Version classiqueVersion mobile

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

 | 
Anna Cannavò
, 
Ludovic Thély

Partie IV – Vers une nouvelle époque ? La transition classique/hellénistique

The Advent of Hellenistic Cyprus

Demetrios Michaelides et Giorgos Papantoniou

Résumé

À ce jour, avec quelques exceptions notables, la recherche a toujours présenté la transition de la période classique à la période hellénistique d’une manière sommaire, généralement dans le but d’affirmer que cela a été le début d’un processus pendant lequel l’art et la civilisation chypriotes en général ont perdu leur particularité. Cela a été attribué au fait que l’île a intégré une koiné plus vaste – un processus qui a été complété avec l’arrivée des Romains. Cette transition, toutefois, fut un événement beaucoup plus complexe que ce qu’on estime d’habitude. Toute la structure administrative de Chypre subit un changement radical : d’île divisée en nombre de royaumes-cités autonomes en compétition entre eux, elle devint une entité unitaire gouvernée par un administrateur étranger. Certes, elle n’était pas indépendante dans la mesure où elle était partie du royaume des Ptolémées. Elle avait toutefois son propre système administratif qui régissait l’ensemble de l’île et, à partir probablement de la fin du iiie / début du iie s. av. J.-C., sa première capitale officielle, Nea Paphos. La culture grecque macédonienne que les Ptolémées amenaient avec eux s’est effectivement infiltrée dans les styles de vie de la population locale. Toutefois, de la même manière qu’en Égypte, où les traditions pharaoniques antérieures ont perduré, parfois indépendamment, parfois en combinaison avec la nouvelle civilisation importée, à Chypre s’est produit vraisemblablement quelque chose de similaire. L’article examine les changements survenus après que l’île fut tombée sous l’influence de la culture ptolémaïque, et tente de définir la mesure dans laquelle cela a pénétré les différents niveaux de la société chypriote. On introduit non seulement des nouveaux styles (par exemple, en sculpture), mais aussi des nouveaux arts (la mosaïque de galets) ; mais cela concerne-t-il l’ensemble de l’île ? Il semblerait que non, puisque certaines formes d’expression artistique « indigène » ont perduré en parallèle avec d’autres d’introduction récente – souvent influencées par celles-ci, tout en préservant un caractère chypriote indéniable qui renvoie à des traditions séculaires.

Texte intégral

From the Local Basileis to the Ptolemaic Strategos

  • 1 Stylianou 1989, p. 416, and 2000, p. 515-516; cf. Petit 1991; Zournatzi 1996, p. 166.
  • 2 Collected in Hadjioannou 1971-1992, I, p. 196-207.

1At the time of the war of Alexander the Great against Darius III, the Cypriot city-kingdoms were part of the Achaemenid Empire. Despite the fact that they must have been paying some kind of tribute and had to provide maritime military assistance to the Persian kings, they maintained their political status and independence.1 The relationship between the Cypriot basileis and Alexander toward the end of the Cypro-Classical period, as described by the literary sources,2 should be viewed primarily in a context of political and economic survival and secondarily in terms of cultural or ethnic identity: in 333 B.C., most of the Cypriot basileis, assessing the strength of Alexander’s growing power, sided with him hoping to retain their autonomy.

  • 3 Cf. Mehl 2004, p. 21.

2During the conflict of the Successors over possession of Cyprus, the basileis were politically divided. Some of them joined Antigonos and others Ptolemy, obviously hoping that by allying themselves with one or the other of the two parties they would retain their independence.3 Things did not turn out in their favour however, since the final supremacy of Ptolemy led to the eventual abolition of the city-kingdoms.

  • 4 Bagnall 1976, p. 38-49.
  • 5 Keen 2012; Papantoniou 2012b, and 2013b.

3Bagnall’s study of the administration of the Ptolemaic possessions outside Egypt, and more specifically his treatment of the strategia in Cyprus, clearly illustrates one central obstacle in our understanding of the transition to Ptolemaic administration4 and the dangers involved in taking Diodorus’ account of the first strategos at face value. In other words, Diodorus’ account of the history of early Hellenistic Cyprus has generated the assumption that the strategos must have held a central and important role in the Ptolemaic administration right from the beginning of Ptolemy I’s domination; and the lack of epigraphic evidence for a strategos in the early and middle third century B.C. has usually been attributed to the deficiency of evidence. Nonetheless, attention should be drawn to the difficulty of attempting to extract technical terminology from ancient historians, and Diodorus in particular. Therefore, a distinction should be made between official titles and the words used for describing the nature of a person’s activity. In Diodorus’ words, Ptolemy made Nikokreon strategos of Cyprus in 312 B.C. Menelaos, the brother of Ptolemy I, is already designated strategos of the military forces in Cyprus by Diodorus in 315 B.C. If Diodorus’ terminology is accurate, one must assume either that Menelaos was replaced by Nikokreon in 312 B.C., only to regain his place on the death in 310 B.C., or that there were two men with the title strategos operating on the island at the same time, which would be surprising, not to say strange, and completely at odds with the sense of strategia. The main socio-economic and administrative structures may have functioned under a semblance of continuity,5 and only new evidence will allow us to speak with confidence about the strategia before 217 B.C., when we have the first explicit evidence for a Ptolemaic strategos.

  • 6 Młynarczyk 1990, p. 121; Keen 2012, p. 52-53; cf. Mehl 2000, p. 685-687.

4By this time, Cyprus was organised under the overall control of the strategos, who was directly responsible to the Ptolemies. For a few years Salamis seems to have functioned as the administrative base of Pelops, the first securely identified strategos; who is probably the same strategos soon to be transferred to Nea Paphos, which became the capital of Cyprus. This new capital, we assume, offered a more direct sea lane between the island and Alexandria,6 and was close to the Troodos mountains, whence came two commodities precious to the Ptolemies: metals and timber.

  • 7 Bekker-Nielsen 2004, p. 105-107 and p. 230.
  • 8 Marquaille 2001, p. 54; Papantoniou 2013a, p. 47-50.
  • 9 Marquaille 2001, p. 139.

5By the second century B.C., the Ptolemaic administration manifested its interest in asserting its control on the island more effectively, as can be deduced, for instance, from the establishment of a more complex road system, which eventually joined the eastern highways with the western ones that had hitherto been separate.7 In addition, the epigraphic record related to the administration and the presence of various associations on the island allows us to assume that, in the second century B.C., Ptolemaic power on Cyprus became more visible and supervised.8 This is definitely related to the fact that, during this time, the Ptolemies lost most of their naval bases, and Cyprus, as a shelter to Alexandria, became their main transmarine base. Thus, for political, military and economic reasons, the Ptolemies focused their interests primarily on urbanised coastal centres, in an effort to retain their influence on maritime power and control of the sea.9

  • 10 Papantoniou 2012b, p. 28-54, p. 257-262 and p. 358-361.

6When one looks at the Cypriot material culture of the Hellenistic period, one cannot deny the presence of a Hellenistic koine. On Cyprus, where strong elements of “Greek culture” were already in place, the influence on material culture of the Hellenistic koine, and influences emanating directly from Alexandria, are complex and sometimes difficult to define.10

  • 11 Mitford 1953; Bagnall 1976, p. 57-73; Mehl 2000, p. 698-712; Hatzopoulos 2009; Iacovou [à paraître]
  • 12 Bagnall 1976, p. 79.

7Even if Cyprus was ready to adapt to Hellenic forms of culture and administration, it was Ptolemaic rule that established city life and institutions that are found in the rest of the Hellenic world.11 According to epigraphic evidence, in the third century B.C. the cities of Cyprus had civic institutions, such as a boule and probably a demos. Public buildings, namely temples, gymnasia, baths, theatres and other testaments to Hellenistic urban life similar to those found in other Mediterranean Hellenistic centres, existed not only in the capital, Nea Paphos, but also in other cities indicating the homogeneity of the Hellenistic civic life, which was enjoyed by all those living within urban communities. As Bagnall suggests,12 Cypriot cities possibly maintained their control over their surrounding landscape; and even if the royal administration was controlling the cities through the positioning of garrisons and commandants, the cities continued to maintain considerable autonomy. Bagnall further surmises that the economic life of the countryside was largely in the hands of the cities, rather than directly ruled by royal bureaucrats.

8In what follows, we will review some of the evidence in an endeavour to demonstrate that the incorporation of Cyprus into the Hellenistic cultural koine was a much more complex process than has usually been assumed.

The Material Culture

  • 13 Iacovou 2008c; Papantoniou 2013b ; Iacovou [à paraître].

9If we consider the final phase of the Late Cypriot period as the initial stage in a long and multi-staged process of “Hellenisation” of the island, in the later sixth century B.C. – following the start of the Persian Wars – we can observe the beginning of a process of alignment with the Greek world of the mainland and the Ionian coast.13 This is related to a new policy on the part of some of the Cypriot basileis, which resulted in a shift from eastern to western prototypes.

  • 14 Markou 2011a, p. 224-235.
  • 15 Ulbrich 2008, p. 506-510, tables 4a-b.
  • 16 Ulbrich 2008, p. 83-85 and p. 89-91.

10Iconography bears eloquent evidence of the attempt of most of the Cypro-Classical dynasties to associate their lineage with Greek deities or heroes, as reflected in their coins (fig. 1),14 and this is also the period when Greek divinities, such as Hera, Artemis, Athena, Demeter and Apollo, appear for the first time in the epigraphic record.15 In addition, sculpture and iconography provide further evidence for the introduction or the amalgamation of Greek deities into the Cypriot pantheon; like, for example, Artemis and Athena.16

Fig 1 — Coins of various basileis of Salamis.

Fig 1 — Coins of various basileis of Salamis.

(a) Gold coin of Evagoras II, with a bust of a goddess identified as Athena on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF 1984-01-16). (b) Silver coin of Pnytagoras with a bust of a goddess identified as Artemis on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF 1984-01-14). (c) Silver coin of Nikokreon, with a bust of a god identified as Apollo on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF1999-03-06).

Courtesy of the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

  • 17 Papantoniou 2011, p. 40-41 and p. 43-45.
  • 18 Cf. Ulbrich 2008, p. 91-93; Ulbrich 2010, p. 190-191; Papantoniou 2011, p. 40; Papantoniou 2012b, p (...)
  • 19 Serwint 1993; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171, fig. 3:3.

11The “Hellenisation” of the “Cypriot Goddess” is particularly relevant in this context since it too was initiated in the context of the “Hellenising” policy of the Cypriot basileis.17 In the fourth century B.C., Hathor – a goddess clearly related to royal ideology – appears to be gradually abandoned and the Cypriot Astarte-like goddess is assimilated with Aphrodite. Excellent examples of this process are the late Cypro-Classical/early Hellenistic limestone statue from Golgoi, which portrays the goddess with a winged Eros on her left arm (fig. 2);18 and the largish terracotta of the same period from Polis portraying the goddess standing with an upright Eros by her side.19

Fig 2 — Limestone statue of the “Cypriot Goddess” from Golgoi. New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cesnola Collection; purchased by subscription, 1874-76.

Fig 2 — Limestone statue of the “Cypriot Goddess” from Golgoi. New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cesnola Collection; purchased by subscription, 1874-76.

Image by D. Michaelides.

  • 20 Masson 1983, p. 129, no 47; p. 259, no 234.
  • 21 Hermary, Masson 1982.

12Epigraphy further supports this transformation: two syllabic inscriptions, one from Rantidi the other from Chytroi, mention Aphrodite or Paphian Aphrodite.20 Better dated, in the fourth century B.C., an alphabetic inscription found in the hilltop sanctuary at Amathous, provides key evidence not only about the identity of the goddess but also about her special connection with royal power and ideology. It informs us that king Androkles, dedicated the statues of his sons to the Cyprian Aphrodite.21

  • 22 For some recent finds and discussion, see Hermary 2006, and 2009a; Higgs, Kiely 2009.
  • 23 For the evidence, see Anastassiades 2000-2001; Papantoniou 2012b, p. 193-197, and 2013b; also Herma (...)

13It should be underlined, however, that despite these Hellenisation processes, and given the special relation of Aphrodite to Cyprus, statues of the goddess are by no means numerous during the Hellenistic and even the Roman period.22 Nonetheless it is interesting to note that although, as we will see, generally speaking, marble statues in Cyprus were always scarce, marble statues of the goddess appear to be more common than those of any other deity (fig. 3). This pre-eminence must reflect the significance of the goddess; and could be another argument in support of the proposed link between the Ptolemaic queens and the Great Goddess of Cyprus, especially in relation to the portrait of Arsinoe II found at Soloi (see below).23

Fig 3 — Marble statuette of “Aphrodite in arms”, from Soloi-Cholades – find 466, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia.

Fig 3 — Marble statuette of “Aphrodite in arms”, from Soloi-Cholades – find 466, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia.

Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

  • 24 Satraki 2013.
  • 25 E.g., Hermary 1989, p. 133-181, and 2009b; cf. Iacovou [à paraître].

14While male sculpture – some of which should be related to royalty24 – accommodates Egyptian and Near Eastern symbols of power during the Cypro-Archaic period, already from the sixth but more as we proceed within the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., male beardless statues adhering to Greek – and particularly Ionian – prototypes become more common.25

  • 26 Nicolaou 1972, p. 315, pl. 66, fig. 38; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 234, fig. 214; Mattusch 2015, (...)

15We have no way of knowing what the statues dedicated to Aphrodite by Androkles of Amathous looked like – although given the fixing holes on the base, they appear to have been made of bronze, like many others of this and the succeeding period, none of which survives. Eloquent evidence of their widespread use are the marks on many a statue base, but also some unique moulds (fig. 4) from a bronze foundry excavated under the triclinium of the House of Dionysos in Paphos, made of gypsum mixed with straw and reinforced with animal ribs.26

Fig 4 — Mould made of gypsum and animal bones for the back of an over life-size bronze statue, from a foundry found under the House of Dionysos in Paphos.

Fig 4 — Mould made of gypsum and animal bones for the back of an over life-size bronze statue, from a foundry found under the House of Dionysos in Paphos.

Image by D. Michaelides.

  • 27 Nicolaou 1972, p. 315, pl. 66, fig. 35; Nicolaou 1978, p. 852, no 11, pl. 178; Maier, Karageorghis (...)
  • 28 Mitford 1961a.
  • 29 Smith R. 1988, p. 91, pl. 37, nos 2-5.
  • 30 Westholm 1936, pl. I, find 425 and pl. III, find 438; for further discussion see Papantoniou 2012b, (...)
  • 31 Westholm 1936, pl. II, find 532.
  • 32 Smith R. 1988, pl. 36, no 3.
  • 33 Westholm 1936, pl. XIV, find 520.
  • 34 Ibid., p. 134-135.
  • 35 Markides 1915, p. 7, and 1916, p. 12; Vessberg, Westholm 1956, p. 176, fig. 65:1; Buchholz 1978, p. (...)

16During the Hellenistic period, the Ptolemaic royal image circulated in the island through coins (fig. 5) – and, at a different level, through seal impressions like those found under the House of Dionysos in Paphos.27 Such imagery definitely had an impact on the development of Cypriot sculpture, and its presence is clearly implied by a great number of inscribed statue bases coming primarily from sanctuary sites.28 Even if we have the inscribed bases of such royal statues, we lack the actual sculptures. In some instances, however, we can make some assumptions as to what they looked like: one can hardly deny the striking similarities the Alexandrian Hirsch and Kassel queens (fig. 6), most probably the ideal images of Arsinoe II and Berenice II respectively,29 have with the two Cypriot heads from Soloi-Cholades (fig. 7).30 In addition, another marble head from Soloi,31 though badly damaged, displays similar stylistic features, and could be compared with the Sarapeum queen in Alexandria.32 The Soloi sculptures are also fundamental in showing how Alexandrian stylistic developments in marble sculpture were translated into local limestone. Further to the possible Alexander (fig. 8),33 there are also several female limestone heads, indicating that elements of the royal portrait-style were not restricted to the artists of the court, but were also transmitted to the local sculptors.34 Furthermore, in relation to the spreading of Ptolemaic-type portraiture – even if not necessarily of the royals themselves – we need to mention the role played by the minor arts, like, for example, the bone or ivory finger rings made in Alexandria and decorated with fine portraits, found at Tamassos, Kyrenia and elsewhere on the island (fig. 9).35

Fig 5 — Ptolemaic coins.

Fig 5 — Ptolemaic coins.

(a) Gold coin of Ptolemy IV, from Alexandria – GR 1872.0709.359. (b) Gold coin depicting Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Cyprus – BCCF 1992-04-01, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.

(a) British Museum, London, the Trustees of the British Museum. (b) Zapiti, Michaelidou 2008, p. 127, no 21.

17 

Fig 6 — The Kassel Queen, “from Alexandria” (undocumented).

Fig 6 — The Kassel Queen, “from Alexandria” (undocumented).

Sk. 115, Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel. Courtesy of Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel.

18 

Fig 7 — Marble head, probably of Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Soloi-Cholades– find 438.

Fig 7 — Marble head, probably of Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Soloi-Cholades– find 438.

Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

19 

Fig 8 — Limestone head of Alexander the Great, style I B, from Soloi-Cholades – find 520.

Fig 8 — Limestone head of Alexander the Great, style I B, from Soloi-Cholades – find 520.

Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

20 

Fig 9 — Portraits on Alexandrian-made bone or ivory finger rings found in Cyprus.

Fig 9 — Portraits on Alexandrian-made bone or ivory finger rings found in Cyprus.

Now in the Cyprus Museum (image D. Michaelides).

  • 36 Connelly 1988, p. 1-2; Senff 1993, p. 43-45; Anastassiades 1998, p. 132.
  • 37 Papantoniou 2012b, p. 316-317 and p. 331; Papantoniou 2012c, p. 97-101 ; Papantoniou 2016.
  • 38 Connelly 1988; Erath-Koiner 2007; Koiner 2012.

21In Hellenistic Cyprus, therefore, new uses and combinations of symbolism and style were developed, incorporating the interacting artistic and religious elements of the local tradition and the Hellenistic koine. At the same time, local styles and iconographic elements continue to be important and prevail in the more ordinary types of statuary. An earlier tradition that stubbornly survives is the local custom of dedicating limestone statues of votaries (fig. 10).36 In these, local traditions are expressed through the maintenance of representations and postures found in earlier Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical sculpture.37 On the other hand, features on portrait-like sculpture commissioned by the local elite, derived from the collective iconography of the Hellenistic koine and imitated the fashionable royal style.38

Fig 10 — Limestone sculpture, from Voni.

Fig 10 — Limestone sculpture, from Voni.

E 513, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

  • 39 Karageorghis 1969b, p. 151-164, and 1973c, p. 128-202; Cheal 1978.
  • 40 Karageorghis 1973c, p. 128-202; Gesche 1974; Baurain 2008; Buraselis 2013.

22In relation to sculpture, a brief mention needs to be made of the finds from the cenotaph of Salamis dated to the end of the fourth century B.C.39 This is not the moment to discuss whether the owner was Nikokreon, Antigonos or someone else.40 What needs to be emphasised is the exceptional character of both structure and finds, many of which have a strong link with Macedonia, and find no parallels in Cyprus. The tumulus itself is a unicum for Cyprus of the period and some of the metal fragments appear to come from Macedonian type sarissai. Above all, however, the exceptionally fine portraits made of unbaked clay follow Lysippean ideals (fig. 11), that are in effect alien to Cypriot sculpture – even if, not surprisingly, the limestone “Alexander” portrait from Soloi does follow the Lysippean model. But, we repeat, the portraits, like the cenotaph itself are an exceptional case.

Fig 11 — Lysippean-type portraits made of unbaked clay, from Tumulus 77, Salamis – finds 951 and 870.

Fig 11 — Lysippean-type portraits made of unbaked clay, from Tumulus 77, Salamis – finds 951 and 870.

Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

  • 41 Beer 1994.
  • 42 Beer 1994, p. 13 and p. 83, pl. 198.
  • 43 See, for example, Stucky 1993, no 101; Doumet-Serhal et al. 1997, no 29.
  • 44 Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah, Seif el-Din 2012, p. 438-439, fig. 23-26.

23We have already mentioned the general rarity of marble statuary on the island. This, to some degree is to be expected since the island has no marble of its own. However, although this can explain the paucity of examples during earlier periods, it is very surprising for the Hellenistic age, when Cyprus was part of a much larger trading network – especially when we consider the relative wealth of marble sculpture in places like Lebanon, which also has no native marble. Even in the case of the “temple boys”,41 such a strong feature of Cypriot sculpture, the material always remained limestone (and sometimes terracotta and even plaster) but not marble, save a tiny and rather unusual example from Kition42 – even though examples of similar type statuettes in marble, rare though they are, are found in Lebanon43 and Alexandria, like at the recently excavated Boubasteion.44

  • 45 Karageorghis 2000b, p. 204-205, no 331; Flourentzos 2007c; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 363-370.

24This transition toward a more “Hellenised” environment and the impact of the Cypro-Classical royal ideologies on Cypriot culture can also be seen in the development of other types of sculpture. The appearance of sarcophagi in the late sixth century B.C. was a new phenomenon in Cypriot culture, and by the fifth century B.C., their use became fairly common. This is the period when the depiction of Greek mythological themes and the Homeric epics appear in Cypriot art in general, and on sarcophagi in particular.45

  • 46 Georgiou G. 2009; Georgiou G. 2010.
  • 47 Hermary 1986b and Hermary 1987a.

25With regard to the use of sarcophagi, Tomb 128 at Kition is particularly interesting in reflecting local tradition and materials, the Phoenician element in Cypriot culture, and the Hellenisation process of this period:46 as Georgiou has demonstrated, it contained three sarcophagi deposited in the tomb at successive times. The earliest, dating to about 450 B.C., is of local stone and plain, of a type strongly rooted to Cypriot tradition. Soon after, a second burial apparently took place, in a marble anthropoid sarcophagus of extremely high quality. This, the tenth of its kind to be found on the island, is clearly “Phoenician” even though strongly influenced by local and Greek sculptural iconography. By contrast, the third sarcophagus, which was made around 400 B.C., is a masterpiece of Greek art. It is made of marble and carries painted figural decoration. This general type of marble sarcophagus is known in Cyprus but all other examples – at least in the state in which they survive – do not have painted decoration. We must underline, however, that such sarcophagi are exceptional pieces used for a limited number of important personages. As a matter of fact, decorated sarcophagi, whether imported or locally made, are rare in the Classical period, becoming even rarer during the Hellenistic era – a notable example being the Amazonomachy sarcophagus of Soloi, “rediscovered” by Hermary.47 The vast majority of the inhabitants of Cyprus were buried in simple local imitations of Greek types or plain limestone sarcophagi – or, as was much more common, not in a sarcophagus at all but directly into an ordinary rectangular grave or a chamber tomb.

  • 48 E.g., Vermeule 1976, p. 47-48, fig. II:4 and II:5; Karageorghis 2000b, p. 216, no 346, p. 218-219, (...)
  • 49 Vermeule 1976, p. 31, p. 33-34 and p. 49-50, fig. I:20 and 23, II:7-9.
  • 50 Vermeule 1976, p. 30, fig. I:19; Flourentzos 1994; Raptou 1997; Childs 2012, p. 50-57, nos 2-5.

26Additionally, Greek marble funerary lions and stelai with relief decoration or, sometimes, free-standing elements were introduced and used during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.48 There are several examples in marble imported from the Greek world, but also local imitations carved in Cypriot limestone, with varying degrees of success.49 But, even at Marion, where imported Greek marble stelai are more common than elsewhere on the island, their use is more the exception than the rule. Furthermore, Marion developed its own type of funerary sculpture, which, although very Greek in appearance, was of exclusively local use: namely, the largish seated or reclining terracotta statues, of both males and females (fig. 12).50 These date from the late fifth to the late fourth century B.C., and are made in a mixed technique of mould and modelling. The faces, most probably made from imported Greek moulds, are often exquisitely beautiful and contrast with the more crudely made arms and body.

Fig 12 — Funerary terracotta statuette of a seated woman, from Arsinoe.

Fig 12 — Funerary terracotta statuette of a seated woman, from Arsinoe.

Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales (AM 89) (from Spiteris 1970).

  • 51 Hermary 1987b, p. 71-75, with earlier bibliography. A painted stele recently found at Polis Chrysoc (...)
  • 52 Brown 1957, p. 1-52; Walter, Rouveret, Bagualt 1998; Rouveret, Walter 1998; Rouveret 2002.

27Another type of funerary monument that is again used practically exclusively in one area of the island are the painted stelai of Amathous, which obviously follow Greek models.51 The question once again arises whether the influence came through a process of osmosis from the general Hellenistic koine or from Alexandria, where painted stelai are also known.52

  • 53 Hermary 1987a, p. 233, n. 31.
  • 54 Vermeule 1976, p. 47.
  • 55 Cf. Papantoniou 2012b, p. 140.
  • 56 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 179, fig. 3.12.

28As regards other types of sculpture, the almost total absence of classical-type architectural decoration, metopes, pediments etc., either in marble or limestone, even during the Hellenistic period, may at first sight seem surprising, but it can easily be explained in relation to the architecture itself, which, as we will see later, only rarely followed faithfully Greek prototypes. There is, of course, the notable example of the marble Amazonomachy frieze from Soloi (fig. 13), for the dating of which we follow Hermary53 in ascribing it to the second century, rather than the usually attributed fourth century B.C.,54 but this remains unique in the Cypriot environment.55 In this context, mention can also be made of the rather puzzling fragmentary terracotta antefix decorated with a bearded male head, probably a satyr, from the Maratheri sanctuary at Marion.56

Fig 13 — Hellenistic marble frieze from Soloi depicting an Amazonomachy.

Fig 13 — Hellenistic marble frieze from Soloi depicting an Amazonomachy.

Inv. no. E 548, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

  • 57 E.g. Gasse 1991; Caubet 1994, p. 602-603, fig. 4a.

29In the above discussion, we have spoken of currents influencing Cypriot culture coming from a general Hellenistic koine, and others that might just as easily have come from Alexandria; with the only certain case of a direct Alexandrian impact being the Ptolemaic royal portraits and their influence on Cypriot sculpture. But given that Hellenistic Cyprus was part of the Ptolemaic kingdom, one would expect to find more such direct influences. The evidence at hand, however, shows that this was not the case. There is an array of objects clearly coming from Egypt,57 but these are usually small portable items and remain outside the everyday apparatus of what was used by the average Cypriot.

  • 58 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009; Hadjisavvas 2011; Greve 2014.
  • 59 Michaelides 2004, p. 90-92; Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, p. 226-230.
  • 60 Venit 2002, col. pl. IV; Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, fig. 21:39.

30Besides portrait-like sculpture, the major exception of a direct Alexandrian influence, both in their architecture and their painted decoration, are the so-called Tombs of the Kings and some nearby tombs in Nea Paphos.58 These are of various architectural types, all cut in the living rock, and they all have features that link them to Alexandria. One particular type, with a peristyle atrium in the Doric order, finds its closest parallels in the necropolis of Mustafa Pasha in Alexandria. Well-nigh all the painted decoration of these tombs has disappeared. However, two tombs at the nearby locality of Ammoi give us an idea of what at least some of it may have looked like.59 Despite the insertion of Roman arcosolia, Tomb B preserves several features that link it to Hellenistic Alexandria; while Tomb A exhibits a decoration consisting of large slabs of imitation alabaster, crowned by a frieze of garlands (fig. 14). The ceiling, “covered”, so to speak, by a woven textile stretching over the entire chamber, remains unique in Cyprus. The type is, of course, known in Macedonia; however, the fact that the closest parallel – not to say identical twin – comes from the Alexandrian necropolis of Anfouchi, together with the imitation of alabaster, leaves little doubt as to where the idea came from.60

Fig 14 — (a) Fresco decoration consisting of large slabs of imitation alabaster, crowned by a frieze of garlands; (b) Imitation of women textile on ceiling. Tomb A at Ammoi, Nea Paphos.

Fig 14 — (a) Fresco decoration consisting of large slabs of imitation alabaster, crowned by a frieze of garlands; (b) Imitation of women textile on ceiling. Tomb A at Ammoi, Nea Paphos.

Images by D. Michaelides.

  • 61 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, fig. 21:16-17 and 21:18-19.
  • 62 Venit 2002, p. 175.
  • 63 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, p. 232.

31Again, however, we are talking of the rare exceptions rather than the norm. And it is to be expected that such architecture and decoration is to be found, albeit sporadically, only at the Hellenistic capital of the island, and at the locality Ellenospilioi of adjacent Anavargos – with one single exception at Phlamoudi in the north-east of the island.61 Venit saw the Tombs of the Kings as probably independent of the local population and designed for Alexandrian officials who were buried in Paphos.62 But Guimier-Sorbets and Michaelides have added that some may belong “to well-to-do Cypriots who tried to emulate the style and trends of the capital” – something that would also explain why these tombs are never truly Egyptian but always Egyptianizing”.63 In fact, despite the similarities between the tombs of Paphos and those of Alexandria, there are structural and morphological differences, and, above all, differences in the burial customs they reflect. Two of these, related to the hero cult, are particularly significant: the main chambers of the Alexandrian tombs are equipped with a realistically rendered stone kline; while in most the court or the antechamber hosts an altar on the axis of the main burial chamber. The Paphian tombs lack both klinai and altars – although one cannot exclude that there might have been klinai made of wood, which have since perished. At the same time, the Paphian tombs are related to the Alexandrian ones in that they contrast with Macedonian burial customs since, after burial, they were clearly accessible to the family of the deceased, which is in total contrast to the Macedonian tradition where the tomb was inaccessible, buried as it was under a tumulus.

  • 64 Parks 2009, p. 237-238.
  • 65 Enklaar 1985, p. 106.
  • 66 Callaghan 1980; Callaghan, Jones 1985.
  • 67 Michaelides 1988, p. 59, fig. 96; D. Michaelides in Karageorghis 1989, p. 845, fig. 133-134.

32The very small number of cremations in Cyprus as opposed to their profusion in Alexandria also reflects different burial customs. Generally speaking, the known cremations of Hellenistic Cyprus are few and rather humble; usually contained in a simple cooking pot. A few are more elaborate and have a definite Egyptian connection since they employ Hadra hydriae.64 Enklaar has classified Hadra hydriae into two groups.65 It is not certain if the first group (White Ground or Polychrome group) was manufactured in Alexandria or elsewhere, perhaps Rhodes; but it has been shown that the manufacture of the second group (Clay Ground group) started in Crete and was later taken over by Alexandrian workshops.66 Contrary to Crete, where such hydriae have also been found in domestic buildings, those sent to Alexandria were used exclusively as cinerary urns. The same holds true for the Hadra hydriae found on Cyprus. These appear to have been used, not because they were something special and precious, but for ‘Alexandrians’ who died on the island, as shown, for example, by a polychrome example (fig. 15) containing a cremation, laid in a small square rock-cut pit cut amongst hundreds of inhumations in ordinary rectangular shaft tombs in the poorest part of the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos.67

Fig 15 — Hadra hydria with cremation from the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos.

Fig 15 — Hadra hydria with cremation from the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos.

Image by D. Michaelides.

  • 68 Michaelides 1990, with bibliography regarding the Cypriot finds; Barker 2004.

33Whether at least some of these hydriae came directly from Crete is not known. What is known is that with Cyprus being part of the larger Ptolemaic world, the island participated more actively in trade and the economic networks opened up by Alexandria; and nowhere more so than in the intense trade of wine amphorae going from Rhodes to Alexandria. Cyprus as a whole but Paphos in particular, being the main stop-over before Alexandria, boasts one of the largest collections of Rhodian amphorae outside Rhodes and Alexandria, preserved complete, since, following a local custom, they were often reused as grave goods for even the poorest section of the population (fig. 16).68 Of course, Rhodian and other amphorae were already imported to Cyprus, witness for example the proto-Rhodian cargo of the Kyrenia shipwreck; but their number and variety increased phenomenally during the Hellenistic period to be surpassed only during the Roman era.

Fig 16 — Rhodian amphorae reused as grave goods, Nea Paphos.

Fig 16 — Rhodian amphorae reused as grave goods, Nea Paphos.

Image by D. Michaelides.

34Let us now look at some building categories and their decoration that first appear in Cyprus during the Hellenistic period. These reflect new habits and changes in the way of life that shed further light on the character of the transition and the incorporation of the island into the broader Hellenistic koine.

  • 69 Papantoniou 2009, 2012b, p. 138-141, and 2013a, p. 48-50.

35Epigraphic and other evidence shows that during the Hellenistic period traditional temenos-type sanctuaries, such as that of Aphrodite at Palaepaphos continued to function; while the ex novo foundation of sanctuaries was rather limited – and some of these new structures, like the temple at Soloi-Cholades, must have been associated with the propagation of Ptolemaic ideology and cult.69

  • 70 Fourrier 2006, p. 11-13; Fourrier, Hermary 2006, p. 160-163.
  • 71 Mitford 1980.
  • 72 Młynarczyk Y. 1980; for more recent bibliography, see Michaelides 2008, p. 41-42.
  • 73 Giudice, Giudice 1998.

36It should further be noted that the phenomenon of caves as spaces of worship is very rare in pre-Hellenistic Cyprus.70 Similar structures are found during the Hellenistic period; however, we are now dealing with more substantial examples, that could be a natural cave, as at Kafizin,71 or a man-made underground space, like the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Yeroskipou (fig. 17) 72 and the so-called “Garrison’s Camp” at Paphos.73

Fig 17 — Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates, Yeroskipou: Entrace, dedicatory inscription and plan.

Fig 17 — Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates, Yeroskipou: Entrace, dedicatory inscription and plan.

Images by D. Michaelides; plan: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.

  • 74 Wright 1992, p. 267.
  • 75 Argoud et al. 1975, p. 138-139; Callot 1985; Wright 1992, p. 153-154.
  • 76 Wright 1992, p. 154.
  • 77 Vörös 2006.

37More temples are recorded epigraphically but these do not survive and we do not know what they looked like. It would seem, however, that one can hardly deny that, even among the strong “Hellenising” policy of various Cypro-Classical basileis, classic-type Greek temple forms did not appear on Cyprus before the second century B.C., and even then the form was neither orthodox nor prevalent.74 One such building is the temple of Zeus at Salamis, the construction of which started at the end of the second century B.C. but was not completed until Roman times.75 The investigation of this important building by the French Mission remained incomplete due to the 1974 Turkish invasion. However, what little is known of the early phase would justify Wright’s claim that “the nature of the Temple of Zeus is anything but that of a classical Greek temple”.76 As for another proposed candidate, the temple on the Phanari Hill at Nea Paphos, the surviving elements are so few and the reconstruction so fanciful77 that it is wiser to leave it out of the discussion. With the knowledge presently at hand, it is very difficult to define the nature of the Hellenistic “classicising” sacred architecture of Cyprus, since what little survives exhibits a modified, local hybrid style that would never be mistaken for that of a mainstream Greek Hellenistic building. The aforementioned Amazonomachy pediment frieze from Soloi might indicate an exception but since the building it decorated does not survive, we have no way of knowing.

  • 78 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978; Loulloupis 1979; Anastassiades 1994, 2007, and 2009.
  • 79 Fraser 1967.
  • 80 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978, p. 797.
  • 81 Saturn. I 20, 16-18.
  • 82 Fraser 1960, p. 46-47; Vidman 1970, p. 27; Dunand 1973, III, p. 120; Michaelides 2009, p. 201-202.
  • 83 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978; Loulloupis 1979; Hornbostel 1973, p. 294 n. 3 (all with earlier bibliogr (...)

38Although sacred architecture may have remained rather traditional, there was certainly a change in the Cypriot pantheon. Gods of Egyptian origin were known for centuries on the island but, as is to be expected given Cyprus’ direct relations with Egypt, their worship came to the forefront during the Hellenistic period.78 Some of these were newly introduced, and Serapis appears to have been the first in line – not surprisingly so given that the god was a “creation” of Ptolemy Soter, who introduced him to Alexandria.79 Serapis is attested epigraphically already in the early third century B.C. at Salamis and Soloi.80 There is also the account of Macrobius,81 according to which, Nikokreon of Salamis after he was appointed ruler of Cyprus requested from Serapis to reveal his true identity. The reason for this, one assumes, was to show loyalty to Ptolemy, since the answer he received validated the prestige of “his” new god: “my head is an ornament of the heavens and my belly is the sea, and my feet are the whole earth, my ears are in the ether, my lightning look, the bright light of the sun”. However, this is a late and problematic bit of information,82 and, in fact, despite several inscriptions referring to Serapeia, the worship of Serapis does not appear to have been exceptionally widespread on the island.83

  • 84 Smith R. 1988, p. 23.
  • 85 Mitford 1961a, p. 37 and p. 39.

39A completely new type of worship, that had nothing to do with the Cypriot past, which was introduced for the first time during the Hellenistic period and directly from Alexandria, was the ruler cult. Once the cult of the Ptolemies was fully developed it was quickly adopted outside Egypt, and was practised in all their territories as from around 200 B.C., in order to confirm the legitimacy of the ruling line, and to provide a symbolic way of expressing loyalty and allegiance to it. Through those officially established royal cults, the king could define and mediate his power to his subjects in ways other than simply military and bureaucratic.84 At the same time, it is clear that the cities established ruler cult in an attempt to come to terms with a new type of royal power and accommodate the new kings. This was also one of the main duties of the Koinon Kyprion, which was created for this purpose in the later Ptolemaic period.85

  • 86 Nicolaou 1993, p. 228; Anastassiades 1998, p. 134.
  • 87 See Mitford 1961a, p. 40-41; Mehl 2000, p. 742-744, n. 106, with earlier bibliography.
  • 88 Fourrier, Hermary 2006, p. 163-164.

40The surviving evidence for an actual Arsinoeion at Idalion dates to the mid-third century B.C. and informs us that it was ἀνδρᾶσι ἄδυτον, that is “out of bounds for men”;86 while the inscription referring to a Ptolemaeion dates to around 100 B.C. The latter was founded in honour of Ptolemy IX Lathyros by the Paphian Onesandros son of Nausikrates, who became its priest for life; and who was the father of the priestess for life of the deified Cleopatra III.87 Epigraphy furthermore informs us that the Ptolemies were also worshiped as synnaoi theoi (temple-sharing gods).88

  • 89 Vandervondelen 1997; for examples in the Louvre, see Hermary 1989, p. 442-443, nos 913-915.
  • 90 Vedder 1988.
  • 91 Michaelides 2014.

41There is another change related to worship during the Hellenistic period – not in the deity but in the type of offering related to benevolent healing deities. During the Archaic period there was the custom of offering small terracotta statuettes depicting scenes related to childbirth. The type, now made in limestone, was revived in the early Hellenistic period (fig. 18),89 following, as it has been pointed out by Vedder,90 such representations on Attic stelai. Their production appears to stop during the third century B.C. and in later Hellenistic times a completely new type of offering appears. This consists of anatomical ex-votos, of a type that is found – with certain variations, especially in the body parts represented – in many parts the Hellenistic world, Etruria and Republican Italy (fig. 19).91

Fig 18 — Limestone figurine depicting a scene of childbirth, from Golgoi.

Fig 18 — Limestone figurine depicting a scene of childbirth, from Golgoi.

Metropolitan Museum, New York (Karageorghis 2000b, p. 261, fig. 424).

42 

Fig 19 — Limestone ex-votos.

Fig 19 — Limestone ex-votos.

a. Male genitals; b. Breast; c. Ear; d. Pair of eyes.

The Cyprus Museum, Nicosia (images by A. Koutas)

  • 92 Green 2013, p. 41 and p. 51.
  • 93 Green 2007, p. 5-6, 2013, and 2014, p. 363-367; Michaelides, Nicolaou 2008, p. 39.
  • 94 Plutarch, Vita Alexandri xxix.

43We now move away from worship and cult to other domains where new types of buildings and decoration were introduced for the first time in Cyprus during the Hellenistic period. As is well known, during the fourth century B.C. theatre became increasingly popular and spread throughout the Greek world. There is some evidence that the genre also came to Cyprus at that time,92 most of which comes from theatrical terracotta figurines.93 There is also Plutarch’s account94 informing us that Alexander put on a dramatic festival for his troops in Tyre, for which the Cypriot basileis were the main sponsors. Such an involvement with the theatre would concord with the “Hellenising” policies of the Cypriot basileis and the closer links between mainland Greece and the Cypriot city-kingdoms of the period.

  • 95 Green, Stennett 2002; Green 2007; Green, Barker, Stennett 2015.
  • 96 Cf. Green 2007, p. 6.
  • 97 Młynarczyk Y. 1985.

44On the island itself, there is no evidence at all for the existence of a permanent or even a temporary structure that would host such activities at the time. The first such evidence comes at the end of the fourth century B.C., when a theatre was founded in Nea Paphos (fig. 20).95 The large letters carved on the rock, datable to the late fourth century B.C., and the position of the theatre on the north-eastern edge of the city would indicate that it formed an original element of the town-plan of Nea Paphos founded by Nikokles.96 This alignment with the Greek world and the drawing closer to Greek prototypes is also reflected in the town-plan itself,97 since this is based on the Hippodamean system, already in use in the Greek world since the fifth century B.C.

Fig 20 — The Hellenistic theatre of Nea Paphos.

Fig 20 — The Hellenistic theatre of Nea Paphos.

Green, Stennett 2002, fig . 3.

45Another new type of building concomitant with an entirely new aspect of social behaviour was the balaneion. Balaneia are born in the Greek world and become a characteristic feature of the Hellenistic koine. Their introduction to Cyprus puts us in front of an often-posed question: did they come directly from the general, undefined Hellenistic koine or via Alexandrian Egypt, where excellent examples of such buildings are attested early on?

  • 98 Aupert 2000, p. 11-37; Christodoulou P. 2014, p. 70-75.
  • 99 Karageorghis 1960b, p. 286, fig. 64, and 1966, p. 365, fig. 121; Nicolaou 1976, p. 152; Karageorghi (...)
  • 100 Christodoulou P. 2014, p. 123, fig. 102.

46Although some bathing spaces are known to have existed in earlier times, these were small and set within larger buildings. In the Hellenistic period, however, we have the first introduction of purpose-built and specially designed communal bath establishments. Public balaneia are known in the Greek world from the very beginning of the Hellenistic period or even before. Of the two known Cypriot examples, the earliest is the single tholos near the agora of Amathous, first built at the very end of the fourth century, and heavily restructured in the second century B.C.98 The second example was found at the locality Chrysopolitissa in Larnaca and is of problematic dating.99 In any case, it was equipped with two tholoi, indicating separate spaces for men and women. Finally, a single pyelos can be seen buried in one of the Hellenistic workshops north of the House of Dionysos in Paphos.100 This may come from a balaneion but it may also have come from a private house where it was used as a simple bath-tub.

47When we leave these public buildings and look at the private domain, the questions that arise are much more numerous and difficult to answer. We will not discuss domestic architecture since there is not enough information that would help us identify signs that mark the passage from the Classical to the Hellenistic period. We can, however, say something about one aspect of its decoration, namely the pebble floors. Figured pebble mosaics were already in use in the Greek world towards the end of the Classical period, with complex multi-coloured compositions, as for example at Eretria. As is well-known, this technique reached its apogee with the superb examples of Pella, and it is believed that it was from there and Macedonia in general, that the technique was transmitted to Alexandria and Egypt, where no mosaics are known before the Hellenistic period.

  • 101 Nicolaou 1967, p. 118-121.
  • 102 Michaelides 1992, p. 13, no 1; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 141-145.

48In Cyprus, pebble mosaics make their first appearance at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and, not surprisingly, at Paphos (fig. 21). There are two such floors in a house under the House of Dionysos: one is geometric and incorporates the welcoming inscription ΕΠΑΓΑΘΩ, widely used in the Greek world;101 the other, depicts the monster Scylla, with, on either side, a panel of confronted dolphins. The presence of Scylla and the dolphins indicates that, like in the rest of the Hellenistic world, this mosaic paved the floor of an andron, where dining, involving wine drinking, took place.102

Fig 21 — Hellenistic pebble mosaics: fish and hydria, Kourion; Scylla, found under the House of Dionysos in Nea Paphos.

Fig 21 — Hellenistic pebble mosaics: fish and hydria, Kourion; Scylla, found under the House of Dionysos in Nea Paphos.

Images D. Michaelides.

  • 103 Rupp 1978; Michaelides 1992, p. 13-14; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 145-147.
  • 104 Hadjisavvas 1997, p. 33-34; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 147-152.
  • 105 Michaelides, Guimier-Sorbets 2016, p. 315, fig. 7.

49The two other Cypriot examples, one from Kourion (fig. 21),103 the other, again from Paphos,104 also incorporate dolphins in their decoration. They appear to date to the third / second century B.C., and they too decorated a dining room – but a funerary one this time since they are both situated above a tomb with which they communicate through a vertical shaft. Unfortunately, no decoration survives in two specially built triclinia outside one of the Tombs of the Kings.105

50These ideas come, of course, from the Greek world, where such mosaics were already decorating andrones. Furthermore, the theme of Scylla finds very close parallels in Eretria and elsewhere in the Greek world. However, the question remains open as to whether these Cypriot examples represent manifestations of the wider Hellenistic koine or whether they came to the island directly from Egypt, where such funerary dining rooms are also found.

Conclusions

51In this overview, given the constraints of space, we have tried to understand the big changes that came about after the dissolution of the Cypriot Iron Age polities and the passing of the island under the dominion of Alexandria.

52The “Hellenising” developments in Cypriot culture, already within the Cypro-Classical period, are related to a new policy on the part of the Cypriot basileis, which required a shift from Eastern to Western prototypes. In essence this shift is evidenced in the expression and manifestation of political power and in the underlying ideological aspects related to the enhancement of the Cypriot Greek identity, especially after the events relating to the Ionian Revolt. As Athens was expanding its political and economic control in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Cypriot basileis, similarly to the Ionian city-states, sought to form part of these networks in order to secure economic development and political stability. The Ionian “flavours” of the late Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical sculpture, for example, and its distribution in the eastern Greek world, point to the trade relations that were built between the Ionian region and the Cypriot polities.

53The situation, however, changed radically with, on one hand the creation of the Hellenistic world and the koine that that entailed, and, on the other, the passing of the island under Alexandria – a very particular part of the Hellenistic koine with its own very special characteristics.

54A sub-theme of this volume is “Transition and Breaks”. Of course, the mere change in the political structure of the island, from a number of independent kingdoms to a unified political space governed by a totally new administrative system, is a complete break from the past. However, many things passed smoothly from one period to the next, almost as a natural process. For example, the gradual abandonment of the Cypriot syllabary, the constantly diminishing visibility of what is often called the Phoenician element in the Cypriot population, were “natural” developments, so to speak, and do not mark any single major historic event. Rather than “breaks”, what characterises this new Cypriot reality is a transformation and accommodation, an enhancement and an enrichment, which came with new lifestyles and trends – an enrichment of building types, of iconographic types, of the pantheon, etc. – all of which are what characterise the Hellenistic world.

55Overall, however, we can say that things work on several different levels. We have the undeniable but vaguely Hellenistic koine. We also have the Alexandrian world, which is something quite distinct within the larger Hellenistic koine. And, we also have what we might call a Cypriot koine that propagates traditions specific to the island. The transformation processes, which took place through the interaction and interplay of these different forces are complex, multi-layered and not always clearly understood.

  • 106 Isocrates, Evagoras 21.

56In the above discussion we have raised several questions or put forward a number of possibilities as to where ideas and influences came from. We have also avoided mentioning certain issues, like the importation into Cyprus not only of Greek sculpture but also possibly of the sculptors themselves, who, although used to working with marble, could also now work with local limestone – let us not forget that Isocrates106 informs us that many prominent Greeks came to live in Salamis since they found Evagoras’ rule more democratic than that of their own country. There is also the question of terracotta moulds. One often speaks of imported moulds but such moulds could also have been made by foreign coroplasts living on the island; or they could even be copies made by Cypriot coroplasts.

  • 107 E.g. Gordon 2012; Keen 2012; Papantoniou 2012b.

57This kind of open questions exist at all levels of the Hellenistic culture of Cyprus. One of the reasons for this is the fact that despite the plethora of finds and information at our disposal, we tend to repeat certain stereotypes, which give only a very partial view of the true picture. For example, when we speak of the Classical period in Cyprus, we refer to the marble stelai of Polis; when we speak of Alexander and his Successors, we refer to the cenotaph of Salamis; when we speak of the Hellenistic period, we refer to the Tombs of the Kings in Paphos. There is, of course, good reason for referring to these artefacts and monuments: they are very important, they are also very beautiful, and they are easily recognisable – and, in certain cases, like the cenotaph of Salamis, they add an extra boost to an often Helleno-centric approach. The question, however, is: how representative are these works of the true Cypriot reality? We have again and again reiterated that much of the material we have discussed forms the exception and not the rule. The stelai, the peristyle tombs and the like were destined for a minute portion of the island’s inhabitants. But, what about the rest of the population that was buried in the thousands and thousands of much more modest tombs found throughout the island? We believe that we need to give a voice to this silent majority before we can fully understand how far influences, ideologies, imported ideas and imported goods filtered through and down to the largest part of the Cypriot population. While recent so-called second generation analyses of the material have put forward a more holistic approach to the study of the transition from the Cypriot city-kingdoms to the Hellenistic period, or of the Hellenistic period itself,107 we still need similar synthetic works that will examine the funerary equipment as a whole, with statistical analyses of the different grave goods and subsequent comparisons between cemeteries. Finally, landscape archaeology and new, interdisciplinary intensive surface survey projects and settlement analyses, will enhance further our understanding of all social levels of the local population.

Notes

1 Stylianou 1989, p. 416, and 2000, p. 515-516; cf. Petit 1991; Zournatzi 1996, p. 166.

2 Collected in Hadjioannou 1971-1992, I, p. 196-207.

3 Cf. Mehl 2004, p. 21.

4 Bagnall 1976, p. 38-49.

5 Keen 2012; Papantoniou 2012b, and 2013b.

6 Młynarczyk 1990, p. 121; Keen 2012, p. 52-53; cf. Mehl 2000, p. 685-687.

7 Bekker-Nielsen 2004, p. 105-107 and p. 230.

8 Marquaille 2001, p. 54; Papantoniou 2013a, p. 47-50.

9 Marquaille 2001, p. 139.

10 Papantoniou 2012b, p. 28-54, p. 257-262 and p. 358-361.

11 Mitford 1953; Bagnall 1976, p. 57-73; Mehl 2000, p. 698-712; Hatzopoulos 2009; Iacovou [à paraître].

12 Bagnall 1976, p. 79.

13 Iacovou 2008c; Papantoniou 2013b ; Iacovou [à paraître].

14 Markou 2011a, p. 224-235.

15 Ulbrich 2008, p. 506-510, tables 4a-b.

16 Ulbrich 2008, p. 83-85 and p. 89-91.

17 Papantoniou 2011, p. 40-41 and p. 43-45.

18 Cf. Ulbrich 2008, p. 91-93; Ulbrich 2010, p. 190-191; Papantoniou 2011, p. 40; Papantoniou 2012b, p. 243-244; Papantoniou 2013b, p. 175-176.

19 Serwint 1993; Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 171, fig. 3:3.

20 Masson 1983, p. 129, no 47; p. 259, no 234.

21 Hermary, Masson 1982.

22 For some recent finds and discussion, see Hermary 2006, and 2009a; Higgs, Kiely 2009.

23 For the evidence, see Anastassiades 2000-2001; Papantoniou 2012b, p. 193-197, and 2013b; also Hermary 2009a, p. 173.

24 Satraki 2013.

25 E.g., Hermary 1989, p. 133-181, and 2009b; cf. Iacovou [à paraître].

26 Nicolaou 1972, p. 315, pl. 66, fig. 38; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 234, fig. 214; Mattusch 2015, p. 119, fig. 8:8; Michaelides [à paraître].

27 Nicolaou 1972, p. 315, pl. 66, fig. 35; Nicolaou 1978, p. 852, no 11, pl. 178; Maier, Karageorghis 1984, p. 230, fig. 205. On the sealings in general, see also Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1979; Hermary 1986a, p. 588, no 246 and more recently Kyricleis 2015.

28 Mitford 1961a.

29 Smith R. 1988, p. 91, pl. 37, nos 2-5.

30 Westholm 1936, pl. I, find 425 and pl. III, find 438; for further discussion see Papantoniou 2012b, p. 324-325.

31 Westholm 1936, pl. II, find 532.

32 Smith R. 1988, pl. 36, no 3.

33 Westholm 1936, pl. XIV, find 520.

34 Ibid., p. 134-135.

35 Markides 1915, p. 7, and 1916, p. 12; Vessberg, Westholm 1956, p. 176, fig. 65:1; Buchholz 1978, p. 208. For such finger rings in general, see Marangou L. 1971.

36 Connelly 1988, p. 1-2; Senff 1993, p. 43-45; Anastassiades 1998, p. 132.

37 Papantoniou 2012b, p. 316-317 and p. 331; Papantoniou 2012c, p. 97-101 ; Papantoniou 2016.

38 Connelly 1988; Erath-Koiner 2007; Koiner 2012.

39 Karageorghis 1969b, p. 151-164, and 1973c, p. 128-202; Cheal 1978.

40 Karageorghis 1973c, p. 128-202; Gesche 1974; Baurain 2008; Buraselis 2013.

41 Beer 1994.

42 Beer 1994, p. 13 and p. 83, pl. 198.

43 See, for example, Stucky 1993, no 101; Doumet-Serhal et al. 1997, no 29.

44 Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah, Seif el-Din 2012, p. 438-439, fig. 23-26.

45 Karageorghis 2000b, p. 204-205, no 331; Flourentzos 2007c; Hermary, Mertens 2014, p. 363-370.

46 Georgiou G. 2009; Georgiou G. 2010.

47 Hermary 1986b and Hermary 1987a.

48 E.g., Vermeule 1976, p. 47-48, fig. II:4 and II:5; Karageorghis 2000b, p. 216, no 346, p. 218-219, no 349; cf. Pogiatzi 2003, p. 210.

49 Vermeule 1976, p. 31, p. 33-34 and p. 49-50, fig. I:20 and 23, II:7-9.

50 Vermeule 1976, p. 30, fig. I:19; Flourentzos 1994; Raptou 1997; Childs 2012, p. 50-57, nos 2-5.

51 Hermary 1987b, p. 71-75, with earlier bibliography. A painted stele recently found at Polis Chrysochous was presented by the excavator, Eustathios Raptou, during the conference “Paphos and Western Cyprus”, that took place in Paphos during October 2017.

52 Brown 1957, p. 1-52; Walter, Rouveret, Bagualt 1998; Rouveret, Walter 1998; Rouveret 2002.

53 Hermary 1987a, p. 233, n. 31.

54 Vermeule 1976, p. 47.

55 Cf. Papantoniou 2012b, p. 140.

56 Smith, Weir, Serwint 2012, p. 179, fig. 3.12.

57 E.g. Gasse 1991; Caubet 1994, p. 602-603, fig. 4a.

58 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009; Hadjisavvas 2011; Greve 2014.

59 Michaelides 2004, p. 90-92; Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, p. 226-230.

60 Venit 2002, col. pl. IV; Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, fig. 21:39.

61 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, fig. 21:16-17 and 21:18-19.

62 Venit 2002, p. 175.

63 Guimier-Sorbets, Michaelides 2009, p. 232.

64 Parks 2009, p. 237-238.

65 Enklaar 1985, p. 106.

66 Callaghan 1980; Callaghan, Jones 1985.

67 Michaelides 1988, p. 59, fig. 96; D. Michaelides in Karageorghis 1989, p. 845, fig. 133-134.

68 Michaelides 1990, with bibliography regarding the Cypriot finds; Barker 2004.

69 Papantoniou 2009, 2012b, p. 138-141, and 2013a, p. 48-50.

70 Fourrier 2006, p. 11-13; Fourrier, Hermary 2006, p. 160-163.

71 Mitford 1980.

72 Młynarczyk Y. 1980; for more recent bibliography, see Michaelides 2008, p. 41-42.

73 Giudice, Giudice 1998.

74 Wright 1992, p. 267.

75 Argoud et al. 1975, p. 138-139; Callot 1985; Wright 1992, p. 153-154.

76 Wright 1992, p. 154.

77 Vörös 2006.

78 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978; Loulloupis 1979; Anastassiades 1994, 2007, and 2009.

79 Fraser 1967.

80 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978, p. 797.

81 Saturn. I 20, 16-18.

82 Fraser 1960, p. 46-47; Vidman 1970, p. 27; Dunand 1973, III, p. 120; Michaelides 2009, p. 201-202.

83 Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1978; Loulloupis 1979; Hornbostel 1973, p. 294 n. 3 (all with earlier bibliography). For Serapis inscriptions in Cyprus, in general, see Fraser 1960, p. 46, n. 4; Hadjioannou 1971-1992, IV:A, p. 170-172, nos 40.1 - 40.6, and p. 334-335, no 284; IV:B, p. 107-109 and p. 239-240.

84 Smith R. 1988, p. 23.

85 Mitford 1961a, p. 37 and p. 39.

86 Nicolaou 1993, p. 228; Anastassiades 1998, p. 134.

87 See Mitford 1961a, p. 40-41; Mehl 2000, p. 742-744, n. 106, with earlier bibliography.

88 Fourrier, Hermary 2006, p. 163-164.

89 Vandervondelen 1997; for examples in the Louvre, see Hermary 1989, p. 442-443, nos 913-915.

90 Vedder 1988.

91 Michaelides 2014.

92 Green 2013, p. 41 and p. 51.

93 Green 2007, p. 5-6, 2013, and 2014, p. 363-367; Michaelides, Nicolaou 2008, p. 39.

94 Plutarch, Vita Alexandri xxix.

95 Green, Stennett 2002; Green 2007; Green, Barker, Stennett 2015.

96 Cf. Green 2007, p. 6.

97 Młynarczyk Y. 1985.

98 Aupert 2000, p. 11-37; Christodoulou P. 2014, p. 70-75.

99 Karageorghis 1960b, p. 286, fig. 64, and 1966, p. 365, fig. 121; Nicolaou 1976, p. 152; Karageorghis 2005, p. 3 and p. 101-102; Christodoulou P. 2014, p. 70-75.

100 Christodoulou P. 2014, p. 123, fig. 102.

101 Nicolaou 1967, p. 118-121.

102 Michaelides 1992, p. 13, no 1; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 141-145.

103 Rupp 1978; Michaelides 1992, p. 13-14; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 145-147.

104 Hadjisavvas 1997, p. 33-34; Guimier-Sorbets 2009, p. 147-152.

105 Michaelides, Guimier-Sorbets 2016, p. 315, fig. 7.

106 Isocrates, Evagoras 21.

107 E.g. Gordon 2012; Keen 2012; Papantoniou 2012b.

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig 1 — Coins of various basileis of Salamis.
Légende (a) Gold coin of Evagoras II, with a bust of a goddess identified as Athena on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF 1984-01-16). (b) Silver coin of Pnytagoras with a bust of a goddess identified as Artemis on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF 1984-01-14). (c) Silver coin of Nikokreon, with a bust of a god identified as Apollo on the reverse (inv. no. BCCF1999-03-06).
Crédits Courtesy of the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 991k
Titre Fig 2 — Limestone statue of the “Cypriot Goddess” from Golgoi. New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cesnola Collection; purchased by subscription, 1874-76.
Crédits Image by D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 6,5M
Titre Fig 3 — Marble statuette of “Aphrodite in arms”, from Soloi-Cholades – find 466, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia.
Crédits Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 1,2M
Titre Fig 4 — Mould made of gypsum and animal bones for the back of an over life-size bronze statue, from a foundry found under the House of Dionysos in Paphos.
Crédits Image by D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 331k
Titre Fig 5 — Ptolemaic coins.
Légende (a) Gold coin of Ptolemy IV, from Alexandria – GR 1872.0709.359. (b) Gold coin depicting Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Cyprus – BCCF 1992-04-01, the Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation.
Crédits (a) British Museum, London, the Trustees of the British Museum. (b) Zapiti, Michaelidou 2008, p. 127, no 21.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 826k
Titre Fig 6 — The Kassel Queen, “from Alexandria” (undocumented).
Crédits Sk. 115, Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel. Courtesy of Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 2,2M
Titre Fig 7 — Marble head, probably of Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Soloi-Cholades– find 438.
Crédits Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 1,8M
Titre Fig 8 — Limestone head of Alexander the Great, style I B, from Soloi-Cholades – find 520.
Crédits Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 521k
Titre Fig 9 — Portraits on Alexandrian-made bone or ivory finger rings found in Cyprus.
Crédits Now in the Cyprus Museum (image D. Michaelides).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 632k
Titre Fig 10 — Limestone sculpture, from Voni.
Crédits E 513, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-10.png
Fichier image/png, 1,3M
Titre Fig 11 — Lysippean-type portraits made of unbaked clay, from Tumulus 77, Salamis – finds 951 and 870.
Crédits Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-11.png
Fichier image/png, 667k
Titre Fig 12 — Funerary terracotta statuette of a seated woman, from Arsinoe.
Crédits Paris, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales (AM 89) (from Spiteris 1970).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-12.png
Fichier image/png, 574k
Titre Fig 13 — Hellenistic marble frieze from Soloi depicting an Amazonomachy.
Crédits Inv. no. E 548, Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-13.png
Fichier image/png, 550k
Titre Fig 14 — (a) Fresco decoration consisting of large slabs of imitation alabaster, crowned by a frieze of garlands; (b) Imitation of women textile on ceiling. Tomb A at Ammoi, Nea Paphos.
Crédits Images by D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-14.png
Fichier image/png, 629k
Titre Fig 15 — Hadra hydria with cremation from the Eastern Necropolis of Nea Paphos.
Crédits Image by D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-15.png
Fichier image/png, 263k
Titre Fig 16 — Rhodian amphorae reused as grave goods, Nea Paphos.
Crédits Image by D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-16.png
Fichier image/png, 1,0M
Titre Fig 17 — Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates, Yeroskipou: Entrace, dedicatory inscription and plan.
Crédits Images by D. Michaelides; plan: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-17.png
Fichier image/png, 904k
Titre Fig 18 — Limestone figurine depicting a scene of childbirth, from Golgoi.
Crédits Metropolitan Museum, New York (Karageorghis 2000b, p. 261, fig. 424).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-18.png
Fichier image/png, 317k
Titre Fig 19 — Limestone ex-votos.
Légende a. Male genitals; b. Breast; c. Ear; d. Pair of eyes.
Crédits The Cyprus Museum, Nicosia (images by A. Koutas)
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-19.png
Fichier image/png, 776k
Titre Fig 20 — The Hellenistic theatre of Nea Paphos.
Crédits Green, Stennett 2002, fig . 3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-20.png
Fichier image/png, 1003k
Titre Fig 21 — Hellenistic pebble mosaics: fish and hydria, Kourion; Scylla, found under the House of Dionysos in Nea Paphos.
Crédits Images D. Michaelides.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/3081/img-21.png
Fichier image/png, 873k

© École française d’Athènes, 2018

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

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search