THE SWEDISH CYPR US EXPEDITION VOL. IV. PART l~HE
2
CYPRO-GEOMETRIC, CYPRO-ARCHAIC AND
CYPRO-CLASSICAL PERIODS
BY
E...
85 downloads
946 Views
41MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
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 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 ~
..!.
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. 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.,
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(~ 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 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 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 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 1tOAt1tpou &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,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[~ &otyl1t'1l 't6 1tal Koltp 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.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 /