Phoenician Bronzes in Cyprus, in: Javier Jiménez Ávila (ed.), Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean. Real Academia de la Historia, Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 45 (Madrid 2015) 269-294.
Descripción
JAVIER JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA (ED.)
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Phoenician bronzes in Mediterranean / edited by Javier Jiménez Ávila. – Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 2015 548 p.: il., plan. ; 30 cm. – (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana; 45) Bibliografía. Índices Textos en inglés, español, italiano, francés D.L. M 37600-2015 ISBN 978-84-15069-77-5 1. BRONCES FENICIOS – Mediterráneo (Región) arqueológicos fenicios I. Jiménez Ávila, Javier, ed.
2. MEDITERRÁNEO (Región) – Restos II. Real Academia de la Historia (España)
Esta obra forma parte del programa de colaboración de la Real Academia de la Historia con:
Aiyasa
Cover image: P hoenician palmette in the handle of the bronze jug from Angorrilla (Alcalá del Río, Spain). Archaeological Museum of Seville. Photo Ceferino López.
© De esta edición, REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA © De las imágenes y los textos, los autores I.S.B.N.: 978-84-15069-77-5 Depósito Legal: M-37600-2015 Maquetación: Marten Kwinkelenberg Impresión: Service Point
BIBLIOTHECA ARCHAEOLOGICA HISPANA 45
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN edited by
Javier Jiménez Ávila
REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA MADRID 2015
REAL ACADEMIA DE LA HISTORIA COMISIÓN DE ANTIGÜEDADES Presidente: Excmo. Sr. D. José María Blázquez Martínez Vocales: Excmos. Sres. D. Martín Almagro-Gorbea, D. Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, D. Luis Agustín García Moreno, D. José Remesal Rodríguez y Dª Pilar León-Castro Alonso PUBLICACIONES DEL GABINETE DE ANTIGÜEDADES
BIBLIOTHECA ARCHAEOLOGICA HISPANA 45
LIST OF CONTENTS
Presentation: Agency and Religious Traditions in Phoenician Metalworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sergio Ribichini Phoenician Bronzes, an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Javier Jiménez Ávila PART ONE: Phoenician Bronzes on Antique Sources 1. Bronze and Metallurgy in Phoenician Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 José Ángel Zamora López 2. La economía de prestigio en los poemas homéricos. Los bienes fenicios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Susana Reboreda Morillo PART TWO: Types and Repertories 3. Los cuencos decorados fenicios o “Phoenician bowls”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Martín Almagro-Gorbea 4. Patere Baccelate Fenicie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Ferdinando Sciacca 5. Phoenician Metal Jugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Maria Taloni 6. Phoenician bronze candelabra and Incense Burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Bärbel Morstadt 7. Les œillères de chevaux proche-orientales (phéniciennes et araméennes) en bronze en Méditerranée: quelques perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Hélène Le Meaux
8. Figuras fenicias del Mediterráneo: caracterización y novedades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Javier Jiménez Ávila 9. I rasoi votivi punici in bronzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Enrico Acquaro PART THREE: Regional development 10. Bronzework in the Phoenician Homeland: a preliminary Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Eric Gubel 11. Phoenician Bronzes in Cyprus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Christian Vonhoff 12. The “Phoenician” Bronzes from the Italian Peninsula and Sardinia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Paolo Bernardini – Massimo Botto 13. Bronzi fenici e bronzi etruschi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Alessandro Naso 14. Phoenician Bronzes in Spain. A western metalworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Javier Jiménez Ávila 15. Bronces fenicios en Portugal: A propósito del hallazgo de un jarro piriforme en la necrópolis do Senhor dos Mártires (Alcácer do Sal). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Ana M. Arruda – Pedro Lourenço – Joana Lima 16. Bronces púnicos de la Isla de Ibiza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 Beatriz Miguel Azcárraga PART FOUR: Technical Approaches 17. Phoenician Metalwork: Composition and Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Alessandra Giumlia-Mair 18. Technical and analytical issues concerning some Phoenician and Orientalizing Bronzes from the Iberian Peninsula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 Ignacio Montero Ruiz – Alicia Perea – Javier Jiménez Ávila List of figures and credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 List of authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS Christian VONHOFF
The chapter at hand concerns itself with the repertoire of Phoenician bronzes originating in Cyprus during the 1st millennium B.C. In what follows, an attempt will be made to demonstrate the impact of Phoenician culture, civilization and craftsmanship in Cyprus during the CG III and CA I-II periods1 on the already long established autochthonous tradition of Cypriot copper production, metalworking and trade. At this point it should be further noted that a clear distinction between bronze objects of true Phoenician origin and locally produced Cypriot ware is not always possible; given this case I will commonly refer to the term “Cypro-Phoenician”. Regarding terms of chronology, this paper follows the Iron Age phases established by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition during the first half of the 20th cent. A.D.2 complemented by some modifications derived from later pottery and ethno-archaeological studies3 (Tab. 1). Hence from the archaeological point of view it can be stated that Phoenician influence on Cypriot culture is most prevalent during a time span of about three centuries, starting in the late 9th century B.C. (CG III) while lasting until the beginning of the 5th century B.C. (CA II). Prior to the discussion of the preserved Phoenician bronze work deriving from these periods it seems reasonable, however, to provide a short overview of the development and the tradition of Cypriot metalwork in general as well as a historical outline of Phoenician presence and settlement activities in the island of Aphrodite.
1. THE ISLAND OF COPPER The island of Cyprus has always played a distinct role within the cultural history of the Mediterranean basin due to its rich copper deposits, a raw material, which became essential for the economy of the Eastern Mediterranean civilizations during the late 2nd and early 1st millennia B.C. It is situated geographically in Relative Cypriot Chronology
Absolute Chronology
EC I-II
ca. 2300-2100 B.C.
EC III
ca. 2100-1950 B.C.
MC I
ca. 1950-1850 B.C.
MC II
ca. 1850-1750 B.C.
MC III
ca. 1750-1650 B.C.
LC I A
ca. 1650-1550 B.C.
LC I B
ca. 1550-1450 B.C.
LC II A
ca. 1450-1375 B.C.
LC II B
ca. 1375-1300 B.C.
LC II C
ca. 1300-1200 B.C.
LC III A
ca. 1200-1125 B.C.
LC III B
ca. 1125-1050 B.C.
CG I A
ca. 1050-1000 B.C.
CG I B
ca. 1000-950 B.C.
CG II
ca. 950-900 B.C.
Tab. 1. Cypriot Chronology (EC-CG II)
Cypro-Geometric (CG) III A/B: 900-750 B.C. For Cypriote chronology cfr. Tables 1 and 2. 2 Gjerstad 1948: 427. 3 Demetriou 1978; Coldstream 1999: 114-115; Iacovou 1999: 626. 1
Cypro-Archaic (CA) I: 750-625 B.C. Cypro-Archaic (CA) II: 625-480 B.C. Tab. 2. Relative Chronology of the CG III and CA I/II periods in Cyprus
270
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 1. Bronze bowls in North Syrian style from Cyprus. 1. From Idalion; 2. From Armou.
the centre of maritime communication lines and trade routes and for that reason it gained a leading role as a mediator between the Levant, Asia Minor and the Aegean since the Late Bronze Age. The rise of Cyprus as a centre of Mediterranean metalworking does not seem surprising because of its rich copper deposits located in the foothills of the Troodos mountains4 which are dismantled to the present day. But when in fact did the inception of Cypriot metallurgy take place? During the Chalcolithic (ca. 3800-2500 B.C.) only few traces for metallurgical activities are to be found in Cyprus, e.g. in the settlement of Souskiou Vathyrkakas or the cemetery of Kissonerga Mosphilia,5 so one can rarely speak about the island as an initial centre of Mediterranean metallurgy.6 In the Early and Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2500-1600 B.C.) the Cypriots step by step established a copper and mining industry which took account of “all the factors involved in producing, transporting, and distributing the island’s copper resources, including the subsistence needs of miners and metalsmiths”.7 Then shortly after the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (LC I; around 1600 B.C.) the technology for smelting sulphide ores – which made up a decent amount of Cypriot copper deposits – reached Cyprus that now started to take its leading role as one of the major producers and traders of copper in Mediterra-
nean world.8 This is best exemplified by the site of Enkomi located at the Eastern coast of Cyprus which emerged as one of the most important centres for metalworking in the LC II C (ca. 1320-1200 B.C.) period.9 The prominent status of Cyprus as a producer and manufacturer of copper continued well into the Iron Age period but was accompanied by turmoil and destruction to major settlements (Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, Apliki, Hala Sultan Tekke, Enkomi) once at the turn of the LC II C-III A periods (around 1200 B.C.). Another breach in settlement continuity can be observed at the end of the LC III A period (around 1125 B.C.) when – with the exception of Kition and Palaepaphos – important former Late Bronze Age sites connected with copper production and metalworking like Enkomi were suddenly abandoned and new city kingdoms like Salamis (from CG I) or later Tamassos (CA) raised and took the role of the former urban centres.10 Regarding societal aspects, from the Late Bronze Age on – contemporary with the rise of Cyprus to a major centre of Mediterranean metallurgy – a very strong autochthonous tradition developed in parallel with a great number of cultural influences from the East as well as the West. This cultural influence culminated in immigrations of ethnic groups, Greeks during the 12th and 11th centuries B.C. (LC III A-B; CG I A),
Constantinou 1982: 15. Muhly 1991a: 357-359; E. Peltenburg in Peltenburg (dir.) 1998: 188-189. 6 Kassianidou and Knapp 2005: 217. 7 Ibidem: 231.
8
4 5
Knapp 1989; 1990; Muhly 1989; 1991b; 1996; Kassianidou and Knapp 2005: 217; Kassianidou and Papasavvas (eds.) 2012. 9 Karageorghis 2002: 57; Kassianidou 2012a. 10 Karageorghis 2002: 73 and 115; Kassianidou 2012b; 2013.
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
271
Fig. 2. Phoenician bronze bowl from Salamis, British Museum.
Phoenicians at the end of the 9th century B.C. (CG III) while these processes were accompanied by fundamental cultural and social transformations. 2. PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS The archaeological evidence implies a Phoenician presence in Cyprus at the latest during the late 9th century B.C. (CG III)11 when the Phoenicians established an emporium at Kition to probably gain access to Cypriot metals and timber;12 nonetheless ceramic fabrics of Phoenician origin came to light in Cypriot tombs quite earlier, e.g. in the Early Iron Age cemetery of Palaepaphos-Skales.13 The arrival of the Phoenicians – after the immigration of Greeks during the 12th and
Cfr. Reyes 1994: 18-21. Karageorghis 2002: 144. 13 Cfr. Bikai 1983. 11
12
11th centuries B.C. – marks another crucial turning point in Cypriot culture.14 In addition to the ruins of the impressive temple the Phoenicians erected (for Baal or Astarte?) at Kition on the foundations of a Late Bronze Age sanctuary sometime during the 2nd half of the 9th century B.C.,15 Phoenician chamber tombs built in ashlar masonry now appear widespread all over Cyprus, for instance in the so-called Royal Tombs of Salamis and Tamassos16 as well as in Kition, Amathus and Patriki.17 Besides Phoenician ceramic fabrics or luxury goods like furniture inlays made of ivory, especially the wide spectrum of Phoenician bronzes found at var Reyes 1994; Karageorghis 2005a; Yon 2006; Matthäus 2009a: 168-178 15 Karageorghis 2002: 144-149; Karageorghis 2005b; Yon 2006; for a discussion about the erection date and the worshipped deity in Kition cfr. Hermary 2006. 16 Cfr. infra, p. 281. 17 Christou 1996; Walcher 2009. 14
272
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 3. Lost piriform bronze jug from Tamassos Tomb 16. Water-colour painting by M. Ohnefalsch-Richter.
ious sites all over Cyprus has to be considered as an important material evidence for Phoenician presence in the island.
2.1. Decorated Bowls One prominent category of Phoenician bronzes associated with Cypriot culture during the CG III and CA I-II periods is represented by a relatively small number of bowls compared to their much more numerous and prominent counterparts made of gold and silver.18 Already back in 1946 it was E. Gjerstad, the father of modern Cypriot archaeology, who developed a classification for the whole corpus of decorated metal bowls from Cyprus by setting up four groups which for stylistic reasons he called Proto-Cypriote, Neo-Cypriote, Cypro-Phoenician and Cypro-Egyptian.19 His classification is – apart from some minor modifications – still valid to the present day and since then has been used by researchers coping with the phenomenon of Phoenician metal bowls from Cyprus. Coming to terms of fabrication, the bowls were manufactured by combining the techniques of chasing, engraving and shallow repoussé work20 while being decorated in an eclectic mix of Cypriot, Near Eastern and/or Egyptianizing elements.
Cfr. Markoe 1985; Matthäus 1985; see also appendix. Gjerstad 1946. 20 Karageorghis 2002: 174. 18 19
The preserved Phoenician bronze bowls from Cyprus usually bear a figural decoration appearing in one register (e.g. narrative friezes, procession scenes) arranged around a central medallion showing varying figural (Pharao smiting enemies etc.) or ornamental (rosettes, papyrus plants) motifs. In one case however, the bowl decoration consists of only a compound central rosette without any outer registers. In what follows, two bronze bowls of North-Syrian origin from the Early Iron Age Cypriot sites of Idalion and Armou shall be presented first as – by some means – they can be addressed as forerunners of the Phoenician bronze bowls from Cyprus21 (Fig. 1). The first North Syrian bronze bowl displaying a procession scene comes from Idalion where it is said to have been found by Luigi Palma di Cesnola in a tomb north of the Ambelliri acropolis probably belonging to the CG III (?) period.22 Around a central rosette medallion is arranged one register depicting a bilateral procession of women towards an enthroned deity raising a lotus flower to her nose. In front of the goddess is a tripod with fruit offerings followed by a priestess holding a fan as well as a wine ladle and a four-legged table carrying two vessels. The rest of the scene consists of six female dancers holding hands and three female musicians playing a double-flute, a lyre and a tambourine. All of the figures wear long dresses with a waist belt and depressed bonnets on their heads; their hair is piled up leaving one tress hanging down over the shoulder. The topic of a religious procession towards an enthroned goddess accompanied by musicians is an iconographical scheme popular in North Syrian art23 where it is often displayed on contemporary ivory pyxides.24 According to H. Matthäus, the iconography of the depicted figures corresponds to other works of contemporary Cypriot art like vase paintings while the bonnets worn by the females – probably decorated with metal plaques – actually reflect traditional Cypriot costumes.25 Therefore one can state that the artist of this bowl was familiar both with North-Syrian as well as contemporary Cypriot art as is shown by means of the decoration mixed up of North-Syrian and autochthonous Cypriot elements. Hence, the specimen from Idalion for stylistic and iconographic reasons as well as in terms of chronology has to be addressed as part of an early group of metal bowls detached from its successors in the CA I-II periods.26
Cfr. infra. p. 273-275. Markoe 1985: 171-172, no. Cy3; Matthäus 1985: 161, no. 423; 2009b. 23 Markoe 1985: 56; Matthäus 1985: 171. 24 Barnett 1975: pl. XVI: S3 and S9. 25 Matthäus 1985: 171. 26 Cfr. infra, p. 274; Gjerstad 1946, who speaks of the so-called Proto-Cypriote group. 21 22
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
273
Fig. 4. Piriform bronze jug from Tamassos, Tomb 12 and detail of the handle terminating in a Phoenician palmette, Cyprus Museum.
Regarding shape and style of our bowl in general, only two parallels from Greece can be mentioned: A MG I bronze bowl from Tomb 42 of the Kerameikos at Athens27 is of identical shape while a procession scene on a LPG bronze bowl from Tomb 70 of the Toumba cemetery at Lefkandi28 on Euboea displays a similar figural and ornamental style. The second North-Syrian bronze bowl from Armou29 is decorated with a rosette medallion enclosed by a lotus-and-bud chain in the centre while the sole outer register displays a kneeling archer who is aiming a fleeing stag; the rest of the frieze is comprised of a gazelle in flying gallop as well as a cervid and three ibexes. This piece is interesting because of stylistic reasons as it clearly shows a North-Syrian influence without any striking parallels in or outside of Cyprus.30 A notable narrative topic which appears on the outer friezes of our first genuine Phoenician bronze bowl is a ritual feast, as it is displayed on an Egyptianizing bronze bowl from Alessandro Palma di Ces Kübler 1953; 1954: 201-203, fig. 5, pl. 162; Markoe 1985: 312-314. 28 Popham and Lemos 1996: pl. 70: 134 and 145. 29 Karageorghis 1981; Markoe 1985: 187-188, no. Cy22; Matthäus 1985: 168-169, no. 442. 30 Matthäus 2009b: 441-442.
nola’s excavations at Salamis said to belong to CA II31 (Fig. 2). The central medallion shows the Pharao smiting enemies with a mace. Behind him stands his attendant holding a bow and wearing a pointed cap of Near Eastern style, in front of him the falcon-headed god Re-Harakhte is visible. As the central figure in the sole outer register has to be considered a seated woman wearing an Egyptian dress and holding a child on her lap that seems to be suckling her chest. Other figures arranged around this scene are musicians, servants bringing wine, men and women engaged in sexual activities as well as people reclining or sitting and drinking wine; the whole setting without doubt can be interpreted as an aristocratic symposium.32 As has been correctly pointed out by various scholars,33 the seated woman and child should be identified as Isis with Horus who represent the protagonists of the ritual feast displayed. Thus, a strong Egyptianizing influence can be deduced from the scene displayed in the central medallion, the outward appearance of the seated woman as well as
27
Markoe 1985: 174-75, no. Cy5; Matthäus 1985: 163, no. 426; Karageorghis 1993; 2002: 178-79, fig. 365. 32 Cfr. also Krummen 2013: 30-31. 33 Cfr. Dentzer 1982: 74; Karageorghis 2002: 178. 31
274
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 5. Undecorated bronze jug, Tamassos Tomb 12.
the identification of the protagonists as the Egyptian deities Isis and Horus, respectively. In this context, it furthermore deserves to be mentioned that the erotic scenes shown in the outer register are the only ones of their kind represented on metal bowls from Cyprus so far.34 Regarding stylistic conventions, this bronze bowl forms part of Gjerstad’s Neo-Cypriote group.35 In addition to the two North-Syrian examples and the Phoenician bronze specimen described in detail above, only two more Phoenician bronze bowls from Cyprus dating to the CA I period can be mentioned to complete the picture.36 The first specimen is rather a flat pan than a bowl and is said to belong to the so-called “Kourion Treasure”.37 It has an omega-shaped ring handle and displays a row of embossed rivets around its lip; the only other decoration consists of a slightly raised central medallion and one outer register showing papyrus plants and four symmetrically arranged ibexes. Its style as well as its decorative scheme puts this piece into Gjerstad’s group of Cypro-Egyptian bowls.38 The second example comes from a CA I necropolis close to the Palaepaphos/Kouklia area whereas the exact find spot remains obscure.39 Its only decoration is made up of a compound rosette medallion in the Cfr. Karageorghis 1993. Gjerstad 1946. 36 Cfr. Markoe 1985: 179 and 186-187, nos. Cy10 and Cy21; Matthäus 1985: 167-168 and 178, nos. 438 and 444. 37 Masson 1984a; 1984b; Markoe 1985: 179, no. Cy10; Matthäus 1985: 167-168, no. 438. 38 Gjerstad 1946. 39 Karageorghis 1967a: 212, no. 53, figs. 20 and 25; Markoe 1985: 186-187, no. Cy21; Matthäus 1985: 178, no. 444.
centre from which seven bud-like petals – each enclosing a small bisected leaf – emerge. This petal-motif appears as a slightly variation also on Cypriot vases of Bichrome IV ware which is why it seems appropriate to classify this bronze bowl as an autochthonous Cypriot work.40 The preserved Phoenician bronze bowls from Cyprus have to be considered as precious and highly appreciated objects belonging to a group of high-ranking individuals who expressed their elite lifestyle through such prestigious artefacts. Probably they were used during aristocratic symposiums as is also suggested by the banquet scene displayed on the Phoenician bronze bowl from Salamis which has been described above. Generally spoken, Phoenician bowls made of bronze as well as silver and gold must have been of extraordinary value to royal elites and upper class members as can be seen by their overall distribution which reaches out as far as Etruria, Sicily or even Spain in the West41 as well as Iran42 and South Sudan43 in the East, where those vessels were found in considerable number connected to burials of noble men and women. The Phoenician bronze bowls found in Cyprus are all characterized by a very fine and elaborate miniature style that – in contrary to other works of Cypro-Phoe-
34 35
Matthäus 1985: 178. Italy e.g. Tomba Bernardini: Curtis 1919: pls. 22-23; Markoe 1985: 188-191, no. E1; Spain e.g. Jiménez Ávila 2002: 14: fig. 259. 42 Culican 1970; Stöllner et al. 2004. 43 Almagro-Gorbea 2004; Lohwasser 2002; 2004; Matthäus 2009b; forthcoming. 40 41
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
275
Fig. 6. Flat bronze drinking bowl with omega-shaped swing handle and rod-shaped attachment, Amathus B.T. 84.
nician origin like horse ornament44 – makes it very possible that they have been produced by majority in the Phoenician homeland before being exported to the various regions of the Mediterranean, including Cyprus.45
2.2. Jugs Another important class of Phoenician bronze work coming from Cyprus is represented by the so-called Phoenician jugs which derive from Levantine pottery types. The three preserved specimens – which can be distinguished in two different types46 – are of piriform shape and have a trefoil spout bond to an attached handle terminating in a Phoenician palmette.47 A third type of Phoenician metal jug from Cyprus is made of silver and therefore of no relevance for the study at hand.48 Our first type is represented by a bronze jug of unknown date and provenance nowadays in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It is of a slender form with a very slim and depressed base carrying the spherical body which is confined from the high swayed neck by a ridge. The handle consists of two rods and builds out two tongues in its upper part which are brazed to the rim; the lower part leads into two Cfr. infra, p. 286. Cfr. Matthäus forthcoming. 46 Matthäus 1985: 239-244; Grau-Zimmermann 1978; see also the M. Taloni’s chapter in this volume. 47 Matthäus 1985: 238; forthcoming. 48 Cfr. Grau-Zimmermann 1978: 212, no. K 1; Matthäus 1985: 238, no. 538.
antithetic volutes that terminate into a semicircular relief palmette.49 The second type becomes manifest in a bronze jug as well as an isolated bronze handle from the Royal Tombs 12 (CA II) and 4 (CA I-II) in Tamassos;50 another – now lost – complete specimen from Tomb 16 (CA II) in Tamassos is only known from a water-colour painting by M. Ohnefalsch-Richter51 (Fig. 3). The piriform jug from Tomb 1252 (Fig. 4) has a rather flat base and an elongated spherical body that is divided from the conical neck by a horizontal ridge. The height of its neck is less than the overall length of the body which makes this type of vessel look very heavy. From the trefoil spout emerges the handle made up of two rods, its lower part widening into a round attachment with engraved decoration that consists of a triangle shaped leaf, two antithetic volutes and a simple palmette. The handle from Tamassos Tomb 453 also consists of two rods, again terminating in an engraved attachment displaying a triangle shaped leaf with two volutes and a relief palmette; the attachment is separated from the handle by a number of circular ridges. In this context, another bronze handle belonging to a Phoenician bronze jug of unknown Cypriot provenance deserves to be mentioned.54 The relief attachment at the lower part of the handle shows two rows of triangle shaped leaves building out two antithetic volutes ending Matthäus 1985: 239, no. 539. Ibidem: 239-40, nos. 540 and 543. 51 Buchholz and Untiedt 1996: fig. 49d; Matthäus 2014: 117118, fig. 12. 52 Matthäus 1985: 239-240, no. 540; 2014: 117, fig. 13. 53 Ibidem: 240, no. 543. 54 Ibidem: 240, no. 542.
44
49
45
50
276
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 7. Lost long-spouted bronze cup with Phoenician palmette from Tamassos.
in a relief palmette. Here the attachment is separated from the rest of the handle by a row of four horizontal grooves. Unfortunately, no information is available regarding the find spot or the context of this piece. Coming to terms of chronology, only the handle fragment and the jug from Tamassos Tombs 4 and 12 allow a secure dating in late CA I-II (tomb 4) or CA II (Tomb 12) while the now lost jug from Tamassos Tomb 16 probably belongs to CA II. The specimen in New York on the other hand has to be considered as a unique piece of insecure (CA?) date.55 Similar shaped Phoenician jugs made of silver, glass, clay or even an ostrich egg – which have to be considered as immediate parallels to our bronze specimens – have been found spread all over the Mediterranean during the 1st millennium B.C. as finds from the Phoenician homeland, North Africa, Sicily and the Iberian peninsula demonstrate.56 On the other hand, examples of Phoenician metal jugs coming from rich burial contexts in Central and Southern Italy as well as from Spain show clearly the wide distribution of these prestigious artefacts by simultaneously linking them to the Phoenician colonization and trade activities.57 The question where these jugs have been manufactured is not quite clear. According to typological idiosyncrasies there may have been ateliers in the Phoenician homeland, in Cyprus as well as in Italy and in the Iberian Peninsula.
Thus the class of Phoenician bronze jugs of piriform shape – like the decorated Phoenician bronze bowls discussed above – can be addressed as highly appreciated status symbols probably connected to the ritual of the aristocratic banquet. Their distribution all over the Mediterranean world further allows us to conclude that they most likely have been used by an elite group of individuals forming part of a Mediterranean κοινή that was characterized through an identical upper-class lifestyle. Complementary to the corpus of Phoenician bronze jugs of piriform shape described above, another undecorated bronze jug from Tamassos Tomb 12 (CA II) (Fig. 5); and a now lost bronze jug in the Cesnola Collection in New York58 deserve to be mentioned here. The first jug has an ovoid body with a flat bottom and a low cylindrical neck to which a strap handle is attached59 while the now lost example in New York has an ovoid body resting on an offset foot and shows a higher and wider neck. Again, a strap handle is attached to the neck which seems to have been decorated by a Phoenician palmette at its lower end. The form of the bronze jug from Tamassos Tomb 12 clearly seems to go back to Phoenician prototypes as is exemplified by a jug of comparable shape and proportions from Sidon dating to the 6th century B.C.60 A similar sort of bronze jug furthermore came to light
Matthäus 1985: 246-47, no. 547, pl. 72 (note that it is incorrectly signed as no. 546). 59 Cfr. Matthäus 2007: fig. 12. 60 Culican 1968: pl. 19: 1-3. 58
Matthäus 1985: 243. 56 Ibidem: 242. 57 Ibidem; Matthäus forthcoming. 55
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
Fig. 8. Bronze cauldron with bull protomes, Salamis Tomb 79, Cyprus Museum.
277
278
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 9. Bronze cauldron with siren attachments and griffin protomes, Salamis Tomb 79, Cyprus Museum.
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
279
Fig. 10. Bronze cauldron with bar-like attachment and two loops, Tamassos Tomb 12.
in Villanueva de la Vera, in the region of Cáceres, Spain.61 The feature of the Phoenician palmette to be found on the New York jug also points to the tradition of Phoenician metal work as has been observed already in connection with the Phoenician bronze jugs of piriform shape.62 According to E. Gjerstad, this type of bronze vessel has parallels in clay jugs of Bichrome Red II (V) Ware which are commonly dated to the CA II period.63
2.3. Flat handled bowls A further variant of Phoenician bronze vessels popular in Cyprus during the CA I-II periods is represented by a number of flat drinking bowls that have an omega-shaped swing handle and a rod-shaped attachment below the rim.64 All in all five different variants – which are defined by the form of the rodshaped attachment – can be distinguished by ranging from very flat to hemispherical shape (bowls with a long rod-shaped attachment, bowls with a bipartite rod-shaped attachment, bowls with a rod-shaped attachment with palmette relief, bowls with a short rod-shaped attachment, bowls with a short rod-shaped attachment and bird adornment). 65 Flat drinking bowls with omega-shaped handles and rod-shaped attachments are known from tombs
all over Cyprus, e.g. Tamassos, tombs 4 (CA I–II) and 12 (CA II); Amathus, B.T. 84 (CA II) (Fig. 6); Idalion, Tomb 2 (CA II). Besides that, two examples of unknown provenance are kept in the Cesnola Collection in New York.66 This type of vessel originates in the Egyptian New Kingdom and is also to be found in the Levant and Northern Syria at the close of the Late Bronze Age and during the Early Iron Age.67 Still in the LC-period bronze bowls with similar handle constructions then reached Cyprus – as for example is shown by a fragmentary strainer from Enkomi probably dating to LC II C68 – and continued well into the Early Iron Age where they formed part of the existing repertoire of banqueting vessels.69 According to Matthäus, the very flat drinking bowls with long attachments below the rim have to be considered as typical examples of an advanced stage of Phoenician metalwork70 that were also appreciated by Assyrian kings as valued objects as an example from Nimrud demonstrates.71 The popularity of these bronze bowls is also documented by their distribution all over the Mediterranean world as is proven by further finds from Greece, Italy, Sardinia, the Iberian Peninsula or Sudan.72
Ibidem: nos. 363, 370. Ibidem: 131-32; forthcoming. 68 Matthäus 1985: 263, no. 581, pl. 79, 581. 69 Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 132; forthcoming. 70 Matthäus forthcoming. 71 Layard 1853: pl. 57A; Culican 1968: 287-88, fig. 3; Barnett 1974: 22-23; Matthäus forthcoming. 72 Matthäus 1985: 132; forthcoming; for the overall distribution and varying shapes of this Phoenician vessel type cfr. Matthäus 2001: 169-73 and 191-199. 66 67
Blázquez 1985: 81, figs. 24-25, pl. XXXI; Jiménez Ávila 2002: 52-53, pl. VII: 13. 62 Cfr. supra, pp. 275-276. 63 Gjerstad et al. 1935: 218, fig. LIII: 17-18. 64 Matthäus 1985: 128-133, nos. 359-370; 2001: 169-174 and 191-199; forthcoming. 65 Cfr. Matthäus 1985: passim. 61
280
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 11. Bronze cauldrons with high-carinated shoulder. 1. Tamassos Tomb 15; 2. The same objet in a photograph from H.-G. Buchholz; 3. Tamassos Tomb 12 in a Water-colour painting by M. Ohnefalsch-Richter.
2.4. Bronze ladles Bronze ladles with a very deep bowl and a handle forming out a swan’s head at the upper end represent another class of Phoenician metalwork connected to the material culture of Early Iron Age Cyprus. Three specimens in total came to light in Tomb 84 in Amathus and on the Western Acropolis of Idalion, respectively; another bronze example of uncertain origin is kept in the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia.73 The ladles from Amathus and Idalion can securely be dated to CA II while the piece in Nicosia cannot be allocated to a distinctive period with certainty. The handles of the ladles could either be cast together with the vessel74 or manufactured separately. In the latter case the upper part of the handle then was attached to the body of the ladle by using a hinge.75 As can be seen on a North-Syrian silver bowl of unknown
Gjerstad et al. 1935: 533, no. 15; Matthäus 1985: 257-260, nos. 565-567; Chavane 1982: 64, no. 49, fig. 88; Matthäus forthcoming. 74 Matthäus 1985: 258, nos. 565 and 566. 75 Ibidem: no. 567. 73
provenance nowadays in the Cesnola Collection in New York,76 those kinds of ladles were used in the course of the aristocratic banquet to pour wine from amphorae into jugs or other drinking vessels. Again a Mediterranean-wide distribution of these objects can be observed. More or less contemporary bronze ladles with deep bowls and handles terminating in a swan’s head are for instance known from the Heraion of Samos,77 Lindos on Rhodos,78 Cástulo in Spain,79 Lixos in the northwest of Morocco80 as well as from Hillat el-Arab in Sudan.81 The type of vessel itself seems to originate in the East where – on formal grounds – a forerunner to our ladles comes from Tanis in Egypt dating to the 11th
Ibidem: 161-162, no. 424. Walter and Vierneisel 1959: 32, pl. 73: 2; Matthäus 1985: 258. 78 Blinkenberg 1931: 227, no. 793, pl. 32: 793; Matthäus 1985: 258. 79 Jiménez Ávila 2002: 157-158, fig. 109; Matthäus forthcoming. 80 Aranegui 2001: 28, fig. 36; Matthäus forthcoming. 81 Vincentelli 2006: 97, pl. VII; Matthäus forthcoming. 76 77
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
281
Fig. 12. “Cypriot” incense burners from the Cesnola Collection, Metropolitan Museum, New York.
century B.C.82 From this time on there must have been a continuous tradition of this type in the Orient down to the 7th – 6th centuries B.C. when it reached Cyprus, although significant material evidence from other find spots is relatively sparse.83 In fact, handles terminating in a swan’s head have been known in Cyprus since the Late Bronze Age where charcoal shovels are equipped with this feature84 which was probably inspired by ivory works of Near Eastern origin.85
2.5. Other vases A rare class of Phoenician bronze vessels is further attested through a small number of long-spouted cups, some of them showing a Phoenician palmette decorating the body86 (Fig. 7). All in all three specimens, one from Idalion and Tamassos (lost), respectively, and one of unknown Cypriot provenance are known to the present day. Only the cups from Idalion and Tamassos allow a rather secure dating in the CA-period while for the other example a chronological framework is lacking. A striking parallelfor this type of bronze vessel can be found in a cup in Mainz said to come from Urartu, while forerunners are known from Nimrud, Tell Halaf and Karatepe87 so in the case of our cups one may speak of a Phoenician continuation of a North Montet 1951: 99, fig. 41; Matthäus 1985: 259. Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 259, no. 6. 84 Catling 1964: 100-101; Vonhoff forthcoming. 85 Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 259. 86 Matthäus 1985: 189-190, nos. 462-463; Karageorghis 1988: 334-335, fig. 5, pl. 49; Buchholz 2001: 139-140, fig. 7c. 87 Matthäus 1985: 190. 82
Syrian type ; an assumption which is furthermore supported by the iconographic detail of the Phoenician palmette occasionally decorating the body.
2.6. Cauldrons Among the extraordinary burial gifts from the so-called Royal Tombs at Salamis (CA I-II) and Tamassos (CA I-II) are to be found further examples of Phoenician bronze work from Early Iron Age Cyprus: Large bronze cauldrons, armour and horse ornament of Phoenician origin make up a considerable part of the rich furnished tombs that can be interpreted as the last resting-places of the island’s elites, amidst them (probably) Greek speaking city-kings of a war-like aristocracy.88 In Salamis Tomb 79 two large bronze cauldrons dating to the CA I period came to light among other luxury goods of Phoenician origin made of ivory and metal.89 The first cauldron90 (Fig. 8) is characterized by a high conical foot and a squat spherical body with an inwards turned spout. Beneath the rim are two rodshaped attachments which bear two loops for inserting an omega-shaped swing handle while being fixed with four rivets each. Between the loops are arranged three bull protomes that were cast together with the attachments. A Phoenician relief palmette decorates the end
83
Karageorghis 1967b; 1973-74; Matthäus forthcoming. Matthäus 1985: 211-212, no. 501 and 216-218, no. 507; Karageorghis 2002: figs. 336-338. 90 Matthäus 1985: no. 501; Karageorghis 2002: figs. 337-338. 88 89
282
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 13. Bronze incense burner from Tamassos.
of each attachment below of which a hathor plaque together with a double winged sun is mounted. There are no immediate parallels for this kind of cauldron in the Mediterranean world so far, neither for the shape of the vessel nor the decoration scheme. What can be said with certainty, however, is that the elements of Hathor plaques and double winged suns are quite well known in Cyprus and represent common motifs in Egypt and the Near East.91 Therefore it seems reasonable to think of Phoenician ateliers that acted as mediators of this kind of iconography by enriching the artistic repertoire of archaic Cypriot culture.92 One more fragmentary bronze cauldron of squat spherical shape with ring handles and bull protomes protruding from cruciform attachments in the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia93 as well as several attachments with bull protomes of inhomogeneous style94 are further known from Early Iron Age Cyprus so far. The pieces can only roughly be dated to the CG III-CA I periods for stylistic reasons.95 Within this setting, the fragmentary cauldron in Nicosia with its squat spherical body and cruciform attachments again clearly is linked to Near Eastern Matthäus 1985: 212; cfr. Karageorghis 1971: 18, figs. 27-28; Kyrieleis 1977: 78, no. 45; Carbillet 2011. 92 Matthäus 1985: 212. 93 Ibidem: 213, no. 502. 94 Ibidem: 213-216, nos. 503-506. 95 Ibidem: 216. 91
forerunners as is exemplified by a parallel from Gordion dating around 700 B.C.96 A genuine Levantine origin of this type of vessel could further be supported by the clay model of a cauldron from ‘Ein Gev in Israel that shows a bull protome with a ring handle.97 The remaining Cypriot attachments with bull protomes display a more or less self-contained character compared to other contemporary works from the Greek Mainland – especially from Olympia to be more precise.98 By taking into account the different stylistic conventions and plastic modelling of the bull protomes from the Greek Mainland, the present state of archaeological research in the case of our attachments seems to point to Cypro-Phoenician ateliers that produced this kind of vessel ornaments99 – whether in Cyprus or in the Phoenician homeland one cannot determine with certainty. The second bronze cauldron from Salamis Tomb 79 is a piece unique in Cyprus to the present day100 (Fig. 9). It has a round bottom and a squat spherical, double-walled body whose upper part is bent inwards.101 Beneath the low rim are arranged four embossed double-headed siren attachments with spread wings and eight cast griffin protomes which are fixed to the double-walled cauldron by rivets.102 Despite the fact that siren attachments and griffin protomes are widely known around the Mediterranean world during the 1st millennium B.C.,103 the decoration scheme itself as well as its individual formal repertoire is so far unparalleled in Cyprus, the Near East, Greece and Etruria.104 Reversely, the lack of any parallels outside of Cyprus makes it very possible to think of a local Cypro-Phoenician workshop in the island.105 Besides that, the presence of another bronze cauldron in the same tomb106 which – regarding its decoration scheme – is clearly linked to Near Eastern traditions, could be taken as a further hint for a Cypro-Phoenician origin of this unique bronze cauldron.107 Three more bronze cauldrons going back to the tradition of Levantine toreutics are also to be found in the slightly later Royal Tombs 12 (CA II; two specimens) and 15 (CA II; one specimen) at Tamassos, Chomazoudhia.108
Akurgal 1961: colourpl. IIIb; Matthäus 1985: 214. Mazar 1964: 49, fig. 11: 9; Matthäus 1985: 215. 98 Matthäus 1985: 215; cfr. Herrmann 1966; Kyrieleis 1977. 99 Ibidem: 215. 100 Ibidem: no. 507; Karageorghis 2002: fig. 336. 101 Cfr. Lehóczky 1974. 102 Matthäus 1985: 216. 103 Ibidem: 218, note 1 with extensive bibliography; Gehrig and Schneider 2004. 104 Matthäus: 218. 105 Barnett 1969: 146; Matthäus 1985: 218. 106 Cfr. supra, pp. 281-282. 107 Matthäus 1985: 218. 108 Matthäus 2014: 120-122, figs. 14-15. 96 97
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
One cauldron from Tomb 12, now in the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia, is of hemispherical shape and displays a long bar-like attachment with two loops, which held a now lost swing handle109 (Fig. 10). Despite the rather unique shape of the cauldron, the construction of the handle has good parallels in flat drinking bowls of Phoenician origin that are known from Cyprus through several examples.110 As has been stated before, these bowls originate in the Egyptian New Kingdom from where they spread to other Near Eastern sites like Nimrud, Ur, or Sam’al-Zincirli111 in the 8th century B.C. before they finally reached Cyprus in the Archaic period.112 The two other bronze cauldrons from Tamassos tombs 12 and 15, nowadays in Berlin and Cambridge, are of a more common type113 (Fig. 11). The specimens without handles have a rounded bottom, a high carinated shoulder and a low, widened rim. This type of cauldron is paralleled in Salamis and Marion as well as in four examples of unknown Cypriot provenance in London, Oxford and New York;114 one may also add to this corpus two bronze cauldrons of comparable shape and two vertical handles that are kept in Oxford and Nicosia.115 Despite the two datable specimens from Tamassos (CA II) the chronology is uncertain. The other known find spots in the cemeteries of Salamis and Marion allow only an approximate date of CG III-CA (Salamis) and CA-CCl (Marion), respectively, while the other examples of unknown provenance, including the variants in Oxford and Nicosia,116 cannot be allocated to certain periods.117 Despite a number of parallels from Late Geometric Greece and one specimen from Italy dating to the 7th century B.C.,118 our cauldrons from Cyprus should probably be rooted in the Levant as predecessors of similar shape with a high carinated shoulder from Tell
Matthäus 1985: 211, no. 500 (tomb wrongly numbered as XI according to Buchholz’ earlier classification); 2007: fig. 8; 2014: 120 fig. 14. 110 Tamassos, tombs 4 (CA I–II) and 12 (CA II); Amathus, B.T. 84 (CA II); Idalion, Tomb 2 (CA II); cfr. supra, pp. 279-280. 111 Ibidem: 1985: 132, notes 5-7 with extensive bibliography. 112 Matthäus forthcoming. 113 Matthäus 1985: 202, nos. 486-487; Matthäus 2014: 120; another bronze cauldron listed by Matthäus 1985: 202, no. 485 is identical with no. 486 due to the alternating classifications of tombs XI and XII by Buchholz; cfr. supra note 109. 114 Matthäus 1985: 202, nos. 482-484 and 488-490; Oxford: Coldstream and Catling 1996: 561, no. 165; New York: Karageorghis et al. 2000: 170-171, nos. 276-277; cfr. Matthäus 2014: 120-122, figs. 15-16. 115 Matthäus 1985: 205-206, nos. 491-492; 2014: 122. 116 Cfr. supra, p. 283. 117 Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 203 and 206; 2014. 118 Matthäus 1985: 203-204; 2014: 122. 109
283
Fig. 14. Bronze incense burner from the Cesnola Collection, Metropolitan Museum, New York.
es-Sa’idiyeh119 and Jatt120 dating to the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I suggest.121 In contrast to the majority of the preserved Cypriot examples, those Near Eastern forerunners are characterized by two loop-shaped handles fixed by rivets or attachments for inserting a swing handle; nonetheless the identical basic shape certainly allows us to postulate a Near Eastern ancestry for the cauldrons with rounded bottom, high carinated shoulder and low, widened rim from Cyprus.122 Large bronze cauldrons in general probably have also to be ascribed to the category of feasting equipment as is shown by their occasional association with flat drinking bowls, e.g. in Tamassos, Tomb 12 (CA II); another but rare purpose of use connected to burial rites lies in the occasional utilization of these items as a funerary urn.
2.7. Incense Burners Additional evidence of Phoenician bronze work from Cypriot find spots of the CA I-II periods is comprehensible through incense burners. The genre of Phoenician “thymiateria” (also known by the terms candelabra, torch-holders or lamp stands) as a whole has recently been studied by B. Morstadt in her PhD thesis123 and is also treated by her in this volume by Pritchard 1980: 14, figs. 4: 14 and 48: 3; Gershuny 1985: 14-15, no. 109, pl. 10: 109; Matthäus 2008: 213, fig. 5. 120 Artzy 2006: fig. 2.3: 1-1a, pl. 5; Matthäus 2008: 212-217, figs. 3-4. 121 Cfr. Matthäus 2014: 122; in contrast to Matthäus 1985: 205, who initially thought of a Greek origin back then. 122 Matthäus 2014: 122. 123 Morstadt 2008. 119
284
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 15. Bronze spiked shield boss from Amathus, British Museum.
referring extensively to Cypriot finds.124 Given this situation I shall limit myself to a short description of the different types of Phoenician incense burners deriving from Cyprus whereupon recommending my colleague’s work to provide a deeper insight into this field of archaeological research. Among the three major types of incense burners, decorated finials cast in several parts represent the most popular variant in Cyprus known from several find spots all over the island.125 The parts were attached to a vertical stem that was decorated with one to three rows of leaf ornament crowned by rods ending in volutes. The volutes were connected by a ring which served as a pedestal for a bowl containing the incense (Fig. 12). Besides the great number of finds from Cyprus (ca. 50 specimens spread out in various collections around the world), again a Mediterranean
Cfr. chapter on Phoenician candelabra and incense burners in this volume. 125 Cfr. Morstadt 2008: 417-426, nos. OF 2a/2-51 and OF 2b/46, pls. 40-45; Matthäus forthcoming. 124
wide distribution of this type of incense burner from the Levant to the Iberian Peninsula can be observed.126 The second type is defined by a trumpet shaped foot, a similar decoration of rows of petals as well as a bowl for burning incense which is fixed by rivets.127 The earlier specimens were composed of elements of hammered bronze plate while the later ones were cast.128 Besides two Early Iron Age examples from Tomb 132 in Palaepaphos/Xylinos129 (CG I) and Tomb 144 in Palaepaphos/Plakes130 (disturbed layers; CG I–CA I) there is one complete piece preserved from Tamassos, Tomb 4 (Fig. 13) (CA I-II) as well as a trumpet shaped foot from Vouni (CCl) and a fragmentary bronze bowl of unknown Cypriot provenance in Morstadt 2008: 426-436, nos. OF 2a/52-94 and OF 2b/1-3, pls. 45-50. 127 Ibidem: 387-88, nos. OF 1a/2-5, pl. 28; Matthäus 2014: 125; forthcoming. 128 Matthäus forthcoming. 129 Cfr. Morstadt 2008: 387, no. OF 1a/2. 130 Karageorghis and Raptou 2014: 76 nos. 24+74, pls. 47 and 94. 126
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
the Cyprus Museum (CA II?). This variant of incense burners originates in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Levant as is demonstrated by clay imitations131 as well as by finds of (fragmentary) bronze specimens from Akko or Jatt,132 which are dated to the 14th – 13th centuries B.C. (Akko) and probably the 11th century B.C. (Jatt), respectively. This type of incense burner must then have reached Cyprus during the later stages of the Late Bronze Age as two bronze examples from the arguable Turkish excavations in Galinoporni133 (LC II C-LC III A) and Palaepaphos-Teratsoudhia134 (LC III A) demonstrate. The type continues well into the 1st millennium B.C. by also experiencing a Pan-Mediterranean distribution from the Levant to Cyprus, Egypt, Turkey,135 Greece, Central Italy, Sardinia as far as the Iberian Peninsula.136 Especially the great number of incense burners of this type found in the Iberian Peninsula points to a decent amount of local ateliers that produced this type of incense burners in the Western Mediterranean.137 The third type of Phoenician incense burners associated with Early Iron Age Cypriot culture consists of a flat plate with a cup-like support for burning the incense138 (Fig. 14). The datable examples from the Western Acropolis of Idalion, Idalion, Tomb 2, and Tamassos, Tomb 4, all belong to CA II139 and to the present day have only a few akin counterparts from the Western Mediterranean140 as well as some parallels in Phoenician ceramic fabrics; this situation probably should be explained by the state of archaeological research as well as yet unpublished material evidence.141 All in all, incense burners have to be considered as cult objects that were used during ritual sacrifices to the gods142 and probably also in the course of burial rites as a decent number of those items has been found in Cypriot tombs. Incense burners were probably also used in the context of the aristocratic symposium as is documented from Iron Age Greece143 and can also be deduced from some Cypriot tomb furnishings that contained a combination of incense burners and other feasting equipment such as ladles and drinking bowls.144 Morstadt 2008: pls. 32-34. Ibidem: 447, nos. OF 4b/1-3; Matthäus 2010: 208-9. 133 Bartelheim et al. 2008: 164, fig. 4; Morstadt 2008: 447-48, no. OF 4b/4; Matthäus 2010: 210. 134 Morstadt 2008: 448, no. OF 4b/5; Matthäus 2010: 212-216. 135 Donder 2012: fig. 1: a-c. 136 Morstadt 2008: 387-97, nos. OF 1a/1, OF 1a/6-30. 137 Cfr. Jiménez Ávila 2002: 182-212. 138 Morstadt 2008: 440-441, nos. OF 3b/1-7, pl. 51; Matthäus forthcoming. 139 Matthäus forthcoming. 140 Morstadt 2008: 439, nos. OF 3a/1-3. 141 Morstadt 2008: 202. 142 Ibidem: pls. 1-25. 143 Cfr. Xenophanes, fragment 1 Diehl. 144 Cfr. Amathus B.T. 84; Matthäus forthcoming. 131 132
285
Fig. 16. Lost decorated bronze spiked shield boss, Tamassos Tomb 12. Water-colour painting by M. Ohnefalsch-Richter.
2.8. Armour and Equestrian Harness Armour represents another but rare class among the preserved Phoenician bronzes from Cyprus. The famous bronze shield boss from a looted tomb in Amathus probably dating to the late 8th – early 7th century B.C.145 on formal grounds can be clearly classified as Phoenician. In its center a lion-and-bull combat scene in Phoenician style is depicted while the ornamental decoration consists of a dotted spiral band running around the rim as well as several dotted relief ridges (Fig. 15). In Tamassos, Tomb 12 (CA II), another decorated spiked shield boss of Phoenician origin – once in Berlin, now lost but preserved in a water-colour painting by M. Ohnefalsch-Richter – came to light146 (Fig. 16). The specimen, which is also decorated with relief ridges and dots around the rim, in its formal appearance again, can be considered genuinely Phoenician in character. The Amathus shield boss therefore probably has to be addressed as the forerunner of the Tamassos spec-
145 146
Barnett 1977: 161-164; Matthäus 2014: 110; forthcoming. Buchholz 1978: 194-95, fig. 44; Matthäus 2007: 229, fig. 6; 2014: 110, fig. 5; forthcoming.
286
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 17. Bronze tire-disc from Salamis, Tomb 79.
imen as well as of some comparable bronze votives from the Anat Athena sanctuary on the Western Acropolis of Idalion.147 All in all, bronze armour seems to account only for a very small part in the otherwise prosperous repertoire of Phoenician bronze work related to Cyprus. On the other hand, bronze horse ornament of Phoenician style is preserved in considerable number from several Cypro-Archaic tombs at Salamis, Palaepaphos and Tamassos. The Royal Tombs of Salamis148 (CA I-II) – which were used for several interments of high-ranking individuals during the Cypro-Archaic period – by far comprehended the most outstanding paradigms for Phoenician style horse ornament: A decent number of elite burials were accompanied by the offerings of a (war) chariot and/or a hearse together with the associated horses sacrificed in situ.149 The chariots and hearses150 themselves were adorned with bronze ornaments in Egyptianizing fashion such as tire-discs showing a winged lion – a symbol for the Pharao – killing a fallen enemy151 (Fig. 17), caps in the shape of a sphinx covering the ends of the axle or hollow lions’ heads for the attachment of a Gjerstad 1935: 578-579, pl. CLXXV: 1; Gjerstad 1948: 140; Matthäus 2014: 110; forthcoming. 148 Cfr. Karageorghis 1967b; 1973-74: 4-122; 2002: 157-173. 149 Karageorghis 1967b; 1973-74; 2002: 158-168; Matthäus forthcoming. 150 Cfr. Crouwel 1987. 151 Karageorghis 2002: fig. 324. 147
canopy post as well as bronze figurines of warriors,152 flower-shaped standards or simply bronze nails and rings.153 The sacrificed horses on the other hand were richly embellished with bronze gear consisting of front bands, blinkers, breast-plates and side pendants showing various motifs of apotropaic function in an eclectic mix of Egyptianizing and Near Eastern style characteristic of Phoenician artwork.154 Among the iconographic repertoire are to be found sphinxes, griffins or winged lions striding over fallen enemies by symbolizing the Egyptian Pharao155 (Fig. 18), Phoenician winged gods or demons,156 Astarte as mistress of animals,157 couchant lions and uraei,158 scarabs or lotus flowers and floral ornaments.159 A rather unique piece of horse ornament is preserved in a fragmentary bronze breast plate from Royal Tomb 79 (CA I) that displays a pandaemonium of Assyrian demons such as genies, men with scorpion tails, griffins and sphinxes, winged goats or ornithomorphic demons (so-called apkallu) in repoussé160 (Fig. 19). Counterparts for the horse ornament from Salamis come from a contemporary tomb of a high-ranking warrior in Palaepaphos161 or from the somewhat later Royal Tombs of Tamassos162 whereas outside of Cyprus – with exception of some Cypriot blinkers and front bands from the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos163 – no striking parallels regarding the decoration style or typology are known.164 The lack of further parallels in the Mediterranean as well as the quite uncouth style of the horse ornament compared to other bronze works of Phoenician origin deriving from Cyprus – e.g. the decorated bronze bowls165 – seem to point to local Cypriot ateliers that made use of Egyptian and Near Eastern prototypes166 and subsequently developed an art form of their own detached from the development of horse gear in neighbouring regions.
Ibidem: fig. 325. Karageorghis 1967b; 1973-74; 2002: 158-59. 154 Karageorghis 1967b: pls. XIV-XV, XLVI-XLVII, LXXXLXXXII, CXIV, CXXVII-CXXVIII and CXXXIX-CXL; 1973-74: pls. LXXVI-XCVII, CVI-CVIII, CXVII-CXXII, CXXIV-CXXVIII and CCLXIII-CCLXXIX; Donder 1980: pls. 13-19 and 21-28; 2002: figs. 324-325, 329-333, 335 and 359; Matthäus forthcoming. 155 Karageorghis 2002: fig. 329. 156 Ibidem: fig. 333. 157 Ibidem: fig. 335. 158 Ibidem: fig. 330. 159 Ibidem: fig. 331. 160 Braun-Holzinger and Matthäus 2000; Karageorghis 2002: fig. 332; Matthäus forthcoming. 161 Karageorghis 1963. 162 Buchholz 1994. 163 Donder 1980: pls. 23, 218-220 and 223. 164 Matthäus forthcoming. 165 Cfr. supra, pp. 272-275. 166 Wicke 1999. 152 153
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
287
Fig. 18. Bronze horse blinder from Salamis, Tomb 79.
3. CONCLUDING REMARKS As has been laid out before, Phoenician bronzes make up a considerable amount among the various testimonials of metal ware in Cyprus during the CG III and CA I-II periods. Phoenician influence in particular becomes manifest in bronze vessels related to the sphere of the aristocratic banquet such as decorated bowls, jugs of piriform or ovoid shape, flat drinking bowls with omega-shaped swing handles and rodshaped attachments, ladles with swans’ heads, longspouted cups or large cauldrons; all these objects have to be considered as precious and valued objects to their owners who obviously formed part of a Pan-Mediterranean elite circle if one considers the distribution of these artefacts from East to West. Phoenician incense burners made of bronze represent another class of metal work popular in Cyprus whereupon three different types can be distinguished. Their formal appearance as well as their function has only been characterized shortly in this setting because of the deepened analysis of these items provided by my colleague B. Morstadt in this volume. Bronze armour on the other hand – given the present state of archaeological research – seems to have been quite rare in Cyprus as the few testimonials of spiked shield bosses of Phoenician origin suggest; those items with their decoration scheme of relief ridges and dots on formal grounds can be classified as genuinely Phoenician in character. Finally, decorated Phoenician horse ornament made of bronze was widespread among Cypriot elites during the Early Iron Age period as finds from the Royal Tombs of Salamis and Tamassos are illustrating. The artistic repertoire includes front bands, blinkers, breast-plates and side pendants which display various motifs by mixing Egyptianizing and Near Eastern elements. The fact that a decent number of the deceased noble men were buried in these tombs together with their richly adorned horses and embellished chariots or hearses allows us to conclude that Phoenician horse
gear was of extraordinary value to Cypriot elites. On the contrary the very few exports from outside of Cyprus point to a rather local phenomenon connected to aristocratic burial rites which seems to have been limited merely exclusively to the island of Aphrodite. APPENDIX: AN ICONOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF PHOENICIAN GOLD AND SILVER BOWLS FROM CYPRUS Altogether three different iconographic groups can be distinguished among the Phoenician gold and silver bowls from Cyprus. 1) Bowls decorated in miniature style 2) Bowls displaying narrative friezes 3) Bowls with repetitive motifs. In fact, gold and silver bowls displaying a figural decoration consisting of animal or bull friezes already appear during the early 8th century B.C. in the Mediterranean, but to the present day no specimens are known to come from Cyprus.167 The first group of Phoenician gold and silver bowls from Cyprus is defined by a fine miniature style containing Egyptian and Syrian elements while showing the motif of a (religious?) boat procession in a Nilotic setting on their outer registers.168 To this group belong two silver bowls probably dating to CA I which were found in Athienou/Golgoi in Cyprus169 and in the Tomba Bernardini at Praeneste/ Palaestrina170 as well as a golden specimen from the royal tombs of Nimrud.171 Cfr. Matthäus 2009b. Gjerstad 1946; Matthäus 1985: 160-178. 169 Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 169, no. 443, pl. 46: 443, Meyer 1987; Lohwasser 2007. 170 Curtis 1919: pl. 22: 23; Markoe 1985: 188-191, no. E1; Matthäus forthcoming. 171 Damerji 1999: fig. 23; Oates 2004: pl. 76; Curtis et al. 2008: colourpl. III; Wicke et al. 2010: (uncertain chronology); Matthäus forthcoming. 167 168
288
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 19. Fragmentary bronze horse breastplate from Salamis, Tomb 79.
Coming to terms of chronology, the production of these bowls must have started sometime in the 8th century B.C. as the gold bowl from Nimrud is associated with the burial of one of the wives of Tiglat-Pileser III, who was the reigning king of Assyria between 745 and 726 B.C. A second class of gold and silver bowls is characterized by a dominating narrative element in the outer register (often arrayed around an inner zone displaying repetitive or alternating motifs such as sphinxes and griffins killing an enemy, heroes / deities in a griffin/ lion fight, winged demons, groups of animals etc.172 There especially two silver bowls dating to the 1st half of the 7th century B.C.173 (CA I), one fragmentary with gold plating from the so-called “Kourion Treasure” in the Cesnola Collection in New York174 and another from the Tomba Bernardini at Praeneste175 (Fig. 20), deserve our attention. Both specimens are showing a nearly identical composition of nine consecutive scenes on their outer registers, which commonly are entitled as “Hunter’s day” or “Ape Hunt”:176 A noble man leaves a walled town in a chariot, he shoots a stag with his bow, pursues it and leaves his servant with the chariot. After bringing down the stag he flays it and makes a sacrifice to a winged deity. Suddenly an ape appears which steals a bone from the offering and attacks the noble man who Cfr. Matthäus forthcoming. Cfr. Matthäus 1985: 174. 174 Markoe 1985: 177, no. Cy7, Matthäus 1985: 165, no. 430, pls. 36: 430 and 38: 430. 175 Markoe 1985: 191, no. E2; Neri 2000. 176 Karageorghis 2002: 174. 172 173
is saved by the deity by lifting him up together with his chariot. After being put down again, the noble man attacks and kills the ape before returning to his city.177 It is remarkable that both of the bowls coming from different find spots in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean bear an almost identical iconography in their outer friezes which perhaps could be interpreted as a lost Phoenician epic or myth178 or even as a depiction of Greek mythology transferred into the artistic conventions of oriental traditions.179 An outstanding narrative scene illustrating the attack on a walled city is depicted on a well known fragmentary silver bowl from Amathus in the British Museum probably dating around 700 B.C. (CA I)180 (Fig. 21). The iconography points to an Assyrian influence while the shields carried by the foot soldiers are of a Greek type.181 As H. Matthäus points out, this bowl is an extraordinary piece because of historical reasons as it may be the first time that Greek mercenaries are depicted within Phoenician art.182 A fragmentary silver bowl of unknown Cypriot provenance probably dating to the latter part of CA I in the Metropolitan Museum in New York also stresses the narrative element.183 The central medallion depicts Cfr. also Güterbock 1957: 69-70. Markoe 1985: 67-68. 179 Hermary 1992: 130-136. 180 Markoe 1985: 172-174, no. Cy4; Matthäus 1985: 163-64, no. 428, pls. 32: 428 and 36: 428; Karageorghis 2002: 177, fig. 366. 181 Barnett 1977; Hermary 1986; Matthäus forthcoming. 182 Matthäus forthcoming. 183 Culican 1982; Markoe 1985: 181-182, no. Cy13. 177 178
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
289
Fig. 20. Phoenician silver bowl with gold plating, Tomba Bernardini, Praeneste, National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia, Rome.
Isis suckling Horus surrounded by a papyrus brake. Arranged around the medallion are four concentric registers with figural decoration: The first register shows a bucolic environment consisting of a shepherd and a number of bulls and horses in different poses while the second one displays a banquet by using the repetitive motifs of male figures reclining on couches, musicians and servants. In the third register a sacrificial offering connected to some sort of tribute scene is picked out as the central theme: A man reclining to the left on a couch and flanked by two attendants awaits three female votaries carrying unidentified objects. Behind the votaries two males, each carrying an animal, move in the opposite direction succeeding a third figure leading a stubborn animal towards what appears to be an altar. Other standing and seated human figures
complete the setting. The forth and last register tells the story of a journey from a palm grove at the top of the bowl to a walled city with three towers situated at the bottom. Between the grove and the city a cart carrying passengers and three standing figures dressed with robes are visible; between the city and the grove a horse, a chariot and another cart with passengers are preserved. Two human heads are furthermore recognizable between the towers of the city, another human figure is standing at the edge of the palm grove. The scene as a whole probably can be interpreted as king’s journey from and to his city halted by a stop at an oasis.184 184
Markoe 1985: 53.
290
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Fig. 21. Fragmentary silver bowl, Amathus, British Museum.
Again a strong Egyptian influence can be deduced from the central medallion showing Isis suckling young Horus whilst the elements of a walled city with peaking spectators reminds one of Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs.185 Interesting iconographic features are the bucolic scene in the first register as well as the sacrificial offering depicted in the third register. Both representations are the only ones of their kind connected to the decoration of Phoenician gold and silver bowls from Cyprus. All in all it therefore can be stated that the artist of this silver bowl – by using an otherwise unfamiliar iconographic repertoire – created a specimen unique in the whole of Cyprus by taking into account iconographic conventions popular in Near Eastern and Egyptian art. The third and last iconographical variant of Phoenician gold and silver bowls then is represented by a number of specimens carrying repetitive motifs or alternating religious scenes on their inner and outer
Markoe: 52.
185
registers.186 The former category for instance includes rows of marching men or equestrians, groups of animals (bulls, horses etc.), stylized vegetation ornaments, deities/heroes fighting griffins/lions or griffins and sphinxes defeating enemies while among the latter are motifs such as a god engaged in a griffin fight, Bes fighting a lion, uraeus snakes and winged demons.187 The relevant bowls are dated to the CA I period and were found spread all over Cyprus, e.g. in Idalion (two specimens), Salamis (one specimen) and Kourion (three specimens from the “Kourion Treasure”). Within this class, two silver bowls, one from Salamis, Royal Tomb 2188 and one from the “Kourion
Matthäus forthcoming. Cfr. Markoe 1985: 169-171 and 177-181, nos. Cy1-2, Cy8 and Cy11-12; Matthäus 1985: 164-167, nos. 429, 431-433 and 437, pl. 37: 39-41; Karageorghis 2002: 155, fig. 321; Matthäus forthcoming. 188 Markoe 1985: 185-186, no. Cy 20; Matthäus 1985: 167, no. 436, pl. 42: 436. 186 187
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
Treasure”189 in terms of stylistic reasons show clearly Egyptianizing elements. A more interesting aspect, however, lies in the fact that the Salamis bowl bears traces of an earlier engraved decoration consisting of floral ornaments and pseudo hieroglyphs that have been overlaid with a later ornamentation of mythical characters in the outer zone and a sphinx in the medallion. This palimpsest suggests that is has been manufactured a long time before its final deposition in Royal Tomb 2. To sum up: The decoration of gold and silver bowls from Cyprus and their varying iconographic schemes represent a genre characteristic for Phoenician art and civilization. Especially the eclectic mix of Cypriot, Egyptian and Near Eastern motifs and style conventions – often displaying a panegyric to the ruling classes as for instance is exemplified through the ape hunt narration on the silver bowls from Kourion or Praeneste – can be considered as a typical feature that demonstrates the flexibility, knowledge and artistic skills of the Phoenician artists who probably worked both in the Phoenician homeland as well as in local ateliers in Cyprus. Those decorated gold and silver bowls, of course, were not only limited to Cyprus but were found spread all over the Mediterranean by simultaneously
291
showing the great appraisal for these items in different societies and regions of the Ancient world. On the other hand, the great number of Phoenician gold and silver bowls from various places of the Mediterranean exemplifies also the eagerness of the Phoenician civilization in trading activities as well as in travelling and colonizing a wide range of places whereupon at the same time defining the Phoenicians as an ancient high culture. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would especially like to thank Hartmut Matthäus for helping me with his abundant knowledge concerning Phoenician metalwork from all over the Mediterranean world. Furthermore I would like to thank Bärbel Morstadt and Javier Jiménez Ávila for referring to me as an author for this article. NOTE All photographs from Cyprus Museum are assigned by courtesy of the Director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Akurgal, E. 1961: Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin. Almagro-Gorbea, M. 2004: “Una pátera fenicia de Nubia y el commercio fenicio en los confines del Mundo Antiguo”. Complutum 15: 7-32. Aranegui, C. 2001: Lixus. Colonia fenicia y ciudad púnicomauritana. Sagvntvm Extra 4. Valencia. Artzy, M. 2006: The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 14. Barcelona. Barnett, R.D. 1969: “Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit, 1. Kesselattaschen und Reliefuntersätze” (Review). The Antiquaries Journal 49: 145-147. Barnett, R.D. 1974: “The Nimrud bowls in the British Museum”. Rivista di Studi Fenici II: 11-33. Barnett, R.D. 1975: A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum. London. Barnett, R.D. 1977: “The Amathus Shield-Boss Rediscovered and the Amathus Bowl Reconsidered”. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 157-169.
Markoe 1985: 179-180, no. Cy 11; Matthäus 1985: 167, no. 437, pls. 38: 437 and 41: 437.
189
Bartelheim, M., Kızılduman, B., Müller, U., Pernicka, E. and Tekel, H. 2008: “The Late Bronze Age Hoard of Kaleburnu/Galinoporni on Cyprus”. Památky Archeologické IC: 161-188. Bikai, P.M. 1983: “The imports from the East”. In: V. Karageorghis: Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Konstanz: 396-406. Blinkenberg, Chr. 1931: Lindos I. Les petits objets. Berlin. Braun-Holzinger, A. and Matthäus, H. 2000: “Schutzgenien in Mesopotamien und in den angrenzenden Gebieten: Ihre Übernahme in Zypern, Kreta und Griechenland”. In: Chr. Uehlinger (ed.): Images as Media. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 175. Fribourg-Göttingen: 283-321. Buchholz, H.-G. 1978: “Tamassos, Zypern, 1974 bis 1976”. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 155-230. Buchholz, H.-G. 1994: “Einige kyprische PferdeStirnbänder und Scheuklappen”. In: P. Calmeyer (ed.): Beiträge zur altorientalischen Archäologie und
292
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda. Wiesbaden: 43-59. Buchholz, H.-G. 1996: Untiedt, K. Tamassos. Ein antikes Königreich auf Zypern. Jonsered. Buchholz, H.-G. 2001: “Siebkannen”. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 107-150. Carbillet, A. 2011: La figure hathorique à Chypre (IIe-Ie mill. av. J.-C.). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 388. Münster. Catling, H.W. 1964: Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World. Oxford. Chavane, M.-J. 1982: Vases de bronze du Musée de Chypre, ixe-ive s. av. J.C.. Paris. Christou, D. 1996: Kypro-archaike mnemeiake taphike architektonike. Nicosia. Coldstream, J.N. 1999: “On Chronology: The CG II Mystery and Its Sequel”. In M. Iacovou and D. Michaelides (eds.): Cyprus. The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon. Proceedings of an Archaeological Workshop. Nicosia: 109-118. Coldstream J.N. and Catling, H.W. (eds.) 1996: Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. Athens. Constantinou, G. 1982: “Geological Features and Ancient Exploitation of the Cupriferous Sulphide Orebodies of Cyprus”. In: J.D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis (eds.): Early Metallurgy in Cyprus 4000-500 B.C. Nicosia: 13-23. Crouwel, J.H. 1987: “Chariots in Iron Age Cyprus”. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 101-118. Culican, W. 1968: “Quelques aperçus sur les ateliers phéniciens”. Syria XLV: 275-293. Culican, W. 1970: “Coupes à décor phénicien provenant d’Iran”. Syria XLVII: 65-76. Culican, W. 1982: “Cesnola Bowl 4555 and Other Phoenician Bowls”. Rivista di Studi Fenici X: 13-32. Curtis, C.D. 1919: The Bernardini Tomb. Memoirs of the American Academy of Rome III. Rome. Curtis, C.D., McCall, H., Collon, D. and al-Gailani Werr, L. (eds.) 2008: New light on Nimrud. Proceedings of the Nimrud conference. London. Damerji, M.S.B. 1999: Gräber assyrischer Königinnen aus Nimrud. Mainz. Demetriou, A. 1978: “Die Datierung der Periode CyproArchaisch I nach Fundzusammenhängen mit griechischer Keramik”. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 12-25. Dentzer, J.M. 1982: Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du vii au iv siècle avant J.-C. Bibliothéques des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et Rome 246. Rome. Donder, H. 1980: Zaumzeug in Griechenland und Zypern. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVI, 3. Munich. Donder, H. 2012: “Ein Thymiaterion aus der ionischen Stadt Milet”. In: J. Hallof (ed.): Auf den Spuren des Sobek. Festschrift für Horst Beinlich. Dettelbach: 65-76. Gehrig, U. and Schneider, G. 2004: Die Greifenprotomen aus dem Heraion von Samos. Samos IX. Bonn. Gershuny, L. 1985: Bronze Vessels from Israel and Jordan. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 6. Munich. Gjerstad, E. 1946: “Decorated Metal Bowls from Cyprus”. Opuscula Archaeologica 4: 1-18.
Gjerstad, E. 1948: The Swedish Cyprus expedition IV-2. The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and CyproClassical Periods. Stockholm. Gjerstadt, E., Lindros, J., Sjöqvist, E. and Westholm, A. 1935: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition II. Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931. Stockholm. Grau-Zimmermann, B. 1978: “Phönikische Metallkannen in den orientalisierenden Horizonten des Mittelmeerraumes”. Madrider Mitteilungen 29: 161-218. Güterbock, H.G. 1957: “Narration in Anatolian, Syrian and Assyrian Art”. American Journal of Archaeology 61: 62-71. Hermary, A. 1986: “La coupe en argent du British Museum (‘The Amathus Bowl’)”. In: R. Laffineur, A. Hermary and A. Forgeau (eds.): Amathonte 3. Testimonia III. L’Orfèvrerie, Scarabées, Coupe en argent. Paris: 180-194. Hermary, A. 1988: “Quelques remarques sur les origines proche-orientales de l’iconographie d’Héraclès”. In: C. Bonnet and C. Jourdain-Annequin (eds.): Héraclès. d’une rive à l’autre de la Mediterranèe. Studia Phoenicia VII. Leuven: 129-143. Hermary, A. 2006: “V. Karageorghis, Excavations at Kition VI. The Phoenician and later levels (Nicosia 19992005)” (Review). Cahiers du Centre d’Études Cypriotes 36: 241-247. Herrmann, H.-V. 1966: Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit I. Kesselattaschen und Reliefuntersätze. Olimpische Forschungen VI. Berlin. Iacovou, M. 1999: “The Greek exodus to Cyprus. The antiquity of Hellenism”. Mediterranean Historical Review 14 (2): 1-28. Iacovou, M. and Michaelides, D. (eds.), 1999: Cyprus. The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon. Proceedings of an Archaeological Workshop. Nicosia. Jiménez Ávila, J. 2002: La Toréutica Orientalizante en la Península Ibérica. Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 16. Madrid. Karageorghis, V. 1963: “Une tombe de guerrier à Palaepaphos”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique LXXXVII: 265-300. Karageorghis, V. 1967a: “Nouvelles tombes de guerriers à Palaepaphos”. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique XCI: 202-247. Karageorghis, V. 1967b: Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. 1971: “Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos, 2. Ein cypro-archaisches Grab in Alt-Paphos”. Archäologischer Anzeiger: 10-18. Karageorghis, V. 1973-74: Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. 1981 “A decorated bronze bowl from Armou”. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 142-146. Karageorghis, V. 1988: “Kypriaka 11”. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 331-335. Karageorghis, V. 1993: “Erotica from Salamis”. Rivista di Studi Fenici XXI: 7-13.
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN CYPRUS
Karageorghis, V. 2002: Early Cyprus. Crossroads of the Mediterranean. Los Angeles. Karageorghis, V. 2005a: “The Phoenicians in Cyprus”. In: S. Celestino and J. Jiménez Ávila (eds.): El Periodo Orientalizante. Anejos de AEspA XXXV. Mérida: 31-46. Karageorghis, V. 2005b: Excavations at Kition VI. The Phoenician and later levels. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V. and Raptou, E. 2014: Necropoleis at Palaepaphos from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Cypro-Archaic period. Nicosia. Kassianidou, V. 2012a: “Metallurgy and Metalwork in Enkomi: The Early Phases”. In: V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas (eds.): Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC. A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly. Nicosia: 94-106. Kassianidou, V. 2012b: “The origin and use of metals in Iron Age Cyprus”. In: M. Iacovou (ed.): Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age. The Legacy of Nicolas Coldstream. Nicosia: 229-259. Kassianidou, V. 2013: “The Exploitation of the Landscape: Metal Resources and the Copper Trade during the Age of the Cypriot City-Kingdoms”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 370: 49-82. Kassianidou, V. and Knapp, A.B. 2005: “Archaeometallurgy in the Mediterranean: The Social Context of Mining, Technology, and Trade”. In: E. Blake and A.B. Knapp (eds.): The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford: 215-251. Kassianidou, V. and Papasavvas, G. (eds.) 2012: Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC. A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly. Nicosia. Knapp, A.B. 1989: “Copper Production and Mediterranean Trade: The View from Cyprus”. Opuscula Atheniensia 18: 109-116. Knapp, A.B. 1990: “Entrepreneurship, Ethnicity, Exchange: Mediterranean Inter-Island Relations in the Late Bronze Age”. Annual of the British School at Athens 85: 115-153. Krummen, E. 2013: “Kolymbôsai, klinai und eine lydische Mitra. Alkman als Dichter der orientalisierenden Epoche Spartas”. In: P. Mauritsch and Ch. Ulf (eds.): Kultur(en). Formen des Alltäglichen in der Antike. Festschrift für Ingomar Weiler zum 75. Graz: 19-44. Kübler, K. 1953: “Eine Bronzeschale im Kerameikos”. In: G.E. Mylonas and D. Raymond (eds.): Studies presented to David Moore Robinson II. Saint Louis: 25-29. Kübler, K. 1954: Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos V. Berlin. Kyrieleis, H. 1977: “Stierprotomen. Orientalisch oder griechisch?”. Athenische Mitteilungen 92: 71-89. Layard, A.H. 1853: Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London. Lehóczky, L. 1974: “Technische Untersuchung und Restaurierung eines Greifenkessels aus Salamis (Zypern)”. Jahrbuch des Rómisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 21: 128-143. Lohwasser, A. 2002: “Eine phönizische Bronzeschale aus dem Sudan”. Ägypten und Levante XII: 221-234.
293
Lohwasser, A. 2004: “Umlaufzeit und deponierung. Eine phönizische Bronzeschale im aksumitischen Reich”. Ägypten und Levante XIV: 121-124. Lohwasser, A. 2007: “Eine in Zypern gefundene phönizische Silberschale im ägyptischen Stil”. Kemet 16: 61-64. Markoe, G. 1985: Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. Masson, O. 1984: “Cesnola et le trésor de Curium (I)”. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Cypriotes 1: 16-25. Masson, O. 1984: “Cesnola et le trésor de Curium (II)”. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Cypriotes 2: 3-14. Matthäus, H. 1985: Metallgefäße und Gefäßuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archaischen Periode auf Cypern. Prähistorische Bronzefunde II, 8. Munich. Matthäus, H. 2001: “Studies on the Interrelations of Cyprus and Italy During the 11th to 9th Centuries B.C.: A Pan-Mediterranean Perspective”. In: L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis (eds.): Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-400 BC. Nicosia: 153-214. Matthäus, H. 2007:“The Royal Tombs of Tamassos: Burial gifts, funeral architecture and ideology”. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Cypriotes 37: 211-230. Matthäus, H. 2008: “Die Levante, Kreta und Sardinien – Kulturkontake des späten 2. und frühen 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.” In: F. Verse, B. Knoche, J. Graefe, M. Hohlbein, C. Siemann, K. Schierhold, M. Uckelmann and G. Woltermann (eds.): Durch die Zeiten... Festschrift für Albrecht Jockenhövel zum 65. Geburtstag. Internationale Archäologie. Studia honoraria 28. Rahden: 211-219. Matthäus, H. 2009a: “Zeitenwenden im Mittelmeergebiet. Kunst und Kultur Zyperns zwischen 1100 und 700 v. Chr.” In: R. Bol, K. Kleibl and S. Rogge (eds.): Zypern. Insel im Schnittpunkt interkultureller Kontakte. Schriften des Instituts für Interdisziplinäre Zypern-Studien 8. Münster: 139-190. Matthäus, H. 2009b: “Phoenician Metal-Work up to date – Phoenician metal bowls with figural decoration in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near and Middle East and North Africa”. In C. Doumet Serhal (ed.): Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série VI. Beirut: 439-452. Matthäus, H. 2010: “Spätbronzezeitliche und früheisenzeitliche Thymiateria in der Levante und auf der Insel Zypern”. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Cypriotes 40: 205-230. Matthäus, H. 2014: “Metal Finds from the “Royal Cemetery” of Tamassos”. Local Traditions, Phoenician and Greek Cultural Influences in Archaic Cyprus. In: V. Karageorghis, E. Poyiadji-Richter and S. Rogge (eds.): Cypriote Antiquities in Berlin in the Focus of New Research. Schriften des Instituts für Interdisziplinäre Zypern-Studien 10. Münster: 103-135. Matthäus, H. forthcoming: “Iron Age Metalwork in Cyprus. Insularity and Connectivity”. In: V. Kassianidou
294
PHOENICIAN BRONZES IN MEDITERRANEAN
and G. Papasavvas (eds.): Introduction to the Archaeometallurgy of Cyprus. Mazar, B., Biran, A., Dothan, M. and Dunayevsky, I. 1964: “Ein Gev. Excavations in 1961”. Israel Exploration Journal 14: 1-49. Meyer, J.W. 1987: “Die Silberschale VA 14 117 – Ägyptisch oder phönizisch?”. In: E. Lipiński (ed.): Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. Studia Phoenicia V. Leiden: 167-180. Montet, P. 1951: La nécropole royale de Tanis II. Les constructions et le tombeau de Psousennès à Tanis. Paris. Morstadt, B. 2008: Phönizische Thymiateria. Zeugnisse des Orientalisierungsprozesses im Mittelmeerraum. Originale Funde, bildliche Quellen, originaler Kontext. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 354. Münster. Muhly, J.D. 1989: “The Organisation of the Copper Industry in Late Bronze Age Cyprus”. In: E. Peltenburg (ed.): Early Society in Cyprus. Edinburgh: 298-314. Muhly, J.D. 1991a: “Copper in Cyprus: The Early Phase”. In J.-P. Mohen and Chr. Éluère (eds.): Découverte du Métal. Amis du Musée des Antiquités Nationals Millénaires. Dossier 2. Paris: 357-374. Muhly, J.D. 1991b: “The Development of Copper Metallurgy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus”. In: N.H. Gale (ed.): Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Jonsered: 180-196. Muhly, J.D. 1996: “The Significance of Metals in the Late Bronze Age Economy of Cyprus”. In: V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelidis (eds.): The Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day. Nicosia: 45-60. Neri, D. 2000: Le coppe fenicie della Tomba Bernardini nel Museo di Villa Giulia. Studi e ricerche sui Beni Culturali 3. Monumenti Fenici II. La Spezia. Oates, J. and Oates, D. 2004: Nimrud. London. Onnis, F. 2009: “Levantine Iconology: was there a Conscious Figurative Programme in the Decoration of the
‘Phoenician Metal Bowls’?”. In C. Doumet Serhal (ed.): Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises. Hors-Série VI. Beirut: 499-514. Peltenburg, J. (dir.): 1998: Lemba Archaeological Project II.1A. Excavations at Kissonerga-Mosphilia 1979-1992. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 70 (2). Jonsered. Perrot, G. and Chipiez, Ch. 1885: Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité III. Phénicie-Chypre. Paris. Popham, M.R. and Lemos, I.S. 1996: Lefkandi 3. The Toumba Cemetery. The excavations of 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1992-4. The British School at Athens. Supplementary 29. Athens. Pritchard, J.B. 1980: The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, Jordan. Philadelphia. Reyes, A.T. 1994: Archaic Cyprus. A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence. Oxford. Stöllner, Th., Slotta, R. and Vatandoust, A. (eds.) 2004: Persiens antike Pracht. Bochum. Vincentelli, I. 2006: Hillat el-Arab. Oxford. Vonhoff, Chr. forthcoming: Die materielle Kultur des früheisenzeitlichen Zypern (ca. 1100-750 v. Chr.) im Spannungsfeld lokaler Traditionen und externer Kultureinflüsse. Walcher, K. 2009: Die Architektur und Architekturornamentik der Königsgräber von Tamassos/Zypern. Rahden. Walter, H. and Vierneisel, K. 1959: “Heraion von Samos. Die Funde der Kampagnen 1958 und 1959”. Athenische Mitteilungen 74: 10-34. Wicke, D. 1999: “Altorientalische Pferdescheuklappen”. Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 803-852. Wicke, D. 2010: “Die Goldschale der Iabâ – Eine levantinische Antiquität”. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 100: 109-141. Yon, M. 2006: Kition de Chypre. Paris.
Lihat lebih banyak...
Comentarios
