The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean

by Carolina Lopez-Ruiz

  These relations outlived without interruption the crisis years at the dawn of the Iron Age, which, in a context of major disruptions in the eastern Mediterranean, saw the emergence of the Phoenicians on the Levantine coast. Cypriot pottery (from this point on only wheel-made wares) was widely distributed in the Levant (Georgiadou 2016), and Phoenician pottery (fine wares and commercial amphorae) found its way to Cypriot urban centers, both ancient (Palaepaphos) and new (Salamis) (Bikai 1987). Evidence also points to the presence of Phoenician-speaking populations in Cyprus, as exemplified by a short inscription painted before firing on a local ninth century bce bichrome bowl from Salamis (Sznycer 1980: 126–27; Pouilloux et al. 1987: 9, A), not to mention a contemporary funerary stela of unknown provenance (Masson and Sznycer 1972: 13–20).

  As of the beginning of the eighth century bce, the island experienced an intensification of Phoenician presence (map 31.1). Inscriptions testify to the existence in Cyprus of a city of Qarthadasht (“New City” in Phoenician) and Kition emerges as the seat of a powerful Cypro-Phoenician kingdom. Because of its importance, especially in the political history of the fifth and fourth centuries bce, a substantial part of this chapter is devoted to Kition (modern Larnaka on the southern coast of Cyprus). But it must be emphasized that the city was not a Phoenician enclave: indeed, one has to reckon with a widespread and multifaceted presence of Phoenicians in Cyprus, which becomes even more visible after the repression of the Ionian revolt in 498 bce.

  Map 31.1 Map of Cyprus with sites mentioned in the text.

  Source: HiSoMA, A. Flammin.

  Qarthadasht and the Phoenician “Colonization” in Cyprus

  Two series of inscriptions, dated to the eighth and seventh centuries bce and found both in Cyprus and in Assyria, testify to the existence on the island of a city bearing the Phoenician name of Qarthadasht (Carthage). The first series comprises two identical fragmentary bronze bowls whose shape confirms a dating to the second half of the eighth century bce (ca. 740–730), also suggested on paleographic grounds (Matthäus 2010). They bear an identical dedicatory inscription in Phoenician to Baal of Lebanon on behalf of a governor (SKN) of Qarthadasht, servant of Hiram, king of the Sidonians (= Hiram II of Tyre). The second series is made up of two prisms inscribed in Akkadian and found at Nineveh, the second (dated to the reign of Assurbanipal) being a mere copy of the first (Yon 2004: no. 40). The first prism, dated to 673/672 bce, lists ten kings of Iadnana (Cyprus), who paid tribute to Essarhaddon for the construction of his palace (Lipiński 1991; Yon 2004: no. 39). The eighth king to appear on the list is the king of Qarthadasht.

  Thus, between around 730 and 670 bce, a Cypriot city, bearing a Phoenician name and ruled by a governor vassal of (and presumably appointed by) the king of Tyre, became the capital city of a Cypriot kingdom, which was only vassal to the Great King of Assyria, as were all other Cypriot kingdoms. This Cypriot kingdom of Qarthadasht then quickly disappeared (the prism of Assurbanipal being the last reference to it in 664 bce). One may wonder, however, if the kingdom actually disappeared or if only its name changed. As a matter of fact, two important Cypriot localities, which were, as substantiated by archaeological discoveries, in the capacity of paying tribute to Assyria, are conspicuously absent from the Assyrian lists: Amathous and Kition. The subject has been much debated (Gjerstad 1979: 233–41; Yon 2004: 19–22; Cannavò 2014: 149–50). Suffice it here to say that the arguments put forward against an identification of Kition with Qarthadasht—the problem of the name, and an absence of written evidence proving the existence of a kingdom of Kition before the fifth century bce—are not compelling. Cannavò proposed that Qarthadasht was the name of the “colony” administered by Tyre and that the kingdom recovered its ancient name of Kition soon after its independence (Cannavò 2014: 149–50). The use of a local name (that was in use before the settlement of Phoenician-speaking people; Yon 2004: 14) would make sense indeed, as part of a legitimization process, all the more so in a city, which was continuously inhabited since the Late Bronze Age. Absence of written evidence (other than Assyrian lists) proving the existence of a kingdom of Kition before the fifth century bce is not compelling either (contra Hermary 1996)—with the exception of Palaepaphos, which Cypriot kingdom can claim such an evidence? Besides, the existence at Kition of a Phoenician authority (contra Iacovou 2008: 645) is demonstrated by the discovery of accounting-specific texts in Phoenician as of the eighth century bce (for example at Kition-Bamboula; Amadasi Guzzo 2015: 335–37, no. 6-1) and by the discovery of a rich tomb of same date. This tomb might have been part of a “royal” necropolis and proves that the city was home to a Phoenician elite following the same funerary rites as its Salaminian counterparts (Hadjisavvas 2014: 1–33).

  An elusive passage of Josephus, quoting Menandros of Ephesus (AJ IX 283 = Yon 2004: no. 32), hints at a revolt of the Kitians, which was suppressed by King Elulaios of Tyre in 701 bce. This last date fits nicely in the time span allocated by primary sources for the independence of the kingdom of Qarthadasht/Kition, for which it may give a terminus post quem.

  In favor of the hypothesis that Kition equals Qarthadasht, Gjerstad (1979) attempted to read a “colonial” episode in the archaeology of the city. His interpretation, however, forced the archaeological evidence to make it fit the colonization narrative (Fourrier 2016). That Kition was originally a colony of Tyre relies on Greek and Latin sources of much later date (listed by Cannavò 2014: 139–40). These texts may echo a local foundation legend, comparable to the Greek foundation legends put forward by other Cypriot kingdoms (Fourrier 2008). The archaeological evidence gives a more nuanced picture: no new burial ground, no new settlement, no new commercial quarter, presumably no new sanctuaries (the sanctuaries at Kathari and Bamboula were transformed in the eighth century bce, but they antedate the Phoenician migration to Kition; Karageorghis 2005; Caubet et al. 2015). But, conversely, we have a new material culture, new cults, and new Phoenician-speaking people. The Phoenicians migrated to an already existing urban environment. This migration remains elusive in its process, but visible in its outcome: as of the eighth century bce, Kition is characterized by a “Phoenicinized” material culture and power is in the hands of a local Phoenician elite. That Phoenician rule, supposedly backed by the Assyrians, encompassed the whole island is highly doubtful; the hypothesis relies on a series of ungrounded assumptions (contra Na’aman 1998 and Smith 2009: 11, 249–50).

  Kition: A Cypro-Phoenician Kingdom

  Kition is the ancient Cypriot city that has yielded the largest array of Phoenician evidence, both in quantity and in variety. Its material culture, which forms a compound of local Cypriot and Phoenician traits, is unique.

  The name of Kition (“Kittim”) is attested in the Bible (Yon 1987: 359–63). The name is apparently used to designate the city of Kition, as well as other parts of Cyprus and even the island as a whole (in texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods it was also used to designate Macedonian Greeks and Romans: Yon 2004: 14–15). Kition, in its position as a major harbor city, may thus have served as an interface between the Levant and the island. However, the Assyrian texts never use the name of Kittim and they refer to the island as Iadnana, which supposes the existence of a different tradition. In some occurrences in the Bible itself, the name of Elisha (perhaps a deformation of the Late Bronze Age name of Alashiya) is also used to designate the island, simultaneously with Kittim, thus implying another network of contacts between the Levant and Cyprus that did not involve Kition.

  Before the eighth century bce, the archaeological assemblage of Kition does not demonstrate close links with the Phoenician Levant: Phoenician imports are few, and the local repertoire (of ceramic shapes and terracotta types) is not influenced by Phoenician prototypes. Things completely change as of the eighth century bce—from then on the material culture of Kition is “Phoenicinized.” To take the example of pottery, Phoenician imports become very numerous; some of them are types, which are barely distributed in the island outside of Kition. Local imit
ations of Phoenician shapes also become numerous—to the point that it is often difficult to differentiate between local and imported Phoenician ceramics. Phoenician techniques and repertoire also influence shapes of local Geometric tradition, as for example drinking bowls whose handles are so atrophied that they cannot hold the vase, according to the Levantine way of drinking with the vase held in the open palm of the hand. This observation shows the adoption of gestures and habits of Phoenician origin. Conversely, burnished surfaces and incised decorations suggest that Phoenician potters settled in the city and transmitted their techniques. Likewise, the local coroplastic repertoire is enriched with molded (and partly molded) types of Phoenician origin (Fourrier 2007: 53–61). The influence worked both ways: Cypriot limestone sculptural types were transmitted, through Kition, to Phoenicia, as exemplified by the Amrit discoveries (Lembke 2004; Hermary 2007).

  Script is a safe marker: The Phoenician alphabet was used for every kind of inscription, from graffiti to royal inscriptions. Cypro-syllabic script, on the other hand, is barely attested, but its occurrences are significant, for instance in digraphic and bilingual inscriptions dedicated in the sanctuaries of newly acquired Idalion and Tamassos (see later) and in labels with the local ethnonym ke-ti, printed on the handles of fourth century commercial amphorae (Yon 2004: nrs. 2501–02). Inscriptions (dedications and theonyms) reveal the worship of a common Phoenician pantheon with local Cypriot peculiarities: Mikal and the Canaanite deities Resheph and Anat are attested alongside Astarte, Milqart and Eshmun (Amadasi Guzzo 2007). (On Phoenician religion, see chapter 19, this volume.)

  The political history of the kingdom is better documented for the fifth and fourth centuries bce (Yon 1992). Epigraphy and numismatics give the names of different kings from Baalmilk to Pumayyaton (who was executed in 312 bce). Around the middle of the fifth century, in circumstances that are difficult to trace but probably through military conquest, the king of Kition became king of Kition and Idalion, as shown by the royal title born by King Ozbaal and successors. From then on the Cypro-Phoenician kingdom possessed two capital cities. The importance of Idalion, as an economic but also religious and political center, is reflected in the impressive corpus of Phoenician accounting-specific ostraca found in the palace (Amadasi Guzzo and Zamora López 2016), as well as in the royal dedications posted in the sanctuaries and in the continuous mention of Idalion in the royal title. This “bicephalic” structure gives an original character to the Cypro-Phoenician kingdom, whose political organization does not, in other aspects, differ fundamentally from the organization of other contemporary Cypriot kingdoms. Around the middle of the fourth century, Kition also acquired Tamassos, this time pacifically and only for a short time (Douris apud Athenaeus IV 167c; Yon 2004: no. 1002). The expansionist views of Kition often conflicted with the interests of the neighboring kingdom of Salamis (as, for example, during the “Cypriot wars” at the beginning of the fourth century bce). In the city itself, new buildings (as, e.g., the shipsheds of the military harbor; Yon 2000) and extensive burial grounds testify to the wealth and power of the Cypro-Phoenician kingdom.

  The cosmopolitan urban society of Kition is best reflected in the funerary stelae of the fifth and fourth centuries bce, some of pyramidal (Phoenician) shape, others of Greek shape, but all inscribed in Phoenician and preferably (if the customers could afford it) in Greek imported marble. Likewise, members of the elite could choose to be buried in an anthropoid (Phoenician type) (figure 31.1) or in an architectural (Greek type) sarcophagus (Georgiou 2009), provided that the coffins were exquisite works of art executed in Greek island marble; both types were also fashionable in Sidon, the capital-city of the Fifth Satrapy, to which the island belonged. Kitians were active merchants, engaged in exchanges with the Levant and the Aegean: the rich community settled in Piraeus obtained from the city of Athens in 333/332 bce the right to acquire a plot on which to build a sanctuary to Aphrodite—presumably the Greek equivalent of Astarte (Yon 2004: no. 159). The philosopher Zeno, son of a rich merchant of purple and founder of the stoic school at Athens, is a good representative of this cosmopolitan Kitian society of the late Classical–early Hellenistic period.

  Figure 31.1 Anthropoid sarcophagus from Kition.

  Source: Courtesy of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus.

  Phoenician Presence(s) in Cyprus

  Phoenician presence was not restricted to Kition or to Kitian dominions in Cyprus. It permeated all Cypriot kingdoms, big and small cities, as shown by the distribution of Phoenician inscriptions (Masson and Sznycer 1972; and map 31.1) (for Phoenician epigraphy in general, see chapter 16, this volume). Interestingly enough, bilingual and digraphic inscriptions (in alphabetic Phoenician and in Cypro-syllabic Greek) are not uncommon. Posted in the old sanctuaries of newly conquered Idalion by members of the ruling elite of Kition (Yon 2004: no. 69), these inscriptions are part of the legitimization policy of the new power. Others were dedications of simple citizens (Yon 2004: nos. 70–71). Others still were found in localities far from Kitian influence, as for example on a stela of probably funerary origin and of Archaic date from Kourion (Masson and Sznycer 1972: 89–91). Phoenician-speaking people were durably settled in various regions of Cyprus and most were certainly bilingual, as was Phoenician Abdbaal/Abdoubalos, who had his epitaph inscribed in syllabic Greek in the necropolis of Salamis-Cellarka in the first half of the fifth century bce (Sznycer 1980: 128; Pouilloux et al. 1987: 14, no. 18).

  A comparative study of Phoenician presence in the various Cypriot kingdoms is dependent on the uneven state of archaeological research: how can we compare Kition, which has been intensively excavated for the past fifty years and more, with Lapethos, which is barely known and where a Phoenician presence appears to be deeply rooted, at least from the late archaic period? Some remarks can be drawn from the available evidence, though. Phoenician pottery was widely distributed in the island and some shapes of Phoenician origin (fine wares and cooking pots) entered the local ceramic repertoire of various Cypriote kingdoms, as for example Amathous and Salamis. Luxury goods of Phoenician workmanship (metal bowls and ivory furniture) were prized by Cypriot elites and accompanied the royal dead in their tombs. Some pieces may have been locally manufactured, as they bear Cypro-syllabic Greek inscriptions (Markoe 1985). These examples show the existence of close commercial ties between the island and the Phoenician Levant; the elites of both regions shared a common way of living, as shown by their respective burial assemblages. Other evidence proves the presence in various regions of Cyprus of Phoenician population.

  Amathous is a special case. Phoenician inscriptions are few, in contrast to Kition, and most local inscriptions, in Cypro-syllabic script, are in a non-Greek language, which tends to support the hypothesis that the Amathousians were of indigenous origin, as reported by various ancient authors. In the Classical period, the use of sarcophagi, some of anthropoid shape, shows that “Sidonian” fashion also reached Amathous, and not only Kition (Hermary 2015). However, Phoenician evidence antedates the fifth century bce. Two series of discoveries of archaic date suggest an effective presence of Phoenician populations in Amathous, who apparently maintained their funerary and religious habits in the Cypriot kingdom.

  At Amathous, a burial ground with secondary cremations in urns was accidentally discovered on the beach, to the west of the western necropolis of the city. According to preliminary information, the burial ground can be dated to the eighth century bce (Christou 1998). Cremation is a funerary practice alien to Cypriot traditions; secondary cremations in urns point to similar discoveries on the Phoenician coast, especially at Tyre Al-Bass (Aubet 2004). The burial assemblage comprises imported Phoenician artifacts (pottery, ivory figurines, amulets), but also local pots, which were presumably made to order: such is the case of bichrome amphorae/craters decorated with stylized birds or circles (Christou 1998: 210, figs. 12–13), which are characteristic of Amathousian workshops and which were used as cinerary urns. Contrary to Kition, where Phoenician newcomers adop
ted local burial customs and were buried in collective chamber tombs of Cypriot tradition, a Phoenician community settled in the kingdom of Amathous and maintained their distinctive funerary rites in a separate necropolis.

  Several sub- and peri-urban sanctuaries of the Amathous kingdom, all of which can be dated to the sixth century bce, give a similar picture (Alpe 2007). They yielded series of terracottas, whose styles and techniques are not matched by Cypriote productions and can be best compared to Phoenician and Punic discoveries. Interestingly enough, these votives are never found in the other sanctuaries of the city (they are conspicuously absent from the main sanctuary on the acropolis) and their distribution appears to be restricted to Phoenician peri-urban cult sites of the kingdom.

  The evidence is too patchy to draw a general conclusion and we cannot know if the same Phoenician community, who buried their dead in a distinct necropolis in the eighth century bce, frequented distinct sanctuaries two centuries later. But the contrast between the modalities of Phoenician presence in Amathous and in Kition is striking. Here, a cultural compound; there, distinctive rites. Here, a ruling elite; there, a community whose influence is confined to peri-urban areas. There appears to be no direct link between Phoenician presence in Kition and in Amathous. Kition was definitely not a Phoenician home in Cyprus, from where Phoenician influence spread to other regions of the island. Instead, there were different Phoenician presences in Cyprus, of different Phoenician origin, stemming from distinct networks. Phoenician inscriptions from Lapethos (on the northern coast of Cyprus) tend to confirm this observation. Whereas all sources (both archaeological and textual) link Kition with southern Phoenicia, and especially Tyre, a long inscription from Larnaka-tis-Lapithou (an important extra-urban sanctuary on the territory of Lapethos) dated to the fourth century bce mentions “the gods of Byblos who are at Lapethos” (Greenfield 1987). It is not surprising, either, that Milqart is transcribed in a Greek inscription from the same sanctuary at Lapethos as Poseidon, a deity barely attested at Kition, where the major god of the city, Milqart in Phoenician, was probably translated as Zeus in Greek (Masson 1977: 323–27).