Version classiqueVersion mobile

Les royaumes de Chypre à l’épreuve de l’histoire

 | 
Anna Cannavò
, 
Ludovic Thély

Partie II – Les royaumes de l’âge de Fer : approches topographiques et archéologiques

The Changing Urban Landscape of Marion

Joanna S. Smith

Résumé

Les vestiges de la cité antique de Marion de Chypre (aujourd’hui Polis Chrysochous) sont plus abondants pour les périodes qui suivent la plus ancienne référence possible à la cité sous le nom de Nuria, dans le prisme d’Asarhaddon du 673/2 av. n.-è. La cité est très bien connue dans l’histoire ancienne par la rupture culturelle qui intervint lorsque Marion fut détruite en 312 av. n.-è., et refondée ensuite sous le nom d’Arsinoé. Dans les études, on fait souvent référence aux importations attiques à Marion et à son faciès hellénique. Cet article examine transitions et ruptures dans le développement urbain de Marion en utilisant les témoignages littéraires antiques, les vestiges funéraires, l’établissement tel qu’il a été découvert par les fouilles de l’université de Princeton et les données de prospection. En plus du réexamen des formes, assez bien connues, qu’adopte la cité pendant les périodes Chypro-Archaïque et Chypro-Classique, il fait aussi référence à la variété de relations régionales et extra insulaires de Marion au cours de son histoire et se focalise sur les origines de la cité à l’âge du Bronze Récent et à la période Chypro-Géométrique, moins bien connues. Les données dispersées de l’âge du Bronze Récent concernant les pratiques funéraires et l’habitat pourraient suggérer la première forme de l’établissement, et la période Chypro-Géométrique correspond au premier établissement concentré et continu dans la région.

Texte intégral

  • 1 Childs 2012, p. 92-95 and p. 100-102.
  • 2 Periplus 103 (Müller 1882, p. 77-78).
  • 3 Shipley 2011, p. 6-8.
  • 4 Childs 2008, p. 66; Childs 2012, p. 100-102; A. Stahl in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 141, no 41
  • 5 Destrooper, Symeonides 1998.

1It is now well documented that the remains of the ancient Cypriot city-kingdom of Marion lie beneath modern-day Polis Chrysochous (fig. 1). Ancient authors attest to its geographical location.1 The earliest of these and the only author writing prior to the destruction of the city is Pseudo-Skylax.2 His work is broadly dated to the third quarter of the fourth century B.C.E. and may be placed more precisely at 338-337.3 Coins of Marion have also been found at Polis, two and possibly three in excavations by Princeton University4 and more east of the town center.5

Fig 1 — Topographical plan of Polis Chrysochous with localities mentioned in the text numbered in alphabetical order.

Fig 1 — Topographical plan of Polis Chrysochous with localities mentioned in the text numbered in alphabetical order.

1. Evrethades / Evretes; 2. Kokkina; 3. Maratheri [A.H9]; 4. Orta Koilades; 5. Peristeries [6. Area B.D.7; 7. Area B.F8-9]; 8. Petrerades [9. Area E.F2; 10. Area E.G0]; 11. Potamos tou Myrmikof; 12. Site A; 13. Technical School; 14. Touloupos. Each square measures 500 meters on a side. The placement of the points is based as much as possible on the known locations of the localities and built structures mentioned in the text. The locations of points 1 and 11 derive from study of the descriptions, photographs, and topography for those two cemeteries. Point 4 is placed based on the location of tombs near the current Papantoniou Supermarket. Points 13 and 14 are within the correct localities, but the specific locations of the finds within those localities are not known by this writer.

Numbers added to Sheet 26/XXVII of the Department of Lands and Surveys 1:5000 series.

  • 6 Nys 2009; Smith 2012.
  • 7 Ulbrich 2008, 385-394; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012.
  • 8 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012; Smith, Rusinkiewicz 2013.
  • 9 Diodorus, XIX 62, 6 ; XIX 79, 4-6.
  • 10 Serwint 1993, p. 207-209; Childs 2012, p. 104-105; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 181-183.
  • 11 Flourentzos 1992; Padgett 2009.
  • 12 IG II2 1675, l. 18.
  • 13 Van Duivenvoorde 2011 and Van Duivenvoorde, pers. comm. March 2017.

2Marion is best known archaeologically through its many tombs6 and its well-preserved sanctuaries.7 This pattern of preservation led to the title of an exhibition about excavations in the town, « City of Gold: Tomb and Temple in Ancient Cyprus », in the Princeton University Art Museum (October 20, 2012 - January 20, 2013).8 In ancient history the city is best known due to a cultural break when, after the destruction of Marion in 312 B.C.E. by King Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt, the city was reestablished under the name of Arsinoe by King Ptolemy II Philadelphus.9 A thick layer of ash from this destruction was found covering a Cypro-Classical period sanctuary excavated by the Princeton team at Polis-Maratheri in grid Area A.H9.10 In scholarship, Marion is noted for its Attic imports11 and copper mined at Limni to the east. This copper was used at Eleusis in the fourth century B.C.E.12 and for spare nails on the Kyrenia ship that was built shortly before the destruction of Marion.13

  • 14 Gjerstad 1977; Papalexandrou 2006 and 2008; Padgett 2009.
  • 15 Serwint 2009.
  • 16 Counillon 1998; Shipley 2011, p. 176-177.

3The discovery of Attic pottery and Pseudo-Skylax’s description of the city as Greek appear to define Marion’s cultural profile in many scholarly references. Even so, Marion’s range of connections with Greece extended beyond Attica especially into east Greece14 and during its history its connections throughout the Mediterranean were both extensive and ever-changing.15 Furthermore, while there was destruction near the end of the fourth century B.C.E., it is unlikely that the town was completely deserted before its reestablishment as Arsinoe. Even Pseudo-Skylax’s description of the harbor as deserted (λιµὴν ἔρηµος) can be understood to mean that the harbor was unprotected rather than out of use.16

  • 17 Kassianidou 2013, p. 68-69.
  • 18 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171-172.
  • 19 Childs 2012, p. 100-103.

4Settlers may have chosen Polis because it is a place with easy access to the well-watered Chrysochou river valley, other rivers nearby, rich agricultural land, and an easy land route near the ancient shoreline, which must have been beneficial for those who first mined copper at Limni in the Iron Age just five kilometers to the east.17 Questions about the changing form and connections of the city occasion this paper about transitions and breaks in the urban development of Marion. The emphasis here is on the origins of Marion in the early first millennium B.C.E.,18 a period that is less well-represented in publications about the site to date. The paper draws on evidence from ancient texts, the excavation of tombs by many excavators since the end of the 19th century, the excavation of settlement areas by Princeton University from 1983 to 2007, and survey material recovered by several teams. It reviews the size and form of the city in relationship to what we know today about its regional and off-island connections starting with the dispersed Late Bronze Age evidence for mortuary practice and habitation. It details the Cypro-Geometric period with the first concentrated settlement and funerary space. Finally it touches on the development of the city in the Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical periods. Marion grew to its largest size in the Cypro-Archaic II period in the sixth century. After a destruction ca. 500 B.C.E.,19 the city was of reduced size, yet possibly more dense habitation, in the fifth and fourth centuries, from the end of the Cypro-Archaic, through the Cypro-Classical, and into the early Hellenistic period.

Inscriptions Related to Marion

  • 20 Borger 1956, p. 60; Lipiński 2004, p. 75.
  • 21 Masson 1983, p. 181-185, nos 168-171; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 715-718, nos 111-114; Markou 2011a, p. 70- (...)
  • 22 F. Malbran-Labat in Yon 2004b, p. 345-354.
  • 23 Masson 1983, p. 150-188, p. 395-397 and p. 409-411; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 692-721.

5The earliest mention of Marion refers to the city as Nuria on the prism of the Assyrian king, Esarhaddon, from 673/2 B.C.E.20 Fifth and fourth century B.C.E. coins of Marion include the name of the city as ma-ri-e-u-se in the Cypriot syllabary. On coins of the fourth century, the city’s name appears in an abbreviated form in the Greek alphabet.21 People at Marion were writing in the Cypriot syllabary before the earliest mention of the Cypriot Iron Age city-kingdoms on the stele of Sargon II of 707 B.C.E. found at Kition.22 Most inscriptions from Marion were written in the syllabary, most readable as Greek, and date to the sixth through fourth centuries B.C.E.23 the periods for which there is the most copious archaeological evidence for Marion.

  • 24 Karageorghis, Karageorghis 1956, p. 353 no 4, p. 357 no 2 and ill. 2, pl. 119, fig. 4; Masson 1983, (...)
  • 25 Masson 1968, p. 375-379.
  • 26 Egetmeyer 2010, p. 11 and p. 30-31.
  • 27 Egetmeyer 2010, p. 707-708, p. 712, p. 715 and p. 720, nos 73-74, 96, 109, 123; less firm in the da (...)
  • 28 J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 224-225, no 79.

6The earliest syllabic inscription from Marion was once thought to be a non-Greek syllabic inscription on a Cypro-Geometric period jug of Type III,24 but Oliver Masson has shown that this vessel was found instead at Kouklia.25 The earliest syllabic inscriptions known today from Polis date to the Cypro-Archaic I period and read as Greek.26 They appear on an epitaph and vessels of ceramic and bronze.27 Another early inscription concerns divination and was incised on a notched bovine scapula that was discarded along with Cypro-Archaic I pottery in a large bothros at Polis-Peristeries.28

  • 29 Mitford 1960, p. 179-181, no 1; Masson 1983, p. 177, no 164; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 709, no 83.
  • 30 Hirschfeld 1996, p. 105, p. 108 and p. 365-366.
  • 31 Markou 2011a, p. 112; Destrooper-Georgiades .
  • 32 Masson 1983, p. 411, no 167o.
  • 33 J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 152-153, no 49.
  • 34 Munro, Tubbs 1890, p. 75-81; Masson 1983, p. 175-176; Padgett 2009, p. 224.

7The earliest Greek alphabetic inscription is on a bilingual grave epitaph dated to the sixth century due to the Archaic form of the Greek letters.29 The Greek alphabet was also used at Marion30 on grave stelae and coins of the fourth century B.C.E.31 Greek alphabetic inscriptions sometimes formed part of a digraphic inscription closely paralleling the content of a syllabic inscription in Greek. In one case the alphabetic inscription was of unrelated content and was part of the reuse of a stela previously inscribed in the syllabary.32 Few imported objects bear Greek alphabetic inscriptions.33 Most inscriptions on imported objects appear on Greek vessels, both whole vases and ostraka, which were marked occasionally with syllabic characters post-firing.34

  • 35 Masson, Sznycer 1972, p. 79-81; Markou 2011a, p. 70-71; Destrooper-Georgiades .
  • 36 Dikaios 1948, p. 7.
  • 37 Newberry 1935, p. 826.
  • 38 Boardman 1970, p. 8, no 3, pl. 2-3.

8Other forms of writing found at Marion include fifth century coins with Phoenician legends that appear alongside inscriptions in the syllabary35 and imported Egyptian objects with hieroglyphic inscriptions, such as an aryballos36 and scarabs,37 or mock hieroglyphs as on a gold ring.38

Late Bronze Age

  • 39 Maliszewski 2007.
  • 40 Maliszewski 2013.

9The northwestern part of Cyprus was inhabited, albeit sparsely, from the Neolithic period onward. The evidence for pre-Iron Age settlement and funerary material derives primarily from surveys. Dariusz Maliszewski has drawn the material known to date together39 and has published the pre-Iron Age objects found in his survey.40 There is a thin distribution of Late Bronze Age habitation and funerary sites near Polis at the mouth of the Chrysochou bay. In addition to Polis, people left traces at sites further up the Chrysochou river at Chrysochou and Goudi. Somewhat more numerous are sites along river routes to the east of Polis at Magounda, Argaka, and Pelathousa.

  • 41 Childs 1997, p. 37 and p. 39.
  • 42 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, p. 50; Pieridou 1965, p. 106.
  • 43 Smith 1997, p. 83, fig. 8.

10William Childs has commented on the general spread of stratified Late Chalcolithic through Middle Bronze Age pottery found by the Princeton team in the town of Polis.41 To his comments it is now possible to add that from Polis-Peristeries (Princeton grid Area B.D7) (fig. 2) there is Late Bronze Age pottery, notably fragments of White Slip bowls (fig. 3a-b). These occur in deposits along with larger and less worn early Cypro-Geometric period sherds including White Painted wares with similar ladder patterns, which are interpreted to be survivals of the Late Bronze Age and typical of the early Cypro-Geometric period (fig. 3c).42 These are found among early traces of architecture but below the earliest preserved floor level associated with ceramics of the Cypro-Archaic I period.43

Fig 2 — Architectural Plan of excavated area in Polis-Peristeries, Princeton Cyprus Expedition Area B.D7.

Fig 2 — Architectural Plan of excavated area in Polis-Peristeries, Princeton Cyprus Expedition Area B.D7.

Each square measures 5 meters on a side; cistern/bothros labeled; see fig. 7 for details of outlined inset.

B.D7 Trenches Master Plan, Drawing 2011.01, 15 June 2011. Drawing by K. Ziemba.

11 

Fig.3 — Examples of fabrics and decorations found in levels below green floor.

Fig.3 — Examples of fabrics and decorations found in levels below green floor.

a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B1, White Slip bowl fragment; b. BD7:n15.S1.1991.L2P1B2, White Slip wishbone handle fragment; c. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B11 White Painted closed vessel shoulder and neck fragment; d. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B2, White Painted round-bottomed jug neck and handles fragment; e. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B32, Black Slip jug grooved body fragments; f. B.D7:p14.1989.L9P1B1, Bichrome dish base fragment; g. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B47, Red Slip jug ring base, hard-fired metallic with a dark blue-gray core; h. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B5, Red Slip large and thick-walled closed vessel fragment, hard-fired with a dark blue-gray core; i. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B51, Black-on-Red large and thick-walled closed vessel shoulder fragment, hard-fired with a dark blue-gray core. The scale is in centimeters.

Photographs by D. L. Kornblatt.

  • 44 Papageorghiou 1991, p. 800 and p. 902.
  • 45 Karageorghis 1969a, p. 476 and p. 478-479.
  • 46 Karageorghis 1969a, fig. 81a-b; J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 114-115, no 26.
  • 47 Karageorghis 1969a, fig. 80a-b; J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 112-113, no 25.
  • 48 Maliszewski 2013, p. 69-73.
  • 49 Crewe, Graham 2008, p. 112.

12Tombs excavated at Pano Argaka44 and Magounda45 contained Late Cypriot I wares such as a White Painted jug46 and a Black Slip bird-headed jug.47 Close on-island parallels connect these vessels to the Morphou bay further east along the north coast. The latter is similar to Tell el-Yahudieh ware in Egypt and the Levant. It is certain that we have much to learn about Late Bronze Age and pre-Iron Age pottery generally in this northwestern region. Most wares found in survey there can be assigned only provisionally to the Late Bronze Age.48 Just as some wares point to connections along the north coast, Drab Polished wares connect the Chrysochou valley region with areas in the southwestern part of Cyprus.49 On the whole, the Late Bronze Age evidence in the Chrysochou river valley points to habitation before 1200 B.C.E. Further research may clarify whether any of the material attests to continuous habitation into the Cypro-Geometric period.

Cypro-Geometric Period

  • 50 Raber 1987, p. 305.
  • 51 Maliszewski et al. 2003, p. 21, no 1, PAP.99-6.1.P3 from Chrysochou-Koutsomavro; Maliszewski 2014, (...)
  • 52 CS no 1267.
  • 53 CS no 1996: Adovasio et al. 1978, p. 49.

13In contrast with the Late Bronze Age data, survey evidence for the early part of the Cypro-Geometric period in the Chrysochou valley is more narrowly distributed. The broad brush approach that dates ceramics simply to the Iron Age, as in Paul Raber’s survey of mining areas, is not useful for closer studies of settlement patterns.50 Only two sherds found in Dariusz Maliszewski’s survey that sought to date ceramics more precisely could be placed with any certainty within the Cypro-Geometric I-II period. One was found at Chrysochou and the other at Polis.51 Cypro-Geometric I-II sherds were found at Polis-Peristeries by the Cyprus Survey.52 A cemetery defined as Cypro-Geometric at Tremithousa is not dated more closely and lies beyond the Chrysochou river valley considered here.53

  • 54 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 366-454.

14Excavations have revealed early Cypro-Geometric period remains only in Polis itself. There are several closely proximate Cypro-Geometric I-II tombs at Polis-Evrethades (also called Polis-Evretes).54 The first early Cypro-Geometric period sherd material contemporary with documented, but not well-preserved, architectural remains was discovered at Polis-Peristeries. For the first time in the Polis region there is a concentration of evidence for both burial and settlement. The patterns of connection among early tomb groups and the well-defined regional ceramic styles with artistic links along the north coast and south to Paphos both highlight developing cores of what appear to be kin-based groups, which provide a view into the dynamics of the small community of early Marion.

Tomb Use and Reuse

  • 55 Nicolaou 1964, p. 144-146 and p. 153-157, Tombs 124B and 126.
  • 56 Hadjisavvas 2003, p. 658, fig. 36; Flourentzos 2006, p. 886.
  • 57 Flourentzos 2004-2005, p. 1658-1659, fig. 55.
  • 58 London, British Museum, inv. 1890,0731.41: Munro, Tubbs 1890, p. 37; Walters 1912, p. 153, pl. IV, (...)
  • 59 Pieridou 1973, p. 12.

15Apart from tombs at Polis-Evrethades (fig. 1 and 4), thus far Cypro-Geometric I-II tombs are dispersed south of the Peristeries and Petrerades settlement plateaus. At Polis-Kokkina, Kyriakos Nicolaou excavated two early Cypro-Geometric tombs.55 The Department of Antiquities has uncovered tombs of similar date at Orta Koilades56 and the Technical School.57 The furthest west so far that early Cypro-Geometric tomb material has been found within the town of Polis is at Site A excavated by the Cyprus Exploration Fund.58 Angeliki Pieridou dates the jug they found to the Protogeometric period.59

  • 60 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 366-454.
  • 61 Ibid., p. 375-378, p. 382-386 and p. 390-392.
  • 62 Ibid., p. 372-374, p. 386-389 and p. 421-424.

16Burials at Polis-Evrethades (fig. 4), excavated by Erik Sjöqvist of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition and published by the excavation’s director, Einar Gjerstad,60 began with a cluster of six chamber tombs from the early Cypro-Geometric period. Two rows of tombs are within 25 meters of one another. Tombs 70, 65, and 68,61 with burial layers determined to have only what Gjerstad classified as Type I, are in a row next to one another and their entrances are within 12 meters of one another. Tombs 83, 63, and 69,62 which have burial layers he determined to contain both his Types I and II, are in a row just below and to the east. Their entrances are within 20 meters of one another. For convenience here I refer to them as the upper row, with Tombs 70, 65, and 68 from south to north, and the lower row, with tombs 83, 63, and 69 from south to north.

Fig.4 — Plan of Polis-Evrethades.

Fig.4 — Plan of Polis-Evrethades.

The oval demarcates the two rows of early Cypro-Geometric chamber tombs.

Adapted from Gjerstad et al. 1935, plan III, no 3.

  • 63 Ibid., p. 376, nos 3-4, pl. XC:9-10; Gjerstad 1948, fig. III:3.
  • 64 Cf. Karageorghis 1983a, p. 356 and p. 359.
  • 65 Smith 2009, p. 221-233.

17The presence of ceramic forms that look back to the Late Bronze Age such as a stemmed kylix or goblet and a stirrup jar in Tomb 6563 suggest that this might be the earliest tomb found by the Swedish team at the site.64 There is more of interest among these tombs, however, than chronology as determined by ceramic typology, whether one maintains Gjerstad’s division of Cypro-Geometric I-II into two phases, based on his ceramic Types I and II, or not.65 Close inspection of the tombs reveals, for example, that the shapes of ceramic vessels in these tombs point less to typological and chronological differences among vessels of similar shape and more to differences in the range of shapes represented in the two rows.

  • 66 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 7-9, pl. LXXI:1 and XCII:1; Tomb 68, nos 9, 14-19, pl. LXXIII:3, (...)
  • 67 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 1, 2 and 5, pl. LXXI:1; Tomb 68, no 1, pl. LXXIII:3; Tomb 70, no(...)

18Both rows of tombs contain large White Painted or Plain amphorae, Black Slip vertically grooved jugs, and plain coarseware jugs.66 White Painted stemmed bowls in the two groups of tombs are of similar shape and bear similar plain banded or paneled geometric decoration.67

  • 68 Ibid., Tomb 63, nos 10, 16 and 18-19, pl. LXX:3 and XC:8; Tomb 69, nos 11-12, 20, 28 and 34-35, pl. (...)
  • 69 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 8-9, pl. LXXI:1 and CXII:1; Tomb 68, no 9, pl. LXXIII:3.
  • 70 Ibid., p. 387.

19Yet tombs in the lower row also contain shapes such as barrel jugs, one-handled cups, and a dish unattested in tombs of the upper row.68 Furthermore, a family or other connection exists between Tombs 65 and 68 of the upper row, which contain identical amphorae with quadrefoil decorations on the neck.69 In the lower row, Tomb 69 is set apart from the other early tombs and its users practiced a different form of burial. Bodies here were placed inside rather than alongside amphorae.70 The assemblages within the tombs suggest that at Evrethades more than one family with more than one tradition of funerary ritual took up residence and buried their dead at Marion in the early first millennium B.C.E.

  • 71 Ibid., p. 189-218.
  • 72 Karageorghis 1973b; G. Georgiou in Pilides, Papadimitriou 2012, p. 212-213, no 188.

20At the time of the Swedish team’s excavation, Gjerstad thought that there was a gap in tomb use between the earlier Cypro-Geometric burials and those of the Cypro-Archaic period. However, tomb use and construction continued in the later Cypro-Geometric period. For example, in the locality Potamos tou Myrmikof       71 all but one tomb excavated by the Swedish team contained Type III vessels. At Evrethades, early Cypro-Geometric Tombs 68 and 69 were also reused by those who placed Type III pottery in the tombs. Since those excavations of 1929, additional tombs have been uncovered in Polis, some unfortunately in undocumented excavations. Among these finds are vessels with elaborately painted scenes such as a large Type III amphora with a chariot scene.72

  • 73 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 372-374, fig. 158:3-5.

21Further study of all the tombs in Polis should reveal more of the dynamics of how tombs were a regular part of the lives of people through time. For example, when people reused tombs they sometimes collected objects from earlier burials. This practice led to the reuse of both Cypro-Geometric period and Late Bronze Age objects. In Tomb 63, its reuse for a later burial led people to cast some early vessels out into the dromos,73 while other objects may have been put to new use because they were found intermixed with later period objects in the upper burial layer.

  • 74 Ibid., p. 421-424, fig. 183:1, nos 22-27.
  • 75 Newberry 1935, p. 826, Tomb 83, nos 25-27.
  • 76 Maria Bagoly, personal communication.

22Personal items such as seals also attest to such reuse, whether through curation within a single family or rediscovery during the opening of a tomb. In a Cypro-Archaic period burial in Tomb 83 of the lower row at Polis-Evrethades all that remained of one burial was the jewelry,74 which included three swivel rings, two set with New Kingdom scarabs and another set with a small Egyptian plaque.75 Cypriot Late Bronze Age seals were found in other Iron Age tombs excavated by Eustathios Raptou for the Department of Antiquities. A hematite cylinder seal with a finely carved scene of a man facing a tree, a griffin, a mistress of the animals with two goats, and a lion (fig. 5a) was found in the same tomb as a late period Egyptian scarab at Orta Koilades.76 This cylinder is the earliest seal yet found in Polis. A Late Bronze Age conoid seal of a soft black stone featuring a quadruped (fig. 5b) was found in a tomb at the Technical School.

Fig. 5 — Late Bronze Age hematite cylinder seal and soft dark stone conoid seal found in Cypro-Geometric–Cypro-Archaic tombs excavated at Polis Chrysochous by Eustasthios Raptou for the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Fig. 5 — Late Bronze Age hematite cylinder seal and soft dark stone conoid seal found in Cypro-Geometric–Cypro-Archaic tombs excavated at Polis Chrysochous by Eustasthios Raptou for the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Drawings show the seals as seen in impression; a. MMA 567/43 from tomb excavated August 10, 2001 at Orta Koilades, height: 2.28 cm, diameter 0.91–0.99, narrowed at the midpoint; b. MMA 635/17 from tomb excavated December 15, 2005 at the Technical School, height of seal 1.58 cm, width of impression 1.64 cm, height of impression 1.40 cm. The scale is in centimeters.

Photographs and drawings by J. S. Smith.

Settlement

  • 77 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 178-183.
  • 78 Childs 2012, p. 103-105.
  • 79 Ibid., p. 95-96 and p. 100-101.
  • 80 Childs 1997, p. 39, fig. 3.

23Thus far, no primary use-related or discard-related deposits have been excavated for a Late Bronze Age settlement at Polis. In the western part of the modern town at Polis-Maratheri a late Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical sanctuary was uncovered77 alongside a city wall.78 In the larger area of Polis-Petrerades, extensive Cypro-Archaic II and Cypro-Classical remains lie below Hellenistic and later structures from the later town of Arsinoe.79 Only a few Cypro-Geometric I-II sherds have been found in this part of Polis.80

  • 81 Smith 1997; Serwint 2009; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012.

24The most extensively documented early settlement remains found by the Princeton team come from the eastern part of the modern town at a sanctuary found in the field of Peristeries, in Princeton grid Area B.D7 (fig. 2). The largest and most extensively published form of this sanctuary dates to the sixth century B.C.E.81 At this site, Cypro-Geometric I/II sherds begin a continuous stratified sequence that ends in the early Cypro-Classical period when the Peristeries plateau was no longer inhabited. The Cypro-Geometric I/II sherds are relatively unworn and many are of large size. They come from deposits that also contain small and worn fragments of Cypriot White Slip ware (fig. 3a-b) of the Late Bronze Age. The structure of the Peristeries site in the Cypro-Geometric period is less well-understood than its Cypro-Archaic and early Cypro-Classical successors due to the fragmented and ephemeral nature of the architecture and pottery deposits.

  • 82 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLVII:11-12, Amathus Tombs 9 and 10; Gjerstad 1960, p. 111, fig. 1:12.
  • 83 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXVIII:18, Marion Tomb 98.
  • 84 Ibid., fig. LII:10, Marion Tomb 72.
  • 85 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 311, Plan 2.
  • 86 Smith 1997, p. 88, fig. 9.

25The largest architectural phase at B.D7 went out of use ca. 500 B.C.E. before the end of the Cypro-Archaic II period. The buildings of this largest phase have a white lime floor. Found on this floor are vessels such as a Type V Black-on-Red wide-and-shallow bowl with a slightly drooping flanged rim (fig. 6c)82 and a Black-on-Red trefoil-rimmed juglet that is not as round and full-bodied as Type IV83 and has only the start of the carinated body of typical Type V vessels (fig. 6d).84 This most extensive architectural phase includes most structures found on the master architectural plan of the site (fig. 2).85 The exceptions are found in the northern part of the site above and to the north of the main building that has four rooms and a pillared porch. A later thick-walled structure was built over the center of the four rooms of this main building.86 The more ephemeral walls to the north of the back wall of the main building belong to earlier architectural phases.

  • 87 Ibid., p. 88-91; Serwint 2009, p. 237-241; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 176-178.
  • 88 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 318, Building Reconstruction 1; Smith, Rusinkiewicz 2013, p. 183-18 (...)
  • 89 Plattner et al. 2012.
  • 90 Smith 1997, p. 90-91.
  • 91 Childs 2012, p. 98-99.
  • 92 Papalexandrou 2006 and 2008; Childs 2012, p. 95 and p. 98-99; Hermary 2013, p. 92.

26This largest form of the sanctuary was destroyed by fire ca. 500 B.C.E., leaving thousands of terracotta votive sculptures and many other objects in situ. Several votives were gathered for burial at the top of an old cistern to the east of the temenos. By the end of the Cypro-Geometric period this cistern had already been repurposed as a bothros for the disposal of votive and industrial materials.87 The preservation of votive and other material in place and the architectural remains made it possible to model the form of this irregularly designed timber-framed mudbrick structure.88 This structure did not stand alone on the Peristeries plateau. Ground and geophysical survey have begun to reveal the presence of other built structures around it89 and excavations have revealed industrial facilities,90 a possible house,91 and an ashlar-built structure, provisionally identified as a palace. This ashlar building stood on the southeastern edge of the plateau (Princeton grid Area B.F8-9).92

  • 93 Cf. Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXVIII, no 1804, Kition Bothros 4; Karageorghis 2003, p. 15; Smith 2009, (...)
  • 94 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXVIII:22, Marion Tomb 10.
  • 95 Smith 1997, p. 81 and p. 83, fig. 8.

27An earlier and smaller structure lies below part of the main building in the northern part of the site. Its lime floors have a light greenish color. Pottery vessels on this floor show that this structure went out of use in the Cypro-Archaic I period. Examples are a Type IV Black-on-Red wide-and-shallow bowl with an upturned flanged rim (fig. 6a)93 and a Type IV sack-shaped Black-on-Red trefoil-rimmed jug with a lightly carinated lower body and a rounded transition from the body to the shoulder (fig. 6b).94 Some of the walls of the building with the green floor were reused in the Cypro-Archaic II period. These walls are the central and eastern-most walls of the four-roomed main building.95 Some of the ephemeral architectural remains north of the main building also belong to this period.

Fig.6 — Examples of vessels found on the green floor (a-b) and the white floor (c-d).

Fig.6 — Examples of vessels found on the green floor (a-b) and the white floor (c-d).

a. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P1B2, Black-on-Red IV wide and shallow bowl; b. B.D7:p14.1989.L1P4B1 + L5P1B58 + B.D7:n14.1989.L5P1B6, Black-on-Red IV sack-shaped jug with trefoil rim; c. B.D7:p15.1989.L12P1B2 + L23P1B6, Black-on-Red V wide and shallow bowl; d. B.D7:p14.1989L2P1B15, Black-on-Red V juglet with trefoil rim. The scale is in centimeters.

Drawings by E. Lopez-Finn, N. McAfee; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.

  • 96 Najbjerg 1991.
  • 97 Serwint et al. 1989.

28Below the building with the green floor are traces of earlier structures and many fragments of pottery. If there are floors associated with this material, they are dirt and stone surfaces at the level of terra rosa and bedrock. Study of the ceramics from the Polis-Peristeries site and from other areas of the excavation continues with the aims of clarifying its typology, chronology, and meaning. The comments offered here introduce a larger body of material. Early Cypro-Geometric sherds illustrated here are Type I/II with no further attempt to define them because the typological sequence for ancient Marion is still under consideration. For the purposes of this paper, I have chosen to illustrate selected examples from two areas below the green floor found to the north of the main phase structure (fig. 7). A long trench excavated in 1991, B.D7:m14 Sondage 1, from square m14 to square p14, especially in its Levels 31 and 34, revealed deposits pre-dating the green floor.96 Broader coverage in 1989 also revealed important deposits in the five-meter squares n14 and p14.97 Early material was also found stratified in other trenches, such as below the green floor in squares p15 and n15.

Fig.7 — Detail of fig. 2 showing several phases of the main building and part of the temenos wall.

Fig.7 — Detail of fig. 2 showing several phases of the main building and part of the temenos wall.

Trenches B.D7:n14 1989, B.D7:p14 1989, B.D7:p15 1989, B.D7:m14 Sondage 1 1991, and B.D7:n15 Sondage 1 1991 outlined. Gray areas and numbers reference deposits (Levels) containing ceramics discussed in the text.

Dpt. of Antiquities, Cyprus.

29Sherds illustrated in this article are referenced with respect to the contexts marked on the plan (fig. 7). For example, B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B2 refers to sherd material from trench B.D7:p14, excavated in 1989 and found in Level 5 Pass 2, which during pottery analysis was bagged as Batch 2. Similarly, B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B2 refers to Batch 2 from Level 34 Pass 1 in trench B.D7:m14 Sondage 1 excavated in 1991.

30Later Cypro-Geometric material of Type III occurs among some of the sherds above the green floor, but there are also Type III fragments especially among the sherds below the green floor (fig. 8g) in the area of the large room to the south, especially in square p15, which was incorporated into the main phase structure. This suggests that the building with the green floor may have been built during the later Cypro-Geometric period.

  • 98 Gjerstad et al. 1935, pl. LXXIII:3, Tomb 68, no 22; Nicolaou 1964, pl. XV:5, Tomb 126:1.

31The pottery shapes and decorations of the fragments found in these lowest deposits find many direct comparisons with the whole vessels found in the early Cypro-Geometric tombs discussed previously. Several bowls are represented by rim fragments, some with a panel of geometric decoration (fig. 8d). Simple banded decoration is also present, but more certainly identified as bowls or cups are rims of vessels with part of a wavy line decoration (fig. 8a-c, fig. 9a). Wavy line decoration on stemmed bowls is less common in the tombs98 than is the same decoration on one-handled cups on a stemmed foot. Several stems (fig. 9a-b) found below the green floor attest to stemmed bowls and/or cups and thus most of the rims from thin-walled open bowl or cup shapes probably formed parts of vessels with stemmed feet. At least one of the vessels with wavy line decoration appears to be from the same vessel as a stem foot in the same deposit (fig. 9a).

  • 99 Smith 2009, p. 181-182.

32Other bowls have horizontal grooves at the rim (fig. 8e-f), generally a marker of the Cypro-Geometric period.99 Not enough of the lower portion of these grooved bowls remains to determine their parallels more precisely. Fragments of round-bottomed, probably nipple, vessels include a funnel-shaped neck that was fashioned separately and then affixed to the body, now missing (fig. 3d and 10a). There is at least one barrel jug represented by a rim (fig. 10b). Black Slip trefoil-rim jugs are easily identified by their distinctive color and vertical grooves (fig. 3e and 10c). Dishes stand out among the open shapes by being almost flat (fig. 3f and 11). Fragments of large vessels such as amphorae are also in the assemblage.

Fig. 8 — Selection of bowl/cup types, a-d possibly once with stemmed feet, found below the green floor.

Fig. 8 — Selection of bowl/cup types, a-d possibly once with stemmed feet, found below the green floor.

a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P1B3, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; b. B. 7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B13, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; c. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B4, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; d. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B1, White Painted bowl with part of triglyph and metope panel decoration; e. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B66, White Painted bowl with grooved rim and part of a wavy line motif; f. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B48, Red Slip bowl with grooved rim; g. B. 7:p14.1989.L9P1B15, Red Slip bowl with carinated lower body. The scale is in centimeters.

Drawings by N. Cavaleri, E. Lopez-Finn, N. McAfee; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.

33 

Fig.9 — Selection of stemmed vessels found below the green floor.

Fig.9 — Selection of stemmed vessels found below the green floor.

a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B14, White Painted stemmed bowl or cup; b. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B10, White Painted stemmed vessel foot. The scale is in centimeters.

Drawings by E. Lopez-Finn; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.

  • 100 Ibid.

34Most of the early Cypro-Geometric pottery is White Painted (fig. 8a-e, 9, 10a-b and 11b) and Black Slip (fig. 3e and 10c), with a few examples in Bichrome (fig. 3f and 11a). There are also red-slipped vessels (fig. 3g-i, 8f-g and 10d). Some have profiles that compare most closely with bowls of Type III due to the carination at the lower part of the body (fig. 8g).100 Most curious, however, is that the Red Slip pottery below the green floor, including fragments of Black-on-Red vessels (fig. 3i), differs in fabric from later examples of red-slipped wares at the site. These pre-green floor vessels are made from a very hard, high-fired, metallic fabric with a steel blue to dark gray core (visible in fig. 3h-i) and a burnished surface. Many vessels had substantial walls of nearly a centimeter in thickness (fig. 3h-i). Some are from large amphorae and craters, but others are from large open shapes. There are also thinner-walled jugs (fig. 3g and 10d) and bowls (fig. 8f).

Fig.10 — Selection of jug types found below the green floor.

Fig.10 — Selection of jug types found below the green floor.

a. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B2, White Painted round-bottomed jug neck and handles fragment; b. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B2, White Painted barrel jug rim and neck; c. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B89, Black Slip jug base with vertical grooves on body; d. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B47, Red Slip jug ring base, hard-fired metallic with a dark blue-gray core. The scale is in centimeters.

Drawings by C. Bouthillier, E. Lopez-Finn; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.

35 

Fig 11 — Selection of dishes (wide and shallow bowls) found below the green floor.

Fig 11 — Selection of dishes (wide and shallow bowls) found below the green floor.

a. B.D7:p14.1989.L9P1B1, Bichrome dish base fragment; b. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B43, White Painted dish, full profile with cross-hatched triangle on base and bands of hatched decoration and nested triangles around exterior up to rim. The scale is in centimeters.

Drawings by E. Lopez-Finn; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.

  • 101 CS no 1267.
  • 102 Schreiber 2003b; Smith 2009, p. 206; also see Karageorghis 1983a, p. 369.
  • 103 Gal, Alexandre 2000; also see Smith [à paraître].

36Similar red-slipped vessels are not found in the early Cypro-Geometric tombs or, as far as I can tell, in later Cypro-Geometric tombs. Fragments of such Red Slip pottery with a blue to gray core have also been found in survey on the Peristeries plateau.101 The revised dating of early forms of Red Slip and Black-on-Red wares from Iron Age Cyprus to the 10th century B.C.E.102 and the discovery of Cypriot Black-on-Red vessels in deposits prior to the ninth century B.C.E. in the southern Levant at sites such as H.orbat Rosh Zayit103 supports the early Cypro-Geometric period dating of this red-slipped pottery from Polis.

  • 104 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171-172.
  • 105 Karageorghis 1983a, p. 361; Smith 2009, p. 240.
  • 106 Nicolaou 1964, pl. XV:2, Tomb 126:6.

37No definite fragments of terracotta votive figures have been identified thus far from these early deposits at Polis-Peristeries. Among the terracotta sculptural finds from the excavations, Nancy Serwint has found terracotta female figures of the type with uplifted arms that date back to the late Cypro-Geometric period.104 The ceramics offer some possible evidence that the site was already thought of as a special place with cultic significance. Not only are there large and shiny red-slipped vessels, but also the decoration of some shapes is more elaborate than in the early Cypro-Geometric tombs found so far. For example, the dishes from the sanctuary have decoration both on the base and around it (fig. 3f and 11a), reaching up to the rim (fig. 11b). This extensive design, possibly intended for display on walls, is similar to many vessels from the region of Paphos.105 Dishes in tombs have the decoration on and near the base with only one example featuring decoration up to the rim.106

Marion After the Geometric Period

38After what appear to be the beginnings of Marion in the early Cypro-Geometric period, possibly with antecedants in the Late Bronze Age, settlement continued through to the beginning of the Hellenistic period when Marion was destroyed in 312 B.C.E. by Ptolemy I Soter. Early Cypro-Archaic Marion is found in the same areas of the town as the Cypro-Geometric material, but there is more of it and it is more spread out. The architecture of the Cypro-Archaic I period is better defined than that of the Cypro-Geometric period at Polis-Peristeries. The number of tombs and burials increases in the Cypro-Archaic I period. As mentioned above, it is in the Cypro-Archaic II period that the tombs and temples of Polis are most visible and extensive in the archaeological record. At that time settlement spread across both the Peristeries and Petrerades plateaus and the thin strip of Maratheri in between. Deposits from that period attest also to habitation, workshops, and a likely administrative “palace” building.

  • 107 Herodotus, V 104-116; Childs 2012, p. 100-103.
  • 108 Childs 2012, p. 95-96, fig. 2:4; Najbjerg 2012, p. 237-240, fig. 4:7.

39Around 500 B.C.E. there was destruction across Marion, possibly due to an uprising against Persian overlords.107 While there was limited rebuilding at the Peristeries sanctuary, by the mid-fifth century in the early Cypro-Classical period the Peristeries plateau was no longer inhabited. The settlement then concentrated in the western part of modern-day Polis. At Polis-Petrerades in Princeton grid Areas E.F2 and E.G0 were houses, cult space, and large ashlar architectural blocks that were repurposed for a large building in the Hellenistic period.108 At Maratheri was a sanctuary and a defensive wall at the eastern limit of the city. Why the Peristeries plateau was abandoned is unknown. It is interesting to speculate that there may have been more at work than concerns for security. The city’s defensive wall was only built near the end of the fourth century B.C.E. in response to the military threat of the Ptolemaic army.

  • 109 Childs 2012, p. 98; Smith 2012, p. 41, fig. 1:13; Annual Report of the Department of Antiquities fo (...)
  • 110 Childs 2012, p. 99, fig. 2:7.
  • 111 Plattner et al. 2012.

40People continued to use the western and central as well as the eastern parts of the town south of the settlement for funerary activity. A large funerary monument found by Raptou was built just south and east of Peristeries in the Cypro-Classical period.109 Perhaps the Petrerades plateau and Maratheri were closer to the port active in the Cypro-Classical period. Also it is notable that a feature that once probably served as a cistern at Peristeries was repurposed for the burial of votive and industrial materials. Other such rock-cut, round, and unplastered features were found at Peristeries in excavation110 and geophysical survey.111 These features most likely served as water resources for those who lived there. Something may have changed in the early Cypro-Classical period to make this system of water management unworkable. Similar unlined cisterns have not been found thus far at Petrerades.

41It is this late fourth century city at Petrerades and Maratheri that was first documented by ancient authors as a Greek city. Pseudo-Skylax’s mention of Marion and its port dates just before Alexander the Great left his distinctive mark on history. However, the archaeology of Marion, documented in survey and excavation, reveals a more extensive and complex history for this ancient city-kingdom. Its size and extent shifted over time. Also the nature of its connections expanded beyond its initial strong links with Paphos and areas along the north coast of the island. Its inhabitants formed a web of commercial and artistic connections that extended west to mainland Greece, the islands, and western Anatolia as well as north to Cilicia, east from Phoenicia to Persia, and south to Egypt and Nubia.

Notes

1 Childs 2012, p. 92-95 and p. 100-102.

2 Periplus 103 (Müller 1882, p. 77-78).

3 Shipley 2011, p. 6-8.

4 Childs 2008, p. 66; Childs 2012, p. 100-102; A. Stahl in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 141, no 41.

5 Destrooper, Symeonides 1998.

6 Nys 2009; Smith 2012.

7 Ulbrich 2008, 385-394; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012.

8 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012; Smith, Rusinkiewicz 2013.

9 Diodorus, XIX 62, 6 ; XIX 79, 4-6.

10 Serwint 1993, p. 207-209; Childs 2012, p. 104-105; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 181-183.

11 Flourentzos 1992; Padgett 2009.

12 IG II2 1675, l. 18.

13 Van Duivenvoorde 2011 and Van Duivenvoorde, pers. comm. March 2017.

14 Gjerstad 1977; Papalexandrou 2006 and 2008; Padgett 2009.

15 Serwint 2009.

16 Counillon 1998; Shipley 2011, p. 176-177.

17 Kassianidou 2013, p. 68-69.

18 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171-172.

19 Childs 2012, p. 100-103.

20 Borger 1956, p. 60; Lipiński 2004, p. 75.

21 Masson 1983, p. 181-185, nos 168-171; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 715-718, nos 111-114; Markou 2011a, p. 70-73, p. 112, p. 153-154, p. 208 and p. 216, pl. XI and XXX; Destrooper-Georgiades 2018.

22 F. Malbran-Labat in Yon 2004b, p. 345-354.

23 Masson 1983, p. 150-188, p. 395-397 and p. 409-411; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 692-721.

24 Karageorghis, Karageorghis 1956, p. 353 no 4, p. 357 no 2 and ill. 2, pl. 119, fig. 4; Masson 1983, p. 187, no 174.

25 Masson 1968, p. 375-379.

26 Egetmeyer 2010, p. 11 and p. 30-31.

27 Egetmeyer 2010, p. 707-708, p. 712, p. 715 and p. 720, nos 73-74, 96, 109, 123; less firm in the dating of these same inscriptions is Masson 1964, p. 188; Masson 1983, p. 174 and p. 411, nos 157, 158, 167h and 167q.

28 J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 224-225, no 79.

29 Mitford 1960, p. 179-181, no 1; Masson 1983, p. 177, no 164; Egetmeyer 2010, p. 709, no 83.

30 Hirschfeld 1996, p. 105, p. 108 and p. 365-366.

31 Markou 2011a, p. 112; Destrooper-Georgiades .

32 Masson 1983, p. 411, no 167o.

33 J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 152-153, no 49.

34 Munro, Tubbs 1890, p. 75-81; Masson 1983, p. 175-176; Padgett 2009, p. 224.

35 Masson, Sznycer 1972, p. 79-81; Markou 2011a, p. 70-71; Destrooper-Georgiades .

36 Dikaios 1948, p. 7.

37 Newberry 1935, p. 826.

38 Boardman 1970, p. 8, no 3, pl. 2-3.

39 Maliszewski 2007.

40 Maliszewski 2013.

41 Childs 1997, p. 37 and p. 39.

42 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, p. 50; Pieridou 1965, p. 106.

43 Smith 1997, p. 83, fig. 8.

44 Papageorghiou 1991, p. 800 and p. 902.

45 Karageorghis 1969a, p. 476 and p. 478-479.

46 Karageorghis 1969a, fig. 81a-b; J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 114-115, no 26.

47 Karageorghis 1969a, fig. 80a-b; J. S. Smith in Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 112-113, no 25.

48 Maliszewski 2013, p. 69-73.

49 Crewe, Graham 2008, p. 112.

50 Raber 1987, p. 305.

51 Maliszewski et al. 2003, p. 21, no 1, PAP.99-6.1.P3 from Chrysochou-Koutsomavro; Maliszewski 2014, Sherd no PAP.93.2.P27 comes from Polis-Touloupos; Maliszewski 2013, p. 98, provides toponyms for the surveyed areas.

52 CS no 1267.

53 CS no 1996: Adovasio et al. 1978, p. 49.

54 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 366-454.

55 Nicolaou 1964, p. 144-146 and p. 153-157, Tombs 124B and 126.

56 Hadjisavvas 2003, p. 658, fig. 36; Flourentzos 2006, p. 886.

57 Flourentzos 2004-2005, p. 1658-1659, fig. 55.

58 London, British Museum, inv. 1890,0731.41: Munro, Tubbs 1890, p. 37; Walters 1912, p. 153, pl. IV, no C792.

59 Pieridou 1973, p. 12.

60 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 366-454.

61 Ibid., p. 375-378, p. 382-386 and p. 390-392.

62 Ibid., p. 372-374, p. 386-389 and p. 421-424.

63 Ibid., p. 376, nos 3-4, pl. XC:9-10; Gjerstad 1948, fig. III:3.

64 Cf. Karageorghis 1983a, p. 356 and p. 359.

65 Smith 2009, p. 221-233.

66 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 7-9, pl. LXXI:1 and XCII:1; Tomb 68, nos 9, 14-19, pl. LXXIII:3, XCI:11 and CXXIV:3; Tomb 70, no 2, pl. LXXIV:2; Tomb 63, nos D3, D46, 3, 8, 13 and 17, pl. LXX:3 and CXXIV:2; Tomb 69, nos 2, 8, 14, 18-19 and 27, pl. LXXIV:1, CXXIV:4 and CXXX:1; Tomb 83, nos 12-13, 16, 18 and 20, pl. LXXXI:1; Gjerstad 1948, Tomb 65, no 9, fig. VI:1; Tomb 63, no 8, fig. IX:11; Tomb 69, no 18, fig. XI:13.

67 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 1, 2 and 5, pl. LXXI:1; Tomb 68, no 1, pl. LXXIII:3; Tomb 70, no 1, pl. XCII; Tomb 63, nos 4, 9, 14-15, D1 and D2, pl. LXX:3 and XC:5-6; Tomb 69, nos 5, 17 and 30, pl. LXXIV:1; Tomb 83, nos 5-6 and 10, pl. LXXXI:1 and XC:7.

68 Ibid., Tomb 63, nos 10, 16 and 18-19, pl. LXX:3 and XC:8; Tomb 69, nos 11-12, 20, 28 and 34-35, pl. LXXIV:1, XC:13-14 and CII:5; Tomb 83, nos 4 and 7-8, pl. LXXXI:1; Gjerstad 1948, Tomb 63, no 10, fig. III:8.

69 Gjerstad et al. 1935, Tomb 65, nos 8-9, pl. LXXI:1 and CXII:1; Tomb 68, no 9, pl. LXXIII:3.

70 Ibid., p. 387.

71 Ibid., p. 189-218.

72 Karageorghis 1973b; G. Georgiou in Pilides, Papadimitriou 2012, p. 212-213, no 188.

73 Gjerstad et al. 1935, p. 372-374, fig. 158:3-5.

74 Ibid., p. 421-424, fig. 183:1, nos 22-27.

75 Newberry 1935, p. 826, Tomb 83, nos 25-27.

76 Maria Bagoly, personal communication.

77 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 178-183.

78 Childs 2012, p. 103-105.

79 Ibid., p. 95-96 and p. 100-101.

80 Childs 1997, p. 39, fig. 3.

81 Smith 1997; Serwint 2009; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012.

82 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLVII:11-12, Amathus Tombs 9 and 10; Gjerstad 1960, p. 111, fig. 1:12.

83 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXVIII:18, Marion Tomb 98.

84 Ibid., fig. LII:10, Marion Tomb 72.

85 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 311, Plan 2.

86 Smith 1997, p. 88, fig. 9.

87 Ibid., p. 88-91; Serwint 2009, p. 237-241; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 176-178.

88 Childs, Smith, Padgett 2012, p. 318, Building Reconstruction 1; Smith, Rusinkiewicz 2013, p. 183-185; Smith et al. 2014, p. 743-744.

89 Plattner et al. 2012.

90 Smith 1997, p. 90-91.

91 Childs 2012, p. 98-99.

92 Papalexandrou 2006 and 2008; Childs 2012, p. 95 and p. 98-99; Hermary 2013, p. 92.

93 Cf. Karageorghis 1999, pl. CXVIII, no 1804, Kition Bothros 4; Karageorghis 2003, p. 15; Smith 2009, p. 183 and p. 209, fig. V:8c; Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLII:15, Marion Tomb 98.

94 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXVIII:22, Marion Tomb 10.

95 Smith 1997, p. 81 and p. 83, fig. 8.

96 Najbjerg 1991.

97 Serwint et al. 1989.

98 Gjerstad et al. 1935, pl. LXXIII:3, Tomb 68, no 22; Nicolaou 1964, pl. XV:5, Tomb 126:1.

99 Smith 2009, p. 181-182.

100 Ibid.

101 CS no 1267.

102 Schreiber 2003b; Smith 2009, p. 206; also see Karageorghis 1983a, p. 369.

103 Gal, Alexandre 2000; also see Smith [à paraître].

104 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171-172.

105 Karageorghis 1983a, p. 361; Smith 2009, p. 240.

106 Nicolaou 1964, pl. XV:2, Tomb 126:6.

107 Herodotus, V 104-116; Childs 2012, p. 100-103.

108 Childs 2012, p. 95-96, fig. 2:4; Najbjerg 2012, p. 237-240, fig. 4:7.

109 Childs 2012, p. 98; Smith 2012, p. 41, fig. 1:13; Annual Report of the Department of Antiquities for the Year 2010 (2016), p. 115-116.

110 Childs 2012, p. 99, fig. 2:7.

111 Plattner et al. 2012.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig 1 — Topographical plan of Polis Chrysochous with localities mentioned in the text numbered in alphabetical order.
Légende 1. Evrethades / Evretes; 2. Kokkina; 3. Maratheri [A.H9]; 4. Orta Koilades; 5. Peristeries [6. Area B.D.7; 7. Area B.F8-9]; 8. Petrerades [9. Area E.F2; 10. Area E.G0]; 11. Potamos tou Myrmikof; 12. Site A; 13. Technical School; 14. Touloupos. Each square measures 500 meters on a side. The placement of the points is based as much as possible on the known locations of the localities and built structures mentioned in the text. The locations of points 1 and 11 derive from study of the descriptions, photographs, and topography for those two cemeteries. Point 4 is placed based on the location of tombs near the current Papantoniou Supermarket. Points 13 and 14 are within the correct localities, but the specific locations of the finds within those localities are not known by this writer.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 6,5M
Titre Fig 2 — Architectural Plan of excavated area in Polis-Peristeries, Princeton Cyprus Expedition Area B.D7.
Légende Each square measures 5 meters on a side; cistern/bothros labeled; see fig. 7 for details of outlined inset.
Crédits B.D7 Trenches Master Plan, Drawing 2011.01, 15 June 2011. Drawing by K. Ziemba.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 5,7M
Titre Fig.3 — Examples of fabrics and decorations found in levels below green floor.
Légende a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B1, White Slip bowl fragment; b. BD7:n15.S1.1991.L2P1B2, White Slip wishbone handle fragment; c. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B11 White Painted closed vessel shoulder and neck fragment; d. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B2, White Painted round-bottomed jug neck and handles fragment; e. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B32, Black Slip jug grooved body fragments; f. B.D7:p14.1989.L9P1B1, Bichrome dish base fragment; g. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B47, Red Slip jug ring base, hard-fired metallic with a dark blue-gray core; h. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B5, Red Slip large and thick-walled closed vessel fragment, hard-fired with a dark blue-gray core; i. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B51, Black-on-Red large and thick-walled closed vessel shoulder fragment, hard-fired with a dark blue-gray core. The scale is in centimeters.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 6,9M
Titre Fig.4 — Plan of Polis-Evrethades.
Légende The oval demarcates the two rows of early Cypro-Geometric chamber tombs.
Crédits Adapted from Gjerstad et al. 1935, plan III, no 3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 850k
Titre Fig. 5 — Late Bronze Age hematite cylinder seal and soft dark stone conoid seal found in Cypro-Geometric–Cypro-Archaic tombs excavated at Polis Chrysochous by Eustasthios Raptou for the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Légende Drawings show the seals as seen in impression; a. MMA 567/43 from tomb excavated August 10, 2001 at Orta Koilades, height: 2.28 cm, diameter 0.91–0.99, narrowed at the midpoint; b. MMA 635/17 from tomb excavated December 15, 2005 at the Technical School, height of seal 1.58 cm, width of impression 1.64 cm, height of impression 1.40 cm. The scale is in centimeters.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 1,5M
Titre Fig.6 — Examples of vessels found on the green floor (a-b) and the white floor (c-d).
Légende a. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P1B2, Black-on-Red IV wide and shallow bowl; b. B.D7:p14.1989.L1P4B1 + L5P1B58 + B.D7:n14.1989.L5P1B6, Black-on-Red IV sack-shaped jug with trefoil rim; c. B.D7:p15.1989.L12P1B2 + L23P1B6, Black-on-Red V wide and shallow bowl; d. B.D7:p14.1989L2P1B15, Black-on-Red V juglet with trefoil rim. The scale is in centimeters.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 404k
Titre Fig.7 — Detail of fig. 2 showing several phases of the main building and part of the temenos wall.
Légende Trenches B.D7:n14 1989, B.D7:p14 1989, B.D7:p15 1989, B.D7:m14 Sondage 1 1991, and B.D7:n15 Sondage 1 1991 outlined. Gray areas and numbers reference deposits (Levels) containing ceramics discussed in the text.
Crédits Dpt. of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 5,8M
Titre Fig. 8 — Selection of bowl/cup types, a-d possibly once with stemmed feet, found below the green floor.
Légende a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P1B3, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; b. B. 7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B13, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; c. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B4, White Painted bowl/cup with wavy line motif; d. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B1, White Painted bowl with part of triglyph and metope panel decoration; e. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B66, White Painted bowl with grooved rim and part of a wavy line motif; f. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B48, Red Slip bowl with grooved rim; g. B. 7:p14.1989.L9P1B15, Red Slip bowl with carinated lower body. The scale is in centimeters.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 193k
Titre Fig.9 — Selection of stemmed vessels found below the green floor.
Légende a. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B14, White Painted stemmed bowl or cup; b. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L31P2B10, White Painted stemmed vessel foot. The scale is in centimeters.
Crédits Drawings by E. Lopez-Finn; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 40k
Titre Fig.10 — Selection of jug types found below the green floor.
Légende a. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B2, White Painted round-bottomed jug neck and handles fragment; b. B.D7:m14.S1.1991.L34P1B2, White Painted barrel jug rim and neck; c. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B89, Black Slip jug base with vertical grooves on body; d. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B47, Red Slip jug ring base, hard-fired metallic with a dark blue-gray core. The scale is in centimeters.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-10.png
Fichier image/png, 127k
Titre Fig 11 — Selection of dishes (wide and shallow bowls) found below the green floor.
Légende a. B.D7:p14.1989.L9P1B1, Bichrome dish base fragment; b. B.D7:p14.1989.L5P2B43, White Painted dish, full profile with cross-hatched triangle on base and bands of hatched decoration and nested triangles around exterior up to rim. The scale is in centimeters.
Crédits Drawings by E. Lopez-Finn; corrected and inked by J. S. Smith.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3001/img-11.png
Fichier image/png, 344k

Auteur

I would like to thank the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus for their permissions and logistical support of the fieldwork and study by our team in Polis Chrysochous. I would also like to offer appreciation to my team members, including my co-Director, William A. P. Childs, founding director of the Princeton Cyprus Expedition. Thanks are also due to the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton for their support of this project and for their archiving of the project records. Study of the finds and records from this project has taken place over several years. I thank Dariusz Maliszewski for permission to study finds from his survey in 2001. With the permission of the Department of Antiquities I studied some of the Cyprus Survey finds in 2014. With Eustathios Raptou’s kind permission in 2014 I also studied the unpublished seals found in his excavations. I thank William Childs and Hamish Cameron for their comments on earlier versions of this text.

© École française d’Athènes, 2018

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search