People of Cyprus
The people of Cyprus represent two main ethnic groups, Greek and Turkish. The Greek Cypriots, who constitute nearly four-fifths of the population, descended from a mixture of aboriginal inhabitants and immigrants from the Peloponnese who colonized Cyprus starting about 1200 bc and assimilated subsequent settlers up to the 16th century. Roughly one-fifth of the population are Turkish Cypriots, descendants of the soldiers of the Ottoman army that conquered the island in 1571 and of immigrants from Anatolia brought in by the sultan’s government. Since 1974 additional immigrants from Turkey have been brought in to work vacant land and increase the total labour force.
The language of the majority is Greek and of the minority, Turkish. There are also a small number of Arabic-speaking Maronite Christians, as well as a small group who speak Armenian. These groups each total only a few thousand speakers, and they are mostly bilingual, with either Turkish or Greek their second language. English is widely spoken and understood. Illiteracy is extremely low, the result of an excellent educational system.
Cypriot Capital with the Image of Hathor - History
Lightbody David Ian. Signs of conciliation: the hybridised “Tree of Life” in the Iron Age City Kingdoms of Cyprus. In: Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes Chypriotes. Volume 41, 2011. pp. 239-250.
Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 41, 2011
SIGNS OF CONCILIATION: THE HYBRIDISED ‘ TREE OF LIFE’ in the Iron Age City Kingdoms of Cyprus
dans ses variations une tentative de réconciliation de différentes traditions iconographiques à l’intérieur d’un nouveau système de croyances.
This paper presents a brief summary of initial conclusions drawn from a four year study of the Tree of Life as it was depicted in Iron Age Cypriot architecture and portable material culture. The symbol has been studied before as an artistic motif, 1 but never within a fully contextualised archaeology that attempts to understand why it was so pervasive on Cyprus, why it became one of the central signs of the Iron Age city kingdoms, and why the designs produced on Cyprus became so elaborate. The conclusions are, firstly, that the Tree of Life was part of a coherent ideology that reflected the daily life and fundamental concerns of the inhabitants of Iron Age Cyprus. Secondly, that the development of this coherent ideology, from the Bronze Age through into the Iron Age, paralleled the ethno-genesis of the Iron Age city kingdoms. Finally, my research indicates that during this process, the Cypriot Tree of Life iconography
Meekers 1987 Shefton 1989 Parpalo 1993 Keel 1998 Bushnell 2005 Dever 2005 Petit 2008 Stein 2009 Ziffer 2010 .
Cypriot Capital with the Image of Hathor - History
The Nicholson Collection contains more than 30,000 artefacts representing ancient cultures from the Mediterranean, Middle East and Europe. They span the early Stone Age to late medieval times. These objects have intimate stories to tell about people’s everyday lives and their beliefs from the ancient world.
The collection was founded in 1860 by Sir Charles Nicholson (Provost 1854–62) when he donated more than 3000 artefacts from Egypt and Italy for teaching and research. Since then, the collection has expanded through ambitious acquisition programs, generous donations and private bequests.
International excavations in Egypt, Cyprus and the Middle East, partly sponsored by the University of Sydney, have uncovered other significant objects. Key excavations include those at the archaeological sites of Jericho in the West Bank and Amarna and Bubastis in Egypt. The Nicholson Collection has also supported archaeological projects by Australian researchers and students at sites such as Pella in Jordan, and Myrtou-Pigadhes and Nea Paphos in Cyprus.
Today, the Nicholson Collection constitutes the most extensive collection of antiquities in the southern hemisphere. It is a unique resource for teaching, research and public display. The collection is available to anyone seeking to understand how these ancient cultures shaped our modern societies.
Head of a male figurine, 600–550 BC
The Nicholson Collection holds the largest and most significant collection of Cypriot antiquities in Australia. This collection spans the neolithic to Roman and medieval periods and includes a range of artefact types from artistic ceramic vessels to intriguing sculptural works, glasswork and bronzes.
Beginning in 1860 with a single artefact from the original donation by Sir Charles Nicholson, the collection grew exponentially, especially under the curatorial direction of William J Woodhouse (honorary curator 1903–38) and James Stewart (honorary curator 1954–62).
Many of the artefacts within the collection were sourced directly from Stewart's excavations conducted at Bellapais Vounous, Karmi Palealona, Karmi Lapasta, Nicosia Ayia Paraskevi and Vasilia Kafkallia. They also came from the excavations of the sites of Myrtou Stephania and Myrtou Sphagion, conducted by Stewart's former student, Basil Hennessy, who later became Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Sydney.
The collection holds many complete tomb groups of archaeological importance. This collection continues to grow through generous donations and benefactions from private individuals.
Hathor depicted on red granite column capital from the Temple of Bubastis, c.900 BC
The collection of Egyptian artefacts in the Nicholson Collection is the largest and most important in Australia. It includes objects representing ancient Egyptian history from the neolithic to the late Roman period, with mummies, monumental sculpture, inscriptions and ancient organic materials contributing to the unique nature of this collection.
The core of the collection began in 1856–57 when Sir Charles Nicholson travelled down the Nile acquiring artefacts of artistic and archaeological importance from dealers and at sites. Most of these objects were shipped to Sydney via England, where they were assessed by Joseph Bonomi of the British Museum. In 1860, they were donated by Nicholson to the University’s new Museum of Antiquities.
The Egyptian collection expanded during the late 19th and early 20th centuries through the acquisition of objects from the Egypt Exploration Fund (now Society) in London, in return for an annual subscription. Some objects, such as the 3.4 metric tonne Hathor capital pictured right, were considerably more difficult to transport than others.
Many of the artefacts came directly from the excavations conducted by Sir Flinders Petrie, a pioneer in modern archaeology. Today, the collection includes artefacts from well-known archaeological sites across Egypt including Abydos, Alexandria, Bubastis, Fayum, Heliopolis, Memphis, Saqqara and Thebes.
Geometric krater from the Dipylon cemetery, Athens
Our Greek collections contain artefacts representative of the material culture of the Greek mainland, islands and surrounding regions, from the Bronze Age to the Late Hellenistic period. Although our wide range of ceramic vessels are the cornerstone of this collection, bronze and terracotta figurines, marble sculpture, rich jewellery items and numismatic objects contribute to its diversity.
During Sir Charles Nicholson's travels to Egypt and Europe in 1856–58, he acquired, primarily in Rome, a range of Classical and Hellenistic Greek ceramics as well as terracotta figurines. In total more than 70 significant Greek artefacts were included in the founding donation of the Nicholson Museum
Further material, representative of the Greek mainland and islands, was purchased during the curatorship of Professor Arthur Dale Trendall. His proactive acquisition program involved purchasing a wide range of ceramic types of Greek origin as well as significant contributions of sherd material for teaching purposes sought from prominent museums and individual collectors and scholars, including Sir John Beazley.
The collection was then expanded following a donation of hundreds of pottery fragments and small votive objects by the family of former curator William J Woodhouse in 1948. The majority of this material is thought to have been collected during Woodhouse's trips to Greece in the 1890s and 1930s, documented in the Woodhouse photographic collection. Most recent additions to this collection have come through generous benefactions and individual gifts to the Nicholson Collection.
Marble sculpture of Hermes, first century
Our Italian collection represents the diversity of the ancient Italian world with significant cultural material from Etruria, South Italy and the Roman World. The first millennium BC was a time of diversity and constant cultural change in the Italian region resulting in spectacularly varied material culture across the peninsula and is the foundation for the iconic Roman Imperial traditions.
From the collection's foundation the cultures of ancient Italy have been strongly represented in the collection. Sir Charles Nicholson spent considerable time in Rome collecting Latin inscriptions, Etruscan funerary urns and bronzes, South Italian vases and Roman lamps, figurines and ceramics. Additional large sculptural works were also acquired by Nicholson including two life-sized togatus statues along with several fragmentary figures.
The Italian collection was further developed with the acquisition of a significant corpus of South Italian vases by Arthur Dale Trendall during his curatorial tenure. The South Italian collection has been comprehensively published in two volumes of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum of an Australian collection.
The Italian collection is further enriched by the Roman period artefacts incorporated into the collections from Egypt, Cyprus and the Near East. These provide a unique overview of the far-reaching influences of the Roman Empire from the first century AD into the Byzantine period.
Middle Eastern collection
Assyrian archers carved on limestone from Ninevah, NM51.323
Our collection of Middle Eastern artefacts represents many of the great cities and civilisations that flourished along the Levantine coast, across Mesopotamia and along the Indus Valley. The collection spans centuries of culture from the Prehistoric Natufian period to the Roman era.
The Middle Eastern collection began with a handful of artefacts from Ur, donated by the British Museum in 1926. This was greatly expanded in the mid-20th century by the acquisition program of program of the curator Arthur Dale Trendall, and his successor Professor James Stewart. Both curators wrote countless letters to museums and government agencies around the world requesting representative samples of artefacts to ensure the Nicholson Museum’s holdings reflected the diversity of this expansive region.
The University of Sydney also contributed financially to archaeological excavations and projects in the Middle East, most notably Dame Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho. In return for the University's support, the Nicholson Museum received a consignment of objects at the end of each season, including full tomb groups from the Bronze Age and rare finds such as our neolithic plastered skull.
Other items have been acquired through generous donations of individual archaeologists, including Sir Leonard Woolley and Sir Flinders Petrie, as well as from archaeological institutes, museums and private donors.
The Nicholson Museum
The Nicholson Museum permanently closed in February 2020.
The Nicholson Collection is now on display at the Chau Chak Wing Museum, open to the public 18 November 2020.
Featured image (top of the page): Mummy of a boy, early-second century, found in Thebes, Egypt
Cypriot Capital with the Image of Hathor - History
The Turkish army began its invasion with deployment of their forces at "Pente Mili" (Five Mile Point) west of the town of Kyrenia unloading heavy materials, tanks, artillery units and troops. The landings took place at the most difficult spot, since the waters there are very deep, and allowing only a narrow stretch where only 2 cargo ships could land at a time. The attack and invasion was planned years before, taking all these considerations into account. Turkish air-force and Turkish NAVY overwhelmed the forces of the Cyprus National Guard inflicting constant air-raids and heavy naval coastal bombardments.
Turkish invasion had three main objectives:
1. To land as much personnel and material on Kyrenia shores and create a stronghold pocket.
2. To drop paratroopers inside the Turkish enclaves of Nicosia-Agyrta.
3. To weaken the National Guard of Cyprus by intense air-raids with Napalm bombs, and prevent them from deploying any serious resistance.
At 05:30 Saturday 20 July 1974 the Turkish air-force bombed and destroyed the 256 Infantry Regiment of the Cyprus National Guard at Glykiotissa, the 190 Light Artillery Regiment at Acheropoiitos Greek Orthodox Monastery, the 182 Heavy Artillery Regiment of Bosporos, as well as all the military installations along the Kyrenia northern coastline at Panagra. The Turks managed to unload enough material and personnel on the shore. The Turkish invasion and the nightmare of the Greek-Cypriots just began.
Turkish (NATO American-made and supplied) T-47 tank gets on shore at "Pente Mili" beach in Kyrenia. The Turks landed heavy military hardware, tanks, artillery, ammunitions, ALL NATO American made, and in violation to all treaties on the purpose for using them.
The Turkish Soldiers had been issued with the G3 Automatic Assault Rifle .762 NATO, while the Greek Cypriots of the Cyprus National Guard were issued the "ancient" Mauser 1899 bolt action rifle. Despite their heroism they were both betrayed, as well as outnumbered and outgunned.
Every move from the Cyprus National Guard was met with fierce Napalm bombings by the Turkish Air-force.
The Turkish Army attacked Cyprus with full force. Turkish paratroopers were dropped on the Turkish enclaves in Nicosia - Agyrta. This re-enforcement was made again with American-made Bell helicopters similar to those used in Viet-Nam as you can see in the picture on the right.
The National Guard of Cyprus had some more luck with these forces, thus managing to extinguish the first waves of attacks, but eventually its forces were reduced considerably by the constant napalm bombings of the Turkish Air-force.
Turkish paratroopers waving their flag after being dropped inside the Nicosia-Agyrta enclave.
Please notice the heavy equipment each soldier is carrying during this unprovoked and terrorist attack of the Turkish State against the defenseless island nation of Cyprus.
The first waves of these attacks suffered substantial losses due to the immediate reaction of the ELDYK (Hellenic Force of Cyprus) and the Cyprus National Guard in accordance to the Cyprus defence plan.
Dramatic photograph of one of the counter-offensives of the ELDYK (Hellenic Force of Cyprus) against Turkish positions in the Nicosia-Agyrta enclave.
ELDYK proved to be the most efficient and best organized military unit for the defence of Cyprus, inflicting paramount losses on the Turkish invaders estimated to 2,000 dead men. (Note: ELDYK was comprised of only 450 newly recruited men, that had just arrived in Cyprus. They were armed with light semi-automatic infantry weapons M1 carbines, and with absolutely no support from artillery, tanks, nor any other mechanized means to assist them wage warfare.
Turkish tank T-47 (NATO American-made) in flames after been hit by a 106mm anti-tank artillery unit of the Cyprus National Guard somewhere on Mount Pentadactylos. The Turkish invasion forces suffered considerable damage during the first phase of the Turkish invasion code-named ATTILA 1.
The Turkish Army, despite its huge superiority in navy, ground forces, and especially in Air Superiority, was totally unorganized. Prove of this was the fact that they mistakenly perceived the Greek Navy's Cargo Ship as a "Greek Armada" heading towards Cyprus and as a result they sunk their own flag ship Kotzatepe, and seriously damaged two other of their destroyers sailing at the area outside Paphos.
The Turkish General responsible for the Invasion (later killed by forces of the Cyprus National Guard) also confirmed that he maintained virtually no communication between Turkish units at any level. Their advantages were their massive numbers (40,000 men compared to 5,000) and superior firepower.
Captured Turkish tank T-47 is driven back to the battle by a Greek tank crew. Despite their huge advantage in numbers, military materials, and in logistical support, the Turkish soldiers gained a reputation for being cowards at the battlefield, especially when facing some formidable resistance by the Cyprus National Guard.
Turkish soldiers pray for their dead. The 1974 invasion against Cyprus had cost Turkey more than 3,000 dead soldiers, 14 military planes, and 1 warship. The war-ship Kotzatepe was the flagship of the Turkish navy at the time, and was sunk by the Turkish air-force by mistake.
Large proportions of the Turkish army, and especially the lower ranks of soldiers opposing the Turkish government and were sent to Cyprus to die anyway so that the Turkish government gets rid of them the easy way. Evidently, these soldiers were administered with drugs such as hashish to get them high in in many instances they were marching in front of the Greek positions and towards their death fully equipped and loaded with ammo but with their rifles hanging over their shoulders!
-Click on the photo to see the enlargement.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus had the objective of "takism" in other words the Ethnic Cleansing and final separation of the two communities (Greek and Turkish Cypriots). In order to achieve this objective the Turkish air-force was systematically bombing civilian targets in order to spread panic and force the civilians to flee from the towns onto the mountains. No Greek Cypriot ever left their homes in the occupied areas of Cyprus with their own will, and they will always struggle to return and settle back in their ancestors lands.
This photo was taken in the town of Famagusta, which is today a ghost town between the Cyprus government controlled area, and the occupied areas occupied ILLEGALLY by the Turkish army since 1974.
The turkish air force merciless napalm bombings included numerous non-military targets inter alia hospitals, schools, hotels, elderly-houses, psychiatric clinics, Greek Orthodox monasteries, etc. On the photo you can see the results of one of these air-raids at the hospital of the town of Famagusta. The unfortunate patient lost his life under several tons of concrete, that crashed him after one of these cruel, barbaric, and unlawful Turkish air-raids.
The Turkish invasion against Cyprus caused 6,000 people killed which in USA proportions equivalents to 3,600,000 (three million six hundred thousand) people killed in a period of 25 days! You can now better see the devastating consequences the Turkish invasion had and still has on Cyprus.
Cruel and bloody battles were carried out in neighborhoods of capital Nicosia which is today a divided city - the only divided city.
The Turkish forces managed to penetrate in the city of Nicosia mainly due to the intense and continuous air-raids and bombings against Cyprus National Guard positions by the Turkish air force.
The Melconian Armenian School in Nicosia. It was and still is the biggest Armenian school in Cyprus and comprises of a Kindergarten, an Elementary School, a 6-year High School, as well as dormitories for children from other countries.
Although a clearly non-military target, the Melconian School is also turned into rubble and ruins during the 1974 Turkish invasion by the Turkish air force.
In the photo on the left you can see the burnt beds of the Dormitory of the Melconian Armenian School in Cyprus.
Note: For the following images, parental guidance is advisable for viewers younger than 13years old.
The Turkish barbarism was once more revealed after the very first Turkish air raids. NAPALM arson bombs were the standard-issue weapon-of-choice of the Turkish air force that used them widely to cause havoc and panic inside the population of Cyprus. The usage of these bombs had tremendous results. The cost was great in both human lives as well as in the infrastructure and the forests of Cyprus. In this photo on the right, one Greek-Cypriot, victim of NAPALM bombs, while receiving treatment in a hospital.
Note: Parental guidance is advisable for viewers younger than 13years old.
Burned to death victims of NAPALM arson bombs of the Turkish air force. NAPALM bombs were used during the bombings of military installations of the Cyprus National Guard, such as the military camps of Athalassa in Nicosia.
In the photo on the right you can see the terrifying results from the burnings caused by NAPALM bombs of the Turkish air-force. The use of these bombs is a normal phenomenon by the barbarian Turks. The usage of these bombs has been prohibited due to the cruel death that inflicts upon its victim. Nevertheless the Turks still use them even today.
The Turkish air force continued its systematic bombardment of non-military targets. These were civilian targets, such as villages, towns, hospitals, elderly houses, clinics, water tanks, power stations etcetera. This was done in order to spread terror amongst the public, force them to flee their homes and run for their lives, and consequently better facilitate the ethnic cleansing committed against the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 1974. This Ethnic cleansing is continued even today by not allowing the return of ALL 200,000 GREEK-CYPRIOT REFUGEES back to their homes. This photo was taken at Yerolakkos village. You can see a huge crater caused by a 2000 pounds bomb.
The photo on the left was taken inside a Turkish navy cargo ship bound to Adana, Turkey, full with Greek Cypriots POW (Prisoners Of War). These prisoners were transported to Turkey and many of them NEVER returned back. The conditions of their captivity was inhumane, with torture and death in many occasions. A total of 1619 persons were reported missing as a result of the Turkish invasion against Cyprus in 1974. Turkey is still denying to provide ANY information for their fortune.
The Turks showed no respect, and no appreciation for anybody. Not even sacred men of the cloth, i.e. Greek Orthodox priests and monks. None were saved from the wrath and hatred of the Turks against the small island nation of Cyprus. In the photo on the right a Greek Cypriot priest is dragged inside a Turkish ship by two Turkish solders with his hands tight-up behind his back, and his eyes blindfolded. The destination was the Turkish port of Adana, where many prisoners suffered tremendous tortures and even death.
-Click on the photo to see the enlargement.
Copyright Kypros-Net Inc. - Occupied Cyprus.
For more information contact Kypros-Net Inc.
For Technical issues contact the Technical Support team.
Web design: Christos A. Neophytou BEng. BSc. MSc. MBA PgDL, Barrister-At-Law
Last Update: Sunday August 21, 2005 14:58:31 +0300 Pacific Standard Time
Bronze Age Cyprus
Cyprus (Greek Κύπρος): large island in the eastern Mediterranean, colonized by Phoenicians and Greeks.
The oldest human remains on Cyprus date back to the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic, about 7000-6800 BCE. Excavated sites like Choirokoitia show that these first settlers must have been farmers living on a diet of wheat. From excavated bones, we can deduce that they had also domesticated goats, pigs, and sheep. Hunting and fishing were also important.
Pottery was introduced at the beginning of the fifth millennium (found at Troulli). The presence of obsidian proves interregional trade with the Aegean Sea. Already at this early stage in its history, Cyprus was an important node in a network connecting the Levant, Anatolia, and the Aegean world.
Lapethos, Plank-faced figurine (Early Bronze Age III)
Nicosia, Red-polished Pottery (Early/Middle Bronze Age)
Cyprus, Neolithic flint tools
Vrysi, Reconstructed Neolithic hut
Towards the end of the fourth millennium, the early Cypriots started the exploitation of the copper deposits in the Troodos Mountains in the western part of the island, where several mines have been identified. (In fact, the island's name is derived from this metal.) By now, Cypriote objects often show many similarities to objects from southern Anatolia, which suggests close contacts and almost certainly migration.
Just after the mid-third millennium, the people of Cyprus had learned to make bronze by adding a bit of tin to the copper. The new metal was harder and could be used to make tools, weapons, and other objects. Because Cyprus was one of the most important producers of copper, Egypt and the other states of the Levant could not afford to ignore the Cypriotes, who in exchange for their copper received horses, cattle, gold, and ivory. Rich tombs are evidence for prosperity and the rise of a more stratified society.
In the second millennium BCE, two ports became very important: Kition in the southeast and Enkomi in the east. The last-mentioned city may have been the capital of a kingdom named Alashiya, although Alassa (north of modern Limassol) is another plausible candidate. It is unclear whether Alashiya covered the whole of Cyprus or was just one of several kingdoms. Several letters found in Amarna, the fourteenth-century capital of Egypt, were sent by the Alashiyan court and discuss the exchange of copper, silver, and ivory.
/> The "Zeus Krater" from Enkomi: the figure holding the scales (to the right) may be Zeus.
From the sixteenth century on, the Cypriotes employed a script, known as "Cypro-Minoan-1" and resembling Linear-A from Crete, to write the original language of Cyprus, which is known as "Eteocypriot" ("original Cypriot"). Because contacts between Cyprus and Crete were originally not very intensive, it is unclear whether there is any influence, and decipherment of both scripts has so far remained impossible. There are two related scripts, Cypro-Minoan-2 (only found in Enkomi) and -3 (found in Ugarit).The introduction of writing marks the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.
In the following age - let's say from 1400 until 1150 BCE - trade with Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece increased. The thirteenth century witnessed the greatest prosperity. Alasiya is mentioned in sources written in Hittite, Ugarite, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Mycenaean Greek, which proves the importance of this kingdom as an interregional trade center.
Cyprus, Late Bronze pottery
Enkomi, Miniature bronze ingot
Kition, Mycenaean "phi" figurine
Old Paphos, Evreti, Tomb 8, mirror handle with a lion hunt
Shortly after 1200 BCE, however, the eastern Mediterranean world was shattered by large-scale destruction, a crisis that is commonly associated with groups of marauders who are known as the "Sea Peoples". The Hittite and Mycenaean civilizations collapsed in Egypt, the Third Intermediary Period started the Aramaeans become the dominant nation in the Levant Enkomi and Kition were looted.
In this confused age, several groups of Greek immigrants settled on Cyprus, for example in Maa (Palaiokastro). The Greek dialects that were later, in the Archaic and Classical ages, spoken on Cyprus prove that these settlers had arrived from the Peloponnese. Later Greek myths about heroes from the Trojan War settling on Cyprus probably contain echoes of these events. note [See Strabo, Geography 14.6.3.]
Pharaonic temples in Upper Egypt from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods
The Tentative Lists of States Parties are published by the World Heritage Centre at its website and/or in working documents in order to ensure transparency, access to information and to facilitate harmonization of Tentative Lists at regional and thematic levels.
The sole responsibility for the content of each Tentative List lies with the State Party concerned. The publication of the Tentative Lists does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever of the World Heritage Committee or of the World Heritage Centre or of the Secretariat of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its boundaries.
Property names are listed in the language in which they have been submitted by the State Party
Chronology: The four Pharaonic temples of Dendera, Esna, Edfu and Kom Ombo, apart from their geographical location, all belong to the Ptolemaic period (dynasty of the Ptolemies, the successors of Alexander the Great, which reigned between 304 and 30 BC) and to the Roman period (between 30 BC and 395 AD) even though they all replaced much older temples on the same sites. Edfu: the temple of Horus The construction of the temple of Horus goes back to the Ptolemaic period. The first stone was laid on 23 August 237 BC and it is only a century later, on 10 September 142 BC, that the temple was officially consecrated in the presence of the King himself, Ptolemy VIII and his wife. The building work continued in 140 BC with the pronaos, then the pylon and the surrounding wall. The second consecration of the temple was in 70 BC, but the monumental door from the cedars of Lebanon was only put in place in 56 BC. Dendera: the temple of Hathor The construction of the temple of Hathor started in 54 BC in the reign of Ptolemy Auletes. In Edfu the lapidaries put the last touches to the decoration of the pylon. The work continued with Cleopatra and her two brothers. From Octavius (30 BC) to Marcus Aurelius (161-80) the cartouches of almost all the Roman emperors of this two-centuries-long period are to be found on the temple's wall. This is in fact one of the last monumental achievements of the Pharaonic civilisation which was preceded, true to say, and as attested by the engraved texts on its walls, by a series of sanctuaries dedicated to the goddess Hathor. In the goddess's chapel, at the back of the sanctuary, is the cartouche of Pepi I who reigned over 2200 years before the first stone of the new Ptolemaico-Roman temple was laid. Kom Ombo: the temple of Horus and Sobek This temple too was built in the reign of the Ptolemies and the Romans even though the site itself is much older. The oldest inscription which mentions it goes back to the 1st intermediate period (2195-2064) and various architectural fragments found on the site bear the cartouches of Amenophis I (1517-1497) and Tuthmosis III (1479-1424). The first of the Hellenistic Kings whose name can be read in the temple is Ptolemy VI Philometor and the last one is Ptolemy XIII Neos Dionysos. But the additions and incorporations continued until the Roman period. Esna: the temple of Khnum What is seen today is only the hypostyle hall of Khnum's temple. A stele engraved with the name of Amenophis II bears witness to the old age of the place of worship which was completely destroyed and whose blocks of stone were re-used in the new religious building which, from the Ptolemaic period, and with the exception of the inner door leading further into the temple, dates entirely from the Roman period. From Nero (54-68 AD) up to Decius (249-251 AD) most of the Roman emperors left their cartouches and most of the inscriptions are from the II and III century AD. Religious activity under the Ptolemies and the Romans The Ptolemies introduced Greek culture into Egypt whilst preserving Egyptian culture. They resided in Alexandria, a Hellenistic city par excellence, and maintained the priesthood in the temples of the other Egyptian cities where they undertook vast restoration and reconstruction works as illustrated by the four temples, the object of this presentation. The newly built temples generally followed the traditional plans. The walls were decorated with bas-reliefs on which the Greek sovereign appeared as a Pharaoh. His name was transcribed into hieroglyphs, accompanied by Egyptian first names and titles and enclosed within a cartouche. Like the Tuthmosis, the Amenophis and other glorious pharaohs, the Ptolemies accomplished their duty towards the gods and accepted the public cult reserved for the Kings of Egypt. The Roman administration was relatively respectful of the priests, restoring some temples and building others. The temple of Hathor in Dendera was thus completed by the emperor Tiberius 185 years after the work was started under the Ptolemies the same applies to the temples of Esna, Kom Ombo and Philae. These sanctuaries were chosen not only for their religious importance but also because of their strategic position. Esna had always been a local commercial centre and Kom Ombo controlled the trade routes towards Nubia in the south. The Romans, however, annexed the priestly domains and limited the priest's properties. An imperial official bearing the title of "high priest of Alexandria and of Upper Egypt" was invested with supreme authority over all the religious establishments. From the 1st century on, the Egyptian cults, particularly that of Isis, were greatly in vogue in Rome as well as the Serapeums. 1- The Temple of Horus in Edfu The main temple dedicated to Horus is in Edfu where the god was venerated in the form of the sun disc and the falcon a warrior god, he defended the sun from its enemies. The specialists believe that this is the best preserved monument of the Nile valley and perhaps even in the whole world. "Nowhere else", can be read in a recent book, "do you get the feeling of following in the footsteps of the ancient Egyptians". The temple of Horus is indeed a unique opportunity to discover an Egyptian temple in all its dimension, with all its details and secrets, with the pylon to be admired by the people and the holy of holies where only the high priest could enter. Found buried in the sand right up to the architraves during Napoleon Bonaparte's expedition, it was cleared from the sand in 1859. It would, on its own, deserve to be on the list of world heritage. The temple is only the emerged part of Edfu, a flourishing city dating from the first Egyptian dynasties, capital of the 2nd nome of Upper Egypt, known as Apollonopolis Magna under the Romans. (Horus was assimilated to Apollo as a sun divinity). For the Ptolemies, sovereigns of foreign origin, the choice of Edfu to build a temple of this size, (6430 m² surface area) was no mere chance and simply followed the Pharaonic tradition. Horus of Edfu, in fact, the protector of Ra, and also as the son of Osiris, was the prototype of the sovereign to which all the kings of Egypt were to be assimilated for three thousand years. Furthermore, being located not far from Thebes, he counterbalanced the influence of the powerful priests of Amon who were quite rebellious during the Ptolemaic period. In contrast to most of the Egyptian temples in the Nile Valley, that of Edfu is not oriented perpendicularly to the river, a particularity which explains why the processional route which linked it with the Nile, did not prolong the axis of the temple as was mostly the case. Brief description The entrance was contrived in the pylon of Ptolemy XIII leaning against one of the sides of the rectangular space of the Temple whose outer walls are decorated with great reliefs. Beyond the pylon and the courtyard is the majestic hypostyle hall made up of two rows. Then there is the second smaller hypostyle hall, with twelve columns in three rows, two vestibules -the first being the hall of offerings- and finally the sanctuary with the 4 m high grey granite monolithic naos, (Nectanebo II, XXXth dynasty) belonging to the temple predating the Ptolemaic building. A corridor around the sanctuary gives access to ten ritual halls. Outside, before reaching the pylon, is a greatly damaged mammisi. Dating The temple of Edfu has been dated with unequalled accuracy. We know not only the dates when the first stone was laid and the additions, but also the accurate dates of the official inaugurations and consecrations. Inscriptions give the day, the month and the year of the various phases of the construction of the temple and on one of the outer walls is a long text about the temple's founding as well as its layout. Naos: 23 August 237 BC, the first stone was laid. 17 August 212 BC, beginning of the decoration of the hypostyle, completed in 206 BC. Consecration on 10 September 142 BC. (Length 53 m, width 33 m) Pronaos: 2 July 140 BC, the first stone was laid. 5 September 124 BC completion of ceiling. Decoration from 122 to 116 BC. (Lenghth: 19 m, width 40 m) Completion of temple: 7 February 70 BC, consecration on 5 December 57 BC great doors put in place. (Total length of temple: 137 m, total width: 47 m). The texts engraved on the temple yielded a wealth of information for the specialists about the daily liturgies and the religious calendar. Some important feast days in Edfu - The celebration of the New Year during which the divine statues were imbibed with solar energy (scene on the walls of the New Year's courtyard and on the walls of the corridors leading to the terraces). - Horus's victory over Seth (scene depicted on the wall of the east corridor). - The crowning of Horus (scene in the north part of the outer corridor). -Happy Reunion feast, celebrating the marriage of Horus with Hathor of Dendera (illustrated in the temple's courtyard, on the reverse of the pylon). Each year, when the Nile was in spate, Hathor left her home in Dendera to rejoin her husband, Horus of Edfu. The naos, a superb 4 m high, black granite monolithic block, is still standing. Engraved with the cartouche of Nectanebo II, it is therefore older than the temple itself. 2- The temple of Hathor in Dendera This is one of the last monumental achievements of the Pharaonic civilisation and a beautiful example of the late architectural style and which, furthermore, is in an excellent state of preservation. This is also the last of a long line of Egyptian temples built in Dendera and consecrated to the goddess Hathor, the divinity with a cow's ears. Firstly goddess of the sky and then goddess of love and rejoicing, the equivalent of the Greek Aphrodite, a foremost divinity in the area known to the Egyptians as Iunet Tantere, and to the Greeks and Romans as Tenyri which was the capital of the 6th nome of Upper Egypt during the Ptolemies' era. This temple, whose construction started in 54 BC, whilst the one in Edfu was being completed (decoration of the pylon), despite the fact that it comes later, still has many analogies with its predecessor of Edfu as well as some differences. The similarities are due to the fact that the two temples followed the classical plan for temples with a cella during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods which obviously explains the similarities seen in the general organisation of space. Description Apart from the temple itself, much bigger than the one in Edfu, with its crypts, its staircases built in the stonework and its chapels built on the roof, there is the surrounding brick wall built by Domitian with its monumental door from the Roman period, the sacred lake and one Roman and one Ptolemaic mammisi. First you go into the hypostyle hall decorated in 34 AD by Tiberius with 24 cow-headed or Hathoric columns and a ceiling with the goddess Nut who swallows the sun in the evening and gives birth in the morning. The dark halls beyond the hypostyle hall and the crypts are decorated with scenes connected with the goddess's cult and feast days. Pictures are often found of the sistrum, a symbol of Hathor, meant to keep away evil spirits. The New Year was the most important feastday during which a rite known as the "union with the disc" took place in a pavilion built on the roof. The procession which accompanied the goddess's statue is represented on the walls of the staircases. On an outer wall, at the back of the temple, a bas-relief represents Cleopatra together with Caesarion, the son she had with Julius Caesar. On the terrace is a pair of mausoleums dedicated to Osiris, one of which gave the famous "Dendera zodiac" which today is in the Louvre (replaced by a copy). The three deities adored in Edfu and in Dendera are similar: Horus, Hathor and Ilhy. Hathor of Dendera and Horus of Edfu were united in a sacred marriage ceremony at the Happy Reunion feast. Hathor thus visited her husband Horus of Edfu for a mystical marriage. Her return to Dendera announced the long awaited flooding of the river. Despite these structural and spiritual similarities there are still some notable differences so that the two temples complement each other to represent a most significant moment in the evolution of the Egyptian religious art and architecture of the Low Period. The columns are different from one temple to another and relief sculptures mostly predominate in Dendera where they reached a degree of barely equalled perfection. But the hieroglyphic writing and the Egyptian language show a clear change taking place. As for the cartouches which were to bear the names of the emperors, they remained mostly empty whilst the figurative scenes had been mutilated, namely the sistrums, the symbol of Hathor. A paleo-Christian basilica with a triclinium, in Dendera, is close to Augustus' mammisi just in front of the great entry door of the sacred area, leaning on the north wall of the temple's great courtyard. 3- The temple of Horus and Sobek in Kom Ombo As seen today in the ancient centre of Nebi or Ombo, its plan is reminiscent of the temple of Edfu but with the clear difference that it is consecrated to two divinities, to Horus the falcon god and to Sobek the crocodile god two divinities but no double temple. The halls preceding the two sanctuaries (hall of Apparition, middle hall, hall of offerings, the Ennead hall) are common to both divinities as well as some adjoining rooms (the ouabet, the Treasure room). Horus or Hareoris and Sobek are sometimes even represented together, as in the hall of offerings where, side by side, they receive the homage of the King. In each holy of holies, the occupant welcomes his counterpart who is prominently depicted in the mural decoration. Another no less important difference is that the temple of Kom Ombo has been partly mutilated in contrast to that of Edfu the pylon, built in the 1st century AD and its adjoining courtyard, have disappeared apart from some subfoundations and shafts of columns erected under the reign of Tiberius (14-37 AD) which were part of the peristyle and which have retained their beautiful reliefs in their original colours. In front of the pylon (towards the Nile), the mammisi from the IInd century BC has been reduced to the base of its walls. The decoration of some halls at the back of the sanctuaries, built under the reign of Ptolemy VIII (145-116) and left uncompleted as many other Egyptian buildings, make it possible to follow the different stages of the scultors' work. Despite these differences and maybe even because of them, the temple of Kom Ombo fits in perfectly into the group of Ptolemaic and Roman temples whereby it bears witness to the authenticity and specificity of the wealth and diversity of decorations of religious buildings pertaining to this long period of about five centuries. 4-The temple of Khnum in Esna Of the Ptolemaic and Roman temple, only the immense hypostyle hall remains in the middle of the town of Esna, ancient Iynit of the Egyptians and Latopolis of the Greeks (because of the Lates fish caught there). This imposing hall, supported by twenty four columns and decorated with reliefs from the 1st to the IIIrd century AD, does not really have any Ptolemaic features except for the back wall. All the rest is from the Roman period and carefully dated by the cartouches left by the Roman emperors from Nero (56-68 AD) up to Decius (249-251 AD) so that this is truly a Roman building but constructed in the pure style of Egyptian tradition as was the case with most buildings in Egypt. Invigorated with its past, the Pharaonic civilisation gives the impression of having been indifferent to the vicissitudes of time and that its priests, during the Greek and Roman periods, continued with the cult to their gods whose origins often go back into the mists of time. In view of such a vigorous tradition and an architectural and decorative programme rooted in the country's most ancient traditions, who would dare to talk of a decline? The main architectural interest of the hypostyle hall is the diversity of the capitals of the 24 columns (4 rows of 6) of a purely Egyptian style, which have retained part of their original polychromy and where there are 16 different types, the apparently similar capitals differ from each other only through some details. The columns, completely covered with texts, constitute a sort of exceptionally long corpus, a real book engraved in stone where you can read all the litanies recited during the feast of Horus. The ceremony took place all day, the procession of priests went from one column to another, according to a precise itinerary and chanted the texts in front of each column.
Who Lives in Cyprus?
Cyprus has 1.1 million inhabitants, about the same as Rhode Island, but in an area around three and a half times the size. About 78 percent are Greek Cypriots (most of them Orthodox Christians) and about 18 percent are Turkish Cypriots (most of them Sunni Muslims). The country has three officially recognized Christian minorities — Maronites, Latins (Roman Catholics) and Armenians — and a small Roma, or Gypsy, community.
The internationally recognized government of the Republic of Cyprus controls only the southern two-thirds of it. The remaining third is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey.
The mystery of Naukratis
From the late 7th century BC, the Nile Delta port of Naukratis was the world’s gateway to Egypt. Yet, despite early archaeological research at the site, it has languished in the shadows. Who lived there, how did the port operate, and what (sometimes salacious) secrets remained hidden? Alexandra Villing and Ross Thomas explain how their new project is finally bringing the site’s lost history to life.
The 2015 Naukratis riverfront excavations, with excavator Edwin DeVries in the middle ground.
In 1883, the young Flinders Petrie was at the pyramids of Giza when a local Egyptian man offered him an unusual small alabaster statuette for sale. He immediately recognised it as not Egyptian but Greek or Cypriot. ‘I at once gave the man what he asked for (never run risks in important cases) and then enquired where he got it. “From Nebireh”, was his answer.’ Petrie went to investigate, and found near the modern town of Nebireh, an ancient settlement mound in the process of being dug up by locals, keen to use the rich earth for fertiliser. The area was littered with Archaic and Classical Greek pottery: ‘walking across it’, Petrie says, ‘was like walking across the site of the shattered British Museum’s vase rooms.’ ‘I laded my pockets with scraps of vases and of statuettes and at last tore myself away, longing to solve the mystery of these Greeks in Egypt.’
Solve it he did. The following year, in 1884, Petrie returned to excavate Nebireh on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund, and on 4 December of that year he made the find that clinched the identification: an honorary decree of the city of Naukratis for its priest of Athena: ‘All that day “Naukratis” rang in my mind, and I sprang over the mounds with that splendid exultation of a new discovery long wished for and well found.’
W M Flinders Petrie, shown here in c.1886.
Petrie’s first excavation season in 1884/1885 was followed by one more season, mostly under the direction of his collaborator Ernest Gardner. David Hogarth, the director of the British School at Athens, returned to the site in 1899 and 1903. It is these first four seasons that to this day provide the basis for much of our understanding of Naukratis, as a flourishing, cosmopolitan river port on the Canopic branch of the Nile. Yet for a long time little was known about the site. Most of the finds made during those early excavations had become forgotten and were gathering dust in museum basements. Important questions remained unanswered: was Naukratis a late 7th-century BC Greek ‘colonial’ trading port on Egyptian soil, as was generally assumed? Or was it a long-established Egyptian town in which Greek traders had been allowed to settle, to cement good relations between the Pharaoh and his newly rising Mediterranean counterparts? And given the strong Greek presence, did the town then fall into decline once their enemies, the Persians, dominated Egypt after the later 6th century BC? Moreover, what did Naukratis even look like, and how did it work as a port? Who lived there, and what was life like for the inhabitants of the town? Since 2011 researchers on a British Museum project have been working to piece together the site’s colourful archaeology and history – from its earliest days to the times of its modern rediscovery – and the picture that is emerging is rather different from what had been expected.
A Chian bowl discovered during the original excavations at Naukratis by Petrie and Gardner. Just one of the many Greek finds from Naukratis, it was uncovered at the Aphrodite sanctuary. Dated to the late 7th century BC, it is decorated with an animal frieze, and carries a votive inscription to Aphrodite by Sostratos.
In order to understand more about the town’s waterfront, we opened a trench on the long stretch of the town’s riverbank. Rich layers, dated to the 5th to 3rd centuries BC, contained thousands of local and imported artefacts, which serve to demonstrate how Naukratis continued to prosper and to participate in international trade. Thus, besides much imported fine Athenian black glaze pottery plus Greek amphorae still lined with pine pitch sealant (both categories of finds of little interest to early excavators), there were sea-worn ballast stones from the Mediterranean and even a fragment of a wooden ship plank, discarded following a hull repair. Added to this we found plentiful waste from the town’s households, with fish and animal bones and other organic remains well preserved in the waterlogged deposits. Egyptian figurines also came to light here: a rider wearing Persian dress, representations of the goddess Isis-Hathor in a shrine, a ‘cultist’ holding a model phallus and wine amphora, and even a wooden phallus. It is possible that some of these were deliberately thrown in the river during Egyptian Nile inundation festivals, such as the rather wonderfully named ‘festival of drunkenness’.
Well-travelled figurine: Cypriot limestone statuette of a hunter found in Naukratis’ Aphrodite sanctuary, inscribed with a dedication by Kallias, and dated to c.575-540 BC.
Hundreds of similar figurines are also preserved from the early fieldwork at Naukratis. They were so frequent among the finds that 19th-century scholars coined the term ‘Naukratic figures’ for the seemingly ‘erotic’ images. Deemed unfit for publication or display, they were secreted in the depths of storerooms and forgotten. Today we know that they are not unique to Naukratis but are common in Egyptian towns of the Late Period (664- 332 BC), especially in the Nile Delta, and that they have a religious function. They were used in rituals concerning fertility, specifically that bestowed on Egypt during the annual Nile inundation associated with the worship of Isis-Hathor, Osiris, and Horus-the-child (Harpokrates). It celebrated the conception of Horus (the king) by Osiris and Isis. The fact that we find such figures at Naukratis is a clear sign that traditional Egyptian religion was practised here by a local Egyptian population.
Intriguing new discoveries were also made regarding the Greek sanctuaries. It appears that the Hellenion, for example, was at least in part built on an Egyptian-style mud-brick platform. Beside the Hellenion, a small platform, perhaps for an altar, belongs to the neighbouring Dioskouroi sanctuary, as confirmed by the 2015 discovery of a cup with a Greek dedication to the Dioskouroi nearby. The Dioskouroi Castor and Pollux, the twin sons of Zeus, were popular as divine protectors of seafarers, whom they guided as bright stars in the Gemini constellation, ‘bringing light to the black ship in the night of trouble’. Alongside the platform we found undisturbed deposits of 7th- and 6th-century BC votives, including Cypriot limestone statuettes and fine Greek pottery from Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Chios, and other sites of the East Greek world, of the kind well known among the material brought back by Petrie and Hogarth. But there were also surprising new finds, such as numerous heads of pigs and sheep, discarded parts of animals that had been sacrificed (and consumed in sacred feasts) in the sanctuary.
CYPRUS, an island in the eastern Mediterranean off the southern coast of central Anatolia, not men­tioned in any of the Old Persian imperial inscriptions but under Achaemenid control from the reign of Cambyses son of Cyrus (520s B.C.E.) to the reign of Darius III (336-31 B.C.E.). It was never organized as a separate satrapy with its own governor. Herodotus (3.91) reported that it was part of the satrapy of Syria, but as the satrap was never mentioned as managing Cypriot affairs, not even in times of great instability, the report is probably incorrect. In contrast to the situation in the Achaemenid holdings in Anatolia, Persian settlement in Cyprus was neither substantial nor encouraged.
Sources. There is no continuous narrative of the history of Cyprus under Achaemenid control. Instead, the history of the island must be pieced together from notices by Greek and Roman historians (e.g., Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus) and orators (e.g., Isocrates), usually focused on episodes of warfare. The predominance of Hellenic cultural forms resulted in a pro-Hellenic interpretation of events in these ancient sources (e.g., in Isocrates, 9.16-20, Euagoras I [q.v.] of Salamis is presented as a Greek hero, whereas in 9.47 his prede­cessors, of Phoenician descent, are said to have &ldquobarbarized&rdquo the city) a similar bias informed reports on Caria. Such interpretations remained almost unchallenged until recently (for attempts to correct biases and misinterpretations like those in Gjerstad, pp. 488ff., see Maier Watkin). There are virtually no indigenous written sources. One notable exception is an inscribed bronze tablet from Idalion (for the text, see Solmsen and Fraenkel, pp. 9-12) containing a report that Achaemenid troops assisted in defense of the city against forces from Kition.
Material remains from the Achaemenid period re­veal very little Persian influence (see below). Further­more, their interpretation reveals a similar Hel­lenocentric bias. It has been supposed, for example, that they reflect unceasing ethnic strife between Greeks and Phoenicians, presumed to be more loyal to their Persian masters. The floor plan of a residence at Paphos, perhaps that of an official, which was thought to display parallels with the Apadana at Persepolis, has been considered evidence of this con­flict (Schäfer cf. observations in Petit). The large quantity of Cypriot coins minted in each major city usually bear the local king&rsquos title and name in Greek, Cypriot, or Phoenician. Often these coins are difficult to assign and to arrange in a relative chronology (for issues from Phoenicia incorrectly assigned to the Cyp­riot ruler Euagoras II, see Betlyon, pp. 18-20). These issues ceased after the imposition of more centralized control by the Macedonian king Ptolemy I of Egypt in the late 4th century b.c.e. (see below). Their princi­pal documentary value is in revealing the multitude of political entities with which Achaemenid authorities had to deal and also the absence of any political order imposed on the island from abroad. There are also occasional finds of imported Achaemenid luxury goods and evidence of military action from the period (e.g., the destruction at Tamassos and the siege mound at Paphos Nicolau Erdmann, passim Murray, pp. 484­-85).
Events in Cyprus under the Achaemenids. It was Cambyses who extended Achaemenid control to Cyprus, which then willingly provided support for his conquest of Egypt (Herodotus, 3.19.3 cf. 2.182 for a refutation of Xenophon&rsquos evidence, in Cyropaedia 1.1.4, that the Cypriots submitted to Cyrus, see Watkin). The main value of the island to the Persians was as a naval base most of the surviving historical data are related to wars in which Greek forces participated, and most of them are thus focused on the port city of Salamis. The major features of these conflicts were always the same: internal instability (e.g., coups in Salamis), intercity fighting (for which the Idalion tablet provides unique evidence), involvement of Achaemenid forces (usually from Anatolia) to reestab­lish order, and, finally, attempts by Cypriot and other opponents of Achaemenid control to exploit one an­other (e.g., the half-hearted support by Akoris of Egypt for Euagoras I see below). Furthermore, the Greek and Roman authors tended to view the Cypriots as Hellenes fighting for ideals upheld by the Hellenes of Europe and the Aegean. This perception was echoed in official documents of the time (e.g., Inscriptiones Graecae I, p. 113: Euagoras I granted Athenian citi­zenship cf. Demosthenes, 23.141, 23.202: non-Hel­lenic members of the satrapal family in Dascylium, made citizens).
An early example of the instability noted above occurred in 497-96 b.c.e., during the reign of Darius I (521-486 b.c.e.). Conflict within the ruling family of Salamis led to the expulsion of King Gorgus by his brother Onesilus, who then embarked upon an expansionist policy. He persuaded other Cypriot cities­&mdashAmathous being the notable exception&mdashto join a Greek revolt against Achaemenid control. A punitive cam­paign, prompted in part by Gorgus&rsquo complaints and leading to his reinstatement, was dispatched under the command of the Persian Artybius, who defeated Onesilus and his supporters, including some of the Ionian rebels (Herodotus, 5.104, 5.108-16). The most notable feature of the campaign was the Achaemenid mastery of siege technology and artillery (at Soli and Paphos Wallinga, 1984 Murray, pp. 484-85). For the remainder of the 5th century information is relatively scanty. Cypriot forces led by their own rulers partici­pated in border operations by Darius and Xerxes I (486-65 b.c.e. Herodotus, 6.6, 7.90, 7.96, 8.11, cf. 7.98-99). At that time Cyprus was suffering repeated raids by Spartan and Athenian pirate fleets, which, however, succeeded in maintaining only transitory control of a few cities (for the operation of the Spartan Pausanias in the 470s, see Thucydides, 1.94 Diodorus, 11.44 for that of the Athenian Cimon in the 450s, see Thucydides, 1.112 Diodorus, 12.3-4 for argments that the Achaemenid fleet was more centrally orga­nized before the 470s, see Wallinga, 1987).
From about the turn of the 4th century information is more abundant, though largely limited to Salamis and its royal family, the Teucridae (see Table 31). The historical tradition, preserved for the most part by Diodorus Siculus, was much influenced by Isocrates&rsquo erroneous perception of the Achaemenid empire as in a state of decline, seething with discontent and secret disloyalty to the great king. In Isocrates&rsquo writings Euagoras I and his family emerge as Greek heroes, but the disruptions caused by him and his successors were exaggerated by both Isocrates and his pupil, the historian Ephorus, on whom Diodorus relied extensively (Isocrates, 9: the speech on Euagoras Diodorus, 14.98, 14.110, 15.2ff.).
The early years of Euagoras&rsquo reign (ca. 411/10-391) did not attract hostile Achaemenid attention, despite expulsions of his rivals (Isocrates, 9.19, 9.26, 9.31-32, 9.72 Diodorus, 14.98.1 Theopompus, spud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103) and renewed Salamian expansionism (Ctesias, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 688 fr. 30 Diodorus, 14.98 Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103). Events elsewhere in the Aegean, Egypt, and Anatolia (e.g., the rebellion of Cyrus the Younger see cyrus vi) were more pressing. Susa was finally spurred to action by the direct appeals of the kings of Amathous, Soli, and Kition, all objects of Euagoras&rsquo aggression (Diodorus, 14.98.2). A puni­tive campaign was launched by Artaxerxes II (405-359 b.c.e.). According to the Isocratean tradition (Isocrates, 9.64 Diodorus, 15.9.2), approximately ten years of hostilities between Euagoras and Artaxerxes ensued. It is more accurate, however, to perceive Salamis as the object of two distinct campaigns, the more important of which occurred only after the Greek and Egyptian problems had been settled (Isocrates, 4.140 Diodorus, 14.110.5 cf. Xenophon, Hellenica 5.1.28ff. cf. Reid Tuplin for a philhellenic descrip­tion of Euagoras&rsquo reign, see Spyridakis, but cf. Costa for 4th-century Achaemenid policing operations in Cyprus, see Judeich, pp. 113-36, 170-79).
In the first campaign (391/90) the generals were Hecatomnus, satrap of Caria, and Autophradates, a lesser officer (pace Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103). Although Diodorus (15.2.3 cf. Isocrates, 4.161) claimed that Hecatomnus had become a &ldquosecret&rdquo ally of Euagoras, it is more likely that this first campaign, about which little is known, reduced some of Euagoras&rsquo power without depriving him of his position. The second campaign (382-80 cf. Diodorus, 15.2ff., who assigned it to the wrong years) was commanded by more senior officers, former colleagues in the satrapy of Armenia: Tiribazus (who had become satrap of Lydia) and Orontes (satrap of Armenia). More is known of the fighting, in which Euagoras exploited and was exploited by Akoris, the king of rebellious Egypt, who sought to tie up Achaemenid forces that might otherwise be deployed against the rebellious regions of Egypt. Indeed, the Greek authors tended to see Euagoras and Akoris behind every instance of trouble in western Asia (Isocrates, 4.140-41, 4.161, 9.62 Diodorus, 15.2 Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103), as in the unprovable claim that Euagoras held Tyre. After a single sea battle off Kition the power of Salamis crumbled (Diodorus, 15.3) the subsequent siege of the city was prolonged as a result of tensions between the Achaemenid commanders (Diodorus, 15.10-11 Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103). The campaign ended with Euagoras restricted to his own territory, obedient to the Persians, and paying tribute. Although he was assassinated in about 374, his family continued to rule Salamis (Isocrates, 3.33-34, 9.72). His son Nicocles probably reigned into the 360s he restored a measure of politi­cal and economic stability to the island (Isocrates, 3.31). He, too, was subject to the great king and did not attempt territorial expansion.
The final recorded Achaemenid policing operation was a minor campaign against Salamis, ending in 344 at that time the city was ruled by Pnytagoras. Diodorus claimed that the whole island was involved and that the Cypriots were imitating contemporary uprisings in Phoenicia and Egypt (16.40,16.42). It is clear from the details of the campaign, however, that Salamis was again suffering from dynastic rivalries, which had resulted in the expulsion of Euagoras II (Diodorus, 16.42.7). Achaemenid military operations were su­pervised by Idrieus, satrap of Caria, and conducted in the field by the mercenary commander Phocion and Euagoras himself. The main events of the campaign were a siege of the city and the steady arrival of mercenaries anxious to share in the booty. In the end Pnytagoras remained king, and Euagoras was given a post in Asia, which he mismanaged. He fled to Cyprus and was killed (Diodorus, 16.42, 16.46). It should be noted that all these operations were relatively minor frontier skirmishes, limited in duration and extent and resulting in no major changes on the island.
Cypriot forces assisted in the defense of the Achaemenid empire against the Macedonian invasion (Arrian, Anabasis 1.18, 2.13), but after the fall of coastal Anatolia and Phoenicia the leading Cypriot kings surrendered and were left in place. Some even supported the Macedonian forces then besieging Tyre and supplied experts on siege machinery (mēchano-poioí Arrian, Anabasis 2.20-22, 2.21.1).
After a period of instability in the late 320s Cyprus threw its support to Ptolemy of Egypt (Diodorus, 19.59, 19.62). Nevertheless, in 312 he ousted all the Cypriot kings except Nicocreon of Salamis, whom he appointed chief Ptolemaic officer on the island and to whom assigned the cities and revenues (Diodorus, 19.79). After Nicocreon&rsquos death in 311, Menelaus, Ptolemy&rsquos younger brother, assumed this role, and the institution of monarchy on Cyprus was abolished. The island remained a Ptolemaic and then a Roman (80 b.c.e.) possession and was never again in Persian hands. In 619 C.E. it served as a refuge for Byzantine officials during the Sasanian domination of Egypt (Frye, p. 169).
Resources and Achaemenid administrative features. Scattered notices in classical sources (e.g., Diodorus, 16.42.8), as well as Strabo&rsquos description of Cyprus, provide some information about resources that could have been valuable to the Achaemenids: timber, grain, silver, and copper (Strabo, 14.6.2, 14.6.5). It is nevertheless difficult to trace the ways in which such re­sources were converted into revenues for the great king. Herodotus (3.91) implied that Cyprus contrib­uted to the tribute of 350 talents assessed on the satrapy of Syria, but there are also indications that individual Cypriot political entities were directly responsible for payment of funds for example, Euagoras I of Salamis was in trouble for not paying (Ctesias apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 688 fr. 30 cf. Diodorus, 15.9.2). There is anecdotal evidence that the Cypriot kings could dispose of resources (e.g., grain Hesychius, s.v. Rhoikoû krithopompía cf. Andocides, 2.20ff.) as they pleased. Strabo (14.6.5), relying on a report he found in a work (now lost) by Eratosthenes, the 3rd-century b.c.e. historian and geographer (also the ultimate source for Hesychius&rsquo reference), described an administrative practice that may have originated in the Achaemenid era: Before the 3rd century, when for­ested land was far more common, anyone who cleared land of timber could have the land tax-free. The timber was used for shipbuilding and smelting copper and silver.
Not only was Persian settlement not encouraged on Cyprus, but also no Persian officers were stationed there permanently. It is thus inappropriate to look for an administrative pattern in which a satrap owned a large estate and lesser estate-owning officers provided cavalry, as in the Anatolian satrapies (e.g., Cappadocia). Diodorus (12.4.4) mentioned hēgemó&primenes(chiefs) and satraps in Cyprus, but he was actually referring only to commanders of Achaemenid forces on cam­paign. Phoenicia provides a closer parallel to Cyprus, for each of its cities was ruled by native kings, who minted their own coins and provided the empire with ships.
Nevertheless, the Cypriot administration under Achaemenid rule did exhibit Achaemenid features, specifically the imposition of fiscal and military responsibilities. Cyprus paid tribute and supplied ships, naval personnel, or both for Achaemenid campaigns (on Darius&rsquo operations in the 490s, see, e.g., Herodotus, 6.6, 7.90.96 on those of Xerxes in the 480s and 470s, Herodotus, 7.8.11 on the defense of the frontier against Greek pirates, Diodorus, 11.60-61, 12.3-4 on Pharnabazus&rsquo naval victories in the 390s, Diodorus 14.39 cf. references to Cypriot mercenaries in Nepos, Conon 4 idem, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 20). As no Achaemenid naval officers were stationed on Cyprus, on one occasion an outsider, the satrap of Dascylium, ordered Cypriot authorities to prepare ships (Diodorus, 14.39). In Greek and Roman sources Achaemenid garrisons are sometimes mentioned (Diodorus, 11.44 cf. Nepos, Pausanias 2.1), but they were limited to the period when the island was threatened by Greek pi­rates (see above). Accounts of the 4th-century puni­tive campaigns against Euagoras I reveal the absence of permanent garrisons: All non-Cypriot troops were drawn from outside the island (Diodorus, 15.2) and departed after the conclusion of the fighting (Diodorus, 15.9 cf. 15.18, where the troops withdrawn seem to have provided the power base for the rebel officer Glōs).
Prominent among indigenous administrative fea­tures were the native kings (Strabo, 14.6.6). Diodorus (16.42.4) reported that each of the nine major cities was ruled by a king obedient to the great king and that each city exercised influence over smaller surrounding settlements. Disputes over these spheres of influence and attempts by one king to supplant some or all of his fellows lay behind most of the internal struggles that troubled the island during the Achaemenid period. The major cities were Salamis, Kition (with Idalion and Tamassos), Marion, Amathous, Kourion, Paphos, Soli, Lapethos, and Keryneia. Each of these small monarchies possessed its own internal structure, about which little is known. There are a few moralizing accounts of the Cypriot courts (Athenaeus, 255f-256a), and the titles ánaktes and ánassai &ldquolord&rdquo are known for members of royalty (Harpocration, s.v. ánaktes kaì ánassai Suda, s.v. ánaktes kaì ánassai). The Idalion tablet attests that the city had a civic structure (though not a Greek-influenced democratic constitution, as suggested by Gjerstad, p. 498), which was tolerated by the local king, as the Carian Hecatomnids tolerated local political organizations.
The Cypriot monarchs possessed a certain latitude in governing their domains, but it is doubtful that they enjoyed a status superior to that of royally appointed provincial officers elsewhere. The insistence of Euagoras I of Salamis that he should obey Artaxerxes II as a king obeys a king and not as a slave obeys a master involved an issue apparently raised only during his reign, which was, however, better documented than those of other kings (Diodorus, 15.8.1-15.10.2). Euagoras made a number of capital improvements in Salamis (harbor, walls, triremes), relying on the skills of foreign workmen (Isocrates, 9.47, 9.51). Furthermore, he helped to secure the services of Conon as commander of Pharnabazus&rsquo fleet (Ctesias, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 688 fr. 30 Pausanias, 1.3.2 Xenophon, Hellenica 2.1.29 Isocrates, 9.54-56) and maintained good relations with a number of satraps (cf. Inscriptiones Graecae I, p. 113: mention of Tissaphernes in an Athenian inscription honoring Euagoras). He received honors from Athens, where he was counted, mistakenly, among the Hellenes (Inscriptiones Graecae II, p. 20 Pseudo Demosthenes, 12.10 cf. Lewis and Stroud). As Eugene A. Costa has shown, none of these activities was detrimental to Achaemenid control, and none seems to have elicited an unfavorable imperial response.
Direct Achaemenid intervention in Cyprus was spo­radic, occurring only during periods of serious politi­cal destabilization on the island (see above Herodotus, 5.104ff. Diodorus, 14.98.1-2 Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103): It also happened that Cypriot political authorities themselves some­times appealed to the great king (Herodotus, 5.104 Diodorus, 14.98.2-3), who might, however, refuse to call upon his resources for what were normally considered minor frontier problems (Diodorus, 14.98.3-4, 14.110.5 on the greater importance of a stable Egypt, cf. Aristotle, Rhetorica 1393a3-b4). In fact, Achaemenid authorities seem to have been generally uninterested in Cypriot political vagaries. For ex­ample, none of the political coups in Salamis in the later 5th century (Isocrates, 9.19-20, 9.26, 9.27-32 Diodorus, 14.98.1) elicited a response from Susa when the Achaemenids did trouble to subdue rebel­lious kings, the latter were allowed to continue in power if they promised future obedience (e.g., Diodorus, 15.9, 16.42, 16.46). Nor did violent deaths of these tributaries stir the great king (on the death of Euagoras I, cf. Theopompus, apud Jacoby, Fragmente, no. 115 fr. 103 Aristotle, Politica 1311b5 on that of Euagoras II, cf. Diodorus, 16.46).
Persian cultural influence. Aside from the possibly Achaemenid plan of one house in Paphos (see above), two major kinds of archeological finds in Cyprus reflect Persian origins or influence. The first consists of objects that may have belonged to Persians on the island, for example, jewelry and metalwork, including a gold earring in the form of an ibex found at Vouni (Stern, p. 151). The second consists of indigenous products incorporating Persian elements. For ex­ample, Antoine Hermary (p. 699) has interpreted a Hathor-headed column at Amathous as evidence of the influence of the Achaemenid artistic ethos, as such columns were also found in the Achaemenid homeland.
R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, Leiden, 1976.
K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1923.
J. W. Betlyon, The Coinage and Mints of Phoenicia. The Pre-Alexandrine Period, Harvard Semitic Monographs 28, Chico, Calif., 1980.
J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire, New York, 1983.
E. A. Costa, Jr., &ldquoEuagoras I and the Persians, ca. 411-391 B.C.,&rdquo Historia 23, 1974, pp. 40-56.
M. A. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, tr. W. J. Vogelsang, Leiden, 1929, index, s.v.
Cyprus. E. Erdmann, Paphos. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern I. Nordosttor und persische Belagerungsrampe in Alt-Paphos I. Waffen und Kleinfunde, Constance, 1977 reviewed by A. M. Snodgrass, Journal of Hellenic Studies 99, 1979, p. 206.
R. N. Frye, &ldquoThe Political History of Iran under the Sasanians,&rdquo Camb. Hist. Iran III/1, pp. 116-80.
E. Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV/2, Stockholm, 1948. Harpocration, ed. W. Dindorf, Oxford, 1853.
B. V. Head, Historia Numorum, Oxford, 1911.
A. Hermary, &ldquoUn nouveau chapiteau hathorique trouvé à Amathonte,&rdquo Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique 109, 1985, pp. 657-99.
G. F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus,British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins XXV, London, 1904.
Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. F. Hiller von Gaertringen et al., 2nd ed., Berlin, 1913- .
W. Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien, Marburg, 1892.
D. Lewis and R. Stroud, &ldquoAthens Honors King Euagoras of Salamis,&rdquo Hesperia 48, 1979, pp. 180-93.
F. G. Maier, &ldquoFactoids in Ancient History. The Case of Fifth Century Cyprus,&rdquo Journal of Hellenic Studies 105, 1985, pp. 32-39.
O. Murray, &ldquoThe Ionian Revolt,&rdquo in CAH 2 IV, pp. 461-90.
K. Nicolaou, &ldquoArchaeological News from Cyprus, 1975,&rdquo AJA 81, 1977, pp. 523-32.
T. Petit, &ldquoPrésence et influence perses à Chypre,&rdquo in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt. Old Cultures in a New Empire, Leiden, 1991, pp. 161-78.
C. I. Reid, &ldquoEphoros Fragment 76 and Diodorus on the Cypriote War,&rdquo Phoenix 28, 1974, pp. 123-43.
J. Schäfer, &ldquoEin "Perservau" in Altpaphos?&rdquo Opuscula Atheniensia 3, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4, 1960, pp. 155-75.
F. Solmsen and E. Fraenkel, eds., Inscriptiones Graecae ad Inlustrandas Dialectos Selectae, Stuttgart, 1966.
K. Spyridakis, Euagoras I von Salamis, Stuttgart, 1935.
F. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C., Jerusalem and Wiltshire, U.K., 1982.
Suda, ed. G. Bernhardy, Halle, 1853.
C. Tuplin, &ldquoLysias XIX, the Cypriot War and Thrasyboulos&rsquo Naval Expedition,&rdquo Philologus 127, 1983, pp. 170-86.
H. T. Wallinga, &ldquoThe Ionian Revolt,&rdquo Mnemosyne 27, 1984, pp. 401­-37.
Idem, &ldquoThe Ancient Persian Navy and Its Prede­cessors,&rdquo in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, ed., Achae­menid History I. Sources, Structures, and Synthesis, Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden, 1987, pp. 47-77.
H. J. Watkin, &ldquoThe Cypriote Surrender to Persia,&rdquo Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 1987, pp. 154-63.
M. Weiskopf, Achaemenid Systems of Governing in Anatolia, Ph.D. diss., University of California, Ber­keley, 1982.
J. Wiesehöfer, &ldquoZypern unter persischer Herrschaft,&rdquo in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History IV. Center and Periphery, Leiden, 1990, pp. 239-52.