriors. Is there any connection between these Cypriote and Sardinian shields? This question cannot be answered. definitely on the basis of the material at present available. The idea of direct intercourse between Cyprus and Sardinia is excluded, even by means of a Phoenician intermediary, because the Sardinianbronze figures are earlier than the Phoenician-Carthagian influence in Sardinia.' If a connection exists between the Cypriote and Sardinian shields, we must therefore assume a common origin for them. Where? If Sardinia may be connected with Sardes on the one hand and the Sardi on the other, the original homeland of this type of shield would be Anatolia, whence it would have been brought by Anatolian colonists to Sardinia and spread to Cyprus by means of its Anatolian connections. This hypothesis has been advanced by Bonnet,' but its uncertainty is obvious, and until shields of this type are found in Anatolia, we had better consider it a type developed both in Cyprus and Sardinia independently. Greek shields were also occasionally imported to Cyprus, as shown by their representation in the Cypriote sculpture.' Import of Greek shields to Cyprus is also indicated by the finds of bronze mountings for the loops of shields of the same shape and with the same decoration of antithetic lions as those found in Athens, Aigina, Delphi, Kalydon, Olympia, Selinus, and other Greek sites.' We now proceed to the two remaining classes of protective weapons, viz., the helmet (Figs. 20, 24) and the armour (Fig. 20). The Cypriote helmets were usually of leather. Only some metal mountings and a few specimens of the rare metal helmets are preserved. For a study of the different varieties and their cultural relations we are therefore mainly confined to representations of them in stone and terracotta sculpture. Closely related to Near Eastern types' are the cap-shaped,' conical or bonnet-shaped helmets with or without cheek-pieces, top-pointed, bent forwards, or backwards, or knobbed,· the helmets with neck-cover," the spiked helmets with or without cheek-pieces," the helmets with fore-
and-aft crest" and the tall conical helmets with pointed, knobbed, or flat top with or without cheek-pieces.' The helmets sometimes crested, with or without nose-guard and with cheek-pieces, sometimes hinged, projecting from the neck-cover," are influenced by Western Greek types. Occasionally Greek helmets of Corinthian type were imported to Cyprus.' On the other hand, helmets of Cypriote types have been found in Greece,' and Cyprus contributed therefore to the expansion of Oriental types of helmet in Greece.· Lamellar armour is known in Egypt and the Near East from about the middle of the second millennium B. C. The Harvard University excavations at Yorgan Tepe (Nuzi) have brought to light a considerable number of armour splints of bronze.' The find can be assigned to c. 1475 B. C. The splints vary in size; the usual shape has the one end straight, the other rounded or triangular. In the longitudinal axis of the splints there is a ridged line, and they are pierced by a number of holes placed in a way that can be easier understood from the illustrations- than from the description. Similar splints dating from the 14th cent. B. C. have been found at Ras Shamra.· In Egypt we know them from the Metropolitan Museum excavation of the palace of Amenhotep III at Thebes> and from the excavations of the cemetery of Sesostris I, near Lisht. The latter splints can also be assigned to the XVIIlth Dyn. 11 Later armour splints of a similar type are represented by those found by Layard in the N. W. palace at Nimrud,v built by Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B. C.) and partly reconstructed by Sargon II (722-7°5 B. C.). Other splints of this type have been discovered in Strata II and V of Megiddo,> In Gaza some armour splints have been found, of which two specimens are particularly interesting in this context. They are of the same general shape as those preceding, but the scales are pierced by only two holes, placed in the longitudinal axis of the scale, near end of the central ridge.» Their exact date is unknown." The Gaza splints resemble those from Amathus: on the former the central ridge is longer, and the holes are placed nearer the edge of the splint than on the latter ones, but the type is the same. The other splints mentioned are more or less similar to the first Idalion type. Other finds of armour splints are known both from Egypt and the Near East, but they are of less interest in this context, as they are of a somewhat different type from those of Cyprus." The splints
1 PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. IV, p. 15, Fig. 5; pp. 65 ff., Figs. 51-54, 57, 58, 60; Rom. Mitt. XLIII, 1928, pp. 40 ff., Figs. 7, 8, 16. • Arch. Anz., 1923/24, p. 190, Fig. 5. KUNZE, op. cit., p. 58 has shown that the bronze disc with a central spike found in Crete cannot have belonged to a shield of this type. 3 Rom. Mitt. XLIII, 1928, pp. 26 ff, 4 BONNET, op. cit., pp. 196 f. 5 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. LXXXIII, 544; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1292. 6 KUNZE & SCHLEIF, III. Ber. fiber die Ausgrab. in Olympia (in Jahrb. deutsch, arch. Inst. LVI, 1941), pp. 105 f., Pis.
34, 35· 7 Cf. BONNET, op, cit., pp. 201 ff, s Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CCXXII, I; CCXXXI, 7; CCXXXII, 6; cf. Ausgrab. in Sendschirli III, Pis. XXXVIIXXXIX, XLV; LAYARD, op, cit. I, PI. 94. These and some of the other varieties mentioned below were also ordinary head-coverings and used as caps, bonnets, and hats, but the cheek-pieces show that they served as helmets, too.
• Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CXCI; CXCII, 1,2; CXCV, 5; CXCVI, 3-6; CCV, 2; CCXV, I; CCXIX, 4; CCXXIII, I; cf. LAYARD, op, cit. I, Pis. 10, 13, 14, 16-24; II, Pis. 14, 33, 47 (for this variety with tassels, cf. particularly Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXCV, 5); Ausgrab. in Sendschirli III-IV, p. 343, Fig. 254; Pis. XLIV, LVIII-LX, LXIII, LXVI, LXVII. The variant with forward-bent top is the ancestor of the later so-called Phrygian bonnet (HEUZEY, Hist. du costume dans l'antiquite class., p. 92, with note, p. 127; cf. below, p, 379, n. 2. 10 Fig. 24; Szoed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. CCXII; CCXC, 3, 4; cf. WRESZINSKI, Atlas zur altiigypt. Kulturgesch. II, Pis. 16, 45-47; LAYARD, op, cit. II, PI. 4 8. 11 Fig. 24; Szoed. Cyp. Exp, II, Pis. CXCIV, 2; CCV, I; CCXXXI, 4; CCXXXIII, 9; CCXXXVI, 6; CCXXXVII, I, 7; CCXXXVIII, 2, 3; cf. LAYARD, op. cit. I, Pis. 64, 65; MULLER, Friihe Plastik in Griechenland u. Vorderasien, PI. XLI, 399-401, 404; Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, pp. 75 ff., Figs. 83, 84; PI. 40, b.
1 CESNOLA, Salaminia, p. 243, Fig. 230; cf. BONNET, op, cit., p. 206; LAYARD, op. cit. I, Pis. 68-70, 78; II, Pis. 18, 33; cf, Olympia IV, PI. XVI, 243. • Stoed. Cyp. 1<.xp. II, Pis. CCIII, 7, 8; CCVIII; CCIX, 6;
CCXIII, 4; CCXXIX, 4; CCXXX, 7, 9,15; CCXXXIX, 6; cf. Ausgrab. in Sendschirli III, Pis. XXXVIII, XLI, XLII; MULLER, op, cit., Pis. XL; XLII, 409, 410; The Alishar Huyuk, Seasons of 1930-32, II, p. 192, Fig. 230; BITTEL, Die Felsbilder v. Yazilikaya, Pis. V ff.; SPELEERS, Le costume orient. ancien, p. 39; DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, Pis. XLV, 2501, 2504; XLVII, 1819; XLIX, 3748, 3922, 3923; LVIII, 2030-2035; LXXII, 2555. The variant with the forward-bent top is also represented in the type. 3 CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pis. XLII, 265; LXXXI, 534, 536; II, PI. IX, 67; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. CXLII, I. 4 CESNOLA, Atlas I, PI. CV, 688. 5 Olympia IV, PI. LXII, 1031.
379
KUKAHN, Der griech. Helm, pp, 13 ff, STARR, Nuzi II, PI. 126. s Cf. THORDEMAN, Armour from the Battle of Wisby I36I, 6
7
P·447· • Syria XVIII, 1937, p. 144, Fig. 9. 10 Cf. THORDEMAN, op, cit., pp. 447 f., Fig. 427: S. 11 HAYES & LANSING, The Egypt. Exped. I933-I934 (Bull. Metrop. Mus. Art, Sect. II), p. 8, Figs. 12, 13. These splints were found in a basket covered by a block fallen from the pyramid. 1. LAYARD, Nineveh and its Remains I, p. 341. 13 LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 85: I, 2, 6. 14 PETRIE, Ancient Gaza IV, PI. XXXV, 552. 15 Op. cit. IV, p. I I. 16 Cf. PETRIE, Tools and Weapons, p. 38, PIs. XLII, XLIII; id., Ancient Gaza III, PI. XXII, 81-83; IV, PI. XXXV, 551, 553; BLISS & MACALISTER, Exc. in Palest., p. 150, Fig.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
of the second Idalion type' correspond to those found at Memphis- and Defenneh.' There is no central ridge, and the scales are .pierced by six holes placed in two parallel rows, vertical on the Cypriote scales and horizontal on the Memphis specimens. This variation makes, however no real difference: instead of overlapping each other vertically by four scales as did those of the Idalion armour,' the Memphite scales overlapped horizontally by an equal
ceremonial double-axe of bronze crowned by a mace-head (Type 2) may be imported, but I do not know of any counterpart outside Cyprus,except the Minoan double-axe hieroglyph.' I am also unable to find an exact parallel to the iron axe of Type 4Finally, we have some tools which are not a continuation of the Bronze Age types or represent a new form of these types indicating a foreign influence. Such tools are, e. g., the socketed mace-head, represented in bronze and agate (Figs. 24, 40), the strigil (Figs. 21, 24), the mirror (Fig. 25), and the surgical instruments (Figs. 25, 32). In the Bronze Age only mace-heads of stone without socket are represented. Socketed mace-heads, used as sceptres, are common in the Orient, where they have a long story of development, and are represented both in stone and bronze.' They are also often illustrated in the sculptural art of Assyria and Syria (e. g., on the reliefs of Ashurbanipal in Nimrud and on the sculptured slabs from Carchemish). Specimens corresponding to the Cypriote type have been found, e. g., in Luristan, Tepe Hissar and Sendjirli.s Particularly similar are mace-heads from Syria,' and it cannot therefore be doubted that the Cypriote specimens are of Syrian origin or made after Syrian models. The agate sceptre of this type (Fig. 40) is similar to a specimen in bronze, probably of Cypriote provenance, discovered at Lindos.' The strigil is of Greek origin;" the specimens found in Cyprus are entirely of the Greek type. Of the mirrors, Type 1 is represented already in Late Cypriote,' but may hardly be considered as a continuation of the Bronze Age type, because they are not represented in the Cypro-Geometric period. The homeland of Type 2 seems to be North Syria, where it is represented in sculptural representation from the 9th cent. B. C.,8 but the type was spread westwards and was later in the 6th and 5th cent. B. C. further developed in Greece. The plain specimens of Type 2 or those with a rather careless ornamentation may be Cypriote works, but the elaborately decorated specimens are entirely of Greek workmanship, both as regards type and style of the ornamentation, including both the decorative designs and the figure representations.' A rare phenomenon is the decoration formed by a female head fixed to the disc of the mirror, but it is not without parallels." Types 3 and 4 represent also a wellknown class of Greek mirrors. They are often decorated on the outside of the cover with
number. We see that lamellar armour of the types found in Cyprus was widely spread in the Orient since at least from the middle of the second millennium B. C. The many representations of similar armour in Egyptian and above all Assyrian art" must further be added to the finds of actually preserved specimens. The ultimate home of this Oriental type of armour cannot yet be exactly determined. That we have to look for it somewhere ~n the Near E~st, possible Iran,' seems, however, to be certain. Egypt is excl~ded: th~ sphnt has. no native tradition there, and the specimens are therefore best explained as Imports or influenced by Near Eastern models.' We are thus obliged to assume a Near Eas.tern origi.n of the Cypriote splint armour. The type once adopted was produced by t~e natrve metal industry, and we know from ancient records that Cyprus was famous for Its armour manufacture, the earliest evidence being the scale armour presented by Kinyras to Agamemnon, as described by Homer.8 Many of the tools are of simple, utilitarian shapes widely spread in different parts o~ the world, and are therefore of no use for our present purpose. Others represent only a contmuation and development of Bronze Age types translated into iron, e. g., the axes, except the ceremonial axe, the pick-axe, the double-axe, the two-edged, one-edged, and sickle-shaped knives, and. the tweezers. The adze-shaped axe, the two-edged knife, and the tweezer are old Cypriote shapes, which can be traced back to the Early Bronze Age. The shaft-hole axe, the double-axe, the pick-axe, the one-edged knife, straight or curved and sickle-shaped, are types which, as a rule, are not met with before the Late Bronze Age, but there.is a single instance of a shaft-hole axe already in the Middle Bronze Age.' In the Bronze Age these axes, represented only by occasional specimens, were imported to Cyprus from the Asiatic mainland. In the Iron. Age nothing indicates that they, like other tools mentioned, are not products of the native Cypriote industry. Consequently we have here a parallel case to that of the Iron Age swords (p. 373), i. e., foreign, imported types of the Bronze Age incorporated into the native Cypriote manufacture, made Cypriote in the Iron Age, during which their types were further developed and varied. Some unique specimens, e. g., the 62; GUY & ENGBERG, Megiddo Tombs, PI. 176: 9; LAMON & • Acta archaeol, IX, 1938, p. 169, Fig. 5, E. SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 85: 3-5, 7-10; Ann. Arch. & 5 BONNET, op, cit., pp. 209 ff.; THORDEMAN, op, cit., pp. Anthrop. Liverp. XXVI, 1939, PI. XXI, 17; Ausgrab. in 276 ff. Sendschirli V, p. 79, Fig. 89· e Op. cit., p. 270. 1 The drawing of the scales in Acta archaeol. IX, 193 8, , B . ff , . ONNET, op. CIt., pp. 210 . d f A h I IX p. 169, Fig. 5, is diagrammatic, and on account of the f a c t . . . d 8 II XI 19-28 For later recor s, c. cta arc aeo. , that the splints are rusted together It could not be ascertaine . , ' . 63. 8, if more than the one comer was rounded (cf. ibid., p. 171). 193 p. 1 2 PETRIE, The Palace of Apries, p. II, PI. XVI. 9 GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, p. 233, axes Nos. 3 PETRIE, Nebesheh and Defenneh (in. Tanis II etc.), PI. 5, 6; p. 275i cf, Vol. IV: I. XXXVII, 19 (19 b).
EVANS, Pal. of Minos I, p. 643. BONNET, op, cit., pp. I ff.; ARNE, Keulenkopfe, Seepter und Handgriffe von Luristan, in Prussia 33, 1939, pp. 15 ff. 3 Ibid., pp. 19 f.; SCHMIDT, Exc. at Tepe Hissar, pp. 119, 204; Pis. XXIX, LII; Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, pp, 87 ff., Fig. 107; PI. 42, i-po • Cf. op, cit. V, PI. 42, I, m, p. " L indos I, PI. 26, No. 663. " Cf. RICHTER, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, pp. 293 ff.; Exc, at Olynthus X, pp. 172 ff. with further references. , GJERSTAD, op. cit., p. 238. 1
2
8 MOORTGAT, Die bild. Kunst d. alt. Orients U. d. Bergviilker, PI. LIX; Reallex, d. Vorgesch. VII, PI. 164, b. Actual bronze specimens with volute capitals have also been found in Palestine, but hitherto, so far as I know, no specimen dates
from before the Persian period (Quart. Dep, Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, PI. XXVII, 712). 9 DE RIDDER, Cat. d. bronzes de la Soc. Archeol, d'Athfnes, Nos. 132-149; Colt. de Clercq, Cat. III, Nos. 526-528; BOEHLAU, Aus ion. U. ita!' Nekropolen, p. 162, PI. XV, 5; Clara Rhodos III, p. 247, Fig. 244; IV, p. 126, Fig. 119; p. 139, Fig. 132; p. 158, Fig. 156; VIII, p. 177, Fig. 166; p. 188, Fig. 179.
10 Usually such decoration is reserved for the covers of Type 3, but cf. Gazette archeol, IV, 1878, p. 141, PI. 25: a Red Figured lekythos with the representation of a young woman carrying a mirror of this variety of Type 2 in her left hand; on the disc of the mirror is a female head, rendered in black, and therefore intended to be in relief.
AR TS AND CRAFTS FOREIGN RELATIONS
irrors of a special kind were occasionally imported from Egypt' a scene in relief' A few m .. 11 f Greek types as far as the present evidence and Creece.' The s~rgical and t01l~:~n:t~~:;~t:e::i:at:gin a swan's head indicate Egyptian workgoes! Faience spoons WI 5
P. proceed to an examination of the fibula types (Figs. 22, 25, 3 1, 34), which are ma e now . . Wnshi of
;~el~~:l~~~;~: :o::h~~~~;l:;at~~~: ad;;:;l:~.fibulae represeuGted ~n Gr~ece in
r in fact identical in shape with the ree specimens, . d 6 Th the Sub-Mycenaean peno. ey a e, , d b show also typological connections and cannot be disti~guished from th;se. T~p~u~~~ncenaean period,' and fibulae of exactly with the correspondmg Greek ty~es r07 t e SUb-M~cenaean tombs at Kerameikos." Types the same shape as Type 2 bare nown rom d b T a (Blinkenberg's
Cyp~~otedde;el~~:~~~i:~ ;[t~:r2 ~: p~ssi~~e
2 c and dare lat.er t: lerived from SubType XIII: 10) ~s consi /~~s T;pe II: 12.9 Chronological reasons speak at pres~nt again~t Mycenaean spe~lmens. 0 C dote and Greek types in question: no Cypriote speera direct connection between the .yp h C ro-Archaic I (p. 21 ~). The type may originally mens of this type can be dated earher t an .yp . uestion but has evidently lasted for
b~ der~:ed ::~:i~~r~~~:o~~~~:at~:;~~:~:::~:e~anean,~here it was furtherbdeve!ope~
a ong ime .1 C riote fibulae of Type 3 a have een roun into the Syrian, triangular type. Dnb. some yp bl to consider this type as derived . 1 C -Geometric contexts, It seems reasona e .' ilitv if in ear y ypro . ' nd this supposition gains in probabllty 1 a from the corres'p0~ding Syna~ ~peclme:: a of these fibulae is taken into accountz viz., . d . ket of the bow or turned technical pecuhanty charactenstlc of m ~ . fib 1· d e arate and either inserte m a soc the pm of the "" IS ~~ e ~ p b means of a loop. This peculiarity is also represented t onl an ornamental enrichment around the extremity 0 t e ow y by the Svrian fibulae." The fibulae of Type 3 b represe~ Y . .th the Sicilian T T a has been justly brought into connection WI . of ~hose ~: d y~e ~ a :e:c~ed fibula." An intermediate link between Sicily a~d Cypru.s IS variety ca e t e ro en . T b resents a native Cypriote furnished by fibulae of this shape from Olympia." ype 4 rep J
k
anu development of this Sicilian type. f C . t The other fibula types classified by Blinkenberg as Cypriote are not 0 ypno e m Cf. RICHTER, op. cit., pp. 257 ff, Especially similar to the Cypriote specimens are Nos. 761, 765; ~f. Nos. ?80 ff. 'Cat. Cyp. su«, No. 3750. For Egyptlan sp~clmens, cf BENEDITE Miroirs (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), Le Caire 19°7· '3 CESNOLA: Atlas III, Pi. LXVI, 4. This ha~dle of a . c ed by a female figure has been attributed to mirror .orm . the Laconian school by LANGLOTZ (Friihgriech. Bildhauer1
schulen, p. 87)· T: • MILNE Surgical Instrum. in Greek and Rom. tmes, PIs. XII~XIX; Delos XVIII, pp. 221 ff., with further references. 5 Exc. in Cyp. p. 125, Tomb ~44' ff 6 BLINKENBERG, Fibules gr. et onent., pp. 58 .
• oi: cit., p. 72, Type II: IS; pp. 74 ff., Types II: 18, 21; Kerameikos I, pp. 82 f., Fig. 2, Pi. 28; IV, p. 26, Pi. 39· 8 Op. cit. I, p. 83, Fig. 2, Pi. 28. 9 BLINKENBERG, op, cit., p. 24 2. 10 HOGARTH, Esc. at Ephesus, Pi. XVII, 12, 13; Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XLIII, 1939, p. 4 13, Fig. 4· 11 Cf. BLINKENBERG, op. cit., p. 240, Type XIII: 10; ~ETRIE, PI. X V I II ,' LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, Gerar, p. I I , PIs. 78: 10, II; 79: I, II . 12 Ann. Arch. fS Anthrop. Liverp. III, 1910, pp. 142. ff, . .. f S urNDWALL , Die iilteren ital: For the SICilian prototypes, c. Fibeln, p. 139, Figs. 197-200. 13
Olympia IV, Pi. XXI, 354·
facture, because they have not been found in Cyprus or only rarely, while they are common abroad. Fibulae of this category are: the fibulae with semicircular bow continuously beaded;' the fibulae with semicircular bow decorated with latticed pattern and beaded ornaments;' varieties of the arc-shaped fibula, e. g., those with entirely plain bow,' those with mouldings near the ends of the bow,' those with the bow flattened below;' fibulae with triangular moulded bow and the angle accentuated by a moulding;' the fibulae with almost triangular, moulded bow, which are only occasionally found in Cyprus,' while they are particularly common in Syria and Palestine.' Thus the find statistics indicate a Syrian origin for the fibulae of these types, and the occasional specimens found in Cyprus must be explained as an import from Syria. It is of course very possible that some specimens of the types mentioned above will be brought to light in Cyprus by future excavations, but that will probably not change the present find-statistics any more than the occasional finds in Cyprus of other imported fibulae. When in this way non-Cypriote varieties and developments of fibula types found abroad have been eliminated, we can state that fibulae of genuine Cypriote types have been found in Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, Rhodes, Delos, and Aigina.' The majority have been found 1 BLINKENBERG, op. cit., pp. 236 f., Type XIII: 3. This type has been found in the Near East and a single specimen in the Argive Heraion. In addition to the specimens recorded by Blinkenberg cf. Ann. Arch. fS Anthrop, Liverp. XXVI, 1939, Pi. XIX, c 4,5; XXI, 10; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 78: 7. 2 BLINKENBERG, op. cit., p. 238, Type XIII: 5. Fibulae of this type have been found in Syria. 30p. cit., pp. 239 f., Type XIII: 8, represented in Syria and Palestine. Besides the specimen recorded, loco cit., cf. also MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer, III, Pi. CXXXIV, 18, 22; PETRIE, Gerar, Pi. XVIII, 3; Beth-pelet I, Pi. L, 599; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 78: 10, 12; Ann. Arch. fS Anthrop. Liverp. VII, 1914-1916, Pi. XXIII: L. • BLINKENBERG. op, cit., p, 240, Type XIII: 9. Fibulae of this type have been found in Rhodes and the Argive Heraion (loc. cit.), but they are very numerous in Palestine, cf. PETRIE, Gerar, Pi. XVIII,S, 8, 9, 13, IS, 17-20, 24-27; Beth-pelet II, Pi. LXII, II; LXXIV, 95; PETRIE, Ancient. Gaza III, PI. XXV, 193; Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, p. 55, Fig. 13; PIs. XXIV, 613, 632; XXXIV, 865; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PIs. 78: 4, 5, 8, 9, II, 13, 14, 16-21; 79: 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16. 5 BLINKENBERG, op. cit., pp. 242 f., Type XIII: II, represented in Syria and Rhodes. 60p. cit., p. 247, Type XIII: 13. Fibulae of this type have been found in Syria, Assyria, and Rhodes. • CESNOLA, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 3. The description in the Atlas is wrong; cf. Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 3203. 8 BLINKENBERG, op, cit., pp. 243 ff., Type XIII: 1-2. In Blinkenberg's list there are at least 24 specimens from Syria and Palestine out of a total of 37 fibulae. The others were found in Nineveh, Egypt, Anatolia, Rhodes, and Delos (cf. also Delos XVIII, Pi. LXXXVIII, 737). For other
specimens from Syria and Palestine, cf. PETRIE, Gerar, PI. XVIII, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 16, 23; Beth-pelet II, Pi. LXII, 9, 2; PETRIE, Ancient. Gaza I, PI. XVIII; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PIs. 78: IS; 79: 4, 5, 7; Ann. Arch. fS Anthrop, Liverp. XXVI, 1939, PI. XIX, c 1-3, 6; Syria XIII, 1932, PI. XXXVII, 14, 22; XVI, 1935, p. IS0, Fig. 7: E, F. 9 Fibulae of Type 2 b have been found at Tell Abu Hawam (Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. IV, 1935, PI. XXXIII, 192), Deve Htryuk (Ann. Arch. fS Anthrop. Liverp. VII, 1914-1916, PI. XXIII, B; BLINKENBERG, op. cit., p. 234, Type XIII: I, b, c), Sendjirli (Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, PI. 43, p. I I), and Tarsos (A mer. Journ. Archaeol. XLIV, 1940, p. 83, Fig. 48). Other fibulae of Type 2 b have been found at Tell judeideh and Chatal Huyuk (specimens seen by me in the Museum of the Oriental Institute, Chicago), and a local variant of the type has also been discovered in Luristan (Eurasia septentr, ant. IX, 1934, p. 278, Fig. I). Fibulae of Type 2 b (The Alishar Hiiyiih, Seasons of 1928 and 1929, I, p. 226, Fig. 352: b 2484) and Type 2 c (op. cit., Seasons of 1930-32, III, p. III, Fig. 106: c 2518) have also been found at Alishar Huyuk, thef ormer found in Stratum IV, i. e., 12th-7th cent. B. C., the latter dating from between the Post-Hittite-Phrygian and Hellenistic period, i. e., 7th cent. B. C. to c. 300 B. C. Possibly Cypriote imported fibulae are also those of loco cit., Fig. 106: c 196 and c 542. Further we have several instances of Anatolian fibulae influenced by the Cypriote prototype, e. g., loco cit., Fig. 106: e 53, c 125, d 1012, d 1245, d 1021, d 789, e 144, d 27, and possibly also the fibula, op, cit., Seasons of 1928 and 1929, I, p. 208, Fig. 271: b 462. The other fibulae said to be of this type and reported from various sites in the Near East (cf. Athen, Mitt. XLI, 1916, pp. 420 f.; PRZEWORSKI, Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens, pp. 68 f.) are not Cypriote, but Syro-Anatolian; cf, also The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1928 and 1929, I,
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Fig. 69. Boiotian Fibula found in Cyprus. Cyprus Mus., Nicosia.
in Syria, Palestine, and Rhodes. From Aigina only a single specimen is recorded. Type 2 has been found in Palestine, Syria, and Anatolia, Type 3 b in Rhodes and Delos, and Type 4 b in Palestine, Rhodes, and Aigina. All these fibulae, which bear the evidence of Cypriote manufacture, can be considered as exports from Cyprus to the respective countries. We thus see that the fibulae of Type 2 introduced into Cyprus from Greece penetrated into the Near East. Type 3, which seems to have reached Cyprus via Syria, was in its further developed form, Type 3 b, exported to the W., to Rhodes, and Type 4 of Western, ultimately Sicilian origin, was in its further developed form, Type 4 b, exported both eastwards, to Palestine and westwards, to Rhodes and Aigina. Foreign fibulae imported to Cyprus are represented by Boiotian,' La Tene,' Syrian,' and Anatolian' specimens. Among the objects of personal adornment we choose the earrings (Figs. 22, 26, 3 1 , 34) as our first subject of study. The earrings of Type 1 5 represent a continuation and development of corresponding types of the Late Bronze Age. We know (Vol. IV: I) that the type is of Syrian origin. The plain variety is of a too simple shape to be taken into account in this context, but even the more elaborate variety with a cluster of globules attached below was widely spread in the Archaic period towards the W., while it is represented in Syria and Cyprus without interruption from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Its eastern priority cannot therefore be doubted. Within its western area of distribution we meet it in Ionia and on the Greek mainland, in the Greek colonies in Sicily, in Etruria,' and in p. 266, Fig. 353; II, p. 68, Fig. 93; Seasons of 1930-32, II, pp. 439 f.; Figs. 493, 494; Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, Pi. XXXVI, 994; THUREAU-DANGIN & DUNAND, TilBarsib, PI. XVI, 2, 3. Type 3 b has been found in Rhodes (Lindos I, No. 122, PI. 9; 10 specimens) and Delos (Delos XVIII, Pi. LXXXVI, 735); Type 4 b in Palestine (Tell el-mutesellim II, p. 51, Fig. 49: 4), in Rhodes (Ann. Arch. f§f Anthrop, Liverp. VIII, 1921, p. 19; Lindos I, No. 130, PI. 9; 5 specimens) and in Aigina (FURTWANGLER, Aegina, pp. 403 f., No. 123, PI. 116: 25, 25 a). 1 Specimen in the Cyprus Museum (Fig. 69); Exc. in Cyp., PI. XIV, 30. • RICHTER, op. cit. p. 327, Nos. 1045, 1046. 3 CESNOLA, Atlas III, PI. XLI, 3 (cf. p. 383, n. 7.); Suied.
Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 4 (should be 5, see List of Corrections). For specimens of this type found in Syria, cf, BLISS & MACALISTER, Exc. in Palestine, PI. 80: 8; MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer III, PI. CXXXIV, 17, 22; Beth-pelet I, Pi. L, 599; PETRiE, Gerar, PI. XVIII, 3; Ann. Arch. f§f Anthrop. Liverp. VII, 1914-16, Pi. XXIII: L. 'Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXVII, 3; cf. The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1930-32, III, p. II I, Fig. 106: d 607. 5 The type-numbers referred to are those of the gold earrings. The corresponding specimens of bronze and silver have different type-numbers, but are of course included in the discussion. 6 HADACZEK, Der Ohrschmuck d. Griech. u. Etrusk., pp. 16 ff., 59 ff.
1 Bull. Arch. Sardo IV: 3, 1858, PI. I, 15. • Naukratis II, PI. XIX, 10; PETRIE, Nebesheh and Defenneh (in Tanis II, etc.), Pi. XLI, 7; MOLLER, Die Metallkunst d. alt. Agypter, p. 41, Fig. 10, f. 3 In Cyprus a mould for casting an earring of this type has been found at Enkomi (Stockholm, Cypr. ColI. Ace. 40). 'PAYNE & YOUNG, Arch. Marble Sculpt. fro the Acrop., PIs. 23, 24. 5 HADACZEK, op. cit., p. 20, Fig. 35. 6 Op. cit., pp. 59 ff. 7 WOOLLEY, Ur Exc. II, p. 241, PI. 138, PG/1237. The type continues to Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times, and is also represented in Luristan (GODARD, Les bronzes du Luristan, PI. XXIX, 102). 8 Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, p. 53, Fig. 9; PIs. XVI, 3 69, 370; XXIV, 617; XXV, 637, 638; XXX, 834; WOOLLEY, loco cit.; Coll. de Clercq, Cat. VII: I, Nos. 65 6, 65 8, 659, 661, 662, 666, 669-672, 675, 682-687, 690, 69 1, 694, 695, 701, 702, 7 04, 705, 707-719, 722, 723,725728, 73 1, 732; Syria III, 1922, PI. XVI, Fig. 3, b; VIII, 19 27, PI. LIV, 107 a, b, 110; MACALISTER, op, cit. II, p. 102, Fig. 2 87; III, PIs. CXXXV, 30 a, 32 a; CXXXVI, 4; PETRiE, Gerar, PI. I, 3, 5-9, 12~14, 16, 17; Beth-pelet I, PIs. XXII, 197; XXIX, 27 6; XXX, 106; XXXI, 312, 329; XXXII, 156;
XXXIII, 367; XXXV, 433; XLII, 329, 340; XLIII, 5 17; II, PIs. XLIX, 925; L, 83, 84, 92, 93. 9 DORPFELD, Troja u.Llion, p. 358, PI. 43, VI. These earrings were found in the hoards A, C, D, E, G, J, N, Q (pp. 326 ff.). The great number of earrings of this Oriental type found at Troy in this .early period is not amazing when one considers the commerce carried by the trade-route through Anatolia from the Old-Assyrian trading factories at Kiil-tepe and other places (HROZNY, Die dlteste Gesch. Vorderasiens, p. 120). 10 WILLIAMS, Gold and Silver Jewelry, p. 119. 11 PETRIE, Nebesheh and Defenneh (in Tanis II, etc.), p. 21, PI. VIII, 18 (Nebesheh); p. 76, PI. XLI, 2, 3 (Defenneh). 12 HADACZEK, op, cit., pp. 21 ff.; HOGARTH, Exc. at Ephesus, p. 105; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 934-946, 1490, 149 1, 1593, 16 53- 166 1; PAYNE, Perachora, p, 178; Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 85 ff. 13 Cf. Exc. in Cyp., PI. X, 4 12-415. 11 Type 2 c; cf. CESNOLA, Atlas'III, Pi. XXIII, 3 1-34. 15 HADACZEK, op. cit., p. 24, n. 7; Bull. Arch. Sardo IV: 3, 1858, PI. I, 8; SEGALL, Mus. Benaki, Kat. d. GoldschmiedeArbeiten, p. 22; GAUCKLER. Necrop, puniques de Carthage I, PIs. XXVII, CXXI, CCV; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1490-1. 16 WHITAKER, Motya, Fig. 113.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
quently in places with strong Phoenician connections. Even in Etruria- there is a fu~t~er development of this type with characteristic varieties. Another variety with. Ph~emcian connections is represented by the earring with pendant in shape of a shafted fruit (FIg. 34),2 and the earring with a stud-shaped, fixed pendant (Figs. 31, 34) has predecessors in Bronze Age Syria and Palestine.' A third group of earrings of Oriental origin are those of horseshoe-shape. (Type As far as the present evidence goes they are of Syrian origin, because the earliest specI~ens hitherto recorded have been found within the Syro-Palestinian area, and show typologically early and original forms. Several rings were found in Gaza, and belon~ t~ t~ree hoards: 1299, 1312, and 1313.4 The rings Nos. 26 and 27 5 of Hoard 1299 are poor imitations of Nos. 28-31 of the same hoard and they may therefore represent products of the local manufacture, while the other rings like the majority of the objects of these hoards reflect the wanderings of a Syrian metal trader." The earrings are provided with two loops at the top for insertion of a pin, and the plate is decorated with roundels or triangles of granulated work in parallel rows. Around the edge of some of the rings are small triangular clusters of globules, which are also represented on the Cypriote specimens. No. 67 is not ope~ at the top like the others, but closed, which seems to represent a later development or vana~t of the type. These rings can be assigned to the Late Bronze Age; the hoard No. 1299 IS said by Petrie to have been found in a pot dating from even the early part of the XVIth Dyn.' Similar earrings have been found in Iron Age tombs at N eirab n.ear.Aleppo. 8 They are of silver, are decorated with simple filigree ornaments of concentric lines, and were attached to the ear by means of a pin hinged at one side and fixed by a peg at the other, consequently a technical advancement of the Gaza specimens. One pair of rings has the empty space in the middle occupied by a rosette ornament inscribed in a circle and fixed to the ring by means of small balls.· Similar specimens of this type have been found. at Deve Huyuk.v They are of silver or gilt silver. Gold specimens are report~d from the regI~n of Arvad." A very fine variety of this type of earring has been found In an Achaemenid tomb at Susa.v These earrings are decorated with inlaid ornaments of lapis lazuli and turquoise in the shape of ingots, spools, and petals arranged in parallel rows. The tomb has been assigned to the third quarter of the 4th cent. B. C.13 We thus see that from an early centre in Syria this type of earring diffused eastward to Iran and westward to Cyprus,
?).
HADACZEK, op, cit., p. 25. Mus. de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie I), PI. XXXII, 10, II; GAUCKLER, op. cit. I, PIs. CCV, CCVI; Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell., No. 1495; PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. III, p. 821, Figs. 577, 579. 3 PETRIE, Ancient Gaza II, PIs. III, 17-20, 30; V; XVIII, 247; III, PI. VII; IV, PI. XXXIV, 533. 4 Gp. cit. IV, pp. 5 ff.; PIs. XIII; XIV, 26-31; XV; XVI, 67; XIX; XX, 132, 133. 5 Op, cit. IV, PI. XIV, 25, 27. 6 Gp. cit. IV, p. 5. For connections with the Ras Shamra finds, cf. op. cit. IV, PI. XIV, 9 with Syria XIII, 1932, PI. IX, I. 1
2
7
PETRIE, op, cit. IV, p. 5.
8
Syria VIII, 1927, p. 210, PI. LIV, 106 a, b; IX, 1928,
pp, 196, 201, 205; p. 194, Fig. 2, a-c (Tombs 3, 40, 59);
PI. LVI, c. • Op, cit. IX, p. 194, Fig. 2 a (the drawing of the central ornament is somewhat inaccurate, as can be seen from PI. LVI, c, where the rosette ornament is clearly shown. 10 Ann. Arch. & Anthrop. Liverp. VII, 1914-16, p. 123, PI. XXIII,S, 7.
11
Coil. de Clercq, Cat. VII: I, Nos. 787, 788. 50 f., Fig. 78; cf. PI. V, 3, 4.
12 Deleg, en PerseVIII, pp. 13 Gp. cit. VIII, pp. 37 f.
with ~ypical ~ariants. represented in both countries. Moreover we can trace the development of this type In earrings represented in Ephesos, Sardes, and Etruria. The earrings from Ephesos are highly ornate, and the horseshoe terminates in lions' heads. 1 The Etruscan specimens consist of an open-work disc with a small, crescent-shaped excision above,> conseq~ently a si~ilar stag~ of filling in the empty space in the middle as represented by one pair of the N eirab earnngs, which are filled in the centre except for a small hole,> and show the same crescent-shaped excision above. The same type of earring is represented on a female head from Sardes.s The earring, Type 4, is probably of Egyptian workmanship.» and may be imported from Egypt, though I am unable to refer to identical earrings of Egyptian origin. , ~he l~bed earring, Type 3, is actually a variant of the leech-shaped earring, Type 2. : hIS vanant seems to have been created in Ionia to judge by the elaborate specimens found In Ephesos.« In Cyprus, on the other hand, it is a rare phenomenon and therefore best explained as an Ionian import to Cyprus - a parallel to the earring with three clusters of globules, which is also an Ionian development of a type received from the E. and in its turn imported to Cyprus from Greece. . Anot~er type of earring which must be explained as an import from Greece to Cyprus IS the disc-shaped earring, Type 8. It is very rare in Cyprus, but is often reproduced on the Cypro-Greek sculptures- and also on Greek sculptures and vases from the Archaic period.» It has been thought that earrings of this type are not represented by actual specimens among the finds from the excavations.· There is of course a very common disc-shaped type of earring from the Late Classical and Hellenistic period, but it is always provided with numerous pen~ant~,10 and the inconsis~ency between the numerous representations of the disc-shaped earnng In ar~ and the see~Ingly absolute lack of actual specimens has been explained by the hypothesis that the artists reproduced only the principal part of the earring, the disc, and left out the pendants.': This explanation does not hold good, because the Archaic artists were very fond of reproducing ornamental details, and, in fact, the small clusters of pyramids on th~ earrings of Type 1, as we have seen and to choose one example close at hand, were graphically and sculpturally rendered. Upon a survey of disc-shaped objects in the Museum ~atalogu~s I think, howev~r, that we may identify some of them as earrings of the type In question, e. g., some discs from Ionia» and from Italy,> of which the latter have been tent~tively ~nterpreted as earrings. The Ionian discs found at Ephesos and other places are provided with a loop or narrow shaft to pierce through the lower lobe of the ear and secured on the other side, if a loop, by a pin and, if a shaft, by a socketed stud, the latter system HOGARTH, op. cit., PIs. III, 2; IV, 35. Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1309-10. 3 Syria VIII, 1927, PI. LIV, 106 a, b. 4 Sardis I: I, p. 141, Fig. 156. 5 Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 3 252. 6 HOGARTH, op. cit., PIs. VI, 50, 51, 58, 59, 64; XII, 15. 7 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PIs. LIII, 2, 3, 5; LIV, 5; LVII; LVIII,S; LIX, 1,2; LX, I; LXIII, I; LXVI, 1,3. 8 HADACZEK, op, cit., pp. 10 ff.; PAYNE & YOUNG, op, cit., 1
2
PIs. 36: 3; 39-4 1, 49, 50, 52-59, 62, 64, and passim. For representation of these earrings on Greek vases, cf. also Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., p. 180. • HADACZEK, op. cit., p. II. 10 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1662 ff., PI. XXX. 11 HADACZEK, op. cit., pp. II f. 12 HOGARTH, op, cit., p. 114; PI. VII, 8, 15; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., PI. XIV, 1220, 1228-1232. 13 Gp. cit., Nos. 1414 ff., PI. XX.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
being used on the specimens found in Cyprus. The Etruscan system was more complicated: . the discs were provided with a tube ending in a loop, through which a pin was inserted and fastened by a cord to a second loop near the edge of the disc. It cannot be doubted that this earring was introduced into Cyprus from Ionia: its exclusive representation on the Cypro-Greek sculptures proves its Greek provenance. The Ionians themselves seem to have borrowed this type of earring from Egypt, where it is represented since the XVlIIth Dyn.' Like so many other Egyptian elements this type of earring was most probably introduced into Ionia through its trading connections with N aukratis. A fine variant of the disc-shaped earring with pendants has also been found in Cyprus. It is composed of a quintuple rosette with a hook soldered at the back, a dove fastened to the lower part of the hook, and an inverted pyramid decorated with globules and filigree suspended below the dove? These exquisite specimens of the goldsmith's art indicate Greek workmanship, and must be considered as imported to Cyprus. A similar type of earring seems to be represented on female heads which may be assigned to the late 4th cent. B. C.,3 the initial phase of the Hellen'istic period.' A somewhat earlier shape is represented on a Cypriote female head from the 5t h cent. B. Co" In the Hellenistic period this type of earring is further enriched by
rings, as shown by their representations on the sculptures.' The plain variant already occurs in the Bronze Age? It is common again in the Archaic period. The type is also represented in Syria and Palestine both in the Bronze Age and subsequently.' It penetrated westwards to many sites in Greece, Rhodes, Ephesos, Myndos, Olynthos, Thera, Aigina, Perachora, etc.' The terminal decoration in the shape of griffin's heads, etc. is a subsequent figural adornment of this type. The ear-pendant, Type 10, is a characteristic Greek ornament, very common and widely spread within the Greek culture area.' Of the hair-rings (Figs. 26, 3 I, 34) those with moulded terminals resemble some of the spiral earrings (Type 9). The spiral hair-ring with cork-screw coils is a characteristic Cypriote type closely related to the corresponding earring, and it is often considered as an earring. Representations in sculpture- show, however, that it was used as a hair-ring placed above the ear. The figure decoration of one of its terminals is a striking parallel to the corresponding variant of the spiral earrings. Hair-rings of this type have been found in Syria and Palestine,' but so far as I know, though they are represented on an ivory statuette from Ephesos,> they have not yet actually been found in Greece. Similar rings occur, however, in Etruria.s and the hair-rings with close coils are widely spread in the Greek area and in Etruria.> In Cyprus they are found already in the Early Bronze Age,l1 and are also represented in Late Cypriote.v The Enkomi rhyton also shows that it was already in use in the Bronze Age, and that it has Syrian connections.> We continue with the finger-rings (Figs. 22, 26, 31, 34). The circular finger-ring with a plain hoop is of a too widely diffused type to be used as a criterion of cultural relations. The rings with a bezel twisted spirally (Bronze finger-ring, Type 6) occur already in the Late Bronze Age,14 and as rings of this type have been found in tombs from the early part of Cypro-Geometric III, it does not seem unlikely that the Iron Age specimens represent a survival and continuation of the Late Bronze Age type. Finger-rings of this type also occur in Syria and Palestine."
pendants and adornments. The earring with one end in the shape of an animal's head, Type 6, is not found in Cyprus before the 4th cent. B. C., and continues in the Hellenistic period. In the Classical period this type of earring is one of the most common and characteristic Greek ear adornments, and it was widely diffused in the Mediterranean area: apart from Greece in Asia Minor, South Russia, Syria, Egypt, Italy, etc. - Typologically it goes together with the class of bracelets with terminal ends in the shape of animals' heads' (ef. p. 39 1), and a Persian influence in the creation of this type is therefore to be assumed, but no Persian earrings of this type are known, and the type is thus essentially a Greek creation. Its appearance in Cyprus is therefore evidence of the Greek relations with the island. The earrings of Type 5 are made of twisted wire, as Type 6, and can thus be considered as a technical variant of the latter with omission of the protome. Circular earrings of twisted wire are found in the Late Bronze Age, but there is no evidence of a connection between these and Type 5, which does not appear before Cypro-Classic. The wire of the Late Bronze Age rings consists of grooved bands, while that of Type 5 consists of spirally twisted, narrow cords like that of Type 6. The spiral earring, Type 9, was used both as a proper earring and as a pendant to earSCHAFER, Agypt. Goldschmiedearbeiten, pp. 58 ff., Figs. 47-55. Whence the Egyptians in their turn received this type of earring - in Egypt the use of earrings is unknown before the New Empire, and was probably introduced from the Near East (cf. op, cit., pp. 54 f.: MOLLER, op. cit., pp. 39 f.) _ is a problem outside the range of this context. Another theory, less probable, about the origin of the Ionian discshaped earring has been advanced by A. MOORTGAT (Der Ohrschmuck der Assyrer, in Arch. f. Orientforsch. IV, 1927, pp. 203 f.) who assumes Assyrian connections. 1
2 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., PI. XXX, Nos. 1666, 1667; cf. HADACZEK, op, cit., pp. 27 ff,
30 HNEFALSCH-R ICHTER,
Kypros, PI. XV.
'Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. CXCV, 2. 5
HADACZEK, op. cit., p. 29, Fig. 49·
- POLLAK, Klass.rant. Goldschmiedearbeiten, Nos. IIl~138; HADACZEK, op, cit., pp. 46 ff, • Cf. especially the armlets (Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., No. 1204) which have the shape of large earrings.
Cf. op, cit., p. 165, Fig. 46; p. 176, Fig. 56. Op. cit., Nos. 380-469. 3 Syria XIII, 1932, PI. XVI, I; PETRIE, op. cit. IV, PI. XII; id. Gerar, PIs. XX, 49, 61, 62; XXXII, 4; Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, p. 95; PIs. 44, 0, w; 45, a, r. It is also found in Egypt: FRANKFORT & PENDLEBURY, The City of Akhenaten II, PI. XLIII, 4; STEINDORFF, Aniba II, PI. 57: 46-51. 'HOGARTH, op, cit., PIs. VII, 49, So; XI, 17, 18, 24; XVIII, 34-36, 38-41; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 948, 949, 1069, II66-II75, 1245; FURTWANGLER, Aegina, PI. 116: So; Thera II, p. 298, Fig. 488 e, f; Lindos I, PI. 12, Nos. 271, 273, 274; Clara RhodosIII,p. 179, TombCLXXIX, NO.2; VI-VII, p. 336, Fig. 82, No. 51; PAYNE, Perachora, p. 177; Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 89 ff. 5 HADACZEK, op, cit., p. 15. 1
2
- HOGARTH, op, cit., PI. XXII; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PIs. XLVIII, 3; L, 5, 6; Swed. Cyp. Exp, III, PI. LXVI, I, 3.
• Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, p. 54, Fig. 10; PIs. XVII, 408, 409; XXV, 643; XXXVI, 980, 981. The hairrings said to be of this type and found at Tharros (ibid., pp. 53 f.; also referred to in PAYNE, loc. cit.) are not of this type, and are not from Tharros, but from Cyprus. 8 HOGARTH, loco cit. 9 MILANI, Studi e mater. II, p. II5, Fig. 76. 10 DAWKINS, Artemis Orthia, PI. LXXXV, a, e; Delos XVIII, PI. XCII, 809; PAYNE, loco cit., with further references. 11 Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. 148, Nos. 29-31, 33; PI. CXLV, IS. 12 Exc. in Cyp. PI. VI, 549. 130p. cit., PI. III; cf. the rhyta from Tell Abu Hawam (Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. IV, 1935, PIs. XXVIII, XXIX). 14 Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, No. 874. 15 MACALISTER, op, cit. III, PI. CXXXV, 28; GUY & ENGBERG, Megiddo Tombs, p. 172, Fig. 176: I I; LAMON & SHIPTO:O<• Megiddo I, PI. 86: 9.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
The finger-rings with oval bezel hammered flat are also represented in the Late Bronze Age of Cyprus. 1 As the type has not yet been found in the Cypro-Geometric period, but reappears in Cypro-Archaic I, we are not justified, so far as the present evidence goes, to reckon with a continuation of the type from the Bronze Age, and- in view of the fact that rings of this shape are represented on the Asiatic mainland from the Late Bronze Age, and continue in the Iron Age,2 it seems at present more likely that the Archaic specimens in Cyprus are due to renewed Asiatic influence. The type diffused westwards to Greece,' and was also brought to the western Mediterranean.' Stirrup-shaped finger-rings are represented in Egypt from the New Empire, whence they were introduced into Cyprus and the Syro-Palestinian region,' where they - contrary to the case in Cyprus - continued in the Iron Age without interruption.' This indicates the same source of derivation as for the preceding type. Finger-rings of this shape were also spread to the western Mediterranean and to Greece, where they were common during the 5th and 4th cent. B. C.7 The dome-shaped finger-ring was introduced into Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age,8 but does not appear again in the island before the Classical period, so far as we know. Fingerrings of this shape are well-known from Egypt,' and were used in Greece at least from the 6th cent. B. C. 10 I am therefore inclined to interpret their reappearance in Cyprus as due to Greek influence. Finger-rings with a thick, rectangular bezel fixed to the hoop are known in Egypt from the XXVIth Dyn.," and appear at the same time in Phoenicia.> They are also represented in Palestine,» were spread to Greece and the western Mediterranean> by the Phoenician trade, and their appearance in Cyprus must also be due to Phoenician influence. The swivel-ring is a well-known Egyptian type, which appears in Cyprus already in the
Late Bronze Age. 1 It is introduced again in the Archaic period, and becomes popular in the 6th cent. B. C. as a result of the increasing Egyptian influence, but as this type was also very common in Syria and Palestine, Cyprus may very well have received it via the Syro-Palestinian region, from where much of the Egyptian influence reached the island. The shape of the ring is subsequently modified, 2the Egyptian scarab is replaced by scaraboids or stones of Cypriote workmanship, and finally, the hoop is soldered to the setting, and the finger-ring with fixed setting-box (Gold ring, Type 9) is created. Among the bracelets (Figs. 26, 32, 36) we shall first study those with terminals in the shape of animals' heads. Those with a depression opposite the opening, and with the terminals in the shape of calves' and goats' heads are of Persian origin from the Achaemenid period. These bracelets must be brought into typological relationship with the earrings terminating in animals' heads (cf. p. 388), and are developed representatives of the Mesopotamian animal art, which was known in Babylonia and Elam at an early date.' Mesopotamia has been called "the great breeding ground of monsters",' from whence the animal art spread to the N., E., and W., everywhere modified according to the particular demands and ideas of each region and period. A typical development of this animal art took place in upland Persia in the znd millennium B. C., or perhaps earlier, and the stylistic connection between a number of Persian, Luristan, and Urartu metal objects indicates that the immediate influence has to a great extent come from the uplands. 6 We have also to consider the role of the Assyrians as a connecting link between the remote Mesopotamian origin of the animal art- and its new formation in Persia, and for our present purpose it is interesting to note that bracelets with terminals in the shape of calves' heads are represented on Assyrian reliefs. 7 Stylistically related to the Cypriote finds are also calves' heads of bronze which once decorated a wooden throne in the palace at Nimrud.s Original bracelets of the type in question have not been found yet in Assyria, because the bronze bracelet in the Louvre earlier considered to be Assyrian- seems to be of Iranian origin.v We return to the Persian specimens. A superb pair of bracelets, with the typical Persian depression opposite the opening and with the terminals in the shape of a horned griffin, was included in the Oxus treasure." Other bracelets belonging to the same treasure have the terminals in the shape of goats' heads, and are in that respect more similar to the Cypriote specimens, but the hoop is either plain and rounded,» or missing, and repaired with a modern hoop.v A number of bracelets terminating in the heads of lions, lion-griffins, ibexes, and other animals also form part of the Oxus treasure,« and bracelets terminating in rams' heads have been found
39°
1 Exc. in Cyp., PI. XI, 354; Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, No. 12; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. LXXXVIII, 2, NO.5. 2 Beth-pelet II, Pis. XLIX, LI (cf. p, 25, gold ring with engraved fish; engraved silver ring); GUY & ENGBERG, op. cit., Pis. 100: 19; 128: 15; Deleg, en Perse VIII, p. 327, Fig. 792; The Alishar Hiiyiik, Seasons of 1928 and 1929, II, p. 73, Fig. 107: b 494, b 410; Quart. Dep, Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, PI. XXXVII, 949.
3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, Nos. 35 fr.; WALDSTEIN, Arg. Heraeum II, Nos. 966, 967; Exc. at Olynthus X, Nos. 474,476-494, PI. XXVII; PAYNE, op, cit., p. 179, PI. 79: 32; Clara Rhodos VIII, p. 153, Fig. 139 (Sep. No. 31: I); p. 160, Fig. 147 (Sep. No. 42: 2).
• Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, No. 889. 5 SCHAFER, op. cit., pp. 50 ff., PI. 13: 75-77, 80, 81, 83, 84; WILLIAMS, op. cit., Pis. VIII, 29; IX, 30--32; HOGARTH, Hittite Seals, p. 22, Fig. 22; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXLV, 16, 20.
o E. g., PETRIE, Gerar, Pis. XX, 54; XXXII, 6; Quart.
Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, Pis. XXVII, 713; XXXVII. 7 Mon. Ant. XXI, 1912, p. 4°4, with further references of specimens from Sicily. These specimens are decidedly
stirrup-shaped and not with oval bezel hammered flat out of the wire (cf. above). Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, p. XL, Types C: X, XI; Nos. 903 f., 1230 ff., 1237 ff.; PAYNE, op, cit., p. 180, PI. 79: 59; Exc. at Olynthus X, Nos. 446-473, PI. XXVI. Varieties of this type seem already to appear in the early first millennium B. C. in Sicily (e. g., Mon. Ant. XXI, p. 319, PI. VI, 23; p. 373, PI. XVII, 10; Not. Scavi, 1904, p, 77, Fig. 22; p. 86, Fig. 42). I am indebted to Dr. Furumark for these references. These rings have probably been brought to Sicily from the East. 8 Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, Nos. 1-3; Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CXLV, 21-23. 9 SCHAFER, op, cit., PI. 13: 78, 79, 82; WILLIAMS, op, cit., Pis. VIII, 27, 28; IX, 33; CARTER, The Tomb of Tut-ankhAmen II, PI. LXXXV. 10 PAYNE, op, cit., p. 179, PI. 79: 58. 11 SCHAFER, op. cit., pp. 51, 53 f., PI. 13: 85, 86; WILLIAMS, op, cit., PI. IX, 34-36. 12 Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, p. XXXIX, Type B VII. 13 Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, PI. XXV, 651. 14 Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, Nos. 15-19; 'ApXaw).. 'E'P'fjf1" 1937, p. 378, Fig. I; GAUCKLER, op. cit. I, Pls.XXVIII, XC, CXXII, CXXv. CLXVIII, CLXXXV, CLXXXV~s
1
Brit. Mus. Cat., Finger Rings, Nos. 4, 278-281.
2
Handb, Cesn. Coll., p. 41 I.
3 SEGALL, op. cit., p. 42; RICE, in P~)PE & ACKERMAN, A Survey of Persian Art I, p. 378.
• MINNS, Scythians and Greeks, p. 280. 6
MINNS, loco cit.; RICE, loco cit.
o The Assyrian contribution is underestimated by PUDELKO
in Arch. f. Orientforsch. IX, 1933-1934, pp. 86 fr. 7 BUDGE, Assyr. Sculpt. in the Brit. Mus., Pis. XXVII, XXIX, XXXI, XXXIII, and particularly PI. XLIX. From
39 1
the time of Ashumasirpal (883-859 B. C.), cf. PERROT & CHIPIEZ, Hist. de l'art II, p. 764, Fig. 431. 8 LAYARD, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 199. 9, POTTIER, Cat. antiq. assyr., p. 141, No. 166, PI. XXVII. 10 Arch. f. Orientforsch. IX, 1933-1934, pp. 85 f. 11 DALTON, The Treasure of the Oxus, No. 116, PI. I. One specimen was sold to the Victoria and Albert Museum, the other is in the British Museum. 12 Op. cit., PI. XIX, 140. 13 Op. cit., PI. XVIII, 134, 135. 14 Op. cit., Pis. XVII-XX.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
at Til-Barsib' in a tomb of the Achaemenid period. A pair of bracelets with depressed hoops was discovered in tl:e Achaerrenid tomb at Susa referred to above (p. 386). The terminals are in the sbape of liens' heads,' and a similar bracelet of unknown provenance and bought at Aleppo is in the Louvre Museum." Similar bracelets are depicted on Persian relief sculptures! They are worn by the archers in the coloured tile frieze at Susa,' and are also carried as a tribute by Scythian vassals on the reliefs from the Apadana stair at Persepolis.' Bracelets with more elaborate terminals, similar to those of the Oxus treasure ending in horned griffins, are also represented on the same reliefs. 7 This type of bracelet was diffused to different parts of the Mediterranean. In addition to Cyprus, bracelets of this type have been found in Syria,' Palestine," Egypt," and Greece." Both typologically and chronologically the specimens found in Cyprus are so closely related to the Persian types that we must consider them to be of Persian workmanship. One of the Vouni bracelets with terminals in the shape of goats' heads" is of a more refined workmanship than the others: the grooves of the horns are narrower and closer than on the other bracelet of the pair, and the incisions indicating the hair on the cheeks end in spiral curls. This difference in technical quality may perhaps lead one to believe that only the finer specimen is of genuine Persian workmanship, and the others are copies of the Persian prototypes, but a comparison with the actual Persian specimens" shows that these, too, are of varying quality, and there is, therefore, no reason to doubt the Persian workmanship of the Vouni bracelets. Some silver bracelets" of a similar type but of a simplified, rather conventional modelling of the terminating heads may, however, be the products of Cypriote silversmiths working under the influence of the Persian prototypes. The silver bracelets terminating in snakes' heads have also Oriental ancestors. Small silver rings with terminals of snakes' heads have been found already in the necropolis at Kish, and datefrom the earlier part of the 3fd millennium B. C.15 Bracelets with terminals
in the shape of snakes' heads are also known from different sites in the Near East.' Bracelets dating from the Achaemenid period and of a form which may have served as a prototype of the Cypriote specimens have been found at Til-Barsib.' Specimens particularly similar to the Cypriote type have also been found at Gaza- and Beth-pelet.' The Greeks adopted this type,' and for stylistic reasons it cannot be doubted that the Cypriote type has inspired the Greek artisans in their production. 8 The bracelets which terminate in lions' or rams' heads form a special group. We know that the bracelets of this group are varieties of the Oriental type with theriomorphic terminals, and there are many Oriental specimens terminating in lions' and rams' heads.' The style of the Cypriote bracelets of this kind is, however, different from that of the Oriental specimens, and shows distinct Greek features.' The Greeks took over this Oriental type, and it is the Greek development and modification of the type which is represented in Cyprus, not the original Oriental prototypes. We have here a parallel phenomenon to the earrings with theriomorphic terminals (d. p. 388). In both cases Cyprus received back an old Oriental form in Greek fashion. There is also a technical difference between this group of bracelets, which are of gold- or silver-plated bronze, and the others mentioned above, which are made of homogeneous metal. We know that the technique of gold- and silver-plated bronze is typical of Cypriote workmanship and used both in the manufacture of rings and bracelets, etc., and we may thus consider the bracelets to be products of Cypriote artisans following Greek prototypes, instances of the imitation of Greek art, which flourished in Cyprus particularly during the reign of Euagoras I (d. pp. 502 ff.). The band-shaped gold bracelets decorated in cloisonne work (Type 4) with rosettes in the panels have Egyptian and particularly Syrian relations. Bracelets of similar type, but without rosette decoration were found in the tomb of Tutankhamen,' and are also represented on ivory reliefs from Sendjirli,> and bracelets with rosette decoration are reproduced on Assyrian reliefs." On a stele from Marash» a female figure wears a cap, whose border is decorated in the same way as the bracelet, and the same holds good for gold rings from Megiddo.> A statue of a standing goddess from Tell Halaf wears a frontlet of similar shape"
39 2
1 THUREAU-DANGIN & DUNAND, Til-Barsib, p. 77, PI. XVIII, 6. 2 Deleg, en Perse VIII, pp, 48 f., Fig. 76; PI. V, I, 2. 3 PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. IV, p. 764, Fig. 370. 4 POPE & ACKERMAN, op, cit. I, p. 353. 5 Op. cit. IV, PI. 19, C. 6 Op, cit. IV, PI. 94, A. 7 Op. cit. IV, PI. 93, A. S Syria XVI, 1935, p. 153, n. I (finds from Ras Shamra: four silver bracelets, two with terminals in the shape of calves' heads and the other two with terminals in shape of rams' heads). 9 MACALISTER, op. cit. I, p. 293, Fig. 154: 3· 10 VERNIER, Bijoux et orfeoreries (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), Nos. 52148, 52587, Pis. XVII, XXI. No. 52148 has been found at Edfu, and is called "greco-romain" in' the Catalogue. It is made of gold-plated bronze, a technique which is not used for the genuine Achaemenid bracelets, but is common in Cyprus (d. p. 393). It is therefore likely that this bracelet is a Cypriote production made in imitation of the Persian prototypes. No. 52587 is of silver, and has been
found at Mit Rahineh (Kom el-Nawa). It is also called "greco-romain" in the Catalogue, but is certainly of Achaemenid origin. 11 SCHUMACHER, Beschr. d. Samml, ant. Bronzen, No. 1074, PI. II, 7; d. Arch. f. Orientforsch. IX, 1933-1934, p. 88, PI. V, 10; POPE & ACKERMAN, op, cit. I, pp. 353 f.; IV, PI. 122, ], in the Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, and found during the construction of the Corinth Canal. Its association with the Isthmos suggests that it is a relic of the Persian war, perhaps dropped or left by some Persian satrap (op. cit. I, p. 353). For the style, d. also the head and fore part of an ivory statuette from Kerameikos, Arch. Anz.,
1935, p. 292, Fig. 20 (p. 295)· 12 Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCI, I, 4, 6 (below), 8. It should be noted that the numbers 292 e and f have been changed on the plate. 13
POPE & ACKERMAN, op, cit, IV, PI. 122.
14 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewelt., PI. XXVI, 1603; CESNOLA Atlas III, PI. XL, 3.
15 SEGALL,
op.cit., p. 42.
1 Mitt. Anthrop, Ges. Wien XIX, 1889, Sitz.ber., p. 23, Fig. 7-1 I; Uit de Schatkamers der Oudheid, p. 140, No. 436; PRZEWORSKI, Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens, p. 74, PI. XIV, I. 2 THUREAu-DANGIN & DUNAND, op. cit., p. 78, PI. XVIII, 3. 3 PETRIE, Ancient Gaza II, PI. III. 4 Beth-pelet I, PI. I., 590. 5 Olympia IV, PI LXVI, II65; No. II64 is of a somewhat different type (these bracelets are considered to be Byzantine by Furtwangler, but without reason, so far as I see); Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 454, Fig. 9; Hesperia IX, 1940, p. 418, Fig. 64; Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 68 ff.,Pls. XII, XIII. The bracelet found at Kalaureia is different (Athen. Mitt. XX, 1895, p. 3II, Fig. 29) and of uncertain date. 6 Bracelets with terminals in the shape of snakes' heads are common in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 2773 ff.), but apart from their late date they are quite different from the Cypriote type. Finger-
393
rings or hair-rings terminating in snakes' heads are known from Etruria, but they are spiral-shaped (op. cit., No. 1321), and a pair of early bracelets from Etruria with terminals probably in the shape of conventional snakes' heads (op. cit., Nos. 1360-1) are also made of a spirally twisted ribbon, and are thus quite different from the Cypriote specimens. 7 POPE & ACKERMAN, op, ct. IV, Pis. 121, A, D; 122, D, H,]. 8 Cf. MINNS, op, cit., p. 197, Fig. 90; p. 271: "the scheme as treated by a Greek, the model was Assyrian". 9 CARTER, op, cit. II, PI. LXXXII, B. 10 Ausgrab. in SendschirliV, PI. 67, a-c. 11 SCHAFER & ANDRAE, Die Kunst d. alt. Orients, p. 543. 12 Arch. Anz., 1940, p. 562, Fig. 3. 13 GUY & ENGBERG, op, cit., PI. 166: 3, 4; d. p. 172, Fig. 176: 12. 14 Syria XIII, 1932, PI. XLVII.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
as do also Syrian female heads of ivory from Nimrud.: Assyrian- and Cypriote (p. 360) headgear are also related to these Syrian specimens. The broad, band-shaped bracelet of silver is similar to Egyptian specimens which show the same panel decoration;' though the ornaments are simpler, and consist only of horizontal and vertical grooves. This type of bracelet is often represented on Egyptian monuments, and even the modern Egyptian and Nubian bracelets of silver indicate a similar system of decoration.' It is needless to emphasize that the Egyptian specimens are by no means identical with the Cypriote type of bracelet, which clearly reveals its Cypriote workmanship in its decoration, but I find it difficult to believe that the Egyptian broad band-bracelets are not the ultimate source of derivation for the Cypriote type.' The beads and pendants show relations to Syrian, Egyptian, and Greek art in the same way as so many other Cypriote products. Pendant-rings (Figs. 31, 35) similar to the Cypriote specimens with a brooch-shaped hoop and further developments of these have been found in Rhodes, Sicily, South Italy, Etruria, Carthage, and Sardinia. 6 The disc-shaped pendant with a tubular collar on the edge (Fig. 35) is an Eastern type common in Syria, Palestine,' and further East.· The decoration of the Oriental specimens consists very often of an embossed representation of the Ishtar star, but purely ornamental motifs also occur, and these are predominant in Cyprus so far as the present evidence goes. Pendants with religious ornaments penetrated to the western Mediterranean, but also those with purely ornamental motifs. Specimens more or less similar to the Cypriote ones have been found in Caria,· Rhodes,« the Punic territory", and Italy." Its very common use in Cyprus is proved by its frequent representation in terracotta and stone sculptures.1. The
distribution of the type from Syria via Cyprus and Rhodes to Italy indicates the trade route confirmed by so much other evidence (d. p. 3 16). Syrian connections are also proved by the cylindrical pendant plain or with animals' protome (Figs. 3 1, 35). These pendants, to be hung vertically or horizontally, served as an etui for metal sheets engraved with magical inscriptions or figures. These charm cases are, however, derived from Egypt,' as are so many other Syrian articles of culture. Pendants similar to the Cypriote specimens occur in Syria- and in the Phoenician tombs in Carthage, Malta, Sardinia, and Spain.' They have also been found in Rome,' Euboia,> and Ephesos.s The disc-shaped silver pendant with central knob (Fig. 31) is related to, and forms a simplified version of, the pendant of Phoenician "inverted heart" type. This is also represented in Cyprus by a wire of that type attached to a leech-shaped earring.' Similar pendants are known from the Syro-Palestinian region', Etruria, and the Punic territory in the western Mediterranean.' The pendants in the shape of a horned, bearded face, represented both in silver, gold, and stone (Figs. 31, 35, 39), are related to Phoenician ornaments." The gold pendants decorated with Horus eyes, female heads and Hathor heads (Fig. 35) are also closely related to Phoenician specimens,» though the motif is Egyptian. The Egyptian motifs were thus in these cases, as in many others, transmitted by the Phoenicians. Pendants of Egyptian type are common, particularly amulets and pendants of faience in the shape of a papyrus sceptre, Horus eyes, hippopotami, monkeys, fishes, cats, and other animals, or in the shape of deities and demons, e. g., the Horus child, the Nile god, Hathor, Nefertum, Ptah-seker, Bes, etc. (Fig. 38). In general these amulets are Egyptian in style and technique," but some specimens recall the Syrian version of the type. Many of the pendants in silver and gold also show Egyptian connections, and it is evident that Egypt has contributed considerably to the typology of Cypriote jewellery. The necklaces of Egyptian type represented on Cypriote sculptures of the 6th cent. B. C.12 also show that jewellery of Egyptian workmanship or derivation was popular at that time. The pendants in the shape of papyri, lotus flowers, and buds (Fig. 35) recall Egyptian types of necklaces, especially those represented on the sarcophagi,> though there seems to be no doubt
394
HOGARTH, Exc. at Ephesus, PI. XXIX, 2, 4. SCHAFER & ANDRAE, op, cit., PI XXXII (p. 528/9), pp. 530, 543· a VERNIER, op, cit., Nos. 52017-52017 bis, Pl. VI. This bracelet was found at el-Rubayeh, and dates from the Middle Kingdom. 4 SCHAFER, op, cit. p. 101. Cf. also ]EQUIER, Les Irises d'obiets des sarcophages pp, 98 ff. 5 The Etruscan band-shaped bracelets are of a different type (Brit. Mus. Cat. Jewell., Nos. 1356---':'1359, 1362-1363). PINZA (Materiali per la etnol, ant. toscano-lasiale I, p. 194, Fig. 151) compares the Cypriote specimen with an Etruscan bracelet, but this lacks the panel decoration typical of the Cypriote bracelet, and the only similarity is the guilloche pattern. This common ornament cannot alone be taken as an evidence of connection. The panel decoration of the Egyptian specimens affords a closer stylistic similarity. 6 Lindos I, PI. 59, No. 1369; Not. Scavi, 1893 p. 469; Mon. Ant. IV, 1894, p. 381, Fig. 179; PI. IX, 49; XXII, 1913. p. 250, Fig. 89; FALcHI, Vetulonia, PI. VII, 17; MILANI, Studi e mater. I, p. 277, Fig. 44; II, p. 129, Fig. 114; III, pp, 155 f., PI. I, 12. Specimens from Sardinia' and Carthage mentioned by BLINKENBERG in Lindos I, p. 378. A peculiar variety with a looped ring is common in Sardinia (Bull. 1
2
Arch. Sardo I, 1855, pp. 41, 154; II, 1856, p. 122; IV, 1858, p. 143), but is also represented in Carthage (GAUCKLER, op, cit. II, PI. CCXLIX, 9). 7 Zeitschr. deutsch. Paliist.-Ver. 49, 1926, PI. 30; PETRIE, op. cit. IV, Pis. XVII, XVIII, 112; Syria XIX, 1938, p. 320, Fig. 48: I, 3,4, 6, 7; Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, Pis. 44, g; 46, h. For other references, d. MOBIUS, H., Griechisch-orientalische Bleimedaillons aus Ionien, in Arch. Anz., 1941. pp. I ff. • Deleg, en Perse VII, pp. 69 f., 87; PI. XII,S, 6. " Journ. Hell. Stud. VIII, 1887, p. 71, Fig. II; Brit.Mus. Cat., Jewell., No. 1212. 10 Arch. Zeit. XLII, 1884, PI. 9: 6, 8; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell. No. 1159; Lindos I, PI. II, Nos. 242, 243. 11 Mem. Soc. Nat. Antiq. France LVI, 1895, p. 281, Fig. 14; p. 358, Fig. 67. 12 Mon. Ant., XV, 1905, pp. 557 f., Fig. 163; pp. 571 f., Fig. 168; XXI, 1912, p. 432, Fig. 21; p. 449, Figs. 36, 37; XXII, 1913, pp. 77 f., Figs. 25-27; p. 114, Fig. 55; cf. RANDALL-MAcIvER, Villanov. and Early Etrusc. PI. 32: 3, 4,7; MILANI, op. cit. II, p. 136, Fig. 128, PI. 11,4,5; Archaeologia XLI, 1867, PI. VIII, 4, 5; Not. Scavi, 1928, p. 437, Fig·5· I. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pis. CLXXXVI, 2; CLXXXVII, 2; CCIII, I, 3, 7.
PETRIE, Amulets, p. 29, PI. XIX, 133. RENAN, Mission de Phenicie, p. 393; Coll. de Clercq, Cat. VII, Nos. 1567-1569. 3 PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. III, pp. 237 f., Figs. 183, 184 ; Acad. Inscr. et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus, 1900, pp. 193 ff.; Sitz. ber. Akad. Wiss. Munchen, 1905, pp. 499 ff.; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1557, 1560, 1561; Cat. du Mus. Alaoui (Suppl.), PI. LVII, 1-3; GAUCKLER, op, cit. II, pp. 44 6 ff., PI. CCXLIX, I; Bull. Arch. Sardo IV: 3, 1858, PI. I, 2, 3. 21; MAYR, Die Insel Malta im Altert., p. 78; Rev. arch. Ser, 3, XX, 1892, pp. 291 ff.; Junta Sup. de Excav. y Antig. Mem. 58, PI. IX A, I, 2. 4 Bull. Inst, di corrisp, arch. 1880, pp. 114 ff. 5 PAPAVASILIOU, IIepl 'twv tv ED~O[q &pXa[wv 'tu
2
395
a Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, PI. XXXVI, No. 990 (pendant of earring); Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1547, 155 1 (some beads of the necklaces are of this type); Mus. de T'Algerie et de la Tunisie VIII (Mus. Lavigerie I), pp. 43 ff., PI. VI, 8; GAUCKLER, op, cit. I, Pis. XLV, LXXXVIII. " oe. cit. I, PI. CXVIII. 10 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1539, 1540, 1555, 1565. 11 For Egyptian counterparts, see REISNER, Amulets (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), passim; PETRIE, Amulets, Nos. 20, 138, 145, 170, 175, 176, 188, 204-206, 224. 235 257, etc. 12 CESNOLA, Atlas I, Pis. IV, 6; V, 7; XXXIII, 212; XLII, 279; XLIII, 280; Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 1266. 13 I disregard the numerous specimens, both actual and reproduced, from the 3rd and and millen. B. C., as being chronologically too distant from the Cypriote, and I quote therefore only the following from the XXIst or XXIlnd to XXVIth Dyn.: SCHMIDT, Typol. Atlas, Nos. 980, 981, 1024
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
about the native workmanship of the Cypriote specimens. In view of the fact that similar pendants in the shape of lotus flowers were also manufactured by the Phoenicians and were spread as far as the western Mediterranean- it is, of course, possible that they arrived in Cyprus via Syria in the same way as part of the lotus ornaments used in the decoration of pottery and other branches of handicraft (cf. p. 291). Many of the other pendants in the shape of vases, buds, and fruits, e. g., acorns, pomegranates, etc. (Figs. 31, 35) also recall types developed in Egypt and Syria.. The shapes of these pendants often merge one into the other, and it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the natural prototype of the shape was a handleless vase with pointed base or a shafted, ovoid fruit. These pendants penetrated to Greece, Italy, and the Punic territory in the western Mediterranean already in the Archaic period- and in the Classical period, when a great many varieties usually richly decorated and of a high artistic standard were produced by the Greek goldsmiths (cf. below). The pendants (Figs. 32, 35) in the shape of Gorgo- heads, winged sphinxes, and some human heads are of Greek style, and pendants in the shape of cicadas have also Greek counterparts. They were used as pendants fixed to the hair-band or a hair-ring, and illustrate the Ionian and Athenian fashion of wearing tSttt'(S<; known in the literature.' The pendants in the shape of leaves, buds, flowers, fruits, etc. of Greek workmanship from the Classical period were widely spread in the Mediterranean,' and also served the Cypriote goldsmiths as a source of inspiration. As in several other cases, Cyprus subsequently received a Greek version of types partly transmitted to Greece from the E. These pendants are sometimes closely similar to the Greek counterparts, sometimes the local variants are clearly distinct. The beads (Figs. 31, 35), which together with these pendants were made up into necklaces, form to a great extent a continuation and modification of Late Bronze Age types, and are widely diffused in the Mediterranean like the pendants just mentioned. Other types are new. The tortoise- and frog-shaped beads recall Egyptian types.' To what extent Cyprus contributed to the circulation of these beaded necklaces it is impossible to say, because the types are usually so simple and, even if local modifications are recognizable, so similar to each other everywhere within their wide area of distribution from the E. to the W. that they cannot be used for tracing distinct lines of connection. The granulated work decorating some of these beads and pendants already occurs in
the Late Bronze Age (Vol. IV: I). In the Geometric period this art of decoration is not forgotten,' and in the Archaic period it underwent a great renaissance, not only in Cyprus, but particularly in Rhodes, the East-Greek region, and in Etruria.> Filigree supersedes granulation in the Classical period, and in the 4th cent. B. C. it becomes very common _ an indication of influence from the Greek technique,> an influence which intensifies to a close imitation, particularly from the time of Euagoras I (d. below). Other evidences of connections with Greece are formed by the chains of plaited wire (Fig. 35), often decorated in filigree work,' and the frontlets with embossed ornaments of leaves, flowers, volutes, palmettes, etc. (Fig. 3 6). Both the shape and the decoration of these frontlets are purely Greek.« In these and other cases, where the style of the objects found in Cyprus is so closely related to Greek art, and nothing in the technique betrays the Cypriote artisan, we must consider the objects as imported goods or as products of Greek artists living in Cyprus. We know that several Greek artists were working in Cyprus, particularly during the reign of Euagoras I, and the objects here in question date from about his time. In judging the cultural relations of an object, it makes no difference whether the object or the artist is imported, provided that the latter works in the style of his native art, and is not influenced by the art of the foreign country in which he works. In both cases we are concerned with imported works of art.
1123, 1240; PETRIE & MACKAY, Heliopolis, PI. XIX, 3; Brit. Mus. Guide to the First, Second and Third Egypt. Rooms, PIs. VIII, IX, XXVI; Beschreibung d. Aegypt. Samml. Leiden VIII, PIs. IV, V, VIII; IX, PIs. XI: 14, XII; X, PIs. I, II; XI, PIs. I, II. 1
Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1280, 1281, 1461, 1462,
1545· 3 VERNIER, op. cit., Nos. 52674, 5301 I; PETRIE, Amulets, . PI. V, 70 k, l; PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op, cit. III, p. 825, PI. X; Call. de Clercq, Cat. VII, Nos. 1544, 1546; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1236, 1238; Beth-pelet I, PI. XLIII, 545; Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. II, 1933, p. 53, Fig. 8; PIs. XXIII, 549; XXV, 644. 3
HOGARTH, op. cit., PI. X, 42, 43, 57, 60; Athen. Mitt.,
XXVIII, 1903, PI. V, 4, 7; PAYNE, Perachora, PIs. 79: 12 (mould); 84: 39; Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, pp. 243 f., Figs. 80, 81; Not. Scavi, 1940, p. 379, Fig. 3: 7; Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1028, II08, II09, I II5, II26-1130, 1345, 134 6, 1452, 1454, 1457, 1458, 1461, 1462, 1472, 15 63 • For Greek counterparts, ef. HOGARTH, op, cit., PI. III, 3. The identification with the 'Ci'Cnp; noticed by B. SCHWEITZER in Gnomon XV, 1939, p. 9. 5 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1943-1947, 1950, 1952, 2190; MINNS, op. cit., p. 195, Fig. 88; p. 208, Fig. 106, Nos. 13, 34; p. 217, Fig. II9; p. 401, Fig. 294: 3, 4, 4 a. 6 WILLIAMS, Gold and Silver Jewelry, PI. XXXIII, 153; PETRIE, Amulets, No. 239 (tortoise); SCHAFER, op. cit., p. 27, PI. 5; VERNIER, op. cit., No. 52724, PI. LVII; No. 53433, PI. ell; PETRIE, Amulets, No. 18 (frog).
397
The small rectangular silver plaques with embossed representations of heads of the Cypriote Herakles clad in a lion's skin (Fig. 32) formed part of a necklace. Other rectangular plaques of silver and gold (Figs. 32, 36) were probably used as mountings of a female head-gear as represented on the Proto-Cypriote bowl from Idalion (p. 360). The plaques are a Cypriote version of a well-known Syrian head-gear, represented by the gold crowns now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.' These crowns consist of hinged plaques, one with embossed representations of pairs of nude Astarte figures and goats among plants in superimposed panels, and the other with floral designs, small figurines and the winged sun-disc in superimposed panels framed by borders of rosettes. A similar head-gear is represented on female ivory heads and figurines of Syrian origin from Nimrud: and at Megiddo.s The embossed representation of a nude goddess on the plaques from Cyprus is also a Cypriote version of the Astarte figures on the plaques of the Syrian crown in the Walters Art Gallery. Some of the figures on the Cypriote plaques are even quite Syrian in style, and it may be remarked that the panels of these figures are framed by a border of a leaf-ornament (Gold plaque, Type 2 c, Fig. 36), which also occurs on Syrian ivories from Nimrud,> as well as on Phoenician silver bowls from Etruria,> and the conventional trees on Steed. Cyp. Exp. I, PI. CLV, 13; IV: 2, Fig. 35: 22. Cf, CURTIS, Ancient Granulated Jewelry, in Mem.Amer. Acad. Rome I, 1917, pp. 74 if. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., pp. XXXI, LV. • Op. cit., Nos. 1463, 1954, 1955; MINNS, op, cit., p. 4 01, Fig. 294: 1. 5 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1610-1614; POLLAK, Klass.: ant. Goldschmiedearbeiten, PIs. IV, 8; V, 14, 22; Clara Rhodos VI-VII, p. 450, Fig. 5. 1 2
6 Sammlung Baurat Schiller, PIs. 39, 40; BOSSERT, Gesch. d. Kunstgezoerbes IV, p. 149, Fig. I; Walters Art Gallery, Handb. of the Coll., p. 24. 7 HOGARTH, op, cit., PI. XXIX, 3, 7, 8; Iraq II, 1935, PI. XXVII, 2, 4. 8 LOUD, The Megiddo· Ivories, PI. 4, No. 2 b. 9 POULSEN, Der Orient u. d. fruhgr. Kunst, p. 46, Fig. 3I; Iraq II, PI. XXVI, 1. 10 MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie U: 2, PI. 338: 4 a, b.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
the gold plaque of Type 2 c are also the same type as on the Cypro-Phoenician silver bowls. ' Other plaques show strong Syrian influence, e. g., Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 1485' and 1487. The profile, hair-style, and general configuration of the woman in the upper panels are, however, stylistically similar to the women on the Idalion bronze bowl (p. 397), and thus show Cypriote traits. The nude goddess of No. 1487 grasping her breasts with each hand represents a Syrian type,> but the same type was adopted in Cyprus.' The figures of other plaques are distinctly Cypriote in style, while the small gold plaque, Type 2 d, is in Egyptian style. We thus see that the ultimate origin and the fashion represented by these plaques are largely Syrian; some of them may be Syrian or made by Phoenicians working in Cyprus, but the type was adopted by the Cypriotes already at the beginning of the Iron Age,5 and the figure decoration was modified according to Cypriote principles of art. Egyptian connections are only occasionally represented. The silver girdle of rectangular hinged plaques with bell-shaped pendants along their lower edge (Fig. 31) belongs typologically to the same sphere of culture as the plaques discussed above. The geometric and floral designs of the embossed decoration may well have been made by a Cypriote, but the style of the figure decoration betrays the Phoenician artist: the griffins and sphinxes with their wings raised from the middle of the body and the male deity, Bes, grasping lions and wild goats in his hands and dressed in an Assyrian mantle are of the same type as represented on the Cypro-Phoenician silver bowls (p. 161)." The Assyrian dress never occurs on products of purely Cypriote art. We may therefore consider this girdle as a Phoenician product, but it was probably made in Cyprus, because the style is very similar to that of the Cypro-Phoenician silver bowls; conventional trees of the same kind as on these bowls occur on the so-called girdle clasp,' a chalcedon scarab found in Cyprus is engraved with the same type of Bes grasping four animals in his hands, 8 as on the plaques of the girdle, and the cable-ornament is framed by lines.' The type of rectangular plaque with pendants at the lower edge and embossed decoration of deities and monsters, etc. was spread to the W., and we find its Greek version represented, e. g., by the well-known gold plaques from Rhodes.> It has long been recognized that the type of these Rhodian plaques was inspired by Syrian art." Once again we have evidence of the route of commerce and culture from Syria via Cyprus to Rhodes. A further development of this type is shown by Etruscan specimens." The bells (Fig. 26) are of the type recently studied by H. Mobius.> These bells were widely distributed in the Near East, in the Caucasus, in Assyria, and Syria. This type was
evidently introduced into Cyprus from Syria, where similar bells, e. g., in Sendjirli, have been found. 1
1 Opusc, archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. XI, 1946), Pis. VII, X. a The style of a similar plaque in Berlin is called "altsyrisch" by FURTWANGLER in Arch. Anz., 1891, p. 126. 3 Cf. p. 35 8. 4 Cf. p. 371, n. 7. 5 The earliest specimens found in Lapithos, Tomb 417, dating from Cypro-Geometric I (Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, p. 232). 6 The same type of sphinx on other Phoenician products of art: cf. p. 291, n. 10; p. 329, n. 12.
7 Cf. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTRR, Kypros, PI. XXV, 4. The ultimate origin of this type of tree, which may be a cypress, is Egyptian (op. cit., p. 77, Fig. 95). 8 Cf, op, cit., PI. C, 2. 9 POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 34, 78. 10 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., PI. XI. 11 POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 144 ff. 12 MILANI, Studi e mater. I, pp. 272 f., PI. VII, 2-4; cf. JENKINS, Dedalica, p. 89. 13 Marburger Studien, pp. 156 ff.; Arch. Anz., 1941, p. 32.
399
The horse-bits (Fig. 26) found in Cyprus are also clearly derived from Near Eastern specimens. Horse-bits of the type in question' have been found in, e. g., Assyria, Palestine, Egypt, Anatolia, and in Mycenae.' These horse-bits seem to range in time from c. 1500-800 B. C., but the decoration of Cypriote specimens shows that the type lingered on in the Archaic period.s and some Scythian horse-bits of the 5th and 4th cent. B. C. seem also to be derived from this type. 5 Blinkers and front-bands (Fig. 26) of the Cypriote type have been found at Lindos.» As pointed out by Blinkenberg;' very close parallels to the pieces of the Cypriote horsetrappings are found on sculptural representations from Sendjirli, and among the minor objects from Sendjirli recently published there are actual specimens in metal of the same type.' A specimen from Megiddo found in Stratum II and interpreted as a hoe or trowel se~~s to be a blin~er of this type. 9 Blinkers of this type seem to be ultimately of Egyptian O~IgIll. Actual sp~cImens have been found in the tomb of Tutankhamen.» They are provided WIth representations of eyes like some of the Cypriote specimens. The lamp-stands (Figs. 22, 27) are of two principal types. Type I, the lamp-stand with a fol~age capital composed of rows of lotus petals curled downward, is of Oriental origin. Outside Cyprus, where this type is very common, it has been found in different parts of the Near East and in Etruria. In Berlin there is a lamp-stand of the same type found at Sidon, .and other specimens from the same place are in the Istanbul Museum. They were found III .the tomb of Tabnit, who reigned at Sidon during the first part of the 5th cent. B. C:" FI~e fragments of such lamp-stands were discovered at Lindos.» and a fragmentary specimen IS among the finds from the Acropolis at Athens.v Further West, we meet this type in Etruria, where it has been found, e. g., at Cerveteri,» and in Sardinia, where it is preserved in the Museum at Cagliari.> Local versions and developments of this type of lamp-stand can be seen on a votive tablet from Lilybaeum,v on Carthagian votive stelae, 17 and on a bas-relief found at Tyre.v The objects depicted on these monuments differ from ~he lam~-stands in that the scrolled supports for the lamps are missing, and their place IS occupied by a bowl. They are probably to be interpreted as thymiateria, and should be compared with the limestone thymiaterion from Megiddo.v This consists of a shaft with foliage capital surmounted by an open bowl. 1 Marburger Studien, PI. 69: 2, 4-6; Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, PI. 48, a-c, e. a Arch. f. Orientforsch. XIV, 1941-1944, pp. 2 ff. 3 Ibid., p. 4; specimens from Beth-pelet (Beth-pelet I, PI. XXXVIII, 239) and Cyprus are not mentioned by Potratz in his paper quoted. 4 Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 3 841. 5 Arch. f. Orientforsch., XIV, p. 6. 6 Lindos I, Nos. 613-625, Pis. 24, 25. 7 Op. cit. I, p. 198 f., Fig. 25. 6 Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, pp. IIO f., Fig. 152, PI. 54, d. 9 LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, PI. 87: 16.
Cf, Arch. Anz., 1923/24, pp. 263 ff. HAMDY BEY & REINACH, Une necrop: royale a Sidon, p. 90, Fig. 35; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. IX, 1894, p. 207, Fig. I. 1. Lindos I, p. 209, Nos. 671-675, PI. 27. 13 DE RIDDER, Cat. d. bronzes de I'Acrop. d'Athenes, p. 13 1, No. 403; cf. Olympia IV, p. 125, n. I. 14 Mus. Greg. I, PI. LXXV, 2. 15 Inv, No. 22932. 16 PERROT & CHIPIEZ, op. cit. III, p. 309, Fig. 232. 17 Op. cit. III, p. 134, Figs. 82, 83. 18 Op. cit. III, p. 133, Fig. 81. 1. Tell el-mutesellim I: A, Frontispiece pp, 126 f., Fig. 190 (p. 128). 10
11
40 r
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
The lamp-stand, Type 2, is of Greek origin, but was already at the end of the 6th cent. B. C. (Cypro-Archaic II B) taken over by the Cypriotes, and formed part of their own metal industry. This is clearly shown by the fact that some lamp-stands are surmounted by a three-sided volute capital of the Cypriote type' in the style of the later part of the 6th cent. B. C.' A fragment of a lamp-stand surmounted by an Ionic capital was found in a tomb at Kurion.' The tomb had three chambers, and contained objects from several burials of different dates, the earliest dating from c. 500 B. C. and the latest from the end of the 4th cent. B. C.4 The shapeof the Ionic capital shows that the lamp-stand is a product of Greek workmanship, and must be considered as imported to Cyprus.' We have here a specimen of the Greek prototypes which served as models to the Cypriotes in their production of the lamp-stands of this type. This Hellenic type displaced the earlier Oriental lamp-stand, and continued with some modification in the Hellenistic period. In the Classical period a circular plate for receiving the lamp was added on the top of the stand. The disappearance of the Oriental lamp-stand in the Classical period and the Cypriote preference for the Hellenic type is entirely in accordance with the general tendency towards the hellenization of the cultural forms during the Classical period noticeable in various parts of Cypriote civilization (ef. pp. 502 ff.). A female bronze figurine with remains of a spike on the top ofthe head found at Kurionformed part of a candelabrum of Etruscan type,' and is probably an imported specimen. A similar candelabrum found by Ohnefalsch-Richter in Marion and kept in Berlin is unpublished. The saucer with a holder in the centre shaped like a large candlestick (Figs. 27, 37) has been called "cup and saucer" by Bliss and Macalister," "support d'aiguiere" by Vincent' and a "torch-holder" by Myres,» but Galling» has more correctly identified it as an incense-lamp. In Cyprus there are specimens of this type both in bronze and terracotta. Outside Cyprus we meet similar specimens in Palestine,» Egypt," Crete,> Athens,> Carthage," and the Punic territory'!' Watzinger> and Galling» believe this type of incense-
lamp to be Cypriote, but chronological reasons speak against that opmlOn. No Cypriote specimens can be assigned to a date earlier than the Archaic period.' In Crete it appears in Early Minoan, and other specimens date from Middle lVIinoan III. In Egypt it is found in the IVth and XIIth Dyn. and in Palestine during the Late Bronze Age. The origin of the type seems therefore to be in Egypt, from whence it spread to Minoan Crete, and was introduced into Palestine and Syria in the Late Bronze Age. It arrived in Cyprus from Syria, and was brought to the Punic colonies in the Archaic period. The ladle-shaped incense-burner provided with a flat handle pierced by a hole (Figs. 27, 37) is represented in terracotta and bronze. It already appears at the end of the Bronze Age (Late Cypriote III), and its cultural connections are discussed in Vol. IV: I. It cannot be doubted that it is derived from the Syro-Palestinian region,' and the variety decorated with a bull's head is also represented in the Late Bronze Age of Palestine- and in a less stereotyped form than later on in Cyprus. The cylindrical or conical cult utensil of tubular section (Fig. 37) belongs to a class of objects which has been much discussed. It has been interpreted as a censer, incense-stand, or offering-stand. True, there are specimens both in the Near East- and in the Aegean 5 which have served as offering-stands, and they may of course sometimes have been used as incense-stands, but another series of tubular vessels was used for another purpose. They must be compared with the well-known Minoan tube-shaped vessels which Nilsson,' accepting Zahn'st explanation, has interpreted as vessels used to receive libations poured into them. This explanation has been confirmed by a specimen from Megiddo which is surmounted by a-funnel-shaped bowl, from which the liquid was poured." These offering-receptacles are represented on many other sites in the Near East' and were also used in the cult of the dead.v The snakes modelled also on some of the Minoan specimens are considered to represent the goddess approaching to partake of the libations. This explanation has also been confirmed by the Palestinian specimens, where the snakes enter the tube through the holes in its walls. In the Cypriote specimen with the goddess represented standing in front of a door and the walls of the tube pierced by pigeon-holes for the doves a further development of the idea can be observed: the tube has become the permanent residence of the deity, its temple. The finds thus show us a developing movement within the range of the cult from the E. to the W. already in the Bronze Age, as rightly pointed out by Watzinger." The Cypriote finds date, however, from the Iron Age, and hitherto no Bronze Age predecessors have been found in Cyprus. This is most probably due to pure chance - only a few Bronze
1 RICHTER, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, p. 369, No. 1285; cf. Fig. 27: 19· • Cf. p. 217. 3 Exc. in Cyp., p. 67, Fig. 87. 4 Op. cit., pp. 82 f. The lower chronological limit of the burials in the tomb is there fixed at 400 B. C., but it also contained some later objects, including a silver tetradrachm of Alexander the Great (No. 37, p. 83)· 5 Specimens of similar stands are known from Rhodes (Lindos I, No. 668, PI. 26) and from Sardinia (Mus. of Cagliari, Inv. No. 2402; cf. Lindos I, p. 207). 6 Exc. in Cyp., p. 67, Fig. 83. 'GIGLIOLI, L'Arte Etrusca, PI. CCXVII, 3, 5; cf. specimens of the similar type, op. cit., PIs. CCX~CCXIII. s BLISS, A Mound of Many 'Cities, p. 84; BLISS & MACALISTER, Exc, in Palestine, p. 98. 9 VINCENT, Canaan, p. 342. 10 Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, p. '159; Cat, Cyp. Mus., p.66.
Zeitschr. deutsch. Paldst:»Ver. 46, 1923, p. 30. BLISS, op. cit., p. 87, Fig. 174; BLISS & MACALISTER, op. cit., p. 98, PI. 46, Nos. 6, 7; MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer, II, p. 184; III, PI. CLVIII, 5; SELLIN & WATZINGER, Jericho, Blatt 37: A, 63; Tell el-mutesellim I, PI. XXVII, i; FITZGERALD, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan II, p. 3, PIs. XLI, 26-28; XLIV, 14, IS; XLVII, 17, 18; LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I, pp. 171 f., PI. 38; Lachish II, PIs. XLIV A, B, Nos. 179-183. 13 EVANS, Pal. of Minos I, p. 578, Fig. 423 a; PETRIE, Illahun, Kahun and Gurob, PI. IV, 19· 14 EVANS, op, cit. I, Figs. 422, 423 b. 15 Cf. Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 66: "sp, of Dipylon style (Athens) Brit. Mus." 16 GAUCKLER, op. cit. I, PI. CLIII. 17 Mon. Ant. XIV, 1904, PI. XIX-XX, 6. 16 Tell el-mutesellim II, p. 40. 19 GALLING, Bibl. Reallex., p. 349. 11
I.
1 Incense-lamps with authenticated find contexts are two specimens found in Tomb 56 at Kition (Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, p. 159), dating from Cypro-Archaic I. One specimen found in Tomb 25 at Marion (Cat. Cyp. Mus., No. 963) cannot be dated with certainty, but is not earlier than the Archaic period, because the tomb contained vases with plastic decoration (Journ. Hell. Stud. XI, 1890, p. 40). a Quart. Dep. Antiq. Palest. IV, 1935, p. 37, No. 228; Syria X, 1929, pp. 288 f., Fig. 3; DUNAND, Fouilles de Byblos I, PI. CXXXIX, 1473. 3 Ill. London News, 191, 1937, p. 656, Fig. 8.
26
MAY, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult, pp. 20 ff. EVANS, Pal. of Minos II: I, pp. 133, 139, Figs. 67, 70 bis. 6 NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion, pp. 271 ff. , ZAHN, in KINCH, Vroulia, pp. 26 ff. " MAY, op, cit., p. 22, Fig. 7, PI. XX. 9 Cf. Tell el-mutesellim II, pp. 38 f.; MAY, op. cit., p. 20; PIs. XIX, XX; Lachish II, PIs. LIII, A, B. 10 Syria XIV, 1933, PI. IX, 4; PETRIE, Ancient Gaza I, PI. L, 96. 11 Tell el-mutesellim II, p. 39. 4
6
4°2
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
Age sanctuaries have been excavated in Cyprus, as we know - and in view of the fact that cult utensils of this kind continued to be used down to Archaic times,' it cannot be doubted that the analogous Cypriote specimens give evidence of connection with these Oriental utensils both in respect of form and cult, and most probably we have to reckon with direct influence from Syria. Perhaps we may not only reckon with a continuation of the cult in the W. from the Minoan period to Archaic times,> but also with a repeated and subsequent influence from the E., and from that point of view it is interesting to find Geometric and Archaic cult utensils of this kind in Rhodes, an island with which Cyprus was in close contact from the end of the Geometric period, as shown by the wealth of evidence. The offering-stand also goes back to a Bronze Age tradition,' and many varieties of this type are found both in the Near East and in Minoan-Mycenaean contexts.' We have thus similar connections as regards the offering-receptacle. These stands with the bowl fixed to the stem may be considered as a variety of the offering-stands mentioned above with detachable bowls. This is indicated by the fact that the stems of these stands are sometimes perforated like those with detachable bowls.' The terracotta models of chapels (Fig. 37) are closely related to the tubular vessels, which as we have seen, were considered as the abode of the deity, and show the same cultural connections. 6 The lamps (Figs. 22, 27, 37) are of two principal types: the saucer-shaped, Syrian type, with pinched wick-holder represented both in bronze and terracotta, and the lamp of Hellenic type. Lamps of the Syrian type appear in Cyprus already in Late Cypriote, and they are of Galling's Type 2. 7 The earliest Iron Age lamps appear occasionally in CyproGeometric II, and are rather rare even in Cypro-Geometric III. The Cypro-Geometric II lamp is deeper than the usual Syrian type, and is provided with a high and narrow base. These details of shape are probably Cypriote. The Syrian lamps- have sometimes a raised base, but are neither as high and narrow nor as deep as the Cypriote specimens. The lamps of Cypro-Geometric III are usually of Galling's Type 3. 9 Was there a break in the use of lamps in the early Geometric period (Cypro-Geometric I), and have we to account for a reintroduction of the Syrian type of lamp in Late Geometric times? The present material appears to indicate that such was the case, and we thus have parallel conditions in Cyprus to those in Greece, where the lamps disappear at the end of the Mycenaean period, and appear again as a result of the Oriental influence in the Archaic period.v Only further excavations and richer finds, particularly from habitation sites of the early Geometric period, can, however, answer the question. In any case it is certain that this type of lamp, though of Syrian origin, was subsequently manufactured in Cyprus as a native product, and the fact that there are lamps in Cyprus with raised base corresponding
to Galling's Type 4 1 does not necessarily imply that this technical development is due to a renewed Syrian influence, but may very well be a parallel Cypriote improvement. The similarity of the Syrian and Cypriote lamps, on the other hand, makes it impossible to ascertain to what degree Cyprus was responsible for the distribution of the type in Greece and other parts of the Mediterranean. The lamps of the Hellenic type are not made in Cyprus: clay, varnish and shapes are entirely Greek, and these lamps therefore give evidence of the Greek export trade to Cyprus. 2 Tripods of bronze (Fig. 27) appear in Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, and the Iron Age specimens of Types I and 2 represent a direct continuation and development of the Bronze Age types. The history of the rod-tripod (Type I) has recently been studied by P. J. Riis,» and I refer to his article for full details and references to earlier works. The earliest tripod so far discovered is that from Kurion,' and the present evidence indicates Cyprus as the original home of this type of tripod.' The tripod found at Beth-shan- may well be an import from Cyprus. It dates from the rzth cent. B. C. Connections with Greece are proved by the finds of similar tripods in Tiryns,' Vrokastro, 8 Knossos,' and Pnyx.> The tripod from Tiryns seems to date from the first half of the I I th cent. B. C. The Vrokastro and Knossos tripods are Proto-Geometric; the Pnyx tripod, which can be assigned to the 9th cent. B. C., is the latest specimen of Cypriote tripods of this type hitherto found in Greece. The Pnyx tripod is so closely similar to the Cypriote specimens that it must be imported, and the tripod from Knossos, Tomb E, may also be imported, while those from Vrokastro and Knossos, Tomb 3, seem to be Greek imitations of the foreign models. Fragments of other tripods and clay models carry these imitations of an increasingly modified form down to the 6th cent. B. C.11 These rod-tripods spread as far as Etruria.> The Greeks did not, however, only imitate the Cypriote models, but improved the type by omitting non-essential elements, as pointed out by Riis,» and further developed it creating the "Ornate Greek group" and the "Bead-and-Reel group".» Closely associated with this Cypriote rod-tripod is the four-legged stand. Even this type goes back to the Late Bronze Age. 1 5 No specimen of indisputable Iron Age date has yet been found in Cyprus. One of the Bronze Age specimens from Cyprus, and said to come from the region of Larnaka, is provided with wheels. Furtwangler has drawn attention
ZAHN, in KINCH, op. cit., pp. 32 f.; NILSSON, op, cit., p. 273. ZAHN, in KINCH, op. cit., p. 32. 3 Cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CLXXXVII, I (stand to the left) and Vol. IV: I. • NILSSON, op. cit., pp. 107 f.; MAY, op, cit., pp. 20 ff., PI. XX. Lachish II, PIs. LIII, A, B. 1
2
Op, cit., p. 23. Gp. cit., pp. 13 ff, 7 Zeitschr. deutsch. Paldsti-Ver, 46, 1923, pp. 9. 8 Cf. op, cit. 61, 1938, p. 207. 9 Op, cit. 46, 1923, pp. I I f. 10 Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. XXVII, 1912, p. 56. 5
6
Zeitschr. deutsch, Paldst.i-Ver, 46, 1923, p. 12. For Greek counterparts, see WALTERS, Cat. Greek and Rom. Lamps, Brit. Mus., London 1914; WALDHAUER, Die ant. Tonlampen, St-Petersburg 1914; BRONEER, Terracotta Lamps (Corinth IV, Part II), Cambridge, Mass. 1930. 3 Acta archaeol. X, 1939, pp. I ff. • RICHTER, op, cit., No. 118o. 5 Rns (in Acta archaeol. X, pp. 9 f.) suggests that this type of tripod was invented "in the Phoenician sphere", i. e., the area compr\sing eastern Cyprus and the opposite Tyrian mainland, and he draws attention to the fact that eastern Cyprus and Syria in many respects formed one single cultural area in the Late Bronze Age as later in CyproGeometric III and Cypro-Archaic I (cf. pp. 288 ff., 357 f., 444, 4 61). 1 2
Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1934, p. 133, PI. VII, 3. 'ApX a w). . Lhh. 2, 1916, Suppl., p. 20, PI. I, Fig. 21. 3 HALL, Vrokastro, pp. 132 ff., Fig. 80; PI. XXXIV, I. 9 Ann. Brit. School Athens VI, p. 83; HALL, op, cit., p. 132 f., PI. XXXIV, 2; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. XXXVI, 1921, p. 104 (Tomb 3); Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXV, p. 113, n. I; Journ. Hell. Stud. LV, 1935, p. 167 (Tomb E). 10 Athen, Mitt. XVIII, 1893, p. 414, PI. XIV; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst, XXXVI, 1921, p. 103, Beil., Fig. 10. 11 Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXV, p. 125. 12 Bull. di Paletnologia Italiana N. S. III. 1939, p. 155, Fig. 2: 2 (p. 149); cf. Fig. 4. 13 Acta archaeol. X, 1939, pp. 10 ff, 14 Ibid., pp. 12 ff. 15 Exc, in Cyp., p. 10, Fig. 18; Iraq II, 1935, p. 209, PI. XXVIII; CASSON, Ancient Cyprus, pp. 128 f., PI. VIII. 8
7
FOREIGN REL.ATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
to the fact that these stands and particularly those on. wheels tally with the description of the mekonoth made by the Tyrian coppersmith Hiram for the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem! In the American excavations at Megiddo, a bronze stand of the same type as that of.Kurion was found.s It has been assigned to Stratum V of Megiddo (d.p. 421), and thus belongs to the beginning of the Iron Age. A modified .specimen of this type can be reconstructed from fragments found in the Idaean cave on Crete,s and the magnificent find from Capodimonte di Bolsena shows that this type even reached Italy, where it was modified in a characteristic way. 4 . The tripod, Type 2, also begins its Cypriote history in the Late Bronze Age, and we can follow its development down to Archaic times. We can assign the tripod, Fig. 27, to that period, to judge by its style. This type of tripod is also depicted on Cypriote metal bowls from Cypro-Geometric III Band Cypro-Archaic II A.5 No specimens of this type of tripod have been found in Greece. It is figured on the bronze bowl from the Idaean cave", but this bowl closely imitates Syrian prototypes. We can, however, follow its penetration further to the "V., where it became the model of a great group of tripods representing a native development of the foreign prototypes and found. both in Etruria and in Latium.' . In Etruria we find a numerous group of tripods. by Riis called "the Fittings group",' This type .is an Etruscan development of the Early Greek rod-tripod mentioned above. Fittings of bulls' heads from. a tripod of this kind have been found in Cyprus,' and we have therefore evidence of an import of Etruscan tripods to Cyprus. The style of the bulls' heads confirms the evidence given by the type of the tripod that we are dealing with a specimen of Etruscan workmanship, as pointed out by Riis.« The tripods thus enable us to trace the route of commerce from Cyprus to Greece and Etruria, and they also show us the reciprocal movement from Etruria to Cyprus, but they form no proof .of a direct intercourse between Cyprus and Etruria. Other considerations speak against this, as we have seen (p. 316). The reels (Figs. 32, 36).were probably used for winding thread. Similar reels have been found in Rhodes,> and there are other specimens of unknown provenance, but probably from Italy,> in the British Museum. The Rhodes specimens are embossed with figure designs, 'of Eros, Thetis, or a Nereid riding on a dolphin, and the head of Helios,all in Greek style of the late 5th and 4th cent. B. C. These reels are therefore obviously of Greek
ongm, and the speCImens from Cyprus give evidence of the Greek connections with the island. We may continue with a survey of the foreign relations illustrated by the metal vases (Figs. 28, 29, 33, 36). The hemispherical or somewhat shallow bowl with rounded base and the shallow bowl with flattened base (Bronze bowls, Types I, 2) represent a continuation of Late Bronze Age types.: The shallow bowl with base-ring or raised base (Bronze bowls, Type 3) is represented on the Asiatic mainland already in the Late Bronze Age,2 and it also appears in stone at the end of the Bronze Age in Cyprus.' Weare thus concerned with an Eastern type inherited from the end of the Bronze Age. The shallow bowl with double-curved sides, rounded base, and flat rim (Bronze bowls, Type 6) is also found in Greece- and the Etruscan territory,' and in spite of the simple form, I find the identity in shape so remarkable that I do not doubt that a connection exists between the Cypriote, Greek, and Etruscan specimens, particularly in consideration of the fact that they are contemporary, as shown by Cypro-Archaic 1 imitations in pottery of the bronze prototypes (d. p. 217). The type may have been introduced into Italy via. Rhodes, the route by which the Cypriote products and motifs very often reached the Western Mediterranean. A characteristic type of bowl with raised rim is represented in Cyprus both in bronze and silver (Bronze bowls, Type 7; Silver bowls, Types 6,7,9, 10). Several varieties can be distinguished. The bowl is shallow or rather deep, has a round· base or base-ring; the raised rim is usually concave and splayed, but sometimes almost straight; the body may be plain, ribbed, or provided with embossed ornaments of floral motifs. The ultimate origin of this decoration seems to be Egypt," but the bowls are certainly not Egyptian products. Their home of origin lies in the Near East.' Armenia- and North Syria> have been suggested as the homeland of the metal industry of which these bowls are characteristic products, but on the evidence of our available material it is impossible to settle exactly the question of the ultimate origin of this type of bowl. We must content ourselves with the more vague statement of a Near Eastern origin, and there were certainly several local factories, both in the Near East itself and in other countries to which the type penetrated. Bowls of this type have been found in numerous places all over the Near East, in Anatolia,> Armenia,v in the Caucasus," and as far distant as S. of the Ural mountains in Prokhorovka.> in many
1 Sitz.ber. Akad.Wiss. Munchen, 1,899, II, pp. 411 ff.; FURTWANGLER, Kleine Schriften II, pp. 298 if. 2 MAY, op.cit., pp. 19 f., PI. XVIII; LAMON & SHIPTON, MegiddoI, PI. 89. 3 Arch. f. Rel.zoiss. VIII, Beiheft, 1905,PP. 62 ff.; cf. Mus. Ital. di antich. class. II, 1888, Atl., PI. XI. 4 Not. Scaoi, 1928, PI. VIII. It-may be ·that the support of, the ex voto silver crater of Alyattes .was of this shape (Herod. 1,25; Athen. V, 210b-c). We do not know whether the support was a tripod or four-legged. (cf. Arch. Rel.zoiss. VIII, Beiheft, pp. 54 ff., 57, 64), but it was probably a fourlegged'stand, because' it is described as.tower-shaped (Paus. X, 16, 2). We know also that it tapered upwards like the stand from Capodimonte (Paus., loc. cit.). For the relation of the
specimen from Capodimonte di Bolsena to Cypriote art, cf, HANFMANN, Altetrusk. Plastik I, pp. 83 f., 102, 107, 116 f. 5 Cf. Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. 4, 8; Pis. I, III. "Mus. Ital. di antich, class. II, Ad., PI. IX, 3. 7 Rom. Mitt. XII, 1897, pp. 3 ff., Figs. 3, 4; Athen, Mitt. XLV, 1920, pp. 129 f.; Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXV, p. 125. a Acta archaeol, X, 1939, pp. 18 if. 9 RICHTER, op. cit"Nos. 1182-1187. 10 Acta archaeol. X, p. 21, 11 Brit•.Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 2067-2069; ct. Journ. Hell. Stud. XXIX, 1909, pp. 165 f., Fig. 18. 12 Brit. Mus. Cat., Jewell., Nos. 2065-2066. These once belonged. to the. Castellani Collection.
GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, p. 238, Vases Nos. 1,-2. Beth-pelet I, PL XXX, 112; 11, Pis. XLVIII, 37; LV, 320; GUY & ENGBERG, Megiddo Tombs, p. 189, -Fig. 186: 6; Pis. 119:4; 123: 19; 124: 20, 21. 3 Swed. Cyp. Exp.lI, PL CLXXXIV, 18. 4 PAYNE, Perachora, PI. 62: 7. 5 Mem, Amer. Acad. Rome V, 1925, p. 49 PI. 38: 2: " Berytus IV, 1937, pp. 122, 127, with further references. 7 Ibid., pp. 121 ff., 127; Klio XXX, 1937, pp. 110 ff., 114; Bull. Vereen. Beuord. der Kennis Ant. Beschav., XVI, 1941, pp. I if. a Festschr. zu C. F. Lehmann-Haupts 60. Geburtst. p. 145; Arch. Mitt. aus Iran VII, 1935, p. 6;'SCHACHERMEYR, Etrusk, Friihgesch., pp. 300 if. 1 2
KUNZE, Kret. Bronzerel., pp. 272 f. BITTEL & GUTERBOCK, Bogazkiiy, p. 53, PL 21: 2 (Boghazkeui); PRZEWORSKI, Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens, pp. 123 f., PI. X, 7 (Kerkenes Dagh): Arch. Mitt. aus Iran VII,p. 4, PI. IV (Duzje). 11 LEHMANN-HAUPT, Material. z. alt. Gesch. Armen. u, Mesopot.,p. '100, ··Fig. 71; id., Armen. einstu.jetzt 11:2, pp. 506, 589 (Toprakkaleh); DALTON, The Treasure of the Oxus, No. 180, PI. XXIII (Erzingan), 12 PERROT & CHiPIEZ,Op. Cit. Ill, p. 792 Fig. 554; CHANTRE; Recherches anthrop, dans le Caucase 11, PI. XXXII, 3. 13 ROSTOVTZEFF. Iranians & Greeks in S. Russia, p. 123, PI. XXIV, I. 9
10
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
places in Syria- and Palestine,' in Mesopotamia,' in Luristan,' and Chusistan.' Bowls of this type penetrated into Egypt, 6 and were also diffused westwards to Greece and Italy. In Greece the variant with embossed lotus ornaments was highly favoured,' while the plain and ribbed variants are common in Etruria, Latium, and Campania. F. Matz enumerates 107 specimens from Italy without pretending to give a complete list.' The earliest safely dated specimens from the Near East can be assigned to the 9th cent. B. C.,· while the earliest bowls of those found in Greece and Italy are not earlier than the 7th cent. or perhaps the end of the 8th cent. B. C.I0 These chronological interrelations confirm that this type of bowl was originally at home in the Near East," where they also lingered on later than in the W.12 The distribution of these bowls in the Near East, Greece and Italy provides us again with evidence of the commercial route from Syria via Cyprus to Greece and Italy. All the bowls found in the W. were certainly not imported from the Orient; many of them were made in local factories by Greek and Etruscan craftsmen in imitation and development of the foreign models. In Greece the ribbed ornamentation was developed in a characteristic way into the so-called tongue pattern." A silver bowl from Vouni (Fig. 33: 10) shows Greek influence indicated by the tongue pattern around the neck, and if we examine the Scythian material, we find specimens of silver bowls which represent a development and modification of the type in question. Such bowls are known from Kul Oba14 and 'I'shmyrev.> The shape of the vessels is Scythian, and is also represented in Scythian pottery,> where the neck is wider than that of the silver bowls and therefore more closely related to the Near Eastern type under discussion. These narrow-necked Scythian bowls can thus be considered as a local modification and development of the Near Eastern metal bowls of this type, which appear to have penetrated into the Scythian region together with the many other Near Eastern elements found there and served as models to the native artists. The bowls found at Kul Oba can be assigned to the 4th cent. B. C.,17 and the Tshmyrev bowl must be contemporary
with these. They are therefore about a century later than the Vouni bowl referred to above. This chronological difference may also account for the narrow-necked, more advanced shape of the Scythian specimens. One of the Kul Oba bowls' has also been decorated by a Scythian artist, but the others and the Tshmyrev bowl indicate a Greek silversmith working for the Scythian market.' We have here a parallel to the artistic connections of the Vouni bowl: the same Near Eastern shape taken over in Cyprus has been decorated in the Greek style. It is symptomatic that this combination of Eastern shapes and Greek decoration occur in Cyprus and in the Scythian region: two countries where the Greeks came into permanent contact with Oriental elements. Another type of bowl which is of interest in view of the foreign relations of Cyprus is the hemispherical bowl with the handle surmounted by a lotus flower (Bronze bowls, Type 8 a). Bowls of this type are known from several places outside Cyprus. A specimen of this type was among the finds of an Achaemenid tomb in Til-Barsib.' In Tumulus III at Gordian such a bowl was found,' and a fragment of a faience bowl with the same type of handle as on the metal bowls is among the finds from Megiddo.' In Greece and Italy a considerable number of these bowls has been discovered. We know specimens from Olympia,' Delphi,' and the Argive Heraion.' Cretan bowls of this type have also been found, in the Idaean cave,' in a tomb at Kavousi,» Arkades and Praises," and they penetrated further W., to Italy, where they stimulated the Etruscan metal industry to a rich development and modification of the foreign models. A basin with lotus handles occurs among the finds from Cumse.v From Vetulonia there are specimens which are Etruscan imitations of the foreign prototypes, and the lotus ornament also occurs on other Etruscan vessels than bowls." On the other hand, a handle from a pozzo tomb at Polledrara of Vulci» is identical with the Cypriote type and must therefore be considered as import. A handle from the tomb with the Boken-ranf faience vase> is similar to the handle from Vetulonia mentioned above and therefore indicates Etruscan workmanship. A further development of the foreign prototypes is represented by a bowl and a handle from the Bernardini» and Barberiniv tombs at Praeneste. The handles of the Bernardini bowl are not only decorated with lotus flowers, but also with bulls' heads, and the handle in the Barberini tomb has a gorgeous, richly developed lotus ornament, with an open work section above, surmounted by portions of hinged sections. This handle
1 Ann. Arch. fgj Anthrop, Liverp. VII, 1914-16, PI. XXI, 1-5 (Deve HUyiik); XXVI, 1939-40, PI. XVII, d (Carchemish); Ausgrab, in Sendschirli V, p. 118, Fig. 165, PI. 56, d, e, i; Syria XIII, 1932, PI. XXXVII, 21, 22 (Khan Sheikhun); SCHAEFFER, Ugaritica I, p, 49, Fig. 38; American College, Beirut, Nos. 4902, 4976 (Horns). 2 MACALISTER, Exc. of Gezer I, p. 293, Fig. 154: 4, 7; p. 294, Fig. 155; p. 295, Fig. 156; Beth-pelet I, Pis. XXVIII, 756; XLVII. 3 THuREAu-DANGIN & DUNAND, Til-Barsib, p. 75, PI. XVIII, 4; bowls of this type in the Tell Halaf Museum, Berlin; ANDRAE, Das wiedererstandene Assur, p. 129, PI. 63, c; BITTEL & GUTERBOCK, op, cit., p, 53, n. 3 (Nineveh); LAYARD, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 190, Fig. (Nimrud); Iraq I, 1934, PI. XVII, c (Barghuthiat), though to judge from the
photo of the bowl it has not a raised rim. 4 GODARD, Les bronzes du Luristan, PI. LXIII, No. 226; Arch. Mitt. aus Iran VII, 1935, p. 5, Fig. I; POPE& ACKERMAN, A Survey of Persian Art I, p. 273, Fig. 65, e. 5 DeUg. en Perse VIII, p. 43, PI. 3. 6 Cairo Mus. Inv. Nos. 38096, 38099, 38113, 38869, 47602; v . BISSING, Metallgefdsse (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire),
Nos. 3520, 3581-85; VERNIER, Bijoux et orfeoreries (Cat. gen. Mus. Caire), Pis. CVIII-CXIII. The silver bowls from Thmuis described in the catalogues quoted have been assigned to widely different periods, from the Saitic to the late Ptolemaic, but there seems to be no doubt that they are pre-Hellenistic (cf. Berytus IV, 1937, pp. 127 ff.), 7 Fouilles de Delphes V. p. 90, Fig. 306; Clara Rhodos III, p. 109, Fig. 103; VIII, p. 179, Fig. 168; PAYNE, Perachora, PI. 56: 3, 4· 8 Klio XXX, 1937, pp. 110 ff. • Ibid., p. 114. 10 Ibid., p, 112. 11 P. ]ACOBSTHAL (in Prdhist, Zeitschr. XXV 1934, p. 272) has advanced the false idea that the oriental bowls are imports from Italy. 12 Berytus IV, 1937, pp. 123 ff, 13 Klio XXX, 1937, p. 115. 14 MINNS, Scythians and Greeks, p. 198, Fig. 91, 15 Arch. Ans.; 1910, p. 225, Fig. 24. 16 MINNS, op, cit .. p. 82, Fig. 25; cf. pp. 287 ff. 17 They can be assigned to that date on the evidence of the style of the Greek objects found in the tomb; cf. op, cit .. pp. 195 ff; 2t8.
lOp. cit., p. 198, Fig. 91: I; cf. pp. 267, 288. Op. cit., p. 288. 3 THuREAu-DANGIN & DUNAND, op, cit., p. 75, PI. XVIII, 9. 4 KORTE, Gordion, p. 72, Fig. 5 I. 5 Tell el-mutesellim II, pp. 74 ff., Fig. 68. 6 Olympia IV, No. 911, PI. LV. 7 Fouilles de Delphes V, p. 73. Figs. 240, 241, 6 WALDSTEIN, Arg: Heraeum II, p. 288, No. 2055, PI. CXIX. • In the National Mus. at Athens; cf, Tell el-mutesellim II, p. 76, n. I. 10 In the Candia Museum; cf. KORTE, Gordion, p. 93. Geometric vases are reported from the tombs of the necropolis where the bowl was discovered, but the contents of 2
the particular tomb which contained the bronze bowl are unknown. nAnn. Scuola Arch. Athene X-XII, 1931, pp. 473 f. Figs. 590-a,-b; cf. p. 472, n. 6. 12 Mon. Ant. XIII, p. 251, Fig. 27. 13 MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie II: I, PI. 179: 7; FALCHI, Vetulonia, Pis. X, 12; XV, 24; RANDALL-MAcIVER, Villanov. and Early Etrusc., Pis. 21, 24. 14 MONTELIUS, op, cit. II: 2, PI. 258: 9. 150p. cit. II: 2, PI. 295: 4; RANDALL-MAcIVER, op, cit., p. 164, Fig. 57. 16 Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome III 1919, PI. 51, 17 Op. cit. V, 1925, PI. 36.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
is a magnificent specimen of the Etruscan development of the lotus ornament and its combination with other decorative elements. The bowls with lotus handles are most numerous in Cyprus, where they are also represented in pottery,' stone," and faience.' The hemispherical bowl with round base is a Cypriote shape of old tradition. Finally, these bowls with lotus handles appear earliest in Cyprus, where the earliest specimen found in a safely dated context can be assigned to the end of Cypro-Geometric I or the very beginning of Cypro-Geometric II, i. e., c. 950 B. C.4 All this indicates that the bowls are of Cypriote origin, and their appearance, outside Cyprus, in Palestine, Greece, and Italy thus gives evidence of the cultural connections of Cyprus with these countries. The bowls with handles attached to a tubular flange (Bronze bowls, Type 10) are known from the N. W. palace at Nimrud,' and imitations of such bowls with tubular flange are also known from Gezer, Jericho, Tell el-Ful, Megiddo,' and other sites in Palestine and Syria.v The metal bowls of this type are only occasionally found in Cyprus, and their shape was never incorporated in the stock types of the Cypriote metal industry. They are moreover so closely akin to those found at Nimrud that there is every reason to consider them as imported to Cyprus from the E. Fragments of similar bronze vases consisting of the typical omega-shaped handle attached to a tubular flange are also known from Delphi" and the Argive Heraion." A bowl with a small flange, but otherwise of the same type as the other, was found in the Idaean cave in Crete,13 and handles with tubular flanges of this modified type are also known from Lindos.': A further Eastern type is represented by the bowls with handles fastened in spools (Bronze bowls, Type 12). This type is represented among the finds from Niniveh." Two' bowls with the same spool-shaped ornaments around the rim as on one of the Cypriote bowls were found in the Isis tomb at Polledrara,> and fragments of similar bowls are reported from Olympia» and the Argive Heraion.v Bowls with spool-shaped handles found their way even. to Egypt» and in Greece the spool-shaped handle of vessels of different kinds': is a very common feature, as we know. It was varied and further developed by the Greek metal industry in manifold ways. These handles were used on bowls, basins,cauldrons, and "kothons". They were often imitated on Milesian dinoi, Corinthian "kothons" and other terracotta vases."
The omphalos bowl (Bronze bowls, Types 4, 5; Silver bowls, Type 4) is of Near Eastern origin,' and different varieties of this bowl are very common in the Orient. Once introduced in Greece it became very popular there, and appears in many varieties from the 7th cent. B. C. and onwards.' It was also diffused to Italy.' In Cyprus bowls with a central boss are earlier, and are represented at least from the 8th cent. B. C. (Bronze bowl, Type 5; cf. p. 360 n. 2). The Cypriote shallow omphalos bowls, represented both in bronze and silver, are exactly similar to the Greek specimens,' so that we may very well consider Cyprus to have contributed to the penetration of this type westwards, though bowls of the same shape are also found outside Cyprus in the Near East. 5 The silver bowls from Cyprus with the central boss surrounded by a. gold band embossed with lotus flowers and palmettes- prove that this type of bowl was actually manufactured in Cyprus, as shown by the form of the palmettes with volutes of Cypriote type and the lotus flowers of the threepetalled type, which also occurs in Cyprus.' A deep ladle (Fig. 29) with the handle attached by a hinge, identical with the corresponding Cypriote type, has been found in Lindos' and Blinkenberg is certainly correct in considering the Rhodian specimen as an import from Cyprus, but a similar type is also found in Syria," and the close connection between Cyprus and the Asiatic mainland is thus once more proved. The shallow ladle with a long, perpendicular handle already occurs in Greece in the Late Bronze Age,10 and it was later a common Greek type known both from actual specimens and illustrations on vases." The terminal in the shape of a swan's head has Oriental predecessors," butthe Cypriote specimens which date from the Classical period resemble exactly the Greek specimens, and are evidently derived from them. On the other hand, the deep Cypriote ladle mentioned above and dating from Cypro-Archaic II is also provided with a handle ending in a swan's head, and this type of handle is therefore probably of Oriental derivation in Cyprus, too. The stone ladle formed as a swimming girl holding a bowl (Fig. 39) is of Egyptian derivation,» and this form was widely spread in the Mediterranean. The handle-ridge jugs (Silver jugs, Type I) and the jugs with upwards tapering neck and pinched rim (Bronze jugs, Types S, 6; Silver jugs, Type 2) are ultimately of Syrian origin, as already mentioned in the chapter on the foreign relations of the pottery (p. 296), but these shapes were incorporated into the Cypriote repertory of forms. Of pure Cypriote
6
7
6
1 Fig. XLIII, 20; cf. Handb.Cesn. Coll., Nos. 495-496. 2 In Berlin as mentioned in Olympia IV, p. 146. 3 Fig. 38: 33. 4 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. II8. 5 LAYARD, op, cit., pp. 183~I85 (Figs.). 6 MACALISTER, op, cit. III, PIs. XCI, 8; CLXXIV, 18. 7SELLIN & WATZINGER, Jericho, P.140,No. 55. 8. Ann. Amer. Sch. Orient. Res. IV, 1924, p. 14, PI. XXX, 15, 16. 9 Tell el-mutesellim II, pp. 59 f., Fig. 56. 10 Op. cit. II, p. 60. 11 Fouilles de Delphes V, p. 79, Figs. 276, 277. 12 WALDSTEIN, op, cit. II, PI. CXXI, No. 2074. 13 Mus. Ital. di antich. class. II, Ad.,. PI. XII, 10.
14 Lindos I, Nos. 709 ff., PI. 29. 15 In the British Museum; cf. RICHTER, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, No. 537. 16 MICALl, Monum. ined., p. 68, PI. VIII, 2 (the drawing is inexact). 17 Olympia IV, No. 852. 18 WALDSTEIN, op, cit. II, Nos. 2215. 2216, PI. CXXIII. 19 V. BISSING, op. cit., No. 3544. 20 Olympia IV, Nos. 841 ff.; Fouilles de Delphes V, p. 78, Figs. 268 ff.; WALDSTEIN, op, cit. II, Nos. 2131 ff.; PIs. CXXI f.; Lindos I, Nos. 714 ff., PI. 30. 21 Cf. Monum. Piot I, 1894, PI. IV; Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. XIV, 1899, pp. 62 f.; Journ Hell. Stud. XXXI, 19II, pp. 73 ff.
1 LUSCHEY, Die Phiale, Bleicherode a. H. 1939 (not accessible to me)' PAYNE, op, cit., pp. 151 f.; cf, also Ausgrab. in Sendschirli V, pp. 117 f., PI. 56. 2 PAYNE, op, cit., pp. 149 ff, 3 Cf. Exc. at Olynthus X, p. 183, n. 5. 4 Cf. Olympia IV, PI. LII, 879; Fouilles de Delphes V, p. 90, Figs. 304, 305; WALDSTEIN, op, cit. II, PI. CXV, 1980; HOGARTH, Exc. at Ephesus, PI. XV, 13; Lindos I, PI. 31, No. 749, and other specimens mentioned by PAYNE, op, cit. p. 15°· 5 Cf. e. g. Syria IX, 1928, p. 198, Fig. 4 d; Ann. Arch. f!j Anthrop, Liverp. XXVI, 1938, PI. XVII, d 2. 6 CESNOLA, Atlas III, PI. XXXVII,. 4. 7 Cf. p. 29 1 •
8 Ltndos I, PI. 32, No. 793. 9 Syria IX, 1928. p. 198, Fig. 4, b. 10 E. g. 'E'f"fjp.. 'ApXawL, 1889, PI. 7: 17. 11 RICHTER, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes, Nos. 648, 652; DE RIDDER, .Bronzes antiq. du Louvre 11, Nos. 3060, 3°69, PI. 108; Olympia IV, No. 886. p. 143; SCHUMACHER, Beschr. d. Samml. ant. Bronzen, PI. XII, 20 ff.; DE RIDDER, Cat. d. bronzes de la Soc. Archeol. d'Athenes, No. 106, with further references; Clara Rhodos III, p. 244, Fig. 241; Exc. at Olynthus X, pp. 195 f. 12 PETRIE & MACKAY, Heliopolis, PI. XXX, 3; Beth-pelet I, PI. XXVII 817, 829; Mem. Amer. .Acad. Rome III, 1919, PI. 26. ra E. g., BOSSERT, Gesch. d. Kunstgewerbes IV, p. 104, Fig. I.
4 10
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND
shapes, also represented in pottery, are the bronze jugs, Types 2, 4, 7 and the silver jug, Type 3. The bowl with splayed rim and foot (Bronze bowls, Type 9) is exactly similar to specimens of the "Ionian bowl" fabric, and may be an import.' In any case it is very close to the Ionian prototypes. A typical Greek shape is represented by the Vouni silver skyphos (Type 11), which is most probably of Greek workmanship or made in imitation of the Greek prototypes. Common Greek types are also the basin with out-turned rim and erect handles below the rim (Bronze bowls, Type 13),' and the jug with depressed oval body, moulded rim, and elevated handle from rim to shoulder, where it ends in an ivy leaf (Bronze jugs, Type 3).3 For the stylistic development and artistic interrelations of the decorated metal bowls, I refer to what I have written in another context.' We know that there was an early industry of metal bowls in Egypt from the XVlIIth Dyn. onwards," and the excavations at Ugarithave yielded us two magnificent specimens of decorated gold bowls, which give evidence of another centre of manufacture in Syria during the Late Bronze Age. These workshops continued to operate in the Iron Age, both in Egypt' and in the Near East, where a rich deposit of decorated metal bowls has been discovered at Nimrud. In this context I cannot discuss the stylistic problems raised by the metal bowls of Nimrud, but must limit myself to the statement that we evidently have to reckon with a number of schools working in Egypt and different centres of the Near East. A branch of the Near Eastern industry of decorated metal bowls was established in Cyprus during the 8th cent. B. C. so far as our present evidence goes. Different groups can be distinguished: the Proto-Cypriote, the Neo-Cypriote, the Cypro-Egyptian, the Cypro-Phoenician, and the Cypro-Greek. The products of the Proto-Cypriote school show very distinct Proto-Cypriote stylistic features at the beginning, but towards the end they are influenced by the technically superior Cypro-Phoenician school. One bowl dating from the 7th cent. B. C. (the second stage of the Proto-Cypriote group) is reported to have been found at Sparta,' a bowl from the Idaean cave in Crete also shows strong influence from the Proto-Cypriote group, and we thus have evidence of export to Greece of the Proto-Cypriote metal bowls. The N eo-Cypriote group carries on ProtoCypriote traditions, but is subject to strong Cypro-Phoenician and Egyptian influence. The products of the Cypro-Egyptian group are Cypriote works imitating Egyptian prototypes, and bowls of Egyptian workmanship have been found in Cyprus.> The artistic elements of the Cypro-Phoenician school are mainly Syrian, but they show a steadily increasing Egyptian influence. The school was probably established in Cyprus by its Phoenician colonists. The products were occasionally spread to the Etruscan territory in Italy, B
1 Cf, KINCH, Vroulia, PI. 8: 2. A bronze specimen from Perachora (PAYNE, op, cit., PI. 58: 2) has a higher foot and deeper body. Also its rim is more raised. • Lowv, Polygnot, PI. 18. 3 RICHTER, op, cit., No. 50S; SCHUMACHER, op, cit., PI. X, 9; FURTWANGLER, Beschr, Vasensamml. im Antiquarium II, PI. VI, 206; BIEBER, Die ant. Skulpturen u. Bronzen in Cassel, PI. LII, 383, 384; Clara Rhodos III, p. 253, Fig. 250.
• Opusc, archaeol. IV, pp. I ff. " J ahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst. XXXVIII/XXXIX, 1923/24, pp. 189 ff. 8 Syria XV, 1934, pp. 124 ff.; PIs. XV, XVI. , Jahrb. deutsch, arch. Inst. XXXVIII/XXXIX, pp. 191 fr. B LAYARD, Monum. of Nineveh II, PIs. 57-68. • Ann. Brit. School Athens XXXVII, p. 95. 10 SCHAFER Agypt. Goldschmiedearbeiten, pp. 65 ff., PI. 15.
CRAFTS
e. g., one of the bowls from Praeneste,' while other bowls from Praeneste,' Caere- and Salerno' are much less related to the Cypro-Phoenician bowls hitherto known, and may be products of a Syro-Phoenician school, to which the Cypro-Phoenician group forms a parallel series." It is a well-known fact that the decoration of these metal bowls has exercised a strong influence upon that of the Rhodian pinakes.' On the other hand, the Cypro-Greek class of the metal bowls shows clear influence from Greek art of the later part of the 6th cent. B. C. Of the faience vases (Fig. 38), we have already discussed the bowl with the handle surmounted by a lotus flower, and we have seen that this type of vase is Cypriote (p. 408). The aryballos of the bombylos type may be of Naukratite manufacture.' The shape, made popular by the Corinthian potters, goes back ultimately to the Egyptian "kohl-pot". The Greeks added a handle, and so the bombylos with flat base was created. A later modification is the bombylos with round base. The bombylos aryballos in faience was widely spread in the Mediterranean.· The localization of the aryballos decorated with a doublehead is not certain, but the style of the heads shows the characteristic type which is found in Phoenician art." The duck-shaped vase also indicates Syrian relations." The type was spread westwards to Greece,12 where it became ratherpopular in pottery. In the collections of University College, London, there is a faience juglet found in Egypt and probably at Naukratis.v The shape of the juglet evidently imitates a Black-on-Red I (III) prototype with depressed body, funnel-neck, and a handle from neck to shoulder.> It is decorated with encircling lines around rim and neck, and circles with central dot on the body. The circles are drawn by free hand, while the Cypriote prototypes are always compass-drawn. For the foreign relations of the alabaster vases found in Cyprus I refer to the detailed study by v. Bissing.v All the glass vessels found in Cyprus in Late Cypriote times seem to have been imported from Egypt. Fossing> has recently published a study on the ancient glass manufacture before the introduction of the blowing technique, and I refer to that work, where the glass vessels found in Cyprus are also included and their place in the history of glass manufacture determined. Glass was also manufactured in Mesopotamia in early times; the evidence would seem to suggest a beginning least as early as c. 1300 B. C. Later on, in 8th and B
Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome III, 1919, PIs. 19, 20. • Op. cit. III, PIs. 12-19, 22, 23. 3 MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. en Italie II, PI. 338. • Mon. Inst, IX, PI. XLIV, I; POULSEN, Der Orient u, d. [riihgr, Kunst, p. 28, Fig. 20. "Cf. Opusc archaeol. IV, p. 18. 8 POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 87 ff.; PFUHL, Malerei u, Zeichn. a, Griech. I, p. 139. , Lindos I, p. 359. B Lindos I, p. 35 8. • BLINKENBERG (Lindos I, p. 359) mentions as find places, outside Cyprus: Kameiros, Lindos, Samos, Aigina, Heraion, Thebes, Syracuse, Bisenzio, Sardinia'. Cf. KUNZE & SCHLEIF, III. Ber. iiber die Ausgrab. in Olympia (in Jahrb. deutsch, arch. Inst. LVI, 1941), p. 20, Fig. 5. 1
10 The faience vase from Vulci (POULSEN, op. cit., p. 134, Figs. IS0, 151), which Poulsen compares with ivory products found in Italy and by him considered to be of Cypriote workmanship (d. p. 412), is not Cypriote, but Syrian.
11
Cf. Tell el-mutesellim II, pp. 3I
rr.,
Fig. 25.
1. MAXIMOVA, Les vases plast, dans I'ant. I, pp. 95 f.; Clara Rhodos III, p. 73 (Tomb XLV, No.6), Fig. 66. 13 Not yet published. 14
Cf. for the shape: Steed. Cyp, Exp, II, PI. CXIII, 8, 9.
Studi Etruschi XIII, 1939, pp. ISS ff., 177 f. For the figure alabastra, of which some may be of Cypriote origin, d. p. 368, n. I. 15
18
FOSSING, Glass Vessels before Glass-blozcing, Copenhagen
194°·
4 12
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
7th cent. B. C., some specimens of this Asiatic group were exported as far W. as Etruria,' probably by means of the Phoenician trade. Analabastron, black and yellow, with "waved" pattern found in Amathus, may belong to this Asiatic group.s The glass industry seems almost to have died out in Egypt at the beginning of the first millennium B. C., but in the 6th cent. B. C. it revives again, and reaches rapidly a very high standard. Vessels of this Egyptian manufacture, filled with perfume, were shipped in great numbers all round the Mediterranean.' The alabastra, Fig. 38, seem to be products of this Egyptian glass industry. To some extent the shapes are influenced by Greek forms (juglets and amphoriskos). Fossing explains this by reference to the importance of the Greek market/ the producers imitating intentionally the shape of vessels popular among the customers. We may also already reckon with a native glass industry in Cyprus in' Archaic and Classical times, but this cannot be ascertained: a glass oven found in Tamassos- is unfortunately of undetermined date. Pollak and Poulsen have attributed the greater part of the influence on theivory carvings found in Etruria to Cyprus.' They have exaggerated the Cypriote influence. The Syrian ivory industry was certainly more important than that of Cyprus to judge by the material hitherto available.' So far as I can see, only an ivory box (Fig. 41), from the Regolini-Galassi tomb is a Cypriote import.' The style of the' decoration on the ivory arms from the Barberini tomb- indicates Cypriote influence, but their Cypriote origin cannot be ascertained. The goblet from the same tomb> also considered to be imported from Cyprus, is not Cypriote. The very shape of the goblet speaks against this, and in the decoration there is nothing which necessarily indicates Cypriote influence. True, among the ornamental motifs considered by Poulsen to show Cypriote influence there are some which are represented in Cyprus, but they also occur in Syria and in the Greek art influenced by Oriental prototypes. It has been shown that Syria and Cyprus of the Archaic period formed to a considerable extent one area of culture with several stylistic features in common(p. 288), and it is therefore often impossible to state whether these stylistic features derive from Syria or Cyprus, or arrive second-hand from some Greek centre where this motif was adopted. A few isolated motifs of this kind cannot therefore be used as evidence of an influence from a limited region of culture. Only when the syntax ofthe motifs and the general style indicates Cypriote origin or influence, as is the case with the ivory box and the decoration of the ivory arms, we have a safe criterion of connection with Cyprus. An ivory kohl-pot found in Amathusv indicates import from Egypt.
The scarabs, cylinders, and seal-stones appear in Cyprus already in the Late Bronze Age. The scarabs are partly of genuine Egyptian workmanship and imported to Cyprus from Egypt, partly of local manufacture, made in Cyprus and on the Syro-Palestinian mainland. That scarabs made in Cyprus were exported is proved by a specimen engraved with Cypriote script and found in Kyrene.: The cylinders and different shapes of the sealstones prove the Cypriote connections with the Asiatic mainland, with Syria and Anatolia/ but once these types had been introduced, as mentioned already in the Late Bronze Age, they were incorporated into the native handicraft of Cyprus. The evidence of the coins for the foreign relations of Cyprus is based on statistics of Cypriote coins found in hoards abroad and of foreign hoards of coins found in Cyprus. No Cypriote coins have been found in hoards discovered in Greece.' The coins are of silver when not otherwise stated. The earliest Cypriote coins, from the later part of the 6th cent. B. c., have been found in Egypt, Syria, and Persia: 12 staters, 4 tetrobols, and 1 diobol from Egypt, 6 staters from Syria, 2 staters from Persia. Of the coins found in Egypt, 8 coins are Salaminian from the time of Euelthon,' and 9 coins are of uncertain origin.' The coins found in Syria are all Salaminian from the time of Euelthon,' and of those found in Persia one coin is from Salamis from the time of Euelthon, and the other one is of uncertain origin, perhaps from Soli.' A hoard buried c. 485 B. C. in Benha el-Asl, Egypt, contained one stater from Idalion and another Cypriote stater of uncertain provenance.' No other Cypriote coins from the 5th cent. B. C. have been found abroad. In the 4th cent. B. C. finds of Cypriote coins abroad are again rather numerous. One half-stater of gold issued by Melekiathon of Kition has been found in Egypt,· and 2 or 3 gold coins of Cypriote kings, not further specified, are also reported from Egypt.w In Syria no Cypriote coins have yet been found in hoards from the 4th cent. B. C.," but two hoards in Cilicia contained several Cypriote coins. One hoard included. two staters of Euagoras I, one stater of Baalram, and a tetrobol of Melekiathon. This hoard was buried c. 380 B. C.,
Op. cit.,pp. 31 ff. 20p. cit.,. p. 38..The alabastron was found in Amathus, Tomb 106 (Exc. in Cyp., p. lIS). This tomb cannot be earlier than Cypro-Archaic II on the basis of the pottery found in it (op.cit., p. 10f, Fig. 151). The alabastron is not illustrated. Its origin of manufacture cannot therefore be exactly determined. 3 FOSSING, op, cit., pp. f2·ff. ' 4 Op. cit., p. 13f. • OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, p, f16. Ohnefalsch-Richter refers to the oven as indicating the existence of a Cypriote glass industry, but gives no evidence for its date. 1
6 Rom. Mitt. XXI,1906, pp. 31f ff., 327 ff.; POULSEN, op, cit., pp. 129 ff. 7 Cf. THUREAU-DANGIN, Arslan-Tash, Pis. XIX-XLVII; Palest. Expl. Fund, Quart. Statem., 1932, pp. 132 f.; 1933, pp. 7 ff.; Iraq II, 1935, pp. 179 ff.; CROWFOOT, Early Ivories from Samaria, London 1938; LOUD & ALTMAN, Khorsabad II, Pis. 51-56; LOUD, The Megiddo Ivories, Chicago 1939.
8
MONTELIUS, Civ. prim. enltalie II: 2, PI. 337: 12, If.
s Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome V, 1925, Pis. 9,-1.1. 10
Ibid., Pis. 13, If.
11
Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 176, T. 127.
1 COLLITZ, Samml. griech. Diai.-Inschr. I, p. 50. For a general study on the evidence of the scarabs for the foreign' relations I refer to Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 825 ff. Cf. also RoWE, Catal. of Egypt. Scarabs,Le Caire 1936. 2 Cf. Vol. IV: I and HOGARTH, Hittite Seals, Oxford. 1920; CONTENAU, La glyptique syro-hittite, Paris 1922; WARD, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Washington 1910; FRANKFORT, Cylinder Seals, London 1939; VONDER OSTEN, Anc. Orient, Seals in the Collect. of Mrs. Agnes Baldwin Brett, Chicago 1936; id., Anc. Orient. Seals in the Collect. of Mr. Edward T. Newell, Chicago 193f; GALLING, Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrt. v. Chr., in Zeitschr. deutsch. Paldst.eVer, 6f, 19f1, pp. 121 ff.; Ausgrab, in Sendschirli V, pp. 73 f., Pis. 37-39; LAMON & SHIPTON, M;giddo I, Pis. 68, 73. 3 The coins of Euagoras II found in a hoard from Kalymna (Num. Chron., Ser. f, III, 1903, pp. 37 ff.; BABELON, Les Perses Achemenides, pp. CXXIV f.) cannot be used as evidence of the export of Cypriote coins to Kalymna, because the coins were probably not issued in Cyprus. Their pro-
venance points to Ionia or Caria (d. HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. CIX f.), and they were evidently issued in order to finance Euagoras' expedition to Cyprus. 4 Zeitschr. j. Num. XXXVII, 1927, 73 ff., 132 f.; Num, Chron., Ser. 3, X, 1890, p. 6; Rev. num., N. S. VI, 1861, pp. flf ff., 425· s Zeitschr. f. Num. XXXVII, pp, 73 ff. 6 Melanges syriens off. a R. Dussaud I, PP.461 ff., 479 ff. 7 Transact. Intern. Num. Congr. I936, p .. flf, Fig. B (right half). 8 Num. Chron., Ser. 5, X, 1930, pp. 93 ff. Three other coins of uncertain origin and supposed to be Cypriote are of a type unknown in Cyprus. ° Rev. Belge LXI, 1905, p. 162. 10 Journ. into num, IV, 19°1, p. 160. 11 Coins of Euagoras II found in Syria (Rev. num., Ser. f, VI, 1902, p. 259) were issued by him in his capacity of ruler of a Syrian kingdom, probably Sidon (cf. p, f97, n. 10).
PP.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
probably during the troublous times between the Cypriote expedition of Tiribazos and the arrival of Pharnabazos.: The other hoard found in Cilicia contained IO coins from Salamis, I3 coins from Kition, and I coin from Amathus, all of bronze." Finally, a stater issued by Baalram has been found in the hoard from Side.' Foreign coins are rare in Cyprus. The hoards from Dali, Larnaka, and Vouni contained more than I I60 coins. Of these only I2 are foreign: 7 Athenian tetradrachms from the later part of the 5th cent. B. C. were found at Dali,' 4 gold darics struck by Dareios and Artaxerxes I and a stater from Aspendos were found at Vouni. 5 On a survey of the Cypriote coins found abroad we notice that they have all been discovered in Egypt and the Near East, in Persia, Syria, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. The majority are from Cilicia and Egypt. Amathus, Idalion, and probably Soli, are only represented by single specimens. In the 6th cent. B. C. the majority of the coins are Salaminian from the time of Euelthon (ef. p. 4 I3). The few Cypriote coins found abroad in the 5th cent. B. C. tally with the general decline of Cypriote civilization in economic and cultural respects after the failure of the Cypriote revolt in 499/8 B. C. and before the rise of Euagoras I. In the 4th cent. B. C. the majority of the coins found abroad are from Salamis and Kition, the two most important kingdoms at that time in Cyprus. A small fragment of thin bronze inscribed with the Cypriote syllabary has been found on the Acropolis of Athens. The characters le and se can be discerned.' The find dates from .before the destruction of Athens by the Persians.
SUMMARY The offensive weapons for close fighting show western connections: the swords are of Aegean origin, and were brought to Cyprus in connection with the Aegean trade and the Greek colonization at the end of the Bronze Age, while the daggers seem to be derived from Greek types of late Archaic date. Of the other offensive weapons the throwing weapons show mainly Eastern relations or are derived from native Bronze Age types. Spears of Type I may have reached Cyprus via Anatolia, while those of Type 2 continue a native Bronze Age tradition. Both appear at the beginning of the Cypro-Geometric period, and Type 2 continues until the end of the Cypro-Classical period. Single butt-spikes of Type I are also a continuation of the native Late Bronze specimens. The only contribution of Greece to the production of Cypriote throwing weapons is represented by the elaborate butt-spikes of Type I and those of Type 2, but these do not appear before the Cypro-Archaic, respectively Cypro-Classical period. The missile weapons are altogether of Near Eastern origin or subsequent varietie~ of native Late Bronze Age types. Arrow-heads of Type I belong to the latter category; the other Num. Chron., Ser. 4 XIV, 1914, pp. 29 fl. " NOE, Bibliogr. of Greek Coin Hoards, p. 76. No. 3 SELTMAN, A Hoard from Side, pp. 6 f. 1
NOE, op. cit., p. 88, No. 297. Sued. Cyp. Exp. Ill, pp. 276 f. 6 Journ. Hell. Stud. XIII, 1892-1893, p. 129, PI. VII, 65. 4
251.
5
ARTS AND CRAFTS
types, which are not earlier than the Archaic period, as far as the present evidence goes, are of Near Eastern derivation. Those of Type 2 were manufactured en masse in Cyprus, from where the type seem to have spread to Greece and the Western Mediterranean. The defensive weapons, shields, helmets, and armour, are mainly of Near Eastern derivation. The shields with a central spike seem to be a Cypriote peculiarity, though a similar type is found in Sardinia and Spain. The earliest actual finds of shield fragments of Near Eastern derivation date from Cypro-Geometric, those of helmets and armour from CyproArchaic, but representations of helmets in the .terracotta plastic show that they were already in use in the Cypro-Geometric period. There are indications that Cyprus has played a rather considerable role in the distribution of the Near Eastern types from the Orient to Greece. Only occasionally do we find shields and helmets of Greek origin in Cyprus. Some shields of late Archaic and Classical date were imported to Cyprus, and the shields with a button-shaped boss on the central disc (Type I) are of Greek derivation, introduced into Cyprus in connection with the Greek colonization of the island. Contact with Greece is also shown by exceptional representations, in late Archaic sculpture, of Corinthian helmets and helmets of Greek derivation. Disregarding the tools of simple utilitarian shape, which are of no use as a criterion of cultural relations, it can be noted that some tools, e. g., most axes, knives, tweezers, and, probably, mirrors of Type I, though not yet found in Cypro-Geometric, show continuation and development of Late Bronze Age types, while others represent new forms indicating a foreign influence. Thus the socketed mace-heads represented by a single dated specimen from Cypro-Archaic I are of Near Eastern origin and particularly similar to Syrian prototypes. Mirrors of Type 2 also seem to be of North Syrian origin, but the type was further developed in Greece during the Archaic and Classical periods, and the Cypriote specimens, of which none is earlier than Cypro-Archaic II, are to a large extent influenced by the Greek specimens, and are partly of Greek workmanship. Types 3 and 4 dating from Cypro-Classic II are also of Greek derivation. Occasionally mirrors of a special kind dating from the late Archaic period were imported from Egypt and Greece. Greek types are represented by the strigils appearing from the Cypro-Archaic period and by the surgical and toilet instruments, of which single specimens are found in Cypro-Geometric and Cypro-Archaic, but of which the great majority are Cypro-Classical. Greek connections are also indicated by the early fibula types, viz., I, 2 a and b. These are closely related to the corresponding Sub-Mycenaean types, and appear in Cyprus from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric. They were evidently brought to Cyprus in connection with the Greek colonization of the island. Types 2 c and d are subsequent Cypriote developments of Types 2 a and b. Type 3 seems to have reached Cyprus via Syria in the Cypro-Archaic period, though it ultimately is derived from a Greek Sub-Mycenaean type. Type 4 is of Sicilian origin, and was in the Cypro-Archaicperiod developed into a characteristic Cypriote shape. Boiotian, La Tene, Syrian, and Anatolian fibulae were imported to Cyprus. Cypriote fibulae of Type 2 were exported to Palestine, Syra, and Anatolia, Type 3 to Greece, and Type 4 to Palestine and to Greece.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
ARTS AND CRAFTS
The different classes of jewellery and amulets illustrate a great variety of cultural interrelations. The hair-rings of narrow spiral coils continue a Bronze Age type, and similar rings are widely spread in Greece and Etruria. Those with a cork-screw coil are a characteristic Cypriote type developed in the Archaic period and exported to Syria and Palestine. Earrings of Type I are ultimately of Syrian origin. In Cyprus they represent a continuation of Late Bronze Age types, .which were modified in the subsequent periods. They were diffused all round the Mediterranean. An Ionian variety with three clusters of globules was, occasionally imported to Cyprus. Type 2 illustrates similar interrelations. Noteworthy are the Syrian varieties with pendants in the shape of drops, hawks, and cage filled with globules, etc. Type 9 a is also represented in the Bronze Age, and was much used in the Archaic period, when it is found also in Syria, and is widely spread in Greece. Type 9 b represents a Cypro-Classical ornamentation of this spiral ring, a parallel to the similar figure ornamentation of the spiral hair-ring. A Syrian shape already appearing in the Bronze Age and continuing subsequently in the Near East is represented by Type 7 introduced into Cyprus in the Classical period. A further development of this type can be traced in Etruria. The unique earring of Type 4 may be an Egyptian import. Influence from Archaic Ionia is indicated by the earrings of Types 3 and 8, but the latter type was borrowed by the Ionians from Egypt. It continued in the Cypro-Classical period. Types 5, 6 and 10 indicate connections with Greece mainly in the late Classical period. Finger-rings with a spirally twisted bezel seem to represent a continuation of a Late Bronze Age type. Those with an oval bezel hammered flat also occur in the Late Bronze Age, but were probably reintroduced from Syria in the Archaic period, and were widely spread in .Greece and the western Mediterranean. The stirrup-shaped, dome-shaped and swivel-rings are ultimately of Egyptian origin. They are also common types in the Mediterranean, and were already used in Cyprus. during the Late Bronze Age, but like the preceding type were reintroduced subsequently, the dome-shaped type not before CyproClassic and probably via Greece, and the others in the Archaic period, either direct from Egypt or via Syria and Palestine. The finger-ring with a separate bezel was brought to Cyprus in the Archaic period from Phoenicia. . The broad, band-shaped bracelet seems to be derived from Egypt, but the others are related to Near Eastern types. Those with goats' and calves' heads are import pieces of Persian workmanship. The bracelets with terminals of rams' and lions' heads form a Greek variety of the .Near Eastern type with theriomorphic terminals, and, like the earrings of Type 6, they have reached Cyprus in their Greek transformation. On the other hand, the Cypriote bracelets with terminals of snakes' heads, derived from the Near East, have inspired the Greek artisans to a production of similar specimens, while the Cypriote bracelets of cloisonne work, which are closely related to Syrian and Assyrian types, were not transmitted to Greece, so far as I know. This interchange of types began in Archaic times, and continued in the Classical period. Syrian connections are indicated by the disc-shaped pendant, the cylindrical pendant-etui, and the pendant in shape of an inverted heart, the rectangular mounting plaques, and the
girdle. The disc-shaped pendant already appears from Cypro-Geometric I, and has a wide distribution area in western Anatolia, Rhodes, and Italy. The other two types of pendants are Phoenician products, imported into Cyprus in the Archaic period and brought by trade to Greece and the Punic region of commerce in the western Mediterranean. The mounting plaques were already introduced into Cyprus in Cypro-Geometric I, while the girdle is of Cypro-Archaic date. Plaques of this type inspired the Rhodians to the production of their embossed plaques. Egyptian connections are represented by beads, pendants, and amulets in precious metal and faience, though some types came to Cyprus in a Syrian version. The earliest specimens of Egyptian type date from Cypro-Geometric II, and they are fairly numerous in the Archaic period. The earliest specimens of jewellery which indicate Greek influence, beads and pendants, single or forming parts of necklaces, can be assigned to the Archaic period, and they are particularly common in the Classical period, when other items, e. g., chains and frontlets of Greek type, are added to the number of ornaments. Proceeding to the various types of objects for either secular or sacred use we note that the bells appearing in the Cypro-Archaic period are of Near Eastern origin. The same provenance holds good for the horse-bits, while the blinkers and front-bands of the horses' trapping are particularly related to North Syrian types. Cypriote specimens were exported to Rhodes in the Archaic period. Lamp-stands of Type I are of Near Eastern derivation, and appear in Cyprus during the Archaic period. Similar stands have been found in Greece, Etruria, and Sardinia. The lamp-stands of Type 2 show Greek influence, and appear in Cypro-Archaic II. An interesting find of a fragment of an imported Etruscan candelabrum dates from the same period. The incense-lamp was brought to Cyprus from Syria in the Archaic period. The incense-burner has the same provenance, but was already included in the Cypriote stock of utensils in the Late Bronze Age. Near Eastern connections are also indicated by the libation receptacles, offering-stands, and shrine models. Of the lamps, the saucer-shaped type is of Syrian derivation, and appeared in Cyprus during Cypro-Geometric II, was rather rare even during Cypro-Ge.ometric III, and common from Cypro-Archaic I and onwards. Greek lamps were imported in the Classical period. The tripods of Types I and 2 represent a continuation and development of Late Cypriote specimens, which also occur in the Syro-Palestinian region. Type I was exported to Greece and imitated there during the r rth-s-qth cent. B. C. It survived in an increasingly modified shape down to the 6th cent. B. C., and the Greeks developed this type further creating the "Ornate Greek group" and the "Bead-and-Reel" group of tripods. Type 2 has not yet been found in Greece, but became the prototype of a group of tripods in Etruria and Latium. The four-legged stand, which also has Syrian connections, but has not yet been found in an Iron Age context in Cyprus, is represented in the Idaean cave in Crete, and was further developed by the Etruscans. The reciprocal connections with Etruria are illustrated by the Cypriote import of Etrurian tripods. The reels for winding thread are of Greek derivation, and date from the Classical period.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
For the elucidation of the foreign relations, the decorated metal bowls are of great importance. We have to reckon with various schools working in Egypt and different centres in the Near East, including Cyprus as one of these. The diverse cultural influences exercised in Cyprus enable us to distinguish different styles, and there is also a stylistic development within these. The Proto-Cypriote, Cypro-Phoenician, and Cypro-Egyptian styles begin in the later part of Cypro-Geometric III, and continue to the early part of Cypro-Archaic II, while the Neo-Cypriote style falls within Cypro-Archaic II. Influence from the CyproPhoenician school is obvious in the concluding phase of the Proto-Cypriote style. In the Cypro-Phoenician, where the artistic elements are mainly Syrian from' the beginning, there is a steady increase of Egyptian influence. The Cypro-Egyptian ~oup comprises Cypriote works imitating Egyptian prototypes. The N eo-Cypriote style continues the Proto-Cypriote tradition, but is subject to strong Phoenician and Egyptian influence. A bowl of genuine Egyptian workmanship has been found in Cyprus. A Proto-Cypriote bowl is reported to have been found in Sparta, and a bowl from the Idaean cave also shows strong Proto-Cypriote influence. Products of the Cypro-Phoenician school were occasionally exported to Italy. The decoration of these bowls has influenced that of the Rhodian pinakes, and a reciprocal Greek influence is represented by the Cypro-Greek class of the metal bowls. As regards the foreign relations indicated by the other non-ceramic vases we may first note that the hemispherical or shallow bowls with round or flattened base (the bronze bowls, Types 1 and 2) continue Late Bronze Age types, and the same holds good for the bronze bowls, Type 3, which show Syrian connections. The bronze bowls, Type 6, of Archaic date, have also been found in Greece and the Etrurian territory, and the bronze bowls, Type 8, with the handles surmounted by lotus flower appearing in Cyprus already in CyproGeometric I-II, have been exported and imitated over a wide range both in the E., in Greece and in Italy, where the type was further modified by the Etruscans in the Archaic period. The Archaic interrelations of Cyprus and Etruria are further indicated by the Etruscan import of a Cypriote ivory box and the Cypriote influence on some of the ivory carvings found in Etruria, though this influence is not so great as is sometimes supposed. Egyptian relations are illustrated by a faience jug of Cypro-Geometric III shape found in Egypt, by the Cypriote import of Egyptian kohl-pots of faience.iand the Egyptian glass vessels found in Cyprus during the Archaic and Classical periods. Occasionally the glass vessels found in Cyprus are of Asiatic origin. • Syrian workmanship has been suggested for the double-headed aryballos, and the duckshaped faience vase is also Syrian. This type was adopted by the Greeks. These faience vases are Cypro-Archaic. Several metal vases are imported from the Near East or are of Near Eastern derivation, but of Cypriote workmanship: the omphalos bowl (Type 4), the bowl with a raised rim, plain or ribbed body (Type 7), the bowls with handles hinged in loops or spools (Types 10-12) and the ladles. These types were brought further W., to Greece and to Italy. The earliest specimens of those found in Cyprus, bowls of Type 7, date from Cypro-Geometric II. In the Cypro-Archaic period there is a culmination of
ARTS AND CRAFTS
evidence of these Near Eastern connections. To some extent Cyprus has contributed to the western distribution of these metal vases. The reciprocal influence from Greece begins in the Archaic period; as shown by the appearance in Cyprus of an Ionian type of bronze bowls (Type 9) and of bombylos aryballoi of faience, but the Greek import and influence date mainly from the Cypro-Classical period: skyphoi, large, wide bronze bowls (Type 13), jugs of Type 3, and the introduction of the tongue pattern as an ornamental motif. The glyptics and coins complete the picture. Cylinders and seal-stones illustrate the Syro-Anatolian-connections from Cypro-Geometric I onwards. The earliest scarabs appear in Cypro-Geo~etric II, and thus confirm the chronological evidence of the other material as regards the initial phase of contact between Cyprus and Egypt. In the late Geometric and Archaic periods the Syro-Anatolian and Egyptian connections are much strengthened. Cypriote coins have been discovered in Egypt, Persia, Syria, Cilicia, and Pamphylia, the earliest from the later part of the 6th cent. B. C. During that period the majority are Salaminian. In the 5th cent. B. C., few Cypriote coins have been found abroad in consequence of the economic decline. During the 4th cent. B. C. the bulk of Cypriote coins found abroad are from Salamis and Kition. Foreign coins are rare in Cyprus. The hoards examined contained only the following specimens: Athenian tetradrachms from the later part of the 5th cent. B. C., 4 gold darics struck by Dareios and Artaxerxes I, and a stater from Aspendos. We thus see that the connections with Egypt begin in Cypro-Geometric, and culminate in Cypro-Archaic II. In the Cypro-Classical period the Egyptian influence suddenly becomes inconsiderable. The kinds of objects imported to Cyprus or of Egyptian derivation are somewhat restricted: beads, pendants and amulets, scarabs, finger-rings, perhaps via Syria, some vases of faience and glass. A decorated silver bowl of Egyptian origin has also been found in Cyprus, and the Egyptian influence on the production of the decorated metal bowls of Cyprus is considerable. In order to obtain a complete picture of the Egyptian influence we must also include the different motifs of ultimately Egyptian origin which were included in the Cypriote handicraft via Syria. There is no reciprocal Cypriote contribution to the development of the Egyptian arts and crafts. Already in Cypro-Geometric I the connections between Cyprus and the Near East are firmly established. They grow gradually in strength during the Geometric period, and are very intimate in the Archaic period, but subsequently become of little cultural importance particularly in the later Cypro-Classical period. The objects imported or of Near Eastern derivation and influence comprise various classes of objects: offensive weapons for distant fighting, such as arrows and spears, defensive weapons, shields, helmets, armour, different kinds of jewellery and utensils for secular or sacred use, seals and cylinders. The Phoenician influence is particularly obvious on the production of the jewellery and the decorated metal bowls. The objects of Greek origin or derivation found in Iron Age Cyprus can be divided into three distinct chronological groups. The first group comprises those objects which appear
420
FOREIGN RELATIONS
from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric I, and can be related to the Greek colonization of the island: weapons for close fighting, viz. swords and, among defensive weapons, the shield with a button-shaped boss on the central disc, and fibulae may be added; i. e., the dress and weapons of the conquerers. The second group dates mainly from the later Archaic period and the third group from the Cypro-Classical period. There is a definite increase of the Greek influence particularly in Cypro-Classic II. The objects consist of weapons, daggers, spears, shields and helmets, special appurtenances of sport, toilet, and medicine, e. g., strigils,mirrors, probes, spatulae, etc., differel.t kinds of jewellery and utensils. The Cypriote contribution to the cultural exchange between the Orient and Greece was of considerable importance. On account of the fact that several Cypriote types are derived from the Orient it is often difficult to determine to what degree these types were transmitted to Greece via Cyprus. We are here confronted with the same difficulty as concerning the scul~tural motifs (p. 370), but the fact that many specimens of certain Cypriote workmanship specified above have been found both in Greece and the western Mediterranean speaks in favour of a considerable Cypriote role as an intermediary station between the E. and the W. The Cypriote tripods found in Greece show that the interrelations date from the beginning of the Iron Age. During Cypro-Geometric III the Cypriote influence increases, and in the Archaic period it is very active, extending beyond Greece to the western Mediterranean, particularly to Etruria, but with the beginning of the Classical period the Cypriote activity suddenly breaks off.
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
he fixed points of the absolute chronology are supplied by foreign datable objects found in Cyprus, Cypriote objects found in datable strata abroad, and to some . . extent hy the identification of archaeological phenomena with historically known events dated by literary material. The beginning of Cypro-Geometric I coincides with the end .of Late Cypriote III,' and is therefore assigned to c. 1050 B. C. In order to fix the end of the period we have.to consider the earliest datable appearance of pottery of Type II. The Bichrome II bowl found in Megiddo V forms an important, though not quite indisputable piece of chronological evidence owing to the fact that opinions differ as to the date of Megiddo V. The. excavators have dated it at c. 1050-1000 B. C.,, but this is obviously too early, and Albright has proposed a date between 1000--950 B. C., but even that date seems to be too early, and Crowfoot assigns Megiddo V to between shortly after c. 960 B. C. and c. 870 B. C." The Bichrome II amphora once said to have been found in Megiddo V must be left on one side as a chronological criterion, since its find context seems uncertain (d. p. 249). The Bichrome I-II barrel-shaped juglet from Tell Fara, Tomb 202, and the White Painted II similar juglet from Tomb 229 of the same site afford more definite dating evidence. The tombs contained scarabs of the XXIInd Dyn., i. e., they must be later than c. 950 B. C. On Palestinian evidence the tombs can be assigned to the end of the loth cent. B. C., Tomb 202 possibly to the beginning of the qth cent. B. C.' Type II is consequently already represented in the later part of the loth cent. B. C., and the end of Cypro-Geometric I cannot therefore be dated later than c. 950 B. C. On the other hand it cannot be dated much earlier, because no pottery of Type II has been found in a tomb or a stratum which is unquestionably earlier than 950 B. C., the Cypriote pottery found before that date being altogether of Type I. The White Painted I bowl found in Megiddo VI confronts us again with the difficulties of the Megiddo ..chronology. The excavators assign M egiddo VI to c. I I 5°- I 100 B. c.,
T
1 Cf. Opusc, archaeol. III (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. X, 1944). pp. 73 fl. • LAMON & SHIPTON, Megiddo I. pp. 3 fl. "Palest. Explor. Quart., 1940. pp. 132 fl.
• Petrie works with too early dates in his chronology (cf, below). The dates given here are those of Miss Kathleen Kenyon, who is revising the chronology of the Tell Fara finds.
422
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
but. Albright reduces this date to c. 1050-1000 B. C.' This date is in better harmony with those of other Cypriote vases of Type I found in Palestinian contexts. The fragment of a White Painted I barrel-shaped jug from Gibeah II dates from c. 1000 B. C. or the beginning of the loth cent. B. C.,, and the two White Painted I barrel-shaped jugs found at Tell Jemmeh at Level 185 are assignable to about the same date." J'omb 506 at Tell Fara, where a White Painted I bowl was found, contained a scarab of the XXth Dyn., and th's affords a terminus post quem. A "Sub-Philistine" jug discovered in this tomb can be assigned to c. 1000 B. C., and is in any case not earlier than c. 1050 B. C.' Besides, Type I is found later than 950 B. C., as shown by the White Painted I pilgrim bottle found in Tell Fara, Tomb 223, which contained a scarab from the XXIInd Dyn., and cannot therefore be dated earlier than the later part of the loth cent. B. C." Consequently, several specimens of Type I can be assigned to the time between c. 1050 and 950 B. C.; specimens of Type II occur from c. 950 B. C., in the later part of the loth cent. B. C.,' together with single representatives of Type I. In view of this chronological sequence we are justified in assigning the end of Cypro-Geometric I to c. 950 B. C. The chronological evidence of foreign objects found in Cyprus does not contradict the dates proposed, though nothing is added to their exactness. Thus, the faience seal found in the Cypro-Geometric I tomb, Amathus 22, dates from the Ramesside period onwards;' further, the Syrian pottery found in the Cypro-Geometric I tombs occurs within the dates assigned to that period, but is also found after 950 B. C., and is therefore useless as an exact criterion of date in this particular case.' Cypro-Geometric II thus begins c. 950 B. C. In order to determine its end we have to examine the latest finds of pottery of Type II and the earliest appearance of Type III in tombs or strata abroad datable within sufficiently narrow, chronological limits. The Bichrome II jug found at Beth-shemesh is assigned to the 9th-8th cent. B. c., as indicated by the other pottery from Room 397, where it was found." A White Painted II bowl from Tell Tainat dates from c. 900-850 B. C., and a Bichrome II-III globular jug from the same place is assigned to about the middle of the 9th cent. B. C.I0 The Black-on-Red I (III)
vases found in Tell ed-Duweir, Tomb 147, should not be dated earlier than the end of the 9th cent. B. C., on the evidence of the Palestinian pottery found in the same tomb.: The Black-on-Red I (III) juglets from Hama were found in tombs, which are later than 900 B. C. and earlier than 720 B. C. According to the excavator, the majority of the tombs are later than 800 B. C.2 Consequently, no specimen of Type II has been found in.a context which must be dated later than c. 850 B. C., and no specimen of Type III is reported from a tomb or stratum which can be dated with certainty earlier than the end of the 9th cent. B. C. Besides, there is a transitional specimen between Types II and III which is assigned to about the middle of the 9th cent. B. C. So far as the present evidence goes, the transition between Cypro-Geometric II and III has to be fixed at about that time, and accordingly we may assign the end of Cypro-Geometric II to c. 850 B. C., though it must be admitted that the present material does not conflict with a date of some 25 years later, because, on the one hand no specimen of Type III can be safely dated earlier than the very end of the 9th cent. B. C., and on the other hand, the transitional specimen between Types II and III, even if its date of about the middle of the qth cent. B. C. will be proved to be absolutely incontestable, can very well belong to the end of Cypro-Geometric II instead of the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III. Until further chronological material of a precise nature is available, we must therefore be satisfied with the somewhat approximate date given above. The foreign objects imported to Cyprus during Cypro-Geometric II consist of specimens of Syrian pottery. Their chronological evidence does not contradict the dates proposed, nor does it add anything to their precision for the 'reasons given above. The end of Cypro-Geometric III can be determined more accurately. The series of Cypriote Iron Age pottery found at Tarsos begins with imported and locally made specimens of Types II and IH. Above the strata containing this kind of pottery there is the debris of destruction, which most probably represents the destruction caused by the invasion of Sennacherib in 696 B. C." The first specimens of Type IV are found at the destruction level and above it. We may therefore fix the first appearance of Type IV at Tarsos to c. 700 B. C. This date is verified by the find evidence in the Ialysos tombs. Tomb LVII, which contained a late Black-on-Red I (III) jug, can be assigned to c. 700 B. C. or the beginning of the 7th cent. on account of the Rhodian pottery found in the tomb. Tomb LI can be assigned for the same reason to the same time. It contained three Cypriote vases, of which one is of Type III, the second is an early representative of Type IV, and the third is a transitional specimen between Types III and IV. The finds from the stratigraphical excavation at Tell Sheikh Yusuf also agree with this chronological evidence.' On account
1
Verbal message from Prof. Albright.
2
Cf, p. 24 6.
3 Petrie assigns Level 185 to the time of Ramses III, which is considerably too early. The dates given here are those of Prof. Albright and Miss Kenyon.
• The tomb belongs to Furumark's 4th Philistine, or Sub-Philistine, phase which ended shortly after c. 1000 B. C. (FURUMARK, Chronol. of Myc. Pottery, p. 127). The initial date of the 3rd Philistine phase seems to be c. 1100 B. C. (loc. cit.), in any case not much earlier, and the initial date of the Sub-Philistine phase may thus be fixed at c. 1050 B. C. Tell Fara, Tomb 227, which also contained a White Painted II julget, is difficult to date. Miss Kenyon informs me that apart from the non-Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware found in this tomb, there is only one bowl for which no parallel can be found, and it is an anomaly in itself: the technique is Early Iron I, i. e., down to the first half of the
9th cent. B. C., while the form is more of Early Iron II type (8th-7th cent. B. C.). "Cf. p, 242. • It may be added that Stratum II at Tell Abu Hawam, tentatively assigned to c. 1100-925 B. C., contained a White Painted II jug (p. 248). The find is therefor; in perfect agreement with the proposed date of the beginning of CyproGeometric II, but as the date of the stratum is not quite certain, it is advisable to disregard this dating evidence. 7 Cf. Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 826. M. PIEPER (ibid., p. 83 2) was first inclined to assign the seal to the Ethiopian period, but admits later that it may well be earlier. 8 For the dates of these kinds of pottery, cf, pp. 272 f. " Cf. p. 245. Prof. Elihu Grant confirms in a letter that the attribution of the jug to Iron Age I is due to a lapsus calami. The context is definitely Iron Age II (9th-8th cent. B. C.). 10 Information by Dr. R. J. Braidwood.
1 The tomb has previously been assigned to before 900 B. C. by Mr. J. L. Starkey, but "Only for the reason that he supposed the Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware found in the tomb to be of that date. Dr. Ben Dor informs me that the Palestinian pottery from this tomb indicates a date of c. 800 B. C. 2 Cf. p. 253. 3 Cf. p. 261. • The dates given here are somewhat more precise than
in L. Woolley's preliminary report (Antiq. Journ. XVII, 1937, pp. I ff.) and have been fixed by Mr. F. N. Pryce after his examination of the material. It seems to me that Mr. M. ROBERTSON (Journ. Hell. Stud. LX, 1940, pp. 2 ff., p. 21) is too sceptical as regards the stratigraphical evidence of the sequence of pottery found in the different layers of the excavation. The fact that parts of the same vases are found in different layers indicates of course that there may have been an occasional disturbance of the stratification or
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
of the Late Geometric and Sub-Geometric pottery found in Layer 9, the concluding phase of the habitation represented by that layer has been assigned to c. 700 B. C. The few specimens of the same Late Geometric and Sub-Geometric Greek pottery found in Layer 8 show that habitation was continuous, and the beginning of the period represented by Layer 8 can therefore be assigned to c. 700 B. C. or the very beginning of the 7th cent. We remember that the pottery found in Layer 8 consists of an overwhelming majority of imported and locally made Cypriote wares of Type III and IV. The great amount of Type III indicates that the beginning of the period represented by Layer 8 coincides approximately with the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I, and the whole layer dates from the early part of that period. C. 700 B. C. is thus again presented as the approximate date of the beginning of CyproArchaic I, and accordingly we can assign Cypro-Geometric III to c. 850-700 B. C. Supplementary evidence is forthcoming in other finds of chronological significance which concern the period in question. Without exception, their chronological evidence is in accordance with the fixed date of Cypro-Geometric III. These finds are: the Black-on-Red I (III) juglet from Tainat found below the "Assyrian" floor-level and therefore dating from before c. 740 B. C.;l the Black-on-Red I (III) juglet from.Lahun found in tombs dating from the XXIInd-XXIVth Dyn. (945-710 B. C.);" and finally, the scarabs found in CyproGeometric III or early Cypro-Archaic I context in Cyprus. The scarabs found in the stratum of Period 3 at Ajia Irini are of importance in this respect. The stratum dates, as we have seen, from the middle of Cypro-Geometric III to the middle of Cypro-Archaic La It contained 3 scarabs, Ajia Irini Nos. 1729, 2030, 2760. Of these, No. 1729 has been assigned to the early Saitic period, No. 2030 is probably Ethiopian, and No. 2670 is certainly not earlier than the Ethiopian period. The epoch represented by these scarabs thus covers thelater part of the 8th cent. and first half of 7th cent. B. C. to some time after 663 B. C., which agrees perfectly with the proposed chronology of Cypro-Geometric III and CyproArchaic I (cf. below). We now turn to the chronology of Cypro-Archaic 1. The beginning of the period has been fixed at c. 700 B. C. The middle of the period should fall some time after 663 B. C. on the evidence of the scarab, Ajia Irini, No. 1729, as mentioned above. The same date is indicated by. scarab No. 185 found in Amathus, Tomb 7II . This scarab has also been assigned to the early Saitic period, and the tomb dates from the first part of Cypro-Archaic 1. Even if these scarabs were manufactured at the very beginning of the Saitic period, and happened to be deposited in the sanctuary and the tomb very soon after their manufacture, the' earliest date of their deposit would be c. 650 B. C. If thus the first part of Cypro-Archaic I covers the time from c. 700-650 B. C., the date of its conclusion would be c. 600 B. C., provided that the two phases of the period were of approximately equal length.
On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the end of the period cannot be fixed at a later date. The White Painted V jug found in Tell ed-Duweir, at Level 264.8, dates from c. 600 B. C. or the very beginning of the 6th cent.' This chronology is confirmed by the date of the Corinthian pottery found in Vroulia, Tomb 12, together with a White Painted V jug. The Middle Corinthian pottery found together with the jug is generally assigned to c. 600-575 B. C., but should perhaps be dated somewhat later." The stratigraphical material from the excavations at Tell Sheikh Yusuf indicates the same concluding date of CyproArchaic 1. We have seen that the Cypriote pottery in Layer 7 consists entirely of Type IV, which shows that the period of this layer is contemporary with the later part of CyproArchaic 1. In Layers 6-5, the first specimens of Type V appear together with Type IV. This combination of pottery types assigns the period represented by these layers to the early part of Cypro-Archaic II. On the evidence of the Greek Archaic pottery found in these layers, the beginning of Layer 6 has been fixed at c. 600 B. C.. In view of these chronological indications we may thus assign Cypro-Archaic I to c. 700-600 B. C., and this dating is also in accordance with all the other chronological material which refers to the period. The White Painted V jug from Gerar was found at Level 197. The material from this level dates from the 7th and 6th cent. B. C. 4 The Bichrome IV sherds found at Samaria date from c. 700-500 B. C.,5 Tomb CCI at Kameiros, which contained a Bichrome IV aryballos, can be assigned to the 7th cent. B. C.,6 and the latest burial in Schiff's tomb on Thera, whefe the fragments of Black-on-Red II (IV) aryballoi were found, should be assigned to the end of the 7th cent. B. C.7 A scarab from the XXVlth Dyn. is reported from a tomb at Kition, excavated by Prof. Myres." The pottery of this tomb dates from the later part of Cypro-Archaic 1. The early Saitic scarab (No. 185) found in Amathus, Tomb 7 I1 , has already been mentioned above. The same tomb contained another scarab (No. 184), which seems to date from the Ethiopian period, and the same date has been assigned to scarab No. 79 found in Amathus, Tomb lIII. Both these burial groups date from the early part of Cypro-Archaic 1. Many scarabs from the XXVIth Dyn. were found on the floor of Period 4 in the temenos of Ajia Irini. This floor dates from the middle of Cypro-Archaic I to about the first quarter of Cypro-Archaic II.10 The Greek pottery and other foreign objects found in strata or tombs of Cypro-Archaic I-II do not conflict with the dates proposed, but add nothing to their precision. The beginning of Cypro-Archaic II has thus been fixed at c. 600 B. C. The end of the period can be assigned to c. 475 B. C.The Pasiades alabastron found by Ohnefalsch-Richter in Marion, Tomb II 70, dates from about 500 B. C. As we have seen, this tomb can be assigned to the end of Cypro-Archaic II. We must suppose that the vase, which is a specimen
that during the excavation work finds from the upper part of a lower layer have happened to be mixed with those from the lower part of an upper layer - a calamity for which the most careful excavator cannot always be blamed. The stratified series of Cypriote pottery agrees very well with the stratigraphical evidence from Cyprus. This indicates that the
stratification at Al Mina is trustworthy, and must therefore in general hold good also for the Greek pottery. 1 Information by Dr. Braidwood. "Cf. p. 240. a Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 817 f.
9
For this date I am indebted to Mr. Starkey. a Cf. p. 208, n. 1. a Cf. p. 423 n. 4. 4 Petrie's dates in the Gerar publication are too high, and are now being revised by Miss Kenyon, to whom I am indebted for the date given here. 5 Cf. p. 24 6. 6 This date is indicated by the Rhodian pottery found in the tomb, cf. p. 264. 1
7 This tomb was apparently used as a family tomb during a considerable time, and contains both Geometric and Archaic finds, of which the latest date from the 7th cent. B. C. (cf. Mon. Ant. XXII, 1913, p. 359; Athen. Mitt. XLIII, 1918, p. 67; FRIIS JOHANSEN, Vases sicyon., p. 14)' 8 Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, p. 158, Fig. 11. 9 Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, pp. 45, 76 f. 10 Op . cit. II, p. 818.
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY
of good quality, was in use at least a short time before it was deposited in the tomb,' and so we may infer that the end of Cypro-Archaic II dates some time after 500 B. C. The Bichrome V amphora found at Olynthos immediately below the burnt debris caused by the Persian invasion in 479 B. C. shows that pottery of Type V was still in use at that date,: The principal chronological criterion is afforded by the finds below the palace of Vouni. The first palace must have been built c. 500 B. C., or shortly after that date, as indicated by the style of the earliest sculptures found in the palace and by historical considerations. The earliest sculptures belong to the first Cypro-Greek style, and they can be dated on the evidence of the Greek chronology to between 500 and 480 B. C., and no sculpture is earlier than c. 500 B. C. The historical evidence has been fully dealt with in Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XXXVII, 1933, pp. 593 ff., and in Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 286 ff. I refer therefore to the discussion given there and the conclusion that the palace was built very soon after the capture of Soli by the Persians in 498 B. C. Pottery exclusively of late Type V was found below the floors of the I st building period and pottery of Type VI together with a few specimens of Type V below the floors of the znd building period. Consequently, the rst building period covers the latest stage of Cypro-Archaic II, which thus ends some time after c. 500 B. C. At the beginning of the znd building period we have already passed into Cypro-Classic 1. The division between Cypro-Archaic II and Cypro-Classic I falls the~ef?re between the rst and znd building periods. The Attic finds below the floors of the 3rd building period help us to determine another fixed chronological point. The Attic pottery dates altogether from the early 5th cent. B. C.; among this pottery is a White Grounded lekythos and a Red Figured amphora, both dating from c. 460 B. C." Further, the latest Attic terracotta figurines found in the same stratigraphical context date from the second quarter of the 5th cent. B. C., and none is later than c. 450 B. C.' On this archaeological evidence we are thus justified in assigning the end of the znd building period to c·'45 0 B. C. This date can also be strengthened by reference to historical events: it has been shown in Amer. Journ. of Archaeol. XXXVII, pp. 594 f., Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 287 f., and Opusc. archaeol. IV, pp. 21 ff. that the changed Hellenizing plan of the palace built in the 3rd period can be historically explained by the establishment of a philhellene dynast in Marion and Vouni as a result of Kimon's expedition in 4,49 B. C. Between these two dates thus fixed for the beginning of the first building period and the end of second, we have therefore to fix the division between Cypro-Archaic II and Cypro-Classic 1. The combination of t~e pottery types found below the floors of the first, second, and third building periods is such that it can reasonably be supposed that the fixed point for this chronological division lies midway between the beginning of the first and the end of the second period, and the proposed date, 475 B. C., cannot therefore be far from correct. In consideration of the intimate cultural interrelations of Cyprus and Greece during Cypro-Archaic II it is only natural that the transition from the Archaic to the Classical periods are approximately contemporary in these countries. Not only the vases of good quality, but also standardized, Greek ceramics are often somewhat earlier than the dates of the Cypriote tombs where they were found: the Cypriote 1
conservatism included a great passion for imported heirlooms, cf. below, p. 427, n. 2. 2 Cf, p. 268. "Op. cit. III, p. 285. 'Op. cit. III, p. 2 89.
Finally we have to determine the absolute dates of the Cypro-Classical periods. The beginning of Cypro-Classic I has been fixed at c. 475 B. C.; the end of Cypro-Classic II coincides with the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and can thus be assigned to c. 325 B. C. The chronological division between Cypro-Classic I and II can be fixed at c. 400 B. C. This date is based upon the chronology of the Attic vases found in the tombs at Marion. The American Agora excavations in Athens have provided an extremely important and well-dated series of pottery from the 5th and 4th cent. B. C., so that it is now possible to date even the common pottery, standardized Red Figured and Black Glazed, within defined chronological limits.' This is invaluable for the absolute chronology of the Marion tombs, because the great majority of the Attic ware found in these tombs consists of pottery of this kind, as pointed out above. Tomb 1411, assigned to Cypro-Classic I B, contained Attic pottery from the last quarter of the 5th cent. B. C., and Tomb 14111, dating from Cypro-Classic II A, has Attic ware from the early 4th cent. B. C. Attic pottery from the last quarter of the 5th cent. B. C. was found in Tomb IS, which dates from Cypro-Classic I B. Tomb 25 contained Attic pottery from the first halt of the 4th cent. B. C. and Tomb 39 the same pottery from the second quarter of that century. Both the tombs can be assigned to Cypro-Classic II A. Tombs 4711 and 5611 date from Cypro-Classic I B. Of these, Tomb 4711 yielded Attic pottery from the later 5th cent. B. C. and Tomb 5611 similar pottery from the end of that century. Attic pottery from the early 4th cent. B. C. was found in Tombs 431 and 601, which date from Cypro-Classic II A, and the latest pottery in Tomb 67, which belongs to the same period, can be assigned to the second quarter of the 4th cent. B. C. Similar evidence is afforded by other tombs, too, but that given above may suffice. It can thus be seen that tombs dating from Cypro-Classic I B contain Attic pottery from the later 5th cent. B. C. and tombs from Cypro-Classic II A such pottery from the early 4th cent. B. C. Consequently, there is ample evidence for the proposed date, c. 400 B. C., as a chronological division between Cypro-Classic I and II. 2
Summing up the results we obtain the following absolute chronology: Cypro-Geometric
"
"
I: 1050-950 B. C. II: 950-850 B. C. III: 850-700 B. C.
Cypro-Archaic
"
Cypro-Classic
" 1 Miss Lucy Talcott has most kindly placed the dating evidence at my disposal, and the dates given here are altogether based on her information. 2 It should be noted that the Attic pottery groups in some tombs are rather heterogeneous in chronological respects, vases of somewhat different date being found together. The imported vases were apparently much appreciated by Cypriotes and often kept as heirlooms before they were offered to the dead. The latest vases are naturally decisive
I: II: I: II:
700-600 600-475 475-400 400-325
B. B. B. B.
C. C. C. C.
for the date of each group. There is only one slight discrepancy between Cypriote and Greek dating evidence; the Attic pottery from Marion, Tomb 141, is assigned to the last quarter of the 5th cent. B. C., but the burial group dates, . on Cypriote evidence, from about the middle of CyproClassic I, i. e., c. 435 B. C. There is consequently a minimum discrepancy of 10 years between the dates. The discrepancy is thus very slight, and can be disregarded even if the Attic evidence will prove to be incontestable.
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
The Mycenaean colonists and conquerers were the lords of the country, but the descendants of the Late Bronze Age inhabitants, whom we may call the Eteocyprians, formed the majority of the population, and for some time parts of the island still remained entirely Eteocyprian. No foundation legends refer to cities in the interior of the island or to places on the south coast between Kurion in the West and Salamis in the East. In the interior of the island there were "barbarian", i. e., Eteocyprian cities at least down to the Classical period.' The invasion and colonization proceeded from beach-heads along the coast in successive attacks from Salamis in the East, Lapethos in the North, Paphos and Kurion in the West, but on the south coast t.be arms of the pincers were not pressed together, so that Amathus and Kition were apparently not included in the effective area of occupation. Kition was made a Phoenician dominion during Cypro-Geometric III, as shown below, and there is nothing to indicate that this city had previously been a base for Greek colonization. About Amathus we are informed by Pseudo-Skylax that the people of that city was considered to be autochthonous." During the early Iron Age Amathus, like Kition, was probably a purely Eteocyprian city and its Eteocyprian character was long preserved. In view of this we understand better that Stephanos Byz. calls Amathus 1tOAt<; K(>1tpou &pX!Xtotat·~.3 The preGreek, Eteocyprian population of Cyprus is also recorded by mythological literature. Theopompos tells us that the Amathusians were a remainder of the people of Kinyras who were driven away by the Greeks under the leadership of Agamemnon. 4 Kinyras is the eponym and ancester of the Kinyradai,' the old priest-kings of Paphos and he was founder of the temple and the cult of the Paphian Aphrodite.' The Kinyradai share the sacerdotal leadership with another priest-family, the Tamiradai, who were in charge of the soothsaying art, though later on this privilege was handed over to the Kinyradai.: Tamiras was said to have come to Cyprus from Cilicia,' and Kinyras was also of Cilician origin.' Cultural interrelations
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
The Cypro-Geometric Period he turbulent times. of the last phase of the Cypriote Bronze Age are still resounding . in the entrance vaults of the Cypro-Geometric period, the turbulent times of mili. tary invasions, ravages, and political disturbancies, but the echo of the war-trumpets dies away, and out of the night of tempest and devastation the day of a new time awakens, the time of reconstruction and colonization. The effects of this colonization were of decisive importance for cultural development during the Iron Age; a recapitulation and survey of the principal traits of this event form therefore the necessary starting-point for a description of Cypro-Geometric history. We know that Cyprus was invaded by foreigners at the end of the Bronze Age, during the rzth cent. B. C.,. apparently on two successive occasions and from two different directions. The first wave of invasion affected the eastern part of Cyprus. The intruders came from Asia Minor; they seem to have traversed the Syrian coast and were mixed with Syrian tribes and Levantine people of Achaean stock. In ancient literature the tradition of these events is recorded by the legend of the Anatolian" Teukros, the founder of Salamis. The second invasion took place in the western part of Cyprus. Through the pressure of the Dorian migration hords of Mycenaean Greeks were forced to leave the Peloponne~e, and part of them migrated to Cyprus. The Greek foundation legends show t~at the e~Il1grants came from Achaea, Arcadia, Laconia, Argolis, and that they were associated WIth small groups of peoples from the islands, e. g. Dryopes from Kythnos, and probably also other contingents from the Dodecanese: the legends referred to are that of Praxandros who founded Lapethos, that of Kepheus, most probably the founder of Keryneia, that of Agapenor who is the 'X.ttO't"f,<; of Paphos, the tradition of an Argive colonizatio.n of Kuri~n,. that of a Dryopian immigration from Kythnos, and the legend of the expulsion of Pheidippos
T
from Cos to Cyprus." lOpuSC. archaeol. III (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. X, 1944), p. 87; Swed. Cyp. Exp, IV: I (forthcoming). s A critical discussion of the foundation legends is published in Opusc. archaeol. Ill, pp. 107 ff., where distinction is made
between legends recording a historical tradition and those purely fictional or reflecting logo graphic speculations and po~ litical propaganda, e. g. the legends of the Salaminian Teukros, Akamas, Demophon, Phaleros, Chytros, and Golgos.
Pseudo-Skylax, 103: Kwta as KtJ..t'l\[ay ~a~l Vijao~ K61tpo~, 1toJ..Zt~ ~Y aln'?; araz' ~aJ..afL1~ 'En'fjY[~, J..tfL€ya I[xooaa 'l\hla~OY xztfLZPWOY, Kap1taaZla, Kzp6yzta, Aa1t'fJ&o~ (cod. A+I1t'fJ&t~)
'l\a1
~ap~apot.
a Cf. n. 1. 3
~Y
Steph, Byz., s. v. 'AfLa&05~' 1tOJ..l~ K61tpoO &.pxaw~a~'fJ,
'Ii
y
AaWYl~ YOatpl~ hlfLii~o, OY Alj61t~wy oY~a K61tpwt 'l\a1
I i
4 Theopomp., Fragm. 103 (JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. 2 B, p. 558): y.a1 1tSPl€XSl b awaha~o~ J..OjO~ ... ~[Ya rs ~P01tOY "En'fjYs~ oE C;UY 'AjafL€fLyoYl ~"JY K61tpoy 'l\a~€axoY &.1tsJ..a(laY~s~ 'tou~ fLz~a KlYOpOO, JJy slalY o1toJ..l1tsI~ 'AfLa&OIJ(llOl. 6 Schol. Pindar. Pyth. II, 27: b as KtYopa~ ob~o~ ~(l~lY, &''f' ob ot ~Y K61tp'P KlYOp[aat ~.?; &sip &.Yt€PWY~at. 6 Clemens, Protr, II, 13, 14. Tacit., Hist. II, 3 assigns the foundation of the earliest temple in Paphos to Aerias, a purely fictitious person. 7 Tacit., loco cit. 8 Tacit., loco cit. 9 A detailed description of all the legends referring to
Kinyras is out of place in this context (ENGEL, Kypros II, pp. 94 ff.; ROSCHER'S Lexikon II, pp. II89 ff.; PAULY & WrSSOWA, R. E. XI, pp. 484 ff.), and I limit myself to an examination of the chief points of interest for the question here considered. Such an examination leads to the conclusion that Kinyras, like Tamiras, was of Cilician origin. His father was Sandakos, i. e., the Cilician god Sandon, and his mother was Pharnake, the daughter of Megessares, the king of the town of Hyria in Cilicia (Apollod, III, 14, 3). His pedigree was, however, many-sided with a multitude of varieties, invented in order to attach him to the Greek heroic world and to Syria. His father was supposed to be Apollon, or Eurymedon, or Paphos and his mother a Paphian nymph (Schol. Theokrit. I, 107; Schol. Pindar. Pyth. II, 27, 28; Hygin., Fab. 242, 270, 275). The Cilician Kinyras was also attached to the Attic list of kings by making him a descendant of Kephalos, the son of Hermes and Herse, the daughter of Kekrops, Phaethon, here the grandson of Kephalos and Eos, was father of Astynoos and his son was Sandakos, the father of Kinyras (Apollod., loc. cit.). His daughter Laodike was married to the Arcadian Elatos (Apollod., III, 9, I) and in this wayAgapenor and his descendants, the Greek kings of Paphos, were made Kinyradai. We have epigraphic evidence
43°
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
of Cyprus and Cilicia are proved by archaeological evidence,' and some part of the Eteocyprian people which, as we know, was related to those of North Syria and Anatolia ought to have come from Cilicia. Weare therefore entitled to consider Kinyras as a representative of the Eteocyprian people of Cyprus. _ In accordance with this, the legends represent him as the king of Cyprus at the time of the Greek colonization of the island. In the Iliad he is said to have presented a cuirass to Agamemnon,' and a later version of this story made Kinyras also promise to send Agamemnon fifty ships. This promise was not satisfactorily fulfilled - only one ship was delivered and reproductions of ships in terracotta were substituted for the others' - and this deceit was declared to be the reason for the vengance of Agamemnon, who attacked Kinyras and deprived him of his kingship. It is interesting to find that the Kinyras of this story was a king of Amathus. His connections with that city are further elucidated by the fact that his mother was sometimes called Amathusa.s This brings him into special prominence as a representative of the Eteocyprian people. As no tradition of a Mycenaean colonization refers to Amathus, the notice of Agamemnon's attack on Amathus and the expulsion of Kinyras from the city may be considered as a projection back into mythological times of a later event when the city was brought under Greek sway. We cannot ascertain when this happened, but in the Cypro-Classical period the names of Amathusian kings known to us are Greek. 6 The late survival of the Eteocyprian people is confirmed by epigraphic evidence. Among the inscriptions found in Cyprus there are a few written in Cypriote syllabary, but in a that the Paphian kings were priests of Aphrodite (HOFFMANN, Griech. Dial. I, pp. 56 f., Nos. 101-105; MITFORD, Nikokles, King of Paphos in Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler, pp. 197 ff.) and the last Ptolemy of Cyprus continued to be a high priest of the Paphian Aphrodite after the Roman occupation of the island (Plut., Cato min. 35). The cult of the Paphian Aphrodite was supposed to be of Syrian origin, derived from that of Askalon, according to a Cypriote tradition mentioned by Herodotos (I, 105). Kinyras was therefore transferred to Syria. The close relationship between Aphrodite and Adonis made him a king of Byblos (Strab. XVI, 18, 755), the principal place of the Adonis cult. He also founded a temple of Aphrodite on the Lebanon (Lukian., De dea Syria 9) and Adonis was his son (cf. p. 442 n. and Athen. X, 83, 456 a; Ovid., Metam. X, 298 ff., 503 ff.), According to this derivation of the Paphian Aphrodite cult from Syria, Kinyras was made a son of Theias [Schol. fl. XI, 20; Eustath., in Hom. Il. XI, 20 (827, 34)] and he was therefore also called king of Assyria (Hygin., Fab. 58, 242, 270). His name has been derived from the Semitic word kinnor (Gr. lllv6pa), harp [already suggested by Eustath. in Hom. fl. XI, 20 (827, 37 f.)] but that etymology, though approved by some modern scholars, has been contested by others (MEYER, Gesch. d. Altert, Ill, p. 227), and even if the etymology could be ascertained, this would not prove the Syrian origin of Kinyras, because with a musical instrument borrowed from a ~oreign country the foreign word of the instrument was also usually taken over (BLINKENBERG, Le temple de Paphos, p. 36). An attempt at combining the
attachment of Kinyras to Syria with his Cilician origin can be observed in the statement that Sandakos immigrated to Cilicia from Syria (Apollod., loco cit.). BIinkenberg connects the temple architecture and cult of Paphos with the Mycenaean culture and accordingly considers Kinyras to be of Mycenaean origin (BLINKENBERG, op, cit., pp. 14 ff.). As we have seen above, the mythological evidence speaks decidedly against this theory and the other evidence adduced by Blinkenberg to support the theory is not conclusive (WESTHOLM, The Paphian Temple of Aphrodite, in Acta archaeol. IV, 1933, pp. 223 ff.), We thus see that the mythological attachment of Kinyras to Syria and Greece is of secondary nature and is explained by the opinion that thePaphian cult was of Syrian origin and by the desire to connect pre-Greek Cyprus mythologically with Greece. Only the tradition of the Cilician origin of Kinyras shows no signs of having been invented for some particular purpose and is therefore the only one to be considered trustworthy. 1 Rev. arch. Ser, 6, III, 1934, pp. ISS ff.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV: I (forthcoming). _ ENGEL, Kypros I, pp. 203 ff., 207 and his followers, who were of the opinion that the pre-Greek culture of Cyprus was Phoenician, consider Kinyras to be a representative of a pre-Greek, Phoenician culture of Cyprus. 3 Hom., fl. XI, 19 ff. • Schol. Hom. fl. XI, 20. s Steph. Byz., s. v. 'AfJ-a,'I'oii~. 6 Cf. p. 475, n. S.
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
i
43 1
language that is neither Greek nor Phoenician. This Eteocyprian language has hitherto resisted every attempt at an interpretation, 1 but it is generally considered to show connections with Asia Minor.s Linguistic evidence thus seems to confirm that of mythology, archaeology and anthropology as regards....the Syro-Anatolian connections of the Eteocyprian stock of people. It is a remarkable fact that seven out of the eight inscriptions known hitherto have been found in Amathus,> the stronghold of the autochthonous population according to literary evidence. Thus the Eteocyprian people was very resistant, but the Greeks were culturally active and politically dominant. In order to understand the formation of the early Cypro-Geometric culture, we must therefore consider both the impulses and activity of the Greek upper class and the cultural tradition of the Eteocyprian majority. Already at the end of the Bronze Age, in the first generation after the Mycenaean conquest, the foundations of a new, united culture were laid by means of an initial union of the Eteocyprian and Mycenaean-Greek elements,' and this process was continued in the early Iron Age, the contrary forces were counterbalanced, and stability of the cultural status was effected. This does not mean that the fusion was general and complete. The Eteocyprian and MycenaeanGreek components are sometimes disintegrated, and the archaeological data confirming the literary evidence mentioned clearly demonstrate both the united and opposed factors of culture. The unity was formed by a combination of the contrasts and not by their extinction. We hear the tunes of the new era forming the composition of a symphony with Mycenaean themes, Eteocyprian counter-themes, and Cypro-Geometric combinations and development of both. This development extended without interruption, though in a gradually modified form, from the beginning of Cypro-Geometric I to the end of Cypro-Geometric II. Together these periods form a single cultural epoch, the great opening epoch of the Cypro-Geometric Age. The cultural characteristics of this epoch are well exemplified by its different types of tombs. In Lapethos and Kurion there are tombs of entirely Mycenaean types with a rockcut chamber, entered by a long and narrow dromos with its walls usually converging upwards. These tombs date from Cypro-Geometric I and II. We have seen that both Lapethos and Kurion are mentioned in the literature as centres of the Mycenaean-Greek colonization. It would not be a surprise if tombs of this type will be found at the third place in ancient literature indicated as a centre of the Greek colonizat ion, viz. Paphos. In the excavations 1 References to works dealing with these inscriptions are given by HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 53.
a Glotta V, 1914, p. 260; VII, 1916, p. 38.
Cf. Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachf, 52, 1924, pp. 194 ff, The eighth inscription has been found at Abydos and may well be a record of an Amathusian residing at Abydos (cf. p. 501). One of the inscriptions is bilingual CApXawA. 'E'f'"fjfJ-. 19 14, pp. I f.) with Greek as the second language. The Greek inscription can be assigned to the later part of the 4th cent. B. C. Consequently, at that time the Eteocyprian language was stilI spoken in Cyprus. This gives us good linguistic evidence 3
of the strength of the autochthonous element in the Cypriote culture. Both the topographical and chronological correspondance between the literary and epigraphical evidence is notewort hy: the work of Pseudo-Skylax dates from the middle of the 4th cent. B. C. and the lower limit of the Eteocyprial inscriptions is the later part of the 4th cent. B. C. as we have seen. • GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist. Cyprus, pp. 328 f.; SJOQVIST, Probl. of the Late Cypr. Bronze Age, pp. 190, 208 f.; Opusc. archaeol. III, .)p. 75 f.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:I (forthcoming). 6 Cf. pp. 30, 23 8.
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
43 2
carried out there in 1888 by the Cyprus Exploration Fund early Cypro-Geometric tombs were found, but unfortunately nothing is known about their shape.' We thus se~ that Mycenaean types of tombs and Mycenaean colonization seem to coincide topo~ra~hlcally. 2 In Salamis and Kition no Cypro-Geometric tombs have been explored scientifically. In Amathus, where the Eteocyprian population was predominant, we meet quite a different type of tomb consisting of a rectangular shaft to which a short and narrow entrance passage leads down. The shaft was usually covered by stone slabs. Sometimes the walls of the shaft and the back wall of the passage are revetted with stones, a primitive resemblance to the monumental built tombs of the Archaic period (p. 454)· This type of tomb has Syrian connections,' another indication of the Syrian element in Eteocyprian culture. Neither in the interior of the island, at .Idalion,' nor at Marion' on the west coast, have tombs of the Mycenaean type been discovered. The tombs represented there, those with basin-shaped or staircase shaft, continue Cypriote tradition from .t~e Bronze Age' an.d afford therefore evidence of the persistence of the Cypriote tradition of culture. It IS remarkable that old Cypriote shapes of tombs occur even in places which were centres of the Mycenaean-Greek colonization, both in Lapethos and Kurion. From. the latter place a pit-shaped tomb? is recorded, but unfortunately we cannot state to which phase of the Cypro-Geometric period it belongs. In Lapethos, however, Cypriote shaft-tombs have been found from Cypro-Geometric I. 8 It is interesting to note that the contemporary tombs of Mycenaean and Cypriote shape at Lapethos are situated at different locali~ies, the t~mbs of Mycenaean shape at Kastros and those of Cypriote shape at Plakes. It l~ thus ~vldent that the Greek colonists and the Eteocyprian population of Lapethos buned their dead in separate necropoleis, and probably also settled separately at the beginning of ~ypro Geometric I. Already at the end of this period/ and still more in Cypro-Geometnc 11,10 the tombs of Mycenaean type at Kastros approach to the shape of tomb represented at Idalion and Marion, i. e., the Mycenaean type is influenced by the Cypriote. Another mark of the time: shaft tombs of Cypriote type similar to those of Cypro-Geometric I and II atPlakes occur in the necropolis of Kastros at the end of Cypro-Geometric 11," i. e., the Eteocyprian element gains ground. These different types of tomb, their topographical distribution and typological development present us with an instructive picture of the cultural contrast between the Mycenaean colonists and the Eteocyprian population at the beginning of the Iron Age, and on the other hand show the tenacity of the Et~ocyprian Journ. Hell. Stud. IX, 1888, pp. 264 ff. About the shape of the tomb at Kition which yielded the finds published in Ann. Arch. & Anthrop, Liverp. III, 1910, pp. 107 ff. nothing at all is known and the same holds good for the Cypro-Geometric tombs excavated by Myres (Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, pp. 155 f., Tombs 53, 55), which seem to belong to Cypro-Geometric III, though Tomb 55, if not entirely dating from Cypro-Archaic I, at least contained a burial from that period. 1
2
3
Cf, p. 239.
• Tomb 3 (p. 30).
o Tombs 63, 65, 68-70, 83 (pp. 30 ff.), 6
E. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. I, pp. 305, 3 16, 233, 326, 344,
427· OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. CLXXIII, 19 (p, 29)· Tombs 601-603 (pp. 29 f.). 9 Tomb 419 (Swed. Cyp. Exp, I, pp. 233 f., Fig. 87: 4-7);
?
8
cf. p. 30. 10 Cypro-Geometric II A: Tomb 425; Cypro-Geometric II B: Tombs 401, 411, 416, 423, 424, 426 (pp. 30 ff.). 11 Tomb 429 (p. 29).
433
tradition of culture as well as the gradual assimilation of the Mycenaean and Eteocyprian types in Cypro-Geometric II. The marked difference between the Mycenaean-Greek and Eteocyprian types of tombs is not accompanied by a similar difference between their burial customs. Both in Lapethos and in Amathus the corpses were inhumed and, as a rule, placed in an outstretched, dorsal position on the rock floor, in Lapethos sometimes on levelled beds of clay and earth and in Amathus on beds of pebble. Occasionally the corpses were placed on their right or left .side, in a slightly contracted position. The finds of pins and fibulae show that the clothes of the deceased were fastened with these implements. The pins are the old Cypriote implement; the fibulae were introduced in Late Cypriote III from the Aegean. It can be stated that the fibulae were used for fastening both the male and female dress, though, apparently, they were more common as an article used by women. Food and drink were stored in vessels of various kinds and placed around the corpses. To the men were given their tools and weapons, the women retained their needles and spindle-whorls, in token of their practical household work, and the bulk of the jewellery. It did not, however, stop with giving the deceased what he needed and could enjoy in the life to come, but it was also a custom to make ritual ?fferings to him, and there is even evidence that sacrifices of human beings were performed to the deceased. The victims were probably slaves, who were killed at the funeral. These offerings and sacrifices indicate that the deceased was conceived as super~ human, a mighty being. The human sacrifices have been noted hitherto only in connection with burials in the tombs of Lapethos, and so far as evidence goes it was a practice introduced by the Mycenaean. colonists/ while offerings to the dead were customary in Cyprus from the beginning of the Bronze Age.. Since the Greek colonists were buried in tombs of Mycenaean shape, we are justified in presuming that they also lived in houses of Mycenaean type, with amegaron as the principal room, while the Eteocyprian population continued to construct houses of native style inherited from the Late Bronze Age. This hypothesis is warranted, but it cannot be proved, because the domestic architecture of the epoch is still almost unknown to us. Only fragmentary remains of a house have been discovered on the acropolis of Kition,> The evidence provided by the sacred architecture is also too scanty to be conclusive. Only two small sanctuaries of this epoch have hitherto been excavated. The detached chapel discovered at Ajios jakovos represents such a simple form of architecture and the type is found within so widely different areas that it cannot serve as a criterion for cultural relationship. The same holds good for the Cypro-Geometric temenos at Ajia Irini, the irregularly oval temenos enclosed by an earth wall. The Cypro-Archaic temenos at Ajia Irini, which is better preserved in essential details, has striking Minoan-Mycenaean parallels,' but even if these may be presumed to have existed in the Cypro-Geometric temenos - though evidence is lacking on account of its easily destructible building material - we must, in this Szoed. Cyp. Exp, III, p. 18, Fig. 16:
1
HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, pp. 64 ff.
3
2
GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, p, 87.
• Arch. f. Re!. wiss. XXX, 1932, pp. 351 ff.
I.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
434
case, reckon just as much with Cypriote prehistoric tradition as with Minoan-Mycenaean influence transmitted by the Mycenaean Greek colonists. Apart from the tombs, the handicraft products form our principal material for a determination of the cultural structure of the epoch. We know that the pottery of Late Cypriote III is characterized by an initial coalescence of Mycenaean, Cypriote, and Syro-Palestinian elements, a reflection of the ethnic amalgamation of the period following upon the invasions of the Teucrians and the Mycenaeans. In the pottery of Cypro-Geometric I the ceramic fusion continued and was completed, extending to comprise the shapes and ornaments of every class of vase, and, with a few exceptions, the same type is represented both in the decorated wares, White Painted and Bichrome, and in the monochrome pottery, Black Slip and Plain White. The bulk of the shapes are of Mycenaean origin, but a conside~a?le number are derived from Cypriote prototypes, and a few shapes show Syro-Palestmlan connections. The ornaments, on the other hand, mainly represent a development of Mycenaean prototypes. The reason for this is easily found: the monotonous decoration of the painted pottery of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age, viz. White Slip, had insuf~cien: ar~istic force to assert itself in the competition with the Mycenaean ornaments and their derivatives, and, in consequence, almost disappeared during Late Cypriote III. The shapes and ornaments of the early Iron Age pottery are thus derived from different sources, partly Cypro-Oriental and partly Mycenaean-Greek, but they were amalgamated into an artistic unity. This ceramic unity is further emphasized by the fact that the Cypriote pottery classes of this epoch, i. e. Cypro-Geometric I ~nd II, are uniformly d~strib~te.d all over the island. The pottery found in the Eteocypnan tombs at Lapethos IS stylistically identical with that discovered in the tombs of Mycenaean type at this place. Neither is there any essential difference in style between the pottery from Lapethos and that from other find-places, except Amathus, and this exception is symptomatic. The vases discovered at Amathus are made of a fairly coarse and less well silted clay than the others, and their shape is characterized by a certain rustic heaviness that is not typical of the other contemporary Cypriote pottery, but is met with in the contemporary Syrian pottery imitating Cypro-Geometric prototypes.' It is therefore tempting to interpret the characteristics of the Amathusian pottery as a ceramic indication that the Eteocyprian population with its Syrian connecti?ns was predominant in that city. This ceramic individuality is not, however, of such a kind that it conflicts with the greater and general stylistic uniformity shown by the pottery. The cultural uniformity is not only reflected by the pottery, but also by the other handicrafts. We have seen that the metal-work, the weapons, instruments, jewellery, and the other products in terracotta, faience, stone, and bone are represented all over the island without distinction and, like the pottery, they show both survivals of old Cypriote shapes, development of Mycenaean prototypes, and Near Eastern, particularly Syrian, connections.' The swords, the shields with a narrow central disc fixed by a nail in the button-shaped Cypriote specimens: e. g., Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, Pis. XCI, 10' CI 1-3' Syrian specimens: Syria II, 1921, P'ls. 'X~III: 16~18; XIX, 19-22, 24-29, 31, 32; XX, 33, 34, 37-45; cf. p. 29 1. 1
3
5 7
, Swords, pp. 372 f.; Spear-heads, pp. 374 f.; Arrow-h~ads, pp. 375 f.; Shields, pp. 37 6 ff.; Fibulae, pp. 382 ff.; Earrings, pp. 384 if.; Beads, pp. 39 6 f.; Mountings, pp. 397 if.; Lamps, p. 402; Tripods, pp. 403 f.; Vases, pp. 405 if.
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
435
boss, and the fibulae are of Mycenaean derivation; all the other products of art and crafts represent old Cypriote or Near Eastern connections. Artistically, Cypro-Geometric I is a great time, on the evidence of the pottery and the other handicraft products. The bodies of the vases are firmly constructed, with rhythmic lines, and their different parts are combined into a well balanced unity. We feel the fresh and inspired artistic spirit and the energetic power of creation produced by the tension of the Cypriote and Mycenaean components. It is an artistically young and dynamic period. Though gold ornaments were not piled on the corpses buried in the tombs in the same extravagant way as sometimes in the Late Bronze Age, yet the tombs of Lapethos show that the material resources of the period were not small, and their artistic qualities demonstrate, like the pottery, the high standard of the arts and crafts, when we consider the golden plaques with figure and floral decoration, the exquisite earrings, or the delicate filigree work of the pendants. Fairly soon the creative impulses are, however, suffocated by the mass of OrientalCypriote indolence, and in Cypro-Geometric II the style of the pottery shows tendencies toward lassitude: the shapes of the vessels lose their elasticity, grow heavy and less vigorous, the technique is coarser, the ornaments are poorer, and their composition is fairly unimaginative and mechanical. ~ The concluding phase of the first cultural epoch is thus characterized by a gradual diminution of the Mycenaean-Greek spirit and vitality and, in consequence, by a growing Eteocyprian reaction, also indicated, as already mentioned, by the disappearance of the Mycenaean type of tomb and the predominance of the Cypriote variety of graves. The mighty Mycenaean-Greek tide is on the ebb, and the Eteocyprian flood is rising. That is the end of the first cultural epoch of the Cypro-Geometric Age. The second cultural epoch follows, covering Cypro-Geometric III. The pottery gives evidence of the changed situation. The ceramic fabrics, characteristic of the first epoch, White Painted, Bichrome, Black Slip, and Plain White, continue in the second epoch, with the transformations and modifications in shape and ornaments that are stipulated by the typological development, but in addition there appears a new type of pottery: Black-onRed and its undecorated variety, Red Slip. We have seen that Syro-Palestinian Black-onRed ware was imported in small quantities to Cyprus during Cypro-Geometric I and II. In the beginning of Cypro-Geometric III the.Black-on-Red pottery appears in Cyprus in great numbers and it is no longer imported, but native. In other words, that which was represented only sporadically and by imports is now turned into a Cypriote mass product. How shall we interpret this phenomenon? Should we imagine that the Cypriotes all of a sudden took such a fancy to the foreign Black-o~-Red Ware that they began to imitate it in large quantities? In my view this explanation must be rejected. The Cypriote Blackon-Red pottery shows no signs of being an imitation product. We do not yet know the exact area of provenance for the foreign Black-on-Red pottery, but it seems certain that it is to be looked for within the Syro-Anatolian region. The Cypriote Black-on-Red Ware represents a new element in the development of Cypriote pottery, with a new technique, new shapes, and new ornaments, the characteristic concentric circles. At the same time Cypriote shapes and ornaments were also adopted by the Black-on-Red pottery, and gradually the
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
originally non-Cypriote forms and ornaments of Black-on-Red were appropriated by the earlier painted wares of the Cypriote Iron Age pottery, White Painted and Bichrome. Consequently we face a ceramic fusion of. Cypriote and foreign elements analogous to that of Late Cypriote .III and Cypro-Geometric I pottery. In my opinion this analogous situation should be interpreted in an analogous way, i. e., the ceramic evidence indicates an influx of Syro-Anatolians .into Cyprus and their gradual fusion with the Cypriotes. At the time of the appearance of the Black-on-Red pottery in Cyprus, c. 850 B. C., the political conditions in Syria were uneasy. The campaigns of Shalmaneser III in that country were accompanied by the usual plunderings and massacres, and it is easily understandable that some part of the Syrian population should take refuge in Cyprus. We know that this happened on later occasions, e. g., when king Luli in 701 B. C. was expelled by Sennacherib from Tyre and came to Cyprus." To judge by the ceramic evidence, the Syro-Anatolian foreigners did not settle in separate communities, but were incorporated into the existing Cypriote settlements. Thus it was not the question of a colonization in the proper sense of the word, but of an immigration on a large scale. One Syrian people arrived, however, as colonists in Cyprus during Cypro-Geometric III, viz. the Phoenicians. The date of the Phoenician colonization in Cyprus is much debated and forms an intricate problem. It is generally assumed that the Phoenicians arrived in Cyprus shortly after the Greeks," some time in the r rth cent. B. C.4 A divergent opinion is held by Hogarth, who considers the Phoenician dominance in Cyprus to have begun in 479 B. C.,· a date which is supposed to be the commencement of the dynasty of Baalme1ek in Kition.' Hogarth admits that there may have been earlier trading settlements, but he says that "there is no good evidence to prove their existence". None of these opinions seems to be acceptable. Let us first consider the epigraphic evidence. A Phoenician tomb inscription in the Cyprus Museum has been assigned to c. 900 or the first half of the 9th cent. B. C.7 The provenance of the inscription is unknown, but is probably Cyprus. Provided that the date and the provenance are right, the inscription shows only that a Phoenician was buried in Cyprus at the time in question. The earliest written record of Phoenician settlers in Cyprus is afforded by inscriptions on bronze bowls said to have been found at Mouti Sinoas,> a mountain situated between the villages Kellaki and Sanida north-east
of Amathus. These inscriptions mention "the governor of Kartihadast, servant of Hiram, king of the Sidonians", and the bowls were dedicated by the governor of Kartihadast to Baal of Lebanon. The king can be identified with Hiram II of Tyre, who paid tribute in 73 8 B. C. to Tiglatpilesar III! Kartihadast, "New City", can be identified with Kition.s The earliest literary record of Phoenician domination in Cyprus takes us very near the time indicated by the inscriptions of Mouti Sinoas, viz., to the time of the Tyrian king Elulaios. Menandros of Ephesos tells us that the city of Kition broke away from this king and that he had to undertake a military expedition in order to reduce it to obedience." We cannot exactly fix the year of this event, but it must have happened at the end of the 8th cent. B. C.,4 and thus serves to confirm the evidence of the inscriptions from Mouti Sinoas, viz.,
I
I MEYER, op. cite- II",. 2, - pp. 406 ff, "LUCKENBILL, Anc. Records of Assyria II, 309 (p. 142), 326 (pp. 147 f.). Cf. Isaiah XXIII, 12: "Thou shalt no more rejoice, 0 thou oppressed virgin daughter of Sidon; arise, pass over to Kittim; even there shalt thou have no rest." It is generally assumed that this passage reflects the flight of Luli to Cyprus. "The. old opinion that ·the Phoenicians had already colonized Cyprus before the Greeks in the znd millen. B. C. has been abandoned long ago. The fact that Syrian tribes immigrated to Cyprus at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and in the Late Bronze Age (cf. SJOQVIST, op, cit., pp. 198 f.), introducing Syrian culture into the eastern part of Cyprus, is another matter. There is no evidence that these Syrians were Phoenicansand this general- invasion of Syrian
elements should not be confused with the later Phoenician colonization of Kition. 4 MEYER, op. cit. II", 2, p. 86. s HOGARTH, Ionia and the East, pp. 86 f. • Cf. pp. 477, 479, n. 5· 7 Iraq VI, 1937, p. 108. The dating is somewhat uncertain as it is based only on epigraphic typology. 8 C. 1. S. I, NO.5, PI. IV; OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, p. 21;Amer.Journ.Archaeol. XXXVII, 1933,P. 12; XXXVIII, 1934, pp. 366 f. Next in time to the inscriptions on the Sinoas bowls are Phoenician inscriptions .on a White Painted IV stemmed bowl (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 775, pp, 101,521; CESNOLA, Cyprus, Fig. on p. 68; PI. 10: 9) and on a Red Slip II (IV) juglet (Handb. Cesn. Coll., No. 479, pp. 59, 521) both thus dating from ·the 7th cent. B. Cv-The latter in-
scription tells us the owner's name. Of course, these epigraphic specimens do not of themselves prove. the existence of a Phoenician settlement in Cyprus, but afford supplementary, though somewhat later, evidence to that mention:ed above, and the fact that the inscription on the White Painted IV bowl has been applied in paint before firing proves, by itself, the presence of Phoenician craftsmen in Cyprus. IV. LANDAU, Beitr. z. Altertumskunde d. Orients I, pp. 17 ff., 28 f.; MEYER, op, cit. II", 2, p. 126; OLMSTEAD, Hist. of Palestine and Syria, p. 434; HILL, op, cit. I, p. 102. a Kartihadast was first identified with Kition by E.· Schrader. Already SIX (Rev. num. 3· ser., I, 188 3, p. 253) hinted at the possibility of this identification but he did not work out the hypothesis; this was done by SCHRADER in his work Zur Geogr. d. assyr, Reichs, in Sitz. ber, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 18 9 0 , pp. 337 ff. ED. MEYER accepted this identification (op. cit., 11\ p. 225, n.: II, 2", p. 86, n. I), but later on he changed his view (op. cit., III", p. 9 1). OBERHUMMER(Cypern I, p. 14) suggested Amathus, instead of Kition, without giving any reason for his opinion (the reasons for this identification were to be given in the second part, never published, of the author's work), and Hill also reckons with the possibility of Amathus as Kartihadast in view of the fact that the supposed find-spot of the bronze bowls is but twenty-eight miles from Kition (HILL, in Ann. Inst, phil. et hist. orient. et slaves V, 1937, p. 4 87; id., Hist; of Cyp. I, pp. 107 f.). Following a suggestion also made by OBERHUMMER (art. Kypros in PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E. XII, p. 102) he is still more tempted to identify Kartihadast with Limassol (Lemesos), which was once called Neapolis (HILL, loco cit.). The opinion of HALEVY who considered Kartihadast to be Nea-Paphos (Rev. etud. juives II, 1881, p. 13), has already been refuted by OBERHUMMER (Cypern I, p. 14), and I can therefore leave that out of the discussion. Kartihadast appears also in the tribute list of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal as the name of one of the ten Cypriote kingdoms tributary to these Assyrian kings. For that reason we may exclude Lemesos from the list of candidates, because Lemesos was never a kingdom and the name Neapolis, supposed to be a Greek translation of Kartihadast, was not given to it before Mediaeval times when it became the flourishing successor of Amathus (SAKELLARIOS, Ta K01tpta~u I,p. 60). Furthermore there are other, absolutely conclusive reasons against the identification of Kartihadast with either
437
Lemesos or Amathus, The name of the city, Kartihadast, is Phoenician. The inscriptions of the bronze bowls show that it was ruled by Phoenicians and that it was a Tyrian dominion, evidently called Kartihadast, "New City" as a Tyrian colony. Lemesos and Amathus were neither Tyrian colonies nor ruled by Phoenicians, so far as we know. True, Amathus has been considered a Phoenician city, but PERDRIZET (Bull. Corr. Hell. XX, 1896, p. 353), PERISTIANIS (I'sv, 'len. 'r'1'I<; v, K01tpoo, pp. 255 ff.), and HILL (in Ann. Inst. Phil. et Hist. orient. et slaves V, 1937, pp. 485 ff.; id. Hist. of Cyp. I, pp. 100 f.) have proved this opinion to be incorrect. Furthermore, the only reason advanced in favour of the identification of Kartihadast with Amathus, viz., the find-spot of the bowls, is quite irrelevant, because the find-spot does not indicate the geographical position of Kartihadast anymore than e. g. the ex-votos ofKroisos erected in Delphi tell us where Sardes is situated. There is only one Cypriote city which corresponds entirely to what we know about Kartihadast and that city is Kition. We know, as will be shown below, that it was a Tyrian dominion some 10 years after the dedication of the bronze bowls and its later history confirms that it was a Phoenician city, in fact the only Phoenician city of Cyprus (cf. below). Kartihadast must, therefore, be Kition. The bowls were dedicated to Baal of Lebanon, as we have seen. This indicates that the local Cypriote god worshipped at Mouti Sinoas was identified by the Phoenicians with Baal of Lebanon (Cf. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, p. 21), and the Cypriote mountain was probably called Lebanon by the Phoenicians. ED. MEYER (op. cit., II, 2", pp. 126, 146, n. 4) points out that the Phoenicians gave also the name of Lebanon to a mountain near Carthage. a Joseph., Antiq. Iud. IX, 2 84: ~al 'EAooAato<;, -lhp.€vwvalmjl Boa<; iJvop.a, ~~acr[hocrEv 1£'r'fJ 'rp~lhov'ra €~. 00'1:0<; Ihocr'runwv K~na[wv &va1thocra<;1tp o0'fJrujE'ro all'ro1J<;1tI1.AtV. 4 We are informed by josephos (op. cit. IX, 283 ff.), i. e. Menandros of Ephesos, that Tyre during the reign of Elulaios was unsuccessfully besieged by Shalmaneser V (727-722 B. C.). Elulaios has been identified with the king Luli of Sidon (cf, above) who was expelled by Sennacherib in 701 B. C. and took refuge in Cyprus (MEYER, op. cit. II", 2, p. 127; OLMSTEAD, op, cit., pp. 454, 457, 471 f.), but this identification has been disputed (HoNIGMAN, art. Sidon in PAULY-WISSOWA, R. E. II A 2, p. 2218; HILL, op. cit.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
that Kition was a Tyrian dominion in the later part of the 8th cent. R C.I The archaeological material helps us to fix the initial date of this dominion. The Syrian elements appearing in the technique and shapes of the Cypriote pottery during Cypro-Geometric I and II are not of such a kind that they indicate a Syrian colonization in Cyprus, but may be satisfactorily explained as inherited from Late Cypriote III" or as a cultural influence from the commercial interrelations of Syria and Cyprus during the periods in question (pp. 252 ff., 270 ff.), Furthermore, the technique and elements of shape mentioned are not in any way typically Phoenician, but indicate only generally Syro-Palestinian connections. It is also impossible to combine the appearance of the Black-on-Red pottery in Cyprus with the Phoenicians, because there is no evidence whatsoever that this pottery, though apparently of Syrian origin, as we have seen, has any associations with the Phoenicians. In the 8th cent. B. C. there first appears pottery of Phoenician type in Cyprus: I refer to the jugs with tapering neck and pinched mouth" which are represented in Red Slip Ware from CyproGeometric III B, i.e., c. 775-700 R C. These jugs are, however, imitations of metal prototypes (p. 409), and accordingly they may be explained as Cypriote imitations of imported Phoenician metal jugs. We must therefore look for a better evidence serving to indicate a Phoenician settlement in Cyprus. This evidence is afforded by the Cypro-Phoenician metal bowls, which were most probably manufactured by Phoenician artists settled in Cyprus.' The earliest of these bowls can be assigned to the 8th cent. R C., as we have seen. If anybody is still sceptical as to the value of this evidence, I invite him to study the stratigraphic series of successive floor-levels on the acropolis of Kition. We put the question: is there a radical change and transformation of the habitation indicating the intrusion of a new influence in the architecture of the place, of such a kind that it may be conveniently connected with the arrival of new settlers? The answer is yes, and the floor-level looked for is the one which marks the beginning of the third building period on the acropolis of Kition.s I, p. 102). Olmstead synchronizes the rebellion of Kition with the war of Shalmaneser V, when according to Menandros (Joseph., op, cit. IX, 285) Sidon, Akko, Palaetyrus and other cities seized the opportunity of revolting against the Tyrian domination, and the reconquest of Kition is dated after the successful resistance of Elulaios against the attack of the Assyrian king (OLMSTEAD, op. cit. p. 454; cf. also id., Hist. of Assyria, p. 205). Ed. Meyer, on the other hand, thinks that the rebellion of Kition means in reality its conquest by Sargon in c. 707 B. C. and he is of the opinion that the siege mentioned by Josephos and by him referred to the reign of Shalmaneser V should be assigned to the time of Sennacherib (MEYER, op, cit., II", 2, p. 127). The reign of Elulaios is assigned by Meyer to c. 725-690 B. C. ' I Coins of Sidon from the and cent. B. C. announce that city to be the metropolis of Kambe, i. e., Carthage, Hippo (sc. Diarrhytus), Kition, and Tyre (HILL, Cat. of the Greek coins of Phoenicia, pp. CVI f.), but these claims were rejected by Tyre, and that city set up the counterclaim that it was the metropolis of Sidon. As pointed out by EISELEN (Sidon, p. 25), these coins "reflect the spirit of rivalry at a late period,
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
This period lasted from c. 800 to c. 650 R'C.I We have seen that no specimens of art, indicating a Phoenician settlement in Cyprus can be dated earlier than the beginning of the 8th cent. R C., and this date coincides approximately with that of the floor-level mentioned. We may therefore assign the beginning of the Phoenician domination in Cyprus to c. 800 R C. This comparatively late date of the Phoenician colonization agrees with what we know about the date of their regular commercial activity in the western Mediterranean. The traditional early datings of these events are doubtful, and the penetration of the Phoenicians from the eastern to the western Mediterranean seems to have taken place during the 8th cent. R C." This does not of course exclude the possibility that single Phoenicians, or small groups of them, may have settled in Cyprus before c. 800 R C. - the Phoenician tomb inscription mentioned would, if dated correctly, form epigraphic evidence - and it is also probable that the true colonization in the western Mediterranean was preceded by sporadic sailings of Phoenician pioneers. The epigraphic and literary sources tell us that Kition was a Tyrian colony ruled by a governor in the name of the Tyrian king. Thus there was an administrative difference between the Greek and the Phoenician colonization in Cyprus. By the former, independent kingdoms were created, while Kition was subject to the mother-city Tyre. Further, the Greek colonies were the result of a mass migration and effected a political occupation and a cultural penetration of fairly large areas, while the Phoenician colonization of Kition in CyproGeometric III should be characterized as an establishment of a trading factory with the purpose of gaining a firm footing for Phoenician, and particularly Tyrian, trade, in accordance with the usual type of the Phoenician colonization." The colonists were rather few and the cultural influence comparatively insignificant. Only in the Cypro-Archaic period is there evidence of a Phoenician colonization in Cyprus on a large scale and with increased cultural results (p. 462).
when neither city enjoyed supremacy over the other, but when each was anxious to be recognized as supreme, and sought to strengthen its position by arrogant claims". These coins are therefore of no historic value for the question of the Phoenician colonization and as regards Kition we know from other sources quoted above that Kition was a Tyrian colony in the later part of the 8th century B. C. " Cf. pp. 285 ff.
"Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CXXVI, 2; simil;r jugs have been found in masses in the Punic tombs at Carthage (cf, p. 29 6). 4
Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec.
XII, 1946), p. 13. 5 As can be seen from the stratigraphic evidence (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Plan V, 4, facing p. 14) the floors of the local periods 1-2 in Kition abut against the stone foundation of the Cypro-Geometric building found on the acropolis of that city. This shows that Period 2 represents direct continuation of the habitation represented by Period 1. The floor of Period 3, on the other hand, was laid on top of
439
I(
J
the filling of the demolished house of Periods 1 and 2 and marks a radical change and transformation of the occupation of the place: nothing indicates that the house of Periods 1 and 2 was anything else than a domestic building, while the floor of Period 3 belonged to a temenos, a sanctuary of the whole city, a predecessor of the later Phoenician citysanctuaries (Periods 4-8) on the acropolis of Kition. It should be noted that Section VI, Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Plan V, is not quite correct: in the fair-copy the sun-dried bricks of the wall were drawn one layer too high, so that the floor of Period 3 abuts against them, while the brick wall actually had been demolished to the level of the floor which passed over the top of it. This is shown by the original drawing, in the Cyprus Collection in Stockholm (cf. the corrected fair-copy, Fig. 70). I apologize for the mistake and defective control of the faircopy. I
Fig. 70. Corrected drawing of Section VI, Swed. Cyp, Exp. III, Plan V. This fair-copy is in accordance with the original drawing.
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 7r.
"AKERSTROM, Der geom. Stil in Italien, pp. 162 ff. "MEYER, op. cit., II", 2, pp. 84 f.
440
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
The question of the local extension of the Phoenician colonization in Cyprus should be dealt with in this context; though in doing so we must consider material referring to periods later than Cypro-Geometric. The topographical distribution of the Phoenician inscribed stones found in Cyprus elucidates this question. The overwhelming majority - more than 80 - of these Phoenician inscriptions with known provenance have been found in Kition.' Of the inscriptions found outside Kition there are nine from Idalion, dating from the preHellenistic period.' The remaining inscriptions, represented by only one or two specimens in each place, have been found in Tamassos,' Athienou,» Chytroi,' Lapethos,' and Paphos.' None of these very few Phoenician inscriptions found outside Kition indicates a Phoenician colonization. The coins confirm this epigraphic evidence. Only the coins of Kition show us a coherent series of Phoenician rulers to the end of the coinage of that city" with one sole exception: the coins of Demonikos, who was installed as a king by Chabrias in 388/7 B. C.,· but this short interruption of the Phoenician rule does not prove the existence of a Greek 1 c. 1. S. I, Nos. 10-87; v. LANDAU, op, cit. II, pp. 16 ff., Nos. 15-93; Cat. Cyp. Mus., p. 6, Nos. 6231,6232; Journ. Hell. Stud. XVII, 1897, pp. 171 ff.; Iraq VI, 1939, p. 104. . • C. 1. S. I, Nos. 88-92; Rep. d'Epigr. Sem., Nos. 453, 1209, 1210, 1522; Iraq IV, 1939, pp. 104 f. C. I. S. I, No. 89 is bilingual and Nos. 93, 94 are Hellenistic and do not, therefore, 'concern us in this context. Five inscriptions refer to ex votos and dedications made by the kings Baalram, Melekiathon, and Pumiathon of Kition and the sixth inscription has reference to a sculptural ex voto of Resephiaton, interpreter at the court of king Melekiathon. Evidently inscriptions of this kind cannot be considered as proofs of a Phoenician settlement in Idalion. 3 Sitz. ber, Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1887, pp. I 17ff., 121 ff. These.inscriptionsare both bilingual and refer to the erection of votive statues by Menakem and another Phoenician called Apsasomos in the Cypro-Greek version of the inscription. Both inscriptions date from the time of Melekiathon and are, therefore, earlier than the incorporation of Tamassos intothekingdomofKition(p. 497). Before that date Tamassos was ruled by a Cypro-Greek dynasty of which we know the last representative by name, viz., Pasikypros (loc. cit.). The Phoenician dedicators mentioned in the inscriptions may have been persons resident in Tamassos, butthere is nothing to show that the Phoenician element was so numerous that we can consider the city to. be a Phoenician settlement. On the contrary, the fact that the inscriptions are bilingual indicates the existence of a Cypro-Greek population in Tamassos. Unfortunately the epigraphic material from Tamassos is very scanty and apart from these two bilingual inscriptions no others have been found there from the preHellenistic period. 4 Ci I, S. I, No. 96. This single Phoenician inscription is, of course, absolutely inconclusive as evidence of a Phoenician settlement in Athienou, particularly in view ovthe fact that no less than 57 Cypro-Greek inscriptions in Cypriote syllabary have been found there (COLLITZ, Samml. griech. Dial.Inschr, I, pp. 31 ff., Nos. 65-II9; HOFFMANN, Griech. Dial. I, pp. 87 f., Nos. 175, 176).
5 Rep. d'Epigr. Sem., No. 922 (cf, also No. 1928); Iraq VI, 1939, p. 106. Against this single Phoenician inscription there are 17 Cypro-Greek inscriptions in Cypriote syllabary from Chytroi (COLLITZ, op, cit. I, pp. 13 ff., Nos. 1-14; HOFFMANN, op. cit. I, pp. 46, Nos. 65-67). 6 The Phoenician inscriptions from the Hellenistic period (C. 1. S. I, No. 95; Rev. d'Assyriol. III, 1894, pp. 69 ff.) are not considered in this context, only that published in Le Museon LI, 1938, pp. 285 ff. This inscription is dated to between 345 and 315 B. C. (ibid., p. 298) and informs us about the existence of an important Phoenician family in Lapethos surviving in the Hellenistic period (cf. Vol. IV: 3). It also informs us about a temporary rule of a Phoenician king in Lapethos, viz., Berekshemesh, in the later part of the 4th cent. B. C. but also that his predecessor was a Greek, whose name ended in -ippos and who was a son of Demonikos who temporarily ruled in Kition 388/7 B. C. (p. 494). The Phoenician Berekshemesh was perhaps followed by the Greek Praxippos, who was deposed from the throne by Ptolemy Soter in 312 B. C. (Diod. XIX, 79, 4). The coins of Sidqmelek and an earlier issue with traces of Phoenician letters may be assigned to Lapethos (cf. below) and would thus indicate a temporary Phoenician rule in Lapethos in the 5th cent. also. It is thus clear that a group of Phoenicians lived in Lapethos at least from the Cypro-Classical period and also in Hellenistic times and it is also proved that this city was temporarily under Phoenician rule, but there were also Greek kings in Lapethos and there is nothing to show that the city was a Phoenician settlement (cf. p. 441, n. 9). 7 Rep. d'Epigr. Sem., No. 921 (cf. also No. 1928); Iraq VI, 1939, pp, l0S f. The inscription mentions a Phoenician woman offering a plait of hair to the Paphian Aphrodite. "HILL, Cat. of Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. XXIX ff.; 8 ff. • Cf. p. 494. It is symptomatic of the Phoenician status of Kition that even the coins of the Greek Demonikos, though some are inscribed with Greek letters, have Phoenician inscriptions (op. cit., pp, XXXVII ff.),
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
441
settlement in Kition any more than the temporary Phoenician coinage and rule in Salamis,' Marion,' and, possibly, Lapethos,s indicate a Phoenician settlement in these cities. We thus see that the epigraphic and numismatic material indicates unanimously that the Phoenician settlement was centred in and around Kition. The few Phoenician inscriptions and coins found in other Cypriote cities indicate only an extension of the Phoenician political rule during a shorter or longer period, or give evidence of the. intercourse between the Phoenician and Greek cultural spheres of Cyprus, an intercourse which consisted not only in transport of wares but also in moving of persons, so that several Phoenicians became residents in the Cypro-Greek cities, and vice versa Greek Cypriotes dwelled permanently within the Phoenician area of culture; The Cypro-Greek inscriptions in syllabary script found in Kition and its surroundings give evidence of that and form complementary material to the Phoenician inscriptions discovered in the Cypro-Greek cities. Thus some inscriptions in Cypriote syllabary have been found in Kition- and at Pyla,« where oddly enough no Phoenician inscriptions have been discovered hitherto - an analogy to the curious fact that two Phoenician, but no Cypro-Greek ones, have been found hitherto in Tamassos. The conclusions drawn from the epigraphic and numismatic material are confirmed by the evidence of history and mythology. That Kition was a Phoenician city is fully proved by historic records, of which the earliest have already been mentioned and those belonging to the Archaic and Classical periods will be considered in due course. In the mythological literature, Kition was said to have been founded by Belos.s In the legend of Belos referring to Cyprus, he was a king of Sidon. He is said to have conquered the whole of the island, and with his help Teukros took possession of Salamis.' In spite of the later spe.;. culations and obvious confusions reflected by the legend" it cannot be doubted that the knowledge of a Phoenician colonization of Kition is represented in mythological dress by the record of Belos as a founder of Kition. Historic records and mytho logical interpretation have also been advanced in order to vindicate Phoenician settlements in Lapethos, Keryneia, and Karpasia, but a critical study of the pretended evidence for this shows that we must reject the idea about a Phoenician colonization of these cities.' If thus the Phoenician settlelOp. cit., pp. XCVIII ff, • Num. Chron., Ser. 5, XII, 1932, PP.209 ff.; Opusc, archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec, XII, 1946), pp, 21; cf, p. 477· 3BABELON, Les Perses Achemenides, pp. CLII f.; HILL, op, cit., p. LIV; PIs. VI, 6-8; XX, 1. Mr. J. Stewart informs me that traces of Phoenician letters have been discovered on coins of an earlier issue (BABELON, Traite monn. gr. et rom., PI. CXXXVI, 10; HILL, op, cit., PI. VI, 3), which also may be from Lapethos. This would prove Phoenician dynasts to have been already installed in Lapethos early in the 5th cent. B. C. (cf. pp. 440, n. 6; 477)· 4 COLLITZ, op. cit. I, p. 26, Nos. 57, 58; HOFFMANN, op, cit. I, Nos. 125-1 27 ; SAKELLARIOS, 'fa K01tpta'l.u I, p. 36. 5 COLLITZ,Op. cit. I, p. 44, Nos. 120, 121; HOFFMANN, op. cit. I, p. 65, Nos. 128, 129· 6 Steph. Byz., s. v. Au1t'fj&o~' BofJAOO IJ' abK[~~OY~6 Mt (1'.6po6ClCla AU1t'fj&o~.
7 Verg., Aen. I, 61 9 ff.; Servius, in Verg. Aen. I, 621. " Cf. ROSCHER, Lexikon I pp. 778 f. • Pseudo-Skylax (103, cf, p. 429, n. I) mentions Lapethos as a Phoenician town in his enumeration of the Cypriote cities. The passage in question runs thus: Kap1tUCl6la, K6pUY6~a, AofJ1t'fjlh~
o~Y[1(WY. Some scholars think that o~Y[1(WY refers not only to Lapethos but also to Karpasia and Keryneia. This is grammatically possible though not necessary. Only Lapethos is unquestionably called a Phoenician town by Pseudo-Skylax, The statement that Lapethos was a Phoenician town conflicts with everything else we know about the population of that city. Archaeological facts, the shape of the Early Iron Age tombs and the objects discovered in these show indisputably that Lapethoswas inhabited by decendants of Mycenaean Greeks at that time, and this is confirmed by mythological tradition assigning the foundation of Lapethos to Laconian colonists headed by Praxandrosfrom Therapne
44 2
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
ment in Cyprus even in Archaic and classical times was ~onfined to the area of .~ition, this must have been the case all the more in Cypro-Geometnc III, when the Phoenician colony was in being and still had the character of a trading factory. (p. 428). In the Archaic and Classical periods t~e histo~ of Lapethos is very little known, but we know that Its last king, Praxippos, was Cypro-Greek and there is nothing to sho."' that the city did not remain a Cypro-Greek settlement m spite of the occupation of the throne by Phoenician kings of the 5th and 4th cent. B. C. (pp. 440, n. 6; 441, n. 3; 485), and the same holds good as regards the Phoenician governors of the Lapethos district and the Phoenician priests in Narnaka (Larnaka tis Lapithou) mentioned in the inscriptions of the Hellenistic period mentioned above. The administration of Lapethos was apparently handed over by the early Ptolemies to members of a local Phoenician family in consequence of the anti-Ptolemaic policy of king Praxippos, but this fact does not allow us to consider Lapethos a Phoenician settlement any more than do the temporary reigns of Phoenician kings in the 5th and 4th cent. B. C. In other words: the fact that some Phoenician families lived in Lapethos did not turn the city into a Phoenician settlement any more than CyproGreek families living in Kition made that city a CyproGreek settlement (p. 441). Accordingly it seems most likely that the statement of Pseudo-Skylax may be explained as recording a temporary political domination of Phoenician kings in Lapethos. Another hypothesis has been put forth by Engel (Kypros I, pp. 78 f.) and Enmann (Kypros u. d. Urspr. d. Aphroditekultus, p. 61), who wish to explain the statement of Pseudo-Skylax by reference to the verse of Alexandros from Ephesos quoted above: Lapethos was called Phoenician, because Belos was said to be its founder contrary to the Greek foundation legend (p. 44 1, n. 6). The detached verse of Alexandros does not, however, allow us to judge whether Bofj).o1) refers also to Lapethos, and the premises are therefore already very uncertain for this reason, but, granted that Alexandros of Ephesos has declared ~elos to be the founder of Lapethos, it remains to be explained how this legend was created early enough, i. e., before the middle of the 4th cent. B. C., to have been able to influence the statement of Pseudo-Skylax. So far as I can see, the only possible explanation of this foundation legend would be a reference to the temporary political domination of the Phoenicians in Lapethos during the 5th cent. B. C., and we are thus ultimately thrown back on the same explanation of the statement as suggested above. Karpasia was said to have been founded by Pygmalion. This notice quoted from the K1)1Cpta;~b. of Hellanikos (Stephanos, Byz., s. V. Ka;p1Ca;:;[a;' 1CO).t~ K61CP01), "1 Y II1)ifLa;).[UlY hn:;sY,
II1)ifLGt).lUlYGt 'tOY iZYSt fLSY olYt~a;, ~Gt:;t)"s6oYtGt 8" K1)1C?lUlY),
but this does not suffice to vindicate a Phoenician settlement in Karpasia. It is an important fact that no Phoenician inscriptions, but four Cypriote ones in syllabary script have been discovered at Karpasia or its neighbourhood (COLLITZ, op, cit. I, p. 49, Nos. 142-145). The story of the Cypriote Pygmalion is well known (Clemens, Protr. IV, 57, 3; Arnob., Ado, nation. VI, 22; Ovid., Metam. X, 243 ff.), and his connection with the cult of Aphrodite is evident. His daughter Metharme was married to Kinyras and their sons were Oxyporos and Adonis (Apollod, III, 14,3,2), while Ovidius (Metam. X, 297 ff.) makes the vivified statue of Pygmalion bear him a daughter called Paphos, the mother of Kinyras. Hesychios has also preserved a notice that Pygmaion, i. e., Pygmalion was the Cypriote name of Adonis (Hesych., s, v. II1)ifLa;[UlY' b y A8lOYt~ 1C:<,?it. K1)1Cp[Ot~). Pygmalion is thus also connected with the cult of Adonis, and in the name we may trace that of a Phoenician god Pumaj (ROSCHER, Lexikon III, p. 3318). The city-names Aphrodision, Urania and the temple of Aphrodite Akraia bear witness of the widely spread cult of Aphrodite in Karpassos. In view of all this we may infer that Pygmalion in his capacity of legendary founder of Karpasia indicates an important cult of Aphrodite and Adonis, but not a Phoenician settlement in that town. There remains the question of a Phoenician settlement in Keryneia. No Phoenician inscriptions but two specimens of the Cypriote syllabary script have been found in Keryneia (COLLITZ, op. cit. I, p. 16, Nos. IS, 16), and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of a Phoenician settlement there except the statement of Pseudo-Skylax interpreted to such an effect. In view of this we may unhesitatingly reject the theory of an Phoenician settlement in Keryneia. Kepheus of Achaea was said to be the founder of the city as we have seen (p, 428). He was sometimes mixed up with Kepheus, the father of Andromeda (ROSCHER, Lexikon II, p. r r r r), who was localized in the Orient, made king of the Ethiopians and according to one version resided in lope. Accordingly ENMANN (op. cit., pp. 60 ff.) has advanced the theory that the "Ethiopian" Kepheus was made a founder of Keryneia instead of Kepheus of Achaea and brought with him Phoenicians and Ethiopians to Cyprus. This legend, according to Enmann, would account both for the statement of Pseudo-Skylax that Keryneia was a Phoenician town and that of Herodotos that there were Ethiopians in Cyprus (cf. p. 467). This explanation is purely speculative and cannot be based on documentary evidence. As regards the question of Phoenicians in Keryneia it is, moreover, superfluous because it cannot be ascertained that PseudoSkylax has called Keryneia a Phoenician town as shown above. We shall return subsequently to the "Ethiopian" question.
443
By the Syro-Anatolianimmigration and the Phoenician colonization, no ethnic element until then unrepresented in Cyprus was introduced into the island, but the Syro-Anatolian components in the construction of the Cypriote population were naturally strengthened, the oriental Eteocyprian stock gaining in force. In consequence the Mycenaean-Greek impulses of culture were quenched, and the Eteocyprian spirit triumphed in most branches of Cypriote civilization. The Mycenaean type of tomb disappeared entirely in CyproGeometric III,I and the only architectural monument known from that period, viz. the sanctuary of Anat-Athena in Idalion, consisting of a court and a chapel attached to it, shows clear connections with Oriental culture and Eteocyprian tradition. The chapel is of the Orientalliwan type, and the most striking parallel to this Cypriote sanctuary is provided by a temple in Byblos, as we have seen. It has been stated above that Cypro-Geometric II was marked by an increasing reaction against the Mycenaean-Greek influence. In CyproGeometric III this reaction was intensified into an Eteocyprian self-assertion inspired by a new-born will of creation and causing a general stimulus to artistic activity, as shown by the handicraft products. The cultural development of the Cypro-Geometric Age was thus determined by the results of ethnic movements. In the first cultural epoch the Mycenaean colonization provided the impetus for artistic advance, and in the second epoch the SyroAnatolian immigration and the Phoenician colonization caused an analogous effect. The laxity of Cypro-Geometric II pottery is no longer found, the shapes of the vases being restrained, distinct and elegant, sometimes with a tendency towards a sharp, angular outline, in accordance with the disciplined temperament of the Cypro-Geometric III artists and their sense of strictness and accuracy. New ornaments appear, not only the Syro-Anatolian concentric circles, but also a number of other motifs, as specified above, and their composition is more various and fanciful than during Cypro-Geometric II. The metal industry also shows great progress in Cypro-Geometric III, apparently a result of the activity of the Phoenician craftsmen settled in Cyprus and skilful in metal work, but their Cypriote colleagues were able competitors. The Proto-Cypriote, Cypro-Egyptian, and Cypro-Phoenician bowls of bronze, silver, and gold with their rich and various ornaments afford incontrovertible evidence of the economic wealth of the time, and are noble specimens of its metal art. The relations of the Proto-Cypriote style to Syrian art and Eteocyprian tradition, the introduction of Egyptian elements into the Cypro-Egyptian style, and the combination of Syrian, Assyrian, and Egyptian motifs in the Cypro-Phoenician style - all these artistic variations illustrate the increased multitude of colours in the cultural picture of Cypro-Geometric III, and supplement the ceramic evidence of its oriental context. In particular, the Cypro-Phoenician craftsmen, by whose activity Egyptian motifs were also introduced into the artistic repertory of the island and even adopted by their native colleagues, contributed to this important extension of the oriental range of Eteocyprian culture. In spite of the increasingly complicated composition of this culture, its unity was still preserved, but instead of the tension between the Mycenaean and Eteocyprian elements 1
All the tombs at Lapithos (Tombs 402-405, 421, 427;
Sued. Cyp, Exp I, pp. 179 ff.) dating from Cypro-Geometric
III represent different Eteocyprian types of tomb; what the conditions are at Kurion cannot yet be ascertained (cf. p. 432).
444
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
of art so characteristic of the first cultural epoch of the Cypro-Geometric Age another contrast appeared in the second epoch, demonstrated not only by the different styles of the metal work mentioned, but also by the stylistic differentiation of the pottery. The decoration of the pottery of the later stage.of Cypro-Geometric III permits us, as we know, to distinguish between an Eastern and a Western group, the latter characterized by geometrical ornaments, above all concentric circles and the former by a preponderance of rectilinear patterns and the introduction of pictorial designs. This division of Cyprus into two cultural provinces was not, however, fully developed until the beginning of the Archaic period (p. 461). It is interesting to find that they coincide approximately with the two cultural districts of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age. The restoration of the Eteocyprian predominance thus effected a return to the cultural division of pre-Greek Cyprus. In this way CyproGeometric In was an epoch of concentration and preparation for the full development of the Eteocyprian renaissance of the early Archaic period. Within one department of human activity, viz. that of language and literature, the Mycenaean-Greek tradition was, however,able to assert itself more effectively than in the other spheres of culture. This is an important fact. The Mycenaean colonists talked, as we know, a language akin to the Arcadian dialect but with distinct peculiarities.' The Phoenicians and Eteocyprians spoke their own languages. Of these, only Phoenician is as yet represented in writing during the Cypro-Geometric period, as we have seen, but as the syllabary used in Eteocyprian and Cypro-Greek inscriptions from Archaic and later epochs is derived from. the Minoan script,' it must have remained in use during the Cypro-Geometric period, though. the written documents have yet to be discovered. We cannot doubt which language of those existing in Cyprus was dominant in literature. It was Greek. Nothing indicates literary activity of any group of people in Cyprus other than the Cypro-Greeks. We know that the court of a Mycenaean king required one or several bards producing songs about heroic deeds and warlike adventures, and we can ascertain that such poetry was also practised at the courts of the Cypro-Greek kings. The proof of this suggestion is that epic poetry was represented in Cyprus by the epos Kypria. The most trustworthy tradition states. that the Cypriote Stasinos was its author. 3 The final form of the Kypria seems to have taken shape in the 7th cent. B. C., and very probably Stasinos should be identified with the person who arranged this redaction. Not least thanks to this epic poetry, the language of the Cypriote Greeks was preserved and. their culture was not entirely swamped by the Orie~tal milieu, its .Mycenaean-Greek character was not entirely exterminated, and we have here an explanation of its subsequent revival in the Archaic period (pp. 468, 473). There was not only literary activity: music, too, was practised in the Cypro-Geometric period, as shown by the finds. of the terracotta statuettes of lyre-players and flautists mentioned below. This music was intimately connected with cult ceremonies. . '. In the general progress of Cypro-Geometric civilization only one branch of art takes no part: the sculpture exhibits no signs of artistic development, or more correctly, of develop. ! 2
BUCK, Introd. to the Study of the Greek Dialects", p. 134.
Handb. d. Archdol., p.. 157.
3
PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E. XI, art. Kypros, pp. 2394ff.;
CHRIST, SCHMID
&
STAHLIN,
Gesch,
4. griechv.Lit. I,
I,
p. 207.
445
ment into art, but still remains' on the level of pure idol plastic, and if monumentalism, a leading principle in Archaic art, was already embodied by Cypro-Geomcn-e architecture _ as mentioned below, we may safely presume that this is the case - it was certainly absent from Cypro-Geometric sculpture, in which human, semi-human, and animal figurines of terracotta are fairly common, animal statuettes of bronze are rarer, and sculptures of stone are entirely lacking. The bronze statuettes are always solid, those of terracotta solid or hollow. The body of the human' and semi-human figurines widens towards the base. They are made in the so-called snow-man technique. The whole structure of the body is abstract; the feet are never indicated; the arms are projecting, curved stumps; the eyes and nipples are marked by pellets; the nose is thick and projecting; the face has often a bird-like, beaked appea~ance and the heads are sometimes extremely large in comparison with the body. Occasionally there are representations of lyre-players, flautists, groups of figures performing a dance, etc. This idol plastic was first developed into a real art-sculpture in the Archaic period. The Cypro-Geometric Age is sometimes considered to be a period of poorness and artistic indigence. That is a misconception. True, architectural monuments of importance are lacking, as we have seen, but that means only that they have to be' discovered. We cannot doubt that the kings caused more or less spacious palaces to be built as their residences. The preserved sanctuaries at Ajia Irini, Idalion, and Ajios jakovos, are rather rustic, but sacred architecture of a truly monumental kind does not occur in Cyprus even in Archaic and Classical times! - in sharp contrast to the' contemporary palace architecture. We are therefore unable to estimate the standard of the Cypro-Geometric Age on thebasis of its architecture, but, as pointed out, the products of its handicraft demonstrate both the artistic and material wealth of the period. Though the production of the handicrafts was of considerable importance, it cannot, however, be doubted that agriculture and cattle-breeding formed the economic basis of society both in.the first and the second cultural epoch oftheCypro;"Geometric period. From what history teaches us and from our general knowledge of the economicsocial stage of development represented by theCypro-Geometric period we may assume that the Mycenaean-Greek conquerers and their descendants formed an aristocratic upper class, whose fortune was based on tenancy of territories allotted to them at the occupation of the country. The supreme leader of the society was the king. As we know, Cyprus was at this time divided into a number of small independent kingdoms, except Kition 'which was subject to Tyre after the foundation of the Phoenician trading factory in Cypro-Geometric III, and was ruled by a governor appointed by the Tyrian king. Our knowledge of the Cypriote kingdom is drawn from notices referring to conditions in the 4th cent. B.C., when this kingdom had degenerated into a form of despotism (pp. 49 8 .f.). The Mycenaean origin of the Cypriote kingship is, however, indisputable.rand in the 4th cent. B.C. the brothers and sons of the king still bore the Homeric nameanaktes. We cannot say how ! This is not contradicted by the fact that in the Archaic period the sacred architecture, including that of a fairly rustic type, liberated itself from the extremely' primitive
form and displays a greater regularity in plan and a richer adornment. It is still of a non-monumental kind, though influenced by monumental architecture.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
soon the original Mycenaean organization of state and community was changed and influenced by oriental customs, but it seems certain that the Mycenaean tradition was fairly well preserved during the earlier phase of the Cypro-Geometric period. The Mycenaean military organization was also probably retained, with the king as chief commander authorized to make war. The weapons of the soldiers, their swords, spears and arrows were placed in the tombs and offered as ex votos in the sanctuaries, e. g. in that on the acropolis of Idalion, a magnificent collection of bronze and iron weapons indicating the military aspect of society. The king was also in charge of sacred matters in accordance with the traditions of Mycenaean kingship. In Cyprus there was, however, a pre-Greek, oriental priest-kingdom, the existence of which is known to us in Paphos, where it was represented by the Kinyradai and Tamiradai. We have seen that the Greek kings of Paphos continued this sacred tradition. Agapenor and his descendants were made Kinyradai in the way that Laodike, the daughter of Kinyras, in political mythology was made a wife of the Arcadian Elatos (p. 429, n. 9). Within the political sphere of the kingship a similar transition must have gradually taken place from the Mycenaean-Greek kingdom to the oriental autocracy, which subsequently is characteristic of the Cypriote form of government: Cyprus capta ferum victorem cepit, the same tendency towards influence of the Mycenaean-Greek cultural elite by the oriental milieu, as shown by the sacred architecture, the types of tombs, and the majority of the cultural remains. The geographical position of Cyprus destined it to serve as a connecting link between the Orient and the Occident, and the composition of the Cypriote culture from the beginning of the Iron Age, formed by Mycenaean-Greek and Near Eastern components, made it particularly appropriate to play this role. We have ample evidence that in Cypro-Geometric I Cyprus was already in commercial contact with the countries of the eastern Mediterranean, with Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, and in Cypro-Geometric II and III these connections are highly intensified. Cypriote exports to Palestine were not of the same extent as during the Late Bronze Age, when Cypriote goods were imported wholesale to that country, but their number is so considerable that we have to reckon with regular commercial relations. Quite another position is held by the Cypriote trade on the Syrian and Anatolian market. Sidon and Tyre were harbours frequented in South Syria and the cities at the mouth of the Orontes in North Syria. By the caravan routes various Cypriote goods were transported eastwards as far as Carchemish on the Euphrates. The quantity of imports is so large that we may deduce the existence of Cypriote trading factories. E. g. in Tainat, the Cypriote pottery found there forms c. 10 % of the total amount and c. 35 % of the painted wares. In Asia Minor the cities on the Cilician coast were harbours for the import of Cypriote goods, which were distributed thence inland as far as Alishar Hiiyuk in Cappadocia. The excavations at Tarsos have shown that there, too, we have to do with a Cypriote trading factory; even kilns for the baking of Cypriote pottery manufactured on the spot were discovered. The commercial expansion was possibly accompanied by plundering raids and temporary political occupation of a district bordering the sea: we hear about an usurper, probably of Cypriote provenance, in Ashod during the reign of
THE CYPRO-GEOMETRIC PERIOD
447
Sargon IV After Sargon's conquest of Ashod this usurper took refuge in Ethiopia, but was delivered to Sargon in 71I B. C. by the Ethiopian king. The reciprocity of the commercial relations is demonstrated by the import of Syrian products to Cyprus already in Cypro-Geometric I, but import of Cilician wares cannot yet be ascertained. Imports from Syria increased considerably in Cypro-Geometric II, but in Amathus, at first the most important harbour for the Cypriote trade with Syria, we notice a marked and sudden decrease of Syrian imported goods in the beginning of CyproGeometric III, possibly due to the fact that Kition, where at this time a Phoenician trading factory was founded, tried to secure a monopoly of the trade with Syria, but so far this explanation is entirely hypothetical. Cyprus was not entirely isolated from Greece in the early phase of the Cypro-Geometric period, but the connections between them were very little developed at that time. The rodtripods found in Vrokastro, Knossos, and Athens suggest a Cypriote context, and they were spread as far as Etruria. Pottery of Cypro-Geometric I has not yet been found in Greece, but ceramic evidence of Cypriote contact with Greece during that period is afforded by occasional Cypriote influence on the shapes of the Proto-Geometric pottery of Greece, and this influence continued during Cypro-Geometric II. The reciprocal Greek influence on Cyprus is almost imperceptible. During Cypro-Geometric II there is also evidence of direct intercourse between Cyprus and Egypt, at first on a small scale and fairly sporadic. Egyptian scarabs, amulets, and pendants of faience imported to Cyprus serve as proofs of the trade with Egypt, but examples of Cypriote exports to Egypt are still lacking. During Cypro-Geometric III, Cypriote trade increases considerably both with Egypt and with Greece, as demonstrated by Cypriote pottery exported to the Delta, to Rhodes, and to Crete. Imports from Greece seem first to begin in this period. Cypriote imports are particularly common in Rhodes, and this island appears more and more as an important station for Cypriote trade with Greece. Accordingly we are justified in assuming that the few Geometric vases of Attic origin found in Cyprus have arrived there via Rhodes. The Greek export trade to Cyprus is still inferior to Cypriote exports to Greece. The mutual influence on culture caused by these commercial relations can also be proved by archaeological material. We have seen that the Cypriote pottery, both technically and in form, shows influence from Syria, and in a similar way Cypriote pottery has affected Syrian. In accordance with the rather inconsiderable import of Greek pottery even in the final phase of the Cypro-Geometric period it can be seen that the Greek influence on Cypriote culture is still very small, but the reciprocal Cypriote influence is much more varied and stronger, as shown both by the pottery and other handicrafts. Greek influence is first important in the Cypro-Archaic period (p. 308). During the Cypro-Geornetric period Cyprus thus appears as a gradually more important centre of commerce and culture in the eastern Mediterranean, with trading factories on the Asiatic continent and towards the end of the period, during Cypro-Geometric III, with increased connections with Greece. The island begins to fulfil its mission as an inter1 MEYER,
Gesch. d. Altert, lIP, p.
42.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
mediary in culture between the Orient and the Occident. In relations with Greece, Cyprus still plays the active part. The role of Cyprus as an intermediary in culture, should not, however, hide from us its importance as a power of culture, its cultural value. This culture cannot be characterized only as a pattern card of the artistic manifestations of the neighbouring cultures or a catchment area, where the cultural currents of the time were gathered without distinction. The Cypriote culture, like all others, had its periods of progress and decline. Within the space of time here considered, the Cypro-Classical period is one of degeneration, but during the Geometric and Archaic epochs the Cypriote culture developed its full vigour. The foreign elements were modified, incorporated into the Cypriote organism, and in this way new forms were created, new styles, artistic products of a distinct character. This K6rcptO<; x!Xp!X'x:t·~p is many faceted, versatile, sometimes full of contradictions, but displays always something of an essential and homogeneous trait, so that Cypriote products of art may always be identified as such and as nothing else than Cypriote, neither Syrian, Egyptian nor Greek, nor as only a mixture of these. The Cypriote character is a rustic spirit attached to the earth, not deeply speculative but sober, inclined to be matter-of-fact, simple and uncomplicated, though at the same time with a certain predilection for an accumulation of details, now of an astringent form but of an austerity that sometimes may be awkward, now softly flexible with a tendency towards heavy and slack forms, expressive and realistic, but at the same time conventional, open to influences, but sticking tenaciously to its own experience, willing to learn, though tied by tradition, composed of the occidental impulses of renovation and the flegma of the Orient - these are some essential traits of the Cypriote spirit. It is clear that a mentality of this kind does not rise to the highest summits of art, and Cypriote culture has reached neither the monumentality of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations, nor can it compare with the Greek culture in originality and strength, but disregarding these unreasonable comparisons I venture to say that the Cypriotes have produced specimens of art in pottery, metal work, and sculpture which may enter into competition with and sometimes surpass those produced by the other contemporary peoples around the Mediterranean, the Etruscans not excluded, whose art is usually as much esteemed as that of the Cypriotes is under-estimated. This is no plea for Cypriote art but a statement of facts recognized by anybody who casts an eye on the reproductions of the elite works of art in this publication. In the Cypro-Geometric period the foundations of this Cypriote power of culture are laid, it is the morning and springtime of art; in the Cypro-Archaic period it reached its meridian and summer of maturity.
449
The Cypro-Archaic Period The begin~ing .of the Cypro-Archaic period coincides with a political event of great and fa~ r.eachl~g Importance for Cyprus. The effects of the Assyrian power spread from the ASIatIc .~aml~nd across the sea. Cyprus was drawn within the Assyrian sphere and lost he~ pO~ltIcal. mdep.endence. In 709 B. C. the Cypriote kings submitted to Sargon II and paid him tnbute m gold, silver, utensils and furniture of great value. This event is record~d in various inscriptions from the palace at Khorsabad- and in the inscription on a me~onal stele erected by Sargon in Kition.s Similar stelae were probably erected in the caP.ltals of all the Cypriote kingdoms. The inscriptions mention seven kings of Ia, a vanant of Iatnana or Atnana. la, i. e., "the island", is thus the Assyrian name of Cyprus. Iatnana, Atnana and the variety Iadanana- seem to be the cuneiform rendering of "the i~les of the Danai", i. e., the land of the Greeks.' This is a precious record of the Cypriote kingdoms at the end of the Cypro-Geometric period, but their names are not given and even the number of the kingdoms seems to be conventional and chosen for its sacred nature and in ord?r to indicate a considerable number, in the same way as the geographical position of Cyprus IS thus indicated: "whose distant abodes are situated a seven days' journey in the sea of the setting sun", 5 or with similar words, but always emphasizing the distance of a seven days' journey.» The fact that a memorial stele was erected in Kition shows that this city was also among those that submitted to the Assyrian king, and thus the Tyrian domination of Kition came to an end. The Assyrian contro! of Cypriote foreign policy continued during the reign of Sargon's successors. From the time of Sennacherib no tribute lists of Cypriote kings are, however preserved, ~u~ in a pris~ ins~ription of Esarhaddon commemorating the rebuilding of th~ palace at Niniveh there IS a list of the kings of the "Hittite Land" and from "beyond the ~ea", who were forced to contribute to his building operations. This inscription was written m 673/2 B. C. The part which refers to Cyprus runs as follows: "and I summoned ... Ekishtura, king ~f Edi'al,. Pilagura, king of Kitrusi, Kisu, king of Sillua, Ituandar, king of Pappa, Eresu, king of Sillu, Damasu, king of Kuri, Atmesu, king of Tamesu, Damusi, 1 The Annals of Sargon, see LUCKENBILL, Anc. Records of Assyria II, § 44 (p. 22): 7 kings of la', a district of Atnana .. came to make submission. The Display inscription, see op. cit. II, § 70 (p. 36): And seven kings of la', a district of Iatnana ... they kissed my feet. The Display inscription of Salon XIV, see op. cit. II, § 80 (p, 4 1): I subdued seven kings of the land of la', a district of the land of latnana. The Bull inscription, see op. cit. II, § 92 (p. 4 6): Sargon ... who subdued
seven kings of la', a province of Atnana. The Pavement inscription, see op. cit. II, § 99 (p. 51): Sargon ... who subjugated seven kings of la', a province of latnana. 20p. cit. II, § 186 (pp. 103 f.): And seven kings of la', a district of latnana ... they kissed my feet. 3 Op. cit. II, § 710 (p. 274).
' Zeitschr. f. Assyriol. 28, 19 14, pp. 92 ff, Even if latnana means Cyprus in other Assyrian inscriptions it has also a wider sense including the whole Greek world, and Cyprus is then known under the particular name la', the island par excellence. 5 LUCKENBILL, op. cit. II, § 44 (p. 22), § 70 (p. 3 6), § 186 (pp. 102 f) .. 6 Op. cit. II, § 80 (p. 41), § 92 (p. 4 6), § 99 (p. 5 I). For the number seven: see v. ANDRIAN-WERBURG, Die Siebenzahl im Geistesleben d. Volker, in Mitt. Anthr. Ges. Wien XXXI, 1901, pp. 225 ff.: cf. also ROSCHER, Die ennead. und hebdomad. Fristen u. Wochen d. alt. Griech., in Abh. Akad. Leipzig, PhiL-Hist. Klasse, XXX:4, 1908.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
king of Kartihadasti, Unasagusu, king of Lidir, Bususu, king of Nure, ten kings of the land of Iatnana, of the midst of the Sea".' We have thus evidence of ten kingdoms in Cyprus at the beginning of the Cypro-Archaic period. This number is not contradicted by that of seven kingdoms mentioned in the inscriptions of Sargon, because, as pointed out, the latter number is evidently conventional. The identification of the names of the kingdoms can be determined with the exception of a few. Thus Edi'al has been identified with Idalion, Kitrusi with Chytroi, Pappa with Paphos, Kuri with Kurion, Temesu with Tamassos, and Lidir with Ledroi.. Kartihadast is the Phoenician name of Kition, as we have seen (p. 437)· Sillua is usually identified with Salamis and Sillu with Soli,· but Campbell-Thompson identifies Sillua with Soli and leaves Sillu unidentified.' The identification of Sillua and Sillu are thus uncertain and disputed, and Nure has hitherto baffled every attempt at identification.' If Salamis and Soli are represented by Sillua and Sillu, Amathus would be the only important city missing in the list, and Sir George Hill has therefore advanced the hypothesis that N ure may be the original name of Amathus,' but as pointed out by Hill himself, "this is a mere guess". 7 Some of the names of the kings have also been identified, Ituandar with Eteandros, Damasu with Damasos, and Pilagura with Pylagoras, though the last word is a title and not a personal name. These names are thus Greek. Damusi indicates oriental connections and this name may well have been borne by a Phoenician.' The identifications of the other names as suggested by Olmstead" are groundless. It is interesting to find a king of Kition mentioned among the other kings of Cyprus. This indicates that Kition, after the separation from Tyre in connection with the submission to Sargon, was constituted as one of the other Cypriote kingdoms, possibly with the Phoenician governor as an usurper of the throne. In 667 B. C. Ashurbanipal waged war against Taharqa, the Nubian king, and in the course of that campaign he received contributions from 22 kings of Syria, Palestine, and Cyprus, according to his own statements." The Cypriote kings and kingdoms are exactly the same as those mentioned in the list of Esarhaddon. It seems unlikely that there would have been no change at all on the thrones of the ten Cypriote kingdoms in the period be-
tween the tribute list of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, and one must therefore conclude that the inscription of Ashurbanipal - as regards the list of the Cypriote kings - is only a copy of the prism of Esarhaddon,' i. e., Ashurbanipal pretended to have received tribute from the Cypriote kings, but he did not. This is of importance for the political history of Cyprus: the Cypriote kings who were forced by Sargon and Esarhaddon to pay tribute and submit to the Assyrian empire succeeded in regaining their independence from Assyrian domination from the very beginning of Ashurbanipal's reign. The Assyrian domination thus lasted from 709 B. C. to c. 669 B. C., i. e., c. 40 years. For about 100 years Cyprus enjoyed full political independence. Nothing at all is known of the political history of the island during this period, with the exception of a conflict between the Egyptian king Apries and Cyprus. Apries, succeeding Psammetichos II in 588 B. C., was a young and warlike king, who aimed at re-establishing Egyptian supremacy in Syria and Palestine, and he apparently also made an attack on Cyprus. A short initial success favoured him. Zedekiah, king of Judah revolted against the Babylonian overlordship, and Apries made an expedition to Syria. Sidon submitted, but Tyre risked a sea-fight, and the Tyrians were supported by a Cypriote fleet. The allied navy was defeated.' The consequences of the Egyptian victory as regards Cyprus are unknown.' If Cyprus submitted to Apries, it was only temporarily, because his initial success was soon followed by a debacle.' It is not accidental that the beginning of the Cypro-Archaic period coincides with the establishment of the Assyrian dominion in Cyprus. True, the economic expansion forming the material basis of the progress of Cypro-Archaic culture was built on the increased prosperity created during the Cypro-Geometric period, but it was greatly facilitated by the incorporation of Cyprus into the sphere of world politics. The Assyrian supremacy in Cyprus was, however, restricted to political and economic matters, and Assyria did not exercise any direct cultural influence on Cyprus, either during, or before or after the period of its political supremacy. Both the period of Assyrian supremacy and that of political independence in Cyprus form one single cultural epoch, comprising an initial phase, 700 c. 650 B. C., covering the period of the Assyrian supremacy, and a culminating phase, c. 650 - c. 570 B. C., corresponding to the period of political independence. This was one of the greatest and most glorious epochs in the history of Cyprus, and no Iron Age epoch was more Cypriote than that. The Cypriote will to creation asserted itself in a magnificent way
45°
B
LUCKENBILL, op. cit. II, § 690 (p. 266); THOMPSON, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, p. 25· 2 OBERHUMMER, Cypern I, pp. 12 ff. with references to the earlier literature in question. • Op. cit. I, p. 13. • THOMPSON, loco cit. 5 The reading Upridissa instead of Nure and the identification with Aphrodision should be rejected (Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1879, VIII, pp. 34 f.); THOMPSON, loco cit. 6 HILL, in Ann. Inst, phil. et hist, orient. et slaves V, 1937, p. 487. The suggestion that the name Amathus was given to the city by eventual Phoenician settlers cannot .be accepted, because there is no evidence whatsoever that Amathus was a Phoenician settlement (cf. p. 437, n. 2). As recognized by Hill himself "there is no more reason to connect the Cypriote Amathus with similar names in Syria or Palestine than with similar names in Greece, such as 1
Amathai in Sicily, Amathia in Macedon, or the river Amathos in Messenia" (p. 487, n. 3). 7 HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 108. BOp. cit. I, p. 107. 9 Da-mu-u-si with weak s-sibilant in the last syllable instead of z indicates that the writer was not aware that zi in Damuzi was the correct form here. This does not however, prevent Damusi from being Damuzi = Tammuz, for worse misspellings occur. It must be remembered that it is a question of a foreign name, from the Assyrian point of view. I am indebted to Professor G. Widengren, Uppsala for the above explanation. 10 OLMSTEAD, Hist, of Assyria, p. 369, identifies Ekishtura with Aigisthos, Pilagura with Pythagoras, Atmesu with Admetos, Unasagusu with Onesagoras, Eresu with Hereus, Bunusu with Pytheas, Kisu with Kisseus. 11 LUCKENBILL, op. cit. II, § 876 (p. 341).
1 SMITH, The Assyr. Eponym Canon, p. 179; STRECK, Assurbanipal I, p. CCCLXX. SCHRADER (Keilinschr. u. Alt. Test. 2, p. 357) is of another opinion. In the series of the Syro-Palestinian kingdoms, the list of Ashurbanipal substitutes the kings Jakinlu and Amminadbi of Arvad and BethAmmon for Matanbaal and Buduil, who figure in the list of Esarhaddon. Schrader takes this substitution of names as evidence that the list of Ashurbanipal was not a copy of that of Esarhaddon, but was redacted according to the changed political conditons. The fact that the introduction of new royal names applies only to the series of Syro-Palestinian kingdoms, while the Cypriote series is unchanged, is an argument in favour of the opinion here advanced.
45 1
2 Diod. I, 68, I. • Tyre accepted the Egyptian policy and cooperated with Sidon in stimulating the revolt in Judah. • It turned out that the political aspirations of Egypt were much greater than her military strength. When Nebuchadrezzar appeared at the head of his army in North Syria, Apries returned to Egypt by sea (Diod, loco cit.). Syria was thus left to herself and even the Egyptian assistance to Judah was insufficient. Jerusalem was captured, as we know, in 586 B. C., and Tyre was obliged to acknowledge the Babylonian supremacy in 574/3 B. C. after a siege of thirteen years (Cambr. Anc. Hist. III, p. 302; OLMSTEAD, Hist. of Palest. and Syria, p. 535).
45 2
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
and dominated architecture, sculpture, and handicraft. It was an epoch when the masterpieces created formed the most perfect expression of the Cypriote ideal of culture, and were the most congenial interpreters of Kf>1tptO~ xapa)(.'t~p. As already pointed out, this Eteocyprian renaissance. of culture should be seen in connection with the immigration of Syro-Anatolians in Cypro-Geometric III, by which the Eteocyprian components of the Cypriote people were strengthened, and the finds show that the early Cypro-Archaic culture is a direct continuation of that developed during Cypro-Geometric III, only representing a later evolutionary phase, with greater economic resources, and, on account of the increased intensity and expansion of commercial and cultural connections, artistic and social life obtained a richer and more diverse expression than before. Thus the Eteocyprian predominance did not mean a localization of the Cypriote culture, but the political, economic and cultural powers collaborated in a burst of energy without parallel in the Iron Age, causing the elevation of Cypriote civilization into the monumental sphere and widening its range of activity in the international world. No longer were the instruments of Cypriote culture those of a moderate chamber orchestra, but those of a monumental master-symphony, whose tunes rolled in mighty waves around the world-scene of the Mediterranean. The idea of monumentalism realized in art, in architecture and sculpture, is a reflection of the mentality of society. The kings embodied this idea, and were its representatives in the society. The Cypro-Archaic period is the time of powerful kingship. The pompous court-life and the dominant position of the king in the society found artistic expression in the monumental architecture, the royal tombs, the luxurious, exquisite products of handicrafts, the grandeur of sculptural art. The Assyrians did not interfere with the power of the Cypriote kings in the administration of home affairs, as we have seen, and after the liberation from the short supremacy of Assyria the power of the Cypriote kings was absolute. The last survivals of Mycenaean traditions disappeared, and the development of Cypriote kingship into oriental autocracy, a process that probably begun at the end of the CyproGeometric period, was now accomplished. The setting of the kingship became Eteocyprian, oriental. The sceptres of the kings were of oriental type, their palaces and tombs were also entirely Cypro-Oriental, while the kings and descendants of the Greek colonists were buried in tombs of Mycenaean type and most probably lived in houses of that type from Cypro-Geometric Luntil Cypro-Geometric III. The Cypriot~ kingship, like culture in general, adopted oriental forms. The Mycenaean traditions of culture were inund~ted by the Cypro-Oriental flood. Apart from the inference that the power of the kings was consolidated and increased in Archaic times, we know nothing about the civil administration of the state, but since the kings had apparently adopted oriental customs, we may assume that the administration was principally managed by royal officials according to the system prevailing in the Classical period, though perhaps not of the same extreme form. Of the military organization we also know very little, but sculptural representations, above all in terracotta, prove that war-chariots, cavalry, and infantry all formed part of the army. Literary notices show that oriental war-chariots were still used in the battle of Salamis in .499/8 B. C. Finds of several collections of arms indicate that the armament was,
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
453
in the main, similar to that of the Cypro-Geometric period. Swords, daggers, spears, and arrows were weapons of offence; shields, helmets, and lamellar armour were principally used for defence. Of the offensive weapons for close fight, the swords, as we have seen, were brought to Cyprus in connection with the Aegean colonization of the island, while the daggers are derived from Greek Archaic types. The missile weapons, spears and arrows, and the defensive weapons,shields,helmets, and armour are mainly of eastern or native derivation. Greek connections are exceptional and represented only by the continuation of the single type of shield brought to Cyprus at the time of the Aegean colonization. The military organization, like the civil, was thus Cypro-Oriental. An instructive picture of the residences of the kings is given by the only palace hitherto entirely excavated, the palace of Vouni. This was built immediately after the Cypriote revolt in 499/8 B. C. and was destroyed c. 380 B. C. Its later history thus belongs to the Classical period and its initial phase, though Archaic, falls within the time of the Persian supremacy, c. 70 years after the end of the period of political independence. The palace of Vouni may nevertheless be considered in this context, since the architectural style of the first palace, that of Doxandros and Sasmai (pp. 477,483), preserves an Eteocyprian tradition represented in sacred architecture from the cultural epoch herein question and surviving from the Cypriote Bronze Age. The palace was erected on a plateau below the top of the Vouni rock, which was crowned by a sanctuary. Soundings undertaken in Idalion have shown that Archaic palaces of the same monumental kind and with a similar topographical position existed also in the period of political independence. The palace at Vouni faces S. W., where the main entrance is situated, leading into the reception rooms, which consist of a tripartite complex of rooms with a dominating central part and two lateral parts. From the reception and entrance rooms one descends to the central court by a staircase extending across the whole width of the court, surrounded on the other three sides by a peristyle. Around the court are grouped private apartments, consisting of living rooms, bath-rooms, etc., forming the nucleus of the palace. To the S. and W. there are two wings; on the S. the kitchen-department and to the W., a suite of store-rooms, bath-rooms, etc., placed around smaller courts and along open ramps. Finally, a wing was added to the E., containing another suite of store-rooms, placed around a large farm-yard. The Archaic palace, smaller than its Classical successor, measured c. 80 X 55 m. The axial line of the reception and entrance rooms coincides with that of the court and that of the middle room of the tripartite complex at the opposite side of the court. The palace, consequently, is perfectly axial, though the rooms are not grouped in perfect symmetry, partly on account of the varying levels of the rock, but there is a strong tendency towards symmetry and the general conception of the plan is symmetrically clear. Further, it can be seen that the stylobate of the peristyle is extended across the whole width of the court in front of the three rooms in the background of the court. This emphasizes the front of the three rooms. Axiality, symmetry, and frontality are thus characteristic traits of this palace architecture. The magnificent architecture, the advanced technique of the hot bath arrangement, and the precious, artistically superior objects found in the palace illustrate the dignified, glorious and refined character of Cypriote court-life. The axiality and frontality
454
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
of the architectural plan, with symmetry also appearing in the tripartite composition, reflect the oriental autocratic character and rigid forms of Cypro-Archaic kingship. Within oriental architecture this style shows the closest relations to the Syro-Anatolian area, and the Etruscan house is another derivative of this type. It is also, as already mentioned, represented in Cypriote sacred architecture since the Late Bronze Age. With regard to the connections between.Eteocyprian and Syro-Anatolian culture we may in this Cypriote palace architecture see an architectural expression of the Eteocyprian cultural spirit. The increased power of the king and his dominant position in Cypro-Archaic society is also illustrated by the tomb architecture. For the first time in the Iron Age are found tombs which on account of their construction, shape, and size are already distinguished from the great number of common tombs, and may be termed tombs of kings and royal families. Such tombs have been discovered at different places in the island: at Amathus, Kition, Tamassos, Xylotymbou, Salamis, and Trachonas on the south coast of the Karpassos peninsula. These tombs are all built of blocks of stone and are erected in a shaft excavated in the rock, but their construction and shape display several differences. The dromos may be sloping or descend by steps. Sometimes only the front, sometimes also the sides of the dromos are revetted by ashlars. The number of chambers varies; usually the tombs are provided with only one chamber, sometimes two, the one behind the other, and occasionally three or four chambers, the three transverse and the fourth behind the central chamber. The roof of the chamber may be flat, saddle-shaped or vaulted, built in corbel technique or formed by long blocks leaning against each other. The Tamassos tombs are famous for their sculptural decoration of pilasters with Proto-Ionic lotus capitals and imitation of wooden construction of roof-beams, window-casemates, etc. The capitals give evidence of Syrian connections and have exercised influence upon the formation of the corresponding Etruscan capitals. Built tombs are found in Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, but in monumental form they disappear in the Cypro-Geometric period. At that time, built tombs of a more modest kind occur in Amathus, as we have seen, and these tombs thus span the time between the Late Bronze Age and the Archaic period. These built tombs represent an Eteocrprian tradition originally connected with the Syrian area of culture. Both the palace architecture and the royal tombs give therefore evidence of the renaissance and self-assertion of the Eteocyprian culture in Archaic times. The king was enthroned in splendid isolation and inaccessible majesty, in a. sphere of divinity. Between him and the common people there was a social distance as between two different worlds. Amongst other things this is indicated by the modest tombs of common people in comparison with those of the kings, but apart from the socially determined difference the tombs of the common people indicate the same cultural context. They are altogether of Cypriote type and show continuity with the forms developed at the end ofthe Cypro-Geometric period, with traditions far back in the Bronze Age. The particular type of shaft-tomb represented in Amathus during the Cypro-Geometric period is also used in the Archaic epoch. The other Archaic tombs are only varieties of one and the same old Cypriote type: the rock-cut chamber-tomb. The chamber may be of irregular shape or more regularly
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
455
cut, and the dromos may be short or long, fairly narrow or wide. The varieties pass gradually into each other and are due to other causes than typological, viz., the consistency of the rock, topographical conditions, economic resources, etc. The built tombs were covered by tumuli. Whether the other tombs were covered in a similar way or not, cannot be ascertained. In general, the burial customs are also similar to those of the Cypro-Geometric period. The corpses were usually buried in a dorsal, outstretched position. Only occasionally were the bodies seated. In the royal tombs, stone sarcophagi were used as receptacles for the corpses, and some of these sarcophagi were decorated with sculptured work in relief. Only at the end of the Archaic period were plain sarcophagi occasionally used also for the burial of common people, as shown by the find of a sarcophagus for the burial of a child in Marion, but this burial from the end of the Archaic period may be considered as a premonitory sign of the burial customs in the Cypro-Classical period, when common people were not seldom buried in sarcophagi. In the Archaic period this burial custom was, as a rule, reserved for royal persons. It may be thought that wooden sarcophagi, easily decayed, were used for burial of less noble persons, but there are no traces of such sarcophagi, not even of metal mountings and nails - contrary to conditions in Cypro-Classical tombs (p. 50 0 ) . Tombgifts of various kinds were offered to the deceased and even after the funeral offerings were brought to them, customs well known from the Cypro-Geometric and earlier periods. Sometimes a stele with the name of the deceased and his father was erected above the tomb, where also occasionally sculptures of the dead persons were placed in their honour. Sacred architecture in -Cyprus, contrary to the profane, does not, in general, show a tendency towards monumentalism. With the conservatism innate in religious matters, it stuck tenaciously to primitive forms, but the advanced spirit of the times is conspicuous in a regularization of the originally irregular forms and the addition of supplementary architectural elements. Continuity with the preceding Cypro-Geometric period and preservation of the Eteocyprian tradition is characteristic of all the sacred architecture. The simple temenos type continues, consisting of an open court of irregular shape surrounded by a peribolos wall with an altar as the religious focal point. The Archaic temenos at Ajia Irini was, however, more advanced than the Cypro-Geometric one on the same site: the sacred trees in the neighbourhood of the altar were enclosed by stone walls, shelters were erected between the altars, the tree-enclosures, and the peribolos wall, and in this way the area closest to the altar was screened off from the rest of the court and formed a kind of inner court. A further development of the temenos type is represented in Tamassos, Achna, and Voni where the inner court was surrounded by a wall. This inner court has been given at Tamassos quite a regular trapezoid form, and it has a recess, which was used as a storage place for the outstanding votive gifts. The temenos at Voni is completelyrectangular,and the recess has developed into a small chapel with an altar. The isolated chapel of the Cypro-Geometric period continues also as an architectural form in the Archaic period, though hitherto represented only from the end of Cypro-Archaic II. We find such a chapel at Vouni (Rooms 113 and 114)· It consists of two rectangular rooms placed side by side without any means of connection with each other, each having a door in the middle of the front wall. The combination
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
of temenos and chapel, represented by the Cypro-Geometric sanctuary on the acropolis at Idalion, also has descendants in the Archaic period, at Idalion and Kition. The general tendency toward richer architectural development is apparent in the adding of roofed-in halls to the court of the sanctuary at Idalion. Another combination of temenos and chapel is represented by the sanctuaries of Aphrodite and Apollon in Idalion. Temenos and chapel form an architectural unit with the chapel placed in the rear of the court and designed on a plan which strives after symmetry, axiality, and frontality, though this ideal is not always completely achieved, partly on account of topographical difficulties. This is the only type of sacred architecture which represents an architecturally developed style and monumental aspirations, and it is symptomatic that this architectural form is of the same category as that used in the palace architecture, where its monumental idea has been fully realized. We can trace this architectural type far back in the Near East, even as far back as temple buildings from the end of the 3rd; millenium B. C. in Mesopotamia, but a direct connection between this Mesopotamian temple architecture and that in Cyprus cannot be ascertained. Apart from chronological reasons, stylistic individualities also speak against it: the wide front of the Mesopotamian temple cella and the side-chamber which together occupy the whole width of the court or more, causing a weakening of the axial accent, and the accumulation of rooms around the court and the cella, the dominant position of which is thus lessened. Alongside this eastern group we find another variety of the same architectural type in the western part of the Near East: the temple is emphasized as a detached building and it grows more narrowfronted, the more the type travels westwards. The rooms around the court disappear or are replaced by porticos. The principal architectural ideas are applied more logically: the axiality is more emphasized by the fact that a single narrow-fronted building is placed in the background of the court and the frontality is sometimes' strengthened by a transverse hall in front of the cella. This western type, particularly found in Syria and Asia Minor, was brought by the Tyrseni, immigrating from Anatolia, to Italy, and is represented by the Etruscan temple,' in the same way as the corresponding domestic type of architecture. The Cypriote sanctuaries in question are derivations of this western type, like the corresponding palace architecture, and thus prove connection with the Syro-Anatolian area of culture, once again with the Eteocyprian homeland of the Late Bronze Age. We have seen that this type of sacred architecture was already incorporated into the Cypriote repertoire of form in the Bronze Age and is represented in the Cypro-Geometric period by a painted represeutation on .a Bichrome III jar (p. 232) - like the other cultural phenomena of this epoch it is thus deeply rooted in the Eteocyprian soil. The grandeur characteristic of Cypriote art in this epoch is further illustrated by the achievement of sculptural art, where we find the two leading artistic principles of the epoch combined and represented in the highest degree: the Eteocyprianideal of style and monumentality. The transition from idol plastic to art sculpture took place rather suddenly c.65 0 B. C., inaugurating the culminating phase of the first cultural epoch of the CyproArchaic period, corresponding to the period of political independence.
Idol plastic did not, however, disappear at the moment when monumental sculpture was created in Cyprus, but continued alongside it both in Archaic and Classical times. The Cypriotes, like the Greeks, obtained the idea of monumental sculpture from Egypt: it is one of the signs of the intensified cultural contact with Egypt after the beginning of the XXVIth Dyn., when the gates of Egypt were opened to foreign enterprise, both Greek and oriental, and Greek and Phoenician soldiers were used as mercenaries in the Egyptian army. The majority of the art sculpture is in terracotta and limestone. The earliest sculptures are marked by a style which I have called Proto-Cypriote, the most purely Cypriote product of art that exists. This style may be conceived as the artistic expression of the cultural character of the Eteocyprian people and particularly that part of it which has North Syrian and Anatolian relations. Accordingly Proto-Cypriote sculpture shows stylistic connections with the art of North Syria and Anatolia. It is interesting that this Cypriote sculpture also shows a stylistic similarity to the Etruscan, which, according to my view, forms one of the proofs for the Tyrsenian strain in the Etruscans and corresponds to the stylistic similarity between Cypriote and Etruscan architecture mentioned above. Cypriote art sculpture thus starts with a mighty manifestation of the cultural strength of the Eteocyprian people. Vigorous modelling, a certain rustic heaviness and a fresh spontaneity characterize the early Proto-Cypriote sculptures. As in all Cypriote sculpture,' the form of the body is deliberately neglected by the artist, whose mind was exclusively concentrated upon rendering a characteristic expression of the face. This expression is intensified into a portrait-like character, and the combination of severe form and subjectiveness effects a dynamic tension imparting to the faces a character of concentrated energy and youthful artistic temperament. In the later phase of the Proto-Cypriote style, the form is still harsh, but the face gradually reflects a less spontaneous, more mature mentality. The strictly frontal, hieratic position is in harmony with all oriental sculpture, and is an artistic reflection of the Cypriote social structure with its autocratic-hieratic system, but aside from these general affinities to all oriental sculpture, the individual K61tpwt;' xapa'X/t'fjp is apparent and dominates the expression of the face in such a way that we never mistake a Cypriote sculpture for a non-Cypriote or vice versa. Though the idea of monumental sculpture was obtained from Egypt, this did not cause an essential stylistic influence from Egypt on Proto-Cypriote sculpture. There are only a few isolated Egyptian traits, sufficient to prove contact with Egypt and the source of the idea of monumentality, but these traits do not substantially affect the artistic character of Proto-Cypriote sculpture: the idea of monumentality once introduced into Cyprus, its sculptural art was developed according to the native cultural disposition. The birth of Cypriote monumental sculpture is approximately contemporary with the liberation from Assyrian supremacy, and the early Proto-Cypriote style of this sculpture is the most congenial artistic interpreter of the Eteocyprian self-assertion, politically dominant in the period of national independence. The art of sculpture, in general, gives us evidence not only of the artistic ideas of the Cypriote people, but also of their outward appearance, their personal taste in dress and adornment, and the ,changes in fashion. During the epoch in question, the male dress seems
1
Corolla archaeol. (= Acta Inst. Rom.' Regni Suec. II), pp. 162 ff.: cf. p. 235.
457
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
originally to have consisted of a short tunic or a long chiton with overfold, both with sleeves, .with or without a girdle and sometimes with a fringed border. A mantle may be draped over the left shoulder or both shoulders. We have seen that these types of dress indicate SyroAnatolian connections, and the same holds good for other articles of clothing: the kilt and the loin-cloth or "bathing-trousers", usually combined with a short tunic, but sometimes used alone. The male fashion included also a long beard, trapezoid or rectangular; later on, at the beginning of the 6th cent. B. C., appears also a closely trimmed beard. The female fashion was less variable than the male. The women were usually quite happy if their wardrobe contained long, sleeved chitons, sometimes with a girdle and overfold, and woollen mantles for the winter-cold. Single rings dangled occasionally in the ears of the men, fingerrings, bracelets, and frontlets were more common, but the principal part of the jewellery was worn by the women of the wealthy men: earrings and pendants, hair-rings, finger-rings, bracelets, necklaces, neck-pendants, frontlets, and other kinds of ornaments. Not even nose-rings were rejected. An examination of the hair-styles proves the same cultural associations as the garments, and the footgear, as far as indicated sculpturally, consisted usually of sandals, but, in addition, blunt-toed shoes occur, and boots with upturned end, which again prove Syro-Anatolian relations.' On the head the women wore a veil kept in place by bands or a "turban"; the men seem to have preferred to be represented sculpturally wearing helmets. More seldom they have a soft or pointed cap on the head or a veil like the women, and rosetted frontlets were also used. In literary life, Greek influence continued to predominate and served to maintain the disposition of the Cypriotes for Greek culture. Epic poetry was still flourishing, and in the 7th cent. B. C. the redaction of the Kypria was accomplished, as mentioned. Stasinos, who was probably the redactor, should be .assigned to this period. The epic songs were recited in the royal palaces and at the festivals of the gods. The prophet-bard Euklos' also seems to belong to this time, the proper age of the Chresmologi.' Further, the early lyric poetry of Cyprus was probably born in this epoch. This poetry included hymns to the gods, above all Aphrodite, and to mythical heroes, in particular Kinyras.s The music associated with this lyric poetry was produced by means of string and wind instruments, lyres, harps, and flutes. Kinyras is connected with the name of the ten-stringed lyre or harp, the kinyra; the Phrygian flute was popular in Cyprus as well as the Lydian mode.' The musical instruments mentioned are also known to us from sculptural representations. Like epic poetry, lyric and music were mainly performed in the royal courts and the sanctuaries of the gods. • . The material basis of artistic and cultural progess in this epoch was provided by the wealth secured by the development of the economic resources. The great number of store-rooms in the palace of Vouni is explained by the fact that the king himself was a great land-owner and wholesale dealer. The king was certainly, as later on in the Classical period, the greatest landlord, financier, and merchant of the country. The kings, as autocratic rulers, made use
of the economic prosperity to increase the strength and security of Cypriote kingship: economic life was concentrated in the courts. Agriculture and cattle-breeding still formed the economic basis of the country. The great importance of agriculture is illustrated by the large store-rooms in the palace of Vouni for the storage of agricultural products. Already in the Late Bronze Age olive cultivation was known,' and special vessels for the storage of oils and wine show the importance of these products. We can, however, observe that handicraft industry and commerce acquire increased importance for economic life, as indicated both by literary and archaeological evidence. I shall return to the considerable development of commerce in connection with a description of the foreign relations. The rich supply of minerals in Cyprus, above all of copper, but also of iron, silver, and gold' formed the material basis of the highly developed metal industry in the Cypro-Archaic period. This produced both utility and luxury articles. Among the former we have to consider the different kinds of weapons, instruments, and household utensils. In the latter class we have to include the products of applied art. Cypriote handicraft in metal had a good reputation and its traditional fame is illustrated by the legend of the copper cuirass presented to Agamemnon by Kinyras.' Gold and silver objects of native workmanship are also mentioned among the tributes of the Cypriote kings to Sargon.s In applied art the Phoenician craftsmen in Cyprus were expert, as proved, e. g., by the CyproPhoenician metal bowls with embossed and engraved decoration, but the native Cypriotes, though technically less elegant, competed artistically with the Phoenicians and produced metal bowls of the Proto-Cypriote style, developing the tradition from Cypro-Geometric III, and they were also skilful in the finest technique of metalwork, as shown by the numerous pieces of jewellery, often provided with exquisite decoration in granular filigree and cloisonne work, e. g., the earrings, hair-rings, finger-rings, pendants, necklaces, and bracelets. The prototypes were mainly of Near Eastern origin, but the Cypriote transformed the motifs according to their own conception of art. In a lament over Tyre, Ezekiel mentions that the Tyrians used planks for ships of boxwood inlaid with ivory from the isles of Kittim.' Such planks do not seem practical. Some scholars consider ivory as an intrusion, and translate "pines" instead of box-wood." The passage is thus translated as follows: "the planks they fashioned of pines from the isles of Kittim". The fame of Cyprus as a ship-building country is also evident from the legend of Semiramis, who ordered shipwrights from Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus, and other maritime countries to build river-ships, which could be taken to pieces,' and the light vessel called
1 A detailed study on the Cypriote dress of the Archaic period is being prepared by Mrs. R. Billig. • SPYRIDAKIS, 'H apxa[a M'ltptU'K-fJ 'ltO['fjIJt~, pp. 7 ff. a ROHDE, Psyche II, pp. 62 ff., 64, n. I (on p. 65).
SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., pp. 15 ff. • Eustath. in Hom. It. XI, 20 (827, 37 f.); Pind, Nem, IV, 45 f.; Athen. IV, 177. 4
1 Olives have been found in Idalion from Late Cypriote III (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 550, No. 670 b; pp. 593, 626.) • OBERHUMMER, Cypern I, pp, 175 ff. • a Hom. Il, XI, 19 ff. 4 LUCKENBILL, op, cit. II, pp. 36, 103. s Ezek., 27, 6. " COOKE, Crit. and Exeget. Comment. on the Book of Ezekiel, p. 297. 7 Diod. II, 16, 6: f1€~€r.:~w.jJa~o 3" 'Kal valJr.:'fji0!.l~ ~'K ~€ Otv['K'fj~ 'Kal ~lJp[a~ 'Kal KO'ltpolJ 'Kal ~9j~ &).,)..'fj~ 'ltapa&aAan[OIJ
459
z.wpa~, o[~ &
aC€tv 'lto~af1ta 'ltAo[a 3tC1t~p€~a. OLMSTEAD (Hist. of Palest. and Syria, p. 474) is incorrect in saying that Cypriote shipbuilders were among those constructing the fleet of Sennacherib in 694 B. C. Cf. LUCKENBILL, op. cit. II, p. 145: "Hittite people (i. e. Syrians), plunder of my bow, I settled in Niniveh. Mighty ships (after) the workmanship of their land, they built dexterously. Tyrian, Sidonian and Cypriote sailors, captives of my hand, I ordered (to descend) the Tigris with them and come to land at (descend to) the wharves (?) at
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
x.sPx.oopoc; was considered to be a Cypriote invention'! In the Assyrian texts, in the Annals
and his son Helikon from Salamis. The textiles manufactured by these artists were worldrenowned. One specimen made by Helikon was dedicated in the sanctuary of Apollon at Delphi and was provided with the inscription: Te:fi~' 'EJ..tx.OOy 'Ax.e:cra ~aJ..ap.tywc;, (!> ~yl. xe:pcrl. 1totYta {)-e:cr1te:crt·~y IIaJ..J..&.c; 61tye:Ocre: Xapty.l A girdle made by the same Helikon was presented to Alexander by the Rhodians, and was considered a masterpiece of work, which had made the artist immortal. 2 Akesas .and Helikon seem to have lived in the 6th cent. B. C.3 The art of making textiles with woven ornaments was introduced to Cyprus from the Asiatic mainland.' The great artistic influence of the textile art is also reflected by the pottery, the ornaments of which sometimes imitate textile prototypes. This is particularly the case with a group of pottery from the 6th cent. B. C. found in Amathus.s An idea of the textile art of the time may be given by painted representations of embroidered dresses on some terracotta sculptures.' Of the handicraft products, the pottery still supplies the most abundant and important material. Stylistically the pottery may be divided into two groups, the one represented in the South and East and the other in the, North and West of the island. Within the former district, White Painted and Bichrome are dominant as painted wares, and the vases are often decorated with floral and figure ornaments: trails of lotus flowers and buds, foliaceous rosettes, animals, above all birds, and human figures. Within the latter district, Black-on-Red and Bichrome Red are more common, and Geometric ornaments are usual, particularly the concentric circle ornaments. As mentioned above, we can trace the beginning of this cultural division back to the end of Cypro-Geometric III (p. 444), though it is not fully developed before Cypro-Archaic I. Further researches will probably enable us to draw a cultural map with more accurate differentiation, but on the basis of the material at present available only these two large provinces are clearly distinguishable. These two cultural districts are naturally not hermetically closed: Black-on-Red and concentric circle ornaments occur within the south and east province as well as White Painted and Biehrome with floral, and figure ornaments within the north and west area. The frontier between the provinces was fluid, the connections intimate, and mutual influences are strong and obvious, but the stylistic grouping indicated is generally right, and is also demonstrated by the other handicraft products, in particular the stylistic difference between the Proto-Cypriote and CyproPhoenician metal bowls just mentioned. The Black-on-Red pottery dominant in the north and western district indicates that this part of Cyprus was principally influenced by the Syro-Anatolian immigration in Cypro-Geometric III. It is further a remarkable fact that the south and east province coincides approximately with the area which at the end of the Middle Bronze Age received a strong ethnic influx from South Syria and Palestine and also in the Late Bronze Age was in intimate contact with these countries.' Finally, it should be
and Display inscription of Sargon at Khorsabad- and the inscription of the stele erectedby Sargon at Kition,' furniture of maple (?) and box-wood is mentioned among the tributes of the Cypriote kings. It is stated in these inscriptions that the tributes were of Cypriote workmanship and we may therefore interpret this statement as an indication ofa flourishing wood-working industry in Cyprus. The Cypriote forests were the material resources of this ship-building and wood-working industry. Eratosthenes tells us that the plains of Cyprus were of old thickly wooded, so that they could not be cultivated. Timber-cutting for the needs of shipbuilding and for fuel for metal-smelting did not suffice to clear the woods, and in order to stimulate the devastation of the forests, everybody who had cleared woodland was allowed to keep that land as his property free of taxes} These words of Eratosthenes must have reference to the pre-Classical period because Theophrastos informs us that the kings of Cyprus did not allow the cutting of cedars, partly in order to spare them, partly on account of transport difficulties. 6 As shown by the objects found, the Cypriotes were also clever ivory carvers, but in this branch of art they were, however, inferior to the Phoenicians. On the other hand, they seem to have been gifted textile manufacturers. Flax was cultivated in Cyprus- and prepared for various textiles. A legend told that the art of shearing sheep and producing woollen clothes was brought from Cyprus to Delos,' and, in fact, the weaving handicraft flourished in Cyprus, the Cypriote textiles were famous and much appreciated abroad. The moufflon, the Cypriote wild sheep, Ovis Cypria, is represented on the artistic products of the epoch.' In a later period, in a strophe of Aristophanes, there is mentioned to 1tapa1tstacrp.a to K&1tpwy to 1totx.tJ..OY.· Two Cypriote textile masters are known to us by name: Akesas Opis." We thus see that the ships were built by Syrians and the Cypriotes were only employed as the crew. 1 Plin., Nat. hist. VII, 56 (57), 208. The ship-building activity in later times is also well known (cf, Szoed. Cyp. Exp. IV:3). Theophrastos mentions that the Cypriote shipwrights used ltl'to~ instead of lt601t"t] for their ships, because the former variety of pine was considered to be superior to the latter one for the purpose in question (Theophr., Hist. plant, V, 7, I: ~ytot OE' 1tat 'ta~ 'tpt-fjP6t~ ota 'to fLofJ ei'l1t0P6~Y n.lh"f[~. ot OE: 1ta'ta :Eoplay '!tal eJ>otyl1t"t]y h 1t€Opoo. oltaylCooot jap 1tallt601t"t]~. ot 0' h Koltpotyl1t'1l 't6 1tal Koltp
LUCKENBILL, op, cit. II, p. 36.
3
Op. cit. II, p. 103.
4
Strab. XIV, 6, 5 (684): 'f'"t]ot 0' 'Epa'tOo{l-€Y"t]~ 'to ltaAIXtOY
OAofLayooy'tWY 'tWY lt60lwY, WO't6 1ta'tsX6o{l-at 0pofLo~~ 1tal fLofJ fLt'l'.pa fLEY €ltW'f'6A6~Y ltPO~ 'too'to 'ta fLhana, 06YOpo't0fLOOY'tWY ltPO~ 'tofJY 1taootY 'too Xahoo 1tat'too apjopoo, ltpooj6y€o{l-at 01: 1tat 'tofjY yaIJlt"t]jlay 'tWY O'tOAWY, ~o"t] ltA60fL€Y"t]~ a06w~ 't'ij~ {l-aA6.'t't"t]~ 1tal fL6'ta OOyrl.fL6WY.
than, the Classical, and as the devastation of the forests had then proceeded so far that economy in the use of the most valuable and rare trees was necessary, it is clear that the words of Eratosthenes cannot refer to a period later than the Archaic. On the other hand, they can hardly refer to an earlier period, because the tradition of the clearance of the woods cannot be taken back to earlier times with any great likelihood. 8 Exp. Mundi, 63 (Geogr. Gr. Min. ed. Muller, II, p. 527). ? Servius, in Verg. Bucol. VIII, 37. 80HNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, PI. CXV, 3; Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Sueciae XII), p. 13, PI. XIII. • Aristoph., Fragm. 513 (ed, Dind.), 611 (ed. Hall & Geldart).
Athen. II, 48 b. Plut., Alex., 32. In antiquity exquisite textile products were called "works of Akesas and Helikon" and the first panathenaic peplos was ascribed to them (Zenob., Proverb. I, 56). 3 BUSCHOR, Beitrdge z. Gesch. d. griech. Textilkunst, pp. 47 f.; 'KUNZE, op. cit., p. 96. 1
2
4 BLUMNER, Technologie u. Terminologie der Gewerbe u, Kiinste bei Griech. u. Rom. P, pp. 167 f. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Vases 1:2, C 849-855. 6 Brit. Mus. Cat., Terrac., A 107-119. ? Cf. p. 357.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
noted that the Phoenicians from South Syria inhabited a part of this cultural province, and all the Cypro-Phoenician metal bowls, of which the provenance is known, have been discovered within that province, where finally the typically Phoenician variety of the floral motifs was largely adopted by the Cypriote artists. It seems justifiable to explain this division into two cultural provinces with a reference to these ethnic conditions, to the fact that the south and east part of Cyprus was more closely related to the culture of South Syria than the remaining part of the island, where the North Syrian and Anatolian tradition of culture was strengthened by the Syro-Anatolian immigration. The cultural connection with South Syria was further corroborated by the fact that towards the middle of Cypro-Archaic I (c. 650 B. C.), Phoenician activity in colonizing Cyprus was intensified. This was intimately connected with the political events. During the time of the trading factory, when Kition was controlled by Tyre and the number of colonists was small, the Phoenician contribution to Cypriote culture was rather inconsiderable and, as we have seen, only to be traced in the products of metal work. When Kition, in 709 B. C., was detached from the dominion of Tyre and was constituted as a kingdom tributary to Assyria, this effected a conspicuous change in the cultural importance of the Phoenicians in Cyprus. During the 7th cent. B. C. Phoenician influence on the Cypriote culture increases and, as shown in detail (pp. 288 ff.), can then be traced also in the pottery. The middle of Cypro-Archaic I, c. 650 B. C., marks a decisive turning point in the history of Kition: a sanctuary of considerable size dedicated to the protective god of the city, Melkart, was then built on the acropolis. An epoch of cultural and political progress began. This should be seen in connection with two approximately coincident events: on the one hand, the full political independence of Kition through the liberation from the Assyrian dominion and, on the other hand, the calamities of Tyre and Phoenicia in general through the Assyrian attacks at the end of Esarhaddon's reign and during that of Ashurbanipal. In consequence, though not confirmed by literary notices, we may reckon with a considerable Phoenician immigration to Kition during the time shortly before c. 650 B. C. A strong basis was thus founded for the cultural and political activity of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, and henceforward there is no difficulty in proving the existence of the Phoenicians on the island of Aphrodite. As mentioned, trade and international commerce held a more important position in economic life than before, and the commercial and cultural relations developed at the end of the Cypro-Geometric period between Cyprus and foreign countries reached ~ maximum extension in Archaic times. In general, the trade routes remained the same as before, but they were multiplied and the traffic was intensified. The trade with Palestine was more brisk than in the Cypro-Geometric period, though still inferior to that of the Late Bronze Age. Syria was a far better market for the Cypriote goods. Tyre and Sidon were still important harbours for the Cypriote trade, but the Cypriote merchant-ships seem to have favoured the route to the mouth of the Orontes, where a trading factory was founded at Tell Sheikh Yusuf.This was originally founded by Greeks in the 8th cent. B. C., but was taken over by Cypriotes c. 700 B. C., a confirmation of the fact that the submission to Assyria at the beginning of the period was of a great importance to the commercial policy of Cyprus, enabling
it to strengthen and extend its economic sphere of interest in the Near East and to make effective use of the oriental market. Accordingly we find that the Greeks were forced to leave the trading factory at Tell Sheikh Yusuf c. 700 B. C. and that the Cypriotes were permitted to enter in their place: the Cypriotes obtained the privilege of the export and import trade in this part of Syria. Fifty years later, when the Cypriotes had thrown off allegiance to Assyria, they lost their commercial monopoly, the Greeks returned, and for some time a collaboration between Cypriotes and Greeks was established, but in the 6th cent. B. C. the Cypriotes were ousted by the Greeks, and at the end of that century the factory was entirely in Greek hands: the Cypriote trade with Syria had then to make use of other harbours. The discovery of this factory makes us visualize the lively commercial activity of Cyprus in the Archaic period. Completed products were shipped there, while others were manufactured on the spot, and they were then transported to the interior of the country on the trade routes mentioned above. The Cypriote factory was not the only one on the Syrian coast. The great quantity of Cypriote sculptures found at Amrit indicate another Cypriote settlement at that place, though the majority of them seem to belong to the later Cypro-Archaic epochs of culture. Future excavations will undoubtedly increase the number of Cypriote factories in Syria. The Cypro-Geometric trading factory in Tarsos was destroyed in 696 B. C., when Sennacherib invaded Cilicia.' As the factory at Tell Sheikh Yusuf came into Cypriote possession c. 700 B. c., it is very tempting to assume that the Cypriotes expelled from Tarsos founded a new factory on the opposite side of the Gulf of Issos at the mouth of the Orontes. In a description of Sennacherib's campaign there is a notice about a conflict with Greeks.' Possibly they included also the Cypriote Greeks of Tarsos. Future excavations will show whether the Cypriote trade with Cilicia in Archaic times was based on some other factories there. In Tarsos there was no such factory in the rebuilt town: all the Cypro-Archaic pottery discovered there is of Cypriote origin, and thus imported to Tarsos. To judge from the quantity of this imported pottery, the commercial connections of Cyprus with Cilicia do not seem to have been less intensive in the Archaic period than before. On the contrary, the topographical distribution of Cypriote pottery in Cilicia proves the activity of Cypriote trade: Cypro-Archaic pottery has been hitherto found on fourteen different places from Bozjaz in the west to Misis in the east. The supplementary evidence for these interrelations of Cyprus, Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor is afforded by artefacts from these countries found in Cyprus. Very little pottery of Near Eastern provenance has, however, been discovered in Cyprus. This seems to be due to the fact that the pottery in question to a large part consisted of undecorated vessels used as containers, which are not usually deposited in the tombs but may be expected to occur in greater quantities on the sites of settlements, still awaiting excavation." The intimate cultural interrelations of Cyprus and the Near East at this time are also clearly proved by the derivation of numerous Cypriote artefacts from Near Eastern prototypes, e. g., besides the Cf. p. 261, • Cf. Journ. Hell. Stud. XXX, 1910, pp. 327 ff. "The only settlement hitherto examined, viz. the palace at Vouni, dates from the end of the Archaic period when 1
Cyprus was in close commercial contact with Greece, as can be seen from the Greek pottery found below the palace (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, pp. 280 f.; cf. pp. 276 ff.),
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
weapons of different kinds mentioned above - sceptres, fibulae with symmetrical bow, horse-bits, blinkers, lamps and lamp-stands, different cult utensils (incense-lamps, offeringstands, libation receptacles, shrine models, etc.), several types of vases, glyptics, and various kinds of jewellery, earrings, finger-rings, bracelets, beads, and pendants, etc., as specified in the chapter on the foreign relations. . Most of the Cypriote pottery imported to Egypt has been found in the Delta and in the district of the Fayum. The number of vases discovered is fairly small and the find-spots are distributed within an area much less extensive than in the Late Bronze Age, when the Cypriote wares penetrated to the South of the First Cataract.' But the pottery presents a very incomplete picture of the Cypriote connections with Egypt in the Archaic period. The Egyptian import trade in Cyprus is represented by finds of scarabs, amulets, pendants of faience, and glass vessels, but the importance of the Egyptian contribution to the foreign relations of Cyprus is not confined to this direct import trade. In addition, we must consider the Egyptian derivation of several types of Cypriote jewellery,' and we have to make allowance for the many Egyptian works of applied art and decorative motifs which arrived in Cyprus via Syria and in Syrian transformation. Finally, as already mentioned, the idea of monumental sculpture was derived from Egypt. The Egyptian contribution to Cypriote art was thus considerable. Most probably we have to reckon with a Cypriote trading factory in Egypt before the later establishment at Naukratis (pp. 469 f.). We can clearly see that the Cypriotes secured increased trade with Egypt, which had thrown off allegiance to Assyria about the same time as Cyprus, as a substitute' for the somewhat diminished trade with Syria, in consequence of the political complications connected with their liberation from Assyrian supremacy. In addition, the communications with Greece were intensified in a continuous crescendo. In the Cypro-Geometric period Rhodes formed a centre of the Cypriote trade with Greece. This holds good for the Archaic epoch, too. It is a fact that the overwhelming quantityof Cypro-Archaic pottery exported to Greece, or c. 90 %, has been found on Rhodes. There are also vases of local fabric probably made by Cypriote potters on Rhodes. Besides, there is a third category indicating a Rhodian imitation of Cypriote. prototypes. The ceramic conditions on Rhodes are thus analogous to those existing in Cilicia and Syria, though no remains of a Cypriote trading factory have been found on Rhodes; but as only one Archaic settlement on this island has been excavated, viz. Vroulia, possibilities are not excluded of Cypriote trading factories being found in the future. In any case the finds show that the connections between Cyprus and Rhodes were very intimate and that Cypriotes had been domiciled on Rhodes, at least for some time. The historic tradition of a Phoenician occupation of lalysos' should perhaps be considered in view of this archaeological evidence. Apart from the possibility that the occupation may have been accomplished by Cypriote Phoenicians, it is evident that Cypriote and Phoenician trade sometimes collaborated, and it would therefore be natural if Cypriote traders established themselves on Rhodes 1 GJERSTAD, Stud. on Prehist, Cyprus, p. 321. • Cf. pp. 416 ff, • Diod. V, 58, 2; Athen. VIII, 360 e; cf. Philologus LXVII,
1908, p. 183; BELOCH, Griech. Gesch. 1", 2, p. 73 rejects this tradition as unhistorical.
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
in connection with a Phoenician occupation of a part of the island. Cypriote merchandise was transported only occasionally on Cypriote ships to the cities of Asia Minor, to Olynthos, the Cyclades, Crete,' Aigina, and Athens. It seems largely to have been reshipped via Rhodes. The ceramic evidence affords a vivid picture of Cypriote cultural activity in Archaic times, and is confirmed by that of other handicraft products: shields, helmets, arrow-heads, fibulae, sceptres, lamp-stands, metal vases, particularly the decorated metal bowls, ivory objects, etc. and jewellery of oriental types, which have travelled to Greece and the western Mediterranean from or via Cyprus. Etruscan tripods and candelabra imported to Cyprus correspond to the finds of Cypriote work in the western Mediterranean. We cannot, however, prove direct communication between Cyprus and the western Mediterranean, and with regard to the position of Rhodes as a clearing station it can hardly be doubted that the connection between Cyprus and the western Mediterranean was to a large extent carried on via Rhodes and the Rhodian colonies in Sicily, though a certain part must also be assigned to the activity of the Phoenicians. The Greek influence on Cypriote culture increased, as shown in detail above (pp. 304 ff.), but Cyprus still held a dominant position in the relations to Greece. The historical tradition of a Cypriote thalassocracy has thus proved to have a kernel of truth, if not perhaps in a political, at least in an economic and cultural sense. The trading factories in Syria, Egypt, and the Aegean served as points of support for thisthalassocracy. Cyprus formed a centre from which the trade routes extended to the periphery of a wide circle, to the factories and other trading-places in Syria and Palestine, to the Egyptian Delta, and in the West to Rhodes, and, though often via Rhodes, to the remaining part of Greece around the Aegean. Numerous cross-roads joined up in all directions with the principal routes and on all of these merchandise moved to and from Cyprus, which thus became a principal station for the commercial and cultural intercourse between the Orient and the Occident. No more appropriate rendering of the situation then existing can be found than some words in a pilgrim's story describing the corresponding role of Cyprus in the Middle Ages: "The island of Cyprus is surrounded by a girdle of other maritime states, i. e., Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Turkey, and Greece. In Cyprus there are very wealthy merchants and citizens, and that is not surprising, because Cyprus is the last country of Christianity and all ships, big or small, and all goods of whatever kind and from whatever country they are shipped must therefore necessarily arrive first in Cyprus, because they cannot pass it in any way. All the languages of the world are also spoken and read in Cyprus" .:i These words draw a vivid picture of the international, levantine character of Cypriote culture with its central geographical position, its varied mercantile intercourse, its swarms ofpeoples of different race and nationality, and the juxtaposition there of different cultural types. We have seen that this central position of Cyprus in the Archaic period was due to a combination of political, economic, and cultural facts. The Cypriote cultural power reached its summit. Particularly does the period of its political independence correspond to the economic and cultural expansicn of the island. The idea of monumental sculpture was 1 For epigraphic evidence or" Cretans from Axos residing in Cyprus, see Sits.ber, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1910, pp. 148 ff,
3°
a Biblioth. d. litterar. Vereins in Stuttgart 25, 1851, (Ludolphi de itin. terrae sanct, lib., ed. Deycks) pp. 30, 34.
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
born by the increased contact with Egypt. This idea of monumentality was not only. realized in sculpture. It penetrated the whole of society and its appearence in sculpture is only a reflection of this new mentality. The kings embodied it, were its supreme and dominating representatives with the sceptre of oriental autocracy lifted above the heads of the people. In the royal tombs and palaces it found an architectural expression. Wealth secured it a material foundation. The loaded ships were sprayed with the salt foam of the Mediterranean on their lucrative passages between the harbours of Cyprus and its trading factories in the Near East, in Egypt and in Greek waters. From the mines and the fertile fields streams of abundance ran down to the storehouses of the kings and the magnates. Like Arkesilas of Kyrene on the well-known Black Figured bowl, we see the Cypriote kings superintending the work of the servants and disposing of the multitude of their treasures to the profit of themselves and their country. Above the power, the wealth, the splendour of the royal courts and the life of common people the bright sky of beauty was lifted. The sculptors and craftsmen erected jointly the eternal monument of Cypro-Archaic art, and above shone a lucky star, the star of the Proto-Cypriote epoch, when Proto-Cypriote sculpture and manufactures were created to the satisfaction of the Cypriotes and delight of eastern and western peoples, eager to learn the artistic merits of these Cypriote products and stimulated by them to works of their own. It was an epoch when the Cypriotes knew how to assert their genuine mentality in art, when the foreign influences enriched, but did not supersede the Cypriote character, the epoch when Cyprus was still able to assimilate the foreign elements without being absorbed by them, the epoch when the Cypriote role of an intermediary in culture was intimately connected with its position as a power in culture. When the summit is reached, the decline begins. A perilous cloud approached from the South. After the unsuccessful attack of Apries on Cyprus, the island was conquered by Amasis, Apries' successor. No details of the conquest are known to us. Herodotos says only that Amasis was the first person who subdued Cyprus and made it tributary.' This statement shows ignorance of the Assyrian domination. Diodoros gives a still briefer record of the event, simply noting that Amasis subdued the Cypriote cities.' The expedition of Apries had shown that the Egyptian fleet was superior to that of Cyprus, and on its own the island had no chance of resisting the sea-power of Egypt. On the other hand, the Egyptian catastrophe irr the land war had shown that a realization of the pharaonic aspirations in Syria and Palestine was not within the bounds of possibility. With Cyprus it was different. Unlike Syria and Palestine, it was not included in the immediate sphere of Babylonian interest. An occupation of Cyprus would not involve Egypt in a conflict with a great power. It was an affair of no risk and considerable profit. The minerals of Cyprus, its rich supply of timber and other materials necessary for ship-building, were of much importance to Egypt. The island was also a maritime base of first rate importance for naval operations in the eastern Mediterranean. The date of the conquest has been much discussed. Some r Herod. II, 182. 2 Diod. I, 68, 6: 'Ka'tso'tpsq,a'to a/; 'Kal 'ta; €V K6ltptp lt6h~; 'Kal ltOna 'tWV lspwv h60p:fjOSV ava&ofjp.aotY a~w)..6,o~;. The notice that Arnasis adorned many temples with ex votos
does not refer to Cypriote but Greek temples, in Kyrene, Rhodes, Samos, etc. (cf. Herod. II, 182), though, no doubt, he presented ex votos also to Cypriote temples.
scholars assign it to c. 560 B. C.,! others to soon after 540 B. c., about the time of the attack by Kyros on Babylon in 539 B. C.2 In my view the earliest possible date is the most probable, and I therefore assign the conquest to shortly after 570 B. C.2 We know nothing about the administration of Cyprus during the Egyptian domination, but the old kingdoms were evidently left undisturbed, and were used by Amasis as administrative instruments. The kings, however, lost their freedom of international action and had to pay tribute to the Egyptian king, the same kind of dependency as that imposed by the Assyrians. It seems that a group of Ethiopians settled in Cyprus in connection with the Egyptian occupation of the island. These Ethiopians may have been used in the civil and military service of an Egyptian control administration in Cyprus.' We know the names of two Cypriote kings from the period of Egyptian supremacy, viz. Kypranor and Philokypros of Soli. They are mentioned in connection with the story of Solon's visit to Cyprus.' With the submission to Egypt a new and decisive phase of the history of Cypro-Archaic culture began. The first cultural epoch of the Cypro-Archaic period came to an end, and its second epoch began. Unlike Assyria, Egypt has exercised a great and determining influence on Cypriote culture. Only on the architecture of Cyprus are the traces of Egyptian influence very slight, represented by the polygonal column in the temenos on the acropolis of Idalion and by the Hathor capitals imitating Egyptian prototypes. The Archaic Hathor capitals hitherto found Cambro Anc. Hist. III, p. 306. ENGEL, Kypros I, pp. 254, 259 f. 2 The date of soon after 540 B. C. is much too late: at that time, as we shall see presently, Cyprus was already lost to Egypt. For archaeological reasons it seems necessary to date the conquest before 560 B. C., because sculptures of Ethiopian and Egyptian type which can hardly be earlier than the Egyptian conquest were found in Ajia Irini on the fourth floor which cannot be later than c. 560 B. C. (d. p. 207). HALL (Cambr. Anc. Hist, III, p. 306) who is aware that an early date is necessary for archaeological reasons thinks it impossible to date the conquest before the death of Nebuchadrezzar in 562 B. C., and considers it likely that Arnasis took the opportunity of the decline of the Babylonian strength immediately after the death of that king. Accordingly he assigns the conquest to c. 560 B. C.We have, however, seen above that the conquest of Cyprus did not interfere with the Babylonian sphere of interests and for historical reason it may therefore have taken place before 560 B. C. 4 Herod. VII, 90: 'to6'twv Esc. Koltp:wv] as 'toouas ~&vsu !
2
&cm, ol p./;v altO ~a)"ap.~vo; 'Kal 'Alhjvzwv, ol as altO 'Ap'Kaa:'fj;, ol as altO K6&voo, ol as altO o~v:'K'fj;, ol as altO Ai&toIt:'fj;, tiJ; aiJ'tol K6ltpw: ),,8,000:). This statement, according to Herodotos, expressed the traditional opinion of the Cypriotes themselves. We recognize the Salaminians and Athenians in the legends of Teukros, Akamas, Demophon, Phaleros, and Chytros (p. 428 and Opusc. archaeol. III = Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. X, 1944, pp. 108 ff.), and ol altO K6&voo are evidently Dryopes from Kythnos (p. 428 and op, cit., p. 122), the Arcadians and Phoenicians are well-known colonists of Cyprus (pp. 428, 436 ff.), but who are the
Ethiopians? Many suggestions have been made. Engel thinks that Ethiopians were settled in Cyprus by the order of Arnasis (ENGEL, op. cit. I, p. 254). Movers, on the other hand, does not believe that African Ethiopians are referred to in the passage of Herodotos, but Asiatic Ethiopians (Herod. VII, 70), who were transferred to Cyprus from the Asiatic mainland during the Assyrian domination (MOVERS, Die PhOnizier II, 2, p. 237). Hill rejects this hypothesis and offers another: the Ethiopians were settled in Cyprus during the period of the Persian rule, at the end of the 6th or beginning of the 5th cent. B. C. (HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. II I). Enmann considers the notice as an instance of mythological speculation, but this hypothesis cannot be proved: there is no evidence whatsoever that the "Ethiopian" Kepheus was connected with Keryneia (p. 441 n. 9; d. Opusc. archaeol. III, p. II3). We must, therefore, reckon with the possibility that the statement as regards Ethiopians in Cyprus belongs to the same category as that referring to Cythnians, Arcadians and Phoenicians, i. e., represents a historically true tradition. An archaeological confirmation of this was obtained by the discovery of two sculptures in Ajia Irini (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, PI. CCXXXIX, 2-6, Nos. 1095, 1228). Each of them represents a standing man with somewhat negroid features, but dressed in Cypriote costume and evidently the work of a Cypriote artist. They may be Cypriote portraits of Ethiopians. Chronologically they belong to Period 4 at Ajia Irini and cannot therefore be later than 560 B. C. (cf. above). The date for the arrival of the Ethiopians suggested by Hill is thus too late, and Engel's opinion is still the most probable one. s HILL, op. cit. I, p. "7.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
in Cyprus did not, however, serve as architectural adornment, but seem to belong to votive stelae. In the Cypro-Classical period a Cypro-Greek version of the Hathor capital occurs in the palace atVouni, and it is probable that Archaic Hathorcapitals similar to those of the votive stelae were used in the architecture of the Archaic palaces not yet excavated in Cyprus. In the other branches of Cypriote art the Egyptian influence was, however, predominant. It suffices to mention sculpture as the most satisfactory material to prove the case. Shortly after the Egyptian conquest the Cypro-Egyptian style appears and about the same time the Neo-Cypriote style begins. The relation to Egyptian art is very different in the two styles. The Cypro-Egyptian style is a pure imitative art, a Cypriote imitation of Egyptian prototypes. In consequence it lacks a stylistic development. Further it is symptomatic that it is not represented in terracotta, but only in limestone, which is due to the fact that the Egyptian prototypes were stone sculptures. It is simply to be explained as a matter of artistic fashion created as a result of the Egyptian domination of Cyprus. The Neo-Cypriote style is no art of imitation, but is firmly rooted in the cultural disposition of the Cypriote people. It represents a modification of Proto-Cypriote art under not only Egyptian, .but also Ionian, influence, and these foreign elements are assimilated with the Cypriote substance into an artistic unit. The style tends towards a canonic form, the individual varieties disappear. Gently curved lines, a smooth surface, and soft transitions between the different parts of face and body characterize the style: the energy and severity of the Proto-Cypriote temperament is transformed into the passive, resigned, and melancholic N eo-Cypriote mind. Various factors contributed to the formation of the Neo-Cypriote style. The gradual enfeeblement of the Proto-Cypriote spirit, caused by the continuous and accelerated process of cultural interchange, constitutes the prerequisite condition for the origin of the style. The Proto-Cypriote activity and energy were transformed into a state of passivity and receptiveness widely open to foreign influences. The incorporation of Egyptian elements into the repertory . of Cypriote handicraft had already begun in Cypro-Geometric III, above all through the abilities of the Cypro-Phoenician craftsmen. During the first cultural epoch of the Cypro-Archaic Age this process was continued, though still on a comparatively small scale and, as has been pointed out, ·without changing the Eteocyprian artistic 'character, The conquest of the island by Amasis changed the situation, and facilitated and intensified Egyptian influence on Cypriote culture. It is therefore no chance phenomenon that the Egyptian conquest coincides with the beginning of the Neo-Cypriote style, but how shall we explain the Ionian influence on that style? Already in the first cultural epoch of the Cypro-Archaic Age the Cypriotes had come into contact with Greek sculptural works in their bases of-support and trading factories around the Aegean, but this contact, like that with Egypt, had not caused an obvious Greek influence on Cypriote sculpture, as long as the Eteocyprian spirit was dominant. When that was weakened, the disposition of the Cypriotes for Greek culture produced by the Mycenaean colonization and, as we have seen, preserved, though submerged, was released after age-old suppression and was able to assert itself again. In consequence, Ionian-Greek art began to excercise influence on Cypriote sculpture. The
artistic result of the combination of all these factors was the creation of the N eo-Cypriote style. The sculptures of this style divide into two groups, in accordance with the two cultural areas in Cyprus mentioned above. In the Eastern Neo-Cypriote group the Egyptian elements were modified in a way that has analogies in the art of central and southern Syria. This is explained by the similar psychological and ethnical character of the people in the parts of Cyprus and Syria mentioned, and with regard to that it is quite natural that an Egyptian influence on Eastern N eo-Cypriote art had a similar stylistic effect as on that of central and southern Syria. The Egyptian influence was thus absorbed by an artistic temperament akin to that of central and south Syria, and the result was a sculptural art of strongly Syro-Egyptian character. In the Western Neo-Cypriote group the Proto-Cypriote tradition is preserved more purely, and the Ionian influence is particularly apparent, as it seems due to the fact that this style is mainly represented in that part of Cyprus where the purely Achaean colonization took place and, in consequence, the cultural disposition to absorb Greek influence must have been most developed. The Proto-Cypriote style was definitely declining, yet lingered on alongside the N eoCypriote until .c. 540 B. C., but without inherent force and.gradually more influenced by that and by Egyptian or Ionian prototypes. The Neo-Cypriote style is leading and dominating in art, the supreme manifestation of the time. In accordance with the general character of the style, its conciliatory and levelling tendencies, the frontier between the cultural provinces mentioned began gradually to disappear and we can trace a tendency towards fusion between the two areas, assimilation of the two cultural varieties. The same holds good for the pottery (Type V) and the other handicrafts, too, as shown e. g. by the NeoCypriote style of the metal bowls. The Egyptian influence at this epoch was not only in art, but it penetrated every expression of cultural life. This fact is confirmed by the sudden increase of Egyptian imports, scarabs, faience amulets, pendants, etc. and by the introduction of Egyptian fashions. The latter phenomenon is illustrated by the sculptures wearing Egyptian dress or imitations of it; elegant and up-to-date persons preferred Egyptian jewellery and pectorals.:If this Egyptian fashion is exhibited by Neo-Cypriote sculptures, it harmonizes with their artistic tendency, but it is rather sad to see the same popular fashion illustrated by the more and more degenerate sculptures of the second Proto-Cypriote style: these figures dressed in Egyptianizing costume give the impression of persons wearing a rather badly fitting fancy-dress. For the question of the foreign relations and the cultural activity of the Cypriotes abroad the finds of sculpture are also instructive. Numerous Cypriote sculptures of terracotta, but above all of limestone, have been discovered in the excavations of Naukratis, particularly in the temples of Apollon and Aphrodite. Cypriote graffiti indicate the presence of Cypriotes in Naukratis,i and from an inscription we even know the name of one of the Cypriote sculp1 Among the -epigraphic material from Naukratis there are some graffiti in Cypriote syllabary on pottery which, so far as stated, is of Greek provenance (Naukratis II, p.67, No. 864, PI. XXII [doubtful]; Ann. Brit. School Athens V, pp. 33. 56, No. II4 [base of Black Glazed bowl with stamped
pattern of palmettes], PI. V). Since it is very unlikely that this Greek pottery was imported to. Cyprus and after. having been engraved by a Cypriote was re-exported to Naukratis, we may safely take these graffiti as indications of the presence ofCypriotes in Naukratis,
47 1
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
tors there. His name was Sikon.: In Defenneh a Cypriote craftsman has also left behind him an epigraphic testimony.' The sculptural interrelations of Cyprus and Naukratis are also demonstrated by literary evidence, as shown by the well-known quotation of Athenaios from a work of Polycharmos: Herostratos, a citizen of Naukratis, sailed around many lands and touched also at Paphos in Cyprus, where he bought a statuette of Aphrodite, Archaic in style, and took it with him on his journey home. A storm came suddenly, and the passengers took refuge before the image of Aphrodite praying her to save them. The goddess saved them by a miracle, and they reached Naukratis, where Herostratos dedicated the statuette in the temple of Aphrodite.' This legend is illustrated by the numerous finds of Cypriote Archaic statuettes in the temple of Aphrodite at N aukratis. Rhodes was still a commercial and cultural clearing station for connections between Cyprus and Greece, but it was no longer the only Cypriote base in the Aegean. Sculptures of the second Proto-Cypriote and the Neo-Cypriote styles have been found in great quantities not only in Rhodes but also on Samos. Several specimens are further reported from Dadia on the Cnidian peninsula, while only a few Cypro-Archaic sculptures are known from other Greek sites, from Ephesos, the Cyclades, and Aigina. At least c. 2000 Cypriote sculptures have been found hitherto on Rhodes and Samos alone. In Egypt, at Naukratis, the Greeks made acquaintance with Cypriote sculpture as well as on Rhodes, Samos, and the Cnidian peninsula. This led to a Cypriote influence on Greek sculpture. We have found that inevitable facts prove the case. The excavations of the Heraion in Samos hav.e particularly shown that Cypriote sculpture of the second Proto-Cypriote and N eo-Cypriote styles has exercised a considerable influence upon the development of Ionian sculpture, and it cannot be doubted that the many oriental schemata and types mentioned (pp. 370 f.) were incorporated into Greek art and penetrated westwards from Cyprus or via Cyprus. The cultural interchange was, however, mutual: we have seen that incipient Ionian influence on Cypriote sculpture is shown by the N eo-Cypriote style, and much of the Egyptian influence on this same style was certainly transmitted via the Cypriote sculptural activity in N aukratis. In the Syrian coast-land Amrit was still a flourishing trading factory of Cyprus, and at this place Cypriote sculptures served as prototypes, while several Syrian traits were incorporated into the Neo-Cypriote style. The same holds good for the non-sculptural material also. In the Cypriote trading factories on the Asiatic mainland, oriental forms and decorative motifs in pottery and applied art were absorbed and adopted. In the trading factories and naturally on Cyprus itself these foreign elements were transformed and transmitted across the sea, to Rhodes and Ionia, to Crete and Athens, while Greek motifs and forms travelled eastwards and were absorbed by the Cypriote artists. In this way a close system of mutual influences of culture was created. Together with merchandise, cultural ideas were interchanged between the countries, and this influence resulting from the commercial intercourse can also be traced in the products of the arts, in the pottery, in the metal work, in the sculptures. Wave after wave of
oriental culture flooded Greece in the Archaic period, fertilizing its art and science. This oriental influence reached Greece mainly from two directions, from Egypt and from Syria, in part by the inland routes of Asia Minor, in part across the sea. We have seen that Cyprus acted as an intermediary in culture along both these principal lines. This position of Cyprus in the cultural intercourse was changed by political events of decisive importance. In c. 550 B. C. the Persian Kyros dispossessed his maternal grandfather, Astyages, of the Median throne and made himself king of the Median state. International peace was threatened by the dynamic policy of Kyros. The states exposed to imminent peril, Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt, concluded a defensive treaty, and Sparta which was allied to Kroisos, also joined the coalition.' Kroisos took the offensive, but Kyros succeeded in crushing the Lydian power before any of the allies were able to bring assistance. Sardes was captured in 546 B. C. after a fortnight's siege, and Lydia ceased to exist as a free state! This striking success revealed at once the irresistible strength of the new Persian state, and the Cypriote kings were not slow in drawing their conclusions from the clear premises. Everybody could foresee what would happen if, and when, Kyros attacked Egypt, and so the Cypriote kings decided to leave the sinking ship at once and submit to Persia, the power of the future. On the basis of the records preserved we may assign the Cypriote allegiance to Persia to c. 545 B. C.2 Egyptian domination in Cyprus thus lasted only about
47°
1
Ibid., p. 32.
a PETRIE, Tanis II, Pi. XL,
I.
2
Athen. XV, 675 f; 676 a-c.
Herod. I, 77. • Cambr. Anc. Hist. III, pp. 222, 305, 523 f. 2 Some scholars (ENGEL, op, cit. I, p. 260; HALL, Cambr. Anc, Hist. III, p. 306; OLMSTEAD, op. cit., p. 559) think that Cyprus remained an Egyptian possession until the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 B. C., others (HILL, loco cit.) are of the opinion that Cyprus submitted to Persia soon after the Lydian catastrophe. Xenophon states in a passage of the Cyropaedia that Kroisos received assistance from his allies, Assyrians, i. e., Babylonians and Egyptians. Apart from many peoples in Asia Minor, among whom were Cilicians, Phrygians, Lycaonians, Paphlagonians, Cappadocians, Aeolians, Ionians, he was also said to have had a Cypriote army at his disposal (Xen., Cyrop, VI, 2, 10). Cyprus as an Egyptian possession would thus have been forced by Amasis to fight against Kyros. The Cyropaedia is a novel with pedagogical and political purposes, and its historical value must therefore very often be discounted, particularly when: its statements do not agree with those of other historical works. In this particular case the statements do not agree with those of other historical works. It is not only contradicted by Herodotos, but also by another passage of the Cyropaedia itself. Herodotos (I, 77, 81, 83) says that Kroisos sent a message to his allies for help, but no help arrived. The passage of the Cyropaedia in question (II, 1,5) informs us that the Carians, Cilicians, and Paphlagonians, though summoned by Kroisos, refused to join his army. The passage of the Cyropaedia first mentioned contains the report of Indian spies, and is evidently written in order to make the military power of Kroisos appear to be greater than it was, and must therefore be rejected as a historical document (cf. ERZEN, Kili1
kien bis Z. Ende d. Perserherrschaft, pp. 94 f.). We may thus state that no Cypriote army operated on the side of Kroisos in his war with Kyros, and this is also in perfect harmony with the subsequent interrelations of Persia and Cyprus. If the Cypriotes had participated in the war on the side of Kroisos, Kyros would certainly have treated them as enemies when he had occupied their island. Contrary to this,we find that Kyros treated the Cypriotes with great liberality, allowed the native kingdoms to exist and did not send a satrap to the island. Xenophon explains this liberality by reference to the fact that the Cypriotes had assisted Kyros in his war against the Carians, C. 545 B. C., and against Babylonia in 539B. C. The Cilicians and the Paphlagonians were treated in: the same liberal way and for the same reason (Xen., Cyrop, VII, 4, 2; VIII, 6, 8). This may be true, but if the Cypriotes - and the other peoples mentioned - assisted Kyros in the war against the Carians, C. 545 B. C., they cannot have participated in the war of the preceding year as enemies of Kyros, because in such a case, if the Persian king wanted their assistance after having beaten them, he would have ordered them to do military service and not have accepted their voluntary offer. We may thus infer that the Cypriotes after having remained neutral in the war between Kyros and Kroisos submitted voluntarily to the victor shortly after the capture of Sardes. It is true that this inference is based on the passages of Cyropaedia quoted above and with regard to the dubious historical value of this work we may question the reliability of the statement. In this case, however, there is no reason to do so, because it is not contradicted by other evidence, though some scholars think so. Herodotos mentions that the Cypriotes had submitted voluntarily to Persia, and
472
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
25 years, but these 25 years were in fact fatal to the Cypriote culture. The economic expan-
throne.' This story proves that the Cypriote kings evidently had a right even to carry on a foreign policy of their own, as long as they fulfilled their duty towards the Great King and did not oppose Persian interests. The Cypriote right of separate coinage is another evidence of the degree of political independence of the country: the coins were struck by the Cypriote kings with their royal title and names indicated, and the Great King or a symbol of the Persian domination do not figure on a single Cypriote coin. If we did not know that Cyprus formed a part of the Persian empire we could not possibly imagine it from a study of the Cypriote coinage.' The Persian standard was used both for political and economic reasons. The earliest coinage of Cyprus can be attributed to Euelthon of Salamis,' but it is not only the earliest, it is also plentiful and on some issues there is the sign Ku inscribed within the ring of the ankh-symbol on the reverse of the coins. This may indicate that Euelthon called himself king of Cyprus and claimed suzerainty over the whole of the island.' In any case Salamis was apparently the most important state in Cyprus at that time, and, we may therefore suppose that Pheretima did not appeal by chance to Euelthon for help, but because he, being at the head of the most important Cypriote kingdom, was most able to assist her. The later history of Salamis (p. 475) shows that there was a strong proPersian political tradition in that city and we may therefore venture a guess that Euelthon after submission to Persia, tried to obtain a dominating political position for Salamis in Cyprus through intimate co-operation with the Great King, though he also kept friendly relations with Greece, as shown by the notice that he dedicated an incense-altar to Apollon at Delphi. This was preserved in the treasury of the Corinthians." When Cyprus was incorporated into the Persian empire c. 545 B. C., the third and coneluding epoch of Cypro-Archaic culture started. Unlike Egypt and similar to Assyria, Persia exercised no direct influence on Cypriote culture and art. Only single objects of Persian provenance have been found in Cyprus, e. g., the gold bracelets from Vouni. Indirectly, the Persian supremacy over Cyprus meant, however, that the Greek influence on Cypriote art became predominant. Of the two cultural influences, the Egyptian and Greek, prevailing in Neo-Cypriote art of sculpture, the Egyptian influence soon disappeared on account of the changed political conditions, and the Greek influence remained alone and became paramount. The result in sculpture was the creation of the Cypro-Greek style. The Neo-Cypriote style lingered on to c. 520 B. C., but from c. 540 B. C. the Archaic CyproGreek style took the lead. Greek influence reached Cyprus first from Ionia and, towards the end of the Archaic period, also from Attica and Aigina. Among the terracottas we can
sion continued, as we have seen, but it was no longer supported by political independence; it was based on the political power of Egypt in the Mediterranean. Cyprus thus exercised its economic activity as an integral part of the Egyptian empire, and, when it renounced allegiance to Egypt in 545 B. C. and submitted to Persia, it lost its principal bases for economic expansion, but the cultural consequences of the Egyptian dominion were still more disastrous. As mentioned, Assyria did not exercise any direct influence on Cypriote culture: during the Assyrian dominion Cyprus vindicated its spiritual independence. The Egyptian conquest introduced a new orientation of Cypriote culture, its accomodation to foreign impulses. Culture is more dangerous than arms. Cyprus was allured by the mystic charm of Egyptian culture, and yielded to its overwhelming and attractive power. The Cypriote originality was mellowed by this development, the sense of the particularly Cypriote character was blunted. The process was accelerated by the revival of the Greek disposition of culture and the incipient absorption of Ionian elements of art. On the one hand, Cypriote culture was enriched by this combination of native, Egyptian and Ionian contributions, on the other hand, it lost its inner force and vitality. Cyprus still kept its position as an important intermediary in culture between the Orient and the Occident but, dazzled by opulence and' prosperity, nobody noticed the danger impending to Cypriote culture, how its power was undermined by this intense interchange and continuous infiltration of foreign substance. The submission of Cyprus was of considerable importance to Kyros. It placed a fleet at his disposal. No wonder that the Cypriotes were rewarded for their readiness to acknowledge the Persian supremacy. Kyros did not interfere in the internal administration of Cyprus, the native kingdoms were allowed to exist, but the kings had to pay tribute and were obliged to place their military forces at the disposal of the Persian king,' a system of dependency similar to that in force during the Assyrian and Egyptian domination. Accordingly, the Cypriotes participated in the Carian war, c. 545 B. C., in the conquest of Babylonia in 539 B. c.,' and when Kambyses attacked Egypt in 525 B. C., they joined the expedition together with other maritime powers, Phoenicians, Ionians, and Samians sent by Polykrates.s During the reigns of Kyros and Kambyses the Cypriotes were, however, treated almost as allies of Persia, and Xenophon describes the state of the Cypriote kings as quasi-autonomous. 4 We are able to verify this statement. Among the Cypriote kings reigning at this time Euelthon, king of Salamis, is known to us by name.' The timeof his reign is approximately fixed by the fact that Pheretima, mother of Arkesilas III of Kyrene, went to Cyprus in c. 530 B. C. and asked Euelthon for military assistance in order to replace her son on the they participated therefore in the war of Kambyses against Egypt (Herod. III, 19). This statement of Herodotos is sometimes interpreted so as to indicate that the Cypriotes had submitted immediately before the Persian attack on Egypt, but such an interpretation cannot be defended. Herodotos does not say on which occasion the Cypriotes had submitted, and his statement is not therefore in conflict with that of Xenophon, Consequently, there is no reason to doubt that
the Egyptian domination of Cyprus came to an end c. 545
B. C. The Cypriotes adapted themselves to the new political situation, drew the right conclusions from the Persian victory, refused to pay tribute to Egypt, and Amasis had to yield to necessity. 1 Xen., Cyrop, VII, 4, 2. a Op, cit. VIII, 6, 8. 3 Herod. III, 19, 44. 4 Cf. n. I. S Herod. IV, 162; V, 104; Polyain. VIII, 47.
1 Herod. IV, 162. The beginning of Euelthon's reign is sometimes fixed at c. 560 B. C. (Rev. num., 3. ser, I, 1883, p. 264), but without evidence (HILL, op, cit. I, p. 116). He cannot have reigned very long after c. 530 B. C., because his great-grandson Gorgos was king of Salamis in 499/8 B. C. (cf. below). • It is instructive to compare the monetary types in those parts of the Persian empire which were entirely deprived of political freedom or which enjoyed a more restricted freedom than Cyprus, cf. SPYRIDAKIS, Euagoras, p. 98.
473
3 HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. LXXXIV ff.: SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit., p. 69. 4 HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 116. The sign Ku appears also on the coins of Euelthon's successors (op. cit. I, p. 116, n. 4; cf. id., Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. 49 f.). The coins attributed to Gorgos after the Cypriote revolt have the sign pa (~ao~).8o~) in the ring of the ankh-symbol (cf. op. cit., pp. XC f., 5I. s Herod. IV, 162.
474
distinguish a group where the faces are cast in a mould and another where they are handmade. The moulds might often have been imported from Greece and the Greek character is therefore more apparent in the former group, while the hand-made faces are more characterized by Cypriote expressiveness, the Ionian smile is much exaggerated, the features of the face reflect something of the Cypriote tendency towards individualizing, so essentially different from the Archaic Greek style of art. The stone sculptures form also similar distinct groups: e. g. the diademed head from Vouni- is rather Cypriote in style, while the kore statuefound at the same place reflects more closely the Greek prototypes. Clear structure, energetic modelling and distinct lines mark the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, in contrast to the shallow modelling and soft transitions characteristic of the Neo-Cypriote style, and it cannot be doubted that Greek influence was at first an artistic stimulus to Cypriote sculpture, but it was an excitement of the kind caused by any novelty, and the stimulation was only temporary. As time progressed, it turned out that the Cypriote activity and self-assertion in culture were gone: in her relations with Greece, Cyprus was from now the receptive partner. The increasing aridity of the artistic imagination is also illustrated by handicrafts, above all the pottery of Type V, which towards the end of the Cypro-Archaic period shows clear signs of stagnation and exhaustion in form and decoration. Still, the Cypriotes were able to assimilate the Greek elements with their traditional ideas, and as shown by the sculpture of the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, it is not yet a question of an imitation of the Greek prototypes. This Archaic Cypro-Greek style penetrated the whole of Cyprus. Even at Kition, the Phoenician stronghold in Cyprus, sculptures of Cypro-Greek style appear exclusively at the end of the Archaic period. Ethnic mixture and cultural assimilation proceeded, the frontier between the earlier provinces of art disappeared and a Late Archaic uniform culture was developed in Cyprus, an Archaic koine of Cypro-Greek character. The Greek influence extended also to the architectural field. The remains of the temple on the acropolis of Soli are very fragmentary and its orientation is somewhat uncertain, but probably it has to be interpreted as a Greek temple in antis with pronaos, cella, and opisthodomos or adyton. Finds of Doric and Ionic capitals from Kurion and Kition and fragments of Doric entablature found in Soli afford still further evidence of the introduction of Greek architecture into Cyprus. The Greek preponderance in the cultural interrelations of Cyprus and Greece is further shown by the steadily increased number of Greek objects imported into Cyprus during this period. The majority of the imported pottery is of East-Greek origin. At about the middle of the 6th cent. B. C., Attic Black Figured pottery first begins to compete with the EastGreek imports. The considerable increase of Greek imports at this time is also confirmed by finds of sculpture and handicrafts. Late Archaic Greek terracotta statuettes are fairly common in Cyprus, and specimens of Greek monumental sculpture were also imported, as well as numerous products of Greek handicraft and applied art: various kinds of weapons, e. g., daggers, spears, shields and helmets, strigils, mirrors, lamp-stands, metal vases, faience aryballoi, earrings, beads, and pendants of precious metal, etc. When not imported, 1
THE CYPRO-ARCHAIC PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, Pis. XLVIII, XLIX,
1-2.
2
Op. cit. III, Pis. L-LII, LIII, 5·
475
the products of the handicrafts very often show a strong Greek influence, and the noble series of Cypriote decorated metal bowls ends with the Cypro-Greek silver bowl from Tamassos. Ionian fashion in hair-dress and clothes superseded also the earlier Egyptian mode, as shown by the sculptures. The rather undefined relations between Persia and Cyprus during the reigns of Kyros and Kambyses were regulated by Dareios I (521-485 B. C.) in a more systematic way. He organized the administration of the Persian state and divided the empire into administrative units, satrapies. Together with Phoenicia and Palestine, Cyprus was included in the fifth satrapy of the empire, 1 and the tribute, which before had the character of presents, was now fixed at an exact sum. The fifth satrapy had to pay an annual sum of 350 talents.' We do not know how much of this amount Cyprus had to contribute. In principle this did not change the political status of Cyprus, but, on the other hand, it is easily understood that this stricter system of administration was felt by the Cypriotes as a decisive step towards complete loss of their political independency. Dareios deprived them of the illusion that they were quasi-autonomous allies and taught them that in reality they formed a part of the Persian empire. This created a tension in the relations between Persia and Cyprus, and caused the creation of anti-Persian and pro-Persian parties in Cyprus. In Salamis this dissension affected the members of the royal house. Gorgos, the king,» adhered to the traditional proPersian policy of Salamis, but his younger brother Onesilos belonged to the anti-Persian party. Another fervent adherent of that party was Aristokypros, son of Philokypros, king of Soli. Marion was another centre of the anti-Persian policy, which can be safely assumed from the fact that it received a persophile dynasty after the failure of the revolt against Persia. Stasanor, king of Kurion, also joined the anti-Persian league, but his behaviour in the decisive moment of the revolt proved him to be a traitor. Even in Kition, the Phoenician stronghold, anti-Persian feelings gained the upper hand.' Only Amathus was loyal to Persia. This shows that the opposition to Persia was not determined ethnically. Greeks and Phoenicians co-operated, the movement was Cypriote and anti-Persian, but not exclusively philhellene." The development of the political events meant, however, that the philhellene movement was connected with the anti-Persian, and this political development was in perfect harmony with the cultural situation. As we have seen, the Cypriotes embraced Greek ideals Herod. III, 91. Ibid. 3 Siromos and Chersis, the son and grandson of Euelthon, were rather short-lived rulers because before 499 B. C. the great-grandson of Euelthon, Gorgos, had succeeded to the throne (HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, pp. 115 f., and p, 115, n. 5). 4 This must be inferred from Herodotos' statement (V, 104) that all the Cypriotes except the Amathusians joined the anti-Persian leage. If Kition had also been loyal to Persia we should have heard about an attack of the anti-Persian league on Kition as well as on Amathus (d. below). " It is, therefore, evident that the pro-Persian attitude of Amathus cannot be taken as an indication of alleged Phoenician elements (HILL, Amathus, pp. 487 f; id., Hist. of Cyp., I, 1
2
p. 118; d. p. 437, n, 2.), nor of the Eteocyprian elements proved to exist in its population. The policy of the Cypriote cities was determined by their kings. The king of Amathus reigning at the time of the Cypriote revolt is not known to us by name (Timonax, son of Timagoras is mentioned by Herod. VII, 98 among the Cypriote kings on command in the fleet of Xerxes; he is sometimes considered to have been king of Amathus, cf. HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, p. XXIV, though that is a mere guess), but he was probably a Greek; in any case all the Amathusian kings known to us by name are Greek (Epipalos, Lysandros, Rhoikos, Zotimos, d. op. cit., pp. 4 ff.; Hesych., s. v. 'Pobwo 1tPt&o1tofL"la). The policy of Amathus was pro-Persian because that was considered by its king to be in the interests of the city.
SUMMARY AND
HISTORICAL SURVEY
ofculture as their own, and Cypro-Greek culture was entirely dependent on cultural contact with Greece. The cultural attitude of Cyprus towards Persia was therefore bound to be philhellene, a defence of Greek forms of life as understood by the Cypriotes, and maintenance of intellectual contact with Greece. The existence of Cypriote culture was no longer based on its own strength, but on alliance with Greece, on appropriation of Greek civilization. In consequence, when the anti-Persian policy failed and contact with Greece was cut off, the cultural structure of Cyprus collapsed, and the role of the island as a power and intermediary in culture was at an end. The Cypriote revolt in 499/8 B. C. introduced the process of events by which this happened. The Cypriotes joined the Ionians in their fight against Persia. Onesilos was the leader of the Cypriote revolt.vHis first step was to become ruler of Salamis." When Gorgos was away from the. town on some occasion, Onesilos seized the opportunity and dispossessed his brother of the throne. Gorgos took refuge in Persia. As king of Salamis, Onesilos succeeded in persuading all the Cypriote cities to revolt, except Amathus. In order to break the resistance of that city Onesilos attacked it, but the Amathusians defended themselves behind the city-walls, and Onesilos had to besiege the town." In the meantime he was informed that the Persian general Artybios was gathering an army in Ciliciaand that the Phoenician fleet was ready for action. Onesilos sent messages to the Ionians asking for help, and they sent a great number of ships to Cyprus.' The Persian army was transported across the sea from Cilicia, landed in Karpassos and marched on Salamis, while the Phoenician fleet rounded the promontory of Kleides and sailed for the bay of Salamis. The Ionians delivered battle at sea, and the Cypriotes fought on land.' The first phase of the battle was not unfavourable to the. Cypriotes. Onesilos attacked Artybios and killed him. This seemed to be a good omen, because the Persians were not likely to offer resistance for long, when their chief commander had fallen - there are many instances of such behaviour, as we know, but before the battle was definitely decided Stasanor ordered his contingent of men to retreat, and the Salaminians with their war-chariots followed suit. In consequence, the Persians gained the upper hand and the Cypriote army was beaten and took to flight. lOur only source for the history of the Cypriote revolt is Herod. V, 104, 108-116. a Already before the outbreak of the Ionian revolt he had tried to persuade Gorgos to throw off his allegiance to the Great King, hut Gorgos refused to yield to his solicitations, and Onesilos was therefore obliged to use force. "The Amathusians were so enraged with Onesilos on account of his attempt at reducing them to obedience that when he had been killed in. the battle of Salamis they cut off his head, brought it to Amathus and fixed it above the citygate. Herod. V, II4 relates the story that a swarm of bees lived in it, when it had becomehoilO\v. An oracle was consulted by the Amathusians, and they received the answer that they should remove the head of Onesilos, bury it, and perform annual sacrifices to Onesilos as a hero. And the Amathusians still preserved that cult in .the time of Herodotos. 4 After initial success the Ionian war began to take an
unfavourable tum: the Greeks had been defeated at Ephesos and the Athenians had returned home. The Ionians were therefore pleased to have the Cypriotes as allies. If the Cypriote revolt succeeded, the Ionians could hope for .a more favourable development of their own war. This explains their readiness to support the Cypriotes. 5 The Cypriotes offered the Ionians the choice of the battlefield they preferred, either to fight a naval battle against the Phoenicians or to fight against the Persians by land, in which case the Cypriotes would undertake the naval battle. The Ionians answered that they preferred the sea-fight.. When the Persians troops had reached. the Salaminian plain, they were met by the Cypriotes, and both armies were drawn up in battle array. On the Cypriote side the bravest soldiers of the Salaminians and Solians were placed opposite to the Persians and Onesilos took his place opposite Artybios,
THE CYPRO-ARCRAIC PERIOD
477
Onesilos and Aristokypros were killed. The Ionians behaved much better than the Cypriotes; they fought bravely, particularly the Samians, and the Phoenician fleet was beaten. The Cypriote defeat, however, made this naval victory worthless, and the Tonians had nothing to do but sail home. The Persians besieged the rebel cities, except Salamis, which was handed over to its previous king, Gorgos, by its inhabitants. One after another the other cities had- to yield to the Persians. Soli offered the most obstinate resistance and endured a siege of five months, before it was captured. In this way "the Cypriotes after only one year of freedom were again enslaved by Persia". 1 Dareios allowed the native kingdoms to exist, but he made sure that they were governed by persophile dynasts as a guarantee against a renewed attempt at rebellion. Gorgos was replaced on the Salaminian throne, and Stasanor may have kept his position as king of Kurion, but we know nothing about it. In Kition a new Phoenician dynasty was introduced, and its first representative was Baalmelek 1." We have also numismatic evidence that dynasts with Phoenician names ruled at Marion, and possibly Lapethos, too." We know that Soli, whose resistance had been stronger than that of the other cities, was also punished more than these. There are no Solian coins from the 5th cent. R C. On the other hand,: we know that a persophile dynast of Marion, Doxandros, fortified Vouni, and built the palace on that rock immediately after the defeat of Soli in order to hold that city in check.' Both these facts indicate that Soli ceased to be, even formally, an independent state after the failure of the revolt and that it was under the control of persophile Marion. The Eteocyprian, oriental style of the palace at Vouni built by Doxandros is an architectural expression of the antiGreek policy of the time in Cyprus. The earliest sculptures found in the principal temenos at Vouni are still in the Archaic Cypro-Greek style, because there existed no other sculptural tradition of art at that time in Cyprus, but the temenos itself is of the same Eteocyprian, oriental style as the palace, and there is no longer any trace of influence from Greek architecture. Cyprus was thus firmly in the hands of Persia and had to place her forces' at the disposal of her sovereign. Accordingly the Cypriotes were ordered to assist Persia in the final sub1 Herod. V, 116. It has been said that the Cypriote revolt failed because of the dissension among the Cypriotes and the treacherous behaviour of some of them (ENGEL, op. cit. I, pp. 270 f.). The obstinate resistance of the Solians and the Amathusian rage against Onesilos confirm the fact that the real· and convinced champions of the revolt were Soli, Onesilos and his partisans, but the treachery of Stasanor shows that opportunistic considerations determined his policy, and the flight of the Salaminian war-chariots indicates that the pro-Persian party in Salamis had not ceased to exist with the expulsion of Gorgos. Part of the anti-Persian movement seems to have been democratic (HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 117), among the combatants for independence from Persia there were also antagonists of the ruling system of the Cypriote kings. Some kings, like Stasanor and Gorgos, and a considerable part of the Cypriote upper class may have believed attachment to
Persia to be a safe guarantee for the realization of their antidemocratic policy (ENGEL, Zoe. cit.). Theymay also have been convinced that Cyprus could not resist Persia for long, even if the revolt had an initial Success. They were undoubtly right in that conviction, as shown by the later unsuccessful efforts of Euagoras I to liberate Cyprus from Persian suzerainty at a time when the political prospects of success were much more favourable, and Persia was less strong than in the days of Dareios. The dissension between the .Cypriotes may therefore be said to have caused an initial failure ofthe revolt, but its final failure was a foregone military and political conclusion. "Cf. p, 479, n. 5. "Cf. p. 441, n. 2, 3. 4 Swed. Cyp, Exp. III, pp. 287 f.; Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. XII), 1946, pp. 21 ff.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
jugation of the Ionians, their former allies, by supplying a contingent of the fleet which won the victory at Lade in 494 B. Co' We are not informed whether the Cypriotes participated in the expedition of Mardonios against Greece in 49 2 B. c., but they did in the expedition of Xerxes in 480 B. C. We know that the Cypriotes contributed IS0 ships to the Persian fleet.' They were under the immediate command of their own kings, of whom there are known to us by name: Gorgos, king of Salamis, Timonax' supposed to be king of Amathus,' and Penthylos, king" of Paphos.' Philaon, the youngest brother of Gorgos, is also mentioned among the esteemed and distinguished combatants in the Cypriote navy." Some Cypriote ships were wrecked by storm, others were lost in the battle at Artemision.' In the battle at Salamis the Cypriotes did not distinguish themselves, and their military reputation was 'apparently rather bad." The Cypriote ships were placed on the right wing of the Persian fleet together with the Phoenicians, B opposite to the ~thenians, who were on the left wing of the Greek fleet. When the battle began and the Persian ships were crowded in the narrow strait, so that they had difficulties to navigating, the Athenians saw their chance and made a violent attack on the Phoenicians and the Cypriotes. Their lines were broken, many of their ships were destroyed and the rest of them were pushed back to the Attic coast. When they tried to escape into the open sea, they caused disorder in the Persian centre, which moreover was deprived of defence on its right flank. Thus the Persian line could be rolled up from both sides, and so the defeat of the Phoenicians and Cypriotes decided the catastrophe of the Persians." Herod. VI, 6. Other contingents were provided by the Phoenicians, Cilicians, and Egyptians. From the words of Herodotos it may be inferred that the Cypriotes - naturally enough - were not very willing fighters because we are told that the Phoenicians were most eager for battle in the Persian 1
fleet. • Herod. VII, 90; Diod. XI, 3, 7· 3
Herod. VII, 98.
'Cf. p. 475, n. 5· 5
Herod. VII, 195.
"Herod. VIII, 11. 7 Penthylos was in charge of twelve ships, but we do not know the number of ships from the other Cypriote cities, nor their distribution under the different commanders and the organization of the whole navy. Penthylos lost eleven of his ships in the storm along the Magnesian coast. The remaining twelfth ship was together with fourteen others placed under the command of Sandokes, the satrap of Kyme. These fifteen ships were captured by the Greeks at Artemision before the battle at that place had begun. The ships had started for Aphetai later than the main Persian fleet
and when they discovered the Greek fleet at Artemision they thought it to be the Persian navy. So they steered directly towards the Greeks and before they realized their mistake they were surrounded by the Greek ships and easily captured. The prisoners taken by the Greeks included Aridolis the dynast of Alabanda. He and Penthylos were interrogated upon the military forces of Xerxes, were then put in chains and sent to the Isthmos. In the first encounter at Artemision the Greeks captured 30 ships and took Philaon, the brother of Gorgos, prisoner. We do not know if all the ships captured were Cypriote, but since Philaon were among the captives, some of the ships must have been Cypriote. BELOCH, op. cit. II', 2, p. 87 considers the capture of the 30 ships to be a duplicate of that of the IS ships, but there is no evidence in support of that opinion. S Herod. VIII, 68. B Herod. VIII, 85, mentions only the Phoenicians on the Persian right wing, and so does Diod. XI, 18, but from Diod. XI, 19 it can be seen that the Cypriote ships were placed with the Phoenician fleet. 10 BELOCH, op. cit. II, I, p. 50; MEYER, Gesch. d. Altert. IV,
1 3,
pp. 364 ff.
479
The Cypro-Classical Period T~e .dawn
of the Cypro-Classical period is accompanied by the Greek victories at Salamis, P~ataIaI, .and Mykale. A new era started not only in Greece, but also in Cyprus, though WIdely different from that in Greece. . When the Greek cities in Asia Minor had been liberated from the Persian rule, the Hellerue League extended its action to Cyprus, and in the spring of 478 B. C. an allied fleet under the comman.d of Pausanias appeared in Cypriote waters.' Thukydides says that the most part of the Island was conquered, and Diodoros informs us that the cities were relieved of thei: Per.sia~ garrisons.' The geographical position of Cyprus made it a very important strate~Ic ~OInt In the Graeco-Persian war. If it could be occupied by the Greeks, a Persian offensive In Greece would be impossible, and the Persian coast in Cilicia and Phoenicia would be exposed to imminent peril. The final decision of the naval war was to a great extent de?en~ent on the fight for Cyprus, and the defence of this naval base was therefore of pn~e Importance to Persia. No wonder that the island became a seat of war again and again dunng the Graeco-Persian conflict. .The result of t~e Greek expedition to Cyprus in 478 B. C. was next to nothing. It was fairly easy to get nd of some of the Persian garrisons and to occupy a part of the island but ~he Greek resources were quite insufficient for establishing a permanent domination of the Isl~n~. After ~ sh~rt time the Greek fleet left Cyprus, and the Cypriotes had no chance of resIstIng. Persia. WIth their own forces, nor was there in general any will to resistance. The ~ro-Persian attitude of the Cypriote kings made the re-establishment of the Persian domination an easy task. There are, however, indications to show that submission to Persia was no~ u~iversal and ir~mediate in every part of the island. Evidence is afforded by the inscn~tlOn of the Id~~lOn bronze tablet.' This inscription mentions a siege of Idalion by the Persians and the Citians. The date of this event has been much discussed.' In my view, it took place between 478 and 470 B. C .. The Citians, who assisted the Persian attack on 1 Thuk. I, 94; Diod. XI, 44, 2. The fleet consisted of eighty ships, of which twenty were Peleponnesian, thirty Athenian under the immediate command of Aristides, and thirty were provided by other allies. Thukydides gives the number of the Peloponnesian ships as twenty and that of the Athenian ships as thirty, but does not record the number of the other allied ships. Diodoros agrees with Thukydides as regards the number of the Athenian ships, but he states that the Peloponnesian contingent comprised fifty ships. In that number the ships of the non-Athenian allies must be included, so that the total number of ships was eighty. a We do not know on which occasion these garrisons were stationed in Cypriote cities. It may have been after the failure of the revolt in 498 B. C. or after the battle of Salamis, in order to check the expected attack of the Greeks. However, the existence of these garrisons confirms the fact that the
Persian domination of Cyprus was much firmer than before and also based on military bases of support. 3 COLLITZ, Samml. griech. Dial.-Inschr. I, No. 60; MEISTER, Griech. Dial. II, pp. IS0 ff; 154 ff; HOFFMANN, Griech. Dial. I, No. 135. , Cf. HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, pp. 153 ff. 5 It cannot be later than c. 470 B. C., because at that time Idalion ceased to be an independent state, as shown by archaeological evidence (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 625), nor can it for historical reasons be dated earlier than the Cypriote revolt: at that time Kition was still anti-Persian, and the antagonism between Persians and Cypro-Phoenicians on the one hand and Cypro-Greeks on the other did not appear earlier than the period subsequent to the revolt (cf. below). Between the dates fixed a historical situation corresponding with that indicated by the inscription is found after the Greek
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
Idalion, were promised, in compensation, the incorporation of Idalion into their kingdom, as shown by the final result of the war. The first attack failed.' The king of Idalion at the time was Stasikypros. He seems to have been the last king of Idalion.s Within a few years after the unsuccessful siege, the attack was renewed and this time, c. 470 B. C., with success. Idalion was captured and incorporated into the kingdom of Kition. We do not know who was king of Kition at the time of the unsuccessful siege, but we know that Azbaal, the successor of Baalmelek I, was the king who succeeded in conquering Idalion.' This conquest expedition in 478 B. C., when Persia had to reduce the Cypriotes to obedience. In Vol. II, p. 625 I have suggested the year of the Cypriote revolt as the date of the siege mentioned in the inscription, agreeing with Meyer, Gesch. d. Altert. IV, 13 , p. 286, n. I and OBERHUMMER in PAULY & WISSOWA, R. E., art. Idalion, p. 868. This suggestion has to be corrected in the way proposed here on the evidence that the Citians at the time of the revolt in 499/8 B. C. were anti-Persian. The terminus ante quem is c. 470 B. C., because at that date the sanctuary of Athena, where the inscription was deposited, was destroyed and never rebuilt again. This destruction is to be connected with the incorporation of Idalion in the kingdom of Kition: when Idalion ceased to be an independent state, the cult of Athena, its city-goddess, was forbidden (Vol. II, pp. 625 ff.). It is therefore evident that the inscription cannot be assigned to the 4th cent. B. C., as proposed by some scholars (cf, HILL, op, cit. I, p. 155), and even the dating suggested by Hill, who assigns the conquest of Idalion to after the failure of Kimon's expedition in 449 B. C. (op. cit. I, pp. 153 ff.), is too late. Hill bases his arguments on numismatic considerations and on the assumption that the archaeological evidence based on the dating of the pottery found in the uppermost layer of Idalion may not be reliable: The pottery in question consists almost exclusively of Type V, and only two sherds of Type VI occur. This shows that the destruction of the sanctuary took place at the very beginning of Cypro-Classic I. The initial date of that period can be fixed at c. 475 B. C. If Hill's dating of the inscription were right, the initial date of Cypro-Classic I would have to be fixed at c. 450 B. C. This is impossible for the reasons given on pp. 425 f. In this context it may suffice to point out that no Red Figured pottery and Greek terracottas dating from after 450 B. C. were found in the layers of the second period of the palace at Vouni, which dates from Cypro-Classie I A, and the end of the second period of Vouni can be conveniently synchronized with the expedition of Kimon in 449 B. C. (loc. cit., pp. 482,485 f.). It therefore seems impossible to dispute the evidence of the archaeological material for the. conquest of Idalion. There remain the numismatic considerations. The series of coins attributed to Idalion comprises the following classes: a) uninscribed; incuse reverse; b) King O.na.sa ... ; incuse reverse; c) King Ki. .. ; lotus reverse; d) King Ka.ra ... ; lotus reverse; e) King Sa ... ; lotus reverse (op. cit. I, p. 154)· Classes a, b, and c Were found in the Larnaka hoard (Num. Chron., Ser. 5, XV, 1935, pp. 180 ff.), Of class c only the first issue is represented in the hoard. Since the Larnaka hoard is
supposed to have been buried about 480 B. C., King Ki ... of Idalion must have reigned for some time after that date, and if the conquest of Idalion is assigned to c. 470 B. C., we have therefore to crowd the reigns of Kings Ka.ra... and Sa. .. and part of that of King Ki. .. between 480 and 470 B. C. This seems to Hill "to say the least, a record for which there are few parallels", and he is therefore inclined to identify Stasikypros of the inscription with King Sa ... of class e of the coins and to extend the reign of that king to c. 450445 B. C. I agree with Hill about the identification of Stasikypros, but cannot find his arguments conclusive as to the final date of the reign of that king. I admit that it is not likely that two reigns and a part of a third were squeezed together into a decennium, but the necessity of that assumption depends entirely on the date assigned to the burial of the Larnaka hoard of coins, i. e. 480 B. C., and that date is by no means an undisputable' fact. No coins of Baalmelek I are found in the hoard and as the initial date of the reign of that king is fixed at 479 B. C. - a statement that cannot be proved - the hoard is supposed to have been buried about 480 B. C. For historical reasons, it is much more likely that Baalmelek I was made king of Kition after the failure of the Cypriote revolt in 498 B. C., as I have suggested, p. 477, and we may then consider the Larnaka hoard to have been buried at the time of the Cypriote revolt, in itself a more likely date than 480 B. C., when conditions in Cyprus were undisturbed. If the hoard was buried about 499/8 B. C., we may infer that the reign of King Ki ... of Idalion must have begun some years before that date, and it may have ended say, between 495-490 B. C. In such a case there are about two decades reserved for the reigns of Kings Ka.ra. .. and Stasikypros and assuming an average reign of about 1-2 decades for King o. na . sa. . . and his predecessor, we arrive at c. 545-525 B. C. as the period, when the Idalion coinage was introduced, a date that is very probable on stylistic and historical grounds (cf. the date of the earliest Salaminian coins, p. 473). We thus see that the numismatic evidence need not be in conflict with the archaeological facts bearing upon the date of the conquest of Idalion, 1 We learn this from the inscription where the siege is mentioned in aoristus. 2 In any case the coins which may be attributed to him are the last in the Idalion series, as we have seen (cf. above). 3 In the inscriptions, Baalmelek I is called king of Kition and Azbaal king of Kition and Idalion (Rep. d'Epigr. Sem. No. 453).
m~ant a considerable increase of the political influence of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, and the alliance o.f Per~ia and Kition for the purpose of subjugating Cypro-Greek Idalion inaugurates a new orientation of Cypriote politics. In the earlier history of Cyprus, so far as we know, ~here were no host.i1e relations between the Phoenician and Greek groups of people on the Island. T.he extension of the Perso-Greek conflict to Cyprus changed this state of things. Tho~gh III ge.neral the Cypro-Greek kings thought a pro-Persian policy best suited to their own interest, It was obvious that Persia justly considered the Cypro-Phoenicians to be safer and m?~e lo~al supporters of the Persian domination of Cyprus, and their favouring of the Phoenicians increased the more the Greeks intensified their attacks on the island, as we shall see. If thus the opposition of the Cypro-Greeks and the Cypro-Phoenicians is a fact created by the introduction of Cyprus into the Perso-Greek conflict we should not on the other hand . . " overestimate the Importance of this opposition for the development of Cypriote history. e shall see tha~ there are several instances to show that this antagonism did not always lllfl~~nce the pohcy. of the Cypriote cities. It introduced a general dualism in Cypriote politics, and was an Important, though not all-determining factor, above all of an emotional nature, but the dualism was sometimes bridged over by rational considerations. ~ppro~imately contemporary. with the conquest of Idalion and the final repression of the anti-Persian movements, the war between the Greeks and the Persians broke out again. It was no longer the Hellenic League which carried on the war, but the Athenians and the confederacy of Delos. Kimon was the military and political leader of the enterprise, and succeeded in winning the combined battle on sea and land at the Eurymedon.i The Persians used C!prus as a naval base and dispatched a reserve of eighty ships from Cyprus to join the ~alll fleet at the Eurymedon. This contingent arrived too late and was also destroyed by Kimon.s The date of the battle of the Eurymedon is disputed.i Probably it took place in 4 67/ 6 B. C.4 The defeat checked the further advance of the Persians to the West, but Cyprus remained Persian. The plan of conquering of Cyprus, the only country with Greek inhabitants still under Persian sway was not, however, given up by Kimon: it was the logical fulfilment of his vic-
:v
Thuk, I, 100; Plut., Kimon 12 f. Plutarch, loco cit., says that the ships were Phoenician from Cyprus. The tradition about the battle at the Eurymedon is much confused. Polyainos (Strateg. I, 34) localizes the final defeat to Cyprus. He embellishes the description of the battle by the story of a stratagem used by the Athenians, who are said to have embarked on the ships captured from the enemy and to have dressed themselves in Persian dress in order to deceive the Cypriotes. Diodoros (XI, 60, 6) even places the principal battle off Cyprus, an obvious mistake based upon confusion with the events of Kimon's expedition to Cyprus in 449 B. C. (MEYER, op, cit. IV, 13 , p. 496; BELOCH, Griech. Gesch. IP, 2, p. 162). It is certain that the Athenians did not advance eastwards after the victory of the Eurymedon and made no .attempt at a conquest of Cyprus. The .island was firmly in the hands of the Persians, and for the time being the Athenians made a halt before that barrier. The expedition of 478B. C. had shown that a conquest of 1
2
31
Cyprus had to be carefully prepared. The Athenians had to consolidate their increased power and the rewards gained through the victory at the Eurymedon, before an attack on Cyprus could be made for the purpose of not only temporarily conquering the island, but of including it definitely in the Athenian empire. 3 Cf. BUSOLT, Griech. Gesch. III', pp. 143 ff., n. 2. 4 MEYER, op, cit. IV, I,a p. 496; Cambro Anc. Hist. V, p. 53· It is not a mere coincidence that the battle at the Eurymedon is approximately contemporary with the complete subjugation of Cyprus, exemplified by the' fall of Idalion. For a successful continuation of the war with the Greeks it was of vital interest to Persia to be in firm possession of Cyprus, so as to be able to use it as a naval base, and after the complete recovery of the island in c. 470 B. C. the Persians could first advance their forces to the W. in order to meet the Greeks and attempt to reconquer the lost territories.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
tory at the Eurymedon and entirely in agreement with his political-military ideas.' His auxiliary expedition to Sparta, his ostracism, the imminent conflict between Sparta and Athens and the reforms of the democratic party in Athens changed the political situation. The democratic party prepared for war with the Pe1oponnesian League and must therefore have been anxious to secure peace with Persia. The initial success in the Greek war, however, made the Athenians believe that they were able to face a war on two fronts, and they threw themselves with recklessness into the great adventure. A fleet of 200 ships was sent to Cyprus in 460 or 459 B. c." The chief commander was Charitimides.' We do not know how far the operations in Cyprus proceeded, but we know that there was fighting on the island in 459 B. C.' Definite results were not obtained; the Athenians failed to conquer the island, but subsequently wider prospects offered themselves. Inaros, the Egyptian rebel, asked Athens for help.' Charitimides was ordered to give up the Cypriote enterprise and to sail for Egypt. 6 The Persian control of Cyprus was thus secured, and together with the Phoenicians and Cilicians the Cypriotes had to supply the navy with 300 ships in all for the Persian war against Egypt and the Athenians. 7 We know that the Egyptian adventure ended with an Athenian catastrophe in 454 B. C.B Persia triumphed." In 45 0/49 B. C., Kimon, who had returned from exile, succeeded in bringing about a truce of five years between Athens and Sparta. Thus the Athenians were secured against an attack in the rear and were able to resume the war with Persia. Kimon was the organizer and leader of the military operations. He returned to his old plan, the conquest of Cyprus, convinced that only in possession of that island would Athens be able to control the eastern Mediterranean and force the Great King to peace. A fleet of 200 ships was equipped and placed under the command of Kimon with Anaxikrates as second in command. This fleet sailed for Cyprus in the spring of 449 B. C.I0 Artabazos was chief commander of the Persian
fleet, and Megabyzos was at the head of a numerous army which he had gathered in Cilicia.' For the defence of Cyprus there were also Persian garrisons stationed there. We know that Persian troops were quartered in Salamis,' and we may safely assume that similar garrisons were placed also in other cities, according to the system probably introduced after the revolt in 499/8 B. C. Finally, the military defence was based on local Cypriote troops under the command of the persophile dynasts. We do not hear of Cypriote attempts at revolt and co-operation with the Athenians. Apparently the Persian rule was so efficiently organized that attempts at insurrection were excluded. The philhellene elements were put out of action by Persian and persophile domination. The most important strongholds of the persophile regime in Cyprus were Marion, Kition, and Salamis.' The operations of Kimon started with an attack on Marion. The city was captured, its persophile dynast, Sasmai, the son of Doxandros,' dethroned and replaced by a philhellene king. From numismatic evidence we may conclude that his name was Stasioikoso" After this initial success Kimon laid siege to Kition, where, so far as we know, Azbaal was still reigning. 6 During the siege a pestilence broke out among the Athenian troops. Kimon fell a victim to it and died.' With the death of Kimon the leading spirit of the expedition was lost. The siege of Kition made no progress and was soon raised, but before the whole expedition was given up, a last attempt to secure a decisive victory was made by an attack on Salamis, the third Persian stronghold on the island.BOn numismatic evidence it seems likely that Euanthes was king of that city on this occasion. _ He was a true representative of the old pro-Persian tradition in Salamis, a tradition that Onesilos had failed to break. As mentioned, a strong Persian garrison was stationed in the city, but the Salaminians themselves also offered efficient resistance to the Athenians and are called Persian allies by Diodoros.v If the Athenians had thought that a conquest of Cyprus would be facilitated by the co-operation of Cypriote partisans, they were utterly disappointed. The Cypriote kings had no interest in exchanging a Persian domination for an Athenian, which probably would not respect their privileges as much as Persia did. The attack on Salamis developed into a
1 The earthquake catastrophe in Sparta in 464 B. C., the outbreak of the Messenian war and the repression of the Thasian revolt on the one hand and the Egyptian revolt led by Inaros and the Persian domestic conflicts after the murder of Xerxes on the other, had all contributed to a favourable situation for a continuation of the Persian war. BELOCH, op. cit. IP, 2, p. 205 thinks that the Athenian fleet was equipped and actually sent off by Kimon in 462 B. C. and that Kimon intended to be appointed commander-in-chief after his return from the expedition to Sparta.
a Thuk.
I, 104.
a Ktesias, Pers. Eclog: 32. BUSOLT, op. cit. III, I, p. 306, n. 2, thinks that Charitimides is a misspelling of Charmantides. But Charitimides is known as an Athenian name (Aristoph., Eccles. 293), as pointed out by HILL, op, cit. I, p. 122, n. 2.
'1. G." I, 929. 5 The Athenians unhesitatingly seized this opportunity, as they thought, of dealing a blow at Persia. Evidently they considered it easier to detach Egypt from Persia with the help of the Egyptian insurgents than to conquer Cyprus, where they were met with firm resistance from Persia and the local persophile dynasts. The Athenian strategy was
characterized by a grasping after great and rapid successes rather than by systematic and energetic warfare. 6
7 8
Thuk., loco cit. Diod. XI, 75, 2. BUSOLT, op, cit. III,
I,
pp. 328 ff.; MEYER, op. cit. IV,
13 , pp. 568 ff. _ The Egyptian insurrection was suppressed, and only a prince named Amyrtaios was able to maintain resistance in the fens of the delta. 10 BUSOLT, op. cit. III, I, p. 342; BELOCH, op. cit. IP, 2, pp. 21 I f. Kimon detached a squadron of 60 ships to the support of Amyrtaios, who still continued to bid defiance to Persia in the fens of the Egyptian delta (T'huk. I, II2, 3). This support may have been felt as a moral obligation of Athens towards her Egyptian allies, but must be considered as a military mistake: the squadron of ships was too small for the purpose, and its detachment from the main fleet caused a decreased efficiency in the operations in Cyprus. Kimon realized that the outcome of the war depended on the conquest of Cyprus, and he was wise enough not to repeat the mistake of the Athenian expedition to Egypt in 459 B. C., but he was not able to detach himself entirely from the after-effects of that expedition.
1
Diod. XII, 3,
«tu«, 3
4,
2.
Ibid., 3, 3; 4,
I
ff.
'Opusc. archaeol. IV (= Acta Inst. Rom. Regni Suec. XII), 1946, pp. 21 ff. 5
Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 287; Opusc. archaeol. IV, p. 23.
The dates assigned to the reigns of the Citian kings are uncertain. BABELON (Melanges Num. II, pp. 49 f.; id., Les Perses Achemenides, pp. CXXV f.) assigns the reign of Baalmelek I to 479-449 B. C. (d. p. 479, n. 5) and that of Azbaal to 445-425 B. C., and these dates have been accepted by later scholars, but Azbaal must have already been reigning c. 470 B. C. as we have seen (p. 480). The end of his reign cannot be ascertained exactly, but since the end of the reign of Baalmelek II, his successor, can be dated to c. 400 B. C. on account of the style of the coins attributed to him, it seems that the reign of Azbaal did not end until some time after c. 450 B. C. 6
HILL, op. cit. I, p. 123 and n. 3. Diod. XII, 4 gives a very confused description of the military operations, but the facts seem to be those related here. Diodoros describes the battle of Salamis as having taken place before the death of Kimon and under his leadership. This is refuted by Thuk. I, 112. It may be that the siege of Salamis had already been laid by Kimon, even if the battle was fought after his death, but Kimon had hardly troops enough to lay siege to two large cities at the same time. Diodoros' narrative of the battle, the Athenian pursuit of the enemy to the Phoenician coast, the disembarkation of the Athenians, their victorious fight and return to Salamis - all that is merely imagination (d. BUSOLT, op. cit. III, I, p. 343, n. 4; BELOCH, op, cit. II", I, p. 176, n. 2; HILL, op, cit. I, p. 124, n. 2). _ HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. XCVI f., 7
B
1,
53· 10
Diod, XII, 4,
2.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
combined action on land and on sea. The city was besieged, and Anaxikrates fell in one of the land fights. Meanwhile the Athenians came into contact with the Persian navy of Cilician and Phoenician ships, and they are said to have captured 100 ships .from the enemy in the battle, but apparently their own losses were considerable.' To say the least, their victory was a Pyrrhic one, and the Athenians were not able to continue the war with the forces at their disposal. They realized that the game was up, evacuated the troops from Cyprus and sailed horne.' The Athenian attempt to conquer Cyprus was thus a complete failure. Athens had to draw the conclusions from this failure. For that purpose a delegation under the leadership of Kallias went to Susa, and the result obtained by this delegation was the so-called Peace of Kallias, Its existence has been disputed, but without sufficient reason.' It was not, however, a proper treaty of peace, but a gentlemen's agreement, a modus vivendi for relations between Persia and Athens.' This was no triumph for either part, but a confirmation of the status quo created by the battle at the Eurymedon, i. e., Athens gave up her aspirations in the eastern Mediterranean, and Cyprus remained a Persian possession. The effects of this agreement were fatal to Cyprus. During the thirty years between 478 and 448 B. C. the Persian domination of the island had been disputed on repeated occasions, but after 448 B. C. this domination was undisputed until the rise' of Euagoras in 4II B. C. and Persia made use of this favourable situation. We know very little about the history of Cyprus during that period, but the Cypro-Greek cities were reduced to a state of political nullity, and Persia was determined to eradicate the last survival of philhellene mentality. In Salamis the Cypro-Greek dynasty was dethroned, and a Phoenician intruder from Tyre made himself dynast of the city, evidently in secret understanding with Persia.' The policy of this Phoenician dynast shows him to have been an obedient servant of the Great King. He worked systematically to strengthen the Phoenician influence and to make Cyprus inseparably and definitely a Persian province. In consequence, he endeavoured to repress as much as possible everything that was Greek. He made Salamis a barbarous city, and as Isokrates says, Greeks were not allowed to live in the city; there was no industry and commerce, and even the port is said to have fallen out of use.s This description is certainly a rhetorical exaggeration in accordance with the general stylistic principles and tendencies of the elogium, but there is no doubt that the reaction against the Greek elements of culture in Cyprus was very strong and brutal, or to use the word of Isokrates: "Those rulers were considered the best who behaved most cruelly toward the Greeks". 7 The alliance of the Persians and Phoenicians against the Cypro-Greek cities, inaugurated by the attack on Idalion i Isokrates may exaggerate when he estimates the Athenian loss to be 150 ships and compares this battle of the Cypriote Salamis with the Athenian catastrophes in Egypt, Sicily and at Aigospotamoi (Isokr. VIII, 86). 2 Thuk. I, 112. 3 MEYER, Forsch. z. alt. Gesch. II; pp. 71 ff.; BUSOLT, op. cit. -III, I, pp. 347 ff.;BELOCH, Griech, Gesch. II2; I, pp. 177 f., n. 2. • Megabyzos had started a revolt, and an alliance between him and Athens might have been dangerous to the Great
King. Even Persia was therefore willing to come to an agreement. 5 According to Isokrates, this Phoenician, whose name we do not know, was an exile who had taken refuge in Salamis. The king took him into his confidence, and he obtained a high position and much influence in the city. At the right moment he made e.coup d'etat, dispossessed the king of the throne, and installed himself as the ruler of Salamis (Isokr. IX, 19 f.), There is no reason to doubt that this version is true. 6 Ibid" 20, 47. 7 Ibid., 49.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
and the conquest of this city in c. 470 B. C., was intensified and developed into a systematic action intended to turn Cyprus into a Persian country administered by Phoenicians. Thus the chasm between the Cypro-Greek and Phoenician groups was widened, and the tension between them was bound to evoke a Cypro-Greek reaction. In accordance with the intentions of the anti-Greek movement it was not limited to Salamis, but was extended to the whole of the island, which the Phoenician dynast wanted to deliver into slavery under the Great King, as Isokrates expresses himself.' Numismatic evidence of this anti-Greek movement is given by the coins inscribed with the name of Sidqmelek and assigned to Lapethos.' This attribution is not quite certain, but the coins date from about the middle of the 5th cent. B. c., and if they are not from Lapethos, they are neither Citian nor Salaminian and thus prove that the Phoenician regime extended outside these cities. On the other hand there is no indication that the philhellene dynasty installed by Kimon in Marion was driven out, because the coins of Stasioikos and Timocharis, representatives of this dynasty, cover the later part of the 5th cent. B. C.3 Coins of this period and inscribed names of Greek kings are also known from Paphos.· Further, there is no .evidence that the Phoenician rule extended to the cities ofAmathus and Kurion.' We may therefore assume that the Phoenician expansion, with centres in Salamis and Kition, only penetrated into the central and northern parts of the island, while the western and south-western parts, from Marionto Amathus, were able to resist the Phoenician assault. Of course this does not mean that the policy of these cities was anti-Persian. Such a policy was excluded in Cyprus at this time. Only by submission to the Great King could the Cypriote dynasts maintain their power, and Amathus, in particular, must have pursued its traditional pro-Persian policy. The cultural development is intimately connected with these military operations and political vicissitudes. The whole Cypro-Classical period is divided into two cultural epochs, the first period comprising the time from c. 475 B. C. to the rise of Euagorasin c. 410 B. C. and the second epoch covering the remaining part of the Cypro-Classical period. These cultural epochs thus approximately coincide with the chronological division into CyproClassic I and II. The initial phase of the first epoch, i. e., from c. 475 B. C. to the Peace of Kallias, 44 8 B.C., represents a gradual disappearance of the Cypro-Greek form of culture developed in the final phase of the Archaic period, and the time between the Peace of Kallias and the rise of Euagoras is marked by the anti-Greek movement favoured by the Persians, the persophile- time of reaction. From this general character of the period there are only a few exceptions. Thus the temporary Athenian success in effecting the conquest of Marion and the instalment of a philhellenedynasty there can be read in the architectural history of the palace at Vouni. Stasioikos, who succeeded his Phoenician predecessors as Lord of Vouni, 'Ibid., 20. HILL, op, cit., pp. LIV, 30 f. 3 Op, cit., pp. LVII f.; 32 f.; Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 277· • HILL, op, cit., pp. 38 ff. " True, we know nothing about the history of-these cities 2
during the later part of the 5th cent. B. C. No coins from this period. can be attributed to Kurion, and the attribution of coins to Amathus is conjectural (op. cit., pp. XXV ff.), but we have no reason to doubt that the persophile policy of these cities was continued, and secured an undisturbed exercise of power for their Cypro-Greek dynasts.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
was so imbued with his philhellene ideas that he rebuilt the palace in such a way that it should give the impression of a Greek building. The process was simple but ingenious. The exterior hall of the earlier entrance building was closed by a cross wall, and a new entrance was built in the north corner of the palace. In this way the palace was entirely turned round: the earlier back became now the facade, and the state apartments were transformed from an entrance building to one in the background of the court, which thus became a fore-court in front of the state apartments. Through this simple alteration, their central part acquired a shape resembling a megaron, though not of the Mycenaean isolated type, because the original arrangement with direct communication between the central part and the side-rooms was preserved. The fact that the central part was thus accomodated to a megaron and incorporated as a dominant central part into a tripartite complex of rooms, explains its peculiar character. The isolation of the Mycenaean megaron was broken in historic times. In the houses of Priene this process is completed: the megaron is provided with side-rooms, with which it stands in direct communication, consequently corresponding to the arrangement in the palace at Vouni, but, though the architectural results in Vouni and Priene are similar, there is a difference in arriving at these results. In Priene the isolation of the megaron was achieved by influence from the unified type of house with rooms grouped around a court, while in the palace of Vouni a megaron-shaped room was incorporated into a building of the unified type of Cypriote form and Near-Eastern origin. A parallel to this process is afforded by the palace in Nippur, where megaron-shaped rooms have been incorporated into a palace of the central-court type and with Babylonian connections of architecture. The hellenization of the rebuilt Vouni palace included also to some extent the architectural adornment of the palace. Some columns had capitals which are a CyproGreek version of the Hathor capital. Possibly the columns of the first palace, in accordance with its oriental style, were surmounted by Hathor capitals of the Archaic Egyptianizing type, which were replaced by capitals in Cypro-Greek style, when the type of the palace was hellenized. Stasioikos' tendencies to Greek and, in particular, to Athenian culture appear also from the fact that he built a temple dedicated to Athena on the top of the Vouni rock. True, the plan of the sanctuary is not Greek, but entirely Cypriote, and forms an example of the architectural type which in the Archaic period is represented by the sanctuaries of Apollon and Aphrodite in Idalion and by the principal temenos of the palace at Vouni (PP.235 ff.). The striving for axiality and frontality, the leading principles of this architectural type, is clearly demonstrated by the sanctuary of Athena. It is interesting to find the Cypriote tradition of architecture tenaciously preserved in a philhellene milieu. The Greek influence appeared, however, in the superstructure of the temple: the cella had a saddle-shaped roof, and its tiles were terminated by Greek antefixes. Further, the erection of treasuries in association with the temple may be considered as an evidence of Greek ideas. Finally, the sculptural finds indicate the Greek atmosphere in the Vouni of Stasioikos: the city goddess of Athens in a Corinthian helmet, a replica of Myron's bronze cow, and bronze reliefs representing lions devouring a bull. The echoes from the Athenian Acropolis are clearly heard.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
In Paradisotissa, the royal pleasure-grounds north-west of Vouni, a small temple was erected, being a rustic and irregular form of a Greek templum in antis with pronaos and cella. Only the foundations are preserved, and of the superstructure we know nothing exept that the roof was provided with Greek antefixes of the same type as on the sanctuary of Athena at Vouni. There is no evidence as to whether it was Doric or Ionic. The Doric capital in the Betestan .Collection, Nicosia, shows however that the Doric style was occasionally represented in Cyprus in the Classical period also. Apart from these exceptional and politically inspired influences from Greek architecture we find that the Cypriote tradition dominates the sacred architecture: the Cypriote temenos types developed in Archaic times are also represented in the Classical period. The Great King of Persia could enjoy a tranquil sleep, as far as the Cypriote affairs were concerned. A cultural calm overspread Cyprus. Everything remained as it was, and no cultural novelties foreboded danger to the ancien regime. The burial customs also show continuity with the preceding period. In the monumental tomb at Pyla the royal corpses were buried in stone sarcophagi as in Archaic times, and in tombs of the common people the bodies were, as a rule, still placed immediately on the floor in a dorsal position. Only occasionally, as e. g. in Marion, Tomb 29, the bodies were covered by slabs of stone. Sometimes they were placed in screened-off areas with partition walls of stone on three sides and the rock wall on the fourth. When, occasionally, these walls, as in Marion, Tomb 41, were built of dressed stone-blocks, a "pseudo-sarcophagus" was formed. A monolithic sarcophagus for the burial of children occurs also exceptionally as in the Late Archaic period. Already in Late Archaic times we can notice a rapid decline in the ceramic handicraft. The creative force ran dry. The forms were standardized, the decoration lacked imagination and was poor, with mechanically repeated motifs. Mass production replaced the artistic instinct and inspiration. This aesthetic judgement is still more valid as regards the CyproClassical pottery. This marks the end of the artistic pottery in Cyprus and the beginning of the period of ceramic decadence. The decoration almost disappears altogether. The ornaments consist usually of encircling lines and bands, wavy lines, and short strokes. The overwhelming mass of pottery is a monotonous quantity of plain vases, which have no other purpose than to serve as receptacles for different goods and as domestic vessels; i. e., their purpose is purely practical. The artistic idea is a faded melody. The gradual decadence of culture is also illustrated by sculptural art. The Archaic CyproGreek style ends c. 450 B. C., and the Sub-Archaic style, whose initial phase can be assigned to c. 470 B. C., becomes predominant after the middle of the century. We thus see that this date marks the critical moment for the development of Cypriote sculpture, and it coincides with the date of the Peace of Kallias in 448 B. C. The political and cultural effects of this peace for Cyprus are intimately connected. Before 450 B. C. the Archaic tradition is kept alive, and single glimpses of the contemporary Greek art are still reflected by the Cypriote sculptors, who occasionally try to imitate motifs of the severe Greek style, e. g., the abandonment of the symmetrical pose, but these signs of sporadic contact with Greek
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-C'LASSICAL PERIOD
art were without importance for the development of Cypriote sculpture. It was no longer a question of an artistic synthesis of Cypriote and Greek elements, but only of occasional imitations of Greek stylistic features. In general the Archaic legacy is drawn upon, and the already existing types are repeated, while the Archaic spirit is gone. The Sub-Archaic sculptures after 450 B. C. illustrate the helpless and desperate degeneration of Cypriote art. The sculptural art stagnated into stereotyped and manneristic schemata. In the Archaic Cypro-Greek style the Greek element was still a force stimulating to artistic achievements. In the Sub-Archaic art the Greek element is only a traditional form, and the Cypriote constituent is nothing else than an increasing inability to use this form. The result of this was that Cypriote sculpture degenerated into a spiritless and mass-produced handicraft. The cause of this degeneration is easily found. After the failure of the Cypriote revolt and in consequence of the political complications after 478 B. C., the cultural connections with Greece became gradually less intimate the more the Persian pressure on the Cypro-Greek activity increased. Finally, after the Peace of Kallias, when the anti-Greek policy of Persia culminated in Cyprus, the island was culturally almost isolated from Greece. The Cypriote sculptors and other artists, lacking of the stimulating influence from Greece, were unable to find new ways for a development of Cypriote art. A development corresponding to that of the Classical art of Greece was entirely beyond the capacity of the Cypriotes. Their artistic mentality .was altogether Archaic in accordance with their oriental and Mycenaean hereditary cultural tendencies. When the cultural contact with Greece was broken, the old Cypro-Oriental conception of art asserted itself. The Greek tradition of form remained, however, and the effect was that the existing types were repeated in the way characteristic of oriental art, but with no artistic reality corresponding to the form. The result was the degenerate and epigonal product that is called Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek sculpture. A Cypriote artist from the period in question is known to us by name, the bronze-worker Styppax, who belongs to the later part of the 5th cent. B. C., to the age of Perikles. He made a figure, called "Splanchoptes" representing a slave roasting the entrails of a sacrificed victim,' but Styppax was an emigrant artist living in Athens and working entirely in the manner of Greek art. He does not therefore belong to the Cypriote history of art, nor do the occasional sculptures of Greek origin appearing in Cyprus during this period, e. g., the marble head in the Cyprus Museum from c. 470 B. C., the Chatsworth Apollon from c. 460-50 B. c., the Mersinaki relief from c. 44°-'30 B. C., and the more numerous terracotta statuettes. It is far more symptomatic that these works of Greek art exercised no "real influence on the contemporary Cypriote art of sculpture. The early Cypro-Classical culture, in particular after 450 B. c., is thus in a state of deep abasement, but in economic respects the times were not bad, and thanks to the fact that the Peace of Kallias opened the Near East to Athenian products the commercial relations of Athens and Cyprus .were not interrupted, as shown above all by the archaeological material. The Cypriote export', trade both to the Orient and Greece is difficult to determine archaeologically, because our best guide, the pottery, fails. The Cypro-Classical pottery,
lacking aesthetic value, was not imported for its own sake, but only as containers, and occurs only occasionally in tombs. We are thus thrown back on that found in settlements, but intact vessels are rarely found in these circumstances, and fragments of such plain pottery are usually neither published nor recorded. On the other hand, Greek exports to Cyprus are well documented by ceramic evidence. The Attic trade, which at the end of the Archaic period had already begun to compete successfully with the East-Greek,became predominant in the early Cypro-Classical period, and the East-Greek trade was ousted. This is entirely in agreement with the political conditions, the facts that Athens took charge of the fight with Persia and in the Peace of Kallias, as mentioned above, obtained the right to carry on trade in the Near-Eastern harbours. The Attic export trade to Cyprus seems to have been largely concentrated in the harbour of Marion, whence the goods were spread to the interior of the island, because the Attic Red Figured, Black Glazed, and White Grounded pottery is found nowhere in such quantities as in the tombs of Marion. During CyproClassic I the imported Attic wares form 13.5 % of the total amount of pottery found in the tombs of this city. The Greek import trade is also proved by finds of terracotta figurines and other handicraft products. Cypriote exports seem to have mainly consisted of agricultural products and other raw material (d. pp. 500 f.). Agriculture, the cultivation of wine and olives, the mineral supplies and the timber used in particular by the shipwrights still formed the bases for the economic life of the country. The commercial connections between Cyprus and Greece are not disproved by the fact mentioned that Cyprus at this time was culturally almost isolated from, Greece, but show that the commercial connections in this case only affected the economic life and had no influence on the cultural development. In spite of Greek imports, the Greek influence on Cypriote art was very slight, as pointed out, nor can we trace a Cypriote influence in Greece: when Cyprus lost its power of culture, its role as an intermediary in culture was also at an end. The first Phoenician dynast of Salamis was succeeded by two (or more) descendants,' whose names are also unknown to us. During the reign of these descendants Euagoras was born in c. 435 B. C." The question of his descent cannot be decided with certainty.' In
1
Plin., Nat. hist. XXII, 44; XXXIV, 81; cf. Plut., Perikl. 13.
1 FORSTER, Isocrates, Cyprian Orations, pp. 17 ff., believes that the statement of Isokr. IX, 2I:~WV hjOVUlV ~WV hdvoo TIJv &px-1jv ~xov~OJv EDajopa; j[jV,,~at is not reliable, but should be considered as an attempt by Isokrates to increase the deeds of Euagoras by inserting a long interregnum of Phoenician dynasts. This is a hypothesis which cannot be proved, as pointed out by SPYRIDAKIS, Euagoras, p. 43, n. 1. This work is the most complete study on the history of Euagoras and contains all the reference material available.
" Op. cit., p. 43. s He is said to have been a descendant of the Teucrid royal family, and this statement has been taken as evidence that the Phoenician usurpers did not expel the members of the dynasty dethroned by them, because, it is supposed, they believed themselves to be so firmly seated that they could afford to consider the members of the legitimate dynasty quite harmless (op. cit., pp. 42 f.; HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I,
p. 126.) This does not seem very likely, and the statement of Euagoras' descent must be seriously doubted (MEYER, Gesch. d. Altert. V, p. 199). It was of course in his interest to pretend that his reign represented a revival of the legitimate dynasty, but the name of his father is nowhere mentioned, nor are we informed about the particulars of his descent. This is suspect. It may be that he was related to the Teucrid dynasty on his mother's side, as suggested by BELOCH (op. cit. III', 2, p. 98), who defends the opinion that Euagoras was related to the Teucrid family with the argument that everybody in Salamis knew who was his father, and his pretence to be a member of the Teucrid family would therefore have been impossible, if false. Beloch does not reckon with the possibility of a fictitious pedigree. Euagoras pretended to be a descendant of Teukros and Aiakos,not of the last Teucrid king. Whoever his father was, it would be easy to make a genealogical table in order to prove that the pretence of Euagoras was justified.
49°
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY'
c. 415 B. C. a new Phoenician usurper, Abdemon,' murdered the descendant of the first Phoenician dynast and occupied the throne. He also attempted to murder Euagoras, who took refuge in Cilicia, where he planned his political return with great energy. He procured for himself a small, selected group of absolutely reliable partisans." Probably there were Athenian volunteers among them,' but there is no evidence that Euagoras was officially supported by Athens. In 41 I B. c., after careful preparations, Euagoras made a sudden attack on Salamis and took it by surprise.' The Phoenician regime in Salamis was abolished, and the city was again in Cypro-Greek hands. The Great King did not interfere. Euagoras was wise enough not to provoke interference. He acknowledged the suzerainty of Persia and paid tribute to the Great King,· who was therefore convinced that the dynastic change was only of personal significance. Moreover Persia was too engaged by the war between Athens and Sparta to bother about the internal affairs of Cyprus. Euagoras was thus left in undisputed possession of Salamis. He was the first king with that name known to us in the history of Salamis and is therefore called Euagoras 1. He has rightly been considered as one of the forerunners of the Hellenistic rulers,' and he corresponds in the East to Dionysios of Syracuse in the West. 7 During his reign the history of Cyprus was to a large degree determined by his policy. The leading principles of this policy were to unite Cyprus into one kingdom and to liberate it from even nominal Persian suzerainty. We may distinguish the following main acts of the political drama in which Euagoras played the role of a protagonist: I. 411-398/7 B. c., comprising the time from the beginning of his reign to the conclusion of the antiSpartan alliance. 2. 398/7-390/89 B. C., from the conclusion of this alliance to the outbreak of the Cypriote war. 3. 390/89-386 B. C., the time of the Cypriote war to the Peace of Antalkidas. 4. 386-380/79 B. C., the period from this peace to the end of the Cypriote war. 5.380/79-374/3 B. C., from the end ofthis war to the death of Euagoras. I shall only draw attention to the main points which are of importance for the historical understanding, leaving the details aside.' To begin with, Euagoras was loyal towards Persia, as mentioned, but the loyalty was forced upon him. He had no other choice. A conflict with the Great King was, however, 1 Theopompos calls him Abdymon or Audymon (JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. B, p. 558, Fr. 103) of Kition, while Diod. XIV, 98, mentions him as Abdemon of T'yre. Salaminian coins with Phoenician letters can be attributed to him (HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. XCVII ff.). BELOCH, op. cit. III", I, p. 37, n. 2; 2, pp. 98 f. and MEYER, op, cit. V, p. 199 make him king of Kition, but that is impossible, since no king with that name is known in Kition, where Baalmelek II was king at this time (cf. p. 491, n, 3). Isokr. IX, 26 mentions neither name nor place of origin. His words zI~ 'tIDY aDvao'tZDov'tWV indicate a politically influential person in Cyprus, but not a reigning king. Abdemon is known as a Tyrian name (Joseph., Antiq. Iud. VIII, 5, 146, 149; C. Ap. I, 17, II5; 18, 120), and it is therefore not impossible to combine the statements of Theopompos and Diodoros and to consider Abdemon as a person of Tyrian origin living
in Kition, where he obtained political influence and whence he organized the plot against the dynast of Salamis. " Isokr. IX, 26 ff.; Diod. XIV, 98, 1. According to Isokrates they were only fifty in number. .. 3 SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit., p. 45. In Aristoph., Thesm. 446 f. produced in 4II B. C., a woman deplores the 100S of her husband, who had died in Cyprus. 'Isokr. IX, 30-32; Diod. loco cit. s That Euagoras recognized the suzerainty of Persia and was on good terms with the Great King is evident from the fact that he acted as a mediator in the negotiations between Athens and Tissaphernes (cf. p. 491, n. 5). 6 JUDEICH, Kleinasiat. Stud., p. 14. 7 MEYER, op, cit. V, p. 200. 8 For particulars I refer to the work of Spyridakis already quoted.
I
unavoidable, if he was to be able to carry out his political projects, and at the same time as he proved his allegiance to Persia he began to make preparations for the conflict to come. He fortified the city, built triremes, and increased in every respect the military power of his kingdom.' The military preparations were accompanied by diplomatic action. He had to secure allies for the future fight. His philhellene ideas caused him to turn to the Greeks and his anti-Persian plan of action to Athens." Accordingly we find him entering into negotiations with Athens immediately after his accession to the throne. In shipments of grain from Cyprus to Athens we trace the activity of Euagoras in assisting Athens," and an Athenian honorary decree for the benefit of the king confirms his phil-Athenian policy. This decree' dates most probably from 410/9 B. C.· Thus Euagoras linked up his policy unhesitatingly with Athens from the very beginning of his reign, and he did not change his mind after the Athenian catastrophe in 405 B. C. Konon, who realized that his life was in danger if he returned to Athens after the defeat at Aigospotamoi, took refuge in Cyprus and was welcomed by Euagoras, his personal and likeminded friend.' These two drew up plans for the restitution of the Athenian power and for the realization of Euagoras' Cypriote projects. 7 In consequence, the relations between Euagoras and Artaxerxes became strained. Euagoras refused to pay tribute- and began to realize his programme of conquering the whole of Cyp1
Isokr. IX, 47.
"As mentioned above, Athenian volunteers probably helped him in the attack on Abdemon, but this fact did not influence his choice of allies. 3 Andokides, the famous orator, had been involved in the process of the Hermokopidai and was forced to leave Athens. He took refuge in Cyprus and visited the king of Kition, who at that time, in 415/4 B. C., was Baalmelek II, the successor of Azbaal (p. 483, n. 6). MEYER, op. cit. V, p. 199 and BELOCH, op. cit. III", 2, p. 99 are of the opinion that the king of the Citians whom Andokides visited (Lysias VI, 26) was Abdemon, but there is no reason for that supposition (cf. p. 490, n. I). He was charged of treachery by the king of Kition, but escaped the sentence of death. He visited king Archelaos of Macedonia, and persuaded him to send wood for making oars, grain, and bronze to the Athenian fleet at Samos in 4II B. C. (Andok. II, II), but there is no reason to suppose that this shipment of grain and bronze came from Cyprus, as suggested by SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., pp. 44 f. and accepted by HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 128. After several vicissitudes he returned to Cyprus in the autumn of 4II B. C., and this time he approached Euagoras (Lysias VI, 28). He tried to secure an amnesty for himselt and to facilitate his return to Athens by accomplishing certain matters entitling him to the gratitude of that city, and according to his own statement he succeeded in arranging the shipment of large quantities of grain from Cyprus to Athens in 407 B. C. (Andok, II, 20 f.). This shipment of grain was of great importance to the maintenance of Athens in view of the Spartan attempts to cut off the transport of grain from the Black Sea to the city.
'1. G." I, 113.
s MEYER, op. cit. IV", pp. 619 f. assigns it to 410 B. C. and SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., p, 50 to January, 409 B. C. The inscription is very fragmentary, but considerable parts can be restored and show that Athenian citizenship was given to Euagoras and his descendants on account of the great services rendered by the king to the Athenians. The grant of citizenship is confirmed by Isokrates (IX, 54) and Demosthenes (XII, 10): 6p.z~~ sao'tz 1to),~'t8[av Ei'>al0pCf 't~ Ko1tpttp xal .6.~OYOOltp 'LtV ~opa"l..ocrt
49 2
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
rus.' The cnSIS approached, but it was solved in an unexpected way, not by rupture between Artaxerxes and Euagoras, 'but by alliance. The Perso-Spartan conflict entirely changed the relations between Persia and Cyprus. Konon and Euagoras saw with great satisfaction this conflict between their two enemies and seized the opportunity of using it for their own purpose. Their plan was to crush Sparta and to raise Athens with the help of Persia, and then to beat Persia with the help of a revived Athens. This was a natural and simple strategy, but its realization was ingenious: Kononwas to be appointed chief commander of the Persian fleet. After long negotiations this plan succeeded in 398/7 B. C,," but the preparations went on very slowly, and the war was carried on with the usual Persian inefficiency." In the summer of 394 B. c., Konon was first supplied with sufficient funds from the Great
King to fit out a fleet for a decisive battle.' This took place in August off Knidos, where Konon won a complete victory.. The whole maritime empire of Sparta fell into pieces at once,' but the victory bore the germ of further complications. Persia felt uneasy at the plans of Euagoras and the revived power of Athens,' and Sparta had discovered that it lacked strength for a war on two fronts. The former enemies therefore approached each other. Peace-congresses in Sardes and Sparta (392-39I B. C.)" led to no result and the war went on, but the negotiations indicated the conditions of the .peace to come, and these conditions- the Greek cities in Greece should be autonomous - meant for Cyprus submission to Persia. In view of this political situation Euagoras had to make his decision. After the death of Konen- he returned to his old programme of uniting the whole of Cyprus as a necessary condition for a realization of his ultimate goal: the political independence of Cyprus. Without breaking his formerly friendly relations with the Great King, he therefore proceeded to make war against the kings of Cyprus..Some of the cities were reduced to obedience by force, others were persuaded to give up without a fight. 7 Kition, Amathus, and Soli made serious resistance and applied, in 391 B. C., to the Great King for his intervention." After some hesitation Artaxerxes was persuaded that Euagoras had passed the limits for the political activity of a Cypriote petty king and determined to support the Cypriote coalition. The Cypriote enemies of Euagoras combined their own personal interests with the persophile attitude that was traditional in Kition and Amathus, but of recent date in Soli. When the
1 We hear about a conflict between him and a king Anaxagoras ,(Ktesias, loco cit.). This Anaxagoras is supposed to be i'dentical with the king Agyris (Diod. XIV, 98, 2) whom the Citians, Amathusians and Solians accused Euagoras of having killed, when they asked Artaxerxes for help in 391 B. C. (d. below, p. 493). This hypothesis was first advanced by MOLLER,' C., Ctesiae ... fragmenta (in DINDORF'S ed. of Herodotos, Paris 1844), p. 77, and has been accepted by MEYER, op, cit. V. p. 202 and HILL, op, cit. I, p. 129, n. 7: Muller was right in rejecting Agyris as the' name of the Cypriote' king. The Sicilian Agyris mentioned by Diodoros shortly before (XIV, 95, 7) has been in the mind of the copyist. I fail, however, to see the reason for identifying this erroneous Agyris with Anaxagoras. We do not know which city was governed by this king. ENGEL (Kypros I,p. 297) conjectures that he may have been a king of Soli, but we may rather suppose one of the cities in central or northern Cyprus,' Chytroi or Lapethos, because this area of the island must have been the first objective of the conquest of Euagoras. A definite rupture between Artaxerxes and Euagoras seemed therefore inevitable, but the war with Kyros and the ensuing conflict with Sparta occupied the Great King for the time being, and so he had to postpone the settlement of the Cypriote affair. These events take us down to C. 399-397 B. C. (for the chronology cf. JUDEICH,Op. cit., p. So, n. I). " Ktesias, the' historian and physician-in-ordinary to king Artaxerxes; played an important role as a mediator in the negotiations between Euagoras, Konon, and the Great King, Many obstacles had to be removed, before Artaxerxes could be persuaded to make a treaty with his antagonists and a treaty on the risky conditions 'proposed by them. To begin with he put forward counter-claims: Euagoras had to acknowledge the Persian suzerainty by paying tribute to the Great King, his plans of conquering Cyprus had to be given up, and accordingly he was told to make peace with Anaxagoras (Ktesias, loc.cit.). Artaxerxes thus demanded that Euagoras should desist from exactly the two lines of action along which he manoeuvred, with the aim of detaching Cyprus from Persia and building up an united Cypriote state. Euagoras did not go to Artaxerxes to discuss the terms, as suggested by Konon, but he declared himself willing to pay tribute again and added precious gifts in order to persuade the
Great King of his sincerity (Ktesias,loc. cit.). Finally Euagoras and Konon were able to draw Pharnabazos on their side, and on his recommendation Artaxerxes gave the command asked for to Konon (Ktesias, loco cit.; Diod. XIV, 39, I; Justin. VI, 1,7-9). This happened in 398/7 B. C. (JUDEICH, op, cit., pp. 49-50, n. I). "Pharnab~zos received 500' talents from Artaxerxes for putting a fleet into fighting condition. He went to Cyprus and ordered the Cypriote kings to get 100 triremes ready. Euagoras was the organizer of the Cypriote preparations and their main contributor. The 40 ships which- were placed at once at the disposition of Konon were very likely provided by Euagoras. Konon sailed to Cilicia in order to continue the preparations for the war (Diod. XIV, 39, 2-4). In the next years his fleet operated in the waters of Rhodes and Kaunos (For the military operations preceding the battle at Knidos, d. MEYER, op, cit. V, pp. 2°7' ff.). The Spartan fleet, commanded by Pharakides, was stationed at Rhodes.. In number of ships it was much superior to that of Konon, and Pharakides succeeded in shutting Konon up in Kaunos, but he was succoured by Pharnabazos, and Pharakides retreated to Rhodes. In Asia Minor the land-war was carried on by the Persians with the usual inefficiency. Persian intrigues and Persian money succeeded, however, in bringing the antiSpartan opposition in Greece into action, and after the Spartan check at Haliartos in 395 B. C. the coalition between Thebes, Corinth, Argos, and Athens forced the Spartans under the command of Agesilaos to leave Asia Minor in order to carry through the war in Greece. Meanwhile Konon endeavoured to make the fleet ready to strike a blow, but the preparations went on very slowly. Arms, rowers, and sailors were supplied also from Athens and other anti-Spartan cities in Greece. Konon succeeded in occupying the Rhodian Chersonese. In Rhodes, the democrats gained the upper hand, drove away the Spartans, and opened their harbour to' the fleet of Konon, but a decisive success was not forthcoming, and Konon had incessant troubles in paying his men. In consequence a mutiny broke out, led bya Cypriote from Karpassos (Hellen. Oxyrh. XV = Oxyrh. Pap. V, pp. 183 ff.), After the repression of the mutiny Konon went to Susa to arrange-the financial matters.
1 Diod. XIV, 81, 4 ff. " MEYER, op, cit. V, p. 238. a Op. cit. V, pp. 239 f. 4 Konon and Euagoras were not slow in making use of the victory. The fortification-walls of Piraeus and the Long Walls between Piraeus and Athens were reconstructed (Xen., Hellen. IV, 8, 9 f.; Diod. XIV, 85, 2 f.; 1. G." II/III: 2,1656-1664). Athens was again a free and independent state. Euagoras and Konon, the protagonists of the victory, were much honoured by the Athenians. Their statues in bronze were erected in front of the Stoa Basileios close by the statue of Zeus Soter "in memory of their great merits and mutual friendship" (Pausan, I, 3, 2;·lsokr. IX, 57), and a fragment of an, honorary decree records the privilege of proedria for Euagoras and his descendants, proclamation at the Dionysia and the bestowment of an olive wreath (1. G." II/III: I, 20; A then. Mitt. XXXIX,1914, p. 29 1). The reality behind the honourswas a revival of the political co-operation between Athens and Euagoras, but the plans were still more ambitious, an alliance between Dionysios of Syracuse, Athens, and Cyprus. Aristophanes, son of Nikophemos, one of the Athenians residing in Cyprus, was sent to Dionysios of Syracuse in company with Eunomos, a friend of Dionysios. The object of this delegation was to arrange a marriage between the families of Euagoras and Dionysios and a political alliance between Syracuse, Athens, and Cyprus. These plans failed, however. The only result achieved was that Dionysios did not send the Spartans the triremes which he had promised them (Lysias XIX, 19 f.;
493
MEYER, op, cit. V, pp, 251 ff.). Euagoras understood that his pro-Athenian policy and the way he profited. by the victory to his own advantage must soon lead to a conflict with Persia. The proposed alliance with Dionysios was intended to be a substitute for that with the Great King. The idea was bold, but it suffered from the ,defect that the interests ofEuagoras and Dionysios could not be combined as regards Persia, and it could not, therefore. be realized. s Sparta sent Antalkidas to Tiribazos in Sardes for peace in 392 B. C. (op. cit. V, pp. 249 f.; BELOCH, op. cit. II!", I, pp. 80 ff.), SParta offered peace on condition that the cities in Greece should be autonomous, Konon and delegates from the anti-Spartan block in Greece appeared also in Sardes in order to ,counteract the manipulations of Antalkidas, and the negotiations broke off on their refusing to accept the conditions stipulated. Antalkidas succeeded in persuading T'iribazos that the policy of Sparta was in the interest of Persia and that Konon was a traitorto the Persian cause. It was not difficult to prove this naked truthvConditions of peace somewhat changed in the interest of Athens and Thebes were discussed at a congress at Sparta in the spring of 391 ,B. C., but not accepted, and even the Great King refused to sanction the. proposal of Tiribazos (MEYER, op. cit. V, pp. 251 ff.; BELOCH" op, cit. II!", I, pp. 82 ff.), e Konon .was imprisoned by Tiribazos, but he managed to escape and he took himself to Euagoras, After some time he fell ill and died (BELOCH, op. cit. lIP, I, p. 84). 7 Diod. XIV, 98, 2. a Loc. cit.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
philhellene dynasty had been installed in Marion by Kimon in 449 B. C., Soli saw her chance of regaining political power by turning pro-Persian. This scheme succeeded, exactly when we do not know, but c. 400 B. C. at the latest the kingdom of Soli was re-established. The scheme of Euagoras to deal first with Cyprus and then with Persia was thus frustrated: he had to fight both at the same time and was therefore naturally anxious to secure help from his ally Athens, but the Athenian state was not economically able to help much, and a squadron of ten triremes fitted out on private initiative- was captured near Rhodes in 390 B. C. by Teleutias, who was in charge of the Spartan fleet." Euagoras succeeded, however, in bribing Hekatomnos, the dynast of Caria, whom Artaxerxes had ordered to carry on the war in Cyprus, together with Autophradates, the satrap of Sardes, and so the Persian war-effort was ineffective." Meanwhile Euagoras was working to enlarge and strengthen the anti-Persian alliance system. Akoris of Egypt was at war with Persia, and in 388 B. C. Euagoras succeeded in concluding a treaty between Athens, Akoris and himself.' In 388/7 Athens sent Chabrias to Cyprus in command of a fleet of ten triremes and 800 peltasts together with some additional ships and hoplites. 6 Kition was captured, king Melekiathon dethroned and Demonikos, son of Hipponikos, an Athenian citizen, was installed as king of Kition.s Other successes followed, and in collaboration with Chabrias Euagoras conquered the greater part of Cyprus.' He seemed to be on the eve of realizing the political unity of the island, when the Peace of Antalkidas, 386 B. c., put a sudden end to this beautiful dream. In this treaty of peace it was stipulated that the cities of Asia and Cyprus should belong to the Great King." Athens acceded to the treaty and thus gave up the alliance with Euagoras. Chabrias was forced to leave Cyprus. 9 The Peace of Antalkidas brought to Euagoras the alternatives of either yielding to Persia or continuing the fight without Athenian assistance. He did not hesitate. The alliance with Akoris was still unbroken, and he concentrated all his energy on a fight with Persia together with his Egyptian ally. Artaxerxes decided to combat Egypt first, and Euagoras had thus a free hand for the time ~eing. With his limited military forces's he opened a violent offensive
against Persia. Cilicia and Tyre, with other Phoenician cities, were conquered, 1 and Artaxerxes was forced to withdraw from Egypt- and concentrate the Persian forces on the war ith Euagoras. Thus the Cypriote war reached its final and decisive phase. Orontes, the sonin-law of Artaxerxes, was appointed chief commander of the land army, Tiribazos was in co~mand of the fleet with Glos as second in command." When the preparations were finished,» the first attack was made on Cilicia, which was easily reconquered and from there the troops were shipped across to Cyprus.' Euagoras could not stop the attack on Cyprus. and he was defeated in the battle at Kition in 381 B. C.' His fate seemed decided,' but thanks
494
1 Aristophanes, the son of Nikophemos (cf. p. 493, n. 4), himself presented a large sum and provided more money from others (Lysias XIX, 21 ff.). In this way the squadron of ten triremes was fitted out. It was placed under the command of Philokrates and sailed for Cyprus in 390 B. C. (Lysias, XIX, 21, 43; Xen., Hellen. IV, 8, 24). " Xen., loco cit. This incident throws a light on the complicated international situation, as pointed out by Xenophon. The Spartans were at war with Persia, but captured ships destined for another enemy of Persia. a Diod. XIV, 98, 4. Though Diodoros says that Hekatomnos went to Cyprus at the head of a strong army, we hear of no fight on the island, and this notice is therefore doubtful, so much the more as another passage of Diodoros (XV, 2, 3) informs us that Hekatomnos secretly supported Euagoras and supplied him with money. 'Aristoph., Plutos 178; Diod. XV, 2, 3. 6 Xen., Hellen. V, I, 10. • HILL, op. cit. I, p. 133 and n. 6.
• Diod. XIV, 110, 5; Demosth. XX, 76. SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., p. 58, believes that the palace of Vouni was captured and destroyed by Euagoras during these military operations. This seems unlikely. In the Vouni treasure there are several coins of Demonikos (Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 277) indicating that the palace was not destroyed immediately after the instalment of that king. It is more likely-that the palace was destroyed by Soli towards C. 380 B. C. (cf. p. 496). • Xen., Hellen. V, I, 31. 9 He went to Egypt where he organized the military defence of that country, in accordance with the Athenian or his personal view that the Peace of Antalkidas did not cancel their alliance with Akoris. On a Persian protest Chabrias was, however, later on recalled to Athens (HILL, op: cit. I, p. 135). 10 In his army he had 6000 Cypriote soldiers, but he commanded a large number of allied soldiers arid mercenaries. The fleet amounted to 70 ships. The conquest of Tyre added 20 ships to the fleet of Euagoras (Diod. XV, 2, 4).
495
:v
~
Isokr. IV, 161; IX, 62; Diod., loco cit. The conqu~st of Tyre meant. a .severe loss of prestige to the Great King, but th~ strategic Importance of this and the other co~quests was st111 greater: Euagoras had deprived the Great King of t~e necessa?, naval base for a direct attack ~n C!prus, the Persian .a~y m Egypt ran the risk of having ItS . Iines of comm~mcatlO.n cut, and naval operations against E~Pt were Impossible so long as the Phoenician bases were m the hands o~ Euagoras. This.successful offensive and the ~everses met With by the Persian army in Egypt resulted in the ~ypr~-EgYPtian coalition being increased by a number of dissatisfied elements within the Persian em. h L' p. . . pire, t e ycians, isidians and an Arab king, presumably a "dynast of Hauran or Nabataea. Barka also joined the anti. . . . Persian coalition (Diod., loco cit.; Isokr. IV, 161; Theopomp., Fr [J F G H' I agm. . 103 ACOBY, . r, sst. I B, p. 558]). Almost the whole htto.ral of the eastern Mediterranean was thus detached from Persia. Artaxerxes .was therefore forced to withdraw from Egypt.. ~e Gr~at King ~ad learnt to know that Euagoras and the p~sltlOn attained by him were a much greater danger to the. umty of the Persian empire t~an the se~aratist movement. m Egypt. That country w.as m the periphery of the EmPlr~ and could be cut off, If absolutely necessary, but the action of.Euagoras affected the centre and most vulnerable part of Persia. a . Diod, XV, 2, 2; 3, 2; Polyain. VII, 20. '1\ th b . Ph .. - s eases m o.emcla and Cilicia were occupied by Euagoras, the preparations for the war were made in K '. yme and Phokaia (Diod, XV, 2, 2). According to Diodoros (XV, 2, I), t~e army amounted to 300000 men and the fleet to 3 00 tnremes, These figures are no doubt exaggerated (S . PY~IDAKIS, op. ctt., p. 61, n. I). There were Greek merce~an.es among the troops (Isokr. I~, 135; Polyain. VII, 20). • Diod. XV, 2, 2; Isokr., loco cu. . The ~eet of Euagoras was t~o sm~l~ to enable him to make use. of his fav~urable str~teglc p.osltlOn, and .he therefore de~lded ~o go m for guen~l~ tactics by captunng the cargo ships which brought provisions for the Persian troops in Cyp~us. For some time these tactics ~ere successful. The soldiers ~an s~ort of food, and a mutmy broke out. The ~ercenar.les killed a number of their officers, but by the mt~rventlOn of the admiral. Glos, the mutiny was suppressed (Diod, XV, 3, r ff.; Polyain, VII, 20). The Persians countered by letting the fleet protect the convoys, and thus traf~c was kept going (Diod. XV, 3, 3). At last Euagoras realized that he had to procure a fleet strong enough to
fight the Persian navy, if he was to have a chance of avoiding a complete defeat. He fitted out 60 ships and succeeded in obtaining 50 others from Akoris, so that his fleet amounted to a total number of 200 ships. In this way the naval force of Euagoras may have been equal, or almost so, to the Persian navy. Before he could make use of it, the crews had to be trained, and Euagoras devoted much energetic work to make his new fleet ready for battle. He also received corn, money, and other supplies from Akoris (Diod., loco cit.). • Euagoras planned to deliver a combined battle on sea and on land. The Persian troops were stationed around Kition, The army of Euagoras advanced from S I . I a arrus a ong the coast toward Kition, and the fleet moved at the same time and in the same direction on the sea Aft . iti I . er 1m la successes the Cypriote navy was defeated (Diod XV 3 4 ff· 4 f) . " ." I .. Euagoras was obliged to withdraw his troops to Salamis, and the Persians laid siege to this city by land and by sea. For the date of the battle see SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit., p. 63 and n. I. • Tiribazos went to the court of the Great King to report on the victory and raise money for the conclusion of the war (Diod. XV, 4, 2). During his absence Euagoras managed to escape by night with ten triremes. He went to Egypt with the intention of persuading the Egyptian king to join action (ibid., 4, 3). Euagoras left' his son Pnytagoras in charge of the S I . I . . troops at a arms. t IS uncertam whether Akoris was still reigning, as Diodoros says (XV 8 I). If he as seems likely '" , had been succeeded by Nektanebos I (BELOCH, op, cit. lIP, 2 pp. 122 124' HILL op cit I p 13 8 ) thi ' J, , . . , . , n. 4, IS may explain the unhelpful way in which Euagoras was received because the successional troubles between the reigns of Akoris and Nektanebos forced the latter king for a while t , , 0 concentrate his attention on the internal situation of Egypt. The hopeless position of Euagoras may, of course, also have caused the Egyptian king to avoid the Cypriote adventure. Euagoras' journey was a failure, and he came back with only a small and quite insufficient sum of money (Diod., loco cit.). Meanwhile Tiribazos had returned with much money (Diod. XV, 4, I) and had obtained the chief command of all the Persian troops, while Orontes was ostentatiously put aside (ibid., 8, 2). The siege of Salamis was carried on energetically, Euagoras saw that further resistance was useless and sent message to Tiribazos for negotiations of peace. T'iribazos answered that he was willing to recommend the request for peace on condition that Eugaoras gave up all his Cypriote conquests, thus restricting his kingdom to Salamis, and that he paid a fixed annual tribute to the Great
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
to his diplomatic skill and to the rivalry between Tiribazos and Orontes' he succeeded in escaping a complete catastrophe, and the peace was concluded in 380~79 B. C. on the c?nditions that his kingdom was restricted to Salamis, that he had to pay tnbute, and was subject to Artaxerxes as "a king to king". 2 Of Euagoras' history after the end of the Cypriote war very little is .know~. The story of Salamis was no longer of international importance. The war resulted in a ruined state of finance.' The poverty and famine caused some trouble and unrest, and the .opponents of t~e king conspired against him. He and his son Pnytagoras were murdered in 374/3 B. C. m
orations written for the king, is somewhat coloured, it seems that the idea of "enlightened absolutism" was embraced by the young Nikokles.: Later on he declined toa life of excessive oriental luxury, and there are several anecdotes about his' extravagances and tyrannical behaviour.' He seems to have participated in the Revolt of the Satraps and was killed in prison, probably somewhat before 360 B. C.3 Shortly before the middle of the fourth cent. B. C. one of the Cypriote kingdoms ceased to exist: Pasikypros, king of Tamassos, sold his kingdom to Pumiathon of Kition and retired to Amathus as a private man.' Pumiathon seems to have succeeded Melekiathon on the throne of Kition in connection with. the Revolt of the Satraps. 5 Euagoras II, possibly the brother of Nikokles,s succeeded him as king of Salamis. Warned by the example of his predecessor he inaugurated a pro-Persian policy, but that brought him bad luck. In 351 B. C.Phoenicia and Egypt revolted from Persia, and the Cypriote kingdoms, which at that time were nine in number," joined the revolt. In consequence Euagoras was expelled from Salamis by the anti-Persian party. Pnytagoras seized the government of Salamis.' This Pnytagoras seems to have been a grandson of Euagoras I, and possibly a son of the prince Pnytagoras who was murdered in 374 B. C~9 The revolt was suppressed, but Euagoras did not succeed in regaining his Cypriote kingdom, and Pnytagoras was accepted as king of Salamis after he had acknowledged the suzerainty of the Great King,1°
49 6
• ., • • revenge for private matters. 4 After the failure of Euagoras' attempt to unite Cyprus the individual policies of the Cypriote kingdoms continued to dominate the history of the island, and Persia favoured this individualism in her own interest. The end of the Cypriote war coincided with the settlement of the conflict between Marion and Soli (cf. p. 494). Soli gained the upper hand and destroyed the palace at Vouni," used by the kings of Marion as a stronghold from which to control Soli. Archaeological evidence shows that the palace was destroyed c. 380 B. C.,6 and we may thus infer that when Euagoras began to lose control over Cyp.rus after ~he Persian invasion of the island in 382 B. C., Soli was given a free hand agam and seized the opportunity of dealing a blow at Marion. In the other Cypriote kingdoms, so far as we know, conditions were restored as they had been before the Cypriote war. Melekiathon acceded
again to the throne of Kition. Euagoras was succeeded by Nikokles, a younger brother of Pnytagora~. He has b.een suspected of having been the murderer of his father and brother, but without sufficient reason.' Like many other rulers he seems to have been good and just at the beginn~ng of his reign. He was a pupil of Isokrates, and even if his picture, drawn by his teacher in the King and obeyed him "as a slave his master" (ibid., 8, 3)· Probably the words in question referred to the future legal position of Euagoras and meant a reduction, or even renouncement, of the internal autonomy traditionally conceded to the Cypriote kingdoms (SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit., p. 66). It seems likely that the point disputed was added by 'I'iribazos on his own account in order to secure the gratitude of the Great King, if Euagoras accepted this condition, or in order to break the negotiations for peace and to enforce an unconditional capitulation through continued military operations. This is indicated by the words of Theopompos who talks about a plot of Tiribazos against Euagoras (Theopomp., Fragm, 103 [JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. II B, p. 558]; cf. SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit. p. 66; HILL, op, cit. I, pp. 138 f.), Euagoras declared that he was willing to accept all conditions mentioned except the last one, and thus the negotiations failed. 1 Euagoras entered into secret negotiations with Orontes (Theopomp., Fragm, 103 [JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. II B, p. 55 8]), who denounced Tiribazos to Artaxerxes on a charge of suspicious projects and doings. The Great King believed his son-in-law, ordered him to arrest Tiribazos and send him to the Persian court (Diod. XV, 8, 4; Polyain. VII, 14; Plut., De superstit. 168 e). Glos, who had married the daughter
of Tiribazos, felt the situation dangerous to himself and entered into negotiations with Egypt and Sparta, but before his treachery was carried out, he was murdered (Diod. XV, 9, 3-5; 18, I). 2 Liberated from two of his most skilful antagonists, Tiribazos and Glos, Euagoras decided to make a last effort to save his country from the supremacy of Persia. Egypt and Athens had refused to help. There remained Sparta, but requests of help sent to that country were dismissed. Spyridakis (op. cit., pp. 64 f.) thinks that the appeal to Sparta was made before Euagoras entered into negotiations with Tiribazos, but this later date is more likely and is supported by Theopompos (cf. HILL, op, cit. I, p. 140, n. 1). Euagoras had therefore to treat for terms of peace with Orontes, on the conditions mentioned (Diod, XV, 9, 2; d. Isokr. IX, 63 f.). The formula "as a slave to his master" was thus excluded from the terms, but otherwise this peace meant a complete failure of the political aspirations of Euagoras. 3
4 5 6
7
Isokr. III, 31, 33. SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., p. 68. Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, p. 288. Op. cit. III, p. 286. HILL, op. cit. I, pp. 143 f.
Isokr. III, 30 ff. Theopomp., Fragm. 114 (JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. II B, p. 562 = Athen, XII, 531 a-d; Anaximenes Lampsac., Fragm. 18 (ibid. II A, p. 123 = Athen. XU, 531 d, e); Ailian., Var. Hist, VII, 2. 3 JUDEICH, op. cit., pp. 132 f. 4 Duris, Fragm, 4 (JACOBY, F. Gr. Hist. II A, p. 139 = Athen. IV, 167 c, d). The exact date of this transaction is unknown, but it seems to have taken place before 351 B. C. (cf. below, n. 7) 'and, as Pumiathon was the king to whom Tamassos was sold, after 361 B. C., the probable date of Pumiathon's accession to the throne (n. 5). 6 HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. XL f. 6 HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 143, n. 3. Others consider him to be a son of Nikokles. 7 Diod. XVI, 42, 4. These kingdoms were: Salamis, Kition, Amathus, Paphos, Marion, Soli, Lapethos, Keryneia, and Kurion. Keryneia was an independent kingdom in 315 B. C. (d. Vol. IV: 3), and there is no reason to doubt its existence 36 years earlier. Tamassos would therefore not be included in the number of the nine kingdoms. This. indicates that it had been sold to Pumiathon before 351 B. C. (cf. above, n. 4). s Diod. XVI, 46, 1. 9 BELOcR, op, cit. 1112 , 2, pp. 100 f. As pointed out by Beloch, the father of Pnytagoras may of course have been some other of Euagoras' sons. 10 The repression of this last Cypriote revolt by Persia shows some points of resemblance to the manner of proceeding in the war with Euagoras I, though the differences 1
2
497
too are obvious. Artaxerxes III Ochos was busy with the repression of the revolts in Phoenicia and Egypt, and therefore entrusted Idrieus, dynast of Caria and son of Hekatomnos, with the task of defeating the Cypriotes. Idrieus appointed the Athenian Phokios as chief commander of the forces destined for Cyprus. These amounted to 8000 mercenaries and 40 ships. Euagoras II joined the expedition (Diod. XVI, 42,7), which does not seem to have started until 345 or 344 B. C. (BELOCH, op, cit. III", 2, p. 287). In the forces of Orontes and Tiribazos there were Greek mercenaries, but now for the first time in the history of Cyprus a Greek, and even an Athenian, is in command of an .army fighting for Persia and against the Cypriotes. The Athenian state did not, however, mix in the conflict, but kept neutral. When the troops had landed in Cyprus, the main forces were occupied by the siege of Salamis, which offered an obstinate defence (Diod. XVI, 42, 8 f.), The other cities-of the island were soon reduced to obedience (ibid., 46, I). The mercenaries wasted the country and made a fortune from the robberies of the various products of the island. Rumours of these profitable activities caused many volunteers from Syria and Cilicia to join the invaders, so that their army was doubled in number (ibid., 142, 9). When the situation became precarious for Pnytagoras, he decided to use the same method as practised against Tiribazos, i. e., he accused Euagoras of treachery against Artaxerxes, who believed Pnytagoras and accepted him as king of Salamis, on the conditions mentioned (ibid., 46, 2 f.), but Euagoras was able to clear himself from the accusations, and, Artaxerxes presented him with another kingdom on the mainland, probably Sidon,
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
The public institutions and administration as well as the economic, social, and cultural life should be studied in connection with this political development, during which the Cypriote society was. gradually prepared for the Hellenistic form of culture. This is the second cultural epoch of the Cypro- Classical period. Its successive phases are marked by the attempts of Euagoras I to abolish the obsolete system of Cypriote small states, in which the obstacles to a cultural revival were firmly rooted, by the failure of his attempts, and by the subsequent accelerated self-destruction and decay of this social and political
reported to the anaktes. If the matter required further investigation it was handed over to the Promalanges, who were spe:uv·~tIXE and 1te:u{}'ijve:<:;. The shrewd and unscrupulous character of these kolakes made them much dreaded and brought many nicknames upon them. They were called axw.lXto{}~X1J, i. e., a storeroom of gestures, and 1tlXplX')'xOOYtatlXl, i. e., persons who elbow. Even the name XOAIXXe:<:; may originally have been a nickname. These kolakes resemble in many respects the secret police of the Persian kings, the eyes and ears of the king, the 6JtlXXOuaWl and, in fact, Eustathios calls the kolakes 6JtIXXOUatlXl. 1 It cannot be doubted that the organization of these kolakes, as we find it in the later Cypro-Classical period, has been influenced by the oriental police system. Other glimpses of the life at the Cypriote courts confirm this picture of a despotic government. Some female servants at the court were called 'll.OAIXXlOe:<:;. Their service was of another kind than that of the kolakes, as can be understood from their function at the Carian court, where they were called xAqJ.IXXlOe:<:;. When the queens and princesses were to ascend to a coach or descend from it, these XAtP.IXXlOe:<:; had to throw themselves down, the one above the other, thus forming so to speak a ladder with their bodies, on which the royal ladies stepped.' Various anecdotes illustrate the tyrannical spirit and the caprice of the Cypriote dynasts in the 4th. cent. B. C.3 Even if some anecdotal embroideries certainly adorn the historic material, it is obvious that these stories give a true picture of the degenerate state of Cypriote kingship at the end of the Cypro-Classical period. In principle there was no difference between the kingship of Euagoras I and that of his successors. Euagoras was an absolute ruler with all the power of government in his hands. He alone concluded treaties with other states, he decided peace and war for his kingdom, he was chief commander of the army and chief judge, and he administered the finances.' He was a tyrant, but his tyranny was that of an "enlightened despotism." The difference between the government of Euagoras and that of his successors was thus a difference in the purpose of the regime and its practical administration. The despotism of Euagoras had in view the commune bonum of the people and the greatness of the country, and was therefore adminis-
system. We know of two ancient treatises on the constitution of the Cypriote kingdoms, the one by Aristotle, IIOAtte:Ea toW Ku1tpEoov, and the other one by Theophrastos, BaatAe:Ea toW Ku1tpEoov. It is very regrettable that these treatises are not entirely preserved,' since the political institutions of Cyprus must have offered many points of interest in consideration of their ancient origin and subsequent changes. The literary fragments preserved show us that the Cypriote kingship of the Classical period had developed into an absolute form of government, a development which probably had already begun in the Archaic period, as we have seen. At the end of the Archaic period or the very beginning of the Cypro-Classical age there seems to have been occasional reactions against this development. Evidence is furnished by the inscription of the Idalion bronze tablet assigned to the time between 478 and 470 B. C. (p. 479). In this inscription the king, BlXatAe:6<:;, and the city, 1ttOAt<:;, shared the government on about equal terms. This indicates some sort of democratic constitution, which may be due to Athenian influence.' These democratic tendencies must have been quickly quenched in the subsequent period, above all after 450 B. c., when Persia favoured anti-Greek and tyrannic governments on the island. It may be assumed that this intermediate period accomplished the development of the Cypriote kingship into the absolutist regime known to us from the treatises quoted. The king, BlXatAe:6<:;, had all the political power in his hand, and we hear nothing about the existence of a councilor an assembly of the people. The sons and brothers of the king were called aVIXXte:<:; and their wives and daughters aVlXaalXt. The anaktes formed a supreme court, compared by Klearchos of Soli with the Areopagos of Athens. They were at the head of a secret police organization, the members of which were called XOAIXXe:<:;, flatterers, and consisted of persons of the most noble families of the community. Nobody except the most noble and influential persons at the court is said to knew the number, names and distinctive marks of these agents. This police system . have been organized in Salamis, and from there it was taken over by the governments of the other Cypriote kingdoms. In Salamis the police formed two bodies: the Gerginoe and the Promalanges. The Gerginoi mixed with the inhabitants of the city, went into the workshops and listened to the talk of the people in the public places. What they had pried out was in compensation (HILL, op, cit. I, p. 147). However, he mismanaged the affairs of his new kingdom, had to flee, and took refuge in Cyprus, where he was executed (Diod. XVI, 4 6, 3)· 1 Only one certain fragment of Aristotle's work is preserved, Harpokration and Suidas, s. v. lfYay.'t€~ y.al lfyaooat.
_ K011:ptay.al ~11:00aa[ I, 1937, pp. 61 ff.
The Gerginoi should linguistically be associated with the Gergithes, and the name indicates that the Gergithes, a tribe in the Troad, followed the Teucrians to Cyprus, f. Opusc, archaeol. III (= Acta Inst, Rom. Regni Suec. X), 1944, p. II6, 3
n. 13.
1 Harpokr. and Suidas, s. v. aYay.'t€~ y.al lfyaoc:iat; Athen. VI, 255 f-258 a; Eustath., in Hom. Il. XIII, 582. _ Athen. VI, 256 d; Plut., Moralia 50 D; Valero Max. . IX, I, ext. 7. 3 Axiothea, the wife of Nikokreon, stepped on an almond and crushed it. "That was no harmonic tune" , said the harpist Stratonikos, and for this free-spoken utterance he was put to death, according to the comedian Machon (Athen. VIII, 349 e, f). Another version was told by the philosopher Phanias, who says that Stratonikos was forced to drain the poisoned cup, because he had made a witty joke about the sons of the king (Athen. VIII, 352 d, where the king is called Nikokles). The sophist Anaxarchos was once asked by Alexander the Great what he thought of the banquet to which he was invited and answered that he found it excellent, but, hinting at Nikokreon, he said that it lacked one thing: the head of a certain satrap. Anaxarchos was a friend of Alexander, so Nikokreon was obliged to repress his wrath for the time being,
499
but when Alexander had died and Anaxarchos happened to come in the hands of Nikokreon, he took a cruel revenge and ordered the sophist to be pulped in a mortar especially made for the purpose. Anaxarchos endured the pain bravely and said: "Mash the bag of Anaxarchos, himself you cannot mash". Nikokreon then ordered the cutting out of the tongue of the sophist, who spat it out in the face of his torturer (Diog. Laert. IX, 10, 58 f.; Plut., Moralia 449 E; Plin., Nat. hist. VII, 23; Valero Max. III, 3, ext. 4; Cic., Tusc. disp. II, 22; id., De nat. deor. III, 33). The philosopher Menedemos from Eretria was not far from suffering a similar fate, when he criticized a luxurious banquet given by Nikokreon with the remark that if such banquets were something good, they should be given every day, if not, even one is superfluous. A flute-player succeeded in turning the conversation in another direction, and so Menedemos saved his life (Diog. Laert, II, 18, 129). 4
Isokr. IX, 42 ff.
5°0
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
tered with magnanimity and justice,' As we have seen, this ideal was adhered to by Nikokles at the beginning of his reign, but when the grandeur of Euagoras' statecraft and his superior personality were replaced by the petty policy and inferior character of his successors, the "enlightened despotism" rapidly degenerated into a system of police terror with the sole purpose of preserving the dynastic advantage of the regime. The Cypriotekin~shipthus re~c~ed a state of complete abasement during the 4th cent. B. C. and doomed Itself to abolition. Little as we know about the administration and functions of the royal officials, still less do we know about the financial organization of the state. The autocratic government indicates that the principal supplies of material belonged to the state, i. e., were royal monopolies. In addition, the revenues of the state were based on taxes, custom duties and more or less voluntary contributions from wealthy private persons. The gold coinage introduced by Euagoras I was no political attack against the prerogative of the Great King, but is .entirely to be explained by financial reasons." The revenues of the state must have been considerable in Salamis during the reign of.Euagoras I, as can be seen from the huge expenses for the war," though it is easily understandable that the economic result of the war was state bankruptcy;' but economic life soon recovered, and thirty years after the death of Euagoras I we already find that Cyprus was again a wealthy country offering a profitable fiel.d for robbery (p. 497, n. 10). The general prosperity is also proved by the numerous goldfindsm the 6 tombs from Cypro-Classic II" and the many stories about the luxury prevailing in Cyprus. From the royal courts the luxury was spread far around, and archaeologically this is confirmed not only by the abundance of jewellery in tombs of common people, but also by the fact that the custom of burials in sarcophagi; earlier reserved for royal persons, was now used also for the burial of non-royal individuals. Sarcophagi both of wood and stone were used.' The king .was still the principal landlord, financier, and merchant in the state, and of Euagoras I we know that he soon gained possession of a great fortune.· Export articles were the various products of the country: copper, material for ship-building, corn, wine, oil, wool, flax, industrial products in metal and other material, textiles, and luxury articles such as ointments and spices." Historically well known are the shipments of corn and copper for the Athenian fleet in 41 I B. C. and of grain to Athens in 407 B. C.IO A sending of corn from Amathus by Rhoikos, one of its kings, is also recorded." This occurred in the 4th I Ibid., 45. 2 HILL, tu« of Gyp. I, p. 142. 3 SPYRIDAKIS, op, cit., pp. 109 f. 'Isokr. III. 3 I. "Swed. Gyp. Exp. II, Pis. LXIII; LXVIII, I. 6 ENGEL, op, cit. I, pp. 489 ff. One of these stories is wellknown, about a boy, the son of a Paphian king, who used to repose on a bed of gorgeous trappings and was attended by three servants, one of whom attended his feet, the second his hands and the third his head, arranging his hair and producing' it pleasant current of air with a Phocaean fan (Athen, VI, 257. a-c). Another and similar scene is given by Antiphanes in his comedy "the Soldier", when a Paphian king is said to have used doves as fans. He was anointed with a kind of Syrian oil which attracted doves. A swarm of these
birds came flying and fanned the air with their wings. When some doves approached the head or the king too closely, they were chased away by the servants (Athen. VI, 257 d-f). The date of the episode seems to be that of the war of Persia and Euagoras II against Pnytagoras. 7 Ssoed. Gyp. Exp. II, p. 45 8. • Diod. XIV, 98, I. 9 Cf. p. 4 89; OBERHUMMER, Cypern I, pp. 175 ff.; 247 ff.; 270 ff.; 309 ff. I0Andok. 11, II, 12, 20, 21. Only the shipment of 4°7 B. C. is explicitly said to be from Cyprus, but since copper was in the cargo of the shipment of 41 I B. C., this was prob-
ably also from Cyprus. 11 Hesych., s. v. 'POt1tQll ~pt&oltop.ltta.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
5°1
cent. B. C. Copper from Marion was used for the construction of the Porch of Philon at Eleusis, and shipments of corn from Cyprus to Athens continued until the end of the Classical period.I The intimate commercial connections are also demonstrated by the fact that there were ~yp~iote merchant communities abroad. Thus we hear of a Citian merchant community m PIraeus, and we know from an inscription that in 333/2 B. C. permission was granted to this community to found a temple of Aphrodite." There was also a similar Salaminian ~om~unity in Piraeus.' Single inscriptions referring to Citians and Salaminians residing m PIraeus date from the 5th cent. B. C., and in the 4th cent. B. C. several persons from Kition and Salamis settled in Piraeus and Athens.' Mnaseas, the father of the philosopher Zenon, had various commercial connections with Athens," and Antipatros of Kition invested much money in the Athenian trade and no doubt also carried on business in Athens." The political friendship with Egypt during the reign of Euagoras I certainly stimulated commerce with that country. No less than 46 graffiti in Cypriote syllabary script have been found on the walls of the temple of Seti I at Abydos.: The graffiti consist of proper names often with the patronymic and sometimes even the domicile added. It is characteristic that the Salaminians are in an overwhelming majority. The graffiti are apparently records left probably by Cypriote traders who waited to receive the oracle of Osiris, as can be seen from a Greek graffito, which shows that the people used to sleep in the temple in order to "dream true dreams".' Occasional imports of corn from Egypt are known from a .literary notice," but for the import trade we are mainly reduced to archaeological evidence, and this shows that the Athenian imports reach their maximum at the end of the 5th cent. and the beginning of the 4th cent. B. C. The archaeological material at our disposal consists of pottery, terracotta figurines and products of metal work, jewellery, etc. The imported Attic pottery found in the tombs of Marion formed, as we have seen, 13.5 % of the total sum of pottery in Cypro-Classic I A. During Cypro-Classic I B this import trade increases to 39.1 %; in Cypro-Classic II A it begins to decrease, forming 25.1 % of the total amount of pottery, and in Cypro-Classic II B there is a further decrease to 18.0 %. We thus see that the I I. G." II/III, 360, 407, 1675. a I, G." II/III, 337; cf. for the question in general: SCHORER, Gesch. d. [ild. Volkes III., pp. 101 f. 3 Athen. Mitt. IV, 1879, p. 266; I. G." II/III, 1290 (jrd cent. B. C.). '5th cent.: L G.t I, 1050; II/III, 9°31; 4th cent: I. G." II/III, 4636, 9032-36, 10176, 10178, 10179, 10202, 10203, 102°5, 10208, 10209, 10217/18. s Diog. Laert, VII, I, 31. 6 Demosth. XXXV, 32 f. For other Cypriotes active in Greece, cf. I, G." II/III, 1672, 1673; 9084 (Kurion); 911922; 10376, 10382 (Soli); IV, 53 (Soli); VII, 1568 (Salamis), all dating from the 4th cent. B. C. A single inscription, I, G." IV, 49 (Salamis), dates from the 5th cent. B. C. 7 One graffito was published in Journ. asiat, Ser, 6, XI, 1868. PI. II, No. XIV, from a copy of Zotenberg. Another
one is known from a letter of Brugsch. Cf. COLLITZ, Samml. griech. Dial. Inschr. I, p. 50, Nos. 147, 148. Sayee succeeded in copying 44 new graffiti, which he pu blished in Proceed. Soc. Bibl. Arch. VI, 1884, pp, 209 ff.; republished with several corrections in MEISTER, Griech, Dial. II, pp. 181 ff., Nos. 147 a-147 uu and HOFFMANN, Griech. Dial. I, pp. 89 ff., Nos. 182 ff. • Proceed. Soc. Bibl. Arch. 6, 1884, p. 211. A single graffito in Cypriote syllabary has been found in Thebes. It was discovered by Sayee on the right hand of the entrance to the tomb of Ramses IV, in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings (ibid. pp. 210, 221; with corrected reading in HOFFMANN, op, cit. I, p. 95, No. 218). This graffito records the name of a visiting Cypriote: Echedamos, son of Minarichos. 9 Diod. XV, 3, 3.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
5°2 . . . ' h the rei n of Euagoras I and is explained by his political and rnaximum trade coincides WIt. .g thens Commercial-political points of view caused . t d ds of which the Rhodian standard cultural programme of collaboratIOn w.1th A the introduction of Rhodian an~ Att~c::n:::~ sa: :as~ertainlyadoptedby Euagoras II, was probably. introduced at th~ t1~e 0 dUf g the ~old coins of Nikokles.1 Cypriote merchants while the AttIC standard was a .rea y use or d f th time of Euagoras I and onwards . b d mentioned above, an rom e ::r~:~:v:h:t :~:e~at~3reeks, in particular Athenians, settled in Cyprus for business and
ma;~ a f~~~n~ pi~0~~:~::n~f2 Euagoras
.philh~llene
I corresponds entirely to his ideals . k C us a cultural bastion of ASia against Greece. e po 1 ica . of culture. Persia had WIshed to ma e ypr f P . and aspired to make the island a
Euagoras wrenched Cyprus o~:u~~lt~:l:;:;~a~ain:;s~ia. He made propaganda for Greek united state, a Greek state, a c . . .t d Greek scholars, artists, and musicians art and literature, and he and hIS successkors InVIte but we know that the harpist and a Th . mes are mostly un nown 0 us, to Cyprus. . eir na ti at the court of Nikokles,' that the sophist Polyjester Stratomkos stayed for some nne h f Nikokles 6 though it is un. . S 1 . 5 d that Isokrates was a teac er 0 , krate~ resided In a arms, an . Cyprus or not. Polykrates established a school of certaIn whether he spent ~uch. td1~e ~n. 11 known and he was sharply criticized by rhetoric in Salamis, but hIS me iocnty IS we - , . . f Pol bo~eto The~~ Isokrates who published his Busiris as a counterpart to the Apology of Bu , . h th thor how to treat t hs1ns, e su ~ec . Crus were much krates' preposterous papers, In order to teac. e au . b li that the other literary men persuaded to come to yp .
~~::er:eo:~~da:~e:~
Polcrea~;d ykrates. H~::":~:::not~:::;';:eei~~:~::~: :;~r:e~~~:~:~
literary aC~lv1ty was not .by t rth of that the only Cypriote of intellectual imO and theatncal performanh~es.. t IS V: EuYdemos the philosopher and member of the Plart known from t IS time, V I Z . , b ., po .anAce d as educated and lived in Greece. He is therefore Cypriote only y.ongIn, tonic ca emy, w . h h S (488) IS a rebut he is no more a representative of Cypriote philosop y t an typpax P'l r ht ti of Cypriote art The failure of the literary propaganda was on y to a s 19 present a 1 v e ' d t The real reason in sculpdegree duhe to the ~ was anot er, as we s ,
fachtatlhlaptr:~::t~yen::eOf:~~:P~:~~~:n:~t:~~:;~;~le~r:o:ditions
tU*h art. ro a anda for Greek civilization and the tendencies to imitate ?,reek prototypes .IX e P h p gver every manifestation of cultural life. There was competitron ~o appear as d owe , attectec, . f d to Cypnote Itwas st philhellene and Greek customs and fashions were pre erre d hi . be the , dE t have promote t IS manihi bl t marry Greek women, an uagoras seems 0 . even f as rona e 0 k . C rus IS proved 8 This renaissance of Gree customs In yp . . . f hilhellenism also . festatlon 0 p l ' 1
HILL, Cat. of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, pp. XXIII,
58, 60 f., 63 f.
. For Andokides, who possessed an estate In Cyprus, and De myst: 4', Nikophemos, the father of cf . p. 491, n. 3 Aristophanes (p. 493, n. 4), and the nephew of Konon were also resident in Cyprus (Lysias XIX, 36, 40). 2
" Isokr. IX, 50. • See p. 499, n. 3· 5Isokr. XI, argum. 6 Isokr. IX, 7 8; id. XV, 30, 40; Cic., De orat, II, 94· 7
8
See p. 506. Isokr. IX, 50.
5°3
by archaeological material, too. The custom of erecting statues of the deceased was revived after having been abolished, as we have seen, or in any case having been unusual during the anti-Greek part of the Cypro-Classical period. Greek dress became fashionable, as shown by its representation on the sculptures. A person who wanted to be considered as up to date purchased a set of imported Greek pottery for the table-service, Greek metal vases were paraded on the banquet tables, and in the same way the other Greek handicraft works and the jewellery, which were both imported and imitated, awoke the delight of the Cypriote modernity-hunters. The sport enthusiasts used Greek strigils, the physicians Greek medical instruments, the rooms were illuminated by the light of Greek lamps placed on Greek lamp-stands, the women saw their charms reflected by Greek mirrors or imitations of them, female adornment was not complete if not consisting of earrings, finger-rings, bracelets, and necklaces of Greek type. The Greek script appears on the coins along with the Cypriote, which is ousted by the Greek script on the Salaminian coins of Euagoras IV Both Phoenician and Cypriote scripts are, however, used down to the Hellenistic period. The style and types of the coins testify also to the Greek propaganda of culture: Herakles, appearing on coins of Euagoras I, is the Greek cultural hero symbolizing the king's own work of civilization,> and Athena Promachos on the coins of Demonikos from Kition is another obvious symbol.' We still largely lack material for judging the Greek influence on Cypriote architecture of this epoch. Only sacred architecture of the traditional Cypriote temenos type is hitherto represented, and the buildings in the Salamis of Euagoras are entirely unknown to us, but fragments of an Ionic frieze from Soli with a representation of fighting Amazons show that Greek architecture, too, was imitated by the Cypriotes of the 4th cent. B. C. In sculptural art we may study the effects of the philhellene cultural policy more closely and more exactly than in other branches of cultural life, and this study enables us both to explain the temporary failure of this policy and to realize its importance for the future. As mentioned above, Cypriote sculpture degenerated fairly soon after 450 B. C. into a mechanical handicraft, but at the end of the 5th cent. and in the 4th cent. there appear sculptures of a new style, imitating contemporary Greek prototypes. In terracotta plastic, where the koroplasts produced faces in moulds of Greek type, this style is commoner than in the stone sculpture, but the Greek style of the faces does not harmonize with the hand-made bodies of Cypriote type. The sculptures here in question belong to the Classical CyproGreek style. This does not mark a development of the Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek style, which in still more degenerate form continues until the end of the Classical period, but has to be explained as due to a new artistic impulse: the cultural policy introduced by Euagoras I. The result was an art of pure imitation, whose prototypes extend from the later phase of Polykleitos and Phidias to the time of Praxiteles and Skopas, without any organic connection with the contemporary Cypriote art of sculpture. The Classical Cypro-Greek style thus corresponds in this respect to the Cypro-Egyptian style: both are inspired by political reasons and are not rooted in the cultural disposition of the Cypriote people. The philhellene 1
HILL, op, cit., pp, CI, CV fl.
2
SPYRIDAKIS, op. cit., p. 93.
"Swed. Cyp. Exp. III, PI. XCVII, 5-8, 12, 13.
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
policy was not therefore able to attain the results in view: to make Cypriote art and culture Greek. The Cypriote art of that time failed to appropriate the contemporary Greek. art: thoughts of three generations separated them. Greek art was therefore to the Cypnotes a foreign world, which they tried as far as possible to imitate. ~e have here a co~plete parallel to the literary conditions and an explanation of the negative .r~sults of t~e ht~rary propaganda. Cypriote society with its conservative tradition and surviving Archaic hentage was so fundamentally different from the Classical Greek institutions that the cultu~e developed according to these could not be socially assimilated by the Cypriotes. The ~hl1he~l~ne movement was not however, without importance for the future of Cyprus: the orientalizing attempt of Persia 'failed, and' the soil was .prepared for the cultural so~ing of Hellenis~, the literary activity of the Cypro-Hellenistic Age was preceded by the hterary attempts m the time of Euagoras, and the Classical Cypro-Greek style is a forerunner o~ early CyproHellenistic sculpture (Vol. IV:3). Both politically and culturally Euagoras IS therefore a forerunner of, Hellenism. Similar cultural characteristics as those shown by sculptural art also mark the handicraft products: incipient transition to the Hellenistic period, imitation of Greek pr~totypes, artistic decadence, but technical superiority. The tomb-cutters prefer symmetncal and rectangular shape, and the chambers are provided with narrow, ~unnel-sha~edniches,. both Hellenistic features. The tunnel-shaped niches already appear m the earher phase of Cypro-Classic II, a first premonitory sign of the new e~o~h. T~e shapes of the pottery pass gradually into those characteristic of the early Hellenistic penod, and t~e same typ~lo gical tendency is shown by the products of the other handicrafts.' Techm~ally, CYP~lOte handicraft still held a distinguished position, as proved by the finds and by hterary notices, The metal of a Cypriote iron sword presented by Pumiathon to Alexander the Great was of superb quality, very hard and light.' We know the name of a Cypriote armourer, Zoilos, who worked at the end of the Cypro-Classic period and the beginning of the Cypro-Hellenistic.When Demetrios Poliorketes besieged Rhodes, Zoilos brought him two cuirasses of iron each of which weighed nearly 40 pounds. In order to prove their quality Zoilos had arrows shot off against the cuirasses from a catapult placed at a distance of 20 paces. The metal was undamaged, and the surface was only slightly scratched as if by a stylus.' The Cypriote metalcrafts were not, however, .only famous for the production of weapons and armour, but also of domestic articles of various kinds,' and the Cyprjote gem-cutters of the 4th cent. B.C. were apparently renowned. 5 Artistically we cannot, however, trace an improvement of the majority of the handicraft products from this century. ?n th~ c~n~rary, the pottery is the same uninteresting mass-production as before. Sometimes It imitates 1 Pottery of Type VII: pp. 59, 68, 73, 76, 82, 84, 90, 307, 3II; other handicrafts of Cypro-Classic II: p. 420. • Plut., Alex. 32. 3
Plut., Demetr.
21.
• Athen. VIII, 337, e. 5 The flute-player Ismenias, who lived about the middle of the 4th cent. B. C., ordered an agent to purchase a Cypriote
gem of emerald, which was considered to be a very precious specimen of art. When the agent bought him the gem for a smaller price than expected, he was not thanked, but rebuked by Ismenias, who said that the cheaper he had bought the gem, the less precious he had made it (Plin., Nat. hist, XXXVII, 3).
5°5
Greek prototypes, but the fact that it is principally undecorated means that imitations of Greek ~rnaments a~e ~airly rare. The other handicraft products become gradually more standardIzed or also imitate Greek prototypes. Only the imitated products display a higher degree of refinement. Handicraft forms therefore a parallelto the art of sculpture, where ~h~ great number of degenerate Cypriote sculptures contrast with the technically superior imitated works of the Classical Cypro-Greek style. Cypriote art and handicraft were unable to renew. themselves, and were obliged to draw upon Greek prototypes. This spiritual impotenc~ .IS clearly.reflected by the many stories about Cypriote laxity, love of pleasure and perversrtres, mentioned above. The Cypriote sculptors thought that they produced Greek art when they imitated it, and the Cypriote jeunesse doree believed themselves to be Greek when they practised Greek manners and - bad manners. Cypriote voluptuousness and Greek refinement could in common effect frightful phenomena of degeneration. But nobody was frightened, nobody realized that uncritical imitation of foreign forms of culture meant cultural bankruptcy. A social revolution was required before the new time could be born. The royal courts of Cyprus in the advanced 4th cent.B. C. seem to have been cen.tres for dissemination of spiritual decadance. That which was decayed had to crumble. ThIS decayed world was the system of the Cypriote small states with their antiquated and degraded organization, incapable of development. When this society of small states was broken up, and Cyprus entered into the Hellenistic kaine-context the cultural and social q~alifications were created for a native and proper development of Cypro-Greek art, a revival of Cypro-Greek civilization. The process by which this social system was annihilated, began with the campaigns of Alexander. His vi~tori~s at the Gr~nikos. and at Issos opened a new era even in the history of Cyprus. To begin with the Cypnote kings preferred to wait and see. After the victory at Issos Some Greeks who had chosen the Persian side, the Macedonians Amyntas and Thvmondas, the Acarnanian Bianor and Aristomenes of Pherai shipped some 3000 soldie~s acros~ to. Cyprus from Syria, and together with groups of Cypriotes these troops went to Pelusion m order to defend Egypt-, but when Alexander proceeded to Phoenicia the Cypriote kings thought it advisable no longer to take an active part on the Persian' side and withdrew t~eir fleets from the Persian forces and kept them ready around Cyprus. For Alexander It was necessary to be in possession of Phoenicia and Cyprus, before he could advance further and completely conquer the Persian empire. The political attitude of the Cypriotes was therefore of great importance to Alexander, all the more as his fleet was too .small to resist the combined action of the Phoenician and Cypriote navies. Alexander decided to deal first with Tyre, which offered a strong resistance with full confidence in its own naval resources and the expected neutrality, or perhaps even assistance, from .the Cypriote flee~. If Tyre could be captured, Alexander hoped that Cyprus would submit or would be easily conquered with the aid of the combined Macedonian and Phoenician fleet. The events took a somewhat unexpected and for Alexander very favourable turn. While he was preparing his fleet in Sidon, Pnytagoras and the other Cypriote kings 1
Arrian., Anab. II, 13, 2 f.; Diod, XVII, 48, 1 fr.
506
SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL SURVEY
appeared with a fleet of 120 ships and offered their services to the Macedonian king.' The Tyrians were thus confronted with a much stronger fleet than their own. They could not take the risk of a naval battle, and Alexander was able to lay siege to Tyre and to conquer it.· Alexander did not fail to reward the Cypriote kings. He favoured them in many ways and allowed them to govern their inherited kingdoms with full internal autonomy. King Pnytagoras in particular seems to have been favoured, and at the expense of Pumiathon, the king of Kition, as can be seen from the fact that Alexander permitted Pnytagoras to incorporate into his kingdom the territory of Tamassos,' which, as mentioned above, Pumiathon had purchased from Pasikypros, its last king. Pnytagoras was apparently the chief instigator of the Cypriote allegiance to Alexandet. Pumiathon may have shown less readiness in that respect and was, as a Phoenician, less favoured by Alexander than the Cypriote Greeks. When in 331 B. C. Alexander returned from Egypt and stayed for some time in Tyre, we find that the Cypriote kings paid hommage to him again. Splendid festivals were given, sacrifices to the gods, ceremonies, cyclic choroi, tragic and other concerts were performed. Nikokreon, king of Salamis, andPasikrates, king of Soli, competed with each other as choregoi.· From this notice we may infer that by 331 B. C. Nikokreon had succeeded Pnytagoras on the throne of Salamis. The Cypriotes were more and more employed in the civil and military service of Alexander's empire, and the king was wise enough to stimulate them to participate actively and willingly in the warfare and organization of the empire.' The Cypriote history during the Persian domination is that of repeated and unsuccessful attempts to revolt from Persia and regain full political independence. The victories of AlexArrian., Anab. II, 20, 3. • The Cypriote ships were placed under the chief command of the nauarch Andromachos, and the Cypriote kings had the immediate command of their respective contingents. They were used for the blockade of the northern harbour, while the other section of the fleet blocked the southern (Arrian., Anab. II, 20, 10), so that the Tyrians were unable to make a sortie with their whole fleet. They attempted therefore a sally with only thirteen ships against the Cypriote fleet, took the Cypriotes by surprise, and succeeded in sinking the admiral's ship of Pnytagoras and the ships of Androkles of Amathus and Pasikrates of Kurion, while other ships were driven ashore. Thanks to the rapid intervention of Alexander with the fleet from the southern wing, order was restored, and the Tyrians had to withdraw with considerable losses (Arrian., Anab. II, 21, 8 f.; 22, I ff.). Alexander had prepared the assault on Tyre by placing artillery on the mole, on the slower triremes and on horse-transports (Arrian., Anab. II, 21, I). This difficult work was done by Cypriote and Phoenician (Egyptian) engineers under the command of Diades (DIELS, Antike Technikr, p. 30, n. I). Tyre was conquered in August, 332 B. C. (BELOCH, Griech. Gesch. lIP, I, pp, 639 f.). 3 Cf. p. 497, n. 4. • Plut., Alex. 29. 5 Thus the Cypriotes and Phoenicians contributed 100 ships to the fleet operating in the Aegean in 331 B. C. under 1
the command of Amphoteros (Arrian., Anab. III, 6, 3). Cypriotes were also serving in the army which Alexander conducted to the interior of Asia. Thus there were Cypriotes among the rowers and shipwrights employed by Alexander for the Indus expedition. The chief commander was Nearchos, but the Cypriotes were under the immediate command of native princes, Nikokles of Soli, son of king Pasikrates and Nitaphon of Salamis, a brother of King Nikokreon (Arrian., Ind. 18, 8). The reigning kings apparently remained at home. Other Cypriotes known to have taken part in the various enterprises of Alexander are Hieron of Soli, who was charged with the navigation round the Arabian peninsula and proceeded as far as to the Persian gulf (Arrian., Anab. VII, 20, 7 f., the name is otherwise not known from Cypriote Soli, and he may therefore have been "from Soli in Cilicia, cf. HILL, Hist. of Cyp. I, p. 151, n. 3), and Stasanor of Soli, who was made satrap of Areia and Drangiane in 329 B. C. Stasandros, who was appointed satrap of Areia and Drangiane in 321 B. C. and who was possibly a brother of Stasanor, may also have been already in the service of Alexander (op. cit. I, p. 151, nc a), The huge military preparations undertaken shortly before the death of Alexander involved the Cypriote ship-building yards. The Cypriote kings had been ordered to deliver metal, tow yarn, and canvas for the equipping of the fleet (Curtius, X, 3), when the death of Alexander in 323 B. C. put an end to this enterprise.
THE CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIOD
ander liberated the Cypriotes once and for all from Persian domination, but they did not obtain political independence. The result was only that they changed suzerains. Even if Alexander, as we have seen, did not interfere with the internal policy of the Cypriote states and showed personal benevolence to the Cypriote kings, it soon appeared that a new era had also begun for the political organization of Cyprus. The events themselves of necessitv changed the political system of Cyprus. The island became only a small province of the great Hellenistic world and formed an integral part of that. A very characteristic symptom of this fact can already be observed during the life-time of Alexander: the coinage of the Cypriote kings, the symbol of political autonomy, began to decrease and for it was substituted the imperial coinage of Alexander, with mints in Salamis and for it Kition, probably already working by 332 B. C.' The representatives of the new order of the world had no respect for the antiquated political system of Cyprus. This was able to linger on in the traditionalistic and decayed empire of Persia, but was doomed to abolition by the Hellenistic form of government. That which was decayed had to crumble. The Cypriotes, who had fought for detachment from Persia and full political independence, thus obtained the former and lost the latter at the same time by their alliance with Alexander, and only thirteen years after the death of Alexander the old kingship of Cyprus with a pedigree back to the Mycenaean period was formally and for ever abolished, its dramatic epilogue being played by Nikokreon, Axiothea, and the other members of the royal family' in the flames of the burning palace of Salamis. 1 HILL,
op. cit. I, p. 152.
•
Op. cit. I, p. 161, n.
I.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON CYPRIOTE NUMISMATICS
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON CYPRIOTE NUMISMATICS by
w ILLY
SCHWABACHER
As mentioned in the Preface, these notes include books, papers and shorter articles dealing with Cypriote coinages before the Hellenistic Age published after 1904, the year when Sir George Francis Hill's fundamental work, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, appeared within the series of the catalogues of Greek coins in the British Museum. The earlier literature may be found in the "Introduction" of Hill's catalogue, (especially p. XVIII, note 2). Some reviews of his work are enumerated at the end of these notes, p. 509. BABELON, ERNEST, Traite des monnaies grecques ct romaines H,1. Paris 1907, pp. 569 ff. (General survey on the history of all Cypriote coinages in the Archaic period.) - Revue num. francaise 1908, p. 200. (On the iconography of Euagoras II.) - Traite desmonnaies grecques et romaines 11,2. Paris 1910, pp. 691 ff. (General survey on the history of all Cypriote coinages in the Classical period.) BABELON, JEAN, Catalogue de la Collection de Luynes. Monnaies grecques. Vol. III. Paris 1930. DIKAIOS, P. (and ROBINSON, E. S. G.), A hoard of silver Cypriote staters from Larnaca. In Numismatic Chronicle 1935, pp. 165 ff. - A silver stater ofldalium. In Num, chron. 1935, pp. 282-284. EVANS, ARTHUR J., Minoan Weights and Currency. In Corolla
Numismatica. Numismatic Essays in Honour of Barclay V. Head. Oxford 1906, pp. 365-366. (On Cypro-Mycenaean dumps of gold found in the excavations of the CyproMycenaean cemetery at Old Salamis.) FORRER, L(IONEL), The Weber Collection. Descriptive catalogue of the collection of Greek coins formed by Sir Hermann Weber (1823-1918). Vol. III. London 1929. GARDNER, PERCY, A History of Ancient Coinage 7°0-3°0 B. C. London 1918. Cf. Index. GJERSTAD, EINAR, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. II, pp. 396, 592. Vol. III, 1937, pp, 238 ff and Plates LXXXIX -XCII, XCV-XCVII; and passim. - Four Kings. In Opuscula Archaeologica, Vol. IV, 1946, pp. 21-24, PI. I. (About some early coins of Marium: staters of Sasmai, son of Doxandros.) GOETHERT, F. W., Archiiologische Funde auf Cypern. In Arch. Ans: 1934, pp, 106-110. (Larnaca hoard.) GROSE, S. W., Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Vol. III, 1929. HEAD, BARCLEY V., Historia Numorum.and edition (assisted by G. F. Hill, George Macdonald and W. Wroth). Oxford 1911, p. 736 ff. HERZFELD, E(RNST) in Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, London 1938, p. 414, Fig. B. (About silver
staters of Salamis and Soli in Cyprus found in a "foundation stone" during his excavations at Persepolis and probably deposited in 516 B. C.) HILL, GEORGE FRANCIS, Historical Greek Coins, London 1906, p. 67, PI. IV, 35. (About the coinage of Demonikos, king of Citium.) - Num, Chron. 1914, pp. 105-106. (New acquisitions to the collection of Greek coins in the British Museum; supplements to the Dali hoards: coins of Citium, Azbaal I, etc.) - Num. Chron. 1917, pp. 23-24. (Notes on some new acquisitions of the British Museum collection: Citium, Amathus, Soli and Salamis.) - Num. Chron. 1924, pp. 13-14. (Notes on some new acquisitions of the British Museum collection: Obols and hemiobols of Salamis.) - Num. Chron. 1926, p. 126. (Notes on some new acquisitions of the British Museum collection: Citium, Paphos, Salamis, Amathus and Lapethus.) - Num. Chron. 1928, p. 14. (Notes on some new acquisitions of the British Museum collection: Uncertain Cypriote mint.) - The supposed Idalian stater of Argalos. In Num. Chron. 1936, p. 88. - Some Notes on the Coinage of Cyprus. In "Anatolian Studies presented to 'William Hepburn Buckler". Manchester 1939, pp. 89--<)7: (Euelthon of Salamis; Marion and Soli; Idalion; A Ptolemaic Coin.) ~ - A History of Cyprus. Vol. I, Cambridge 1940. Cf. register. MILNE, J. G., Greek Coinage. Oxford 1930. - Overstruck Cypriote Staters. In Num, Chron. 1945, pp. 78-79. (About Athenian tetradrachms cut down to Persian standard and overstruck at Citium.) NEWELL, EDWARD T., A Cilician Hoard. In Num. Chron. 1914, pp. 18-19. (Staters of king Euagoras I of Salamis and Baalram and Melekiathon of Citium.) Some Cypriote "Alexanders". In Num. Chron. 1915, pp. 294-322, PI. XII-XV. (Citium c. 332-320 B. C.; Salamis c. 332-320 B. C.; Paphos c. 330 B. C.; Marium.)
NEWELL, EDWARD T., Nikokles, King of Paphos. In Num. Chron. 1919, pp. 64-65. (About a tetradrachm with the types of Alexander the Great and the name of king Nikokles in small letters on the obverse.) - Miscellanea numismatica: Cyrene.to India. In Numismatic Notes and Monographs 82. New York 1938, pp. 14-21. (Coins of Citium from the Larnaca hoard, diobol and obol of Demonikos of Citium; stater of Golgi (?) from the Larnaca hoard.) NOE, SYDNEY P., A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. In Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78. New York 1937. Cf. Index of mints.
-
Museum Notes I (1945), New York 1946, p. 14, PI. IV, 13. Greek Acquisitions, 1945. Cyprus. (Unpublished tetradrachm of Pnytagoras of Salamis, 351-332 B. C.) REGLING, KURT, Die Griechischen Munzen der Sammlung Warren. Berlin 1906. Cf. under Cypern. - und DRESSEL, H., Aegyptische Funde altgriechischer Munzen. In Zeitschrift fur Numismatik 37, 1927, pp. 73-81. (Salamis and uncertain Cypriote mints.) ROBINSON, E. S. G., A Find of Archaic Greek Coins from the Delta. In Num. Chron. 1930, pp. 101-102. - Num, Chron. 1932, pp. 209-212. (Notes on some new acquisitions to the British Museum collection: Marium.) - British Museum Quarterly IX, 1935, p. 50, PI. XVI. (On some new acquisitions to the British Museum collection). - Num Chron, 1936, p. 196. (About a further Archaic stater of Marium.)
ROBINSON, E. S. G., Num. Chron. 1937, pp. 249-250. (Some notes on new acquisitions to the British Museum collection: Uncertain Cypriote mint [Lamaca hoard].) SCHWABACHER, WILLY, The Coins of the Vouni Treasure. Contributions to Cypriote Numismatics. In Opuscula Archaeologica,Vol. IV, 1946, pp. 25-45. (Dareics; Marium, Citium, Paphos, Amathus, Aspendos, Uncertain coins.) SELTMAN, CHARLES T., Greek Coins. London (Methuen) 1933, pp. 63 ff., 152 ff. and 209 ff. STEIN, LOUISE, and HARRY J., New obol ofPaphos? In Numismatic Review, VoI.III, 1946, p. 114. SUTHERLAND, C. H. V., Num, Chron. 1942, p. 15. (About the place of the coinage of Cyprus in the ancient world.) Reviews of HILL, GEORGE FRANCIS, Catalogue. of Greek coins in the British Museum: Cyprus. London, 1904:
Athenaeum II 1905, p. 187. Berliner philod. Wochenschrift 1906, p. 267. Classical Review 19°5, p. 470. English Hist~rical Review 1906, p. 191. Numismatische Zeitschrift 1904, pp. 187 fr. Revue numismatique francaise 1905, pp.' 418 ff, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 1905, p. 28 7. Rivista di storia antica, Nuova Serie X, 1905, p. 154. Spink's Numismatic Circular 1905, p. 8147. Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie 19°5, pp. 601 ff. Zeitschrift fur Mime- und Medaillfmkunde I, pp. 18 ff,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY by ERVIN
Academic des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus ... Paris. 1857-. Acta archaeologica .... Kebenhavn. 1930-. AKERSTROM, AKE, Der geometrische Stil in Italien. Archaologische Grundlagen der fruhesten historischen Zeit Italiens .. , (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae. IX.) Uppsala 1943. Studien uber die etruskischen Graber, unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Entwicklung des Kammergrabes. (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae. III.) Uppsala 1934. ALBIZZATI, CARLO, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano, Roma, 19 2 5- . The Alishar HUyUk. Seasons of 1928 and 1929. Part I-II. By ERICH F. SCHMIDT. Seasons of 193°-32. Part I-III. By HANS HENNING VON DER OSTEN. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Vois. XIXXX, XXVIII-XXX. Researches in Anatolia - Vois. IV-V, VII-IX.) Chicago 1932-1937. Altertiimer von Pergamon... Band V I. Die Palaste der Hochburg, von GEORG KAWERAU und THEODOR WIEGAND. Text, Tafeln. (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin und Leipzig 1930. Band VII. Text 2, Tafeln. Die Sculpturen mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, von FRANZ WINTER. Mit einem Beitrage von JAKOB SCHRAMMEN ... (Konigliche Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin 1908. American Journal of Archaeology. The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America. Norwood, Mass.; Concord, N. H. (1885-) 1897-. ANDERSON, WILLIAM J" and SPIERS, R. PHENE, The Architecture of Ancient Greece. An Account of its Historic Development, being the first part of The Architecture of Greece and Rome. Revised and rewritten by WILLIAM BELL DINSMOOR. London 1927. ANDRAE, WALTER, Das wiedererstandene Assur ... (9. Sendschrift der Deutschen Orient-Gesel1schaft.) Leipzig 1938. Die ionische Saule, Bauform oder Symbol? (Studien zur Bauforschung, herausgegeben von der KoldeweyGesellschaft. Heft 5.) Berlin 1933.
Roos
ANDRAE, WALTER, Farbige Keramik aus Assur und ihre Vorstufen in altassyrischen Wandmalereien... Berlin 19 23. Hatra. Nach Aufnahmen von Mitgliedern der AssurExpedition der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. I. Teil. Allgemeine Beschreibung der Ruinen, II. Teil. Einzelbeschreibung der Ruinen ... (9. und 21. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.) Leipzig 1908, 1912. Annales du Musee d'histoire naturelle de Marseille. .. Marseille. 1883-. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology. Issued by the Institute of Archaeology. .. (University of Liverpool.) Liverpool. 1908-. Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves. Bruxelles. 1932/33-. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. New Haven; Philadelphia. 1919/20-. The Annual of the British School at Athens. London. 18 94/ 95- . Annuario della R. Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente. Bergamo. 1914-. Anthropological Essays presented to Edward Burnett Tylor in Honour of his 75th Birthday Oct. 2 1907 ... Oxford 19 0 7. Die Antike. Zeitschrift fur Kunst und Kultdr des klassischen Altertums. .. Berlin (/Leipzig). 1925-. Antike Denkmaeler. Herausgegeben vom (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archaeologischen Institut. Band III. Erstes Heft. 1909-191 I. Berlin 1912. Band IV. Drittes und Viertes Heft. " Berlin 1929. Antike Plastik. Walther Amelung zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Berlin und Leipzig 1928. The Antiquaries Journal. Being the Journal of The Society of Antiquaries of London. London. 1921-. Antiquity. A Quarterly Review of Archaeology... Gloucester. 1927-. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity.
Published by the Society of Antiquaries of London. London; Oxford. 1804-. Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. Herausgegeben von ERNST HERZFELD. Berlin. 1929-. Archaologischer Anzeiger. Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Berlin. 1889-. Archaologische Zeitung ... Berlin. 1843-. 'Ap)(rxw),,0i~lt"J 'B'f''fjp.€pt;. [hpwa~ltllY 'tY6 (~v 'A&+lvrx~;) 'Ap)(rxw)"oi~ltofj; 'E'twp€trx;. 'Bv 'A,'l--fjvrxe;. (1837-)1910-. 'Ap)(rxw),,0i~ltbv Lhidov 'too 'rltOOPi€tOO 'tow 'EltlthFltwj'(;~lt(;j" ltrxl 'tofj; A'fjp.oOtrx; 'Eltltrx~a€6o€w;. 'Ev 'A,'j--fjvrx~;. 19 15-. Archiv fur Orientforschung, Internationale Zeitschrift fur die Wissenschaft vom vorderen Orient. Berlin-Graz. (1923-)1926-. Archiv fur Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete ... Leipzig (und Berlin). 1901-. Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft... Leipzig (und Berlin). 18 98- . Asine, v. FRODIN, OTTO, & PERSSON, AxEL W. Athenische Mitteilungen, v. Mitteilungen des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. Ausgefuhrt und herausgegeben im Auftrage des Orient-Comites zu Berlin. I. Einleitung und Inschriften... II. Ausgrabungsbericht und Architektur. .. II I. Thorsculpturen... IV. .. (Konigliche Museen zu Berlin. Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen. Heft XI-XIV.) Berlin 18931911. V. FELIX VON LUSCHAN. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Herausgabe und Erganzung besorgt von WALTER ANDRAE .. , (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen. Heft XV.) Berlin 1943· BABELON, ERNEST, Les Perses Achemenides, Les satrapes et les dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Cypre & Phenicie. (Catalogue des monnaies grecques de la Bibliotheque nationale.) Paris 1893. - Melanges numismatiques. Deuxierne serie. Paris 1893. BABELON, ERNEST, et BLANCHET, J.-AnRIEN, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliotheque nationale, Publie sous les auspices de I'Academic des Inscriptions et BellesLettres. (Fondation Eugene Piot.) Paris 1895. BADE, WILLIAM FREDERIC, Excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh, 1926 and 1927. A Preliminary Report. (Palestine Institute Publication, No. I.) Berkeley 1928. BELOCH, KARL JULIUS, Griechische Geschichte. Zweite neugestaltete Auflage. Erster Band. Die Zeit vor den Perserkriegen. Abt, I-II. Zweiter Band. Bis auf die sophistische Bewegung und den peloponnesischen Krieg. Abt. I-II. Dritter Band. Bis auf Aristoteles und die Eroberung Asiens. Abt, I-II. Strassburg 1912-1923. BENEDITE, GEORGES, Miroirs. (Service des antiquites de l'Egypte, Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Le Caire 1907. Bericht uber den VI. internationalen Kongress fur Archaelogie. Berlin 21.-26. August 1939. (Archaologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches.) Berlin 1940.
Berytus. Archeological Studies, published by the Museum of Archeology of the American University of Beirut. (American University of Beirut. Publications of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Archeology Series.) Copenhagen. 1934-. Beschreibung der Aegyptischen Sammlung des Niederlandischen Reichsmuseums der Altertumer in Leiden. [Bd. VIII-XL] Mumiensarge des neuen Reiches. Ser, I-IV. Von P. A. A. BOESER ... Haag 19 16- 1920. Beth-pelet, I. (Tell Fara.) By FLINDERS PETRIE ... II. Prehistoric Fara, by EANN MACDONALD. Beth-pelet Cemetery, by J. L. STARKEY and LANKESTER HARDING. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt.) London 1930, 1932. Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart. XXV. Ludolphi de itinere terree sanctse liber. Nach alten Handschriften berichtigt herausgegeben von FERDINAND DEYCKS. Stuttgart 1851. BIEBER, MARGARETE, Die antiken Skulpturen und Bronzen des Konigl. Museum Fridericianum in Cassel... Marburg 1915. VON BISSING, FR. W., Denkmaler agyptischer Sculptur. Text, Tafeln I-II ... Miinchen 1911, 1914. - Fayencegefasse. (Service des antiquites de I'Egypte. Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Vienne 1902. Metallgefasse, (Service des antiquites de I'Egypte, Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Vienne 1901. BITTEL, KURT, Die Felsbilder von Yazilikaya. Neue Aufnahmen der Deutschen Bogazkoy-Expedition 193 1 ... (Istanbuler Forschungen, herausgegeben von der Abteilung Istanbul des Archiiologischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiches. Band 5.) Bamberg 1934. BITTEL, KURT, und GUTERBOCK, HANS GUSTAV, Bogazkoy. Neue Untersuchungen in der hethitischen Hauptstadt ... (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1935. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Nr. I.) Berlin 1935. BLEGEN, CARL W., Korakou. A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth. (American School of Classical Studies at Athens.) Boston and New York 1921. Prosymna. The Helladic Settlement preceding the Argive Heraeum. With a Chapter on the Jewellery and Ornaments by ELIZABETH PIERCE BLEGEN ... Vois. I-II ... Cambridge 1937. Zygouries. A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae. (American School of Classical Studies at Athens.) Cambridge, Mass. 1928. BLINKENBERG, CHR., Fibules grecques et orientales. [Lindiaka V.] (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser. XIII, I.) Kebenhavn 1926. Knidia, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der praxitelischen Aphrodite. Kopenhagen 1933. Le temple de Paphos. (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser. IX, 2.) K0benhavn 1924.
51 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BLINKENBERG, CHR., et KINCH, K. F., Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1902-1914. Fouilles de l'acropole I: Les petits objets, par CHR. BLINKENBERG. Texte, Planches. Berlin I93I. BLISS, FREDERICK JONES, A Mound of Many Cities; or, Tell el Hesy excavated. Second edition. London 1898. BLISS, FREDER!CK JONES, and MACALISTER, R. A. STEWART, Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898-1900 ... London 1902. BLUMNER, HUGO, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kunste bei Griechen und Romern, Erster Band. Zweite Auflage .. , Leipzig und Berlin 1912. BOEHLAU, JOHANNES, Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen. Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der nachmykenischen griechischen Kunst ... Leipzig 1898. Bollettino d'Arte ... (Milano-) Roma. 19 07-. Bonner jahrbucher. Jahrbucher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande. Bonn. 1842-. BONNET, HANS, Die Waffen der Volker des alten Orients. Leipzig 1926. BOSSERT, H. TH., Geschichte des Kunstgewerbes aller Zeiten und Volker ... Band IV. Berlin, Zurich 1930. The British Museum, Catalogue of the Bronzes, v. WALTERS,
H. B. Catalogue of the Finger Rings, v. MARSHALL, F. H. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases. Vol. I. Part I, v: FORSDYKE, E. J.; Part II, v. WALTERS, H. B. Catalogue of the Jewellery, v. MARSHALL, F. H. Catalogue of Sculpture. Vol. I. Part I-II, v. PRYCE, F. N. Catalogue of the Terracottas, v. WALTERS, H. B. British Museum. A Guide to the Antiquities of the Bronze Age in the Department of British and Medireval Antiquities ... Oxford 1904. - A Guide to the First, Second and Third Egyptian Rooms ... Third edition ... London 1924. Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. A Guide to the Exhibition illustrating Greek and Roman Life. Second edition ... London 1920. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Bulletin. London. 1922-., BRONEER, OSCAR, Terracotta Lamps. (Corinth. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Volume IV, Part II.) Cambridge, Mass. 1930. BUCK, CARL DARLING, Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects. Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary. Revised edition. (College Series of Greek Authors, edited under the Supervision of JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE and CHARLES BURTON GULICK.) Boston 1928. BUDGE, E.A. WALLIS, Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum. Reign of Ashur-nasir-pal, 885-860 B. C. London 1914. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique. (Ecole francaise d'Athenes.) Paris. 1877-. Bulletin des Musees Royaux d'art et d'histoire. Bruxelles. 1929-·
Bulletin du Musee de Beyrouth. Paris. 1937-. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. J erusalem-e-Baghdad. 1919-. Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts. Boston, Mass. 1903-. Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van de Antieke Beschaving. 's-Gravenhage. 1926-. Bullettino archeologico Sardo, ossia Raccolta dei monumenti antichi in ogni genere di tutta l'isola di Sardegna ... Cagliari. 1855-. Bullettino dell'lnstituto di corrispondenza archeologica. Roma. 1830-. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana. Parma; Roma. 1875-. Burlington Fine Arts Club. Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art. London 19°4. BUSCHOR, ERNST, Altsamische Standbilder. (Bilderhefte antiker Kunst, herausgegeben Yom Archaologischen Institut des Deutschen Reiches. Heft I-III.) Berlin 1934. Beitrage zur Geschichte der griechischen Textilkunst. (Die Anfange und der orientalische Import.) InauguralDissertation. .. Munchen 19 I 2. Griechische Vasen ... Munchen 1940. BUSOLT, GEORG, Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaeroneia. Band III. Teil I: Die Pentekontaetie, (Handbucher der alten Geschichte. II. Serie. Erste Abteilung.) Gotha 1897. The Cambridge Ancient History. Edited by J. B. BURY, S. A. COOK, F. E. ADCOCK. Volume III. The Assyrian Empire. Cambridge 1925. Volume IV. The Persian Empire and the West. Cambridge 1926. CARAPANOS, CONSTANTIN, Dodone et ses ruines. Texte, Planches. Paris 1878. Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Djerabis (J erablus) on Behalf of the British Museum. Conducted by C. LEONARD WOOLLEY, with T. E. LAWRENCE, and P. L. O. GUY. Part I. Introductory, by D. G. HOGARTH. Part II. The Town Defences, by C. L. WOOLLEY. Oxford 1914, 1921. CARTER, HOWARD, (and MACE, A. C.,) The Tomb of Tutankh-Amen, discovered by the Late Earl of Carnarvon and Howard Carter ... Vols. 1-111..: London 19231933· CASSON, STANLEY, Ancient Cyprus, its Art and Archaeology ... London 1937. Catalogue du Musee Alaoui. (Supplement.) Par P. GAUCKLER, L. POINSSOT, A. MERLIN, L. I)RAPPIER, L. HAUTEcamR. (Description de l'Afrique du Nord ... [XV.] Catalogue des Musees et Collections Archeologiques de l'Algerie et de la Tunisie.) Paris 1910. A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, v. MYRES, JOHN L., and OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, MAX. CESNOLA, ALEXfu'lDER PALMA Dr, Salaminia (Cyprus). The History, Treasures, & Antiquities of Salamis in the Island of Cyprus ... London 1882. CESNOLA, LOUISPALMA Dr, Cyprus: its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples. A Narrative of Researches and Excavations ... London 1877. - A Descriptive Atlas of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote
BIBLIOGRAPHY Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Vols, I-III. Boston; New York. 1885-19°3. CHANTRE, ERNEST, Mission en Cappadoce 1893-1894 ... (Recherches archeologiques dans I'Mie occidentale.) Paris 1898. Recherches anthropologiques dans Ie Caucase. T. I-IV. Paris-Lyon 1885-1887. CHARBONNEAUX, JEAN, Les Terres cuites Grecques ... Paris 193 6. Clara Rhodos. Studi e materiali pubblicati a cura dell' Istituto storico-archeologico di Rodi. Vol. I. Rapporto generale sui servizio archeologico a R~di e nelle isole dipendenti dall'anno 1912 all'anno 1927 di A. MAruRIG. JACOPICH. Rodi 1928. Vol. II. AMEDEO MAruR!. Monumenti di scultura del Museo Archeologico di Rodi. Parte I... GruLIO JACOPI. II Tempio e il Teatro di Apollo Eretimio... - La Necropoli di Pontamo (Calchi). - Nuove epigrafi dalle Sporadi meridionali. Rodi 1932. Vol. III. GruLIO JACOPI. Scavi nella Necropoli di jalisso 1924-1928 ... Rodi 1929. Vol. IV. GruLIO JACOPI. Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro - I. Scavi nelle Necropoli Camiresi 1929-1930... Rodi 193I. Vol. V 1-2. GruLIO JACOPI. Monumenti di Scultura del Museo Archeologico di Rodi. II... LUCIANO LAURENZI. Monumenti di Scultura del Museo Archeologico di Rodi - III e dell'Antiquarium di Coo (Sculture di Coo) ... Rodi 1931, 1932. Vol. VI-VII. Parte I. Grur.ro JACOPI. Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II . Parte II. Gnn.ro JACOPI. Scavi nella necropoli di Rodi . Scavi e ricerche di Nisiro ... Parte III ... Rodi 1932-3. Vol. VIII. Rodi 1936. CLARKE, JOSEPH T., BACON, FRANCIS H., KOLDEWEY, RoBERT, Investigations at Assos. Drawings and Photographs of the Buildings and Objects discovered during the Excavations of 1881 - 1882 - 1883. Edited with Explanatory Notes by FRANCIS H. BACON. (Expedition of the Archeeological Institute of America.) London 1902192I. Collection de Clercq. Catalogue publie par les soins de I'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres et sous la direction de M. DE VOGUE, E. BABELON, E. POTTIER. Tome III. Les bronzes, par A. DE RIDDER .. , Tome V. Les antiquites chypriotes, par A. DE RIDDER ... Tome VII. Les bijoux et les pierres gravees, par A. DE RIDDER. Premiere partie. Les bijoux... Deuxieme partie. Les pierres gravees ... Paris 1905, 1908, 1911. COLLIGNON, MAXIME, et COUVE, LOUIS, Catalogue des vases peints du Musee national d' Athenes. [Texte,] Planches ... (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. Fascicule 85.) Paris 1902, 1904. COLLITZ, HERMANN, Sammlung der griechischen DialektInschriften von F. BECHTEL, A. BEZZENBERGER, F. BLASS, H. COLLITZ, W. DEECKE, A. FICK, G. HINRICHS, R. MEISTER. Erster Band. Kypros. Aeolien. Thessalien. Bootien, Elis, Arkadien, Pamphylien. Gottingen 1884. COLONNA-CECCALDI, GEORGES, Monuments antiques de Chypre, de Syrie et d'Egypte. Paris 1882. 33
513
CONTENAU,?, La glyptique syro-hittite ... (Bibliotheque archeologlque & historique. Tome II.) Paris 1922. Manuel d'archeologie orientale depuis les origines jusqu'" l'epoque d'Alexandre. I-III. Paris 1927-193I. COOKE, G. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. (The International Critical Commentary.) Edinburgh 1936. Corolla archaeologica Principi Hereditario Regni Sueciae Gustavo Adolpho dedicata... (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, II.) Lund 1932. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum ab Academia inscriptionum et litterarum humaniorum conditum atque digestum, Pars prima inscriptiones Phcenicias continens, Tomus I. [Textus,] Tabulee. Parisiis 1881[-1887]. Corpus vasorum antiquorum. La Critica d'Arte. Rivista trimestrale di arti figurative per il mondo antico. Firenze. 1935-. CROWFOOT, J. W., & CROWFOOT, GRACE M., Early Ivories from Samaria. With a Note by E. L. SUKENIK. (SamariaSebaste. Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935. No.2.) London 1938. Cyprus Department of Antiquities, v. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. DALTON, O. M., The Treasure of the Oxus with Other Examples of Early Oriental Metal-work. Second edition. London 1926. DAREMBERG & SAGLIO, v. Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines. DARESSY, GEORGES, Statues de divinites, Tome I-II. (Service des antiquites de I'Egypte. Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) LeCaire 1906. DAWKINS, R. M., The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta excavated and' described by Members of the British School at Athens 1906-1910 ... (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Supplementary Paper NO.5.) London 1929. Delegation en Perse. Memoires, publics sous la direction de J. DE MORGAN. Tome VII-VIII. Recherches Archeologiques. Ser. II-III. (Ministere de I'instruction publique et des beaux-arts.) Paris 1905. Delos, v. Exploration archeologique, DEONNA, WALDEMAR, Les "Apollons archaiques", Etude sur le type masculin de la statuaire grecque au Vlme siecle avant notre ere. .. Geneve 1909. - Les statues de terre cuite dans I'antiquite, Sicile, GrandeGrece, Etrurie et Rome ... Paris 1908. - Les statues de terre-cuite en Grece, Athenes 1906. Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines d'apres les textes et les monuments... Ouvrage fonde par CH. DAREMBERG et redige... sous la direction de EDMOND SAGLIO ... Tome I-V, Tables. Paris 1877-1919. DIELS, HERMANN, Antike Technik. Sieben Vortrage. Aufl. 3 ... Leipzig und Berlin 1924. DIEPOLDER, HANS, Die attischen Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v, Chr. Berlin 1931.
BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY DIKAIOS, P., A Guide to the Cyprus Museum. Nicosia 1947· DORPFELD, WILHELM, Troja und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 187°-1894 ... Athen 1902. DUCATI, PERICLE, Le probleme etrusque. Paris 193 8. _ Storia dell'arte etrusca. Vol. I-II. Firenze 19 27. DUGAS, CHARLES, La ceramique des Cyclades. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. .. Fascicule 129.) Paris 1925. DUNAND, MAURICE, Fouilles de Byblos. Tome Ier. 19 261932. Texte, Atlas ... (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XXIV.) Paris 1939, 1937· DUNCAN, J. GARROW, Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery. Including Pottery of Gerar and Beth-pelet, dated and arranged by FLINDERS PETRIE, and Beads of Beth-pelet, dated and arranged by J. L. STARKEY. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt.) London 1930. DURM, JOSEF, Die Baukunst der Etrusker. Die Baukunst der Romer. Zweite Auflage ... (Handbuch der Architektur. Unter Mitwirkung von JOSEF DURM und HERMANN ENDE herausgegeben von EDUARD SCHMITT. Zweiter Teil: Die Baustile. 'Historische und technische Entwickelung.
Civilization as illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vols. I-IV. London 1921- 1935. Excavations at Olynthus. Part II. Architecture and Sculpture: Houses and Other Buildings. By DAVID M. RoBINSON. Part V. Mosaics, Vases, and Lamps of Olynthus, found in 1928 and 1931. With a Chapter on Pre-Persian Pottery by G. E. MYLONAS, a Chapter on Lamps by J. WALTER GRAHAM, and a Chapter on Byzantine Vases by A. XYNGOPOULOS. By DAVID M. ROBINSON. Part VII. The Terra-cottas of Olynthus, found in 1931. By DAVID M. ROBINSON. Part X. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, an Original Contribution to Greek Life... By DAVID M. ROBINSON. (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology Nos. 9, 18, 20, 31, edited by DAVID M. ROBINSON.) Baltimore 1930, 1933, 1941. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, conducted by the British School at Athens... (The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. Supplementary Paper NO.4·)
2. Band.) Stuttgart 1905· DUSSAUD, RENE, Les monuments palestiniens et judaiques (Moab, Iudee, Philistie, Samarie, Galilee). (Musee du Louvre. Departement des Antiquites Orientales.) Paris 1912. EDGAR, C. C., Greek Sculpture. (Service des antiquites de l'Egypte. Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Le Caire 1903· EISELEN, FREDERICK CARL, Sidon. A Study in Oriental History ... New York 19 07. ENGBERG, ROBERT M., and SHIPTON, GEOFFREY M., Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Megiddo. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 10.) Chicago 1934· ENGEL, WILH. HEINR., Kypros, Eine Monographie. Th, I-II. Berlin 1841. ENMANN, ALEX., Kritische Versuche zur iiltesten griechischen Geschichte. I. Kypros und der Ursprung des Aphroditekultus. (Memoires de l'Academic Imperiale des sciences de St.-petersbourg, VIle serie, Tome XXXIV, N0 13 ... ) St.-Petersbourg 1886. 'E'f'"fjfl-spl~ ,Apxawkolt1t-fj, h8t8ofl-€Vf) On:O rij~ ~v ' A{l+lvat~ , ApxawkOlt1t'ij~ 'E'tatpsta~, v. ' Apxawkolt1t"J 'E'f''rlfl-spl~. Eranos. Acta philologica Suecana ... Upsaliae: Gotoburgi. 18 96- . ERZEN, AFIF, Kilikien bis zum Ende der Perserherrschaft. Inaugural-Dissertation ... Borna-Leipzig 1940. Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway on his Sixtieth Birthday, 6 August 1913. Edited by E. C. QUIGGIN. Cambridge 19 13. Eurasia septentrionalis antiqua ... Helsinki. 1926-. EVANS, ARTHUR, The Palace of Minos. A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan
London 1904. Excavations in Cyprus, v. MURRAY, A. S., SMITH, A. H., and WALTERS, H. B. Exploration archeologique de Delos, faite par l'Ecole fran~aise d'Athenes ... [Fascicule VIII (1,2).] Le quartier du theatre. Etude sur l'habitation delienne a l'epoque hellenistique, par JOSEPH CHAMONARD ... Paris 19 22, 19 24. [Fascicule X.] Les vases de l'Heraion, par CHARLES DuGAS. Paris 1928. [Fascicule XL] Les sanctuaires et les cultes du Mont Cynthe, par ANDRE PLASSART. Paris 19 28. [Fascicule XV.] Les vases de Delos. Fouilles du Service hellenique des antiquites et de l'Ecole Irancaise d'Athenes, publiees par CHARLES DUGAS et CONSTANTIN RHOMAIOS. I. Les vases prehelleniques et geometriques. Paris 1934. [Fascicule XVII.] Les vases de Delos ... III. Les vases orientalisants de style non melien, par CHARLES DUGAS. Paris 1935. [Fascicule XVIII.] Le mobilier delien, par W. DEONNA. Paris 193 8. FALCHI, ISIDORO, Vetulonia e la sua Necropoli antichissima. Firenze 1891. FECHHEIMER, HEDWIG, Kleinplastik der Agypter.. . (Die Kunst des Ostens. Herausgegeben von WILLIAM COHN. Band III.) Berlin 1921. Festschrift zu C. F. Lehmann-Haupts sechzigstem Geburtstage. Herausgegeben von K. REGLING und H. REICH... (Janus. Arbeiten zur alten-und byzantinischen Geschichte ... Erstes Heft.) Wien und Leipzig 1921. FISHER, CLARENCE S., The "Excavation of Armageddon. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Communications NO.4·) Chicago 19 29. FITZGERALD, G. M., The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan. Part II. The Pottery. (Publications of the Palestine Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Volume II.) Philadelphia 1930. Fondation Eugene Piot. Monuments et memoires, publies par l'Academic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres sous la direction de GEORGES PERROT et ROBERT DE LASTEYRIE .. , Paris. 1894-.
FORSDYKE, E. J., Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum. Vol. I. Part I. Prehistoric Aegean Pottery. London 1925. FORSTER, EDWARD S., Isocrates. Cyprian Orations. Evagoras, Ad Nicoclem, Nicocles aut Cyprii. With introduction and notes. Oxford 1912. FOSSING, PAUL, Glass Vessels before Glass-blowing. Copenhagen 1940. Fouilles de Delphes ... Tome II (3 e fascicule), Topographie et architecture. Le sanctuaire d'Athena Pronaia. Premier fascicule. Les temples de tuf, par R. DEMANGEL. Les deux tresors, par G. DAUX. Paris 1923. Tome IV. Monuments figures. Sculpture. Texte par CH. PICARD & P. DE LA COSTE-MESSELIERE. Troisieme fascicule. Art archaique (fin): Sculptures des temples, par P. DE LA COSTE-MESSELIERE .. , Paris 1931. Tome V. Monuments figures. Petits bronzes, terres-cuites, antiquites diverses. Texte par P. PERDRIZET. Paris 1908. (Ecole francaise d' Athenes.) FRANKFORT, H[ENRI], Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London 1939· Progress of the Work of the Oriental Institute in Iraq, 1934/35. Fifth Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Communications, No. 20.) Chicago 1936. Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East. I. Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt and their Earliest Interrelations. II. Asia, Europe and the lEgean, and their Earliest Interrelations. .. (Royal Anthropological Institute. Occasional Papers, Nos. 6, 8.) London 1924, 1927. Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Khorsabad. Second Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Communications, No. 16.) Chicago 1933. FRANKFORT, H., and PENDLEBURY, J. D. S., The City of Akhenaten. Part II. The North Suburb and the Desert Altars. The Excavations at Tell el Amarna during the Seasons 1926-1932. With a Chapter by H. W. FAIRMAN. Fortieth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society. London 1933. FRIIS JOHANSEN, K., Les vases sicyoniens. Etude archeologique. Paris-Copenhague 1923. FRODIN, OTTO, & PERSSON, AxEL W., Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavations 1922-193°. Editor:... ALFRED WESTHOLM. Stockholm 1938. FURST, CARL M., Zur Kenntnis der Anthropologie der prahistorischen Bevolkerung der Insel Cypern... (Lunds Universitets Arsskrift. N. F. Avd. 2. Bd 29. Nr 6. Kungl. Fysiografiska Sallskapets Handlingar. N. F. Bd 44. Nr 6.) Lund 1933. FURTWANGLER, ADOLF, Aegina. Das Heiligtum der Aphaia ... Text, Tafeln... Miinchen 1906. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium. Band I-II. (Kdnigliche Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin 1885. Intermezzi. Kunstgeschichtliche Studien. .. Leipzig und Berlin 1896.
FURTWANGLER, ADOLF, Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von JOHANNES SIEVEKING und LUDWIG CURTIUS. Band I II. .. Mimchen 1912, 1913. FURTWANGLER, ADOLF, und LOESCHCKE, GEORG, Mykenische Vasen. Vorhellenische Thongefasse aus dem Gebiete des Mittelmeeres. .. Mit einem Atlas von 44 Tafeln. Berlin 1886. FURTWANGLER, A., und REICHHOLD, K., Griechische Vasenmalerei. Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder ... Serie I. Text, Tafeln. Mtmchen 19°4FURUMARK, ARNE, The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery. (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.) Stockholm 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification. (Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.) Stockholm 1941. GADD, C. J., The Stones of Assyria. The Surviving Remains of Assyrian Sculpture, their Recovery, and their Original Positions. London 1936. GALLING, KURT, Biblisches Reallexikon ... (Handbuch zum Alten Testament, herausgegeben von OTTO EISSFELDT. Erste Reihe. I.) Tiibingen 1937. GARSTANG, JOHN, EI Arabah: A Cemetery of the Middle Kingdom; Survey of the Old Kingdom Temenos: Graffiti from the Temple of Sety, With Notes by PERCY E. NEWBERRY on the Hieroglyphic Inscriptions and by J. GRAFTON MILNE on the Greek Graffiti. (Egyptian Research Account. 1900.) London 1901. The Land of the Hittites. An Account of Recent Explorations and Discoveries in Asia Minor, with Descriptions of the Hittite Monuments... London 1910. GAUCKLER, PAUL, Necropoles puniques de Carthage. Premiere partie. Carnets de fouilles... Deuxieme partie. Etudes diverses, Paris 1915. Gazette archeologique Paris. 1875-. Gazette des Beaux-Arts Paris. 1859-. GIGLIOLI, GIULIO QUIRINO, L'Arte Etrusca. Milano 1935. GJERSTAD, EINAR, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus. Uppsala 1926. Glotta. Zeitschrift fur griechische und lateinische Sprache ... Gottingen. 1909-. Gnomon. Kritische Zeitschriti fur die gesamte klassische Altertumswissenschaft. .. Berlin. 1925-. GODARD, ANDRE, Les bronzes du Luristan ... (Ars Asiatica. Etudes et documents publies sous la direction de VICTOR GOLOUBEW et sous le patronage de l'Ecole francaise d'Extreme-Orient. XVII.) Paris 1931. GO'rzE, ALBRECHT, Kleinasien. CHRISTENSEN, ARTHUR, Die Iranier. .. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Begriindet von IWAN VON MULLER, herausgegeben von WALTER OTTO. Dritte Abteilung. Erster Teil. Dritter Band. Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients... Dritter Abschnitt. Erste Lieferung.) Munchen 1933. GOLDMAN, HETTY, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, conducted by the Fogg Art Museum of Harvard University in Cooperation with the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. Cambridge, Mass. 1931.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY GOODYEAR, WM. H., The Grammar of the Lotus. A New History of Classic Ornament as a Development of Sun Worship. With Observations on the "Bronze Culture" of Prehistoric Europe, as derived from Egypt; based on the Study of Patterns ... London 1891. GRAEF, BOTHO, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen , .. Heft I. Text, Tafeln. (Kaiserlich Deutsches Archiiologisches Institut.) Berlin 1909. GRANT, ELIHU, Ain' Shems Excavations (Palestine) 19281929 - 1930 - 1931. Part I. (Biblical and Kindred Studies. NO.3. Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.) Haverford 1931. GRANT, ELIHU, and WRIGHT, G. ERNEST, Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine). Part IV (Pottery). Part V (Text). (Biblical and Kindred Studies. Nos. 7, 8. Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.) Haverford 1938, 1939. GRANT, ELIHU, Rumeileh, being Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine) Part III. (Biblical and Kindred Studies. NO.5. Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.) Haverford 1934. A Guide to the Cyprus Museum, v, DlKAIOS, P. GUY, P. L. 0., Megiddo Tombs. With Contributions by ROBERT M. ENGBERG. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XXXIII.) Chicago 1938. New Light from Armageddon. Second Provisional Report (1927-29) on the Excavations at Megiddo in Palestine. With a Chapter on an Inscribed Scaraboid, by W. E. STAPLES. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Communications, NO.9.) Chicago 1931. HADACZEK, KARL, Der Ohrschmuck der Griechen und Etrusker . .. (Abhandlungen des archaologisch-epigraphischen Seminars der Universitiit Wien, herausgegeben vonE. BORMANN und E. REISCH. XIV. Heft. Neue Folge, I. Heft.)Wien 1903. HALL, E. H., Excavations in Eastern Crete, Vrokastro. (University of Pennsylvania. The Museum Anthropological Publications. Vol. III. NO.3.) Philadelphia 1914. HAMDY BEY, 0., & REINACH, THllODORE, Une necropole royale a Sidon, fouillesde Hamdy Bey. Texte, Planches. Paris 1892. Handbook of the Cesnola Collection, v, MYRES, JOHN L. Handbuch der Archiiologie ... herausgegeben von WALTER OTTO. Erster Textband. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Begriindet von IWAN VON MULLER, here ausgegeben von WALTER OTTO. Sechste Abteilung. Erster Textband.) Mtinchen 1939. HANFMANN, GEORG, Altetruskische Plastik I. Die menschliche Gestalt in der Rundplastik bis zum Ausgang der orientalisierenden Kunst. Inaugural-Dissertation ... Wnrzburg 1936. [HAYES, WILLIAM C., & LANSING, AMBROSE,] The Egyptian Expedition 1933-1934. (Section II of the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) New York 1934. HEBERDEY, RUDOLF, und WILHELM, ADOLF, Reisen in Kilikien, ausgefiihrt 1891 und 1892 im Auftrage der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften... (Denkschriften
der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe. Vierundvierzigster Band ... VI. Abhandlung.) Wien 1896. HERRMANN, PAUL, Das Graberfeld von Marion auf Cypern. (Achtundvierzigstes Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste der Archeeologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin.) Berlin 1888. Hesperia. Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Cambridge, Mass.; Athens. 1932-. HEUZEY, LEON, Catalogue des Antiquites Chaldeennes, Sculpture et gravure a la pointe. (Musee national du Louvre.) Paris 1902. HEUZEY, LEON, & HEUZEY, JACQUES, Histoire du costume dans I'antiquite classique. L'Orient. Egypte-Mesopotamie-Syrie-Phenicie. [Paris] 1935. HILL, GEORGE FRANCIS, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus. .. (A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.) London 1904. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia ... (A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.) London 1910. - A History of Cyprus. Volume I. To the Conquest by Richard Lion Heart. Cambridge 1940. HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN, F., Thera. Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 18951902. .. Zweiter Band. Theraeische Graeber... Herausgegeben von H. DRAGENDORFF ... Berlin 1903. Dritter Band. Stadtgeschichte von Thera... Dargestellt von F. HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN und P. WILSKI... Berlin 19°4· HOFFMANN, OTTO, Die Griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhange mit den wichtigsten ihrer Quellen. I. Band. Der sud-achaische Dialekt. Gottingen 1891. HOGARTH, DAVID GEORGE, Excavations at Ephesus. The Archaic Artemisia... Text, Atlas. (British Museum.) London 1908. Hittite Seals. With Particular Reference to the Ashmolean Collection. Oxford 1920. Ionia and the East. Six Lectures delivered before the University of London ... Oxford 1909. HROZNY, BEDRICH, Die iilteste Geschichte Vorderasiens ... Prag 1940. Hundertstes Winckelmannsprogramm der Archiiologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin. .. Berlin 1940. The Illustrated London News. London. 1842-. INGHOLT, HARALD, Rapport preliminaire sur sept campagnes des fouilles a Hama en Syrie (1932-1938). (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Archeeologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser. III, I.) Kebenhavn 1940. Inscriptiones Graecae consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum Borussicae editae. Editio minor. Vol. I-II/III. Berolini 1913-1931. Iraq ... Published by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq. London. 1934-. JACOBY, FELIX, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker , .. T. I-III. Berlin 1923-1929; Leiden 19401943·
Jahrbuch des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts. Berlin. 1886-. Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archiiologischen Institutes in Wien. Wien, 189 8-. JENKINS, R. J. H., Dedalica. A Study of Dorian Plastic Art in the Seventh Century B. C. Cambridge 193 6. JEQUIER, GUSTAVE, Les frises d'objets des sarcophages du Moyen Empire. (Memoires publics par les membres de l'Institut francais d'archeologie orientale du Caire sous la direction de GEORGE FOUCART. Tome 47·) Le Caire 19 21. JORDAN, J., Uruk-Warka. Nach den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft... (5 I. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.) Leipzig 1928. Journal asiatique. Recueil (trimestriel) de memoires et de notices relatifs aux etudes orientales, publie par la Societe asiatique. Paris. 1822-. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London. 19 14-. The Journal of the (Royal) Anthropological Institute of . Great Britain and Ireland. London. 187 1-. The Journal of Hellenic Studies. London. 1880-. Journal international d'archeologie numismatique ... Athenes. 1 898-
.
JUDEICH, WALTHER, Kleinasiatische Studien. Untersuchungen zur griechisch-persischen Geschichte des IV. jahrhunderts v, Chr. Marburg 18 92 . Junta superior de excavaciones y antiguedades. Memorias. Madrid. 1915-. KARo, GEORG, Die Schachtgriiber von Mykenai. Text, Tafeln. MUnchen 193 0/33. KASCHNITZ-WEINBERG, GUIDO, Sculture del Magazzino del Museo Vaticano... Testo, Tavole. (Monumenti Vaticani di Archeologia e d'Arte. Pubblicati ... a cura della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Volume IV.) Citta del Vaticano 1937· KEIL, JOSEF, und WILHELM, ADOLF, Denkmiiler aus dem Rauhen Kilikien ... (Publications of the American Society for Archreological Research in Asia Minor. Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua. Vol. III.) Manchester 1931. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Erster Band. Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, von WILHELM KRAlKER und KARL KUBLER. Mit einem Beitrag von EMIL BREITINGER. Berlin 1939. Vierter Band. Neufunde aus der Nekropole .des I I. und 10. Jahrhunderts, von KARL KUBLER. Berlin 1943. (Archiiologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches.) KINCH, K. F., Vroulia. [Fouilles de Vroulia (Rhodes).] Berlin 1914. KING, L. W., Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria B. C. 860-825. London 19 15. Klio. Beitriige zur alten Geschichte ... Leipzig. 190 1/ 02-. KNOBEL, E. B., MIDGLEY, W. W., MILNE, J. G., MURRAY, M. A., and PETRIE, W. M. F., Historical Studies. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt Studies, Vol. II.) London 1911.
KNOBLAUCH, PETER, Studien zur archaisch-griechischen Tonbildnerei in Kreta, Rhodos, Athen und Bootien. Inaugural-Dissertation. .. Halle (S.) 1937. Bleicherode am Harz. KORTE, GUSTAV, und KORTE, ALFRED, Gordion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900 ... (Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts. Funftes Ergiinzungsheft.) Berlin 1904. KOSTER, AUGUST, Die. griechischen Terrakotten. Erste Auflage ... Berlin 1926. KOLDEWEY, ROBERT, Die antiken Baureste der Inse! Lesbos. Irn Auftrage des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts untersucht und aufgenommen... Berlin 1890. Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa ... (IS Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Babylon. I.) Leipzig 191 I. Konsthistorisk Tidskrift. Revy for konst och konstforskning, utgiven av Konsthistoriska Sallskapet. Stockholm. 1932-. KRAUSE, KARL, Bogazkoy, Tempel V. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der hethitischen Baukunst. (Istanbuler Forschungen, herausgegeben von der Zweigstelle Istanbul des Archiiologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reiches. Band II.) Berlin 1940. KUKAHN, ERICH, Der griechische Helm. Teil I. Fruhgeschichte. Teil II. Formgeschichte des korinthischen Helmes. Inaugural-Dissertation... Marburg-Lahn 193 6. Kunstgeschichte in Bildern. Neue Bearbeitung. Systematische Darstellung der Entwicklung der bildenden Kunst vom klassischen Altertum bis zur neueren Zeit. I. Das Altertum. Heft 1-13. Leipzig [19 13-1927]. Kunstmuseets Aarsskrift. Kebenhavn. 19 14-. KUNZE, EMIL, Kretische Bronzere!iefs. Text, Tafeln, (Siichsische Forschungsinstitute in Leipzig. Forschungsinstitut fur klassische Philologie und Archiiologie.) Stuttgart .193 1. KUNZE, EMIL, und SCHLEIF, HANS, IV. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia. Mit Beitriigen von RICHARD EILMANN und ULF JANTZEN. 1940 und 1941. (Archaeologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches.) Berlin 1944· K01tptaYoal ~1tOOaal. Nicosia. 1937-· Lachish II (Tell ed Duweir). The Fosse Temple. By OLGA TUFNELL, CHARLES H. INGE, LANKESTER HARDING ... (The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East.) London, etc. 1940. LAMBRINO, MARCELLE F., Les vases archaiques d'Histria. Bucuresti 1938. LAMON, ROBERT S., The Megiddo Water System. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XXXII.) Chicago 1935· LAMON, ROBERT S., and SHIPTON, GEOFFREY M., Megiddo. I. Seasons of 1925-34. Strata I-V. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XLII.) Chicago 1939· LANCKORONSKI, KARL, Stiidte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Unter Mitwirkung von G. NIEMANN und E. PETERSEN herausgegeben. I. Band. Pamphylien ... II. Band. Pisidien ... Wien 1890, 1892.
BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY LANDAU, WILH. V., Beitriige zur Altertumskunde des Orients. I. Die Belagerung von Tyrus durch Salmanassar bei Menander. Die Inschrift Hirams II., Konigs der Sidonier. Leipzig 1893. LANGLOTZ, ERNST, Fruehgriechische Bildhauerschulen. [Text, Tafeln.] Nuernberg 1927. Larisa am Hermos. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19021934. Band I: Die Bauten ... Herausgegeben von JoHANNES BOEHLAU und KARL SCHEFOLD. Berlin 1940. LAYARD, AUSTEN H[ENRY], Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon; with Travels in Armenia, Kurdistan and the Desert: being the Result of a Second Expedition ... London 1853. - The Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings made on the Spot ... A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh; including Bas-reliefs from the Palace of Sennacherib and Bronzes from the Ruins of Nimroud. From Drawings made on the Spot, during a Second Expedition to Assyria ... London 1853. - Nineveh and its Remains: with an Account of a Visit to the Chaldeean Christians of Kurdistan, and the Yezidis, or Devil-worshippers; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts of the Ancient Assyrians. Second edition. Vois. I-II. London 1849. LECHAT, HENRI, La sculpture attique avant Phidias ... (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. Fascicule 92.) Paris 1904. LEHMANN-HAUPT, C. F., Armenien einst und jetzt. Reisen und Forschungen. Erster Band. Vom Kaukasus zum Tigris und nach Tigranokerta... Zweiter Band. Auf chaldischer und griechischer Spur im turkischen Ostarmenien, in Nordassyrien und vom grossen Zab zum Schwarzen Meer. Halfte I-II ... Berlin und Leipzig 1910, 1926, 1931. Materialien zur alteren Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens, Mit einem Beitrage: Arabische Inschriften aus Armenien und Diyarbekr von MAX VAN BERCHEM ... (Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Neue Foige. Band IX. Nro. 3.) Berlin 1907. Lindos, v. BLINKENBERG, CHR., et KINCH, K. F. Lowv, EMANUEL, Polygnot. Ein Buch von griechischer Malerei. Text, Abbildungen. Wien 1929. LOUD, GORDON, The Megiddo Ivories. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume LII.) Chicago 1939. LOUD, GORDON, and ALTMAN, CHARLES B., Khorsabad. Part II. The Citadel and the Town. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XL.) Chicago 1938. LUCKENBILL, DANIEL DAVID, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Volume I. Historical Records of Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon. Volume II. Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End. Chicago 19 26, 1927. LUSCHEY, HEINZ, Die Phiale. Bleicherode a. M. 1939. MACALISTER, R. A. STEWART, The Excavation of Gezer
1902-1905 and 1907-1909 ... Vois. I-III. London 19 12. Marburger Studien. Herausgegeben von ERNST SPROCKHOFF. Darmstadt 1938. MARSHALL, F. H., Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum. London 1907. Catalogue of the Jewellery, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum. London 19II. MASPERO, G., L'Archeologie Egyptienne. Nouvelle edition ... (Bibliotheque de I'enseignement des beaux-arts, publiee sous la direction de JULES COMTE.) Paris 1907. MAXIMOVA, M. I., Les vases plastiques dans l'antiquite (Epoque archa"ique)... Traduction par MICHEL CARSOW. Tome I: Texte. Tome II: Planches, Paris 1927. MAY, HERBERT GORDON, Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. With a Chapter by ROBERT M. ENGBERG. (The University of Chicago. Oriental· Institute Publications. Volume XXVI.) Chicago 1935. MAYR, ALBERT, Die Insel Malta im Altertum ... Mtinchen 19°9· MCDOUGALL, WILLIAM, The Group Mind. A Sketch of the Principles of Collective Psychology with Some Attempt to apply them to the Interpretation of National Life and Character ... (The Cambridge Psychological Library.) Cambridge 1920. MEINEKE, AUGUSTUS, Analecta Alexandrina sive commentationes de Euphorione Chalcidensi, Rhiano Cretensi, Alexandro Aetolo, Parthenio Nicaeno. Berolini 1843. MEISSNER, BRUNO, Babylonien und Assyrien, Band I-II. (Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek, herausgegeben von W. Fov. I. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek mit Einschluss der altorientalischen Kulturgeschichte. 3, 4.) Heidelberg 1920, 1925. - Grundzuge der babylonisch-assyrischen Plastik .. , (Der Alte Orient. Gemeinverstandliche Darstellungen, herausgegeben von der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. 15. Jahrgang, Heft lund 2.) Leipzig 1915. MEISTER, RICHARD, Die griechischen Dialekte auf Grundlage von AHRENS' Werk: "De Graecae linguae dialectis", 2. Band. Eleisch, Arkadisch, Kyprisch ... Gottingen 1889. Melanges syriens offerts a Rene Dussaud ... Tome I II .. , (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XXX.) Paris 1939. Memoires de la Societe nationale des antiquaires de France. Paris (1817-)1852-. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Bergamo. 1917-. [MENDEL, GUSTAVE,] Catalogue des figurines grecques de terre cuite ... (Musees Imperiaux Ottomans.) Constantinople 1908.
Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines. T. I-III. (Musees Imperiaux Ottomans.) Contanstinople 1912, 1914. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bulletin. New York. 19 05/06-.
Metropolitan Museum Studies. New York. 1928/29-' MEYER, EDUARD, Forschungen zur alten Geschich~e. Erster Band. Zur alteren griechischen Geschichte. Zweiter Band. Zur Geschichte des fiinften Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Halle
Monwnenti inediti, pubblicati dall'lnstituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Roma. 1829-. Monuments Piot, v. Fondation Eugene Piot. MOORTGAT, A., Die bildende Kunst des alten Orients und
die Bergvolker. Berlin 193 2 • a. S. 1892, 1899· MOVERS, F. C., Die Phonizier. Zweiter Band. Das phoniGeschichte des Altertums. Bd. II-V ..', [Erste Auflage.] zische Alterthum ... Zweiter Theil. Geschichte der CoStuttgart (und Berlin) 1884-19°2. Bd. II-III ... Zweite, lonien. Berlin 1850. vollig neubearbeitete Auflage. .. 1928-1937. Bd. IV ... MOHLESTEIN, HANS, Die Kunst der Etrusker. Die Ursprimge. Dritte verbesserte Auflage. Erste Abteilung ... 1939· Berlin 1929. MICALI, Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia MOLLER VALENTIN, Fruhe Plastik in Griechenland und degli antichi popoli italiani. Firenze 1844· . Vorderasien. Ihre Typenbildung von der neolitischen MILANI, LUIGI ADRIANo, Studi e materiali di archeologia bis in die griechisch-archaische Zeit (rund 3000 bis e numismatica. Vol. I-III ... Firenze 18 99- 19° 5. 600 v. Chr.), Augsburg 19 29. Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen Miinchener archaologische Studien dem Andenken Adolf seit dem Jahre 1899, herausgegeben von THEODOR WIEFurtwanglers gewidmet. Miinchen 19°9· GAND. Band I. Heft 6. Der Nordmarkt und der Hafen MURRAY, A. S., SMITH, A. H., and WALTERS, H. B., Exan der Lowenbucht, von ARMIN VON GERKAN. Mit epicavations in Cyprus. London 1900. graphischem Beitrag von ALBERT REHM... ~erlin und Musees et collections archeologiques de I'Algerie, publies ... Leipzig 1922. Heft 7. Der Siidmarkt und die b~nac~ sous la direction de M.-R. DE LA BLANCHERE. Musee barten Bauanlagen, von HUBERT KNACKFUSS. MIt eplde Constantine, par GEORGES DOUBLET & PAUL GAUC~ graphischem Beitrag von ALBERT REHM... Berlin 1924· LER. [Description de l'Afrique du Nord ... II.] Pans Heft 9. Thermen und Palaestren, von ARMINVON GERKAN 1892. und FRITZ KRISCHEN. Mit Beitragen von FRIEDRICH Musees et collections archeologiques de l' Algerie et de la DREXEL, KARL ANTON NEUGEBAUER, ALBERT REHM und Tunisie ... Musee Lavigerie de Saint-Louis de Carthage. THEODOR WIEGAND... Berlin 1928. (Staatliche Museen Collection des Peres-Blancs formee par Le R. P. DELATTRE. I-III. (Description de l'Afrique du Nord ... zu Berlin.) MILNE, JOHN STEWART, Surgical Instruments in Greek and [VIII.]) Paris 1900, 18 99. Roman Times .. , Thesis... (Aberdeen University Stu_ Collection Farges, par MAURICE BESNIER & PAUL BLA~ CHET. (Description de I'Afrique du Nord .. , [IX.]) Pans dies: No. 26.) Aberdeen 19 0 7. MINNS, ELLIS H., Scythians and Greeks. A Survey of An19°0. cient History and Archaeology on the North Coast of Musei Etrusci quod Gregorius XVI Pon. Max. in aedib~s the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus. CamVaticanis constituit monimenta linearis picturae exemplis
G.,
bridge 1913. MINTO ANTONIO, Marsiliana d' Albegna. Le scoperte arche~logiche del Principe Don Tommaso Corsini .. , Firenze 1921. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien ...
Wien. 1871-. Mitteilungen des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung. Athen; Berlin; Stuttgart. 187 6-. Mitteilungen des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts. Roemische Abteilung. Rom; Miinchen. 1886-. MOLLER, GEORG, Die Metallkunst der alten Agypter. Berlin 19 2 4. MONTELIUS, OSCAR, La civilisation primitive en Italie depuis I'introduction des meraux. Premiere partie. Fibules et Italie septentrionale. Texte, Planches. Deuxieme partie. Italie centrale. Texte I. Planches I, II. Stockholm 18 951910. MONTET, PIERRE, Byblos et l'Egypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles a Gebeil. 1921 - 1922 - 1923 - 19 24. Texte, Atlas. (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique- Tome XI.)
Paris 1928, 1929. Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cura della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Roma- 1 890-.
expressa et in utilitatem studiosorum anti~uitatum et .bonarum artium publici iuris facta. Pars pnma. Ex aedibus Vaticanis 1842. [Editio A.] Museo Gregoriano, v. Musei Etrusci quod Gregorius XVI ... constituit monimenta. Museo Italiano di antichita classica diretto da DOMENICO COMPARETTI. Vol. II. Antichita dell'antro di Zeus Ideo (e di altre localita) in Creta. Descritte ed illustrate da F. HALBHERR e P. ORSI. Con un atlante. Firenze 1888. Le Museon ... Louvain. (1882-) 1883-. The Museum Journal. Published by the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 19 10-. Mykenische Vasen, v. FURTWANGLER, ADOLF, und LOESCHCKE, GEORG. MYRES, JOHN L., Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art.) New York 19 14. MYRES, JOHN L., and OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, M~, A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum. With a Chrorucle. of Excavations undertaken since the British OccupatIOn and Introductory Notes on Cypriote Archaeology. Oxford 18 99. Ed' . NAUCK, AUGUSTUS, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. itio secunda. Lipsiae 1889. [Reprinted 19 26.]
52 0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NAUE, JULIUS, Die vorromischen Schwerter aus Kupfer, Bronze und Eisen. Munchen 1903. Naukratis. Part I, 1884-5, by W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE ... Part II [1885-6], by ERNEST A. GARDNER ... (Third and Sixth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund.) London 1886, 1888. NAVILLE, EDOUARD, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias. Belbeis, Samanood, Abusir, Tukh el Karmus. 1887. The Antiquities of Tell el Yahfidiyeh, and Miscellaneous Work in Lower Egypt during the Years 1887-1888. By F. LL. GRIFFITH... [Seventh Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. (Extra Volume for 1888-9.)] London 1890. NEUGEBAUER, KARL ANTON, Antike Bronzestatuetten ... Berlin 192 I. NICOLE, GEORGES, Catalogue des vases peints du Musee National d'Athenes. Supplement ... [Texte.] Planches. Geneve-e-Paris 1911. NILSSON,MARTIN P., The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion... (Skrifter utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund. IX.) Lund 1927. NOACK, FERDINAND, Eleusis. Die Baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Heiligtumes. Aufnahmen und Untersuchungen ... Textband, Tafeln. Berlin und Leipzig 1927. NOE,SYDNEY P., A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards (Second Edition). (Numismatic Notes and Monographs. No. 78.) New York· 1937. Notizie degli Scavi di antichita , .. (Atti della Reale Accadeinia dei Lincei.) Roma, 1876-. The Numismatic Chronicle, and Journal of the Numismatic Society. London. 1838/39-. OBERHUMMER, EUGEN, Die Insel Cypern, Eine Landeskunde auf historischer Grundlage .. , Erster Teil. Quellenkunde und Naturbeschreibung ... Munchen 1903. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, MAX, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer. Beitrage 'zur Cultur-, Kunst- und Religionsgeschichte des Orients im Alterthume .. : Text-Band, Tafel-Band. Berlin 1893. OLMSTEAD, A. T., History of Assyria. New York-London 1923· -
History of Palestine and Syria to the Macedonian Conquest. New York-London 1931. Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung .. , Herausgegeben von ERNST CuRTIUS und FRIEDRICH ADLER. Textband II. Tafelband I-II. Die Baudenkmaler von Olympia. Bearbeitet von FRIEDRICH ADLER, RICHARD BORRMANN, WILHELM DORPFELD, FRIEDRICH GRAEBER, PAUL GRAEF. Berlin 1892, 1896. Textband und Tafelband IV. Die Bronzen und die ubrigen kleineren Funde von Olympia. Bearbeitet von ADOLF FURTWANGLER. Berlin 1890. OPPENHEIM, MAX VON, Der Tell Halaf. Eine neue Kultur im altesten Mesopotamien. Leipzig 1931. Opuscula archaeologica. Vol. II~IV... = Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae V, X, XII. Lund(-Leipzig) 1939, 1944, 194 6.
Orientalisches Archiv. Illuetrierte Zeitschrift fur Kunst, Kulturgeschichte und VOlkerkunde der Lander des Ostens. .. Leipzig. 1910-. OSTEN, HANS HENNING VON DER, Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mrs. Agnes Baldwin Brett. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XXXVII.) Chicago 1936. Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward T. Newell. (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications. Volume XXII.) Chicago 1934. Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit s' Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden ... [Leiden.] 1920-. Palestine Exploration Fund. Annual. London. 1911-. - Quarterly Statement. London. 1869-. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, embodying the Quarterly ,> Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Bulletin of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. London. 1937-. Palestine Museum, Jerusalem. Bulletin. Issued by the Department of Antiquities for Palestine. 1924-. UOt1tOt~OtCl~AetOO, r€rup)'w~ 'A., U€pt 'tIDY h Eb~o[!f apXOttwv 'tQ.
-
Ancient Gaza. I-IV. Tell el Ajjiil. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt.) London 1931-1934. Anthedon, Sinai. With Chapters by J. C. ELLIS. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Forty-second Year, 1936.) London 1937. Gerar, (British School of Archaeology in Egypt.) London 1928. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. With Chapters by J. GARROW DUNCAN. .. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt, and Egyptian Research Account. Twelfth Year, 1906.) London 1906.
BIBLIOGRAPHY PETRIE, W. M.FLINDERS, Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. 1889 -90 . . . London 1891. Memphis I. With a Chapter by J. H. WALKER. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Fourteenth Year, 1908.) London 1909. The Palace of Apries (Memphis II). With a Chapter by J. H. WALKER. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Fifteenth Year, 1909.) London 1909. Tanis. Part II. Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneb (Tahpanhes), With Chapters by A. S. MURRAY and F. LL. GRIFFITH. (Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund.) London 1888. Tell el Hesy (Lachish). London 1891. Tools and Weapons, illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University College, London, and 2,000 Outlines from other Sources. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Twenty-second Year, 1916.) London 1917. PETRIE, [W. M.] FLINDERS,BRUNTON, GUY, and MURRAY, M. A., Lahun II. (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Twenty-sixth Year, 1920.) London 1923. PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS, and MACKAY, ERNEST, Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar, and Shurafa ... (British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. Eighteenth Year, 1912.) London 1915. PEZARD, MAURICE, Qadesh. Mission archeologique 11 Tell Nebi Mend 1921-1922 ... Publie avec Ie concours de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres ... (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XV.) Paris 1931. PFUHL, ERNST, Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen. Band I-III. Munchen 1923. Philologus. Zeitschrift fur das klassische Altertum (und sein Nachleben) ... Stolberg; Gottingen: Leipzig. 1846-. PINZA, GIOvANNI, Materiali per la etnologia antica toscano-Iaziale, Torno I... (Collezioni archeologiche artistiche e numismatiche dei Palazzi Apostolici. .. Volume VII. Museo Etrusco Gregoriano.) Milano 1915. PLACE, VICTOR, Ninive et l'Assyrie. Avec des essais de restauration par F. THOMAS. Tome I-III. Paris 1867. POLLAK, LUDWIG, Klassisch-antike Goldschmiedearbeiten im Besitze Sr. Excellenz A. J. von Nelidow ... Leipzig 1903. POPE, ARTHUR UPHAM, & ACKERMAN, PHYLLIS, A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Vols, I & IV. Text, Plates. Pre-Achaemenid, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. (The American Institute for Iranian Art and Archaeology.) London and New York 1938. POTTIER, E., Catalogue des Antiquites assyriennes. (Musee national du Louvre.) Paris 1924. Catalogue des vases antiques de terre cuite. Etudes sur l'histoire de la peinture et du dessin dans l'antiquite. P. I-III. (Musee national du Louvre.) Paris 1896, 1899, 1906. i
Vases antiques du Louvre. .. Salles A-E. Les origines _. les styles primitifs. Ecoles rhodienne et corinthienne.
52!
2me Serie. Salles E-G. Le style archaique ldigures noires et 11 figures rouges. Ecoles ionienne et attique. Paris 1897, 19°1. POULSEN, FRliDERIK, Der Orient und die friihgriechische Kunst. Leipzig-Berlin 1912. Praehistorische Zeitschrift... Berlin; Leipzig. 1909-. 't'ii~ ~v 'AS-+IVOt~~ 'AS-·(1VOt~;. 1870/71-.
lIpOt1tn1tu
'ApXOtw),o·(t1t'ii~ 'E'tOttpdOt;. 'Ev
Priene, v. WIEGAND, TREODOR, und SCHRADER, HANS. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeeology. London. 1 8 79- . Prussia. Zeitschrift fur Heimatkunde und Heimatschutz ... Konigsberg i. Pro (1874175-)1926-. PRYCE, F. N., Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum. Vol. I. P. I-II. London 1928, 1931. PRZEWORSKI, STEFAN, Die Metallindustrie Anatoliens in der Zeit von 1500-700 vor Chr. Rohstoffe, Technik, Produktion. .. (Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie ... Band XXXVI, Supplement.) Leiden 1939. PUCHSTEIN, OTTO, Boghaskoi. Die Bauwerke. Unter Mitwirkung von HEINRICH KOHL. und DANIEL KRENCKER ... (19. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.) Leipzig 1912. Die ionische Saule als klassisches Bauglied orientalischer Herkunft. Ein Vortrag... (Sendschriften der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. NO.4). Leipzig 1907. PUMPELLY, RAPHAEL, Explorations in Turkestan. Expedition of 1904. Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau. Origins, Growth, and Influence of Environment. Vols. I-II. Washington 1908. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. Jerusalem. 1932-. RANDALL-MAcIVER, DAYID, Villanovans and Early Etruscans. A Study of the Early Iron Age in Italy as it is seen near Bologna, in Etruria and in Latium. Oxford 1924. RANDALL-MAcIVER, D., and MACE, A. C., EI Amrah and Abydos. 1899-1901. With a Chapter by F. LL. GRIFFITH. (Special Extra Publication of the Egypt Exploration Fund.) London 1902. RANDALL-MAcIVER, D., and WOOLLEY, C. LEONARD, Areika. With' a Chapter on Meroitic Inscriptions by F. LL. GRIFFITH. (University of Pennsylvania: Publications .of the Egyptian Department of the University Museum. Eckley B. Coxe Junior Expedition to Nubia: Vol. I.) Oxford 1909. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. .. Herausgegeben von ERICH EBELING und BRUNO MEISSNER. Berlin und Leipzig. 1928-. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte. .. Herausgegeben von MAX EBERT. Band I-XV. Berlin 1924-1932. REISNER, G. A., Amulets. (Service des antiquites de l'Egypte, Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Le Caire 1907. REISNER, GEORGE AND!UlW, FISHER, CLARENCE STANLEY, and LYON, DAVID GORDON, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 19°8-1910. Volume I. Text. Volume II. Plans and Plates. (Harvard Semitic Series.) Cambridge 1924.
52 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
RENAN, ERNEST, Mission de Phenicie. [Texte,] Planches ... Paris 1864. Repertoire d'epigraphie semitique, publie par la Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (avec le concours de J.-B. CHABOT). Tome I-III. (Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.) Paris 1900-1918. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus. Nicosia. (19 14-)1934-. REUTHER, OSCAR, Die Innenstadt von Babylon (Merkes) ... Textband, Tafelband. (47. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.) Leipzig 1926. Revue archeologique ... Paris. 1844-. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale... Paris. 1886-. Revue Belge de numismatique (et de sigillographie). Publiee sous les auspices de la Societe royale de Numismatique ... Bruxelles. (1842-)1 87S-. Revue biblique, publiee par l'Ecole pratique d'etudes bibliques. .. Paris; Rome. 1892-. Revue des etudes grecques. Publication trimestrielle de I'Association pour l'encouragement des etudes grecques ... Paris. 1888-. Revue numismatique ... Paris. 1838-. RICHTER, GISELA M. A., Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art.) New York 1915. RIDDER, A. DE, Les bronzes antiques du Louvre. Tome premier. Les figurines ... Tome second. Les instruments ... Paris 1913, 1915. Catalogue des bronzes de la Societe Archeologique d'Athenes. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. Fascicule 69.) Paris 1894. Catalogue des bronzes trouves sur l' Acropole d'Athenes, Public sous les Auspices de l' Academic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Fondation Piot). (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. Faseicule 74.) Paris 1896. Rns, P. ]., Tyrrhenika. An Archaeological Study of the Etruscan Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods ... Copenhagen 1941. ROBERTSON, D. S., A Handbook of Greek & Roman Architecture. Second edition. Cambridge 1943. Romische Mitteilungen, v. Mitteilungen des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts. Roemische Ab-
teilung, ROSCHER, W. H., Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie ... Bd. I-VI... Leipzig (und Berlin) 1884-1937. ROSTOVTZEFF, M., Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford 1922. ROTT, HANS, Kleinasiatische Denkmaler aus Pisidien, Pamphylien, Kappadokien und Lykien... (Studien uber christliche Denkmaler, herausgegeben von JOHANNES FICKER. Neue Folge der Archaologischen Studien zum christlichen Altertum und Mittelalter. Funftes und sechstes Heft.) Leipzig 1908. ROWE, ALAN, A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine Archaeological Mu-
seum. (Government of Palestine. Department of Antiquities.) Le Caire 1936. ROWE, ALAN, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-shan. Part I. The Temples and Cult Objects. (Publications of the Palestine Section of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Volume II.) Philadelphia 1940. The Topography and History of Beth-shan. With Details of the Egyptian and Other Inscriptions found on the ~ite. (Publications of the Palestine Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Volume I.) Philadelphia 1930. RUMPF, ANDREAS, Chalkidische Vasen. 1m Auftrag des Archdolcgischen Institutes des Deutschen Reiehes mit Benutzung der Vorarbeiten von GEORG LOESCHCKE herausgegeben. Text, Tafeln. Berlin und Leipzig 1927. Katalog der etruskischen Skulpturen. (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Katalog der Sammlung antiker Skulpturen, Band I.) Berlin 1928. ~altSnapw~, 'A&ava(no~
'A., 'fa KOTCPLalta 'ij~OL Iswlpwpla, ltal lkUiaaa 't'1j~ vijaoo KOTCpOO iho ~Uiv apxaw~a~wv xpovwv P.€XpL a-ijp.spov. 'fop.o~ TCpUi~o~. rswlpa
SALZMANN, AUGUSTE, Necropole de Camiros. Journal des fouilles executees dans cette necropole pendant les annees 18S8 11 186S. Paris 187S. Sardis. Publications of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis. Volume I. The Excavations. Part I, 1910-1914, by HOWARD CROSBY BUTLER. Leyden 1922. SARZEC, ERNEST DE, Decouvertes en Chaldee... Public par les soins de LEON HEUZEY avec le concours de ARTHUR AMIAUD et Fl;OIS THUREAU-DANGIN ... Premier volume. Texte. Second volume. Partie epigraphique et planches. Paris 1884-1912. SAYCE, R. U., Primitive Arts and Crafts. An Introduction to the Study of Material Culture. Cambridge 1933. SCHACHERMEYR, FRITZ, Etruskische Fruhgeschichte ... Berlin und Leipzig 1929. SCHAFER, HEINRICH, Agyptische Goldschmiedearbeiten ... (Konigliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der agyptischen Sammlung. Band I.) Berlin 1910. SCHAFER, HEINRICH, und ANDRAE, WALTER, Die Kunst des Alten Orients. (Propylaen-Kunstgeschichte. II.) Berlin 19 25· SCHAEFFER, CLAUDE F. A., Missions en Chypre ~932-193S ... (Academic des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Fondation Marius Fontane. Voyages archeologiques.) Paris 1936. - Ugaritica. Etudes relatives aux decouvertes de Ras Shamra. premiere serie, (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XXXI. Mission de Ras Shamra. Tome III.) Paris 1939. ScHEDE, MARTIN, Griechische und romische Sculpturen des Antikenmuseums. (Meisterwerke der tiirkischen Museen zu KonstantinopeJ, herausgegeben von HALIL EDHEM. Band I.) Berlin und Leipzig 1928. SCHMIDT, ERICH F., Excavations at Tepe Hissar. Damghan. With an Additional Chapter on the Sasanian Building
BIBLIOGRAPHY at Tepe Hissar by FISKE KIMBALL. (Publications of the Iranian Section of the University Museum.) Philadelphia 1937. SCHMIDT, HUBERT, Heinrich Schliemann's Sammlung trojanischer Altertiimer .. , (Konigliche Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin 1902. SCHMIDT, VALDEMAR, Sarkofager, Mumiekister, og Mumiehylstre i det gamle lEgypten. Typologisk Atlas med Indledning. " Kebenhavn 1919. SCHRADER, EBERHARD, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Mit einem Beitrage von PAULHAUPT. Zweite... Auflage ... Giessen 1883. SCHUMACHER, KARL, Beschreibung der Sammlung antiker Bronzen. (Grossherzogliche Vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe.) Karlsruhe 1890. SEGALL, BERTA, Museum Benaki, Athen, Katalog der Goldschmiede-Arbeiten. Athen 1938. SELLIN, ERNST, Tell Ta'annek. Bericht iiber eine , .. Ausgrabung in Palastina. Nebst einem Anhange von FRIEDRICH HROZNY: ,Die Keilschrifttexte von Ta'annek' ... (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Funfzigster Band ... IV. Abhandlung.) Wien 1904. SELLIN, ERNST, und WATZINGER, CARL, Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. (22. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.) Leipzig 19 13. SELTMAN, C. T., A Hoard from Side. (Numismatic Notes and Monographs. No. 22.) New York 1924. SHIPTON, GEOFFREY M., Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI-XX. (The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. No. 17.) Chicago 1939. SIEVEKING, JOHANNES, und HACKL, RUDOLF, Die konigliche Vasensammlung zu Mimchen. I. Band. Die alteren nichtattischen Vasen ... Miinchen 1912. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Klasse der Konigl. Bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Munchen, Munchen, 1871-. Sitzungsberichte der (Koniglich) Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (zu Berlin). Berlin. 1882-. SJOQVIST, ERIK, Problems of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Stockholm 1940. SMITH, GEORGE, The Assyrian Eponym Canon... London [187S]. SPEISER, E. A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra. Volume I. Levels I-VIII ... (Publications of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Publications of the Baghdad School. Excavations, I.) Philadelphia 1935. SPELEERS, LOUIS, Le costume oriental ancien... Bruxelles 1923· SPROCKHOFF, ERNST, Die germanischen Griffzungenschwerter. .. (Rbmisch-germanische Forschungen, herausgegeben von der romisch-germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts zu Frankfurt a. M. Band V.) Berlin und Leipzig 1931. SPYRIDAKIS, KONSTANTIN, Euagoras I. von Salamis. Unter-
suchungen zur Geschichte des Kyprischen Konigs. Stuttgart 1935.
'II
apxa[a K'mpwltofJ
TCol'fjat~.
6.taH~sL~
K')TCptalt'ij~ TCoL·hasw~. (6.LaH~sL~ ~o1i ~okk"lo1i
TCspl 't'1j~ "KLv6pa".)
Paphos 1938. STARR, RICHARD F. S., Nuzi. Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq conducted by Harvard University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia 1927-1931 ... Volume I. Text. Volume II. Plates and Plans. (Harvard-Radcliffe Fine Arts Series.) Cambridge, Mass. 1939, 1937. STEINDORFF, GEORG, Aniba. Zweiter Band. Mit Beitragen von D. MARCKS, H. SCHLEIF und W. WOLF. Text, Tafeln. (Service des antiquites de l'Egypte. Mission archeologique de Nubie 1929-1934.) Gliickstadt 1937· STRECK, MAXIMILIAN, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's. I. Teil: Einleitung. Das urkundliche Material, Chronologie und Geschichte. (V orderasiatische Bibliothek. 7. Stiick.) Leipzig 1916. Studi Etruschi. Firenze. 1927-. SUNDWALL, JOHANNES, Die alteren italischen Fibeln. (Archaologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches.) Berlin 1943· The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931. Vols. I-III. Text, Plates. By EINAR GJERSTAD, JOHN LINDROS, ERIK SJOQVIST, ALFRED WESTHOLM. Stockholm 1934, 1935, 1937· SWOBODA, HEINRICH, KEIL, JOSEF, und KNOLL, FRITZ, Denkmaler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien .... (Deutsche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Ktinste fur die Tschechoslowakische Republik in Prag.) Brunn 1935. Syria. Revue d'art oriental et d'archeologie ... Paris. 1920-. Tell el-mutesellim. Bericht uber die 1903 bis 1905 ... zur Erforschung Palastinas veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, I. Band. Fundbericht, erstattet von G. SCHUMACHER. Herausgegeben ... von C. STEUERNAGEL. A. Text. B. Tafeln, II. Band. Die Funde, bearbeitet von CARL WATZINGER ... Leipzig 1908, 1929. Thera, v, HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN, F. THOMPSON, R. CAMPBELL, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, found at Nineveh, 1927-8. London 193 I. THORDEMAN, BENGT, Armour from the Battle of Wisby 1361 ... Vol. I. Text. Vol. II. Plates. Uppsala 1939, 1940. THUMB, ALBERT, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. (Indogermanische Bibliothek, herausgegeben von H. HIRT und W. STREITBERG. Erste Abteilung. Sammlung indogermanischer Lehr- und Handbiicher. I. Reihe: Grammatiken. Achter Band.) Heidelberg 1909. THUREAU-DANGIN, F., BARROIS, A., DOSSIN, G., et DUNAND, MAURICE, Arslan-Tash ... Texte, Atlas ... (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XVI.) Paris 1931. THUREAU-DANGIN, F., et DUNAND, MAURICE, Til-Barsib ... Texte, Album. .. (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique. Tome XXIII.) Paris 1936. Tiryns, Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts. Erster
BIBLIOGRAPHY Band. I. Die Hera von Tiryns, von AUGUST FRICKENHAUS. II. Die 'geometrische' Nekropole, von WALTER MULLER und FRANZ OELMANN. .. (Kaiserlich Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut in Athen.) Athen 1912. Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, organized and held in London by the Royal Numismatic Society ... 1936 on the Occasion of its Centenary. Edited by J. ALLAN, H. MATTINGLY and E. S. G. ROBINSON. London 1938. Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom. London. 1829-. Uit de Schatkamers der Oudheid... (Jubileumtentoonstelling 1898-1938.) Amsterdam 1938. URE, P. N., Boeotian Pottery of the Geometric and Archaic Styles. .. (Union academique internationale. Classification des ceramiques antiques 12.) Macon 1927. VAN BUREN, E. DOUGLAS, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. (Yale Oriental Series. Researches. Volume XVI.) New Haven 1930. VAN ESVELD, WOUTERUS HERMANUS CHRISTlAAN, De Balneis Lavationibusque Graecorum ... [Diss.] Amersfortiae 1908. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte ... Berlin. 1870-. VERNIER, EMILE, Bijoux et orfevreries, (Service des antiquires de l'Egypte, Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire ... ) Tome I. Texte. Tome II. Index et planches. Le Caire 1927. VEYRIES, A., Les figures criophores dans I'art grec, I'art greco-romain et I'art chretien. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d'Athenes et de Rome. Fascicule 39.) Paris 1884. VINCENT, HUGUES, Canaan d'apres l'exploration recente, (Etudes bibliques.) Paris 1907. WACHTSMUTH, FRIEDRICH, Der Raum. Erster Band. Raumschopfungen in der Kunst Vorderasiens. .. Marburg an der Lahn 1929. WALDHAUER, OSKAR, Die antiken Tonlampen. (Kaiserliche Ermitage.) St-Petersburg 1914. WALDSTEIN, CHARLES, The Argive Heraeum ... Vols, I-II. (Archaeological Institute of America. American School of Classical Studies at Athens.) Boston and New York 19°2, 19 05. Walters Art Gallery. Handbook of the Collection. Baltimore 193 6. WALTERS, H. B., Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan, in the Department 'of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London 1899. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum. Vol. I. Part II. Cypriote, Italian, and Etruscan Pottery. London 1912. Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum. London 1914. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. London 1903. WARD, WILLIAM HAYES, Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. 'Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication No. 100.) Washington 1910. (Reprinted in Philadelphia 1919.) WATELIN, L. CH., Excavations at Kish ... Vol. III, 1925-7.
INDEX
(Expedition to Mesopotamia, by L. CH. WATELIN & S. LANGDON.) Paris 1930. WEICKER, GEORG, Der Seelenvogel in der alten Litteratur wid Kunst. Eine mythologisch-archaeologische Untersuchung , " Leipzig 1902. WESTHOLM, ALFRED, The Temples of Soli. Studies on Cypriote :Art during Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Stockholm 1936. WETZEL, FRIEDRICH, Die Stadtmauern von Babylon. .. Mit einem Beitrag von ECKHARD UNGER. (48. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Babylon. IV.) Leipzig 1930. WHITAKER, JOSEPH I. S., Morya, A Phcenician Colony in Sicily. London 1921. WIEGAND, TREODOR, Die archaische Poros-Architektur der Akropolis zu Athen .. , Text, Tafeln. Cassel und Leipzig 19°4· WIEGAND, THEODOR, und SCHRADER, HANS, Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895-1898 ... (Konigliche Museen zu Berlin.) Berlin 1904. WILLIAMS, CAROLINE RANSOM, Gold and Silver Jewelry and Related Objects. (The New York Historical Society. Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities. Numbers 1-160.) New York 1924.
WINTER, FRANZ, Die Typen der figiirlichen Terrakotten. Teil I-II. (Die antiken Terrakotten. 1m Auftrag des Archiiologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reichs herausgegeben von REINHARD KEKULE VON STRADONITZ. Band III 1-2.) Berlin und Stuttgart 1903. WOOLLEY, C. LEONARD, Ur Excavations. Volume II. The Royal Cemetery. A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves excavated between 1926 and 1931 ... Text, Plates. (Publications of the Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia.) Oxford 1934. WRESZINSKI, WALTER, Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Zweiter Teil. Leipzig 1935. XANTHOUDiDES, Sri;PHANOS, The Vaulted Tombs of Mesani. An Account of Some Early Cemeteries of Southern Crete ... Liverpool 1924. YOUNG, RODNEY S., Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora. (The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora. Hesperia: Supplem. lIS Athens 1939. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins. . . Leipzig. 18 78- . Zeitschrift fUr Assyriologie ... Strassburg; Berlin. 1886-. Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. . . Giessen: Berlin. 1881-. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie. Organ der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte. Berlin. 1 869- . Zeitschrift fur Numismatik ... Berlin. 1874-. Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen ... Berlin; Gottingen. 1877-.
Italic figures refer to pages of illustration.
A Abdemon 490, 491, n. 2 Abdymon see Abdemon Abformungen 122 f., 365 Absolute Chronology 421 ff. Abydos 293 n. I, 431 n. 3, 501 Achaea 428 Achaemenid Persia 289, 391 ff. Achaeans 3II Achna 9, 12, 17, 18, ISS Acorn (pendant) 396 Acre, plain of 248, 31 I f. Acropolis, kore from 363 Adalia 262 Adana 259 Admetos 450 Adonis 429 n. 9 (43 0), 44 1 n. 9 (44 2 ) Adoration, gesture of 109 f., II3 Adyton 12,474 Aerias 429 n. 8 Agamemnon 429 f., 459 Agapenor 428, 429 n. 9, 446 Agate 180, 182, 381 Agesilaos 492 n. 3 Agora, American excavations of 268, 427 Agriculture 445, 459, 489, 500 Agyris 492 n. I Ahiram, tomb of 252 f. Aiakos 489 n. I Aigina 233, 269, 293, 299, 3 15, 336, 363, 378, 383 f., 389, 41 I n. 9, 465, 470, 473 Aigina Museum 269 n. I, 336
Aigisthos 450 n. 10 Aigospotamoi 484 n. I, 491 Ain Shems see Beth-shemesh Ajia Faneromeni 39, 40.42 Ajia Irini Arts and Crafts 213, 215, 223 ff.; Foreign relations, sculptures 344 ff. ; Greek influence on sculptures from 363; Minor and Animal Plastic 125, 366; Sanctuaries I, 3 f., 17, 18, 234, 433, 445, 455; Scarabs 424 f.; Sculptures from, illustrated 341 , 342 , 343, 344. 346, 349, 351; Stratigraphical excavations 185, 191 f., 196 ff., 207; Syro-Anatolian bronze sculptures found in 336 f.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style I 93 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style II 93 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style III 93, 97 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style IV 93, 97 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Styles V-VI 93, 105 f.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style VII 93, 109 ff. ; Tombs I Aj ia Katherina 33 Ajios j akovos Sanctuary 2, 17, 19, 433, 445; Syrian Pottery found . in 272 Akamas 428 n. 2, 467 n. 3 J\kerstrom, J\. 208 n. I, 288,
294
Akesas 460 f. Akko 437 n. 4 (43 8) Akoris 494, 495 n. 6 Alabaster sculpture 322, 362, 366 Alabastron Glass 173. 174; Relative Chronology 224; Stone 177, 178, 224; Terracotta 69, 71, 296 Albanese, L. 252 n. 10 Albright, W. F. 253 n. 6, 421 Aleppo 253 f., 256, 386, 392 Alexander the Great 460 n. I, 461, 499 n. 3, 504 ff. Alexandretta, gulf of 254 Alexandros from Ephesos 441 n. 9 (44 2) Alishar Hiiyuk 226, 262, 314, 349 n. I, 375, 383 n. 9, 446 Alkibiades 491 n. 5 Alliance with Athens 364 n. 6,49 t Al Mina 254, 423 n. 4 Altar r a., 455 Altes Museum, Berlin see Berlin Alyattes, crater of 404 n. 4 Amasis II 293, 362, 370, 46 6 ff., 471 n. 3 (472) Amathai 450 n. 6 Amathia 450 n. 6 Amathos 450 n. 6 Amathus Agamemnon, attack of 430 ; Brit. Mus. Excav. Tomb 77 39; Tomb 78 278, 298; Tomb 79 39, 4 2; Tomb 84
218, 276; Tomb 88 222; Tomb 91 278; Tomb 92 39; Tomb 95 278; Tomb 103 39, 42; Tomb 106 276 f., 412; Tomb 108 276; Tomb 120 39; Tomb 129 278 f.; Tomb 137 276; Tomb 2II 219; Tomb 241 275 n. 9 (276); Tomb 244 382; Tomb 256 221; Tomb 312 39, 4 2 Built Tombs 33, 39, 47, 432, 454; Cesnola, Tombs excav. by 39, 42; Coins 414; Diagram of ceramic material 197; Greek Pottery found in 274 ff.; in Cypro.Archaic Period 450 ff.; in Cypro-Classical Period 485 ff. ; 111 Cypro-Geometric Period 429 ff.; Kohl-pot from 412; Language 431, 444; Syrian Pottery found in 270 ff.; Tomb I 33, 39, 42; Tomb 2 32 f., 39, 40, 42, 132, 133, 193 f., 212 f., 273 n. 10 (274),276 f., 379; Tomb 3 33, 35, 37, 194 f., 276; Tomb 4 29, 33, 34, 215, 223; Tomb 5 29, 33, 213, 215, 273, 278; Tomb 6 29, 33, 188 f., 215, 218, 222, 271, 273; Tomb 7 29, 31, 33, 91, 189 f., 213, 215, 219, 223, 245 n. 2, 273 f., 424 f. ; Tomb 8 29, 33, 215, 217, 223; Tomb 9 33, 39, 219 f., 224, 275 f.; Tomb 10 29,
33, 188 f., 194 f., 218 ff., Cypriote types found in Apries 451, 466 Arrow-head ornament 50 222, 273, 276 f.; Tomb II 337, 375 ff. Apron on sphinxes 329 n. 12 Arsos 29, 33, 34, 189 f., 192 ff., Anatolia, Cypriote Pottery Apsasomos 440 n. 3 Arts and Crafts 223; Lime215 ff., 223 f., 273 n. 10 found in 258 ff., 313 f. Aramaean sculpture 352 stone Sculptures, Style I (274), 276, 425; Tomb 12 Anaxagoras 492 n. I Arcadia 428 93, 95 f.; Limestone Sculp29, 31, 32 f., 223 f.; Tomb Anaxarchos 499 n. 3 Archaic Cypro-Greek sculptures, Style II 93, 99 ff.; 13 29, 33, 194 f., 212 f., Anaxikrates 482, 484 ture found abroad 323, 325 Limestone Sculptures, Style 218, 221, 275 f., 306, 376; Andokides 491 n. 2, 502 n. 2 f., 332 III 93, 103 ; Limestone Tomb 14 29, 33, 189 f., Androkles 506 n. 2 Archaic Cypro-Greek Style Sculptures, Style IV 93, 215, 224, 273; Tomb 15 29, Andromachos 506 n. 2 93 ff., 103, 109 ff., 127, 129, 107 ff.; Limestone Sculp33, 34, 189 f., 213, 215, 222, Andromeda 441 n. 9 (442) 209 f., 361 ff., 473 f., 487 tures, Style V 93, 112 ff.; 224 f., 271, 273; Tomb 16 Animal sculpture 128 f., 211, Architecture Limestone Sculptures, Style 29, 33, 213 ; Tomb 18 29, 3 29, 331, 445 Domestic Architecture 23 VI 93, 112 ff.; Limestone 33, 189 f., 213, 215, 217, Animal-shaped vase 50, 53, ff., 433, 453 f., 485 f.; F orSculptures, Style VII 93, 223,273,275; Tomb 19 29, 56, 61, 257 eign Relations 226 ff.; Re112 ff.; Sculptures from, 33, 188 f., 224, 273; Tomb Animal-shaped vases, origm presentations of 231 f., 235, illustrated 345,. Terracotta 21 29, 33, 186 ff., 214, 218, of 284 f., 293 456; Sanctuary Iff., 235 Sculptures 94 f. 224, 273; Tomb 22 29, 33, Animal's protome on metal ff., 433 f., 455 f., 486 f., Artabazos 482 186 ff., 215, 217, 224 f., objects 156, 157, 162, 163, 503; Tombs 29 ff., 431 ff., Artaxerxes I 414, 419, 491 ff. 273, 422; Tomb 23 29, 33, 165, 166, 388, 391 452 ff., 487, 504 Artaxerxes III Ochos 407 n. 193 f., 219; Tomb 24 29, Ankh-symbol 473 Archelaos of Macedonia 491 10 32 f., 34, 188 f., 273; Tomb Annals of Sargon 449 f., 459 f. n. 2 Artemision, battle at 478 25 29, 33, 213, 220, 225, Antalkidas 490, 493 n. 5, 494 Architrave 12 Artemision in Ephesos 332 271 f.; Types of tombs 29 Antefix 16, 237, 486 f. Arc-ornaments 50 f., 298 A rts and Crafts ff., 432 Anthedon 242 Arcs, pendent 55, 65, 298, 316 Bone 180 ff., 181, 225 ; Amathusa 430 Antioch 254, 256 Areia 506 n. 5 Bronze 138 ff., 139, 141, Amazon 125, 503 Antiocheia at Pyramos 259 Areopagos of Athens 498 145, 147. 149, 151, 153, 154, Amenhotep III, palace of 379 Antipatros 501 Argolis 293, 428 214 ff.; Faience 172, 173, American College in Beirut, Antiphanes 500 n. 6 Argos 492 n. 3 174, 223 f.; Foreign RelaColi. of 252 Antiquarium, Berlin see Aridolis 478 n. 7 tions 372 ff.; Glass 173, 174 Amk 254 Berlin Aristides 479 n. I f., 224; Glyptics 182 f., 225 ; Amminadbi 451 n. I Apadana 392 Aristokypros 475, 477 Amphora, for types of am- Aphaia, temple of 336, 363 Gold 161 ff.; 163, 165, 167, Aristomencs 505 phorae see Pottery 48 ff. Aphetai 478 n. 7 221 ff.; in Cypro-Archaic Aristophanes 460 Stone 178 Aphrodision 441 n. 9 (442), Aristophanes son of NikoPeriod 212 ff., 474 f.; 111 Amphorae, origin of types 450 n. 5 Cypro-Classical Period 212 phemos 493 n. 4, 494 n. I, 282, 298, 307 Aphrodite Akraia 441 n. 9 502 n. 2 ff., 464, 502 f.; in CyproAmphoriskos (44 2 ) Aristotle 498 Geometric Period 434; Iron Glass 173. 175; Stone 177, Aphrodite, cult of 429 f., 441 Arkades 300, 407 130 ff., 131, 133, 135, 137. 178 n. 9 (442), 458 Arkesilas III of Kyrene 472 212 f.; Lead 136, 137, 138, Amphoteros 506 n. 5 Aphrodite, figure of, dedi- Armenia 405 214 ; Relative Chronology Amrit 313 n. I, 325 f., 366, cated by Herostratos 470 Armenoid race 346, 354 212 ff.; Terracotta 169 f., 463, 470 Aphrodite, temenos of 6, 21, Armour 171, 223; Semi-precious Arntalqa 240 22,454 Foreign Relations 378 ff., Stone 179, 180, 225; Silver Amulet Aphrodite, temple of 62, 231, 4 15, 4 19; Iron 132, 133, 155 ff., 157, 1.$9, 160, 218 Bone 182; Faience 172, 447 ; 269, 321, 469, 501 212; Relative Chronology ff.; Stone 175 ff., 177, 179. Stone 176 Apollon 429 n. 9 212; see also Cuirass 224 Amyntas 229, 505 Apollon figure 112, 319, 331, Arms, mechanically attached Artybios 476 Amyrtaios 482 n. 9 362, 368 94, 117 Arvad 386, 451 n. I Anaktes (~Ya'lt'te~) Apollon Golenisheff, type of Arms, position of see Sculp- Aryballos 445,498 f. 362 ture Faience 173, 174 "AYaClCla~ 498 Apollon Hylates, sanctuary of Arne, T. 376 n. II Ashlar wall 23 f., 226 ff. Anat-Athena, sanctuary of 2, 12 Arrow-head Ashod 446 f. 235, 443 Apollon, temenos of 6, 8 ff., Bronze 138, 139, 214; For- Ashurbanipal 381, 437 n. 2, Anatolia, architecture see Hit22, 241, 454 eign Relations 375 f., 414 450 f. tite arch., Boghazkeui and Apollon, temple of 269, 321, f., 419; Iron 132, 133, 212; Ashurnasirpal II 379, 391 other localities 336, 461, 469 Relative Chronology 212, n. 7 Anatolia, Arts and Crafts of Apophyge 12 214 Ashur 236, 342
Byblos 252 f.; Carchemish 257; Egypt 241; Gezer 245; Jerusalem 245 ; Khan Sheikhun 253; Kameiros 264, 425; Lindos 265 f.; Megiddo 249, 421; Memphis 241; Olynthos 268, 426; Palestine 242 ff.; Quarayet 252; Samaria 246, 4 25; Sendiirli 257; Syria 252 ff.; Tarsos 259 ff.; Tell Fara 243, 421 ; Tell Sheikh 17 4 Yusuf 255 f.; Tell Tainat Beloch, K. J .. 478 n. 7, 482 3°4 257; Tell Tebilleh 241; n. I, 489 n. 3, 490 n. I, Assyrian Sculpture 379, 381 Baalmelek I 436, 477, 480, Troy 262; V roulia 267 497 n. 9 483 n. 6 Assyrian Sculpture found in Influences from Greece 304 Belos 441 f. II 483 n. 6, 490 Baalmelek Cyprus 336 ff.; Influences to and from Ben-Der, 1. 423 n. I n. I, 491 n. 2 Assyria, tribute to 449 the East 287 ff.; Relative Benha el-Asl 413 Baal of Lebanon 437 Astarte 397 Chronology 186 ff. Berekshemesh 440 n. 6 Baalram 413 f., 440 n. 2 Astyages 471 Biliotti, E. 330 Berlin, Staatliche Museen Babelon, E. 483 n. 6 Astynoos 429 n, 9 Bird, ornament 55, 61, 64 f., AntiAltes Museum 109; Babylon 232, 236, 391, 467 Atchana 254 n. 2 299, 316, 461 quarium 268 n. 4, 289 n. 3; Babylonia 471 Athena Elgin 364 Ashur, sculpture from 342" Bird-shaped vase 56, 64, 241, A thena entering a chariot 363 Babylonian Architecture 227, 246, 293, 3 15 Dadia, sculptures from 332 ; 233 f., 486 Athena from V ouni 364, 486 Bisenzio 411 n. 9 from Marion, candelabrum terracotta staBabylonian Athenaios 470 400 ; Sidon, lamps-stand Bissing, F. W., V. 411 tuettes 358 Athena Lindia 265 from 399; Syro-Anatolian Black Figured Ware see Athena Polias, temple of 228 Badisches Landesmuseum, Greek Wares sculpture 342 Karlsruhe 392 n. II Athena Promachos 364 n. 6, Berlin, Tell Halaf Museum Black Glazed Ware see Greek Baetyl235 503 Wares 343 Athena, sanctuary of 2, 13 Balata 246 Black Lustrous Ware Bernardini tomb 407 15 f., 21, 22, 235, 330, 335, Baltimore, Walters Art Classification 85; Relative (Figurine) 116, 172, 336, Bes Gallery 397 338, 479 n. 5 (480), 486 f. Chronology 199 ff. 395, 398 Athens 293, 294, 296 f., 300, Bamboula see Kurion Ware Black-on-Red Beth-Ammon 451 n. I 373, 376 n. 13, 378, 399 f., Banquet scenes on tombAbsolute Chronology 422 Beth-pelet 242 f., 249, 312, stones 120 414, 419, 447, 465, 482, 490 ff.; Burnished slip 249; 393, 399 n. 3, 421 Barberini tomb 407, 4 12 n. 5,493 Classification 68 ff. Beth-shan 248, 250 ff., 312, Barka 495 n. 2 Athens, Cypriote Pottery Found in: Anatolia 259 ff.; 03 Barrel-shaped jug see Pottery 4 found in 268, 315 Atlit 247 ; Balata 246 ; Beth-shemesh 232, 244 f., 248 48 ff. Athens, National Museum Beth-shan 251 f.; Carchen. 3, 312, 323, 422 Barrel-shaped jug, imitations 332, 363, 407 n. 9 mish 257 ; Crete 269; Delos Betestan Collection, Nicosia of 297 Athienou 440 268; Egypt 240 f.; Gaza 87 17, 23, 4 Barrel-shaped jug, origin of 12 Atlit 247, 3 244; Gerar 243 ; Hama 253, Bianor 505 284 Atmesu 449 f. 423; Ialysos 262 f., 423; (1.. C.) 284 Bichrome Red Ware Base-ring Ware Atnana 449 Jericho 245; Khirbet Selim Classification 73 ff.; Found f., 294 Atrium Tuscanicum 232, 235 252 ; Lachish 244, 423 ; in Phokaia 268; Influences Attic influence on pottery 73, Basin 8, 10, 25 Lahun 424; Lindos 265; from Greece 306; Influences Bronze (1.. C.) 285 Basin, 76 Megiddo 248 ff.; Memphis to and from the East 287 Attic influence on sculpture Basket 52, 60 f., 304 f. 241; Naukratis 241; Paleff.; Classification 60 ff.; Bath 25 ff., 230 f., 453 117, 363, 473 stine 242 ff.; Quara-yet 193 ff. 8, Attic Pottery see Greek Pot- "Bathing-drawers" 108, 34 252; Rhodes 262 ff.; SaBichrome Ware 360, 458 tery maria 246; Tarsos 259 ff.; Absolute Chronology 420 Attic Pottery, imitation of 79, Bauchamphora 307 Sendjirli 257; Syria 252 ff.; Classification 60 ff.; Bead 84 ff.; Tell Amr 248; Tell Found in: Aigina 269; Bone 180, 181,' Bronze rao : A udymon see Abdemon Sheikh Yusuf 255 f.; Tell Alishar Hiiyiik 262; AnaFaience 172, 173, 223; ForAutophradates 494 Tainat 257, 424; Thannak tolia 259 ff.; Askalon 244; 17; eign Relations 396 f., 4 Axe 250; Thera 268, 425; UgaBeth-shan 250 Athens 268; Glass 173, 174; Gold 164, Bronze 140, 141, 214; Forrit 253 ff. ; Beth-shemesh 245, 422; 165, 222; Relative Chronoeign Relations 380, 4 15:
Askalon 244, 312, 429 n. 9 (43°) Askos 50, 53, 57, 60, 64, 69, 73. 84, 307 Aspendos 414, 4 19 Assos 228 f. Assyrian Architecture 227,23 6 Assyrian clay tablet 261 Assyrian domination of Cyprus 449 ff., 472 Assyrian fibulae 383 n. 6 Assyrian ornaments 290, 302,
Iron 132, 135, 213; Relative Chronology 213 f. Axiality, architectural 22, 27, 231, 235, 453, 456, 486 Axiothea 499 n. 3, 507 Axos 465 n. I Azbaal 480, 483, 491
B
logy 219, 222 ff.; Semiprecious Stone 179, 180, 225; Silver 156, 157, 219; Stone 176, 177. 224 . Beard see Sculpture, Hairstyle Beirut 366 Beirut, American College 252 Beirut Museum 252 n. 10 Beka' 252 Bell, Bronze 146, 147, 398 f.,
529
528 Of non-Cypriote fabric 243 ff., 270 n. I, 422 n. 4, 435; Relative Chronology 188 ff. Black Sea 491 n. 3 Black Slip Bichrome Ware Classification 77; Relative Chronology 186 ff. Black Slip Painted Ware Classification 76 f.; Relative Chronology 186· ff. Black Slip Ware Classification 77 ff. Found in: Alishar Hiiyiik 262; Anatolia 261 f. ; Egypt 241; Tarsos 261; Tell Tebilleh 241; Tell ez-Zuweyid 242 Influences from Greece 306 f.; Influences to and from the East 287 ff.; Relative Chronology 186 ff. Black Slip Wheel-made Ware (L. C.) 284 Blinkenberg, Chr. 216, 265 f., 291 n. 2, 327, 382 f., 399, 409,411 n.9, 429 n. 9 (430) Blinker, Bronze I47, 148, 217, 399, 4 17 Bliss, F. ]. 400 Blue paint 291, 315 Board-shaped body 110 ff. Bobbin, Bone 180, I8I Boghazkeui 226 f., 230 Boiotia 293, 297 f., 307 Boiotian fibula 384, 384, 415 "Boiotian" shield 376 Boken-ranf faience vase 407 Bolts, imitation of 42 Bondiziano, Mr. 337 Bone Amulet I8I, 182; Bead 180, I8I; Bobbin 180, I8I; Box I8I, 182; Comb I~O, I8I, 289 n. 9; Flute 18o; Foreign Relations 412, 418; Handle I8I, 181 f. ; Mounting I8I, 182; Pin 180, I8I; Relative Chronology 225; Roundel : I8I, 181, 225; Spindle-whorl 180, I8I Bonnet, H. 377 n. II, 378 Borrell, H. P. 337 Borsippa 236 Hottle 49, 53 f., 59 ff., 64, 69, 71, 78, 283, 306 "Bottle"cistern 25 Bottle, Faience I73, 174
Bowl, for types of bowls see Pottery 48 ff. Bronze 150, ISI, 152, 217; Decorated metal bowls 152, 161, 169, 218, 220 223, 289, 291, 316, 360, 397 f., 405 ff., 410 f., 418 f., 436, 443, 459, 462; Faience 172, I73; Foreign Relations 405 ff.; Gold I67, 169, 223; Relative Chronology 217, 220, 223; Silver 159 ff., I60, 220; Stone 176, I77 Bowls, origin of types 282 ff., 288, 305 f. Box Bone I8I, 182; Stone 178, I79; Terracotta 170, I7I Box-wall 15, 24, 229 Box-wood 459 f. Bozjaz 258, 313, 463 Bracelet Bronze 146, I47, 217; Foreign Relations 391 ff., 416; Gold 166, I67, 168, 222,473 ; Relative Chronology 217, 220 f.; Silver 158, IS9, 220 ; on sculptures 330, 391 ff., 458 Braidwood, R. J. 257 n. I, 289 n. I, 292 n. 3, 422 n. 10, 424 n. I Brick-wall 2, 227 British Museum, London 115, 120, 240 n. II, 268, 325, 331 f., 34I, 346, 348, 362, 365, 404 British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem 246 Brolio 342, 344, 347 Bronze Arrow-head 138, I39, 214; Axe 140, I4I, 214; Basin (L. C.) 285; Bead 146; Bell 146, I47; Blinker I47, 148, 217; Bowl 150, ISI, 152, 217; Bracelet 146, I47, 217; Butt-spike 138, I39, 214; Cauldron 152, IS3, 218; Chain 148, I49, 217; Chisel I4I, 142, 214; Clasp 146, I47, 217; Earring 144, I47, 216; Fibula 143 f., I4S, 215 f.; Finger-ring 144, I47, 217; Fish-hook 143, I4S, 215; Flute I49, 150, 217; Front-band I47, 148, 217; Hair-ring 144,
I47, 216; Hammer I4I, 142, 214; Helmet 140, I41, 214; Hinge 6, 148, I49, 217; Horse-bit 146, I47, 217; Incense-burner 149, ISO, 217; Incense-lamp I49, 150, 217; Jug IS3, 153 f. 218; Ladle 152, IS3, 218; Lamp 148, I49, 217; Lamp-stand 148, I49, 217; Mace-head I4I, 142, 214, 381; Mirror 142, I4S, 215; Mounting IS4, 154, 218; Nail, Rivet, Cramp 148, I49, 217; Necklace 146; Needle 143, I4S, 215; Palette 143, I4S, 215; Pendant 146, 217; Pin 143, I4S,215; Plate 150, ISI, 217; Relative Chronology 214 ff. Sceptre I4I, 142, 214 f., 225, 381 ; Shepherd's Crook I4I, 142, 214; Shield I39, 140, I4I, 214; Shovel I4I, 142, 215; Spear-head 138, I39, 214; Strainer 152, IS3, 218; Strigil I4I, 142 215; Toe-ring 146, I47, 217; Toilet and Surgical Instruments 143, I4S, 215; Tripod I49, 150, 217 ; Tweezer I4I, 142, 215 ; Weight IS4, 155, 218 Bronze Age Architecture I, 231, 234; Colonizations of Cyprus 428; Faience head 216.; Survivals of 48, 50, 186, 192, 194, 282 ff.; Types in Arts and Crafts 212, 216, 219, 221, 372 ff.; Pottery see Early Cypriote; .Late Cypriote; Middle Cypriote pottery Bronze Sculptures 109, 129, 211, 336 ff., 445, 486 ff. Bryn Mawr College Excavations 253, 258 Bucchero Ware (L. C.) 287 Buduil 451 n. I Built tombs 33, 39, 47, 432, 454, 487 Bull-shaped vase 294 Bull's head I4I, 142, I49, 150, 404 Bull statuettes 128 Burial customs 433, 455, 487 Burnished slip 249 Buschor, E. 334, 369
Busiris 502 Bususu 450 Butterfly ornament 50 Butt-spike Bronze 138, I39, 214; Foreign Relations 375, 414; Iron 130, I3I, 212; Relative Chronology 212, 214 Byblos 235, 252 f., 325, 429 n. 9 (430), 443
c Cable-pattern 64, 398 (see also Guilloche pattern) Caere 256, 399, 411 Caesarea 252 Cagliari, Museum at 399 Cairo Museum 241 n. 2, 3 Caldarium 231 Campania 406 Candelabrum see Lamp-stand Candia Museum 269 n. 2, 407 n. 10 Cap 96, 108, 115, 321, 458 Capital Doric 12, 17, 474, 487; Etruscan 237, 454; Hathor 24, 103, 237, 467 f., 486; Ionic II, 400, 474; Lotus 454; "Proto-Ionic" 42, 237, 454 Capodimonte di Bolsena 404 Cappadocia 262, 314, 344, 347 Caravan routes 254, 312, 446 Carchemish 226,256,292,312, 373, 381, 446 Caria 394, 494, 497 Carmel 246 ff., 311 f. Carthage 293, 295, 385, 394 f., 399 f., 438 n. I Casa del Chirurgo 232 n. I I Cat (Pendant) 172, 395 Cattle-breeding 445, 459 Caucasus 398, 405 Cauldron Bronze 152, IS3, 218 ;Terracotta see Cooking-pot Cedar 460 Cella 8, 12 ff., 17 ff., 235, 237, 474, 486 f. Cement 3 Censer see Offering-receptacle Centaur see Minotaurus
Clasp, Bronze 146, I47, 217 Colonna-Ceccaldi, G. 8, 374 "Cup and saucer" 400 Cups, origin of types 282, 305 Classical Cypro-Grcek Style Column ~ Doric 10; Polygonal 6, 237 Cyclades 93 ff., 123 ff., 129, 209 f., Cypriote influence 292 ; Comb, Bone 180, I8I, 289 364 f. Cypriote pottery found in Concentric circles 55 f., 246 Clay tablet 261 267 f.; Pottery from 254, ff., 288, 301 f., 316, 443 f., "Cloisonne" work 162, 166, 261, 270, 292 ff.; Trade 461 393, 416, 459 with Cyprus 465 Container see Storage vessels Cnidian peninsula 332 Cylinder 182 f., 225, 290, 300, Contenau, G. 323 Cnidians, treasure-house of 413, 4 19 Cook, R. M. 321 n. 8 228 Cypriote character 448 Cooking-pot 91 Coarse Ware 91, 186 Cypro-Archaic Period Copper, mining of 459, 500 Cock, ceramic ornament Absolute Chronology 424 Corbel-vault 33, 42, 454 310 f. ff.; Arts and Crafts 212 ff., 2 Corinth 293, 49 Cock statuette 129 474 f.; Domestic ArchitecCorinth Canal 392 n. II Coele Syria 312 ture 23 ff., 453 f.; EcoCorinthian Ware see Greek Coins nomic standard 458; HisPottery Abdemon 490 n. I; Alextorical Survey 449 ff. ; LiteCornelian 180 ander the Great 400 n. 4, 17 4 rature 458; Pottery 192 ff., 507 ; Amathus 414; Ar- Corybants 336 Chariot group 126, 339 202 ff., 461; Sanctuaries Cos 428 taxerxes I 414, 419; AsChariot scenes 289 3 ff., 455 f.; Sculpture 207 pendos 414, 419; Athens Coupled vases 61 Charitimides 482 ff., 456 ff.; Tombs 33 ff., 414, 419; Baalram 413 f.; Court-life 452, 499, 500 n. 6 Charm case 395 452, 454 f. Dareios 414, 419; Dernoni- Cow, stauette of 338, 486 Chatal Hiiyiik 256, 289, 312, kos 494 n. 7, 503; Euago- Cramp see Nail, Rivet, Cramp Cypro-Classical Period 383 n. 9 Absolute Chronology 426 ras I 413 f., 500, 503 ; Crater see Jar Chatsworth head 337 f., 488 ff.; Arts and Crafts 212 ff., Euagoras II 413 n. 3, 503; Crater, Stone 178, I79 Cheek-piece see Helmet Euanthes 483 ; Euelthon Crete 464, 502 f.; Domestic ArChehab, Emir 252 n. II Bronzes 300; Cypriote in413 f., 473; Foreign RelaChersis 475 n. 3 chitecture 23 ff., 485 f.; tions 413 f.; Gold coinage fluence 292 ff., 340 n. 3; Chester, G. 325 Financial organization 500; 500; Greek script 503 ; Chevron 55 f., 308, 317 Cypriote pottery found in Historical Survey 479 ff.; Chicago, Oriental Institute Idalion 413 f., 479 n. 5 269, 315, 340 n. 3, 447; InSanctuaries 12 ff., 486 f., (480) j Kition 413 f., 419, 249, 256, 292 n. 2, 383 n. 9 cense-lamp 400 f.; Pottery 503; Pottery 199 ff., 203 440, 503; Macrinus 235; Child's burial 455 292 ff.; Shield 377; Terraff., 487, 504; Tombs 42, Melekiathon 413; Monetary Chios 344 cotta sculptures from 95 487, 504 standard 501; Phoenician Chiote School 363 n. I; Trade with Cyprus Cypro-Egyptian Style 92 f., letters 440 n. 6, 441 n. 3, Chisel 102 ff., 207 ff., 356 f., 468 f. 465 490 n. I, 503 ; Salamis, Bronze I4I, 142, 214; Iron Cypro-Geometric Period Criss-cross lines 67 134, I3S, 213; Relative 413 f., 419, 473, 490 n. I, Absolute Chronology 421 Cross, Greek 50 f. Chronology 213 f. 500; Sidon 438 n. I; Sidoff. ;Arts and Crafts 212 ff.. Cross, Maltese 50' f., 55 Chisel-axe see Axe nian type 247; Sidqmelek 434 f.; Cultural standard f., 55, 308 Cross ornament 50 Chiton 94, 97 ff., 99, 102, 105, 440 n. 6, 485; Soli 4 13, Crowfoot, J. W. 421 445 ff.; Domestic Architec110, 112 ff., 121 477; Stasioikos 483, 485; Crown, Egyptian double 100 ture 23, 433 ; Historical Chora 332 Timocharis 485 ; Tyrian Crown, Syrian 397 Survey 428 ff.; Language Chresmologi 458 and literature 444; Pottery type 247 n. 9; Represen- Cuirass Chusistan 406 186 ff., 202 ff., 434 ff.; tations of architecture 23 I, Iron 132, 212; presented to Chytroi 440, 450, 492 n. I Sanctuaries rrff., 433 f.; Agamemnon 430, 459; pre235; Roman 231 Chytros 428 n. 2, 467 n. 3 Sculpture 444 f.; Tombs 29 sented to Demetrios PoliorCollection d'Eichthal 364, Cicada (Pendant) IS7, 396 ff., 431 ff.; Trade 446 ff. ketes 504; Relative Chron. 6 Cilicia 258 ff., 313, 413 f., Cypro-Greek sculptures found nology 212 Colonizations of Cyprus 4 19, 463, 495 abroad 322 ff., 330, 33 2 Anatolian (Teucrian) 311, Cult-representation 62, 65 Circles, concentric 55 ff., 246 Cypro-Greek Styles 93 ff., Cult-statue 10, 337 428, 434, 443 ; Greek ff., 288, 301 f., 316, 443 f., 102 f., 109 ff., 127 ff., 207 Cult symbol 4, 13 (Achaean, Laconian, My461 ff., 361 ff., 473 f., 487 f. cenaean) 185, 238, 306, 311, Cult utensil see Offering- reCircle group of decoration Cypro-Hellenistic Style 124 ceptacle 361, 415, 420, 428 ff., 441 56 ff., 64, 71 f. Cyprus Coli., Stockholm 34 I, Cumae 296, 299, 407 n. 9, 468; Phoenician 357, Cistern 25, 27, 231 343,345 436 ff.; Syrian 288, 355, Cup 49, 51 f., 54. 56, 80 f., Citizenship, Athenian 491 Cyprus Exploration Fund 432 85. 9 1 357, 436 ff., 443 City wall 5 f.
Ceramic Constituents at the beginning of the Iron Age 282 ff. Cervetri see Caere Cesnola Collection, sculptures in 96 ff., 338, 349, 360, 362, 365, 369 Cesnola, L. P., di 39 Chabrias 440, 494 Chain Bronze 148, I49. 217; Foreign Relations 397; Gold I6S, 166, 222; Relative Chronology 217, 222 Chalcedony 180, 182, 398 . Chapel 2 ff., 433, 455 Chapel, Model 170, I7I, 402,
34
531
53° Cyprus Museum, Nicosia 61, 99, 109, 125, 336, 342.. 345, 349, 351, 360, 384, 3 84, 436, 488
D
Classical periods 200, 201; Pottery of Cypro-Geometric periods 187, 188, 190; Sculpture styles 93 Diarrhytus 438 n. I Diatonoi 229 Dictaean Cave 376 n. 13 Dido 441 n. 9 (442) Dikaios, P. 62, 303 n. 7 Diodoros 466, 479, 481 n. 2, 483, 490 n. I, 492 n. I, 495 n. 4, n, 8 Dionysios of Syracuse 490, 493 n·4 Dipping-rod 143, 145 Dish, for types of dishes see Pottery 48 ff. Dishes, origin of types 282 f., 305 Djerabis 341 Dodona 375, 376 n. 13 Domestic Architecture Cypro-Archaic and CyproClassical Periods 23 ff.; Cypro-Geometric Period 23, 433; Foreign Relations 226 ff.; Kition 23; V ouni 23 ff. Donkey statuette 129 Door-jambs, imitation of 42 Dor 246, 312 Dorian migration 428 Doric Capital 12, 17, 23, 474, 487; Column 10, 237; Entablature 12, 237, 474; Fragments of architecture 23 Dotted star 75 Double-axe 125, 140, 141, 380 f. Dove statuette 129 Doxandros 453, 477, 483 Dragendorff, H. 268 n. 2 Drangiane 506 n. 5 Dress, Egyptian influence on 101 f. Dromos 30 ff., 238, 454 Dryopes 428, 467 Dunand, M. 326 Dussaud, R. 253 n. 2 Dystos 233
Daedalic sculpture 208 n. I, 340 n. 3 Dadia 268, 315, 332, 367, 369, 470 Dadia, sculptures from 333 Dagger Foreign Relations 373 f., 414, 420; Iron 130, 131, 212; Relative Chronology 212 Daily life, scenes of 126 Dali 414 see also Idalion Damasos 450 Damasu 449 f. Damusi 449 f. Dancers 126, 303, 316, 329 Daniel, J. F. 23, 30, 260 n. 7, 286 Dareios I 414, 419, 475, 477 David 246 Debased Levanto-Helladic Ware (L. C.) 192 Decorated orthostats 227 Decorative elements 50 f., 53, 55 ff. Defenneh 241 f.,·3 15, 469 Delos 228, 233, 268, 305, 315, 335 f., 383 f., 481 Delphi 228, 377 f., 407 f., 461, 473 Demetrios Poliorketes 504 Demon 328 n. I, 338 Demonikos 440, 494, 503 Demophon 428 n. 2, 467 n. 3 Demosthenes 491 n. 5 Deonna, W. 319 Deve Hiiyiik 383 n. 9, 386 Devonshire, Duke of 338 Diadem see Frontlet Diades 506 n. 2 Diagram Absolute Chronology 427; Fibulae, types of 216; Pottery, distribution of 202 f., 204, 205; Pottery of CyproArchaic periods 193, 195, Early Cypriote population 197 ; Pottery of Cypro354
E
Early Cypriote pottery 354 Ear-pick 143, 145 Earring Bronze 144, 147, 216; Foreign Relations 384 ff., 416; Gold 162, 163, 221; Iron 136, 137, 213; on sculptures 96, 106, 108, II5, 219, 221, 389, 458; Relative Chronology 213, 216, 219, 221; Silver 156, 157, 219 Eastern Neo-Cypriote Style 105 ff., 357 ff. Eastern sty le of pottery 64 f., 67,444,461 "East Greek" Wares see Greek Wares Echedamos S0l n. 8 Echinus 12 Edfu 392 n. 10 Edi'al 449 f. Egg-and-dart pattern 3II Egypt, Cypriote pottery found in 240 ff., 315, 318 ff., 464 Egypt, Cypriote sculpture found in 318 ff., 331, 366 ff., 469 f. Egypt/Egyptian Architecture 227; Arts and Crafts 375, 379 ff.; Attack on Cyprus (Apries) 451; Conquest of Cyprus (Amasis) 208, 356 f., 370, 466, 468,471 f.; Ethiopian period 422 n. 6, 424 f.; Hieroglyphs 291, 315; Influence on Cypriote sculpture 102 ff., 237, 355 ff., 457, 468; Influence via Syria 357 f.; Ornaments 291; Pottery 269, 291, 293, 296 f., 315; Ramesside period 422 ; Saite period 359, 424 f.; Sculpture found in Cyprus 336; Treaty against Kyros 471; War with Ashurbanipal 450 f. ; War with Persia 388, 494; IVth dyn, 401; XIIth dyn, 401; XVIth dyn, 386; XVIIlth dyn, 379, 388, 410; XXth dyn, 242 f., 422; XXlst dyn. 395 n. 13; XXIInd dyn. 242, 421; XXIIndXXIVth dyn, 240, 395 n.
13, 424; XXVlth dyn. 243, 390, 425, 457 Egypto-Syrian influence on sculpture 106, 108 f., 357 f. Ehursagkalamma 236 Eisleben, F. C. 438 n. I Ekishtura 449 f. Elam 391 Elatos 429 n. 9, 446 Elba 343, 345 Eleusis 228 f., 363, S0l "Eleutherna" group of sculpture 208 n, I cl-Rubayeh 394 n. 3 Elulaios of Tyre 437 f. Emerald 504 n. 5 Empleleton 229 Emporion 269 Engel, W. H. 441 n. 9 (442), 467 n. 3, 492 n. I Enki 236 Enkomi 33, 42, 216, 239, 282, 285, 385 n. 3, 389 Sculpture from, illustrated 348 Enmann, A. 441 n. 9 (442), 467 n. 3 Entablature Doric 12, 474; Ionic 17, 23, 125, 237, 503 Eos 429 n. 9 Ephesos 332, 360, 387, 389, 395, 470 Epic poetry 444, 458 Epigraphic evidence Cretans from Axos 465 n. I ; of Cypriotes in Greece 501; of Cypriotes in N aukratis 469; of Eteocyprians 430 f.; of Phoenicians in Cyprus 436 f., 440 f. Epipalos 475 n. 5 Eratosthenes 46o" Eresos 228 Eresu 449 f. 'EpsDY'ij'tal 499 Eros 404 Esagila 236 Esarhaddon 437 n. 2, 449, 451 n. I, 462 Esdralon, plain of 248, 312 Eshmun 323 Eshnunna 236 Eteandros 450 Eteocyprians 233, 238, 429 ff., 457
Ethiopians in Cyprus 356, 467 Ethnical determination of art 353 ff., 370, 457 Etruscan alabastron 348 Etruscan Architecture 232, 235, 454, 456 Etruscan Arts and Crafts 384 ff., 447 Etruscan connection with Anatolia 232, 457 Etruscan Pottery 288, 293 f., 298, 305 Etruscan Sculpture 339 ff., 359, 361 n. I, 457 Etruscan Tombs 235 Euagoras I 280 f., 318, 338, 364 f., 393, 397, 413 f., 477, 484 f. 489 ff. Euagoras II 413 n. 3, 497, 500 n. 6, S0l Euanthes 483 Euboia 395 Eudemos 502 Euelthon 413 f., 472 f., 475 n. 3 Euklos 458 Eunomos 493 n. 4 Eurymedon 429 n. 9. 481 f.,
484 Eustathios 499 Eyeballs, separately attached 97 Eyebrows "Feathered" 98 ff., 106, 109, 330 n. 4, 332, 359 f.; Hollow Syrian 346 Eyelids, prolongation of 355 f. "Eye"-ornament 55 f., 300 Eyuk 226 Ezekiel 459
F Face. modelled, on jugs 297 Faience Aryballos 173, 174; Bead 172, 173, 223; Bottle 174; Bowl 172, 173; Finger-ring 172, 173; Foreign Relations 4II, 417 f.; Glyptics 182; Head, Bronze Age 216; Jug 173, 174, 293; Miscellaneous Vases 173,
174; Necklace 172, 173, 224; Pendant and Amulet 172, 173, 224; Relative Chronology 223 f.; Spindlewhorl 172, 173; Spoon 172, 382 Famagusta bay 274 Fana 331 "Favissa" 326, 330 Fayum 240, 464 Fibula Bronze 143 f.• 145, 215 f.; Diagram of types 216; 415, 42o; Gold 161, 163, 221; Iron 136, 137, 213; Relative Chronology 213, 215 f.• 219, 221; Silver ISS, 157, 219; Syrian 216 Fikellura style 277 f., 300 Filigree work 162, 166, 386, 397, 459 Finger-ring Bronze 144, 147, 217; Faience 172, 173; Foreign Relations 389 ff., 416; Gold 162, 163, 164, 221; Iron 136, 137, 213; on sculpture 458; Relative Chronology 213, 217, 219, 221; Silver 156, 157, 219 Fish (Pendant) 172, 395 Fish-hook, Bronze 143, 145, 215 Fish-shaped vase 294 Fitzgerald, G. M. 251 Flask 49, 60, 80, 86 f. Flask, origin of types 284, 293, 315 Flax 460, 500 Florence, Museo Archeologico 310, 342., 345, 349, 351 Flower ornament 55, 304, 461 f. Flute 149, ISO, 180, 217, 458 Flute-player 102 f., 107, II2, 126, 327, 329, 331, 444 Footgcar 348 f., 458 Foreign Pottery found in Cyprus 269 ff. Foreign Relations Architecture 226 ff.; Arts and Crafts 372 ff.; Pottery 240 ff.; Sculpture 318 ff.; Summary 414 ff. Forests 460 Forster, E. S. 489 n. I Fortezza 269, 298
Fortification wall 2, 5 Fossing, P. 4II f. Foundation legend 428, 441. f. Foundation offering 3, 272 Frangissa 9, 17 Frankfort, H. 270 n. I Free-field style 55, 65 Frieze, Ionic 17, 23, 125, 237, 503 Friis Johansen, K. 208 n. I, 267 n. I, 293 n. I, 299, 302, 304 Frog (Bead) 164, 396 Frontality, in architecture 22, 27, 231, 235 Frontality, in sculpture 94, 96, 98, 109, II2 f., 121, 453, 456 f., 486 Front-band, Bronze 147, 148, 217, 399, 417 Frontlet Foreign Relations 397; for horses see Front-band; Gold 167, 168, 222 ; on sculptures 108, II5, 328, 360, 458; Relative Chronology 220, 222; Silver 158, 159,220 Funerary relief 120, 122 Furniture 460 Furtwangler, A. 363 n. 2, 393 n. 5, 403 Furumark, A. 390 n. 7, 422 n·4
Gibeah 245 f., 422 Gig-par-leu 236 Gimilsin 236 Girdle, Silver ISS, 157, 219. 398 Cjerstad, E. 184 Glass Alabastron 173, 174; Amphoriskos 173, 175; Bead 173, 174; Foreign Relations 4II f., 418; juglet 173, 175; Pendant 173, 174; Relative Chronology 224; Ring 173, 174 Glass oven 412 Glos 495, 496 n. 2 Glueck, Nelson 270 n. I, 292 n. 7 Glyphada 332 Glyptics 182 f., 225. 413. 419 Goblet 49, 52, 56 f., 86 ff., 246 Goblet, origin of type 282 Godard, A. 377 Gold Bead 164, 165, 222; Bowl 167, 169, 223; Bracelet 166, 167, 222, 473; Chain 165, 166, 222; Coinage 500 ; Crown, Syrian 397; Earring 162, 163, 221; Fibula 161. 163, 221; Finger-ring 162, 163, 164, 221; Frontlet 167, 168, 222; Hair-ring 161, 163, 221; Mining of 459; Mounting 167, 168, 222; Mouth-piece 167, 168, 222; Necklace 166, 222 f.; Needle 161,163,221; Nosering 162, 163, 221; Pendant 164, 165, 166, 222; Pendant-ring 164, 165, 222; Galatia 262, 314 Pin 161, 163, 221; Reel Galilee 246 167, 168, 222; Relative Chronology 221 ff. Galling, K. 400, 402 Goldman, H. 258 f. Gardner, E. A. 319 Garstang, J. 245 n. 10, 258 f. Golgos 428 n. 2 Gate-chamber 6 Gordion 262 n. I, 368 n. I, Gaza 239, 244, 312, 375, 379, 407 386, 393 Gorgo head 143, 166, 347, Gela 269 396 Gem-cutters, Cypriote 504 Gorgos 473 n. I, 475 ff. Gerar 232, 243. 246, 295, 312, Graeco-Persian War 479 ff. "Graeco-Phoenician" Ware 322, 375, 422, 425 Gerginoi 498 248 n. 9 Gergithes 498 n. 3 Graffiti 469 n. I, S0l Geryon, cattle of II7 Grain, shipment of 491, 500 Gezer 244 f., 293 n. I, 295, Granikos 505 312, 408 Grant. E. 422 n. 9
G
533
532 Granulation work 162, 166, 386, 396, 459 Grass-hopper (Bead) 164 Greece, Cypriote pottery found in 262 f., 315 ff. Greece, Cypriote sculpture found in 327 ff. Greek Architecture 227 ff., 232 ft.; Arts and Crafts 373 ff., 434 f., 474 f., 502 f.; Colonization of Cyprus 185, 306,415,420,428 ff.; Dress 364, 420, 502; Expedition to Cyprus 478 B. C. 479; Expedition to Cyprus 4601 59 B. C. 482; Expedition to Cyprus 449 B. C. 479 n. 5 (480), 481 ff.; Influence on architecture 234 ff., 474, 486, 503; Influence on cultural life 304 ff., 465, 502 ff.; Influence on pottery 75, 292 ff., 315 ff., 447; Influence on sculpture II8 ff., 209 f., 361 ff., 473 f., 487 f. Greek Pottery Attic Geometric Wares 270, 275, 306, 309, 317, 447; Attic Wares 2II, 280, 364 n. I, 426 f., 489, 501; Black Figured Ware 67, 195 f., 270, 278 ff., 298, 308 ff., 317, 321 n, 8, 373, 474; Black Glazed Ware 195 i, 247, 270, 275 n. 9 (276), 278 ff., 307, 317, 427, 489; Corinthian Ware 208 n. I, 256, 270, 275, 304, 317 f., 425; Cyc1adic Wares 254, 261, 270, 275, 293; Cypriote influence on 292 ff., 316 f., 447; "East-Greek" Wares 195 f., 270, 275 ff., 306, 308, 474; Found in Cyprus 269 f., 274 ff., 317 f., 474; Found in Syria 254 ff.; "Ionian bowl" fabric 256, 277 f., 306, 321 n. 8, 410 ; "Ionian cup" fabric 277 f.; Orientalizing Ware 255 f.; Proto-Attic pottery 300, 3°4; Proto-Corinthian Ware 208 n. I, 256, 275, 300, 303, 306, 317 f.; Red Figured Ware 59, 199 ff.,
247, 256, 270, 279 ff., 307, 310, 317, 426 f., 489; SubGeometric Ware 193 f.; "Thessalian" Proto-Geometric Ware 270, 274 ; White Grounded Ware 247, 270, 280 f., 317, 426, 489; White Slip Ware 278 Greeks and Amazons, contest of 125, 503 Greek Sculpture Chronology of 208 n. I; Found in Cyprus 336, 361 ff., 474; Cypriote influence on 366 ff.; .Found in Naukratis 318; 366; Severe style 364; Terracotta figurines 338, 426, 474, 489; Terracotta sculptures 95 n. I, 364 n, 6; Tomb relief 365 Greeks residing in Cyprus 465 n. I, 502 Grey and Black Polished Ware Classification 82 f.; Relative Chronology 188 ff. Grinder, Stone 175, 177 Guilloche pattern 289, 300, 304, 316 Gurob 240 Gutter 25 Gozlii Kule 259
H Hadad 339 Haematite 182 Haifa 247 Hair-ring Bronze 144, 147, 216; Foreign Relations 389, 416; Gold 161, 163, 221; on sculptures 106, 108, 328, 330 f., 360, 389, 458; Relative Chronology 216, 219, 221; Silver 155, 157, 219 Halevy, J. 437 n. 2 Haliartos 492 n. 2 Halikarnassos 332, 373 f. Hall, covered 4 ff., 454 Hall, H. R. 467 n. 3 Hallstatt 374 Hama 253, 312, 423 Hamburg, Museum fiir
Kunst und Gewerbe 345, 346 Hammer, Bronze 141, 142, 214 Handle, Bone 181, 181 Handle-ridge 285 and passim Hand-made terracotta sculptures 95, IIO, 127 Hanfmann, G. 339 n. I, 340, 344 n. 16, 352 n. 3 Harp 429 n. 9 (430), 458 Harp-player 103 Harvard University Excavations 258, 379 Hathor Capital 24, 103, 237, 467 f., 486; Curls 347; Head, ornament 291, 315, 395 ; Pendant 166, 172; Stelae 103 Hatra 229 Hauran 495 n. 2 Haverford College Excavations 245 Hawk-headed figure 103 Hekatonmos 494, 497 n. 10 Helikon 461 Hellanikos 441 n. 9 (442) Hellenism 504 ff.. Hellenistic Architecture 228 Hellenistic Period 2II Hellenistic Period, beginning of 427 Hellenistic Pottery 198 Helmet Bronze 140, 141, 214; Foreign Relations 378 f., 415, 419 f. ;Iron 132, 133, 212; on sculpture 96, 214, 321, 323, 378 f.; Relative Chronology 212, 214 Heraion, Argive 383 n. I, 4, 407 f., 4II n, 9 Heraion, Samian 332 f., 470 Herakles II2, II7, 322 f., 326, 332, 364, 367, 397, 503 Hereus 450 n. 10 Hermaios 28I Hermes 429 n. 9 Hermokopidai 49I n. 2 Herodotos 374, 429 n. 9 (430),441 n.9 (442),446 f., 471 n. 3, 475 n. 3, 476 n. 3, 478 n. I Herostratos 470 Herse 429 n. 9 Hesychios 441 n. 9 (442) Hieroglyphs 291, 3I5
Hieron of Soli 506 n. 5 Hill, G. F. 437 n, 2, 450, 479 n. 5 (480), 482, 491 n. 3, 492 n. I Himation 99 Hinge, Bronze 6, 148 149, 217 Hippo Diarrhytus 438 n. I Hipponikos 494 Hippopotamus (Pendant) 172, 395 Hiram, coppersmith 404 Hiram II of Tyre 437 Historical Survey Cypro-Archaic Period 449 ff.; Cypro-Classical Period 479 ff.; Cypro-Geornetric Period 428 ff. Histria 295, 305 Hittite Architecture 226 f. Hittite Sculpture 348 ff. Hogart, D. G. 436 Homo Tauricus 354 Honorary decree 491,493 n. 4 Hook-wall 24 Horn-shaped vase 49, 86 f. Horse-bit, Bronze 146, 147, 217, 399, 417 Horseman 126, 321, 323, 329, 332, 371 Horse statuette 129, 334 Horus-child (Pendant) 121, 172, 395 Horus eye (Pendant) 172, 395 Hour-glass ornament 51 Hubbard amphora 62, 291, 303 Hiidiide 258, 260 Human figure, ornament 55, 61, 64, 461 Human sacrifices 42, 433 Hunter, figure of 321 Hunting scenes 289 Hydria 50 f., 53, 56 ff., 69, 88, 90 f., 241 Hydria, origin of type 282 Hypocaust 230 Hyria 429 n. 9
I Ia 449 Iadanana 449 Ialysos 262 ff., 301, 315, 330, 423, 464
Iatnana 449 f. Ibex' head 391 ldaean Cave 376 n. 13, 404, 407 f. Idalion Bronze objects from 214 ff., 360, 479. 498; Diagram of ceramic material 197 f.; Domestic Architecture 453 ; Faience objects from 223; Glyptics from 225; Gold objects from 223; Greek Pottery found in 276 ff.; Incorporation into Kition 48o; in Cypro-Archaic Period 450 ff.; in CyproClassical Period 479 ff.; in Cypro-Geometric Period 432 ff.; Iron objects from 132, 212 f.. 379; Phoenician inscriptions 440; Pottery from 91; Sanctuaries 2, 5 ff., 12, 19, 20, 21, 22 f., 235. 443, 445. 456, 467, 48o; Silver objects from 219 f.; Stone objects from 224; Stratigraphical excavations 185. 191 f., 196 ff.; Terracotta objects from 223; Tomb 3, 29 f., 194; Types of tombs 432 Idol plastic 93, 125, 128, 326, 329, 333, 335 f., 445, 456 f. Idrieus 497 n, 10 Iliad 429 Ilissos 373 Imitations of Cypriote Pottery 263 ff. 292, 295, 297,
469, 501; Greek II7, 318, 321, 479, 491, 498; Hellenistic 440 nn. 2, 6; Phoenician 436 f., 440 f. Intersecting lines 65, 69, 299, 316 "Inverted heart" 395, 416 Ionian art 337 f., 347, 349, 352, 360 ff. Ionian art, Cypriote influence on 369, 470 "Ionian bowl" fabric see Greek Pottery "Ionian cup" fabric see Greek Pottery Ionian earrings 384, 387 f. Ionian influence on Cypriote sculpture 106, 108 f., 360 ff., 468 f., 473 "Ionian" Ware see Greek Pottery Ionic Capital II, 23, 237, 400, 474; Frieze 17, 23, 125,237, 503 lope 441 n. 9 (442) Iran 380, 386, 391 Iron Armour 132, 133, 212; Arrow-head 132, 133, 212 ; Axe 132, 135, 213; Buttspike 130, 131, 212; Chisel 134, 135, 213; Cuirass 132, 212, 504; Dagger 130, 131, 212; Earring 136, 137, 213 ; Fibula 136, 137, 213 ; Finger-ring 136, 137, 213; Helmet 132, 133, 212; Knife 132, 135, 213; Lamp 300 f.• 315 136, 137, 213; Lamp-stand Imitations of Greek Pottery 136, 137, 213; Mining of 274 f., 307 459; Mounting 136; Nail, Impluvium 232 n. II Rivet, Cramp 136; Pin 134, 137, 213; Relative ChronoInaros 482 Incense-burner logy 212 f.; Rod 134, 135, Bronze 149, 150, 217; For213; Shield 132, 212 ; Sickle 134, 135, 213; Spade eign Relations 400 f., 417; Relative Chronology 217; 134, 135; Spear-head 130, Terracotta 170, 171 131, 212; Spit 134, 135; Incense-lamp Strigil 134, 135, 213; Sword 130, 131, 212, 504; Bronze 149, 150, 217; TerTweezer 134, 135, 213 racotta 170, 171 Incised ornament 67 Isaura 229 Ishtar 236 Inscriptions Assyrian 449 ff.; Bilingual. Ishtar star 394 440 1111. 2, 3; Cypriote 262, Ishtshali 236 277, 413 f., 440 f., 501; Isis tomb, Polledrara 344, 347, 408 Eteocyprian 430 f.; Graffiti
Isis with the Horus child 121, 247 Ismenias 504 n. 5 Isokrates 484 f., 489 n. I, 490 1111. I, 5, 502 Issos 505 Issos, Gulf of 254, 463 Istanbul Museum 252, 257, 323, 332, 341 , 343, 348, 349, 362, 366, 399 Italo-Corinthian alabastra 296 Ituandar 449 f. Ituria 236 Ivory carvings 180 f., 225, 412, 418, 460 Ivriz 348 f., 351 Ivy leaf, ornament 73, 76, 3II
J J acopi, G. 263 f., 330 Jakinlu 451 n. I Jar, for types of jars see Pottery 48 ff. Stone 177, 178 Jars, origin of types 282, 285 f., 288 f., 292, 306 Jasper 180, 247 J ebeil see Byblos Jebleh 253 Jenkins, R. J. H. 208 n, I Jericho 245, 293, 408 Jerusalem 245, 312, 404, 45I Jerusalem, Palestine Museum 244 n. 4, 245 n. I, 246 n. 3, 250, 251 n. 6 Jisr al-Hadid 256 Jones, c. N. 270 n. I Jordan, Valley of 248 Josephos 437 n. 4 (438) Judah 451 Jug, for types of jugs see Pottery 48 ff. Bronze 153, 153 f., 218; Faience 173, 174, 293; Foreign Relations 409 f.; Glass 173, 175; Relative Chronology 218; Silver 160. 161; Stone 177, 178 Jugs, origin of types 282, 284 ff., 294 f.
K Kachrylion 281 n. 4 Kalathos 304, 317 Kalathos-shaped bowl 282 Kalaureia 393 Kallias 484 f., 487 ff. Kallimachos 321 n. 5 Kalopsida 231, 272, 286 n. 5 Kaloriziki amphora 6I f. Kalydon 378 Kalykadnos 258 Kalymna 413 n. 3 Kambe 438 n. I Kambyses 471 n. 3, 472, 475 Kameiros 208, 264, 297, 310, 315, 330 f., 367 f., 4II, 425 Kamilarga 10 Karatash 258 f. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 392 n. II Karpasia 441 f., 492 n. 3 Kartihadast 437, 450 Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta 236 Kasios 254 Kastros, Lapethos 432 Kaunos 492 n. 3 Kavalla 228 Kavousi 407 Kazanli 258 f. Kekrops 429 n. 9 Kellaki 436 Kenyon, K. 421 n. 4, 424 n. 4 Kephalos 429 n. 9 Kepheus, "Ethiopian" 441 n. 9 (442), 467 n. 4 Kepheus of Achaea 428, 441 n. 9 (442) Kerameikos 303, 382 Kfp'l(,,)t)p()~ 460 Keryneia 428,441 f., 467 n. 4, 497 n. 7 Kerynia range 274 Key-pattern 309 Khan Sheikhun 253, 312 Khirbet Selim 252 Khorsabad 449, 460 K~A~'l(,la 1ts8~a~ 259 f. K~A~'l(,la 'tpaXsra 258 ff. Kiln 260, 313 Kilt 97, 100, 102, 108, 458 Kimon 338, 364 n. 6, 426, 479 n. 5 (480), 481 ff., 494 Kinch, K. F. 265 ff. Kingship in Cyprus 445 f., 452 ff., 458, 466 f., 498 ff. Kinner 429 n. 6 (430)
535
S3t Kypranor 467 Kl-tp.rx'll.t8€~ 499 ' Kinyra 429 n. 6 (430), 458 Kypria, epos 444, 458 Knidos 369 Kinyradai 429, 446 Knife Ko'ltpw~ x.rxprx'll.'t-1Jp 448, 457 Kinyras 429 ff., 441 n. 9 Foreign Relations 380,415; Kyrene 413 (442), 446, 458 f. Iron 132, 135, 213; Relative Kyros370, 467, 47 1, 475, Kirtch-Oglu 339, 350, 351 492 n. I Chronology 213 Kish 236, 392 , Kythnos 428, 467 n. 3 Knoblauch, P. 208 n. I Kishon 248 Knossos 228, 230, 269, 403, Kisseus 450 n. 10 447 Kisu 449 t "Kohl-pot", Egyptian 411,418 Kitchen 25, 27, 453 K olakes (K6I-rx'll.€~) 498 f. Kition Ajia Faneromeni Tomb 33, Kol-rx'll.t8€~ 499 Lachish 232, 244,312,423,425 39, 40. 454; Arts and Koldewey, R. 227, n. 3 Laconia 428 Crafts 213, 216, 224; Battle Kom el-Nawa 392 n. 10 Laconian colonists 441 n. 9 at, 381 B. C, 495; Brit. Konon 491 ff.,502 n. I Laconian school 382 n. 3 Exc. Tomb 56, 400 n. 20 K orakas see V ouni, Tombs Lade 478 (401);, Coins 413 f., 419, Kore from Acropolis 363 440, 503; Cypro-Geornetric Kore from Vouni II3 ff., 363, Ladle Bronze 15:
L
cian rule 440n. 6, 44 1, 485; Pottery from 91; Syrian Pottery found in 270 ff.; Tomb 401 29, 3I,. 32, 188 ff., 215, 223; Tomb 402 29 f., 189 f., 443; Tomb 403 29, 32, 189 f., 215, 221 ff., 225, 443; Tomb 404 29 f., 189 f., 443; Tomb 405 29, 443; Tomb 406 29 f., 32, 186 f., 215, 217, 221, 223 f., 238; Tomb 407 29 f., 186 f., 189 f., 238; Tomb 408 29 f., 188 f., 215, 217, 221, 238; Tomb '409 29f.,2 15 f., 221, 238; Tomb 410 29 f., 189 f., 238; Tomb 4II 29, 32, 188 f., 213, 215; Tomb 412 29 f., 186 f., 238; Tomb 413 29 f., 188 f., 223, 225, 238, 273; Tomb 4 14 29 f., 238; Tomb 415 29 f., 238; Tomb 416 29 f.; Tomb 417 29 f., JI, 32, 186 f., 215, 217. 221, 223, 225, 238, 270 ff., 398; Tomb 418 29 f., 238; Tomb 419 29 f. ; Tomb 420 29 f., 186 f., 213, 216 ff., 221, 225, 238, 242 n. 13 (243) ; Tomb 421 :
286 f.; Pottery 50, 186 f., 192, 202, 282 ff., 434 ff.; Sanctuaries I, 234; Terracotta statuettes 358; Tombs 238 f., 431 "Late Dedalic" sculpture 208 n. I Late Helladic Pottery 194 La Tene 374, 384, 415 Latium 404, 406 Latrine 25, 27 Laurel wreath 3II Laurenzi, 1." 264 Lavatory 25 Lawrence, A. W. 350 Layard, A. 379
Marathus 325 Marble Sculpture 125, 337, 488 Mardonios 478 Marduk 236 Mari 239, 341 Marinates, Sp, 374 Marion Brit. Exc., Tomb 25 400 n. 20 (401) ; Greek Pottery found in 276 ff., 318, 427, 501 ; Greek Sculptures found in 337 f.; in CyproArchaic Period 455 ; in Cypro-Classical Period 483 ff. ; in Cypro-Geometric Period 432 ff.; OhnefalschRichter's excavations 210 f., 219 f., 221 f., 278 f., 281 n. 4, 400, 425; Philhellene dynast 426; Syrian Pottery found in 271; Tomb 4 33, 34, 35, 192 f.; Tomb 5 33, 36, 37, 194 f.; Tomb 6 33, 37, 192 ff.; Tomb 7 33, 194 f., 278 f.; Tomb 8 33, 35, 194 f.; Tomb 10 33, 34, 35, 192 ff.; Tomb II 33, 36, 37; Tomb 1233, 37; Tomb 13 33, 37, 193 f.; Tomb 14 42, 43, 199 ff., 213, 215, 280, 427; Tomb IS 42, 43, 199 f., 427; Tomb 16 42, 199, 201; Tomb 1742; Tomb 18 42, 199 f.; Tomb 1942, 43; Tomb 20 33, 37; Tomb 21 42, 199, 201, 216, 220; Tomb 22 42, 46, 199, 201, 210, 213, 217, 224; Tomb 23 42, 199 f.; Tomb 24 42, 199 f.; Tomb 25 42, 199, 201, 213, 215, 218, 223; 427; Tomb 26 42, 199 f., 219, 224; Tomb 27 42, 199, 201" 213; Tomb 28 42, 45; Tomb 29 42, 45, 199f., 280, 487; Tomb 30 42, 199, 201, 210; Tomb 31 42, 199 f., 219 ; Tomb 32 42, 199 f.; Tomb 33 42; Tomb 3442, 296 199, 201, 213, 215, 217 ff., 223, 28o; Tomb 35' 42, 43, 45, 199 f.; Tomb 36 42, 45, II2 ff., 46, 199, 201, 213, 223 f., 28o; Tomb 37 42, 199, 201, 213, 215 ; Tomb 38 42, 199 f., 215 f.; Tomb 39 42, 44; 199, 201, 213, 219, 223, 427 ;
f., 34I, 346, 348, 362, 366, 4°4 London, University College 240 f., 319, 322, 4II London, Victoria and Albert Museum 391 n. II Loom-weight Stone 175, 177; Terracotta 169, 171 Loop-legged bowl, origin of 285 Lotus capital 454 Lotus flowers 55, 59,64 f., 67, 71, 75, 246, 255, 289, 291, 309, 315, 395 f., 407 f., 461 Lotus-ornament, developLead ment of 64, 65, 302, 303 Mounting 137, 138; Plaque Louvre, Ie musee du, Paris 137, 138; Pyxis 137. 138; 61 f., 109, 244, 289 n. 3, Relative Chronology 214; 310, 362, 391 f. Ring 136, 137; Slinger's Lozenge 50, 53, 55 Bullet 136, 137; Weight Lozenge, winged 55, 299 137, 138' Luli of Sidon 436 f. Leaf-rosettes 55, 308 Luristan 376 n. II, 377 n. I, Lebanon 429 n. 9 (430) 381, 383 n. 9, 385 n. 7, 391, Ledroi 450 406 Lemesos 437 n. 2 Lycia 332 Lemnos 232 n. 14 Lydia 471' Lentini 269 Lydian mode 458 Lentoid bottle, origin of 285 f. Lyre 458 Lesbos 228 Lyre-player 126,319, 328 n. Levanto-Helladic Ware 6, 329, 33 1, 444 (1." C) 192 I.ysandros 475 n. 5 Levanto-Helladic Ware, De- Lysi, stele from II7 based (1." C) 192 , Libation receptacle see Offering-receptacle Libation table I Lidir 450 Lid, Stone 178, 179 Ma'abed 325 Lilybaeurn 399 Macalister, R. A. S. 400 Limassol 275, 437 n. 2 Mace-head Limniti, statuette from 109 Bronzejar, 142, 214; ForLindos 265 f., 315, 327 ff., eign Relations 381 f., 415; 367 f., 381, 399, 408 f., Relative Chronology 214; 4II n. 9 Stone 175, 177 Link see Bead, Gold Machon 499, n. 3 Lion attacking bull 75, 140, Maeander pattern 308 f. 310, 338, 486 Maiuri, A. 232 n. II, 263
M
Lion statuette 129, 329, 371 Lisht 379 Literature in Cyprus 444, 458, 502 "Liwan" 2, 19, 62, 231 ff.,443 Loin-cloth, Minoan 348, 458 London, British Museum II 5, 120, 240 n. II, 268, 325, 331
Magna Graecia 293, MaIka Toumba ·228 Malta 395 Mantle' 97 ff., II0, 118, 121 Maple 460 Marash 393 Marathon 373, 375
Tomb' 40 '42, 43. 45, 199, 201, 223; Tomb 41 42, 199 f., 215 f., 221, 487; Tomb 42 42, 43, 199 f.; Tomb 43 42, 199, 201, 212 ff., 427; Tomb 44 42, 199 f., 215 f., 219 ; Tomb 45 42, 45, 199, 201, 213, 215; Tomb 46 42, 199 f., 215 f.; Tomb 47 42, 199 f., 215, 224, 276, 280, 427; Tomb 48 42, 199,201 ; Tomb 49 42, 199 f.; Tomb 50 33, 37, 194 f., 278 f.; Tomb 51 42, 45, 199 f., 221; Tomb 5242, 213, 215; Tomb 53 42, 46, 199, 201, 210, 215, 223 f.; Tomb 54 42, 199, 201; Tomb 55 42, 199, 201, 213; 215, 223 f.; Tomb 56 42, 199 f., 213, 215, 280, 427; Tomb 57 42, 199, 201, 215, 221 f.; Tomb 58 42, 213, 215, 218 f.; 222 f., 276; Tomb 59 42, 109 ff., 219, 221; Tomb' 60 42, 199, 201, 210, 220 f., 223, 427; Tomb 62 33, 37, 38, 194 f., 213, 219 f.; Tomb 63 29 f., 32, 188 f., 194 f.; Tomb 64 33, 35, 193 f.; Tomb 65 29 f., 3I, 32, 186 f., 215; Tomb 66 33, 37, 194 f.; Tomb 67 42, 199, 201, 215, 219, 427; Tomb 68 29 f., 212, 224; Tomb 69 29 f., 215; 217; Tomb 70 29 f., 186 f.; Tomb 71 33, 37, 194 f. ; Tomb 72 33, 36, 37, 194 f., 213, 215, 219, 223; Tomb 73 33, 37, 194 f., 276, 278; Tomb 74 33, 35, 194 f., 276; 278; Tomb 75 33, 37, 38, 194 f., 307; Tomb 76 33, 37; Tomb 77 33, 37, 194 f., Tomb 78 33, 35, 194 f.; Tomb 79 33, 37, 193 f.; Tomb 80' 33, 37; Tomb 81 33, 37, 194 f.; 'Tomb 82 33, 37, 194 f., 276 f.; Tomb 83 29, 3I, 32, 37, 219 ; Tomb 84 33, 35, 36, 37, 194 f.; Tomb 85 33, 37, 194 f., 199,'201, 219; Tomb 86 33, 37, 193 f.; Tomb 87 33, 37, 193 f.; Torno 88 42 f.; Tomb 89 33, 37, 38, 194 f.; Tomb 90 33, 35, 37; Tomb 91 42; 44,
537 199, 201; Tomb 92 42, 199 racotta Sculptures, Style Monochrome Ware (L. C.) Myres, J. L. 10, 216, 350, f.; Tomb 93 33, 37, 194 f.; IV 93, 123 ff. 187, 284 374, 376 n. 9, 400, 425 Tomb 94 33, 34, 35, 37, du Mesnil du Buisson 253 Montalto di Castro 345 Myrina 268, 315 Monumental architecture 452 Myron 338, 486 194 f.; Tomb 95 33, 37, Mesopotamian Arts and Crafts 385 ff. Monumental plastic 2°7, 353, Myrtle ornament 76 194 f.; Tomb 96 33, 36, 37, 355 f., 452, 456 f., 465 f. 194 I., 276, 278; Tomb 97 Mesopotamian built tombs 239 n. 9 Mopsuhestia 259 33, 37, 194 f., 276, 278; Mesopotamian Sculpture 339, Morphou bay 274 Tomb 98 33, 37, 38, 192 f. ; 343, 356, 358 Motya 385 Types of tombs 432; UnMesopotamian temple archi- Moufflon 460 published tomb 217 tecture 456 Mould M assaliotes, treasure-house Metal bowls, decorated see for casting earrings 385 n. of 228 Bowl 3; imported from Greece Nabataea 495 n. 2 Matanbaal 451 n. I Metal prototypes for pottery 119, 122 f., 338, 361, 365, Nabataean Architecture 236 f. Matz, F. 406 68, 81, 88, 295, 307, 438 474; Terracotta 170 Nabu 236 Mausoleum 125 Metharme 441 n. 9 (442) Moulded terracotta sculptures Nagidos 258 McDougall, W. 354 Metropolitan Museum see 95, 99, 105, 110, 1I8, 123, Nahr-el-Mukatta 248 Medusa head see Gorgo head Cesnola Collection 127 ff., 338, 358, 371 f., 474 N ail, Rivet, Cramp Megabyzos 483 f. Metropolitan Museum exca- Mouliana 376 n. 13 Bronze 148, 149, 217; Iron Megara 233 vation at Egyptian Thebes Mounting 136; Relative Chronology Megara Hyblaia 296 n. 4 Bone 181, 182; Bronze 154, 379 217 Megaton 27, 29, 233, 237, 154 f., 218; Foreign Re- Napata 240 Meyer, Ed. 437 nn. 2, 4 (438), 433, 486 lations 397 f., 417; Gold Naples, Museo Nazionale 490 n. I, 491 n. 2, 492 n. I Megessares 429 n. 9 167, 168, 222; Iron 136; 343 Middle Cypriote Megiddo 237, 248 f., 312, 379, Lead 137, 138; Relative Narnaka 441 n. 9 (442) Population of Cyprus 357; 393, 397, 399, 401, 404, 407 Chronology 218 220 222' National Museum, Athens Pottery 216, 272, 283, 286, f., 421 f. Silver 158 f., 1;9, 2;0 ' 332, 363, 407 n. 9 293 M ekonotk 404 Mouth-piece Naukratis 241 f., 296 n. 5, Melekiathon 413, 440 n. 2, Milesian colonies 292, 295, Gold 167, 168, 222; Rela300, 315, 318 ff., 331, 362, 305 494, 497 tive Chronology 220, 222; 366 ff., 388, 41I, 464, 469 f. Miletos 228 f. Melkart II, 281, 323, 462 Silver 158, 159, 220 Naukratis, statuettes from jzo "Melon" coiffure 347 Military organization 446, Mouti Sinoas 436 f. "Naucratite A" pottery 321 Melting pot 263 452 f. n. 8 . Mud-bricks, proportions of 2 Memphis 240, 322 al Mina 254, 423 n. 4 "Mulberry" earring 162 Nea-Paphos 437 n. 2 Menakem 440 n. 3 Minarichos 501 n. 8 Muller, C. 492 n, I Neapolis 437 n. 2 Menandros of Ephesos 437 f. Mining 459, 489 Muller, V. 232 n, 6 N earchos 506 n. 5 Menedemos of Eretria 499 Minoan Architecture 228,231, Museo Archeologico di Rodi N ebesheh 242 n. 3 234 262 n. 6, 362 Nebuchadrezzar 232, 236, 451 Mercenaries, foreign, in Minoan double-axe hieroMuseo Archeologico, n. 4, 467 n. 3 Egypt 355 glyph 381 Florence 310, 342. 345, 349, Necho 250 n. II Merenptah 240 Minoan script 444 351 Necklace Mersin 258 f. Minor and Animal Plastic Museo di Villa Giulia, Rome Bronze 146; Faience 172, Mersinaki 125 ff., 21I, 445 345 173, 224; Gold 166, 222; Greek influence on sculp- Minotaurus 126 f., 366, 371 Museo Nazionale, Naples 343 on sculptures 96, 108,1I5, tures from 362 ; Greek Mirror, Bronze 142, 145,215; Museum fur Kunst und Ge328, 330, 36o, 458; Relative Sculptures found in 337, Foreign Relations 381, 415, werbe, Hamburg 345, .U6 Chronology 222, 224 488; Limestone Sculptures, 420; Relative Chronology Music 444, 458 Needle Style I 93, 1I2 ff.; Lime215 Mycenae 228, 230 Bronze 143, 145, 215; Forstone Sculptures, Style II Misis 258 ff., 313, 463 Mycenaean eign Relations 395; Gold 93, 112 ff. ; Limestone Mitanni 227 Architecture 233; Colonists 161, 163, 221 ; Relative Sculptures, Style III 93, Mitford, T. B. 1I7 238, 31I; Colonization 428; Chronology 215, 218, 221; 1I9 ff.; Limestone Sculp- Mit Rahineh 392 n. 10 Horse-bit 399; Pottery 186 Silver ISS, 157, 218 tures, Style IV 93, 122; Mnasalkes 293 n, 7 f., 261, 282 ff., 294, 299, Nefertum (Pendant) 172, 395 Terracotta Sculptures, Style Mnaseas 501 306, 309 ; Shield 377 ; Negroid types 103 f., 356, I 93, 109 ff.; Terracotta Mobius, H. 398 Sword 374; Tombs 238, 467 n. 3 Sculptures, Style II 93, 109 Mode, Lydian 458 431 ff.; Triglyph 64 N eirab 292, 386 f. ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Monetary standard 502 Mykale 479 Nektanebos I 495 n. 8 Style III 93, 1I7 ff.; Ter- Monkey (Pendant) 172, 395 Myndos 389 N eo-Cypriote sculptures found
N
abroad 319, 320, 321 ff., 325 ff. Neo-Cypriote Style 92 f., 100 f. 104 ff., 127 ff., 207 ff., 357 ff., 468 f. Neolithic architecture 231 Nereid 404 Net-sinker, Stone 175, 177 Net-work pattern 55 Nicosia, Cyprus Museum see Cyprus Museum Nikokles of Salamis 496 f., 500 ff. Nikokles of Soli 506 n. 5 Nikokreon 499 n. 3, 506 f. Nikophernos 493, n. 4, 494 n. I, 502 n. 2 Nile-god (Pendant) 172, 395 Nilsson, Martin P:n 401 Nimrud 379, 381, 391, 394, 397, 408, 410 Nineveh 383 n. 8, 408, 449, 459 Ningal 236 Ninmach 236 Nippur 233 f., 486 Nitaphon 506 n. 5 Nora 269, 298 Nose-ring Gold 162, 163, 221; on sculptures 221 ; Relative Chronology 221 Nubia 240, 315, 450 Nudity in sculpture 1I2 ff., 120, 363 f., 366 f. Nure 450 "!Jursing mother" 319 Nuzi 379
Olmstead, A. T. 437 n. 4 (438), 450, 459 n. 7 Olympia 230 f., 377 f., 382, 407 f. Olynthos 233, 268, 3 15, 375, 389, 426, 465 Omphale 332 Ones agoras 450 n. 10 Onesilos 475 ff., 483 Onyx 180 Opisthodomos 12, 17, 474 Opposed animals 290 Oriental Institute, Chicago 249, 256, 292 n. 2, 383 n. 9 Oriental ornaments 289 ff. Orontes, river, 254, 256, 312, 462 f. Orontes, son of Artasyras 495 ff. Orthostats, decorated 227 Orvieto 232 n. II Osiris 336 von der Osten, H. H. 262 n. I '~~'tall.o/)a'tal 499 Other Arts and Crafts see Arts and Crafts Otterlo, Rijksmuseum Kroller-Miiller 306 f., 317 Ovidius 441 n. 9 (442) Ovis Cypria 460 Oxen, ceramic ornament 75 Oxus treasure 391 f. Oxyporos 441 n. 9 (442)
p
Painted sculpture 95, 1I8, 126 f., 290, 367 n. 4, 461 Palaetyrus 437 n. 4 (438) Palanga 339 Paleoskoutella 283 Oberhummer, E. 437 n. 2 Palestine, Arts and Crafts Oelmann, F. 236 found in 375, 377 n. II, Offering-receptacle, Terra383 cotta 170,171, 401 ff., 417 Palestine, Cypriote Pottery Offering-stand, Stone 176, found in 242 ff., 311 f. 177, 402, 4 17 Palestine, Cypriote Sculpture Ohly, D. 334 found in 322 f. Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. 6 ff., 42, 216, 319, 400, 412, 425 Palestine Exploration Fund 245 Olbia 229 Olive cultivation 459, 489, 500 Palestine Museum, Jerusalem 244 n. 4, 245 n. I, 246 n. 3, Olive leaves 73 247 n. 2, 250, 251 n. 6 Olive wreath 31I Palestine, trade with 311 Olpe 295
o
Palette, Bronze 143, 145, 215 Palmette ornament 76, 289 f., 304, 310 f. Pamphylia 261 f., 419 Panammu, statue of 339 Panathenaic peplos 461 n. 2 Panel style 50 f., 55, 65 Paphos 62, 231 in Cypro-Archaic Period 450 ff.; in Cypro-Classical Period 485 ff.; in CyproGeometric Period 428 ff.; Phoenician inscriptions 440 ; Types of tombs 431 f.; visited by Herostratos 470 Paphos, daughter of Pygmalion 441 n. 9 (44 2) Pappa 449 f. Papyrus flowers 246, 395 IIapa'll.Ulv~a'ta[ 499 Paradisotissa Sanctuary 17, 22, 23, 487 Parastades 37 Paris, le rnusee du Louvre 61 f., 109, 244, 289 n. 3, 310 Pasiades 281, 425 Pasikrates of Kurion 505 n. 3 (506) Pasikrates of Soli 506 Pasikypros 440 n. 3, 497, 506 Paste 182 Patake (Figurine) 172, 336 Pausanias 479 Payne, H. 208 n. I, 306 n. 3 Peace of Antalkidas 490, 494 Peace of Kallias 484 f., 487 ff. Pectoral collar 100 Peisistratos 228 Pella 228 Peloponnesian League 482 Peloponnesian School 363 Pelusion 505 Pendant Bronze 146, 217; Faience 172, 173, 224, 395, 447; Foreign Relations 394, 416 ; Glass 173, 174; Gold 164, 165, 166, 222; on sculptures 96, 106, 115, 330, 458; Relative Chronology 217, 220, 222, 224; Semi-precious Stone 179, 180; Silver 157. 158, 220; Stone 176, 177; Terracotta 169, 171 Pendant-ring Foreign Relations 394;
Gold 164, 165, 222; Relative Chronology 219, 222; Silver 156, 157, 219 Pennsylvania University Museum 250 f. Penthylos 478 Perachora 304, 373, 389, 410 n. I Pergamon 228 f. Peribolos wall I ff. Peristianis, 1. K. 437 n. 2 Peristyle 22, 24 f., 453 Persepolis 392 Persia Achaemenid period 289, 391 ff.; Allegiance to 362, 364, 370, 471; Anti-Persian League 475; Architecture 236 f.; Coins 414, 419; Influence on jewellery 388, 39 1, 473 Pestle, Stone 175, 177 Petrie, W. M. F. 242, 386, 421 n. 4, 425 n. 4 II6/)&ijv6~ 499 Phaethon 429 n. 9 Phaleron 299 Phaleros 428 n. 2, 467 n, 3 Phanias 499 n. 3 Pharakides 492 n. 3 Pharnabazos 414, 492 nn. 2, ~ Pharnake 429 n. 9 Pheidippos 428 Pherai 505 Pheretima 472 f. Phidias 124, 365, 503 Philaon 478 Philhellene ideals 502 ff. Philippi 252 Philokrates 494 n. I Philokypros 467, 475 Philon, Porch of 501 Phineus kylix 374 Phoenicia 252, 505 Phoenician Arts and Crafts 390, 395 f.; Colonization of Cyprus 357, 436 ff.; Craftsmen settled in Cyprus 436 n. 8, 438, 443, 459; Influence in Cyprus 439, 481; Inscriptions 436 f., 440 f.; Terracotta statuettes found in Cyprus 337; Tombs 247, 436; Trading Settlement in Cyprus 436 ff., 462 Phoenicians in Kition 436 ff., 462
538 Phokaia 268, 315, 495 Phokios 497 n. 10 Phrygian bonnet 378 n. 9 Phrygian flute 458 Phytian-Adam, W. ]. 244 Pi'ankhy 240 Pick-axe see Axe Pictorial decoration 61, 65, 67, 303 f., 316 Pieper, M. 422 n. 7 Pieria 254 Pilagura 449 .f. Pilaster' 42, 103 f., 237, 454 Pilaster at back of sculptures 356 Pin Bone 180, :(81" Bronze 143, 145, '215; Gold 161, 163, 221; Iron 134, 137, 213; Relative Chronology 213, 215" 221 Piraeus 493 n. 4 Pisidia 261' n, 6 Pithos burial 42 Pivot 42 Plain-bodied style 50 f., 55 Piain White Ware Classification 85 ff. Found in: Atlit 247; Defenneh 242; Egypt 241 f.; Gerar 243; Megiddo 249; Naukratis 241; Pidestine 247 ff.; Tell Abu' Hawam 248 Imitations of Cypriote Prototypes 248; Influentes from Greece 306 f.; Influences to and from the East 287 ff. ; Relative Chronology 186 ff. Plain White Wheel-made III (L. C) 187, 284, 287 Plakes, Lapethos 432 Plaque 137, 138, see also Mounting Plassart, A. 335 Plataiai 479 Plate Bronze 150, 151, 217; Relative Chronology, 217 ; Stone 176, 177,. Terracotta see Dish Plutarch 481 n. 2 Pnytagoras, king of Salamis 497, 500 n. 6, 505 f. Pnytagoras, prince of Salamis 495 n. 8, 496 , Pnyx 403
539 Poetry 444 Pollak, L. 412 Polledrara, tomb of 407 f. Polyainos 481 n. 2 Polycharrnos 470 Polychrome Red Ware 76 Polychrome sculpture 95, 118, 126 f., 290, 367 n. 4, 461 Polychrome White Ware Classification 66, 68; Relative Chronology 188 ff., 201, 202 ff. Polykleitian school 124 Polykleitos 364, 503 Polykrates 472, 502 Pomegranates (Pendant) 165, 396 Pompei 232 n, I I Porch of Philon 501 Portico 7, 22, 456 Porticullis door 42 Portrait art 95, 123, 352, 457 Potidaia 373 Potratz, H. A. 399 n. 3 Pottery Base-ring Ware (L. C) 284 f., 294; Bichrome Red Ware 73 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 268, 287 ff., 306; Bichrome Ware 60 ff., 186 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 241; 243 n., 252 ff., 259 ff., 264 ff.; 304, 421' ff., 435 f., 438 £. ; Black Lustrous W ~re 85, 199 ff.; Black-anRed Ware 68 ff., 188 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 240 f., 242 ff., 252 ff., 259 ff., 262 ff., 422 ff., 461; Black Slip Bichrome Ware 77, 186 ff., 202 ff.: Black Slip Painted Ware 76 f., 186 ff., 202 ff.; Black Slip Ware 77 ff., 186 ff., 195 f., 199 ff., 202 ff., 241 f., 261 f., 287 ff., 306, 434; Black Slip Wheel-made Ware (L. C) 284; Blue paint 291; Bucchero Ware (L. C) 287; Ceramic Constituents at the beginning of the Iron Age 282 ff., 434; Coarse Ware 91, 186 Cypriote Pottery found in Anatolia 258 ff., 311, 313 f.; the Cyclades 267 f.; Egypt 240 ff.; Greece 262
ff.; Palestine 242 ff., 311 f.; Rhodes 262 ff,; -Syria 252 ff., 31I ff. Foreign Relations 240 ff.; Greek Wares see Greek Pottery; Grey and Black Polished Ware 82 f., .188 ff.; Imitations of Cypriote Pottery 263 ff.; in CyproArchaic Period 192 ff., 202 ff., 461; in Cypro-Classical Period 199 ff., 203 ff., 487, 504 ; in Cypro-Geometric . Period 186 ff., 202 ff., 434 ff.; Influences to and .from the East 287 ff.; Influences to and from the West 292 ff.; Manufactured at trading factories 255, 259 ff., 268, 292, 295, 313, 316; Monochrome Ware (L. C) 187, 284; Plain White Ware 85ff., 186 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 241 f., 247 ff., 287 ff., -306 f., 434; Plain WhIte Wheel-made I-II (L. C) 284, 287; Polychrome Red Ware 76; Polychrome White Ware 66~ 68, 188 ff., 201, 202 ff.; Proto-Bichrome Ware (L. C) 187; Proto-WhitePainted Ware (L. C) 187, 192, 238, 283 f., 287; Red Lustrous Ware 85, 201 f.; Red Slip Ware 80 ff., 190 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 251, 252, 261, 262 ff., 287 f., 435 f., 438; Red Slip Wheel-made Ware (L. C) 192; Relative Chronology 186 ff.; Rhodian ornaments 308 f.; Stroke Polished Ware 84, 199 ff., 202 ff., 269, 307; Survivals of L. C ornaments 286 f.; Syrian Wares see Syrian Pottery ; White Painted Ware 48 ff., 186 ff., 193 ff., 199 ff., 202 ff., 287 ff., 304 ff., 421 ff., 434; White Painted Ware (L. C) 294; White Slip Ware (L. C) 50, 192, 283, 294, 434
Poulsen, F. 291 -n. 2, 302, 347, 412 Praeneste 407, 411 Praisos 407 Praxandros 428, 441 n. I) Praxippos 440 n. 6, 441 n. I) (442) Praxiteles 365, 503 Priene 228 f., 233, 486 Priest-king of Paphos 421), 446 Probe 143, 145, 420 Proedria 493 n. 4 Prokhorovka 405 Promalanges 498 f. Pronaos 12, 17, 23, 236, 474,
Fyramosiago Pythagoras 450 n. 10 Pytheas 450 n.1O Pyxis, Lead 137, 138
Q Qal'at er-Rus 253 Quadruped, ornament 55, 61, 64 f. Quara-yet 252
s
R
487 Proto-Attic Pottery see Greek Pottery Proto_Bichrome Ware (L.C) 187 Proto-Corinthian Ware see Greek Pottery Proto-Cypriote Sculptures found abroad 319, '323, 327 ff. Proto-Cypriote Style 92 ff., 105, 127, 129, 207 ff., 339 ff., 457 "Proto-Ionic" capital 42,237, 454 "Proto-Ionic" pilaster 237 Protome jug, origin of 284 f., 298 Proto- White-Painted Ware (L. C) 187, 192, 238, 283 f., 287 Pryce, F. N. 254 n. I, 319, 331, 367 n. 4, 423 n. 4 Przeworski, S. 376 Psammetichos I 355 Psammetichos II 451 Pseudo-sarcophagus 487 Pseudo-Skylax 429, 431 n.3, 441 n. 9 Ptah-seker (Pendant) 172,395 Ptolemy Soter 440 n. 6 Pudelko, G. 391 Pumaj 441 n. 9 (442) Pumiathon 440 n. 2, 497, 504, 506 Punic territories, Cypriote re-' lationsto 288, 298, 375, -385, 394 f., 400 f. Pygmaion 441 n. 9 (442) Pygmalion 441 n. 9 (442) Pyla 42, 47, 441, 487 Pylagoras 450
Relief decoration 42, 47 Rope-ladder pattern 50 Relief sculpture 117, 122, 125, Rosette ornament 50, 64 f., 336 f., 488 67,71,75, 246, 289 f., 300, Remodelled terracotta sculp303, 308 f., 316 tures 110, 118 Roundel, Bone 181, 181, 225 Rubble walls 24, 226 Repousse work 140 Rutten, M. 62 Resephiaton 440 n. 2 Revetment, technique of 23, Rujm el-Hawi 292, n. 7 Russia 385, 388 226 ff. Revolt Cypriote 499/8 B. C 364, 476 f.; of Cyprus, Egypt and Phoenicia 351 B. C 497; of the Satraps 497 Rhodes Sabouni 254 n. 2, 256 Arts and Crafts 373, 377, Sacred trees, enclosure for 4, 383 ff.; Besieged by De10, 17, 455 metrios Poliorketes 504 ; Saddle-shaped roof 39, 42, 45, Cypriote influence on pot454, 486 tery 292 ff.; Cypriote 111Saida 252, 323 fluence on sculpture 367 f. ; Sakje-Geuzi 226 Cypriote Pottery found on Salamis 262 ff., 315, 447, 464; Built tombs 454; Coins 413 Cypriote Sculptures found f., 419, 473, 490 n. I, 500 f., on 327 ff., 47Q; Influence 503 ; Greek Pottery found on Cypriote pottery 308 f. ; in 276" 278; Greek SculpMuseo Archeologico 262 ture found in 337; 111 n. 6, 362; Pottery from Cypro-Archaic Period 450 241 n. 4, 254, 256, 261 ff., ff.; in Cypro-Classical Pe274, 277, 292 ff., 423, 425 riod 479 ff.; in Cypron. 6; Sculpture from 362; Geometric Period 429 ff.; Trade with Cyprus 464 f. Mint of Alexander the Rhoikos 334, 475 n. 5, 500 Great 507; Onesilos' revolt Rhyton 88, 289, 389 476; Sculptures from 98; Rider see Horseman Textil~ masters -fro~ 460 Rihaniyyah 256 f. ;' Types of tombs 432 Riis, P. ]. 403 f. Salamis (Cypriote), battle of Rijksmuseum Kroller-Miiller, 499/8 B. C 452, 476 f., Otterlo 307 f., 317 483 f. Ring Salamis (Cypriote), battle of Glass 173, 174; Lead 136, 449 B. C 483 f. 137 Salamis (Cypriote), siege of Ring-vessel 50, 53, 61, 283 495 rin. 7, 8 Salamis (Greek), battle of Rippled lines 53, 55 River-ships 459 480 B. C 430, 475 n. 5, Rivet see Nail, Rivet, Cramp 478 f. Robertson, M. 423 n. 4 Salerno 411 Ftock-crystal 180 Saliyeh 292 n. 7 Salzmann, A. 330 Rod, Iron 134, 135, 213 Roman Architecture 229 Samaria 237, 246, 311, 425 Roman occupation 429 n. 9 Samos 295 f., 310, 316, 332 f., (43°) 360, 362, 369 f., 373,411 Rome 395 n. 9, 470 Rome, Musco di Villa Giulia Sanam 240 Sandakos 429 n. 9 345 Roof-beams, imitation of 42, Sandokes 478 n. 7 Sandon 429 n. 9 454
Rain-water, collecting of 24 f. Ramath Rahel 237 Ram-headed god 329, 332 Ramses II 251 Ramses III 251,-422 n.3 Ramses IV 501 n. 7 Ras el Ain 239 Ras Shamra 253 f., 379, 392 n.8 Rectilinear group of decoration 56 ff., 64, 444 Red Figured Ware see Greek Pottery Red Lustrous Ware 85,201 f. Red Slip Ware Classification 80 ff. Found in: Anatolia 261; Beth-shan 251 ; Athens 268 ; Dadia 268; Ialysos 262 ff.; Khirbet Selim 252; .Lindos 265; Palestine 251; Rhodes 262 ff.; Tarsos 261; Syria 252 Influences from Greece 3°5; Influences to and from the East 287 f.; Relative Chronology 190 ff. Red Slip Wheel-made Ware (L. C) 192 Reel Foreign Relations 404 f., 4 17; Gold 167, 168,222; Relative Chronology 220, 222; Silver 159, 159, 220 Regolini-Galassi tomb 256, 412 Relative Chronology Arts and Crafts 212 ff.; Introduction 184 ff.; Pottery 186 ff.; Sculpture 207
If.
S:t Germain, Musee des Antiquites nationales 253 n.7 Sanctuaries Achna 9 f., 12, 17, 18. 155; Ajia Irini I, 3, 17, 18, 234, 433, 445, 455; Ajios Jakovos 2, 17, 19, 4'43, 445; Bronze Age I, 232; Foreign Relations 226 ff.; Idalion 2, 5 ff., 12, 19, 20, 21, 22 f., 235, 443, 445, 456, 467, 486; Kition 10 ff., 19, 20, 235, 281, 456, 474; Kurion 12, 23, 474; of CyproArchaic Period 3 ff., 455 f.; of Cypro-Classical Period 12 ff., 486 f., 5°3; of Cypro-Geometric Period I ff., 433 £:; Paradisotissa 17, 22, 23, 487; Soli 12, 17, 22, 23, 474; Tamassos 9, 12, 455; Treasuries 16; Type I 17, 18, 234; Type 2 17, 19, 234;' Type 3 19, 20. 235; Type 4 21, 22, 235; Type 5 22, 23; Voni 10, 12, 19, 20. 455; Vouni 13 ff., 17, 19, 21, 22, 338, 455, 486 Sanida 436 Sarcophagus 39, II 6, 455, 487, 500 Sard 180, 182 Sardes 378, 387, 437 n. 2, 471,493 f. Sardi 378 Sardinia 269, 298, 315, 378, 385, 394 f., 399 f., 41I n. 9, 4 15 Sardinian bronze figures 378 Sargon 250 n. II, 336, 379, 437 n. 4 (438), 447, 449 f., 459 f. Sasmai 453, 483 Satrapies 475 Saul 246 Sayee, A. H. 262, 501 n. 7 Scarab 182 f., 225, 242 f., 247, 391, 398, 413, 419, 424 f.,
447 Scaraboid 182, 391 Sceptre Bronze 141, 142, 214 f., 225, 381 ; Relative Chronology 214 f., 225; Semiprecious Stone 179, 180, 225, 381
54° Schaeffer, C. 253 Schefold, K. 234 n. 2 ~x.'tJp.a'to&+l'lt'tJ 499 Schiff, A. 268, 425 Schmidt, H. 376 Schrader, H. 437 n. 2, 451 n. I Schumacher, G. 248 n. 9 Schweitzer, B. 93 n. I, 365 n. 4, 396 Sculptors, Cypriote, working abroad 318, 321, 335, 361 Sculptors, Greek, working in Cyprus 338 Sculpture Animal figures 128 f., 21I ; Arch-shaped line over girdle 350, 371; Arms bent forward at right angles 343 f., 371 ; Arms bent upwards and placed obliquely on the chest 344, 371; Arms, mechanically attached 94, 117; Arms, one vertical, the other across chest 355, 358; Attitude 94, 96, 98 ff., 105, 107, 109 f., 112 f., 117, 121, 319, 328 ff., 343 f., 355; Body, form of 94, 96, 97, 99 ff., 110, 112, 117 f., 120, 339 f., 358, 360, 370 f., 457; Bronze Sculptures 109, 129, 211, 336 ff., 445, 486 ff.; Carrying a quadruped on the shoulder 344, 371 ; Classification 92 ff.; Cypriote influence on foreign sculpture 365 ff.; Cypriote Sculptures found in Greece 327 ff. ; Cypriote Sculptures found in Egypt 318 ff.; Cypriote Sculptures found in Palestine and Syria 322 ff.; Cypro-Egyptian Style 92 f., 102 ff., 207 ff., 218, 220, 356 f., 468 f.; Cypro-Greek Styles 109 ff.; Diagram of local styles 93; Dress 94 f., 97 f., 99 ff., 107 f., 110, 112 ff., 118, 121, 319, 328 n. 6, 348, 358 f., 457 f., 502; Face, type of 95, 96, 98 ff., 110 f., 114 f., 118, 121 ff., 126 f., 344 ff.. 359 f., 457; Foreign Relations 318 ff.; Feet seen through an excision 340, 34I, 343, 371 ; Foreign influences on Cypriote Sculptures 339 ff.;
541 Foreign Sculptures found in Cyprus 336 ff.; Greek Sculptures found in Cyprus 337 f., 486 ff.; Hair-style 95, 96, 98 ff., 102 ff., 108, 114 ff., 119 f., 121 ff., 125, 127, 347 f., 359 f., 371, 458, 475; Hand lifting flap of garment 367, 371; Hands grasping plaits of hair 344, 371; Hands supporting the breasts 358; Imitations of Cypriote types 318; 111 Cypro-Archaic Period 456 ff.; in Cypro-Classical Period 486 ff., 503 f.; 111 Cypro-Geometric Period 444 f.; Jewellery 96, 100, 103, 106, 108, II 8, 121, 319, 328, 330 f., 360, 385, 458, 5°3; Legs, position of 358; Limestone Sculptures, Classification 95 ff., 99 ff., 107 ff., II2 ff., II9 ff., 124, 128 f.; Marble Sculptures 125, 488 ; Minor and Animal Plastic 125 ff., 2II; NeoCypriote Style 92 f., 100 f., 104 ff., 127 ff., 207 ff., 218, 220, 357 ff., 468 f.; Phoenician terracotta statuettes 337; Proto-Cypriote Styles 94 ff., 105, 127, 129, 207 ff., 218, 220, 339 ff., 457; Relative Chronology 207 ff.; Semi-human figures 125; Stratigraphical evidence 207 ff.; Syro-Anatolian bronze statuettes 336 f.; Terracotta Sculptures, Classification 94 f., 97 ff., 105 ff., 109 ff., II7 ff., 123 f., 125 ff. ; Unfinished 321 ; "Venus pudique" 105, 330, 358, 371 ; Weapons 117, 126, 214 Sculptures found in situ 7 ff., 14 Scythian bowl 406 Scythian horse-bit 399 Scythian invasion 250 n. 1 I Scythian Pottery 406 Scythians 392 Seal-stone 182 f., 225, 413, 4 19, 422 Secret police 498 f. Selefke 258 f. Seleukeia 254, 258 Selinunt 344 n. 16
Sidon, statuettes from, illusSellin, E. 250 Semi-human figures 125 ff., trated 324, 325 Sidqmelek 440 n. 6, 441 n. 9 445 (442), 485 Semi-precious Stone Bead and Pendant I79, 180, Sigynna 130, I3L 374 225; Glyptics 182; Relative Sikon 318, 321, 469 Chronology 225; Sceptre Silenus 378 Silenus figure 338 I79, 180, 225, 381 Sillu 449 f. Semiramis 459 Sillua 449 f. "Semitic" type of face 359 Sendjirli 226, 229, 232, 239, Silver 257, 292, 339, 345, 381, 383 Bead 156, Is7, 219; Bowl n. 9, 393, 399 159 ff., I60, 220; Bracelet 158, Is9, 220; Earring 156, Sendjirli, sculptures from, Is7, 219 ; Fibula 155, I57, illustrated 34I, 343, 348, 349 219; Finger-ring 156, Is7, Sennacherib 236, 261, 314, 219; Frontlet 158, Is9, 220; 423, 436 f., 449, 459 n. 7, Girdle ISS, Is7. 219; Hair463 ring ISS, I57, 219; Jug Serpent charmer 107, 368 I60, 161, 220; Mining of Sesostris I 379 459; Mounting 158, Is9, Seti I 501 220; Mouth-piece 158, Is9. Seti temple of Beth-shan 251 220; Needle ISS, I57, 218; Shaghanbeh 242 Pendant Is7, 158, 220; Shalmaneser III 436 Pendant-ring 156, Is7, 219; Shalmaneser V 437 n. 4 (438) Reel Is9, 159, 220; RelaSheep, art of shearing 460 tive Chronology 218 ff.; Shell-wall 24 Toilet and Surgical InstruShemii 103, 107 f., 319, 358 ments 158, Is9, 220; Shepherd's Crook, Bronze Siren 143, 294 I4 I, 142, 214 Sirkeli 258 f. Shield Siromos 475 n. 3 Bronze I39, 140, I4I, 214; Sitia 300 Foreign Relations 376 ff., Six, J. P. 437 n. I 415, 419 f.; Iron 132, 212; Sjoqvist, E. 23 Loops of shield 378; ReSkopas 124, 365, 503 lative Chronology 212, 214 Slinger's Bullet, Lead 136, I37 Ship-building 459, 460 n. I, Smelting-pot 170, I7I, 263 500, 506 n. 5 Smyrna 332, 337 Ships, planks for 459 Snakes representing goddess Ships promised to Agamem401 non 430 "Snow-man" technique 126. f. Shipton, G. 248 n. II, 249 "Soft style" of Ionian art 369 n. 3 Soli Shipwrights 459, 489 Capture of 426; Coins 413; Shoes, pointed 348 f. in Cypro-Archaic Period Shovel, Bronze I4I, 142, 215 450; in Cypro-Classical Sichem 232 n. 6 Period 492 ff.; Sanctuary Sicily 292, 296, 298 f., 302, 12,17, 22, 23, 474 306, 3 15, 382, 385, 390 n. 7,
.
394, 465 Sickle Iron 134, I3s, 213; Relative Chronology 213 Side 414 Sidon 252, 312, 323 ff., 366 f., 399, 4 13 n. II, 437 f., 441, 451, 462, 497 n. 10, 50S
Soli (Cilicia) 258 ff. Solomon 404 Solon 467 Souk su 258 f. Soul-bird 65 Spade Iron 134, I3s Spain 269, 315, 378, 395, 415
Sparta 344, 410, 471, 482, 492 ff. Spatula 143, I4s, 215, 420 Spear-head Bronze 138, I39, 214; Foreign Relations 374 f., 414, 419 f.; Iron 130, I3I, 212; Relative Chronology 212, 214 ; Sigynna 130, I3I, 374 Sphinx 129, 166, 327, 329, 331, 336, 363, 396, 398 Sphinx, ceramic ornament 75, 289, 303, 3II Spindle-whorl Bone 180, I8I; Faience 172, I73; Relative Chronology 223 f.; Stone 175, I77, 224; Terracotta 169, I7I, 223 Spiral ornament 51 Spit Iron 134, I3s "Splanchoptes" 488 Splint armour see Armour Spoke ornament 50 Spoon see Toilet and Surgical Instruments Spyridakis, K. 489 n. I, 490 n. 8, 491 n. 3, 494 n. 7, 496 n. 2 Stag, ceramic ornament 75 Stag statuette 129 "Standmotif" 119, 121, 364 Starkey, J. L. 423 n. I, 425 n. I Stasandros 506 n. 5 Stasanor of Kurion 475 f. Stasanor of Soli 506 n. 5 Stasikypros 480 Stasinos 444, 458 Stasioikos 364 n. 6, 483, 485 f. Statens Historiska Museum, Stockholm 286 n. 5, 376 n.: II, 377 n. I Steatite 182 Stele from Lysi II7 Stele of Sargon II 336, 449, 460 Stemmed bowl, origin of 305 Stephanos Byz, 429, 441 n. 9 (442) Stewart, J. 441 n. 3 Stirrup-jug 282 Stoa Basileios 493 n. 4 Stockholm, Cyprus Coli. 34I, 343,345 Stockholm, Statens Historiska
Museum 286 n. 5, 376 n. II, 377 n. I Stone Alabastron I77, 178, 224; Amphoriskos and Amphora I77, 178; Bead 176, I77, 224; Bowl 176, I77; Box 178, I79; Crater 178, I79,' Grinder 175, I77; Jar I77, 178; Jug I77. 178; Ladle 176, I77; Lamp 176; Lid 178, I79; Loom-weight 175, I77; Mace-head 175, I77; Net-sinker 175, I77; Offering-stand 176, I77; Pendant and Amulet 176, I77; Pestle 175, I77; Plate 176, I77; Relative Chronology 224; Spindle-whorl 175, I77, 224; Weight 178, I79; Whetstone 175, I77 Stone Age architecture 231 Storage vessels 272, 277, 312 ff., 318, 459, 489 Strainer Bronze 152, Is3, 218; Terracotta 49, 60, 85; Inserted in jug 66 Strainer, origin of 285 Stratigraphical method 184 f. Stratonikos 499 n. 3, 502 Strigil Bronze I4I, 142, 215; Foreign Relations 381, 415, 42o; Iron 134, I3s, 213; Relative Chronology 213, 215 Stroke Polished Ware Classification 84; Found in Sardinia 269; Influences from Greece 307; Relative Chronology 199 ff. Stylli Greek Pottery found in 274; Pottery from 91; Tomb I 29, 3I; Tomb 2 33, 35, 193 ff., 223, 275, 310; Tomb 3 33, 37, 193 f.; Tomb 4 33, 37, 192 f.; Tomb 5 33, 37, 192 f.; Tomb 6 33, 37, 192 f.; Tomb 7 29, 189 f., 223; Tomb 8 29, 189 f.; Tomb 9 29, 189 f.; Tomb 10 33, 35, 38, 192 ff., 223; Tomb II 33, 34, 35, 37, 194 f.; Tomb 12 33, 37, 38, 192 ff.; Tomb 13 33, 37, 192 f.;
Tomb 14 29, 192 f.; Tomb 381 ff., 415 ; Curls 347; 15 29, 189 f.; Tomb 16 Architecture 226 f., 229, 33, 37, 193 f.; Tomb 17 237 f.; Immigration into 33, 37, 192 f., 217, 223; Cyprus 288, 355, 357, 436 Tombs, types of 32, 37 ff., 443; Influence on CyStylobate 27, 231, 453 priote Sculpture 236, 239; Styppax 488, 502 Ivory Sculpture 397 ; SculpSub-Archaic Cypro-Greek ture 366, 381; Tombs 239 Sculptures found abroad Syrian Pottery 322, 325 f., 330 Bichrome Red Ware 269 Sub-Archaic Cypro-Greek ff., 287, 291; Bichrome Styles 93 ff., II7 ff., 127, Ware 188 ff., 269, 291; Black-on-Red Ware 186 ff., 129, 209 f., 364 ff., 487 Sub-Mycenaean type of fibula 269 ff., 287, 291; Black 216 Varnished Ware 194 f.; "Sub-Philistine" jug 421 Cypriote influence on 291 f., 447; earlier considered Sudatory 25, 27, 230 Cypriote 270 n. I; Plain Sueida 254 Summary and Historical SurWhite Ware 269, 274; Povey lychrome Red Ware 188 f. ; Polychrome Ware 186 ff., Cypro-Archaic Period 449 ff.; Cypro-Classical Period 269 f., 273 n. 10 (274); 479 ff.; Cypro-Geometric Red Slip Ware 188 f., 269 Period 428 ff. ff., 273 n. 10 (274), 287; Types of vases imported to Sumerian art 359, 385 Cyprus 271 ; White Painted Sun-disc 397 Superimposed plant ornament Ware 186 ff., 269, 273 n. 10 (274), 291 f. 3°4 Support So, 53, 61, 283, 292, Syro-Anatolian bronze statuettes 336 f., 342 315 "Support d'aiguiere" 400 Syro-Anatolian Sculpture Surgical Instruments see Toi339 ff. let and Surgical Instru- Syro-Palestinian Pottery 242, ments 269 ff., 287 ff. Susa 236, 386, 392, 484, 492 n. 3 Swastica 50 f., 55 f., 308 Sword Iron 130, I3I, 212, 504; Foreign Relations 372 ff., Tabnit, tomb of 399 414, 420; Presented to Taharqa 450 Alexander the Great 504; Talcott, L. 427 n. 2 Relative Chronology 212 Tamassos Swivel-ring see Finger-ring, Glass oven 412; Greek Gold and Silver Sculpture found in 337; Syllabary inscriptions 262, Greek Pottery found in 278; Incorporated into Sa277, 413 f., 430 f., 440 f., lamis 506; in Cypro-Ar444, 469 n. I, S0l Symmetry, architectural 22, chaic Period 450; Phoenician inscriptions 440 f.; 27, 231, 235, 453, 456 Syracuse 269, 296 n. 4, 4II Sanctuary 9, 12, 17, I8, 455; Sold to Kition 497; n·9 Syria, Cypriote Pottery found Tombs 33, 39, 4I , 42, 237, in 252 ff., 3II ff. 454 Syria, Cypriote Sculpture Tambourine-player 102, 107, found in 323 ff. 112, 126, 129, 329 Syrian Tamesu 449 f. Arts and Crafts 216, 375, Tamiradai 429, 446
T
54 2 Tamiras 429 Tanaverdi 258 ff. Tankard 91 Tantah 322 Tanturah 246 Tarsos 258 ff., 285, 292, 313, f., 383, 423, 463 Teleutias 494 Tell Abu Hawam 248, 3II. 383 n. 9, 389 n, 13. 422 n. 6 Tell AmI' 248 Tell Beit Mirsim 246 Tell ed-Duweir see Lachish Tell el-Ful 408 Tell el-Hesy 232 n. 6, 244. 312 Tell el-Yahudiyeh 242 Tell en-Nasbeh 232, 246 Tell er-Retabeh 242 Tell es-Safi 322 Tell ez-Zuweyid 242 Tell Fara see Beth-pelet Tell Halaf 226 f., 343, 344 ff., 393 Tell jernmeh see Gerar Tell Judeideh 256, 292, 312 Tell Sheikh Yusuf 254 ff.• 292, 304 n. 4, 312 f., 326, 423 ff., 462 f. Tell Sukas 253 Tell Tainat 256 f., 292, 312, 422, 424, 446 Tell Tebilleh 241, 315 Temenos Iff., 234 f., 433, 455. 487 "Temple-boy" 326 Temple in antis 12, 23, 474. 487 Tenos 274, 310 Tepe Gawra 232 Tepe Hissar 381 Terracotta Box 170, 171; Chapel, Model 170, 171; Incense-burner 170. I7I; Incense-lamp 170 171; Lamp 169 f., 171, 223 ; Loom-weight 169, 171; Mould 170; Offeringreceptacle 170. 171; Pendant 169, 171; Relative Chronology 223; Smeltingpot 170, 171, 263; Spindlewhorl 169, 171, 223 Thn'j'o<; 396 Teucrian migration 428. 434 Teukros 428, 441. 467 n. 3, 489 n. 3
543 Textile manufacture 460 f. Textile prototypes of ceramic pattern 290, 301, 316, 461 Thalassocracy, Cypriote 465 Thannak 248. 250, 312 Tharros 269, 389 n. 7 Thasos 363 n. 2 Thebes in Egypt 379. S0l Thebes in Greece 4II n. 9, 492 n. 3, 493 n. 5 Theias 429 n. 9 (430) Theophrastos 460, 498 Theopompos 429. 495 n. 7 (496) Thera 233, 267 f., 294. 296, 300, 304. 309, 3 15, 389, 425 Therapne 441 n. 9 Theseus and Antiope 363 "Thessalian" Proto-Geometric Ware see Greek Pottery Thetis 404 Thiersch, H. 232 n. 6 Thmuis 406 n, 6 Thompson, C. R. 450 Thymbra 262 Thymiaterion 399 Thymondas 505 Tig-ani 332 Tiglath-pileser III 253, 437 Til-Barsib 392 f., 407 Timagoras 430, 475 n. 5 Timber-cutting 460, 489 Timocharis 485 Timonax 430. 475 n. 5. 478 Tiribazos 414, 493 n. 5, 495 f., 497 n. 10 'I'iryns 403 Tissaphernes 490 n. 5, 491 n. 5 Toe-ring Bronze, 146, 147, 217 Toilet and Surgical Instruments Bronze 143, 145, 215; Faience 172, 382; Foreign Relations 381 f., 415, 420; Relative Chronology 215, 220; Silver 158, 159, 220 Tomba della Pietrera 353 n. I Tomb figure, Marion 124, 455 Tomb figures, Athenian 124 Tomb relief 125. 454 Tombs Barrel-shaped roof 45 ff.; Bench, rock-cut 35, 45 ; Built tombs 33, 39. 239, 432, 454, 487; Burial cus-
toms 433, 455, 487; Corbelvault 33, 42• 454; Dromos 30 f., 238. 454; Foreign Relations.ajx f.; of CyproArchaic Period 33 ff., 34, 36, 38. 40, 41, 452 ff, ;of Cypro-Classical Period 42 ff.• 43, 44. 46, 47, 487, 504; of Cypro-Geometric Period 29 ff., 31, 34, 431 ff. ; Phoenician 436; Inscriptions 436; Mycenaean 238. 431 ff., 452; Niche 29 ff., 35, 45, 504; Parastades 37; Pithos burial 42; Pitshaped 29, 33, 42, 432; Relief decoration 42, 47. 454; Revetting of the rock 32. 432, 454; Rock-cut 29, 33. 238, 43 1 f.• 454 Saddleshaped roof 39, 42• 45, 454; Sarcophagus 39. II6, 455, 487; Side-chamber 45 ; Tomb offerings 433. 455; Tumulus 30, 455; Vaulted roof 39. 42, 454 Tomb stone 120, 122. 455 Tomiik 258 Tomiik kalesi 259 Tongue pattern 406. 419 Toothed border 75 "Torch-holder" 400 Tortoise (Figurine) 164, 165, 179, 338. 396 Tower 5 f Trachonas tomb 33. 39, 40, 42, 454 Trade with Anatolia 446; Athens 280 f., 317. 465, 488 f., 501; Cilicia 446. 463; Egypt 315, 447, 464, 501; Greece 274 f., 279 ff., 315 ff., 364 n. I, 447, 464, 488 f., 501; Palestine 3II f., 462; Phoenicia 390, 447; Syria 313, 446 f., 462 f. Trading factory 255, 259, 313, 3 16, 326, 335, 361, 447, 462 ff. Transparent dress 358 Tray, Mycenaean 283 Treasuries 16, 228 Tree-ornament 55. 64, 67. 75, 289 f., 304 Trees, sacred, enclosure for 4, 10, 17, 455 Triangles 50 f., 53, 55, 309 f.
Tribute 449, 459, 467, 491 Trick vase 53, 60, 64. 70, 73 Tridacna shells 291 n. 2 Triglyph and half-rosette ornament 64 Triglyph, Mycenaean 64 Tripartite temple 62 Tripod, Bronze 149; 150. 217, 403 f., 417, 420, 447 Tripod stand see Support Troy 230, 262, 285, 295, 300, 3 14, 385 Tshmyrev 406 f. Tukulti-Ninurta I 236 Thukydides 479 Tumulus 30, 42, 455 Tunic 94, 97, 103, 108 Turabi 272 Turban-shaped head-dress 108 Turquoise 386 Turret 2, 5 f. T utankhamen, tomb of 393, 399 Tweezer Bronze 141, 142, 215; Foreign Relations 380, 415; Iron 134, 135, 213; Relative Chronology 213, 215 Tyrnpanon-player 105, 319, 321, 329 f. Tyre 252, 312, 325, 399, 436 ff., 450 f., 459, 462, 484, 494 f., 505 f. Tyropoeon valley 245 Tyrseni 232, 354, 456 f.
u Ugarit 239, 253 f. Unasagusu 450 Unfinished sculpture 321 University College:. London 240, 319, 322, 4II Upridissa 450 n. 5 Ur 236 Uraeus 100 Urania 441 n. 9 (442) Urartu 391
v van Dyke pattern 50 f. Varsak 262
Vaulted roof 39, 42, 454
"Venus pudique" 105, 330, 358, 37 1 Vetulonia 339, 342, 347 I., 349, 407 Victoria and Albert Museum, London 391 n. II Villa Ariadne, Candia 269 n. 2 Vincent, H. 400 Vitruvius 229 Voni Sanctuary 10, 12, 19. 20, 455 V otive stelae 237 Vouni Absolute Chronology 426 f. ; Bronze objects from 214 ff.; Coins 414, 494; Faience objects from 224; Foreign Relations 226 ff., 231 ff.; Gold objects from 221 ff., 473; Greek influence on sculptures from 362 ff. ; Greek Pottery found in 276 ff., 463 n. 3, 479 n. 5 (48o); Greek Sculptures found in 338, 486 f.; III Cypro-Archaic Period 23 ff., 453 f.; in Cypro-Classical Period 23 ff., 485 f.; Iron objects from 212 f.; Limestone Sculptures. Style I 93, II2 ff.; Limestone Sculptures, Style II 93, II2 ff.; Limestone Sculptures, Style III 93, II9 ff.; Limestone Sculptures, Style IV 93, 122; Main temenos 12 f., 21, 22; Palace 24 ff., 26, 28, 226 f., 230 ff., 453 f.; Pottery from 241; Rooms 101, II3, II4, Il7. 132-135 13 f., 17, 19, 455 ; . Sanctuary of Athena 13, 15 f., 21, 22, 338, 486; Silver objects from 218 ff., 406 f., 410; Stone objects from 224; Stratigraphical
excavations I85, 202, 209 f., 426; Terracotta objects from 223; Terracotta Sculptures, Style I 93, 109 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style II 93, 109 ff.; Terracotta Sculptures, Style III 93, II7 ff. ; Terracotta Sculptures, Style IV 93, 123 ff.; Tomb I 42, 217, 219, 224; Tomb 2 42, 45, 199, 201, 213, 225; Tomb 3 42, 199, 201, 215, 219, 223 f.; Tomb 4 42, 199, 201; Tomb 5 42; Tomb 6 42, 199, 201, 224; Tomb 7 42, 199, 201, 224; Tomb 8 42. 44, 199, 201, 213; Tomb 9 42, 199, 201; Tomb 10 42, 43; Tomb II 42, 199, 201; Tomb 12 42, 43, 45, 199 f. ; Tomb 13 42, 45. 199, 201; Tomb 14 42, 199, 201, 217, 28o; Tomb 15 42, 45, 199, 201; Tomb 16 42, 219 Vrokastro 376 n. 13, 403, 447 Vroulia 266 f., 305 n. 7, 315, 327 f., 425, 464 Vulci 341, 344, 347, 368 n. I, 407, 4II n. 9
w Wace, A. J. B. 337 Wachtsmuth, F. 227 Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 397 War-chariot 339, 452 Warriors, ceramic ornament 308 Warrior, type of 339, 371 Water-pipe 25
Watzinger, C. 248 n. 9,268 n. 2,400 f. Wavy lines 50 f., 53, 55, 59 Weaving handicraft 460 Weight Bronze 154, 155, 218; Lead 137, 138; Relative Chronology 218; Stone 178, 179 Well-cistern 25 Western Neo-Cypriote Style 105 ff., 359 ff. Western style of pottery 64 f., 67, 444, 461 Westholm, A. 239 Whetstone 175, 177 \Vhite Grounded Ware see Greek Pottery White Painted Ware Absolute Chronology 421 ff.; Classification 48 ff. Found in: Aigina 269; Alishar Htiyiik 262; Anatolia 259 ff.; Beth-pelet 242 f.; Beth-shan 250 ff.; Bethshemesh 245; Byblos 252; Carchemish 257; Dol' 246 f.; Egypt 240f.; Gela 269; Gerar 243, 422, 425; Gebiah 245, 422; Ialysos 262 ff.; Khirbet Selim 252; Lachish 244, 425; Lindos 265 f.; Megiddo 249, 421; Memphis 240; Palestine 242 ff.; Phokaia 262 ff.; Rhodes 262 ff.; Sendjirli 257; Syria 252 ff.; Tarsos 259 ff.; Tell Abu Hawam 248; Tell el-Hesy 244; Tell ez-Zuweyid 242; Tell Sheikh Yusuf 255 f.; Tell Tainat 257,422; Tell Tebilleh 241 ; Vroulia 266 f., 425 Influences from Greece 304 ff.; Influences to and from the East 287 ff.; Relative Chronology 186 ff. White Painted Ware (L. C.) 294
White Slip Ware see Greek Pottery White Slip Ware (L. C.) So, 192, 283, 294, 434 Widengren, G. 450 n, 9 Wiegand, Th. 332 Wig, Egyptian 100, 103, 114, 359 f. Window-casements, imitation of 42, 454 Wine cultivation 489, 500 Wood-working 459 f., 500 VIr001 460, 500 'vVoolley, C. L. 252 n. 9, 254, 255 n. 2, 257, 423 n. 4
x Xenophon 471 n. 3, 372, 494 n.2 Xerxes 475 n. 5, 478 Xylotyrnbou 33, 39, 40, 42, 454
y Yorgan Tepa 379
z Zahn, R. 401 Zedekiah 451 Zeitiin 259 Zenon S0l Zeus 124, 335, 365 Zeus Amon 331 Zeus Soter 493 n. 4 Zigzag lines S0, 55, 309 f. Zoilos 504 Zone style 50 f., 55, 65 Zotenberg, H. 501 n. 6 Zotimos 475 n. 5
Fig. I
WHITE PAINTED I WARE DISH
N. B. In a very few cases the classification of the vases is slightly different from that given in the excavation reports owing to the fact that, in the meantime, I have modified my view as regards the typological attribution of the vases in question. The discrepancies are, however, inconsiderable and have no bearing upon the general system of classification.
1a
2
1b
BOWL 7)
EINAR GJERSTAD
3
2
4a
4b
5
8a
6
8b
10
Fig. HI
'[
WHITE
WHITE PAINTED I W ARE
PAINTED WARE
STRAINER I)
JAR
BOWL
J}
J}
GOBLET -r-_ _.4) ~--
2 13a
13c
2a
JUG 15
14b
W)~%
~
11)
16}
.~
2a
1ia
16
4a
18a
16)
,--_:"'--
18b
17b 15}
19
20
21
22
2c
3
4b
TV
Fig. V
WHITE PAINTED I WARE
WHITE PAINTED I WARE FLASK
,JUG
BOTTLE
3~
I~ 5
7
6
80
8b
2
3
4
6
5'
AMPHORA 9)~-
11
9
12b
120
7
2 4b
HORN-SHAPED VASE
15b
150
14
13
5
r6~)...::;~" ,
16
170
17b
18
19
20
6
3
'/
Fig. Vll
WHITE
PAINTED I WARE
WHITE PAINTED I WARE AMPHORA
AMPHORA HYDRIA
ASKOS
3)~
2 8a
8b
7
SUPPORT
9b
8)n~~~
RING-VESSEL lb
ANIMAL-SHAPED VASE
8e
9a
2
vut
Fig. IX
BLACK SLIP PAINTED I WARE
BICHROME I WARE BOWL
,)
BOWL
~9' 1
L7 2 10
BLACK SLIP BICHROME I WARE
4)
lb
AMPHORA
.....
~~
6
20 10)
~~ii?
JUG
8
3 I
r------------------------
/
BLACK SLIP I WARE
I
I
2
6) \
6b
20
~
2b
AMPHORA
,/B0
/
10) ,,--------'--
i'9)\J I I )
7
WL
·12
JUG
I
---~"-"~I
I I
5
20)
I
I
I
I I I I
I I
3 8
2
BOTTLE
FLASK
ASKOS
4
:
2
x PLAI N WH ITE I WARE
BLACK SLIP I WARE JUG
STRAINER
JUG
4) 4
3b
3a
0
5b
5a
2
AMPHORA
2
3a
-(J
BOTTLE
1b
1a
3b
4a
4b
5
AMPHORA 13)
., II)
2a
~J)
3c ..
3b
3a
2b
PLAIN WHITE I WARE
to
BOWL 14)
f)
15).
16)
17)
QJJ':::J7'l7~ 1
2
3a
3b
4
6b
1*
2c
XIl
Fig. XUI
WHITE PAINTED II WARE
WHITE PAINTED II WARE
BOWL
DISH
8)
2P
10
3
-~
~OWL
BASKET
m~
JJ
4
'~'~ So
60
7b
90
9b
10
80
5b
70
8b
9b
10
IV
Fig. XV
WHITE PAINTED II WARE
WHITE PAINTED II WARE RING-VESSEL
BOTTLE
ASKOS
AMPHORA
2 5)
HORN-SHAPED VASE
ANIMAl-SHAPED VASE
------------------------,
---7J"---.r'o . -1 7) 1 \~
2
DISH
I--------_._---2 --- - -- -- --BOWl
BICHROME IIW ARE 12)
2
3
4
2
(VI
Fig. XVlI
BLACK SLIP II WARE
BICHROME II WARE
AMPHORA
JUG STRAINER
PLAIN WHITE II WARE 4)
JUG
~
BOWL
)~
8
~
)
"I/'Q7 I
3
~
4
7)
BASKET
2)
6
5
3
3
12)
1b
2
)~ .~
~ 5
13)
W
..
6
4
;
II)
IO)
9)
\J7~
.......
2
.
7
15)
8
9
I6)
8
JAR
BOTTLE
1
FLASK
BLACK SLI P PAINTED
'tl
ASKOS 2
BLACK SLIP BICHROME II WARE
II WARE
40
AMPHORA
BOWL
DISH
2
3
5
6
Fig. XIX
XVIII
WHITE PAINTED III WARE
WHITE PAINTED III WARE
JUG
BOWL
2 2
\
4
3
5
6
5
8)
6
7
70
9
JAR
14)
__
110
2
llb
12
13
FLASK
BOTTLE
xx BICHROME III WARE
WHITE PAINTED III WARE AMPHORA
BOWL 2)
DISH
~
lb'" lc*
10 *
20
4b
40
3'"
9),,
_
30
2
HYDRIA
3b
Fig. XXIll
XII
BICHROME III WARE BICHROME III WARE
JAR
BASKET
~
JUG
5) "
2
10
11 13
6)
12
JUG 3
18 15
AMPHORA
,BOTTLE
",,,". " 6
9)"
20 15)
2b
2a
2
19
16
17)
10~) <
1a
1b
2
~
4
5b
5a
16)
61
7
1•
6a
........ 8
9 2c*
XIV
Fig. XXV I
BLACK-ON-RED I (III) WARE
BICHROME III WARE AMPHORA r) ....~ ~ ~
,
BOWL
5
RING-VESSEL 4)
~§l>..--,
7b 4
3
ANIMAL-SHAPED VASE
SUPPORT
8>_ _ 2
BLACK-ON-RED I (III) WARE
2
4
(XVI
Fig. XXVU
BLACK-ON-RED I (III) WARE
RED SLIP I (III) WARE HYDR'A
AMPH6RA
3)
JAR 2) . r - - - - - - - -..........
4
AMPHORA 7
ee
CUP 1
2
BLACK 'SLIP III WARE
2
1b
10
PLAIN WHITE III WARE
JUG
AMPHORA 6)
2
JUG
18)
________________________ ~_ RED SLIP I (III) WARE GREY AND BLACK : BOWL POLISHED I (III) WARE: 13) 14)
.
)~
7)
V \
'\~r
AMPHORA
:, 9»)]7)\
c:?
1
2
l
20
2b
l
2
4
3
17)
4
0
'1 25)
6
'""~~~~~~/)
10~ e~! 1
19) .5
3
16)
I
20)
(J5
"'"
'= I 7
5
4
24)
5 8
9
10
W
2
AMPHORA HORN-SHAPED
~XVIIl
Fig. XXIK
WHITE PAINTED IV WARE
WHITE PAINTED IV WARE
BOWL
4)
5)
Z:::v ~ tv 0 1
20
2b
.
'Ui CO;
3
4
~r---\.~~~;;;;p ~'~
'J:7
7
7
6
8
1)
3)-'"""'""'--
5
9)
<:::
JUG
6)
1~1)~~~~
~ 9
12
10
13b
14
15
JAR GOBLET 12)
6-
13 a
CUP '3)~
16
17a
~
19
II)
17b
AMPHORA
18
JUG 16)
17)
2
18)
'6'i ~ 30
3c
3b
4
20
22)
5
~ 6
27) Ib
23) 24) 26)
1a
7
8
9
lOa
lOb
11 b
1c
Fig. XXXI
'(x BICHROME IV WARE
WHITE PAINTED IV WARE AMPHORA I)
BOWL 1)
r-__.12
140
14b
BASKET 5)
~;?
6)
BIRD-SHAPED VASE
~~
10
Ib
2a
JAR
1
2b
9) • •
10)
II)
3
2
BICHROME IV WARE BOWL
7)
8)
'=C7~ 1 Ij)
II)
~
16)
4'
Ij)
2a
C6.
~
.
4a
4b
2b 7
)
14)
,
15)
3
.
.~~~ 8) 6
5
7
8
19)
~?,~~I~/e~ 9a
9b
10
11
5
6
XXXII
Fig. XXXIII
BICHROME IV WARE
BICHROME IV WARE
JAR I)
r--------,
JUG \
1
..... _....
I
<,J
"
, " .. -........
t I ,
, ,
1
I
,
, I
: I
40
3 9)
2 8)~~-
8
7
9
60 10
10 •
7)
11 0"
11 b'" 6c 13)
6b 9
12
70
7b 17) 18)
130
13b
10
11
12
130
13 b
XXXIV
Fig. XXXV
BICHROME IV WARE
BICHROME IV WARE JUG I)
JUG
,c>~n
14b 19
18b
18a
20
21
.
14c 14d
24
22 23a
15b
BOTTLE
16a
AMPHORA 15a
16b
16c
17
2a*
2b*
'(XXVI
Fig. XXXVII
BlACK-ON·RED II (IV) WARE
BICHROME IV WARE
BOWL AMPHORA
I)
U5 2
4b
4a
3
6)
11
6
17)
-r8) 6b
6a
5
9)
7)
ASKOS
8)
g ....
..
~.:~.:.:.';.:.:;
.
~ 13
Qj" ~' 19)
'14
22)
15
20)
8
BIRD-SHAPED VASE 12)
7
17
18c
19
XXXVIII
Fig. XXXIX
BLACK-ON-RED II (IV) WARE
BLACK-ON-RED II (IV) WARE JAR
JUG
1) t!J~.
@@@@)@)@@@)
, e(@@~@®@@®~~~~ J@@@@@@)@@@@(@(0)(@(0\ 140 2
o
14b
3
19
200
20b
210
AMPHORA 16) 4
5
II)
6
BOTTLE
23
24
5b
30
ASKOS
2
...... ALABASTRON
~
7
8
10
11
12
13
2
21)
XL BICHROME RED I (IV) WARE
BLACK-ON-RED II (IV) WARE
JAR
AMPHORA
3 4
2b
3
8)
JUG 4)
5
HYDR'A ,
2
6
4 4
2c
BICHROME RED I (IV) WARE
JAR
BOWL
,
,
~.
9)
1b
dQ§£££S3
10
2
8.
9
10
11
XLII
Fig. XLIII
BICHROME RED I (IV) WARE
RED SLIP" (IV) WARE
JUG 1)
13
14
12
JUG 3)
AMPHORA 1 _
15
8)
2b
ASKOS 16
5
RED SLIP II (IV) WARE
BLACK SLIP IV WARE
"JUG 15)
8a
8b
9
FLASK.
GREY AND BLACK POLISHED" (IV) WARE
BOWL
(8) Q7 BOWL
) 23)
17)
AMPHORA
19)
1
21)
~ ~
JUG
24
Th }5) AMPHORA
26~ 2~d
R ~\(J~a5~ 3
5
2J)
2
3
4
2
XLIV
Fig.
PLAIN WHITE IV WARE
PLAIN WHITE IV WARE 1)
BOWL
~~
2)
3)
"IIL7 \J7
1
2 7)
JUG
4)
1)
~""===7==r
3
r - -_ _
5
4
r----.------,
CUP
8)cY
8
7
6
9b
9a
GOBLET
9)m
AMPHORA 2
10)
8(I9 W
JUG 11
JAR
10
12
13
"'-.:./--
~)
-~
14
n-~ 1m) ~5)
3 )
,'-
(]J1
I
e r c:»
-
\
Ja
J5a
--
-J5b =
J6
J7
J8
~
Q) \
JUG
I
3
12)~ \,
I
(j
J
15)
2
2
3
4
5
Jb
2
3
Fig. XLVll XLVI
WHITE PAINTED V WARE WHITE PAINTED V WARE
AMPHORA JAR
BOWL I)
&
2)
~
3)
2
~"=J7 JUG
6)
4)
"\J!!!!J 3'
~t!1~ 4
GOBLET 5)
7)
}~;;;;;;="
3
2
5)
HYDRIA
~---
4
BICHROME V WARE 4
BOWL 6) ~ 10
~ ~ 9)
2
10)
1b
~
8)
.....
Q]JJ II)
Ie
~~ 3
12)
7
6
5
~
7)rlI\\."..
4
~> 5
r 'Jf#']§7 14)
10
ASKOS
20)~
90
9b
ge
15)
8
9
Fig. XLIX
XLVIII
BICHROME V WARE
81CHROME V WARE 2)
BOWL
...
~ .,
.....
'-_
".-.-.',
JUG
11
4)
12
JAR
2
3
3
4
5
6
7a
7b
7c
6
5a
4
5b
90
9b
10
8
11 a
llb
,L
Fig. Ll
BICHROME v WARE
BICHROME V WARE AMPHORA
2) ,..4?' \v?
I)
"zz
'""I
:sst. :!!:-.
5b
70
7b
8
6
4
3b
3b
3b
50
9
10
Fig. LUI
.LlI
BICHROME II (V) WARE
BLACK-ON-RED III (V) WARE BOWL
,)~/ Z~i;P
~ 8J~
2
JAR 3)......====~
(93
4
2
7Jr:,
2
1~ 5
6
6
7
7
JUG
HI
8a
JAR
5a
4
5b
20)
2
3 6
7
8
9a
9b
Fig.
LIV /
BICHROME RED II (V) WARE JUG
BICHROME RED JUG
II (V) WARE AMPHORA 3)
13
12
11
10
14b
15 c
16a
15a
16b
17
9
10
11
/
· LVI
Fig.
BLACK SLIP V WARE BOWL
JUG 2) . ...
I)
~ J)
BOWL
~ QJ .
~
RED SLIP III (V) WARE
.
5)
C=:7
'"
6)~
1
PLAIN WHITE V WARE
9)
2
7)..
8)c-o
~
1
30
II)
4
3b
CU;)~~ 1
Ij)
2
JUG
12)~ 2
GREY AND BLACK POLISHED ) III (V) WARE 4,
Xl
10
1b
'4(j'8J
JUG-
2
3
5
4
PLAIN WHITE V WARE
) 22
BOWL
19)~~7 ~
20)
CI/
23)
ll===J ~ .
21)
~
_
~ ~ 3
4
~ 3~)~ 7 60
6
29)
6b
JAR
1---
5 26)
c=7 7
GOBLET )I )~------.---,
2*
3*
4*
5*
6*
7*
*
LVIIl
WHITE PAINTED VI WARE
PLAIN WHITE VI WARE
BOWL
AMPHORA 6)~....,.
1) -.,....-==,
4
2
. ._~
10)
5
3
6
3
2
HYDRIA
4),=~="
BICHROME VI WARE JAR 5) .----,-----.
9
8
15)
10
11
12
~ 13
2
~.
LX
BLACK-ON-RED IV (VI) WARE
JUG
BICHROME RED III (VI) WARE
BLACK SLIP VI WARE BOWL
BOWL
1»))
J}
2)
4).
5)
/)\J '::J'..-rc:=-- ~
JAR 4) .... . - - - - -
.
1 1
2
4
3
5
RED SLIP IV (VI) WARE
6)
BOWL
JUG
7),"" 3
10)
lc
JUG 2
BOWL
'9)~ 2
7
STROKE POLISHED I (VI) WARE AMPHORA
PLAIN WHITE VI WARE
BOWL
'0
JUG
23}
j] 2~ JAR "-1d
BOWL 28)
cp
29)
30)
31)
5
6
7
2 2
2
\I7\I7 32}
4
Q;7
3
4
3
6
.LXU
PLAIN WHITE VI WARE
PLAIN WHITE VI WARE
JAR
JUG
1) I
\Ol l
JUG
ID~ 2 9)
~
(B 30
12
3* 2
AMPHORA
14b
15
8)
4b*
loa;
3-b
4
,I6>na
50
5b
5c
5d
II
Sa
a
2J)
'\
6
)
lb*
\
!
\
I
10
8
90
9b
11
2*
'40*
4b*
17
~.
LXIV
BICHROME VII WARE
WHITE PAINTED VII WARE
JUG
BOWL
3)~===r
BOWL
2
2a
2
3a
7~8)
5b
AMPHORA
r; f\
IJ)
2 4
3b
5
16)
5a
~
~y
"
17)
AMPHORA
/
\
7
.. 2
P
HYDRIA
BOTTLE 14)
6
7
8
~
3a 3b
*
6
Fig. LXVlI
BICHROME RED IV (VII) WARE
BLACK-ON-RED V (VII) WARE
STROKE POLISHED II (VII) WARE
BOWl.
JUG
5)
4)
BOWl.
4
9)
AMPHORA 3
_____.1
---------
-
5
RED LUSTROUS I (VII)W ARE
JUG 5)
3
2
4
3
2
RED SLIP V (VII) WARE
9),BC 7"°)9 (I) H)W 4)
JAR
JUG
1
10 15) . - - - - - ,
r
I
1
JAR
4
3
23)
1b
5
11 2
3*
40*
4b*
g. LXVllI
Fig. LXIX
PLAIN WHITE VII WARE
PLAIN WHITE VII WARE
AMPHORA 1)--=
JUG 1)
l:J
I
J0 *
3)
II
1b* /
90
I
I
(
9c
9b
3d·
14
J6
17
J9
5b*
5c*
Fig. LXXI g.LXX COARSE WARE
COARSE WARE
TANKARD
COOKING· POT
I)
2 5
II)'--1==V
CUP
2
13)~~~\
1m15)
o 6
3 5
AMPHORA
3
4 2
8) 10
2
HYDR'A 6a lb
3
7c
8
9
4
5
J~)
',- '
l /
