Mavrojannis, The Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator and The Tombs of The Kings

Rivista di antichità - Anno XXV - 2016
Direttore responsabile: Mario Torelli

Comitato scientifico (referees)
M. Crawford (London); J. D’Arms (Ann Arbor); B. Frier (Ann Arbor); C. Gonzales (Granada);
P. Gros (Aix-en-Provence); W.V. Harris (New York); H. von Hesberg (Koln);
T. Hölscher (Heidelberg); J. Mangas (Madrid); J.-P. Morel (Aix-en-Provence);
J. Pedley (Ann Arbor); D. Placido (Madrid); A. Ruiz (Jaen); J. Scheid (Paris);
A. Schnapp (Paris); H.A. Shapiro (Baltimore); C. Smith (Roma); J. Uroz (Alicante);
T.P. Wiseman (Exeter); P. Zanker (Pisa)
Redazione: A. Bottini, S. Bruni, G. Camodeca, L. Fiorini, P.G. Guzzo, C. Masseria,
M. Osanna, V. Scarano Ussani, L. Todisco, M. Torelli
Segreteria: A. Carini, L. Fiorini, S. Querzoli
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Napoli n. 4321 del 30/10/1992

Registro degli Operatori di Comunicazione (R.O.C.) n. 6039 del 10/12/2001
Sommario
Articoli, saggi e contributi Theodoros Mavrojannis, The Mausoleum of Ptolemy
Eupator and the «Tombs of the Kings» at Nea Paphos
Anna Maria D’Onofrio, La tomba III di Haghios in the Light of the Portraiture of the Ptolemaic Strategoi
Athanasios e il valore semantico dell’incarnato 5 of Cyprus From Voni-Kythrea 119
Serena Querzoli, Partus Excidere e Spes Animantis
Elvia Giudice-Giada Giudice, L’uomo albero: nei Digesta di Ulpio Marcello 163
una possibile esegesi 19
Luigi Todisco, Vecchie e nuove ipotesi sui colossi
Laura Giunchedi, Bolli dall’agorà di Iasos: di Lisippo a Taranto 169
trasporti e commerci della città caria nel II secolo a.C. 29
Mario Torelli, I penetrali di Śuris. L’Edificio a
Raimon Graells i Fabregat, Las corazas incorruptas di Gravisca e l’Edificio g del santuario di Pyrgi 191
y la permanencia en exposición de algunas armas E. Lattanzi, R. Spadea (edd.), Se cerchi la tua strada
en santuarios (s. VI a.C. - II d.C.) 53 verso Itaca... Omaggio a Lina Di Stefano,
Roma 2016 [Pier Giovanni Guzzo] 205
Francesca Leoni, I culti domestici nell’abitato
di Locri Epizefiri, Loc. Centocamere 67 Chrystina Häuber, The Eastern Part of the Mons
Oppius in Rome. The Sanctuary of Isis et Serapis
Elisa Marroni, Un togato capite velato da Hispellum 93 in Regio III, Temples of Minerva Medica, Fortuna
Virgo and Dea Syria. Horti of Maecenas (Bullettino
Alfredo Moraci, Sistemi di fondazione e tecniche della Commissione archeologica comunale
di bonifica? Per una nuova interpretazione di Roma, Supplementi 22), L’Erma di Bretschneider,
di alcuni strati carboniosi nel Campo Marzio 103 Roma 2014, pagine 945 [Mario Torelli] 211
Edizioni ETS
Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 1 24/10/17 12:47

noRME REdAZIonALI PER I ContRIBUtI dEGLI AUtoRI
Citazioni di Articoli edd. in caso di più curatori] fra parentesi, con l’indicazione fra
nome dell’Autore in tondo normale seguito da virgola; parentesi di Atti Convegno seguito da luogo e anno del conve-
titolo del contributo in corsivo seguito da virgola; gno, ovvero, se manca il titolo del congresso, con indicazione
degli Atti di Convegno come fosse una rivista:
titolo della rivista in tondo senza virgolette, abbreviato secondo
L’Année Philologique; Es.:
annata della rivista in numeri romani seguita da virgola; G. Pugliese Carratelli, Roma, Lazio e Magna Grecia, in A. Stazio
anno di pubblicazione in numeri arabi seguito da virgola; (ed.), Atti XIV Conv. Studi Magna Grecia (Atti Convegno ta-
numero delle pagine (es. 5 ss. oppure 5-20) senza l’indicazione ranto 1979), napoli 1980, 235-245;
p./pp. M. torelli, I Galli e gli Etruschi, in Celti ed Etruschi nell’Italia centro-
settentrionale dal V sec. a.C. alla romanizzazione (Atti Convegno
Es.: Bologna 1985), Bologna 1987, 1-8;
P. Gros, Entablements modillonnaires d’Afrique au IIe s. apr. J.-C., in C. Peyre, Celtes et Étrusques en Provence, in Atti Secondo Congres-
MdAI(R) LXXXV, 1978, 459-476; so Internazionale Etrusco (Atti Convegno firenze 1985), Roma
per le abbreviazioni delle riviste che hanno cessato l’attività o 1990, II, 66 ss.
che non compaiono ne L’Année Philologique seguire i criteri più
diffusi o riportare l’indicazione per esteso; Citazioni di Contributi in Cataloghi di Mostre
In caso di contributo in catalogo di mostra, tutto come per un
Es.: normale articolo, tranne che:
H. Bunsen, in Bull Inst 1880, 5 ss. titolo della mostra in corsivo con indicazione del curatore (se esi-
S. Maggi, Un ritratto di Claudio nel Palazzo Ducale di Mantova, in ste) seguito dall’abbreviazione ed. (o edd.) fra parentesi, con
Arte Lombarda XL, 1978, 5-8. indicazione fra parentesi di Catalogo Mostra seguito da luogo
e anno della mostra.
Citazioni di Articoli di Miscellanea
Es.:
In caso di articolo di miscellanea, tutto come per un normale ar- H. Wünsche, Le collezioni di Monaco, in E. de Miro (ed.), Veder
ticolo, tranne che: Greco (Catalogo Mostra Agrigento 1988), Roma 1988, 12 ss.;
titolo della miscellanea in corsivo, preceduto dal nome del cura- R. trapassi, Il riuso dei marmi nella Tuscia, in Antico e Medioevo.
tore (se esiste) e seguito dall’abbreviazione ed. [o edd. in caso Passato e presente nella Tuscia Romana medioevale (Catalogo Mo-
di più curatori] fra parentesi: stra Viterbo 1979), Viterbo 1979, 18-26.
Es.:
S. Lauffer, Die Liturgien in der Krisenperiode Athens, in E. Ch. Wel- Citazioni di Monografie, Manuali, Trattati e Raccolte di studi di uno
skopf (ed.), Hellenische Poleis. I, Berlin 1974, 147-159; stesso autore
A. Andrén, The Belvedere Torso Again, in Dragma M.P. Nilsson dica- nome dell’Autore in tondo normale seguito da virgola;
ta, Lund 1953, 25 ss. titolo del libro in corsivo seguito da virgola;
luogo e anno di pubblicazione (senza virgola tra le due indica-
Citazioni di Relazioni o Comunicazioni di Congresso zioni) seguiti da virgola;
In caso di comunicazione di congresso, tutto come per un norma- numero delle pagine senza l’indicazione p./pp.
le articolo, tranne che: Es.:
indicazione del titolo del congresso in corsivo, preceduto dal no- A. Momigliano, Roma arcaica, firenze 1989, 85 ss.
me del curatore (se esiste) e seguito dall’abbreviazione ed. [o f. Casavola, Giuristi adrianei, napoli 1980, 77 ss.
Indirizzare contributi e corrispondenza a: dipartimento Uomo e territorio.

Indirizzare contributi e corrispondenza a:
Sezione di Studi Comparati sulle Società Antiche
Redazione Ostraka. Dipartimento
Via Armonica, di Ingegneria
3 - 06123 Perugia Civile e-Ambientale
- tel. 075/5854958 (Lucio Fiorini)
fax 075/5854941.
Via Duranti, 93 - 06125 Perugia - Tel. 075/5853935 - e-mail: lucio.fiorini@unipg.it
Indirizzare abbonamenti a: Loffredo Editore - Via Kerbaker, 19/21 - 80129 napoli - tel. 0812508511/0815781521 - fax 0815785313
web: http://www.loffredo.it e-mail: info@loffredo.it
Indirizzare abbonamenti a:
Abbonamento annuo 2011 (2 fascicoli - Anno XX): Italia € 60,00 - Estero € 75,00.
Edizioni
I versamenti ETS
possono - Piazza
essere Carrara
fatti sul c/c post.16-19 - 56126
n. 24677809 Pisa - aTel.
intestato 050/29544
Loffredo Editore-S.p.a.,
050/503868 - Fax
Via Capri, 67 - 050/20158
80026 Casoria (na)
web: http://www.edizioniets.com
o a mezzo UniCredit Corporate e-mail: info@edizioniets.com
Banking - napoli
Codice BIC SWIft: UnICRItM1f02
IBAn It52 Abbonamenti annuali:
R 0200803475000005294502
cartaceo per l’Italia - € 70,00
Grafica del logo: francesca Benucci
cartaceo per l’Europa, America, Africa, Asia - € 85,00
cartaceo per
Progettazione, impaginazione l’Oceania
e stampa: - € 95,00
Grafica Elettronica s.r.l., napoli
PDF - €50,00
cartaceo + PDF per l’Italia - € 100,00
cartaceo + PDF per l’Europa, America, Africa, Asia - € 115,00
cartaceo + PDF per l’Oceania - € 125,00
prezzo di un fascicolo cartaceo per l’Italia - € 40,00
prezzo di un fascicolo cartaceo per l’Europa, America, Africa, Asia - € 50,00
prezzo di un fascicolo cartaceo per l’Oceania - € 58,00
prezzo di un fascicolo PDF Italia, Europa, America, Africa, Asia, Oceania - € 30,00
I versamenti possono essere fatti sul c/c post. n. 14721567 intestato a Edizioni ETS, Piazza Carrara 16-19 - 56126 Pisa
o a mezzo CR Firenze - Pisa
IBAN IT97X0616014000013958150114 – BIC SWIFT: CRFIIT3F

Articoli, saggi e contributi

The Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator and the
«Tombs of the Kings» at Nea Paphos in the Light
of the Portraiture of the Ptolemaic Strategoi
of Cyprus From Voni-Kythrea
Theodoros Mavrojannis
Some Historical Questions institution of the koina of mercenaries, studied by T. Mit-

ford4. On his own, A. Mehl evaluated twice the tenuous
A great many aspects of the history of Ptolemaic Cy- indications illuminating the social assortment and strat-
prus have been largely dealt with by R. Bagnall, A. Mehl ification of the cities and the strengthening of the posi-
and W. Huß1. As far as the political development of the tion of the Ptolemaic «Führungsschicht», balancing be-
Cypriot kingdoms is concerned, and their position in tween royal and civic administration5. Questions still
the struggle between Ptolemy I and Antigonos Monoph- remain open about date and conditions of the dissolu-
thalmos (321-306 B.C.), we still rely upon the critical tion of the Cypriot kingdoms6, on the date of founda-
treatise of G. Hill, despite the attempt of H. Gesche to tion, the founder and the status of Nea Paphos (ante 312
preserve the narration of Diodorus about the collective B.C. or ad quem), whether to be assigned to Ptolemy or to
suicide of king Nicocles of Paphos and his family in the king Nicocles (321-306 B.C. (?): Mitford 1953; see Diod.
basileia (XX 21, 1-3), instead of the correction of the facts XX 21, 1-3)7, and mainly on the assumed moving of the
to be linked with the death of king Nicocreon of Salamis
attested by the Marmor Parium († 311/310, FGrHist 239, B dence. It is, to be sure, not impossible that these assumptions are cor-
17 [118] or 310/309 B.C., thus presumably, in the spring – rect. But it appears to me that they are in fact unsupported assump-
summer of 310 B.C.), supported, in fact, by the Cenotaph tions up to the present and that only new documentary evidence is
likely to allow us to speak with confidence about the strategia before
excavated at Salamis by V. Karageorghis in 19662. R.
the reign of Philopator»; Bagnall 1976, pp. 42-45; cf. Bengtson 1952, pp.
Bagnall touched upon the administration’s profile of 138-153; but see Mitford 1971, p. 89, no 41: Base of statues of a Governor
Cyprus within the Ptolemaic kingdom and set ques- of Cyprus and of Aristias, his brother, erected by the priests of Pyth-
tions about a continuous presence of strategos on the is- ian Apollo, Apollo Hylates and Hera. 221-205 B.C.: «To him [Pelops] or
to an immediate predecessor of the first decades of Philopator’s reign
land from the beginning of Ptolemy I’s domination on-
may be assigned provisionally the strategia of our inscription».
wards3, as well as the settlement of army and the 4 Mitford 1953 pp. 148-153: B. The Garrison of Cyprus; Mły-
narzyk 1990, pp. 129-132.

5 Mehl 1996a, pp. 127-152; Mehl 1996b, pp. 215-260.
1 Bagnall 1976; Mehl 1996a; Mehl 1996b; Huss 2011, pp. 150-157. 6 Bagnall 1976, p. 39; the discussion concerns the reliability of the
2 I would give priority to the Marmor Parium, registering for the passage of Diodorus: The kingdoms were abolished in 312 B.C. (Diod.
year 311/310 B.C.: ἀφ’ οὗ [Ν]ικοκρέων ἐτελεύτησεν καὶ Πτολεμαῖος XIX 79, 5: τῆς μὲν Κύπρου κατέστησε στρατηγὸν Νικοκρέοντα,
κυριεύει τῆς νήσου ΔΔΔΠΙΙ, ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησιν Σι[μωνί]δου: it is παραδοὺς τάς τε πόλεις καὶ τὰς προσόδους τῶν ἐκπεπτωκότων
very difficult to accept the death of Nicocreon in 311/310 and the death βασιλέων), but remained further the misunderstanding of the sta-
of Nicocles in 310/309 B.C. (Diod. XX 21, 1-3: Archon Hieromnenon); tus of Nicocreon, king of Salamis, until 311/310 B.C., whether king
Diodorus sometimes postdates the events, for he also starts counting or strategos of the island, who had to obey the satrap Ptolemy, not
the year with the Roman consuls, taking office in January – March, yet recognized as King of Egypt; Bengtson 1952, p. 139 and notes 1-2;
while the Attic year begins in June - July; often he begins the narrative Huss 2011, p. 151 and note 82; Mavrojannis 2014, pp. 83-85.
of events later than would be stricty correct; for instance, he dates the 7 Bekker Nielsen 2000, pp. 195-203, p. 196 and Fig. 1: the inde-
events in the Alexander story by following the Macedonian year which pendent tetradrachms of king Nicocles showing, on the obverse,
began in autumn, but dates the year by the names of Archons and Aphrodite with a crown of walls and turrets (BMC p. LXXIX, Pl. XX:
Consuls who took office up to eight or nine months later; in XVI Book 10, 1), would be dated around 317 B.C., p. 200: «If Nicocles was es-
all the events are postdated up to one year; Fontana 1956, pp. 36-37; tablishing a new capital elsewhere, why fortify Palaipaphos ? »; he
FGrHist 239 B 1-8, Kommentar, p. 698-702; Diodorus dates the siege of proposes a date in or shortly after 294 B.C.. This is erroneous, since
Perinthus (XVI 74-76) to 341/340 B.C., whereas the independent Philo- the Theater of Nea Paphos must be dated in the years around 310 B.C.,
chorus registers the same facts under 340/339 B.C.; FGrHist 328, F 54; if not earlier; Mørkholm 1978, pp. 135-146, the coins must refer to the
thus, the events occurred in the spring and summer of 340 B.C.; Thayer fortification of Old Paphos; cf. the silver tetradrachms of Alexander
1963; on 311/310 B.C., Hill 1949, pp. 160-161 and note 161; Tumulus No type minted in Paphos with the legend ΝΙΚΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ, from the De-
77: Karageorghis 1969, pp. 151-164; Karageorghis 1973, pp. 128-138 and manhour hoard, buried after 319/318 B.C., erroneously dated by Ges-
findings Cat. Nos 1-11158, pp. 199-188; offerrings, pp. 188-200 and p. 191, che 1974 to 313/312 B.C.; cf. Mitford 1953, pp. 204-205; Iacovou 2013, pp.
Fig. 31: Ballista-balls; Conclusions, p. 201; Plates CLXXIII-CCXVII; cf. 287-288; J. Karageorghis 2016, in favour of a foundation of Nea Paphos
Mavrojannis 2014, pp. 79-91, pp. 84-85; for the traditional view, Gesche by king Nicocles; as already Młynarczyk 1990, pp. 67-70 pp. 67-76, be-
1974, pp. 103-125; Młynarczyk 1990, pp. 26-27 and pp. 72-74; Iacovou cause the new city received the name of Paphos and not a Ptolemaic
2013, pp. 280-281; on the «error» of Diodorus, Beloch 1927, p. 331 and name; but the strongest argument for a decisive involvement of Nico-
note 4; J. Hornblower 1981, pp. 54-55 and note 114; Jacoby 1959, col. 1555. cles is the inscription Paphos Mus. 357 (Mitford 1953, pp. 200-201) and
3 Bagnall 1976, pp. 38-39: «It is therefore hardly surprising that p. 157, Cat. No 1, from Maloutena, a dedication of a temenos to Artemis
two further candidates have been advanced for the near-century be- Agrotera by king Nicocles; Młynarczyk, p. 74 proposes a date of foun-
tween the end of Menelaos and the start of tenure of Pelops son of dation between 321 and 313/312 B.C.; cf. Vittas 2016, pp. 241-248, in
Pelops under Philopator [217-203 B.C.]. Without exception it has been favour of Ptolemy who puts forward the assumption that Nea Paphos
assumed that lack of epigraphical testimony for a strategos in the early was founded as a Ptolemaic katoikia by Ptolemy; the main argument
and middle third century is to be attributed to the deficiency of evi- is the attribution of the inscription Mitford 1961, no 2, mentioning the
119

headquarters of the Ptolemaic strategos from Salamis to nant in case we have to deal with portraits and not ge-
Nea Paphos, to be tentatively put only at the end of the neric representations. All the above – mentioned works
3rd c. B.C., in the years of Ptolemy IV Phipopator (221-204 deserve attention, in their systematical discussion of the
B.C.). Some new interesting remarks came out by the structural aspects of Ptolemaic Cyprus, though they did
overview of G. Papantoniou, who underlined the strong not reach the bottom of the «invisibility», because they
consequences of such an institutional novelty enabling restrained their approach to the scattered corpus of the
to speed up the process of unification of the island un- inscriptions published and commented by T. B. Mitford
der the power concentrated into the hands of the Ptole- and I. Nicolaou – Michaelidou, thus overtaking the
maic strategos, instead of splitting and fragmentation monumental evidence and the sculptures, not only from
among the single kingdoms, which indeed ruled during Nea Paphos but also from other cities and sanctuaries
the Classical period. He, too, tends to underestimate which produced Ptolemaic culture and ideology in Cy-
that the political unification did imply a strong process prus. Another serious problem is the treatment of the
of integration and incorporation of the individual cities economical conditions of Ptolemaic Cyprus, which
to the new seat of the ruling body, which would mean could not avoid some general superficial considerations.
the obeying of all the officials who came as outsiders to I refer to the accumulation of wealth producing re-
Cyprus to the central headquarters of Nea Paphos. Thus, sources, which should be considered by moving to-
any new distinct religious and political features making wards a deeper study into the exploitation of the re-
up the face of the old cities could not but have been pro- sources step by step with the means of productivity9.
moted and, therefore, reacquired importance through For instance, in 2002 I stressed that the Senatusconsultum
the diffusion of models for the centralized ideology sug- de provinciis praetoris of 100 B.C., concerning the interdic-
gested by Nea Paphos. This is a valuable item to con- tion of the pirates’ activity in the Eastern Mediterranean
sider at least for the time of the strategos Polycrates on- by the senatus, is addressed also insistently to the «King
wards (203-197 B.C.), that is at the end of the 3rd c. B.C. who rules on Cyprus»10, Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros
and the entire 2nd c. B.C. What I mean is, that we have to (107-88 B.C.), who was obliged not to offer any anchor-
expect a decentralization of the duties and requests es- ages or help to the pirates, being in fact involved in the
pecially in the 2nd c. B.C. in Nea Paphos, influencing, as precedent years going back to 143/2 B.C. to the com-
well, the nature of evidence for what seems to be irre- merce of slaves from the Phoenician cities (Tyre, Bery-
trievably lost in the new capital (Plan 1). If we take as an tus, Sidon, Askalon, but not Arados) towards Delos
example the remarkable set of Ptolemaic sculptures through Nea Paphos. I thought to have demonstrated
from the sanctuary of Apollo at Voni-Chytroi (Fig. 1, 2, this prominent economical dimension acquired by the
3), which are astonishingly dated in the second half of harbors of Cyprus during the Late Hellenism. Never-
the 3rd c. B.C., we cannot deem them as a straight pecu-
liarity of Voni but as a kind of decentralized evidence
of Arsinoe II Philadelphos; Papantoniou 2012a; but cf. Papantoniou
going back to the decisions of the Ptolemaic establish-
2012b, pp. 97-99: «The practice of dedicating free-standing limestone
ment of Nea Paphos, expressing high ideological Hel- sculptures».
lenic messages in a different geographical horizon of the 9 Bagnall 1976, pp. 74-79: «it is then particularly unfortunate
island, looking at the Pentadaktylos area, Chytroi and that we have so little evidence of how the Ptolemies exploited the re-
sources of the island»; Bekker – Nielsen 2000, pp. 201-202.
Keryneia8. Diffusion of patterns seems to be determi- 10 Fouilles de Dèlphes III, 4, no 37; for the new inscription from
Cnidos, Crawford – Hassal – Reynolds 1974, pp. 195-220; Kallet –

construction of fortifications of an eurychoros city, to Palaipaphos and Marx 1995, pp. 233-239: nothing allows to see an otherwise unattested
not to Nea Paphos; this inscription, from the sanctuary of Aphrodite lex de Cilicia Macedoniaque provinciis of 99 B.C.; cf. Ferrary 1977, 619-
in Palaipaphos, registers how Nicocles has «surrounded the wide- 660; recently, Mavrojannis 2002, pp. 163-179; Geelhaar 2002, 109-117,
spread city with a wreath (stefanos) of towers»; ibid., pp. 241-242 and pp. 111-112: «[— And likewise] to the king ruling in the island of Cy-
note 9; on the chronology of the walls of Nea Paphos at the end of the prus and to the king [ruling at] Alexandria and in Egypt [and to the
3rd c. B.C., Balandier 1999, pp. 243-250; cf. Daszewski 1987, p. 174, had king] ruling at Cyrene and to the kings ruling in Syria [who have] a
proposed that Ptolemy took the initiative for the foundation of Nea relationship of friendship and alliance [with the Roman people, he –
Paphos in 315 B.C., as «a town-base for his Mediterranean fleet and a that is the senior consul – is to send letters] to the effect that it is right
foothold for him in Cyprus». for them both to see that [no] pirate [use as a base of operations] their
8 A similar approach was applied by Papantoniou 2009, pp. 271- kingdom [or] land or territories [and that no officials or garrison com-
287, pp. 278-285 and Fig. 12-13, in his study of the Ptolemaic ideology manders whom] they shall appoint harbour the pirates and to see
displayed in the sanctuary of «Aphrodite and Isis» at Cholades, Soloi, that, insofar as [it shall be possible,] the Roman people [have (them
on the grounds of the preserved Ptolemaic sculptures, as the head as) contributors to the safety of all».
120

The Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator and the «Tombs of the Kings» at Nea Paphos
Plan 1. General plan of Nea Paphos; on the topside the area of the «Tombs of the Kings», outside the Hellenistic fortification of Kato Paphos – Maloutena.
121

Fig. 1. Cypriot Museum of Nicosia (E 514): Sanctuary of Voni-Kythrea. Portrait of the strategos of Cyprus Seleucos (146/5-131 B.C.), son of Bithys, repre-
sented as thearodokos of Apollo (Connelly 1988, Cat. No 21): around 140-130 B.C.
Fig. 2. Cypriot Museum of Nicosia (E 513): Sanctuary of Voni-Kythrea. Portrait as «mirror – image» of the strategos of Cyprus Theodoros (123-118 B.C.), son
of Seleucos, represented as thearodokos (Connelly 1988, Cat. No 18): around 140-130 B.C.
Fig. 3. Cypriot Museum of Nicosia (E 511): Sanctuary of Voni-Kythrea: Statue of Zeus Eilapinastes - «banqueter», holding on the hand the eagle and remind-
ing the theoxenia of Zeus in the symposion in honour of Apollo (Connelly 1988, Fig. 66): around 140-130 B.C.
theless, nobody deemed necessary to give a closer look to Delos. This should not be either a one-way route or an
at the main streams of wealth concentration in the frag- exclusive business of the «Romans», since we find in-
mented status of the late Hellenistic economy in the volved in Delos, Crocus, the strategos of Cyprus after the
Eastern Mediterranean, namely at the disproportionate death of Seleucus in 131 B.C., in straight connection with
slave – trade from Syria and the harbors of Phoenicia, the ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ πρεσβύτεροι ἐγδοχεῖς11: We can
whether they indeed involved the harbors of Cyprus or
not, along with the transportation of grain from Alexan- 11 OGIS 140: Κρόκον, τὸν [σ]υ[γγε]νῆ βασιλέως | Πτολεμαίου
dria to Greece and Italy. If this theory is real, then we καὶ [βασιλ]ίσσης | Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελφῆς καὶ | βασιλίσσης
should expect to have archaeological evidence for the Κλεοπάτρας τῆς || γυναικὸς καὶ ν[α]ύ[αρ]χον καὶ στρατηγὸν
αὐτοκράτορα καὶ ὑπέρ[τατον] καὶ ἀρχιε|ρέα τῶν κατὰ Κύ[πρ]ον, ἡ
arrival of the slaves in the harbors of Cyprus. We have at
σύνοδος τῶν | ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι πρεσβυτέρων ἐ|γδοχέων εὐνοίας
our disposal some sufficient clues that the Alexandreae ἕνεκεν καὶ || δικαιοσύνης τῆς εἰς ἑυατὴν | καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ξένους,
Italicei quei fuere from the «Agora des Italiens» in Delos, | Ἀπόλλωνι, Ἀρτέμιδι, Λητοῖ; Mitford 1953, pp. 156-163: No 25 (JHS
who dedicated a group of statues for C. Marius legatus in 1888, no 92), for Krokos strategos, nauarchos, epistates and archiereus,
from Kouklia, Old Paphos; No 26 (JHS 1937, no 11), for Crocus
100/99 B.C. (Choix, no 107), were Roman traders of wheat
nauarchos, epistates and strategos autokrator and archiereus, in the Paphos
cargoes transported from Alexandria through Cyprus Museum; No 27 (OGIS 140 = Choix, no 108), for Crocus, from Delos.
122

4a 4b
5a 5b
Figs. 4a-b. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precinct A.
Fig. 5a. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precinct B.
Figs. 5b-c. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precincts B-C.

5c
safely guess the participation of the Ptolemaic military navy, for the Mediterranean if not for the entire empire.
fleet from Cyprus in the trade market of Delos. The And the overriding role of Cyprus as a «moving plate»
nauarchia, which was added to the functions of Cyprus for the Ptolemaic «commerce» and, more precisely, of
in 142 B.C., denotes supreme command of the Ptolemaic Nea Paphos in its new position as the main naval base of
123

the Ptolemaic fleet after 146 B.C., which means military the argyreia in Nova Carthago in 146 B.C.15. Even if the
protection of any kind of commerce12, constitutes the activity of Potamon is to be dated after 58 B.C., in the
necessary framework to solve two single problems con- second Ptolemaic period of Cyprus, the office of the su-
cerning the wider functionality of Nea Paphos in the perintendence on the «copper mines» should be earlier.
economical system of the closed royal economy carried At any case, the innocent and painless view of religious
out by the three first Ptolemies in Alexandria: The first serenity and pious life promoted by the Ptolemies in Cy-
problem is steadily archaeological and regards the rect- prus, which dominates the vision of the modern studies,
angular quarries resembling well-cut closed precincts in order to self praise the dynasty and receiving its legit-
(Kat. A, B, C: Greve 2014, Fig. 4a-4b, 5a-5b-5c), as if they imization by the native Cypriots, does not match an en-
were indeed used as prisons, being located in the center larged cross-checking of our evidence, more cruel and
of the field which include the so-called «Tombs of the materialistic than painless and peaceful. These are the
Kings». The function, if any, of the precincts, depends limits of any historical debate, which excludes the veri-
on their chronology and this chronology cannot be es- fication of its statements, or rather preconceives, through
tablished without clarifying the chronology of the concrete comparisons with the material evidence. In the
tombs with peristylium, since the precincts occupy the concrete case of Nea Paphos, political unity and center
center of the field and might be contemporaneous. There of administration both impose taking into consideration
is the suspicion that the quarries were opened after 146 the archaeological evidence from other cities of Ptole-
B.C., which entailed the transfer of the Ptolemaic fleet maic Cyprus and the Ptolemaic kingdom. It is the case
from Alexandria to Nea Paphos, as the immediate ap- and the reason for the lack of scientific historical debate
pearance of the title of nauarchos in the inscriptions re- concerning the so-called «Tombs of the Kings» in Nea
ferring to the strategos Seleucus can prove13. In that case, Paphos. D. Michaelides was the only one to undertake a
we have to wonder whether the precincts were the con- serious archaeological study on the ground plan and
centrations camp for the 10.000 slaves (myriads in «a the architectural patterns of the tombs with peristylium,
given day») of the well-known passage of Strabo for De- by revealing that this particular design drew inspira-
los (XIV 5, 2 = C 669) or it is only a compelling speculation by the Ptolemaic Tombs at Alexandria of the second
tion. The second problem is of epigraphical nature and half of the 3rd c. B.C., as the «Tomb of Mustapha Pasha»
regards the duties of Potamon, «antistrategos» and «epi (Tombs Nos 1-4), particularly from Tomb No 4, published
tôn metallon», during 95 and 88 B.C., as T. Mitford fol- by A. Adriani (Fig. 6, 7)16. This comparison is not, how-
lowed by R. Bagnall dated this enigmatic personality ever, sufficient, since we cannot limit ourselves to typo-
who appears in an inscription from Old Paphos (OGIS logical similarities, which do not offer safe standards to
165). This last problem presupposes the reopening of hit the precise chronology of the monuments. Similari-
the discussion with A. Mehl who recently lowered the ties do not mean chronological equalization between
chronology of Potamon, according to the remarks of J.-B. Alexandria and Nea Paphos, since there is a parameter
Cayla, in the time of Cleopatra VII (31 B.C.)14. The title which presupposes the evolution and the development
cannot but remind the exploitation of the metalla – «cop-
per mines» of Cyprus through a remarkable number of
15 Polyb. XXXIV 8, 9: Πολύβιος δὲ τῶν περὶ Καρχηδόνα Νέαν
slaves, as an analogous passage of Polybius confirms for
ἀργυρείων μνησθεὶς μέγιστα μὲν εἶναί φησι, διέχειν δὲ τῆς πόλεως
ὅσον εἴκοσι σταδίους, περιειληφότα κύκλον τετρακοσίων σταδίων,
12 SEG XII 548 = C. Ord. Ptol. 41-42; Lenger 1956, pp. 437-461; ὅπου τέτταρας μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων μένειν τῶν ἐργαζομένων,
Nadig 2007, p. 74, Nr. 1a-1b, pp. 80-85; cf. Segre 1952, 338-345; Mitford ἀναφέροντας τότε τῷ δήμῳ τῶν ῾Ρωμαίων καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν
1953b, 80-90. δισμυρίας καὶ πεντάκισχιλίας δραχμάς. Τὴν δὲ κατεργασίαν τὴν
13 Mitford 1953, p. 147: «In 143 B.C., when No 2 (it has been μὲν ἄλλην ἐῶ, . . . καθαρὸν τὸν ἄργυρον ἐξάγειν.
suggested) was cut, Euergetes had not yet made the significant 16 Lauter 1986, pp. 142-143, Taf. 10: Mustafa Pasha 3, Fig. 11a +
addition to the functions of the strategos of Cyprus, which is b: Mustafa Pasha 2; Guimiers – Sorbet & Michaelides 2009; Adriani
characteristic in that island of his reign. In 142, however, Seleucos 1936; Adriani 1966, Tav. 48, p. 181 (Tomba 1); pp. 45-52, 135-168, Tav.
is nauarcos, a title held by none of his predecessors . . . as long as 13-17 (Tomba 2); pp. 53-62, Tav. 18-21 (Tomba 3); pp. 137-138, Tav. 58
Cyprus and Egypt were under separate kings, the command of the (Tomba 4); Pensabene 1993, pp. 136-138, Tomba 1; pp. 134-136, cat. 85,
fleet was retained naturally at Alexandria, so that a king in Cyprus Tav. 52, 187, 189: Tomba 2; p. 136: Tomba 3; Greve 2014, pp. 204-207,
had not the nauarchia to bestow»; a different opinion by Bengtson Kat. A17, Abb. 17a: Mustafa Pasha – Grab 1 (6.45 X 7.25 m.); pp. 207-209,
1952, p. 143 and note 1. Kat. A18, Abb. 18: Grab 2 (6.25 X 6.70 m.); pp. 210-211, Kat. A19, Abb.
14 Mehl 2016, pp. 252-253, pp. 256-258; Cayla 2006 and commen- 19: Grab 3 (9.17 X 3.27 m.); pp. 211-212, Kat. A20, Abb. 20: Grab 4 (5.10 X
tary on No 77 and No 78. 5.10).
124

Fig. 6. Alexandria. Necropolis of Mustapha Pasha, Tomb IV and II: ground plan (Adriani 1963): 230-200 B.C.
of the architectural elements, what we have to denomi- ing the date of the arising of this particular architectural
nate as «Architectural Style». The recent book of A. set of monuments. It is as apparent as determinant that
Greve 201417, despite an honest description of the field there are two specific problems, to be dealt with before
and the first publication of a complete ground plan of rewriting any fragment of History: A) The chronology
the field, did not reach any reliable conclusion concern- of the «Tomb of the Kings»; B) The identification of the
buried persons and the families to which they belonged.
17 Greve 2014. Both problems require a preliminary outlook of the
125

Fig. 7. Alexandria. Necropolis of Mustapha Pasha, Interior of Tomb II with peristyle: Entrance door surrounded by painted door frame presenting a freeze with
horses in affresco and small statues of sphinx: 230-200 B.C.
field, in order to comprehend the spatial ordering of the most the same quadrangular dimensions (9.50 X 6.50
monuments and the links between them. It cannot, for m)18. This is a first substantial clue that the Tomb No 8
example, be overlooked that there is a Tomb, which does (Guide) = 1979/1, Kat. N04 Greve (Plan 3) was conceived
not present the same features as the Tombs with peristy- as an individual Mausoleum to whom other important
lium. It is the Tomb No 8 (Guide) = 1979/1, Kat., N04: burials were added in a second time. Before getting in-
Greve 2014 (Plan 3 and Fig. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), which is the volved in the historical discussion of an archaeological
result of a profound cutting around the four sides of a problem, I consider it necessary to proceed to the reeval-
rectangular high cube left standing in the center of the uation of the Ptolemaic sculptures of this period, which
composition, apparently uncovered by blocks and prob- could aid to better sketch the original framework of Nea
ably painted on the surface. This cube and the sur- Paphos.
rounding dyke were the burial place of many persons in
carved chambers, but the cube itself was intended only
for one person, since the funeral chamber occupies the 18 At first glance, the carving of a great rock to support a
center of the composition, on the side opposite to the superstructure would resemble to the mausoleum of Belevi at
Ephesos. But the base plate of Belevi has the form of a perfect square,
entrance through a ramp. But what is noteworthy is the
which permitted to reconstruct on the upper surface the raising of
abrasion of the upper surface as far the original level of a peripteros temple of 8 x 8 columns (30 X 30 m.) dated to the years
the cube, which cannot have existed without a super- between 290 and 270 B.C., as the architectural components and the
structure, probably in the form of a temple, having al- sculptures does indicate; it is presumably the monumental burial for
Lysimachos († 281 B.C.); Ruggendorfer 2016, pp. 170-182.
126

Figs. 8, 9, 10. Nea Paphos, «Tombs of the Kings»: Tomb No 8 (1979/1): Monu-
Fig. 11. Tomb
mental socle carved on the rock and surrounded by a profound shaft corridor;
No 8 (1979/1):
the upper surface presents clear traces of the enclosing removed stylobat, as
Entrance door
well as the setting bed of the interior wall of the cella. The supestructure was
with Doric freeze
a peripteros Doric temple of 6 X 4 columns.
pertaining to the
central loculus
intended as the
main burial; the
epistylium has
been removed.
Fig. 12a. Tomb No 8 (1979/1): Architectural component of a Doric epistylium bearing the letters Θ Ε in red colour: possibly [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ]
ΘΕ[ΟΥ ΕΥΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ].
Fig. 12b. Tomb No 8 (1979/1): Architectural component of an Ionic corniche built up with dentils and cyma; presumably pertaining to a thalamus in the corridor.
Fig. 12c. Tomb No 8 (1979/1): Doric columns related to the Doric temple of the superstructure. The shafts permit to date them around 150 B.C.
127

The Ptolemaic Portraiture from τιμᾶσθαι Ἡγήσανδρος ὁ Δελφὸς Δία Εἰλαπιναστήν τε

the sanctuary at Voni-Kythrea καὶ Σπλαγχνοτόμον; «And in Cyprus, Hegesander of
Delphi says, Zeus is worshipped under the title ‘Com-
(anc. Chytroi) panion at the Feast’ and ‘Entrail-slicer’». I should note,
in order to establish the chronology of Zeus Eilapinastes
H. Vollkmann stressed out in 1956 that the local Phoe-
in Cyprus, that Hegesandros was granted by Delphi the
nician autonomy in religious matters in Cyprus enters
proxenia, promanteia, prodikia, thearodokia, asylia, ateleia in
a process of self «Hellenisierung», without expecting
a decree, which is dated c.a. 151 B.C. (Sylloge3, no 654 =
the suggestions from the center, as it is the local initia-
Fouilles de Dèlphes III 2, 135).
tive and not any centralized directive, which promoted
the royal cult in some isolated districts of the island19.
Nevertheless, the governors from Nea Paphos appear The Sculptures from Voni
to be attested in Salamis and in other distant towns.
Among the many sanctuaries of Apollo in the Me-
And officials from Salamis appear to be honoured on
saoria plain and among the many religious properties
the other end of the island20. Jannick Vervet took into
of Apollo in Cyprus, as they are attested by the different
consideration in his bulky Thesis in 2015 the sanctuary
cultic names24, we have to keep in touch with this partic-
of Apollo at Voni and its findings, by putting forward
ular sanctuary – thus making a selection about both its
the idea of a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo Agyates and
priority and its importance – since there are three over-
Eilapinastes21. This seems to me to be an erroneous as-
whelming statues stemming from the sanctuary which
sumption, as the inscriptions from Voni impose a dou-
present all the requirements to be portraits (E 513, Cat.
ble joint cult of «Apollo [ . . . . and Zeus] Eilapinastes»22,
No 18; E 514, Cat. No 21: Connelly 1988) (Fig. 1, 2), even if
the latter being, in fact, literary attested by Athenaeus,
the third one keeping on the hand an eagle seems to rep-
who relates on Hegesandros, author of a treatise Περὶ
resent a God rather a person (E 511; Fig. 66) (Fig. 3)25. The
ἀνδριάντων καὶ ἀγαλμάτων about 160 B.C. on Delphi
three statues are of medium technical level and I cannot
registering the specific epithet for Zeus – and not at all
understand on what grounds they are to be dated in the
for Apollo – in Cyprus23: IV 174, κἀν Κύπρῳ δέ φησι
second half of the 3rd c. B.C., as it has been proposed by J.
B. Connelly in 198826, rather than some decades later in
19 Bagnall 1976, pp. 71-73; Volkmann 1956, pp. 448-455 and p. 452;
Anastasiadis 2009, pp. 259-270; Anastasiades 2013.

20 Bagnall 1976, p. 50: Theodoros served during his father’s Müller), 412-422; p. 412: «Initium alius libri citatur fr. 32, quod est de
strategia as ἐπὶ Σαλαμῖνος καὶ τῆ[ς] κατὰ τὴ νῆσον γραμματε[ί]ας historia τοῦ κοττάβου. In eo igitur de symposiorum ratione sermonem
τῶν πεζικῶν καὶ ἱππικῶν δυ[νάμεων]. The inscription was placed fuisse consentaneum»; Der Neue Pauly V, s.v. ‘Hegesandros’ [2], p. 235:
not in Salamis, the city of which he was commandant, but by Arsinoe «scheint ein systematisch angelegter Katalog von Votivgegeständen
(Marion), quite at the other end of the island; Mitford 1960, no 11. in Delphi gewesen zu sein»; Launey 1945, pp. 33-45; Daux 1957, 391-
21 Vervet 2016 pp. 105-110; p. 194, no 1121, Fiche no 192; pp. 441- 392; Prandi 1989, pp. 24-29; F. Jacoby, s.v. ‘Hegesandros’ [4], RE VII
453, Fiche no 193. (1912), col. 2600-2602; FGrHist IIIb (Noten), p. 138, Anm. 13.
22 Mitford 1961, p. 129: 1) AthMitt 9 (1884) 135 no. 1: Κάρυς 24 Solomidou – Ieronymidou 1985, pp. 62-63; cf. Glover 1981.
Ὀνησαγόρου | Ἀπόλλωνι εὐχήν; 2) AthMitt 135 no. 2: Π[α]σίδωρος? 25 Schol. vetera in Pindar. Carm., Pyth. IV 7a (ed. Drachmann): Δ ι ὸ
| Κάρυος Ἀπόλ|λωνι εὐχήν; 3) AthMitt 136 no. 3; Myres and Richter ς α ἰ ε τ ῶ ν π ά ρ ε δ ρ ο ς: ὅπου ποτέ ἡ τῶν χρυσῶν τοῦ Διὸς ἀετῶν
CMC; E. Sittig, GGN (1914) 93f: [Πασίδωρος? καὶ] Νικόδημος υἱοὶ πάρεδρος καὶ ἱέρεια τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος Πυθία οὐκ ἀποδημοῦντος
Κάρυος Ἀπόλλωνι [(epithet) καὶ Δΐι] Εἰλαπινάστ[ηι] εὐχήν; 4) Myres τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ παρόντος ἐχρησμῴδησε συνοικιστὴν τῆς Λιβύης
and Richter, CMC 5143: [ὁ δεῖνα] Κάρυος Ἀπόλλ[ωνι] [(epithet)] γενέσθαι τὸν Βάττον . . . b. Δ ι ὸ ς α ἰ ε τ ῶ ν: ὅτι ὑπὸ Διὸς ἀφεθέντες
ὑπὲρ Ὀνασιάρου ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι; 5) AthMitt 136 no. 4: (a) Ἀπόλλονι ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς συνέπεσον ἐνταῦθα . . . ὧν εἰκόνες οἱ
(sic) εὐχῆι. Ζόαρχος | ὑπὲρ Μηνηκράτους τοῦ | υἱοῦ ἐν τύχηι; (b) χρυσοῖ ἀνέκειντο παρὰ τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἀετοί.
Ἀπόλλονι (sic) εὐχῆι· Τιμοκράτης | ὑπὲρ Ὀνασιόρου τοῦ <υ>ἱοῦ; 6) S. 26 Ohnefalsch – Richter 1884, pp. 127-139; p. 133, no 10 (Taf. 6), no
Menardos, Ἀθηνᾶ 18 (1906) 331 (small sandstone block, in the Cyprus 11 (Taf. V 7), no 14 (Taf. V 8); a catalogue of the inscriptions, nos 1-8, pp.
Museum, originating from Kythrea, to be probably ascribed to the 135-138: Apollo without an epithet; Ohnefalsch – Richter 1893, pp. 3-5,
Voni sanctuary): Θεμισταγόρας Ἀγυάτηι | Ἀπόλλωνι εὐχήν· ἐ<ν> inscriptions nos 1-8; Taf. V: ground plan, Taf. XL 1-7: sculptures; Myres
τύχηι; cf. Mitford 1961, p. 129 and note 154: «We have here the right- – Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, p. 148, nos 5142-5147: the inscriptions; pp.
hand block of two. I confirm Εἰλαπινάστ[ηι] somewhat hesitantly 145-146, nos 5048-5053: the sculptures; cf. Mitford 1961; on the statues,
read by Sittig, restore tentatively the inscription on the missing block. Connelly 1988, pp. 45-55, p. 49: «Ohnefalsch – Richter indicated on
Since Hegesander (Heges. 30 in FHG IV, 412ff) records Εἰλαπινάστης his plan of the Voni temenos a spot where ‘Colossi’ were found. He
as an epithet of Zeus in Cyprus, it is clear that it is Apollo’s epithet did not say whether he had in mind Cat. 18 and Cat. 21, but as these
which here is lost». are the only two full statues to survive, this is most likely. Side by
23 Kleine Pauly II, s.v. ‘Hegesandros’ [4], p. 968; FHG IV (ed. side, the ‘mirror image’ figures would have made a handsome pair»;
128

time, at any rate after the revixit ars of Plinius in 156 B.C., the east grave reliefs», by putting forward the feature of
which denotes the return to the classical patterns of the the triangular overfold of the himation, the curls in rows
4th c. B.C. in sculpture27. There is nothing in the style of crescent-shaped and circular locks, and especially the
and the rendering of the physiognomic features of the sideburns in front of the ears, to be compared with the
two statues to suggest a date in the 3rd c. B.C.28 The pleats profile of Ptolemy IV Philopator (222/1-204 B.C.) in the
of the himation have no plasticity at all, without present- coins. She knows that this particular fashion is not ex-
ing a profound folding drapery, as they are worked only clusive for Philopator, since it appears in the portraits
on the surface with deep linear cuttings. The faces are of Ptolemy VI Philometor (181-145 B.C)30. Consequently,
well formed, though the short hairstyle in both appears Connelly was convinced that the comparisons with the
somehow unaccomplished. The back side of the stat- Voni statues would suggest «an upper date of the late
ues is completely unfinished, indicating that they were third century B.C.». There remains to observe whether
placed face forward on a niche. It is clear that, under the himation with heavy roll across the waist on the stat-
the cover of a new classicism, only a difference of age is ue from Rhodes should be, according to A. Linfert, «ein
perceived between the two male statues and a common Werk des späteren zweiten Jahrhunderts . . . Denkbar ist
iconography, and it should be explained. Connelly, too, auch Buschors Datierung ins dritte Viertel des zweiten
did not fail to remark that the heavy rolled himation in Jahrhunderts». This is, of course, a subjective point of
such a combination with the tunic appears in a head- view which can rely on the History of Art in case we
less draped male statue from Room C of the Odeion of possess exterior «Anhaltspunkte». The iconography is
Kos, dated by A. Linfert ca. 150 B.C., in a portrait of the the first particular feature, to be understood in compar-
British Museum (BM 2084) and, generally, in the «Ost- ison with the religious qualities of the cult.
griechischen Grabreliefs» of the «early second century
B.C.»29, which will become «by the second half of the
century» the standard costume. More than the relief of The cult of Apollo at Voni
Oxford (Ashmolean Museum, Inv. Nr. 1947, 271), it is the Thus, at first hand we have to sketch the differences
relief in Pergamon Museum (Inv. Nr. Sk. 74) and, mainly, between ritual and cult and to stress that it is the ritual,
the relief of Artemon, son of Artemidoros from Smyrna which explains the specific cult of Apollo rather than
(Pfuhl – Möbius N. 109, Taf. 26), «wohl der ersten Hälfte the opposite. Without recurring in earlier models in Cy-
des 2. Jhs. v. Chr.», which offer the most significant and prus, as D. Buitron Oliver would have suggested for the
closer parallels for the rolled himation in the statues of heads in the Cypriot Museum of the 5th c. B.C. bearing
Voni. Despite all these contradictions, Connely thought the laurel, we perceive here the well-known feast of the
that the colossal statues from Voni «may well predate Daphnephoria31. The exact term is known in a Cypro-syl-
labic inscription «aus einem Temenos bei Lefkoniko» as
Dauchnophoria. This particular dialectical version finds a
statues to be compared with the head E 502, Cat. 19 and the head Paris
parallel only in Thessalia, as O. Masson did note32. The
– Louvre AM 2786, Cat. 20.
27 Coarelli 1996; Coarelli 1990, pp. 643-648.
28 Connelly 1988, p. 50: The comparison of the dressing with
typological patterns going back to the statue of Mausolus from 30 Kyrieleis 1975; on the portraits of Ptolemy VI Philometor,
Halicarnassus has nothing to do with the rendering of the tunic and Metzger 1998, nos 147-148; cf. the two colossal heads from Canopus:
the himation in the statues from Voni. There is nothing that could be Queyrel 1998, no 155: Tête de Ptolémée IV (high 1.50 m.), to be com-
remind the drammatical costume of Mausolus [germ. buchtenreiche pared with no 160: Tête de Ptolémée VI (high 0.61 m.).
Drapierung] or the original of the Demosthenes type male statue 31 Brelich 1969, pp. 413-438, on the daphnephoria for Apollo
(Roman copy in the Glyptothek, Copenhagen), dated to 280/279 B.C.; Ismenios in Thebes, with consequent assumption, p. 419: «Il culto
Zanker 1995, 85-90 anf Fig. 48. delfico di Apollo Pythios ha certamente costituito un modello cui
29 Linfert 1976, p. 80, Taf. 33, Abb. 175, Kos 70: «Dem Stil nach . . ., diversi culti apollinei in Grecia si sono, in misura varia, adeguati»;
hingegen weisen Einzelheiten der teilweise etwas grob ausgeführten, ibid. p. 430: «Per evitare ogni schematizzazione, bisogna guardarsi
wie ‘ausgefrästen’ Schulterwülste in die Nähe des Zeus aus dem dall’affermare che solo nel 582 e non un anno prima la ‘dafneforia’ di
Odeion (Anm. 238), an dem sich auch die merkwürdigen dreifachen Tempe e il Septerion si siano inseriti nel culto di Apollo».
Liegefalten finden. Man wird diese Männerfigur also dem weiteren 32 Masson 1961, no 309, pp. 311-312: «On sait que les formes
Umkreis des Palästriten-Meisters in der Zeit um 150 zuweisen»; ibid., dérivées de δαύχνα correspondant à δάφνη sont, hors de Chypre,
p. 94, Taf. 26, Abb. 132-133: BM 2084; Pfuhl – Möbius 1977, p. 88, pl. seulement thessaliens»; cf. Bechtel 1921, p. 205; Alexiph. 198;
33, fig. 149; Taf. 26, Fig. 101; Taf. 32, Fig. 140; cf. 28, Fig. 117, from Cos: Chantraine 1968, pp. 254-255; Frisk 1960, p. 353; on the epithet of
Laurenzi 1938, pp. 85-89. Pl. 8, Fig. 53-55: «stele di un palestrita»; for Apollo Leschaios, Brelich 1969, p. 424 and note 269; cf. Etym. Magn. s.v.
his chronology, «Drittes Virtel des 2. Jhs. v. Chr», Buschor 1949, p. 36. λέσχη . . . τὰ κοινὰ δειπνητήρια;
129

cult in Thessalia is linked with the purification of Apol- appropriate venue for the theoroi on the return trip to
lo of Delphi in the valley of Tempe after having killed Delphi. Plutarch (De E apud Delph. 2 = Moralia 385 C) and
the snake Python33. We have a number of literary and the Lexicon of Photius elucidate the core of the feast, the
epigraphical testimonies, which describe the essence of «conversations of the men in leschai» during the ban-
the ritual. A group of ritual «laurel bearers» called quet: Λεσχηνόριος ὅταν ἐνεργῶσι καὶ ἀπολαύωσι
συνδαυχναφόροι is attested in an inscription from the χρώμενοι τῷ διαλέγεσθαι καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν πρὸς
chora of Larissa (IG IX 2, 1027a), dated to ca. 500-400 B.C., ἀλλήλους35. The context seems to be common in Thes-
evidently in a straight connection to a lesche, a «club of salia as well as in Cyprus. As a Homeric word, eilapine
men». More pertinent, in a 1st century dedication to means as well «banquet» and eilapinistes «banqueter»,
Apollo Kerdoios from Phalanna in Thessalia (IG IX 2, accurately explained in all its profound details by I.
1234) the dedicator is described as ‘having served as Tewksbury, who interprets eilapine more precisely, as
head-laurel bearer (ἀρχιδαυχναφορείσας), as it seems to the ‘sumptuous feast’, a sacrificial feast «which is in fact
be the case of the two «laurel-bearers» from Voni. Steph- portrayed as the locus of heroic kleos», an honour to never
anus Byzantius is eloquent about the thessalian origin fade. Thus, it can be in fact detected as the «royal ban-
of the ritual: Steph. Byz. s.v. Deipnias: κώμη Θεσσαλίας quet»36. The context of the double joint cult in the sanc-
περὶ Λάρισσαν, ὅπου φασὶ τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα δειπνῆσαι tuary of Voni suggests the presence of an «Apollo of the
πρῶτον, ὅτε ἐκ τῶν Τέμπεων καθαρθεὶς ὑπέστρεψε, banquets» accompanying the Daphnephoria along with
καὶ τῷ παιδὶ τῷ διακομιστῇ τῆς δάφνης ἔθος εἰς τήνδε Zeus Eilapinastes. The Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem
παραγενομένῳ δειπνεῖν. I quote the translation. «Deip- (rec. Erbse) P 575-577 fits very well this Thessalian – Cy-
nias: an area of Thessaly near Larisa where they claim pro-Arcadian ritual, which explicitly identifies eilapine
Apollo first took sustenance when he returned from
Tempe after being purified; and it is customary for the
ἐννεατηρίδος; Ael. Var. Hist. 3, 1; Strab. IX, 4 = C 422; Brelich 1969, pp.
boy who escorts the laurel to eat when he is present in 387-397.
this place». In this passage Stephanus describe the Sep- 35 Photii Patr. Lexicon (ed. Theodoridis) II, 209, λέσχαι· λέσχας
teria (or Stepteria), a very ancient peculiar enneateric Del- ἔλεγον δημοσίους τινὰς τόπους, ἐν οἷς σχολὴν ἄγοντες ἐκαθέζοντο
πολλοί· Ὅμηρος (σ 328-329)· ‘οὖ θέλεις εὕδειν χαλκήϊον ἐς δόμον
phian festival in which a boy was pursued from Delphi
ἐλθὼν ἠέ που ἐς λέσχην’. Κλεάνθης δέ φησιν (SVF i 123, 33)
to Tempe after setting fire. This journey imitated Apol- ἀπονενεμῆσθαι τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τὰς λέσχας· ἐξέδραις δὲ ὁμοίας
lo’s mythic flight to Tempe for purification after killing γίνεσθαι· καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Ἀπόλλω παρ’ ἐνίοις Λεσχηνόριον
Python, and the Apolline boy and his pursuers, in fact ἐπικαλεῖσθαι.
36 Tewksbury 2015: Od. 1.224-229: εἰλαπίνη ἠὲ γάμος; among
the original theoroi, offered sacrifices to the god and se-
heroes: Il. 17.575-577: μάλιστα δέ μιν Ἕκτωρ | δήμου, ἐπεὶ οἱ
lected laurel that would be used to crown victors at the ἑταῖρος ἔην φίλος εἰλαπιναστής, «for he was his comrade and boon
Pythia. On the return trip, in both myth and cult, there companion»; Il. 10.204-217: ἀεὶ δ’ ἐν δαίτῃσι καὶ εἰλαπίνησι παρέσται,
was a rest stop outside Larissa. The laurel, therefore, is «and he would be asked as a guest to all feasts and clan-gatherings».
Among Gods: Il. 23.200-207: οἳ μὲν ἄρα Ζεφύροιο δυσαέος ἀθρόοι
proper of the valley of Tempe34. A lesche would be the
ἔνδον | εἰλαπίνην δαίνυντο, «They were holding high feast in the
house of boisterous Zephyros»; Il. 14.238-241: ὑπὸ δὲ θρῆνυν ποςὶν
33 Graninger 2011, pp. 101-102 and notes n. 47-50; Brelich 1969, ἥσει, | τῶ κεν ἐπισχοίης λιπαροὺς πόδας εἰλαπινάζων, «and he shall
pp. 387-413. give it a footstool for you to rest fair feet upon when you are at table»;
34 Plut. Quaest. Gr. 12 = mor. 293 C: τρεῖς ἄγουσι Δελφοὶ Il. 18.490-495: ἐν τῇ μέν ῥα γάμοι τ’ ἔσαν εἰλαπίναι τε, «in the one
ἐνναετηρίδας κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς . . . τὸ μὲν οὖν Στεπτήριον ἔοικε μίμημα (city) were weddings and wedding-feasts»; cf. Apollon. 1.857-890:
τῆς πρὸς τὸν Πύθωνα τοῦ θεοῦ μάχης εἶναι καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὴν αὐτίκα δ’ ἄστυ χοροῖσι καὶ εἰλαπίνῃσι γεγήθει, «And straightway
μάχην ἐπὶ τὰ Τέμπη φυγῆς καὶ ἐκδιώξεως. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ φυγεῖν ἐπὶ the city rejoiced with dances and banquets»; 1.12-14: «And straightway
τῷ φόνῳ φασὶ χρῄζοντα καθαρσίων, οἱ δὲ τῷ Πύθωνι τετρωμένῳ he came to Pelias to share the banquet which the king was offering
καὶ φεύγοντι κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἣν νῦν ἱερὰν καλοῦμεν; Hesych. s.v. to his father Poseidon and the rest of the gods (εἰλαπίνης, ἣν πατρὶ
στεπτήρια· στέμματα ἃ οἱ ἱκέται ἐκ τῶν κλάδων ἐξῆπτον; on the Ποσειδάωνι καὶ ἄλλοις | ῥέζε θεοῖς), though he paid no honour to
exclusive connection of the laurel with Tempe, Hesych. s.v. Δυαρεία; Pelasgian Hera»; cf. Plut. De super. 9: ἣδιστα δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἑορταὶ
Call. Aet. 4, fr. 86-89; Call. fr. 194 [Pfeiffer]; Nicandr. Alexiph. 199- καὶ εἰλαπίναι; cf. Athen. 8.63: «Is it a supper or a marriage feast |
201 [Bianchi]; «così l’inno di Aristonoo, ritrovato in un epigrafe di For certainly there is no picnic held now». That the eilapine confers
Delphi», Diehl, Anth. Lyr. II, p. 298; Schol. vetera in Pindari carmina, heroic kleos, Theogn. 1.239-242: θοίνης δὲ καὶ εἰλαπίνηισι παρέσσηι
Hypoth. Pyth. c: καθαρθεὶς δὲ Ἀπόλλων τὸν τῆς δρακοντοκτονίας | ἐν πάσαις πολλῶν κείμενος ἐν στόμασιν | οὐδέποτ’ οὐδὲ θανὼν
φόνον ἐν Κρήτῃ παρὰ Χρυσοθέμιδι ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ Θεσσαλικὰ ἀπολεῖς κλέος, ἀλλὰ μελήσεις | ἄφθιτον ἀνθρώποισ’ αἰὲν ἔχων
τέμπη, ἔνθεν μετεκομίσατο τὴν δάφνην. μέχρι δὲ πολλοῦ ἡ εἰς τοὺς ὄνομα, «You will present at all the meals and the feasts, Remaining
τῶν νικώντων στεφάνους χωροῦσα δάφνη ἐντεῦθεν ἐκομίζετο on the lips of many . . . Your fame will never perish. Rather you will
ὑπὸ παιδὸς ἀμφιθαλοῦς. ἐτελεῖτο δὲ ὁ ἀγὼν καταρχὰς μὲν διὰ always remain, possessing an imperishable name among men».
130

with the syssitia to be held in leschai. The Scholia in Homeri holds the eagle, as a sign of theoxenia during the ritual
Odysseam confirm the inherent meaning of «sympo- banquet of the hetairoi40. One of the inscriptions from
sium»37. It should be, therefore, connected with Cyprus Voni describes the thiasos of «Gorpiaios», which accord-
as a relict of the Mycenaean and «Arcadian» migration ing to Ohnefalsch – Richter, signifies the «banquet
on the island, what is supported by historical linguistics month» and falls in August and September in Cyprus41.
proving the common ascendancy of Aeolian and Arca- Of course, a member of the thiasos of the Gorpiaioi might
do-Cypriot dialects. It seems not, at random, that in Te- be dressed as Zeus. What Ohnefalsch – Richter exca-
gea – Arcadia we have in an inscription of the 4th c. B.C. vated was in fact a «long, narrow building that it is pre-
a month called Leschanasios > Lesche + wanax. Otherwise, served to a length of 16.5 m. and has a width of 5.35. The
this should be another solid trace of the Mycenaean ori- building is oriented north – south, and is subdivided
gin of the leschai in Gortyna on Crete, where Apollo into two spaces by an interior wall» (Fig. 13). This so-
Amyklaios might indicate the common roots of the Arca- called «Court of Burnt-Offering» presents all the re-
dian – Laconian Apollo with the Apollo of Cyprus, as it quirements to have been a dining room, in the typology
is proved through the epithet Amyklaios occurring in of a lesche, which resembles for obvious reasons to the
Gortyna and Idalion38. Moreover, we can guess that this Spartan or Cretan andreion (Fig. 14)42. The sanctuary of
is what the legend of the «Laconian» Praxandros founder Voni was in effect more important than we could think
of Lapethos (Lycophr. Alexandra, vv. 586-587; Strab. XIV at first glance. This might be the reason for the choice to
6, 3)39, strongly recommends, a pre-dorian Arcadian dedicate the three colossal statues in that particular
Apollon. I would, consequently, propose to restitute in space. Voni was one of the most important sanctuaries
the lost part of the inscription from Voni: [Ἀπόλλωνι where Ptolemaic ideology of Hellenism in Cyprus was
Λεσχαίῳ καὶ Δι]ὶ Εἰλαπιναστή. We might, as a second displayed, under the authority of the Museum of Alex-
step of the demonstration’s process, attribute the statue andria. To this circle of literacy has P. Fraser attributed
of «Apollo Eilapinastes» to Zeus Eilapinastes, since he the renaissance of the foundation myths of the cities of
37 Schol. ad Il. Ρ 577β (Erbse) b. εἰλαπιναστής: σύσσιτος, ἐν 40 FGH IV, p. 414, fr. 5 (ed. Müller) = Athen. VII, p. 289, C:
τῷ εὐωχεῖσθαι φίλος . . . οἱ δὲ παράσιτος . . . c. <εἰλαπιναστής> παραπλησίως δ’ ἐπέστελλε καὶ Ἀρχιδάμῳ, τῷ Λακεδαιμονίων
σύσσιτος, σύνδειπνος, ἀπὸ τῆς εἰλαπίνης; Schol. ad Od. Α 226 βασιλεῖ, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ὅσοις ἔγραψεν, οὐκ ἀπεχόμενος τοῦ Διός.
(Dindorf): εἰλαπίνη λέγεται ἡ πολλῶν ἀνδρῶν εὐωχία, ἐν ᾗ κατὰ Καλέσας δ’ αὐτὸν ποτε ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ὁ Φίλιππος μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων
εἴλας καὶ συστροφὰς εὐωχοῦνται. ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔρανος] ὡς τοῦ ἐράνου θεῶν, συγκατέκλινε πάντας ἐπὶ τῆς μέσης κλίνης, . . . καὶ τράπεζαν
κοσμιωτέρου καὶ εὐτελεστέρου ὄντος· καὶ εἰκότως· ὁ μὲν γὰρ γάμος παραθεὶς, ἐφ’ ἧς βωμὸς ἔκειτο καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς πάντων ἀπαρχαί
καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι εὐωχίαι φιλίᾳ τινι γίνονται, ὁ δὲ ἔρανος ὡς ἕκαστός τι . . . Καὶ τέλος ὁ καινὸς Ζεὺς, μετὰ τῶν ὑπηκόων γελώμενος θέων,
κομίσειεν. ἔρανος οὖν λέγεται ὁ ἀπὸ συμβολῆς δεῖπνον. Εἰλαπίνη ἡ ἔφυγεν ἐκ τοῦ συμποσίου, ὡς Ἡγήσανδρος ἱστορεῖ.
πολλῶν εὐωχία, ἐν ᾗ κατὰ εἴλας πίνουσιν. 41 Ohnefalsch – Richter 1893, p. 5, no 9: «Γορπιαῖος ist Name
38 The evidence on Apollo Amyklaios consists in two inscrip- eines cyprischen Monats (‘Schmausemonat’), der in den August und
tions from Idalion of the 4th and 3rd c. B.C. The first is a bilingual September fiel»; Connelly 1988, p. 46.
dedication to the Phoenician Reshef Mikal and to his translation in 42 Arist. Pol. 1272a; Strab. 10.482; Alcm. fr. 56 Garzanti (= 22 B);
Cypro-syllabic, dated to 388 B.C.; Masson 1961, no 220, pp. 246-248: Brelich 1969, p. 197: «ma andreion si chiamava anche la ‘casa degli uo-
τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Ἀμύκλῳ; the second is in Greek and is a dedica- mini’, che, essendo una in ciascuna città (Dosiad. in Athen. 4, 143B),
tion to Apollo Amyklaios: Masson 1961, p. 235 and note 2: dedication doveva ospitare per la notte tutte le hetaireiai»; cf. Murray 1991, pp.
of a Phoenician «hellenisé» (?), Mnaseas Apsetou, in the year 264 B.C., 91-103, on enomotiai, triekades and syssitia (Hdt. 1.65) and on Spartan
Ἀπόλλωνι Ἀμυκλαίῳ; Dietrich 1976, pp. 27-38: «the extreme Cypriot customs of commensality; still in 418 the enomotiai included thirty-
conservatorism in religious practices preserved the tradition of Bronze two men (Thuc. 5.68.3), whereas in the 4th c. thirty-six (Xen. Hell.
Age cults into the fourth century and beyond»; cf. contra Senff 1993, 6.4.12); according to Plutarch (Lyc. 12), the syssitia are held to include
pp. 75-79, p. 77 and notes 657-658: Anm. 2 Nr. 8 and Anh. 2 Nr. 9; ibid., fifteen men; on the archaeological evidence as regards the andreia in
note 659: «In der älteren Forschung ist dieser Beiname als Hinweis Crete, Whitley 2014, pp. 141-164 and Fig. 7.2: Plan of the «Almond Tree
auf einen Pflanzkult des lakonischen Apollon Amyklaios verstanden House», identified in 1902 by Bosanquet with the koimeterion accord-
worden, doch verhält es sich nach neueren Untersuchungen gerade ing to Dosiadas <von Kydonia> 300/250?, a very precise statement,
umgekehrt und der lakonische Kult muß dem semitischen Gott Reshef more detailed than Whitley notes: FGrHist 458 F 2 = Athen. IV 22,
Mikal in einer gräzisierten Namensform gelten». Neverheless, there is p. 143 A-D: διήιρηνται δ’ οἱ πολῖται πάντες καθ’ ἑταιρίας, καλοῦσι
no context for the introduction of a Laconian cult n Cyprus in the 4th δὲ ταύτας ἀνδρεῖα . . . εἰσὶ δὲ πανταχοῦ κατὰ τὴν Κρήτην οἶκοι
c. B.C.; for the month names of Apollo in Gortyna, Apollo Amyklaios, δὐο ταῖς συσσιτίαις, ὧν τὸν μὲν καλοῦσιν ἀνδρεῖον, τὸν δ’ ἄλλον,
Insc. Creticae IV 182.23; it is also attested Apollo Leschanorios, Inscr. ἐν ῶι τοὺς ξένους κοιμίζουσι, κοιμητήριον προσαγορεύουσι; cf. on
Creticae IV 181.17; Perlman 2000, pp. 72-75; for the evidence on a pre- the andreion of Dreros, Zographaki – Farnoux 2014, pp. 105-107 anf
Dorian Apollo in Sparta, Petterson 1992, pp. 106-109. Fig. 5.3 – 5.4: «Le sanctuaire de l’acropole Ouest»; cf. Marinatos 1936,
39 Hornblower 2015, pp. 253-254. p. 254 and note 4 (Strab. 10. 483): an andreion (10.70 X 24 m.).
131

from Delphi»44. There is a long inscription from Delphi,

which permits to identify the male E 514 with the Ptole-
maic strategos of Cyprus Seleucos, son of Bithys, citizen
of Alexandria. This exceptional personality was hon-
oured in Delphi when he was still a citizen of Alexan-
dria, before reaching the strategia of Cyprus in 146/5
B.C., in 157/6 B.C. The inscription (Fouilles de Dèlphes III,
4, no 161 = OGIS, no 150) praises Seleucus for his thearo-
dokia, despite the fact that the precise institution is not
mentioned in the text but only hinted45. The city of Del-
phi granted him the usual honours for the benefactors,
proxenia, promanteia, prodikia, asylia, ateleia, for he was
44 Connelly 1988, p. 48: «There is evidence of Cypriot worship at

Delphi, and it is plausible that the Delphic Apollo, was worshipped
as such on the island»; cf. Masson – Rolley 1971, pp. 295-304; on the
thearodokoi; Plassart 1921, Col. I, p. 4: ἐν Σαλαμῖνι . . . ἐν Καρ[π]ασε[ίαι]
. . . ἐν Χύτροις . . . ἐν Κερυν[εία] . . . ἐν Λαπήθω[ι] . . . ἐν Σόλοις . . .
ἐν [Ταμ]ασσῶ . . . ἐν [θρ]ό[ν]οις ? . . . ἐν [Ἀρ]σ[ιν]όαι ?; ibid., p. 36: «Les
théorodoques, . . . sont les citoyens chargés d’accueillir les théores,
qui vient annoncer l’institution ou la prochaine célébration d’une
fête : il s’agit ici de l’annonce périodique des Pythia et des Sotéria. Ils
peuvent être designés par la cité à laquelle ils appartiennent ou bien
– et c’est une marque d’honneur – par celle qui envoie le théores»;
Miller 1988, pp. 147-163; Perlmann 1984.
45 Couve 1894, pp. 248-254; Translation: «When Patreas was
[archon], and the members of the council for the first six months
were Astyochos, Archelaos [and Nikias], it was resolved by the city
of Delphi in full assembly: since the theoroi who were sent to king
Ptolemaios – Astyochos and Euagoras – have arrived back and have
reported to the city that Seleukos of Alexandria, the son of Bithys, is
[continually] acting as a good man towards the temple and the city
of Delphi; he attaches the greatest important to piety [towards] the
gods, and has provided his assistance at every opportunity, [both]
publicly to the city and privately to those of the citizens who meet
him, in whatever matter they [request] him; and he eagerly co-op-
erates with those Delphians who come to meet king Ptolemaios in
whatsoever matters they need help, and he always says and does
what is advantageous with respect to the king for the temple and the
city of Delphi; therefore, concerning [these matters], with good for-
tune it is resolved by the city of Delphi to praise Seleukos of Alexan-
dria, the son of Bithys, [for] the good attitude that he continually has
towards the temple and the city, and to crown [him] with a wreath of
Fig. 13. Cyprus. Sanctuary of Voni: plan of the so-called «Court of Burnt – the god’s [laurel], as is traditional at Delphi. He [and his descendants]
Offering», in fact a dining – room – lesche (Connelly 1988, after a drawing shall have proxeny, priority in the access to the oracle – promanteia,
of P. Dikaios). priority in receiving justice, inviolability, freedom from taxes, privi-
leged seating at all the games [that the city holds], and the other priv-
ileges that are granted to other proxenoi and benefactors of the city.
[The overseers] of the Soteria – Andromenes and Philocrates – shall
Cyprus in the Hellenistic Age quoted in the Alexandra of inscribe this decree and set it up to the [most] prominent place in the
Lycophron43. There can be but little doubt that the two temple»; Bagnall 1976, p. 239: «A major source of visits to Alexandria
was also the fulfilling of various religious missions. For example,
colossal statues from Voni represent two head – feaster, Boulagoras of Samos (p. 81) served as his city’s theoros to the court
boon – companion – hetairoi participating in the Daph- shortly after island returned to Ptolemaic control in the first years
nephoria as theorodokoi, «those who «received the guests of the reign of Ptolemy III»; ibid. 230 and note 29: «The many vases
found in cemeteries near Alexandria with the names of foreigners
who came as theoroi attest that the traffic of such men was a large
43 Fraser 1979, pp. 328-343. one».
132

Fig. 14. Crete. Dreros: relevé of the «sanctuaire de l’acropole ouest», in fact an andreion as it was proposed by S. Marinatos (Zografaki-Farnoux 2014,
Fig. 5.3-5.4)
133

one of the most prominent, and evidently influencial, the sanctuary of Voni permits to establish a firm link
persons at the court of Ptolemy VI Philometor in Alex- with Nea Paphos, as center of diffusion of the Hellenic
andria, already twenty years before he started to be in- ideology of the Ptolemies in Cyprus.
volved in the administration of Cyprus. His glorious
past as thearodokos of the Delphian theoroi in Alexandria
might have sealed his tenure and his behavior in Cy- The So-Called ‘Tombs Of The Kings’
prus from 145 B.C. onwards, since he was the most rec-
ommended person to the oracle of Delphi. Whereas the (a) Topography
Pythia occurred every four years, in the late Hellenistic Putting in order the field and the monuments known
period the Pythais revived, celebrated by Athenian citi- under the name of «Tombs of the Kings» in Nea Paphos
zens46. As the Pythais attested from 138/137 B.C., the is not an easy task, for we are still expecting the pub-
Stepterion was an enneateric feast in Delphi, too. If we lication of the architecture (Plan 2 and 1). At least, we
detract nine years from 157/156 B.C. we reach the date can use the annual Chronique des fouilles provided by
148/147 B.C. In case Seleucos celebrated the Stepterion for V. Karageorghis48. The recent and fruitful study of A.
a second time after 157/156 B.C., a few years before as- Greve gave a general reconstruction of the scattered to-
suming the strategia of Cyprus, he could well have been pography of the field. The Tombs were the object of the
represented in his costume of thearodokos in Cyprus in observations of L. Ross in 1845 and were taken into little
146/145 B.C., a date which seems reasonable to be the consideration by W. Dörpfeld and M. Ohnefalsch-Rich-
approximate date for the dedication of the official por- ter in 1890; afterwards E. Pottier, E. H. Gardner and
trait of Seleucus in Cyprus (Fig. 1). The statue E 513,
which must be his «mirror – image», cannot but be a
the Inscription House; 20) JHS 1888, no 82, for Polykrateia (?) daughter
portrait of his son Theodoros (Fig. 2)47. The choice for
of Theodoros, strategos ecc. And Olympias, his wife; 21) JHS 1888,
no 12a + no 45, for the son of Theodoros, strategos; 22) Unpublished,
46 The Pythais is an Athenian festival in honour of Apollo. After for Demonike daughter of Olympias from Kouklia, in the Inscription
un interruption during the 3rd c. B.C., the Athenians revived the House; 23) OGIS 145, for unknown strategos, nauarchos and archiereus;
festival in the 2nd c. B.C. Almost 1.000 citizens took part in the four for the strategia of Theodoros, Mitford 1953, pp. 163-164.
Pythaides known from the inscriptions in the years between 138/137 48 BCH 1978, p. 932; BCH 1979, pp. 715-717, p. 716, fig. 89-90-91:
and 98/97 B.C.; Tracy 1975, pp. 215-218; Karila-Cohen 2005, pp. 219-239. «tombe 1978/2»; BCH 1980, p. 794, fig. 88: «tombe 1978/2»; BCH 1981,
47 Mitford 1953, pp. 131-171: A. Coins and Papyri (P. Brux. E 7155, pp. 998-999, fig. 64: «façade d’un loculus décorée de triglyphes et
E 7156, 107/6 B.C., name Olympias daughter of Seleucos, priestess of de métopes = 1979/1»: «Des 18 inhumations fouillés jusqu’à présent,
Arsinoe Philopator, Polycrateia daughter of Theodoros as athlophoros seules trois de la période Hellénistique I ont été trouvées intactes.
of Berenice Euergetis); for the numismatic once more, ibid. pp. 167-168; Ces tombes avaient été taillées dans le sol de l’atrium et étaient
B. Inscriptions: 1) OGIS 150, from Delphi; 2) JHS 1888, no 11, Kouklia, recouvertes de débris architecturaux qui rendaient impossible le
Old Paphos, for Theodoros; 3) Unpublished, from the «Great Forum pillage. Le materiel funéraire en était identique. Chacune contenait
at Salamis», Temple of Zeus, for Seleucos strategos, nauarchos and deux amphores rhodiennes . . . D’après le materiel recueilli . . . ,
archiereus; 4) OGIS 151, from Olympia, for Seleucos, citizen of Rhodes, nous pouvons présumer que la plupart des façades des loculi étaient
strategos, nauarchos and archiereus; 5) Inscr. Creticae I, Lebena 33, for surmontées de frontons qui leur donnaient l’apparence de façades de
Seleucos, strategos, nauarchos and archiereus; 6) OGIS 152, for Seleucos, temple»; BCH 1982, pp. 736-737, fig. 109: «ensemble funéraire = 1979/1);
strategos, nauarchos and archiereus, from the sanctuary of Apollo BCH 1984 pp. 948-949, fig. 149, Tomb 1[9]83/1: «Le nouvelle ensemble
at Kourion; 7) JHS 1988, no 98 + no 108, for Seleucos, from Kouklia, funéraire se trouve du côté Nord de la Nécropole et consiste en un
Old Paphos; 8) OGIS 153, for Seleucos, from Knodhara, 14 miles NW dromos en escalier de 20 m de longeur, qui représente le plus long
of Salamis, in Turin; 9) Unpublished, Cyprus Museum, without dromos jamais fouillé à Chypre . . . Cet ensemble funérarire a été
provenance, for Theodoros, son of Seleucos, strategos, nauarchos and utilisé au début de la période hellénistique»; BCH 1985, pp. 944-945,
archiereus; 10) SEG VI 813, from Nea Paphos, lost for Theodoros, son of fig. 110 = 1983/1: «La fouille du tumulus qui se trouve à proximité de
Seleucos; 11) OGIS 155, for Theodoros, son of Seleucos, from Arsinoe, l’entrée actuelle de la nécropole a été poursuivie»; BCH 1987, p. 833,
in the Louvre; 12) OGIS 159, for Artemo, daughter of Seleucos, from fig. 71: «La tombe est accesible pr un dromos de 4,50 m de long et de
Nea Paphos; 13) OGIS 160, for Olympias, daughter of Artemo, daughter 1,50 de large, consistant en trois marches qui ménent à un atrium
of Seleucos, from Chytroi, lost; 14) OGIS 161, for Olympias, wife of rectangulaire de 4 X 3,60 m»; BCH 1988 pp. 682-683: «Les fouilles de
Theodoros, son of Seleucos, built into the Sea Gate at Famagusta; 15) 1986 ont été limitées à la partie Nord de la nécropole et ont améné la
JHS 1888, no 30, for Theodoros, for the daughter of Theodoros, son of découverte d’une chambre funéraire»; BCH 1989 (Papageorghiou), p.
Seleucos; 16) OGIS 158 + OGIS 156, for Theodoros strategos autokrator, 830, fig. 114-115 = 1988/1: «la fouille de 1988 a été limitée à la partie
nauarchos and archiereus, from Kouklia, Old Paphos; 17) JHS 1888, no centrale de la nécropole, à l’Ouest des grandes tombes à atrium à
12b, for Theodoros, strategos, nauarchos and archiereus, from Kouklia, peristyle . . . un enclos qui contenait un gran ensemble funéraire et . . .
Old Paphos; 18) OGIS 157, for Theodoros, strategos, nauarchos and trois tombes à fosse»; BCH 1990 (Papageorghiou) p. 972: «Une monnaie
archiereus, from Kouklia, Old Paphos, lost; 19) OGIS 162, for Olympias, en bronze de Ptolémée VI Philométôr permet de dater l’utilisation de
daughter of Theodoros, strategos ecc., from Kouklia, Old Paphos, in la tombe [BCH 1989, p. 830] de la première moitié du IIe s. avant J. –C.»;.
134

Plan 2. Nea Paphos. General topography of the field of the

«Tomb of the Kings» (Greve 2014).
135

D. G. Hogarth undertook a small scale research and B (Fig. 5a, 5c); 6) Nr. 5, Kat. N06 (14.80 m X 14.80 m =
made some designs. A first design of Tomb Nr. 4, Kat. 219 m2), hypogaeum with stepped dromos; on the South
N03, which has the priority in the historical lecture, was a chamber; on the other sides three loculi; C) Precinct
drawn by G. Jeffery in 1915. The systematical excava- C (Fig. 5b); 7) Tomb 1986/2, Kat. N07 (4.00 m X 3.60 m =
tions were undertaken by the Department of Antiquities 14.40 m2); hypogaeum with dromos; on the Western side
of Cyprus under the guidance of S. Hatzisavvas from an apsis with ca. 2.00 m radius; on the Eastern side a
1977 until 1997. An Australian team guided by G. Barker single loculus; on the Northern and Southern sides five
since 1997 is authorized to the complete publication49. loculi; 8) Nr. 6, Kat. N08 or 1983/1 (dimensions impos-
In the catalogue of A. Greve nine Tombs are included, sible to fix; ca. 30.00-40.00 m2), hypogaeum with stepped
which could be scheduled as follows, from South to dromos (length of 20.00 m) and peristylium; chamber with
North: 1) Nr. 2, Kat. N01 – Grab 1978/1 or 1978/2 (3.00 three loculi and a shaft grave; three more shaft graves
m X 3.30 m = 9.90 m2), hypogaeum with stepped dromos; in the inner court; 9) Tomb of ‘Palioeklisia’, Kat. N09, hy-
four loculi and three shaft graves – thekai; without peri- pogaeum with stepped dromos and central peristylium 4 X
stylium; A) Precinct A (Fig. 4a-4b); 2) Nr. 3, Kat. N02 (ca. 4; on the Western side a chamber with five loculi; on the
4.70 m X 4.80 = 22.56 m2), with peristylium 4 X 4 Doric Northern side a chamber with nine loculi.
columns and entablature; on the Western side there is
a chamber with five loculi and two arcosolia; on the East-
ern side a chamber, originally without graves; another (b) Architecture
chamber was added on the North-Eastern corner of Beside the characteristic funerary typology of the hy-
the peristylium (Fig. 15a, 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, 16e); 3) Nr. 4, pogaeum with peristilium, the only architectural element,
Kat. N03 (ca. 5.49 X 5.46 m = 29.97 m2), hypogaeum with which could offer some stable indications towards the
stepped dromos and peristylium 4 X 4: the Western side fixing of their chronology, is the shaft and the peculiar
does not present columns but pillars; the other three treatment of the fluting. The peristylium of the Tombs Nr.
sides have Doric columns (Fig. 15b); 4) Tomb 1979.1, Kat. 3-4, Kat. N02-N03, presents columns of the Doric order
N04 = Guide N. 8 (15.60 m X 13.00 m = ca. 140 m2; dimen- which cannot be called «plain» or «unfluted», since they
sions of the cube: 9.50 m X 6.50 m), without peristylium; a received a supplementary treatment in such a man-
massive cube surrounded by a profound shaft corridor ner to result what is called «facetted shaft», in French
in the form of a dyke occupies the center of the inner «fût à facettes» or «à cannelures plates» and in German
court; in the center of the cube there is the major shaft «Facettenschaft» (Fig. 16a-e)50. This means that after the
grave (Mnema O); all around the cube shaft graves are preliminary treatment of σφύρωσις or ὑποράβδωσις,
disposed, as follows: on the Western side, Mnema Π, Ρ, which characterizes the preparatory stage through the
Σ, Τ, Υ; on the Eastern side the following mnemata have process of διάξυσμα, the shaft has not been developed
been excavated: Ι, Θ, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ν, Ξ; at the South-Eastern as far to reach the form of the «polygonal column», what
corner of the perimetrical corridor thalamos I and II are is normally called in French «à pans», for the number of
opened; thalamos II presents six loculi with shaft graves: the «faces» did not overcome the number of 10, which is
Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε, Ζ; «Anhand der Amphoren (s. o) wird eine at any case inferior of the lower number for the fluted
Entstehung im 2. Jh. v. Chr. angenommen»: Greve 2014 shaft, 11. Otherwise, the fluted shaft of the doric order
(Plan 3 and Fig. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); 5) Tomb 1982/1, Kat. N05, has 16, 18, 20 (the normal type) and even 25 flutes. A sec-
hypogaeum with stepped dromos; a chamber with two loc- ond dating element is the well cutting necking – hypotra-
uli; far from any description, we possess also the ground chelion, which appears not only to be traced, some cen-
plans of Tomb 1982/2, Tomb 1982/3, Tomb 1982/4, Tomb timeters below the capital, but also well executed. This
1982/5, excavated in the same area as 1982/1; B) Precinct type of column is in effect dated, with a rare precision,
in similar patterns occurring in the buildings of Delos.
The most, properly said, strong example is the «Mai-
49 Ross 1866, pp. 411-413, p. 412: «Dies ist der allgemeine Plan, son de Cleopatra», which offers a terminus post quem, if
und hierin besteht die auffallende Aehnlichkeit mit den Gräbern bei
not a terminus ad quem: 139/138 B.C. (Fig. 17). The same
Jerusalem oder Nord Africa»; Plan IX; Inschriften, pp. 627-632; Pottier
1880, pp. 497-505; Gardner 1888, pp. 147-271; Hogarth 1889; Dörpfeld treatment, in a perfectly clear tracing, is repeated in the
– Ohnefalsch – Richter, AA 1890, p. 46: nothing published; AA 1891,
p. 91: Photos DAI, nos 85-91; Jefferey 1915, p. 167, Fig. 6-7; p. 168, Fig. 8;
SCE IV, 3 (1956), pp. 18-35, pp. 22-28; Hatzisavvas 1986, pp. 263-267. 50 Ginouvès 1992, pp. 75-76 and notes 146, 147, 148.
136

Plan 3. Nea Paphos, «Tombs of the Kings». Ground plan of the Tomb No 8 (Hatzisavvas 1985, p. 264, Fig. 2).
«Rhodian peristylium» of the «Maison des Masques» (Fig.

18), which is also to be dated soon after 140 B.C., within
de Dionysos», pp. 57-59 and Fig. 26; ibid., pp. 128-130 and Fig. 56, «Le
the years 140-130 B.C. The motive persists in the follow- fût est taillée entièrement à facettes, larges de 0 m. 10 à la base, au
ing decades and is attested once more, in a very elegant nombre de vingt. Il mesure de 5 m. 34 à 5 m. 41; ibid., p. 131 and Fig.
form, in the peristylium of the «Agora des Italiens» (Fig. 58: «profil du chapiteau»; chronology, pp. 72-73; «cours à peristyle»,
pp. 121-125; cf. «Maison des Masques», Chamonard 1933, pp. 9-11 and
19), which should have been built between 127/126 and
Fig. 2: «elles (les colonnes) sont tailleés à facettes du haut en bas du
112/111 B.C. Instead, we can observe a little later variation fût, bien que recouvertes d’une couche de stuc»; pp. 10-11: «On peut
of the column-decoration in the peristylium of the «Étab- donc penser que la maison datait, au plus tôt du milieu du IIe siècle . .
lissement des Poseidoniastes», which is firmly dated in . En assignant à la maison . . . la date de la première moitiè du IIe siè-
cle»; «Établissement des Poséidoniastes», Picard 1921, pp. 33-43, p. 36:
110/109 B.C. In that case, the shaft of the columns is only
«L’aspect de la petite cour . . . elles étaient taillées à facettes presque
up to the lower middle of the column facetted, whereas jusqu’à l’hypotrachelion»; ibid., p. 37 and Fig. 29; chronology, pp. 131-
the upper middle is fluted51. There cannot be doubt that 132: post 110-109 B.C.; Chamonard 1924, pp. 248-255: «Quels type de
colonnes rencontrons-nous le plus fréquement?»: «Le plus répandu
est celui de la colonne enveloppée et taillé à pans, quelquefois sur un
51 «Maison II A = Maison du Trident», Chamonard 1922, pp. peu plus de la moitié de sa hauteur (1m. 96 sur 3 m. 85 dans les maison
26-29 and Fig. 7; «Maison III 1= Maison de Cleopatra», pp. 39-41 des Dauphins et de la Colline»; «Agora des Italiens», Lapalus 1939, pp.
and Fig. 14; ibid, p. 218: «la dedicace des statues de Cléopatra et de 14-16 and Fig. 10: «La colonne est taillée à facettes, mais, à la base, et
Dioscouridès», in 138/7 B.C.; p. 219 and Fig. 95; «Maison VI =Maison sur une hauteur de 0 m. 04, elle présente une amorce de cannellures
137

Fig. 15a. «Tombs of the Kings». Ground plan of Tomb No 2 (drawing

by E. Markou, Department of Antiquities of Cyprus): around 130-
110 B.C.
Fig. 15b. «Tombs of the Kings». Ground plan and sections of Tomb
No 3 (drawing by E. Markou, Department of Antiquities of Cyprus):
130-120 B.C.
138

16a 16b
16c 16d
16e
Figs. 16a, b, c, d, e. «Tombs of the Kings». Tomb No 3, hypogaeum with Fig. 17. Delos. «Quartier du Théâtre». «Maison de Cleopatre», 139/138 B.C.
central Doric peristilium and loculi; possibly the familiar tomb of the strat-
egos Seleucos, son of Bithys (131 B.C.); look at (e) the well cutting necking
– hypotrachelion at the bottom of the echinus.
139

Fig. 18. Delos, «Quartier du Théâtre», «Maison des Masques», to be dated Fig. 19. Delos. «Agora des Italiens»; north stoa of the peristylium. The
within the years 140-130 B.C. Agora was built between 127/126 and 112/111 B.C.
this particular treatment is different from what we have (c) The Rhodian stamped handles
at disposal in Alexandria in the four tombs of Mustapha G. Barker, when publishing the Rhodian amphorae
Pasha. H. Lauter has correctly interpreted the features found intact or almost intact, a total of 23 amphorae,
of the original architectural style in Alexandria, on the unfortunately did not connect them to the single tombs
grounds of the perfection by carrying out the work at and the burials within the tombs, by giving the ground
the edges. And C. Börker had already moved towards plan of the single tombs as well the general ground
a first description of the chronological transition from plan of the Tombs53. He preferred to give a catalogue
the middle fluted shaft to the facetted shaft52. Thus, any of 23 stamped handles, which did not respond to the
attempt to assign a date to the tombs Nos 2-3 of Nea Pa- criterion of a chronological table. The evidence of the
phos has to take into consideration that they are raised handles cannot be easily used for a study aiming to es-
in the second half of the 2nd c. B.C., and not at all in the tablish quantities in quarters of centuries. On the other
3rd c. B.C., even at the end, as it is often speculated. hand, there is the urgent necessity to reappraise their
chronological span, as regards the upper and the lower
limits. The handles must be rather considered from the
beginning of their appearance until the end and only
the later handles could provide a terminus post quem for
(Pl. VII, 4)»; chronology, ibid., pp. 97-98.
52 Börker 1971, pp. 38-42: «Kehren wir bun zu den facettierten the tombs in any burial. I shall use the numbering of the
Säulenschaften zurück, so begegnet uns im 2. Jh. V. Chr. eine stattliche Tombs by K. Greve for the findings of Rhodian stamped
Anzahl von Beispielen»: Attalos-Stoa in Athen; Peristylsäulem im handles registered by G. Barker, by starting with Tomb
Heroon von Kalydon . . . An den Säulen der ‘Maison de la Colline’,
1979/1, Kat. No 4. This «einzigartig» Tomb, with respect
der ‘Maison des Dauphins’ und des Hauses II B im Theaterviertel
erstreckt sich die Facettierung auf die untere Hälfte oder etwas to his architectural typology suggesting a mausoleum,
darüber hinaus, auf zwei Fünftel beim Haus der Poseidoniasten,
der ‘Maison du Trident’ und beim Isis-Tempel . . . Dasselbe gilt
für die Säulen der im letzten Jahrzehnt des 2. Jhs. begonnenen 53 Most of the amphorae were found deposited in twin
Italiker-Agora, die in voller Schafthöhe facettiert sind und nur am combination, for this burial custom indicated a worship of the
Fuß und am Kapitellhals Kannelurenansätze zeigen. Auch diese Dioscuri, in their quality of protectors of the sailors and the
fehlen schließlich in den Häusern III I und III J im Theaterviertel, navigation; cf. Winther – Jacobsen 2015, pp. 481-493; Michaelides 1990,
im Haus der Masken und im Haus des Hermes, während im Haus pp. 187-194; Barker 2004, pp. 73-84; Barker & Merryweather 2002, pp.
des Dionysos ein kurzes Halsstück kanneliert ist . . . In Kleinasien 109-116; but see Papachatzis 1976, pp. 348-349 and Fig. 364-365: the
. . ., aus dem die meisten Beispiele für facettierte Säulen des 2. Jhs. votiv relief to the Dioscuri by Argenidas son of Aristogenidas and the
stammen»; ibid., p. 45: «Ganz facettierte Säule besitzt das auf 95/94 v. coin from Sparta on which a pair of amphorae entwined with snakes
Chr. datierte Propylon am Kynthion auf Delos». represents the Twins Dioscuri.
140

produced four Rhodian amphorae, two from Mnema B.C.; Amphora Two (Tomb 1988/1), bearing the name of
Π/1-2 (Nos 1-2) and two amphorae from Mnema Ι/1-2 (Nos the same fabricant Nanis and the name of the eponyme
3-4): 1) Amphora Nine: The fabricant is Drakontidas and Timourrodos, son of Panames, dates to c. 159/158 or
the eponym priest of Helios is Nikasagoras II, who both 158/157 B.C.; Amphora Twenty (Tomb 1989/1 ar. 89) is
date this amphora ca. 131 B.C.; 2) Amphora Ten: The fab- stamped with the name of the fabricant Nikias and the
ricant is Eykleitos and the eponym priest Andronikos, eponym Pausanias III, dating it to c. 152 B.C. Ampho-
son of Karnieus, who both date the amphora to c. 132 rae 5+6: Amphora Five (Tomb 1983/1) is dated between
B.C.; 3) Amphora Eleven: The fabricant is Ariston and 141/140 and 138/137 B.C. by the names of the fabricant
the eponym priest is Archidamos, son of Hyakinthios Midas and the eponym Anaxiboulos. Amphora Six, in
and they both date the amphora to c. 180/179 B.C.; 4) Am- the same Tomb is to be dated from the fabricant Diodo-
phora Twelve: the fabricant is Marsyas and the name of tos II and the eponym Andronikos to c. 132 B.C. This
the eponym priest of Helios is Kallikratidas, and, there- means that in the same burial there is an upper and a
fore, the amphora is dated to c. 175/173 B.C. Hence, the lower limit and the lower dates the burial. A difference
corridor around the cube was strictly cut after 175/173 of ten years is conceivable. Amphora Twenty-One (No
B.C., since the amphora dated to 180/179 B.C. confirms Inv. Number) is dated only by the eponym Timotheos to
the use of earlier Rhodian amphorae in a later context. c. 128 B.C. Amphorae 13+14: Amphora Thirteen (Tomb
This date constitutes a terminus post quem and not a ter- 1996 T.1/1) has the name of fabricant Rhodon II and the
minus ad quem, which might be deemed in connection name of the eponym Timagora, son of Artamitios, dat-
with the date 132 B.C., as a terminus ante quem. The Tomb ing it to c. 124-120 B.C. Amphora Fourteen (Tomb 1996
1979 was built in the span of time between 173 and 132 T.1/2) presents the fabricant Aphrodisios III and the
B.C., without having at hand a determinant clue for the eponym Hieron II, son of Agrianios, to be dated to c.
original date, for which we have to give a look at further 121 B.C. Amphora Eighteen (Tomb 1988/2 Pyre 1.5-20
evidence. At any rate, we can proceed to a rearrange- M) bears the stamp of the fabricant Herakleon and the
ment of the catalogue of G. Barker as follows: Amphora eponym Naysippos, to be dated to c. 113 B.C. By epit-
Nineteen (Tomb 1988/2 NW corner) constitutes the omizing, Amphora A19 indicates a burial at the very
earliest evidence, bearing the stamps of the fabricant end of the 3rd c. B.C., if not at the beginning of the 2nd
Aristomenes and the eponym Aristonidas, who date c. B.C. Amphorae A3 and A4 permit to fix a date for a
it to c. 222 B.C. Amphorae 3+4: Amphora Three (Tomb first burial post 184 B.C., whereas Amphorae A15, A16,
1985, Peribolos Γ. Tomb 17), has the name of the fabri- A17 descend until post 165/163 B.C., a date confirmed
cant Nikagis and the name of the eponym Timasagoras, by Amphorae A7 and A8, dated to 162 B.C. Amphorae
son of Diosthiou, dating it to c. 184 B.C.; Amphora Four A1 and A2 suggest a date for a burial post 158/157 B.C.
(Tomb 1985, Peribolos Γ. Tomb 17), represents the name The burial with Amphorae A5 and A6 seems to belong
of the fabricant Nikagis and Timasagoras, dating it to to the years immediately after 132 B.C. From Amphora
c. 184 B.C., as well. Amphorae 15+16+17: Amphora Fif- A21, dating to post 128 B.C., until the burial of the Am-
teen (Tomb 1977 T. 11/1), Amphora Sixteen (Tomb 1977 phorae A13 and A14, to be placed soon after 120 B.C.,
T. 11/2) and Amphora Seventeen (Tomb 1977. T. 11/3) we cover the years 130-120 B.C. Amphora A18 provides
belong to the same burial. Amphora Fifteen is dated another terminus post quem, after 113 B.C.54 The field of
by the fabricant Marsyas and the eponym Agemachos
to c. 181/179 B.C., but the burial is dated through Am- 54 Barker 2002, p. 76: «The use of the readable Rhodian stamps
phora Sixteen, under the name of the fabricant Nikasion found at the ‘Tombs of the Kings’ site date in the second century BC,
and the eponym Archilaidas, son of Dalios, thus after in particular to Periods III and V (Table 2) . . . The ‘Tombs of the Kings’
saw its greatest period of activity in the second half of the second
165/163 B.C. Amphorae 7+8: Amphora Seven (Tomb TK
century BC, when the large peristyle tombs were being constructed
1999. T. 98) has as fabricant Amyntas and as eponym in imitation of the Alexandrian models»; cf. Hatzisavvas 1985, p.
Xenophon, son of Hyakinthios, dating it to 164-162 B.C. 266: «Preliminary study of the material discovered so far indicates
Amphora Eight (Tomb TK 1999, T. 98), in fact from the that the earliest use of the cemetery dates to the 3rd century B.C.
as indicated by finds from different tombs. Unfortunately all coins
same burial, is dated by the fabricant Marsyas and the
were recovered from unstratified debris but Rhodian amphorae (Pl.
eponym Athanadoros to c. 170/168 B.C. Amphorae 1+2: XXIII: 3), early unguentaria, clay lamps and other pottery could be
Amphora One (Tomb 1988/1), under the name of the fab- contributed to the 3rd century B.C. . . . No doubt the large atrium
ricant Nanis and the eponym Peisistratos dates to c. 160 type tombs were used for the burial of Ptolemaic officials and even
the Governors themselves». This last remark is in fair contadiction
141

the ‘Tombs of the Kings’ seems, therefore, to have been

opened in the years of the strategoi Pelops (217-203 B.C.)
and Polycrates (203-197 B.C.), though there is not clear
evidence for any monumental tombs reaching back at
this period: None of the twin amphorae apparently con-
cern the Tombs – hypogaea with Doric peristylium. The
necropolis might be in frequent use during the strategia
of Ptolemaios, son of Agesarchos (196-180 B.C.) and have
received major attention under the strategos Ptolemy
Macron (180-168 B.C.). It is under the strategoi Archias
(163-158 B.C.) and Xenophon (?) (158-152 B.C.), that some
single burials might have been arranged. Nevertheless,
it is only in the period of the strategos Andromachos (?)
(152-145 B.C.), tutor of Ptolemy Eupator, but mainly at
the time of the strategos Seleucos (144-131 B.C.), that the
monumental tombs might have been raised, first of all,
the mausoleum and afterwards, the most well preserved Fig. 20. The two «falcons», in fact eagles, found during the digging of the
hypogaea with peristylium. This activity continued dur- dyke of Tomb No 8 (1979/1) (Hatzisavvas, Guide).
ing the strategia of Krokos (130-124 B.C.) and Theodoros,
son of Seleucos (123-118 B.C.). The final stage of burials is
the first strategia of Helenos (118-117 B.C.) and the strate- House of Ptolemies when the power was divided within
giai of the brothers Ptolemy IX Soter II (117-116 B.C.) and the members of the royal family. The main argument
Ptolemy X Alexander II (116-114 B.C.). It is impossible, in favor of the political signification is that the two ea-
not to include the period of the second strategia of Hele- gles appear always, and almost exclusively, during the
nos (114-106 B.C.), for we have the fabricant of 113 B.C., period of effectively proved co-regency of Ptolemies.
Herakleon. W. Otto argued convincingly in 1934 that the two-ea-
gle coins does sign the rule of two kings55. There are
thirteen periods and cases of co-regency in the history
(d) The two eagles from Tomb 1979/1
of the Ptolemies56: With the exception of Ptolemy I and
A major question is raised over the finding of two Ptolemy II, whose co-regency was established shortly
over-life size eagles among other scattered architec- before the death of Ptolemy I in 285 B.C., and the pe-
tural members from Tomb 1979/1 (Fig. 20). In fact, the riod of co-regency between Ptolemy IV Philopator and
most significant findings, in order to discover the iden- the child Ptolemy V Epiphanes in 209-204 B.C., in all the
tity of the main burial, are the two eagles of calcaren- eleven cases co-regencies produced, indeed, two-eagle
ite, though without the heads. Sometimes mistakenly coins (Fig. 21, 22, 23, Plates). When Ptolemy II estab-
taken for falcons, they represent eagles. Their placement lished the co-regency with Ptolemy III Euergetes shortly
at the entrance of the principal loculus, the only one in after 267 B.C., the issue of two-eagle large bronze coins
the interior of the cube, is very probable, as they could having 15 control marks started (Svoronos, Nos 413, 422).
have flanked the access to the staircase, which is dec- There are some doubts for the co-regency of Ptolemy V
orated with a Doric entablature in relief (Fig. 11). The Epiphanes and Ptolemy VI Philometor in 181 B.C., but
most determinant historical evidence to be linked with there is abundant evidence for Cleopatra I and Ptolemy
the eagles is the study on the co-regency. A lot of ink VI Philometor in 180-176 B.C. (Svoronos, Nos 1377, 1380,
has been spilled over whether the two eagles on the 1383) and there is evidence even in the exceptional case
Ptolemaic coins represent a denomination’s value or
they had a political meaning and a royal symbolism,
55 Otto 1934, pp. 58-59.
which would signify those periods of co-regency in the 56 Pincock 2008; The egyptian co-regences are reviewed by
Murnane 1977, pp. 94-104; for the Ptolemies, ibid. pp. 94-104; on
with the the so-called earlier period of activity in the necropolis, Ptolemy VI Philometor and his coregents, Will 1979, pp. 360-364, pp.
since it seems that S. Hatzisavvas has correctly in mind the strategoi 425-432; on the coregency of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VII
Seleucos and Theodoros; cf. Guimiers – Sorbet & Michaelides 2009. Eupator, Hölbl 1994, pp. 157-169; Huß 2001.
142

Fig. 21. Coins of the period of co-regency of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (170-164 B.C.), Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Cleopatra II,
Cleopatra III (145-132 B.C., 124-116 B.C.) (Svoronos 1904, Pl. 48a, Nos 8-14 Lorber).
of the disputed co-regency of Ptolemy VI and Antiochos

IV Epiphanes (Svoronos, Nos 1422, 1430). The co-regency
assumed a special significance during the period of
Ptolemy VI Philometor: Ptolemy VI Philometor ruled
together with Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II from 170
to 164 B.C., and their common kingship produced coins
of two-eagles, as well in the period of common king-
ship of Ptolemy VI with only Cleopatra II in 170-164 B.C.
and the troubled period of co-regency of Ptolemy VIII
and Cleopatra II with Cleopatra II, two times, between
145-132 and 124-116 B.C. (Svoronos, Nos 1423-1428). The
issues of two-eagle coins become frequent during the
co-regency of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX Soter II in
116-107 B.C. and were repeated during the period of
Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Alexander II (Svoronos, Nos
1694-1703, 1704 = 1158, 1707-1710, 1712-1713)57. There is no
evidence in the coinage of the co-regency of Ptolemy VI
and Ptolemy Eupator. But this absence is only an argu-
Fig. 22. Coins of the period of co-regency in 168 B.C. of Ptolemy VI Phi-
mentum ex silentio, since the co-regency is ascertained in lometor and Antiochos IV Epipahnes (Svoronos 1904, Pl. 47a, Nos 9-10
the monuments in Egypt: (a) There are three lines of a Lorber).
57 Svoronos 1904, II-III: no 463, Pl. XVII, 5 (263 B.C.); no 464, Pl. text inscribed on the propylon of temple of Mut at Kar-
XVII, 6 (263 B.C.); no 437, Pl. XVII, 7 (267 B.C.); Sidon: No 758 (a), Pl. nak, mentioning Eupator as king; (b) Ptolemy Eupator
XXII, 9; Nos 758 (b) + 758 (c), Pl. XXII, 10-11; Gaza, No 834, Pl. XXIV, is mentioned, accompanied by earlier Ptolemaic kings,
13; Ptolemy VI Philometor, No 1380, Pl. XLVII, 9; No 1383, Pl. XLVII,
on the columns of the entrance to temple of his father at
10; No 1423, Pl. XLVIII, 8; No 1424, Pl. XLVIII, 9, 10, 11; Nos 1425-1426,
Pl. XLVIII, 12, 14; No 1430, Pl. XLVIII, 13; Ptolemy IX Soter II, Nos Dakka; (c) there survives a pedestal of granit, presum-
1707-1708-1709-1710-1712-1713-1714, Pl. LVIII, 11-22, 24-29; Ptolemy XII ably from the temple of Philae, that one supported statues
Auletes: Nos 1842-1843-1844, Pl. LXI, 27-28-29; Cleopatra VII, Cyprus: of Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy Eupator and Cleopatra II.
Nos 1876-1877, Pl. LXII, 28, 29; No 1874, Pl. LXII, 26, Cleopatra bearing
What we do not know is the position of Cyprus in the
the baby Caesarion.
143

Fig. 23. Coins of the period of co-regency of Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros (116-107 B.C.) and Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X Alexander II (107-
89 B.C.) (Svoronos 1904, Pl. 58a, Nos 11-12-13-14-15; Pl. 58b, Nos 16-31 Lorber).
144

co-regency58. In the sequence of the Ptolemaic co-re-

gencies there is the latest case, which gave to Svoronos
the opportunity to establish the particular link with
Cyprus, when the two-eagles are depicted (Fig. 24, 25
Plates). A solid example is given by the coins of Cleopa-
tra VII and her son Caesarion that cannot but repeat an
earlier model of coinage going back to the short period
of co-regency of Ptolemy II Philadelphos and Ptolemy
«the son» III Euergetes. But the example of Cleopatra I,
first queen to use two eagles to symbolize co-regency
with her son, is more pertinent. Svoronos attributed four
types of coins to Cleopatra VII and considered them
to represent her co-regency with Caesarion (Fig. 28,
Plates)59. His attribution in the discussion volume was
based on the presence of the Cyprus monogram on Type
1 and Type 3, but he is who erroneously, in the text, as-
signed tetradrachms of Cleopatra VII with an Isis crown
symbol to her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes (Svoronos, Nos
1815-1835 and Plates), thus to Egypt and not to Cyprus.
In 47 B.C. C. Iulius Caesar reestablished Cleopatra VII
as queen of Egypt, by restituting Cyprus to the crown of
Ptolemies, once Roman province from 58 B.C. The large
Cypriot bronze coins showing Caesarion as a baby are
dated to 47 B.C., shortly after his birth. Thus, Types 3 and
4 Svoronos must be dated, according to R. Pincock to 44
B.C., when Caesarion was established co-regent. Year 44
B.C. seems to be the date for the reintroduction of the
two-eagle types (Type 3), whereas the last coins (Type 4)
should be dated near the time of death of Cleopatra and
Caesarion in 30 B.C. The attribution made by Svoronos
in 1904 and 1908 was new one, as this was denied in the
previous works of Pool in 1883 and Strack in 1897. First
criticized by Regling in 1906 and Head in 1910, the attri-
bution has been rejected by M. Thompson, I. Nicolaou
and D. H. Cox60. Nevertheless, I. Nicolaou hit the impor-
Fig. 24. A complete serie of the coinage of Cleopatra VII. No 5 represents

58 Murnane 1977, pp. 98-99 and notes nos 273-275. Cleopatra bearing in her bossom Caesarion. Ptolemy XV Philopator Phi-
59 Dio Cassius 47, 31, 5: The obverse of each Type presents lometor Caesar, born on June 23, 47 B.C., reigned jointly with his mother
a head of Zeus Ammon, facing right; on the reverse, the legend, Cleopatra VII from September 24, 48 B.C. (from Pincock 2008).
ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, is never complete; Svoronos 1904,
Type 1: Sv. 1875, pl. LXII, 27; Reverse: One eagle, facing left; Under
the eagle’s right wing, a palm; in field right the monogram ΚΠΡ,
upright; Type 2: Sv. 1876-1877 (Paris, Berlin), pl. LXII, 28-29; Reverse:
tance of the Type 1, as she thought that this expressed
Two eagles, facing left; Type 3: Sv. 1842, pl. LXI, 27-28; Reverse: Two an independent from Egypt kingdom of Cyprus, thus
eagles, facing left; in the field, on left, Isis crown, with monogram opting for Ptolemy Cypriot, the last king of Cyprus dead
ΚΠΡ, rotated 90o clockwise; Type 4: Sv. 1843, pl. LXI, 29; Reverse: Two in 58 B.C. Cox did not propose any specific co-regent.
eagles, facing left, in the field, left, Isis crown, without monogram; cf.
Pincock 2008, Table 1, Plate 1, nos 1-4.
60 For Cyprus and the coins of Cleopatra VII and Caesa- sovereignty seems fanciful, seeing that it occurs not infrequently at
rion, Pool 1883, p. lxxxiii; Strack 1897, pp. 21-22; Regling 1906, 344- other times»; Thompson 1951, pp. 355-367: «the interpretation of the
399 = in Svoronos IV, col. 455-513, col. 509; Head 1910, pp. 856-857: [two-eagle] type as symbolic of joint sovereignty is unconvincing»;
«the interpretation of the [two-eagle] type as a symbol of divided Nicolaou 1990, p. 115; Cox 1956.
145

What is important here is that the co-regency with the

two-eagle coins of Cleopatra VII regards the kingdom of
Egypt and Cyprus, as may be the case of Ptolemy VI and
Ptolemy Eupator, too. Whether as «divided kingdom» or
more probably as a kingdom under the «undivided sov-
ereignty» of two distinct possessions, this is a question
to remain open. In any case, the assumption that pre-
fers for the two-eagle representation a denomination’s
value of the issue, rather than a symbol of co-regency,
must be categorically excluded. R. Pincock has convinc-
ingly demonstrated it, by reviewing the Ptolemaic coins
with three eagles, one of the eagles with a royal crown
(Svoronos, No 1695, attributed to the time of Cleopatra
II with Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX, shortly before 116
B.C.)61. This triple regency is mentioned in a demotic pa-
pyrus (P. Rylands dem. III, 20) dated to October 116 B.C.,
indicating a contract with the protocol «Year 2, Phaothi
9 (?) (29 October 116) of the Queen Cleopatra and the
Queen Cleopatra and the king Ptolemy, their son». The
symbolism is accentuated by the subordinate position
of Ptolemy IX represented through the small eagle,
whereas the two large eagles represent the two Queens.
Ptolemy Theos Eupator

He was born probably on 12th Thoth year 16, corre-
sponding to 15 October 166 B.C., as son of Ptolemy VI
Philometor and Cleopatra II62. Ptolemy Eupator was
elected eponymous priest of the dynastic cult for the
year 24 = 158/157 B.C.63. The main problem is whether
Eupator was really coregent with Ptolemy VI or this is
just a compelling speculation. The P. Köln III, 144, from
61 Pincock 2008, p. 16 and notes 71, 77.

62 For his parents OGIS 125: Βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον, θεὸν
Εὐπάτορα, | τὸν ἐγ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης |
Κλεοπάτρας, θεῶν Φιλομητόρων, | - - - - - -; cf. OGIS 126: βασιλέα
Πτολεμαῖον, | θεὸν Εὐπάτορα, | - - - - - Ἀφροδίτηι; Ray 1976; cf.
Ray 1978, p. 113: on the text Arch. dem. Hor Text 5, which is dated
on 30th Phaothi year 16 = 2 December 166, is mentioned the birth of
a son, probably of Ptolemy VI Philometor. The son is called as the
«confirmation of the fortune»; Cf. Ray 1976, pp. 20-28: The text Arch.
dem. Hor Text 3 = 23 (w) might have been composed for Eupator’s 8th
birthday; cf. Whitehorn 1994, on the grounds of Arch. dem. Hor Text 1,
places the birth of Eupator in 169/168 B.C., more precisely in October
169 B.C. For the P. Köln, Kramer – Erler – Hagedorn – Hübner 1980,
VII, 3, p. 144; for the P. dem. Rylands, Roberts – Turner 1952, p. 16.
63 P. dem. Cairo II 30606 [Spiegelberg 1906-1908]; P. dem. ActaOri-
Fig. 25. Types 1-4 of the coins attributed by Svoronos to the co-regency of entalia AcHung 25, 1960, pp. 281-283 [A. F. Shore – H. S. Smith]; P. dem.
Cleopatra VII with Caesarion; the schema is refered to the plate of Fig. 24 Brit. Mus. 10561 [Glanville 1939]; Minas 2000, p. 142 and note 546; p.
(from Pincock 2008). 160 and note 621.
146

the Arsinoites nomos, which is dated on 7th Tybi year 29 strongly recommend not only the allegiance of Eupator
corresponding to 3rd February 152 B.C. does not men- to the Ptolemaic throne but a specific kingship carried
tion Eupator and this may be the last absence of Eupa- out in Cyprus, though we cannot speak properly of an
tor from the sequence of the eponymous priesthood of «independent king of Cyprus». The co-regency of Eupa-
Alexander and the Ptolemies. The P. dem. Rylands III, tor with Philometor until 152 B.C. and soon afterwards
16 (Griffith 1909) = P. Eheverträge 36 and 88 [Lüddekens the independent kingship of Eupator in Cyprus was the
1960], which is dated probably on 8th Phamenoth year 29, proposal of W. Otto, which provoked the right reaction
corresponding to 5th April 152 B.C., presents the name of of G. Hill67. To clarify this point, I should underline the
Eupator to be last in the sequence of the dynastic cult position of T. Mitford on the controversy relying upon
and morever he is called Theos. W. Otto commented that inscriptions No 38 and No 39 from the sanctuary of
«hier wird ‘der König Ptolemaios Gott Eupator’ neben Apollo Hylates at Kourion: No 38 concerns Ptolemy VI
Philometor und Kleopatra II genannt». This would Philometor and No 39 the son, Ptolemy Eupator. Phras-
mean that Eupator was made coregent with his father ing, extent of erasure and the occurrence in both texts
in between February and April 152 B.C. He would re- of the version ἐγ indicate two complementary statues
main on the throne only for few months, according to that stood on separate pedestals, but side by side. This
E. Van’t Dack, W. Huß and M. Minas, because the next is the case of the statues of Ptolemy Philometor and
mentioning of Eupator in P. dem. Tor. Botti 5 (Botti 1967), Ptolemy Eupator found in Palaipaphos, where the two
dated on 6th Mesori year 29, corresponding on 31st Au- statues were placed on juxtaposed blocks, forming a
gust 152 B.C., does not put Eupator after the Theoi Phi- single pedestal with a single inscription (OGIS, no 126
lometores but immediately before them, which would be + JHS 1888, no 70 = BSA 1961, no 56). The reason of this
a proof of his death64. However, this assumption, which disposition cannot be but the co-regency in Cyprus.
became an immovable dogma, seems to be wrong, since Otherwise, it is not easily explained why Ptolemy Eu-
the same sequence appears in OGIS, no 111, where the pator is explicitly called Basileus and Theos in two out of
sons of Ptolemy VI are still in life65. Once more, it is true the three Cypriot inscriptions mentioning him (OGIS,
that the coin hoard found in Nea Paphos, which con- nos 126-127, IK, no 39). Correctly, T. Mitford, following
tains coins attributed to years 29, 30 and 31 of Ptolemy at this point W. Otto, thought that «as early as April,
VI66, thus between 153/152 and 151/150 B.C., when Eupa- 152, he was sharing his father’s throne; in January, 150
tor would have been adhered to the kingship, according he was seemingly no longer associated with his father;
to W. Otto, does not present any reference to Ptolemy by July of that year he was dead». As I have stated, W.
Eupator. But there is the epigraphy from Cyprus to Otto was convinced that Ptolemy Eupator exchanged in
April 152 B.C. the share of the throne of Egypt for the
64 Minas 2000, p. 142 and note 549: «P. dem. Tor. Botti 5 vom 31. undivided sovereignty of Cyprus, since «nur der junge
August 152 ist der früheste Papyrus, den der Gott Eupator im Titel König und nicht sein Vater genannt ist»68. T. B. Mitford
des Alexanders-Priesters vor den Theoi Philometores nennt. Demnach
was more pertinent on the status of Eupator in Cyprus
ist Eupator vor dem 31. August 152 gestorben»; Huss 2001, p. 577 and
note 317: «In Dokumenten der Jahren 153/152 wurde er zum einen
nicht mehr in der Datierung genannt, und erschien zum anderen
sein Kulttitel in der Reihe der vergöttlichen Ptolemäer vor dem seinen 67 Otto 1934, p. 9 and note 9, pp. 119-122; «Für den April 152 v. Chr.
Eltern – mit anderen Worten: Ptolemaios Eupator war zur Zeit der ist uns Eupator durch die Datierung auch nach ihm als wenigstens
Abfassung dieser Dokumente tot»; cf. P. dem. Hamb. 1 [Meyer 1911] nomineller Mitregent bezeugt, dem. P. Rylands III 16»; p. 10, Anm. 1:
(on 31th October 151), P. dem. Berlin 3097 + 3070 [Spiegelberg 1902, pp. «wird er doch auf ihnen [Inschriften von Zypern] ganz allein, ohne
9-10 = Berlin Staatlichen Museen] (on 31th Januar 150), Urkunde aus seine Eltern, gleichsam, als d e r für Kypern in Betracht kommende
Ptolemäischer Zeit II 174 (on 18th April 150); cf., ibid. p. 576 and note 318: βασιλεύς genannt»; cf. Hill 1949, pp. 193-194 and note 3; cf. Huß 2001,
«Nach dem Tod Ptolemaios’ VI. ist man teilweise zu den Reihenfolge p. 577 and notes 317-319.
Philometores – Eupator zurück»; Van’t Dack 1983, pp. 103-115; but see 68 Otto 1934, p. 120: «Aus der Tatsache, daß in ihnen [Inschriften]
Ray 1978, Arch. dem. Hor Text 29, l. 2: «year [2?] which makes year 30». nur der junge König und nicht auch sein Vater genannt ist,
65 OGIS, No 111 (nunc est Parisiis, Louvre): l. 2: καὶ τοῖς τούτων obwohl man diesen, wenn sie zusammen regierten, neben dem
τέκνοις; ll. 22-24: τῶν [καὶ θεῶν Φιλοπατό]ρων | καὶ θεῶν Ἐπιφανῶν Sohn erwarten müßte, muß man folgern, daß bei Errichtung der
καὶ θεοῦ Εὐπάτορος | καὶ θεῶν Φιλομ[η]τόρων; cf. OGIS, No 110 Inschriften eine gemeinsame Regierung von Vater und Sohn nicht
(from Thera): θεοῖς Φιλομήτορσι, καὶ τῷ υἱῶι] | αὐτῶν [Π]τολεμαίωι mehr bestanden haben kann, und daß damals der Vater sogar auch
καὶ θεοῖς Ἐ[πιφανέσιν - - - ]. nicht mehr Herrscher von Zypern gewesen sein kann.Eupator ist also
66 Nicolaou – Mørkholm 1976, p. 29, nos 21-27, coins from Salamis; nach dem April 152 v. Chr., in dem er noch als Mitregent erscheint
p. 40, with comments; p. 52, nos 11-14, coins from Citium; pp. 61-63, unter Niederlegung der Mitregentschaft über das Ägyptische Reich
commentary. selbstständiger Herrscher von Kypern geworden».
147

when he commented «We now see that Philometor and This conclusion could find support to P. Oxy. XI, 2222,
Eupator were recognized in the island as co-regents of a fragmentary king list of the Ptolemies in which there
the united realm»69. The puzzling question is reinforced is the reference «to a [son] of a Philometor]» reigning
by an epigram composed by Antipatros of Sidon (ca 140- presumably for 2 years73. After that, there follows the
130 B.C.) and quoted in the Anthologia Palatina (VII 241)70. mention of a «Ptolemy the younger son» and the refer-
The epigram refers to the death of a young Ptolemy be- ence of 36 years74, which fits apparently with the year of
fore the death of his parents. It apparently mentions Eu- the succession of Ptolemy VI Philometor by his brother
pator’s death. Eupator is called wanax, a proper title for Ptolemy VIII Physkon in 145 B.C. The list is concluded
the Cypriot kings or better for «the sons of the king»71. with Ptolemy X Soter II: this safely permits to maintain
The epigram describes how the death took place during the series of the kings from Ptolemy VI to Ptolemy IX75.
a lunar eclipse. L. Pareti, C. Cichorius and W. Otto in
pointing out that there were three total lunar eclipses Nun wird bei Polybios XXXIII 8, 4 unter dem Jahre 154 ein gerade
visible from Cyprus (2nd September 153, 3rd July 150 and als Vertrauensmanns der Königs Philometor von diesem nach Rom
geschickter Ἀνδρόμαχος erwähnt . . . In ihm werden wir dann wohl
28th December 150 B.C.) opted for a date for the death of
mit nicht geringer Wahrscheinlichkeit den Erzieher des Prinzen
Eupator in January 150 B.C., as it is evident in P. Berlin Ptolemaios wiedererkennen dürfen»; ibid. p. 215: «vgl. Ginzel, spez.
3097 + 3070 which does not mention Eupator, thus ex- Canon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse S. 142»; Otto 1934, p. 10,
pressing the belief that Eupator was sent from Alexan- Anm. 1 (p. 9); P. Berlin 3097 + 3070: «da dieser – abgesehen davon, das
er damals aus der datierung verscwunden sei – in der Aufzählung der
dria to rule as king of Cyprus between 152 and 150 B.C.72
Alexander dem Grossen in Alexandrien angegliederten Ptolemäer v
o r seinen Eltern im Anschluß an die V e r s t o r b e n e n genannt
69 Mitford 1971, p. 86, with commentary on no 39: cf. Wilhelm werde, jedenfalls nicht mehr h i n t e r diesen, wie in der Zeit seiner
1946, pp. 13-15, who first made the association of JHS 1888, p. 243, no Mitregentschaft» cf. Pareti 1907/8, pp. 497-500.
70 + OGIS, no 126, accepted by Mitford as BSA 56 (1961), p. 22, no 56; 73 The editors of P. Oxy. XIX [Lobel – Wegener – Roberts – Bell
Mitford 1971, p. 87: «there is, therefore (as Hill implied by his cautious 1948] believe that this indicated a second year for Ptolemy Neos
reception of Otto’s argument), no compelling reason to suppose that Philopator, a second and younger son of Ptolemy VI (Mitford 1953,
this partnership was ended by anything other than the death of the p. 145: «[he] may at the best have reigned a matter of weeks, since by
junior partner»; cf. Archiv. für Pap. 13 (1938), p. 28, the conjecture that 28 September, 145 his practiced uncle would seem both to have mur-
the strategos of the island at this date may have been Andromachos, dered and supplanted him»; cf. Otto 1934, p. 12), rather than Ptolemy
«sometime tutor of Eupator, and that it is his name and titles which Memphites, son of Ptolemy VIII (Otto 1934, p. 13 places the birth of
were defaced in our nos. 38 and 39, and in OGIS, no 127, of Old Memphites in the second half of 144 B.C.); but it is more suitable a ref-
Paphos»; cf. Mitford 1971, pp. 96-98, no 44; cf. BSA 56 (1961), p. 24, no 60. erence to Ptolemy Eupator; Ray 1978: Text 29 from the Archive of Hor
70 Anth. Pal. VII 241: μυρία σοι, Πτολεμαῖε, πατὴρ ἔπι, μυρία = Ray 99(a) and 100(a) may contain in fact a year 2, which corresponds
μάτηρ | τειρομένα θαλεροὺς ἡκίσατο πλοκάμους: | πολλὰ τιθηνητὴρ to a year 30; Will 1979.
ὀλοφύρατο, χερσὶν ἀμήσας | ἀνδρομάχοις δνοφερὰν κρατὸς ὕπερθε 74 I preserve the vulgata, that the «younger son» of Philometor is
κόνιν. | ἁ μεγάλα δ’ Αἴγυπτος ἑὰν ὠλόψατο χαίταν, | καὶ πλατὺς to be identified with Ptolemy Neos Philopator. I cannot here explain in
Εὐρώπας ἐστονάχησε δόμος. | καὶ δ’ αὐτὰ διὰ πένθος ἀμαυρωθεῖσα detail why the castle of hypothesis of Chaveau 1990 (Neos Philopator =
Σελάνα | ἄστρα καὶ οὐρανίας ἀτραπιτοὺς ἔλιπεν. | ὤλεο γὰρ διὰ Memphites), followed by W. Huß (Huß 2001, pp. 597-598 and note 2), is
λοιμὸν ὅλας θοινήτορα χέρσου, | πρὶν πατέρων νεαρᾷ σκᾶπτρον erroneous; cf. Diod. XXXIII 20; Justin. Epit. XXXVIII 8, 1-4: fautores pu-
ἑλεῖν παλάμα: | οὐ δέ σε νύξ ἐκ νυκτὸς ἐδέξατο: δὴ γὰρ ἄνακτας | eri trucidari iussit (Ptolemy Physkon). Ipsem quoque die nuptiarum, quibus
τοίους οὐκ Ἀίδας, Ζεὺς δ’ ἐς Ὄλυμπον ἄγει; transl. Paton 1917: «again matrem eius in matrimonium recipiebat, inter apparatus epularum et solemnia
and again did thy father and mother, Ptolemy, defile their hair in their religionum in complexu matris interficit; Flav. Jos. C. Ap. II 51; Oros. V 10,
grief for thee; And long did thy tutor lament thee, gathering in his 7; cf. OGIS, nos 111-115; cf. Huss 2002, pp. 40-41 and note 3.
warlike hands the dark dust to scatter on his head Great Egypt tore 75 This fragmentary papyrus causes a lot of problems, since W.
her hair and the broad home of Europa groaned aloud. The very moon Huß (Huß 2001, p. 577 and note 316) put it aside as unreliable evidence.
was darkened by mourning and deserted the stars and her heavenly The fragment A, which presupposes a previous fragment, must be
path. For thou didst perish by a pestilence that devastated all the land, restored as follows on the grounds of historical probability: P. Oxy.
before thou couldst grasp in thy young hand the sceptre of thy fathers. XIX, 2222 (not stoichedon, as it is not the case also in the fragment B):
Yet might did not receive thee from night; For such princes are not led [Πτολεμαῖος πρεσβύτερος υἱὸς Πτολεμαίου Φιλομήτορος ἐβίωσεν
by Hades to his house but by Zeus to Olympus»; Gow – Page, I 20; II ἔτη ις, ἐβασίλευσεν] | Fr. A, l. 1. [σὺν Πτολεμαίῳ Φιλομήτορι ἔτη β
54; Laqueur 1901, p. 146; Otto 1934, pp. 9-12 and note 9. μ[όνος α ἐν Κύπρῳ (? Exc. Lat. Barbari: Euseb. I, p. 213; Chron. min. I,
71 For the fragment of Klearchos of Soloi on the anaktes in the p. 278 [Frick]) - - - - - ] | 2. [Πτολεμ]αῖος νεώτερος υἱὸ[ς Πτολεμαίου
royal court in Cyprus, Tsitsirides 2015, p. 111, Fr 526 R3 ἄναξ; cf. Φιλομήτορος ἐβίωσεν ἔτη θ, ἐβασίλευσεν ἡμέρας ι (Ptolemy Neos
Masson, n. 211; Bowra 1934, pp. 54-55, pp. 59-60. Philopator, Juni, 15 – July, 25 145 B.C.; P. Fouad I, July, 10; Svoronos
72 Cichorius 1908, pp. 213-214 and Anm. 1: «ἄνακτας τοίους. 1904, No 1509: λς = α). Πτολεμαῖος δεύτερος Εὐεργέτης ἐβίω-] | 3.
Sie entspricht nämlich der für die nicjt regierender Mitglieder der [σεν ἔ]τη [ξ]ς, ἐβασ[ί]λε[υσεν ἔτη νδ σὺν Κλεοπάτρᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ ἔτη
kyprischen Dynastien von alters her üblichen Bezeichnung, vgl. ιε (130/129 B.C. = μα ?), σὺν Κλεοπάτρᾳ τῇ γυνῇ - - -| 4. [Πτολεμαῖος
Aristoteles, Pol. Frg. 203 M»; ibid. p. 214: «So bleibt . . . da Ptolemaios δεύτερος Σωτὴρ υἱὸς Πτολεμαίου δευτέρου Εὐεργέτου ἐβίω-] | 5.
VII Eupator als ganz junger Mensch, . . . ermordet worden ist. . . [σεν ἔτη ξβ, ἐβ]ασίλευσεν [ἔτη λζ - - - ].
148

Through the reference to the painful tutor of the young attendance of a serious publication, the only available
Ptolemy and since it is known that Ptolemy Eupator clue to offer some suggestions on the architectural ty-
had as tutor the strategos Andromachos (Prosopographia pology of the Tomb is given by the dimensions of the
Ptolemaica, 14637)76, we can assume that Eupator died cube, 9.50 X 6.50 m. and the erasure of the upper surface,
in Cyprus in 150 B.C. and not in 152 B.C. Whether as which give a raising of the same dimensions, for there
king of Cyprus or, more probably, as coregent or even as is no trace of a stepped krepis and there is clear evidence
«Vizekönig» of Cyprus, as W. Huß proposed77, does not for the accommodation of a stylobate. This exceptional
matter. The co-regency attested in Egypt speaks in fa- «funerary monument» of Nea Paphos could be in a pre-
vour of an undivided kingship. But this does not mean, liminary way called «Tomb with a rectangular base».
that Cyprus was not assigned to Eupator. If Eupator died The dimensions of the cube have some typological anal-
in Cyprus, he would normally have received a burial in ogies with the «tower-tombs» from North Africa, espe-
the island. A royal burial: Hence the conclusion that this cially with the mausoleum at Souma du Khroub in Cirta
burial should be expected to be placed in the necropolis of (10.50 m, per side). But there are also remarkable differ-
Nea Paphos. The only tomb which has the preconditions ences: the ground plan is not square and cannot have
and the features of a mausoleum is the 1979/1. The two ea- been crowned with a pyramidal roof. For instance, the
gles, on the other hand, seem to identify the co-regency mausoleum of Dougga, which is contemporaneous to the
of Eupator with his father Philometor. Thus, it must be Tomb 1979/1, has a second level in the form of a temple,
dated to 150 B.C. It is certain that the area of the mauso- which is square, with 4 X 4 engaged Ionic semi-columns
leum was, consequently, the burial place of other impor- (Fig. 35). It could be said that in Nea Paphos we would
tant personalities of the Ptolemaic Cyprus. I shall con- have the specific type of the «aedicule tomb», in the form
clude with a determinant clue. A fragment of epistylium of naiskos posing on the high basement, as is the case in
is thrown aside among others architectural components Pompei78. If the Tomb 1979/1 was dedicated to the king
(Fig. 12). On the face of it the letters ΘΕ are depicted in Ptolemy Eupator Theos, it is not arbitrary to call it prop-
red colour. The name in genitive, referring to the owner, erly a «temple tomb» for the deified young king. Never-
must be completed as ΘΕ[ΟY] and the inscription could theless, this is not an architectural term. Otherwise, the
be restored as [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] ΘΕ[ΟΥ monument would belong to a vague category of funer-
ΕΥΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ. The distance between the letters permits ary monuments known under the name «tower-tomb».
to establish that the architrave correspond to the inter- Despite the terminology used by R. Ginouvès, who cor-
columnar space, being 1,36 m. rectly attributed this term to the «oratoire de Phalaris»
and the «Tombeau de Théron» in Akragas (c.a 85 B.C.),
by including in this the type the extraordinary Tomb
The Architectural Type – mausoleum B of Sabratha in Tripolitania (ca. 150 B.C.),
under the variant of «Tombe-Obélisque», he compressed
of the Mausoleum
in the same category the high and uniform «Tombeaux
and the Carved Tombs on the Bedrock – tour» of Palmyra and Doura Europos, which not only
belong to a different class but they are also to be dated
Since all the preserved architectural elements (Doric
in the 1st-2nd c. A.D. At any rate, it is proper to call Tomb
columns and capitals, Doric cornices and entablatures 1979/1 a «Mausoleum», even if the term is employed in
(Fig. 12c), but also fragments of Ionic cornices and epi- many different cases, as in the «mausoleum pseudo-
stylia; Fig. 12a, 12b) of the Tomb 1979/1 are dispersed, in peripteros» of Knidos (Fig. 26a), which presents the vari-
ation of the «stepped pyramid» on the roof culminat-
76 Cf. P. Haun. 6, fr. 1, Z. 1-13 [Larsen 1942]: ] ίκλησιν Ἀνδρομάχου;
ing with a lion. This is an original Hellenistic schema,
Huss 1998, p. 243 and note 76; Bagnall 1976; Huss 2001, p. 577 and note
315, on the previous strategos Archias (Polyb. XXXIII 5), of 155/154
B.C., who would be a traitor, substituted by Andromachos; Müller
1991, p. 421. 78 Ginouvès 1998, p. 62, Fig. 30.6: «monument funéraire»; p. 63,
77 Huss 2001, p. 577 and note 312; with critic to Van’t Dack 1988; cf. Fig. 31.1: «tombeau-édicule»: Pompéi, près de la Porte de Nocera; p.
the reappraisal of Ray 1978, Arch. dem. Hor Text 4, ll. 5-8: «That which 64, Fig. 31.6: «Tombeau-Temple»: Via Appia, Tombeau d’Annia Regilla;
concerns the eldest son [of] Pharaoh means [that] he shall be born p. 64, Fig. 31.4: «tombeau – tour»: Palmyre, Nécropole; pp. 64-65, Fig.
[and] cause to endure another province of his supreme inheritance»; 32.1.2, 32.5, 33.1, 33.2: «Mausolée», «à degrès», «Canopy = édicule
cf. Ray 1978, p. 31: «This ‘other province’, referred to in a rather cryptic ou pavillon = monoptère»: Knidos (ca. 225-200); Mylasa (100 B.C.);
manner, may well be the island of Cyprus». Glanum, tombeau des Iulii (30-20 B.C.); Via Appia, «la Conocchia».
149

Fig. 26a. Mausoleum of Knidos, with a high socle crowned by a stepped pyr-
amid and the statue of a lion: Its date is disputed; either in the late 4th c. B.C.
or early 3rd c. B.C. or, more probably, in the years 170-160, due to its Doric
engaged architecture.
Fig. 26b. Mausoleum of Mylasa: podium, pteron of Corinthian order, with
square pears at the four corners, and pyramid; its date is disputed, possibly
in the years 130-100 B.C.; drawn by William Pars.
which appears also in the «Mausoleum peripteros with the Tomb 1979/1 could have had the specific form of a
stepped pyramid» of Mylasa (Fig. 26b)79. It seems to me, «tall-pointed-cap-tomb». Certainly, therefore, the en-
however, that the three – divided corpses on a high base tire composition was not of the type proper of «Pyra-
plate cannot be the architectural typology of the Tomb mid Tomb», which was certainly among the types of the
1979/1: A rectangular basement, a naiskos with cella and mausolea of the Ptolemies within the precinct of the Sema
pronaos distylos in antis, and a superior arrangement, in of Alexander in Alexandria80. The main problem is that
the form may be of «Base-and-Canopy», as in the ter- this typology has been displayed not only for Hellenis-
minology used by J. Toynbee. The Tomb of Aefionius tic but also for Roman funerary monuments, while we
Rufus at Sarsina constitutes a good example (base plate have to consider strictly the examples from 160/150 B.C.
of the podium ± 4.00 – 4.50 on a side (Fig. 27). But it is until the end of the 2nd c. B.C. For this kind of chrono-
to be dated around 30 B.C. Nor the upper partition of logical evidence, the «Ptolemaion» in Rhodes (Fig. 31),
a square chamber as well, carved on the bedrock
79 Ginouvès 1998, p. 64 prefers to note that the term mausoleum (length 29.50 m. per side), decorated on the façade with a
«il vaux mieux réserver à une construction à trois niveaux, compor- sequence of engaged Doric columns, as in the case of
tant normalément un socle assez haut, avec la chamber funéraire, the «Archokrateion» of Lindos (Fig. 30), may be a
surmonté par un corps orné d’un ordre, et enfin par un couronne-
ment présentant souvent les statues des défunts»; on the «Lion Tomb»
at Cnidos, a pseudo-peripteral colonnade attached to the wall sup- 80 Mavrojannis 2003, pp. 446-448: Lucan. Phars. VIII, vv. 696-697:
porting a pyramid, Dinsmoor 1950, p. 257; on the tomb with Corin- Cum Ptolemaeorum manes seriemque pudendam | Pyramides claudant
thian pteron at Mylasa, Dinsmoor 1950, pp. 276-277. indignaque Mausolea.
150

«Greek» of the Ptolemaic possessions, thus indicating to

expect Greek patterns for Cyprus as well. Ludwig Ross
in 1845 remarked that the Tombs of Nea Paphos awoke
in his mind certain similarities with the tombs in Jerusa-
lem and North Africa. A closer review of those examples
is imposed. The tombs of Jerusalem are arranged in the
Valley of Cedron and may constitute a valid comparison
for some reasons, especially because they are cut on the
bedrock just like the tombs in Nea Paphos. The second
argument for undertaking the comparison is their chro-
nology, which recently underwent a critical reappraisal.
The tombs from Jerusalem have the priority with re-
spect to the most famous examples from North Africa,
since the geographical horizon and the widespread of
the Ptolemaic Hellenism from Alexandria both towards
Cyprus and the Ashmonean state justify a closer devel-
opment in Jerusalem with respect to Nea Paphos dur-
ing the Late Hellenism. Among the fifteen carved tombs
registered by Peleg – Barkat82, three recover a particu-
lar interest because they are cut on the bedrock, they
have the form of a naiskos on a high base plate and they
are to be dated to the second half of the 2nd c. B.C.83:
p. 150, fig. 123: N171, «Tomba dei Mnesarchi», «attorno o dopo la metà
del III sec.»; p. 151, fig. 124-125: Tombe N178, N179; pp. 154-155, fig.
131, 132, 133: tomba N196.
82 Beleg – Barkat 2012, pp. 403-418: Tombs only generally dated
between the second half of the 2nd c. C. and the destruction of

Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Type A: 1) «Tomb of Zechariah», Fig. 1; 2) «Tomb
of Absalom», Fig. 2, a square podium and above a squate cylinder
resembling a tholos covered by a conical roof; Type B: 3) «Tomb of
Nicanor on Mt. Scopus»; 4) «Qasr el-Karne, Sanhedria», with a distyle
in antis façade, Fig. 3; 5) «Tomb of Queen Helen of Adiabene, north
of the Damascus Gate, erected between 45 and 50 A.D. (Flav. Jos. XX
Fig. 27. The development of the Hellenistic Tomb – naiskos in the Roman
funeral architecture: Tomb of Aefionius Rufus at Sarsina, around 30 B.C. 49-95; Paus. VIII 16, 4); 6) «Umm al Amad Cave», a mixture of Ionic
and Doric elements; 7) «Two-story Tomb», further to the North; 6) +
7) with Ionic distyle in antis façade; Type C: 8) «Frieze Tomb near
Sanhedria, façade with antae flanking the entrance and bearing a
contemporary example of the «Tombs with Doric peristy- decorated entablature; 9) «Refuge of the Apostles Cave in Aceldama»,
lium» of Nea Paphos. But the square ground plan in the Fig. 4; Type D: 10) «Cave of Jehoshaphat», Fig. 5, with richly decorated
doorframe; 11) «Tomb of the Sanhedrin», Fig. 6; 12) «Grape-Clusters
case of Rhodes would suggest a pyramidal crowning
Tomb», Fig. 7; None Type: 13) «Tomb of Annas», façade with three
and this is not permitted for the Tomb 1979/1 in Cyprus. entrances; 14) «Tomb of the House of Herod», with use of opus
More than Rhodes, the carved Tombs with Doric façade reticulatum; 15) «Cave of the Ariston Family in Aceldama»; On the
of an excellent style of Cyrene, starting in the second Herodium’s monument, resembling to the «Tomb of Abshalom», ibid.,
p. 416.
half of the 3rd c. B.C. and continuing into the 2nd c. B.C., 83 Avigad 1954, p. 95, fig. 57/1: the Tomb of Zachariah; 54, figs.
offer a most appropriate architectural pattern, because 40-41: the Tomb of Absalom; Finegan 1992, Nos 264-270, pp. 305-311,
the Doric order in Cyrene is used in a high level of ex- Photos Nos 265, 267, 269; Fedak 1990, pp. 140-148. Look at the term phil-
ecution without contaminations, as in the Doric court- hellen in Flav. Jos. AJ XIII, 318 as the epithet of the king Aristoboulos
(† 104/103 a.C.), which would reflect the cultural choices of the king
yard Tomb N55 (Fig. 28 and 29)81. Cyrene was the most
of the Jews around 100 B.C., in fact a political stance in favour of the
Ptolemaic culture and policy, relying on Alexandria. The «Tomb of
81 Hellmann 2006, pp. 302-303, Plan XVI; cf. the Archokrateion in Zechariah» has a strong terminus ante quem, on the grounds of anoth-
Lindos, dated by Dyggve 1960, after 225 B.C.; ibid., p. 303, Fig. 424; for er monument in form of pyramid, which is well dated: The Pyramid
the tombs of Cyrene in the Ptolemaic period, Stucchi 1975, pp. 149-192: of Mount Hermel; Perdrizet 1938, pp. 47-00, has proposed to assign
151

Fig. 28. Cyrene: Doric courtyard Tomb N55 (Stucchi 1975).
Fig. 29. Cyrene: Tomb N180 (Stucchi 1975, 84, fig. 80).
1) The «Tomb of Zechariah, son of Jehud» (9.00 X 5.20 to the end of the 2nd c. B.C. or to the first half of the 1st c.
m), having almost identical dimensions with the Tomb B.C. It has a Doric distyle in antis façade, with unfluted
1979/1, is a monolithic monument, consisting in a rect- columns and entablature with blank metopes (Fig. 34),
angular base plate with engaged coupled quarter ionic while the Doric entablature of Herode’s reign have me-
columns in relief crowned by a raising in the form of a topes carved with rosettes or disks84. Beleg is right in
perfect pyramid (Fig. 32). This Tomb could have been his dating of the «Tomb of Benei Hezir» and the «Tomb
the Tomb of King Aristoboulos, the Philhellen († 104/103 of Jason», in the last quarter of the 2nd c. B.C., at any
B.C.); 2) The so-called «Tomb of Abshalom» (6.00 X 6.50 rate later than the Tombs with Doric peristylium of Nea
m), with a rectangular corpse on podium, decorated by Paphos. The industrial carving and the style of the Doric
engaged Ionic columns, and a conical roof on top; this order in the Late Hellenistic period in Jerusalem offers
singular tomb is to be dated by the comparison with a precious terminus ante quem, in order to date the last
the paintings of the 2nd Pompeian Style (until 80 B.C.), Tombs of Nea Paphos in the years before 125 B.C. The
presenting circular temples with conical crowning, in necropolis of Jerusalem is to be placed chronologically
the years soon after 100 B.C. There are some reasons to
assign it to king Alexandros Jannaeus († 76 B.C.) (Fig.
84 Beleg – Barkat 2012, pp. 408-410, p. 409 and note 32, with
33); 3) The «Tomb of Benei Hezir», which can be dated
discussion on the chronology: Avigad 1954 had suggested a date
to about the mid-2nd c. B.C., on the grounds that there was not any
it to Aziz, father of Samsiceramus I [† 94 B.C.) (Strab. XVI 2, 10). The mixture of orders, but exclusively Doric order, but later in Avigad 1976
connection of the funerary monument with the dynasty of Hemesa is gave a dating in the first half of the 1st c. B.C.; Barag dates correctly the
ascertained, because there was an identical monument, now lost, in tomb «not earlier than the last quarter of the 2nd c. B.C.»; the stylistic
Hemesa dedicated to the last Sampsiceramus, before the year 78-79 evolution from the Doric tombs of Nea Paphos to the Doric façades of
A.D., as he died; OGIS, no 604; Watzinger 1935, p. 37; Rostovtzev II, Jerusalem permits to postulate a date later than the tombs with Doric
Tav. XCV. peristylium of Nea Paphos, thus at very end of the 2nd c. B.C.
152

Fig. 30. Rhodes, Lindos: Two-storeyed Archokrateion, to be certainly dated Fig. 31. Rhodes, parc of Rhodini: «Ptolemaion», to be dated between 150 and
between 225 and 200 B.C. Archocrates became a priest of Athena Lindia 100 B.C. (Fraser 1977; Fedak 1990).
(Dyggve 1960; Fedak 1990).
immediately after Nea Paphos. Thus, we would like to Masinissa but continue until the death of his son and his
assign the Tomb with complete Doric peristylium Kat. grandson, Micipsa (148-118 B.C.) and Hiempsal (118-117
N03 to the strategos Seleucos and to some members of B.C.). Apart from the great circular mausolea of Medra-
his family. A date in 130 B.C. seems to be recommended. cen and «Tombeau de la Chrétienne», we can appreciate
In order to frame the typology of the Tomb 1979/1, we the suggestions deriving from the Ptolemaic culture in
could turn our attention to the mausolea of Numidia, Numidia. This is another proof of the diffusion of archi-
as well, as they have been object of a historical study tectural models from the Ptolemaic Alexandria, through
by F. Rakob, F. Coarelli et Y. Thébert85. They are dated Ptolemaic Cyrene this time westwards. But the mausolea
to the period around 150 B.C. or later than the «Tombs of Numidia have a proper development of mixed compo-
of the Kings», since they do not finish with the death of nents and they can be used as term of comparison only
as «analogous funerary monuments». The main reason,
85 Rakob 1979; Racob 1983, pp. 332-338 and Fig. 12: A) Siga; B) to be very careful in ascertaining the comparison with
Le Chroub; C) Sabratha; D) Dougga; E) Palestine; F) Akragas; pp. Nea Paphos, is their peculiarity as «des tombes carrées
333-334: the mausoleum of Siga, capital of Syphax, rival of Massinisa: à tour, souvent à plusieurs étages et avec un couronne-
«au milieu du IIe s. av. notre ère»; cf. Rakob 1979, p. 150 and Fig.
27; p. 335 and Fig. 13: the mausoleum of Dougga (Poinssot 1910, pp. ment pyramidal». The Tomb 1979/1 does not have the
780-787): «on peut situer la construction au milieu du IIe siècle av. dimensions entailing a pyramid on the crowning. Many
notre ère»; pp. 335-336 and Fig. 14-15: the mausoleum of Khroub, Es architectural components of the Tomb 1979/1 still sur-
Soumâa (square basement of 10.50 m., high of 2.80; a second level of vive. The shafts of the Doric columns indicate that they
8.40 m., a side, high 1.00 m; a third square corp of 5.55 m.; crowning
of a pyramid, high 9.00 m.), in Cirta/Constantine: «grâce à la datation were «free standing columns» (Fig. 12c) and not tan-
du mobilier funéraire qui date de la fin du IIe siècle av. notre ère»: gentially attached to walls; nor were they «engaged
tombe of Hiempsal; Coarelli – Thébert 1988, pp. 761-818; pp. 800-817; half-columns». The dimensions of the great rectangu-
p. 802 and Fig. 30, 31, 32: the mausoleum of Dougga; p. 803 and fig. lar rock are 9.50 X 6.50 m. The restitution of a peripteros
33: the mausoleum of Khroub: «fin du Iie siècle av. n.è.»; pp. 805-896:
Dougga.
153

Fig. 32. Jerusalem, Valley of Cedron, «Tomb of Jechariah»; it could be the Fig. 33. Jerusalem, Valley of Cedron, «Tomb of Absalom»: it relies upon the
tomb of king Aristoboulos, the Philhellen (104/103 B.C.). 2nd Pompeian Style, thus suggesting a date around 80 B.C.; it should be the
tomb of king Alexandros Iannaios (76 B.C.); Flav. Jos. AJ XIII 398-404.
Doric temple of 6 X 4 columns, with cella (5.00 X 2.50

m.), rising on the rock base plate, is even conceivable,
according to the measurements made by M. Lefantzis,
since the intercolumnar space for this disposition is
±1.30 m. on the sides in length and ±1.25 m. on the sides
in width. The Architect M. Lefantzis could draw a possi-
ble restitution of the ground plan, identifying the plain
form of a peripteros Doric temple (Mausoleum, design M.
Lefantzis: Figs. 36, 37, 38). This assumption, presuppos-
ing a temple on the underground Tomb, is in accordance
with the exceptional nature of the deified Ptolemy Theos
Eupator, who could have very well received even the
honour of a temple on his burial place in Nea Paphos.
Fig. 34. Jerusalem, Valley of Cedron, «Tomb of Benei-Hezir», around 120-

100 B.C.
154

Fig. 35. Tunisia, Dugga: Mausoleum Lybico – Punic, on three levels, to be

dated in the middle of the 2nd c. B.C. (Poinssot 1958).
Fig. 36. Nea Paphos, Tomb No 8,

Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator:
restitution of the ground plan of the
Doric temple (6 X 4 columns), accord-
ing to Arch. M. Lefantzis. The width
of the stylobat (0.53 m) corresponds
to the inferior diameter of the shafts
and the width of the epistylium.
155

Fig. 37-38-39. Tomb No 8: reconstruction of the elevation of the building,

according to M. Lefantzis.
Bibliography Balandier 1999 = C. Balandier, The City Walls of Paphos: A Rescue

Excavation on the Western Rampart, RDAC, 1999, 243-250.
Adriani 1936 = A. Adriani, La Nécropole de Moustafa Pacha, An- Barker 2004 = G. Barker, The Use of Rhodian Amphorae in Helle-
nuaire du Musée Gréco-Romain 1933/34-1934/35, Alexan- nistic Graves at Nea Paphos, in J. Eiring, J. Lund (edd.), Tran-
drie 1936. sport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Acts
Adriani 1966 = A. Adriani, Repertorio d’Arte dell’Egitto greco-ro- International Colloquium Athens 2002), Aarhus 2004,
mano, C 1-2, Testo, Roma 1966. 73-84.
Anastasiadis 2013 = A. Anastasiadis, Religious Policy in Ptole- Barker – Merryweather 2002 = G. Barker, A. D. Merrywea-
maic Cyprus, in P. Scherrer, G. Koiner, A. Ulbrich (edd.), ther, Report on the University of Sydney “Tombs of the Kings”
Hellenistisches Zypern (Akten Internationalen Tagung Graz Project 1998-2001, in Mediterranean Archaeology XV, 2002,
2013), Graz 2013. 109-143.
Avigad 1950-1951 = N. Avigad, The Rock-Carved Facades of the Bechtel 1921 = F. Bechtel, Die Griechischen Dialekte. I. Band: Der
Jerusalem Necropolis, in Israel Exploration Journal I, 1950- thesbische, thessalische, Boeotische, arkadische und kyprische
1951, 98-106. Dialekte, Berlin 1921.
Avigad 1954 = N. Avigad, Ancient Monuments in the Kedron Val- Bekker-Nielsen 2000 = T. Bekker-Nielsen, The Foundation of Nea
ley, Jerusalem 1954. Paphos, in Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens
Bagnall 1976 = R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic III, 2000, 195-207.
Possessions Outside Egypt, Columbia Studies on Classical Beloch 1927 = K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte IV, 2, Stras-
Scholarship IX, New York 1976. sburg 1927.
156

Bengtson 1952 = H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Connelly 1988 = J. Breton Connelly, Votive Sculpture of Helleni-
Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht III (Münchener Bei- stic Cypru, Nicosia 1988.
träge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte
Couve 1894 = L. Couve, Inscriptions de Dèlphes, in BCH XVIII,
XXXVI), München 1952.
1894, 226-269.
Börker 1971 = C. Börker, Die Datierung des Zeus-Tempels von Ol-
Cox 1959 = D. H. Cox, Coins from the Excavations at Curium 1932-
ba-Diokaisareia in Kilikien, in AA 1971, 37-53.
1953, American Numismatic Society, New York 1959.
Botti 1967 = G. Botti (ed.), L’Archivio demotico da Deir el-Medineh,
Daux 1957 = G. Daux, Notes de lecture, in BCH LXXXI, 1957,
1. Testo; 2. Tavole, Firenze 1967.
391-392.
Bowra 1969 = C. W. Bowra, Homeric Words in Cyprus, in JHS
Daszewski 1987 = W. Daszewski, Nicocles and Ptolemy: Remarks
LIV/1, 54-74.
on the Early History of Nea Paphos, RDAC 1987, 171-175.
Brelich 1969 = A. Brelich, Paides e Parthenoi, I (Incunabula Gra-
Dietrich 1976 = D. Buitron Oliver, B.C. Dietrich, The sanctuary
eca XXXVI), Roma 1969.
of Apollo Hylates at Kourion: Excavations in the Archaic Precin-
Bruneau–Ducat 1983 = Ph. Bruneau, J. Ducat, Guide de Délos, ct. The Cult, Jonsered 1976.
École Française d’Athènes (éd.), Paris 1983.
Dietrich 1978 = B.C. Dietrich, Some Evidence from Cyprus of
Burkert 1991 = W. Burkert, Oriental Symposia: Contrast and Pa- Apolline Cult in the Bronze Age, in Rheinisches Museum für
rallels, in W. J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Philologie CXXI/1, 1978, 1-18.
Arbor 1991.
Dittenberger 1903-1905 = W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci In-
Buitron-Oliver 1996 = D. Buitron-Oliver, The Sanctuary of scriptiones Selectae, II, Lipsiae 1903-1905.
Apollo Hylates at Kourion. Excavations in the Archaic Precinct
Dyggve 1960 = L. Dyggve, Lindos III, Le sanctuaire d’Athana Lin-
(SIMA CIX), Jonsered 1996.
dia et l’’architecture libdienne avec un catalogue des sculptures
Buschor 1949 = E. Buschor, Das hellenistische Bildnis, München trouvées sur l’acropole par V. Poulsen, Berlin-Copenhagen
1949 (2. Aufl. 1971). 1960.
Chamonard 1922 = J. Chamonard, Exploration Archéologique de Erath-Koiner 2003 = G. Erath-Koiner, Hellenistische Porträts und
Dèlos VIII, 1. Le Quartier du Théâtre. Étude sur l’habitation Bildnisse aus Zypern, in B. Asamer, W. Wohlmayr (edd.),
delienne à l’époque hellénistique, Paris 1922. Akten des 9. Österreichischen Archäologenetages, Salzburg
2001, Wien 2003, 29-33, Taf. 6-8.
Chamonard 1924 = J. Chamonard, Exploration Archéologique de
Dèlos VIII, 2. Le Quartier du Théâtre. Étude sur l’habitation Fedak 1990 = J. Fedak, Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age,
delienne à l’époque hellénistique, III. Construction et technique, Toronto 1990.
Paris 1924.
Ferrary 1977 = J. L. Ferrary, Recherches sur la législation de Satur-
Chamonard 1933 = J. Chamonard, Exploration Archéologique de ninus et de Glaucia, in MEFRA LXXXIX/1, 1977, 619-60.
Dèlos XIV. Les mosaïques de la Maison des masques, Paris 1933.
Finegan 1992 = J. Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament.
Chantraine 1968-1980 = P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire Étymologiq- The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, Prin-
ue de la langue grecque, Paris 1968-1980. ceton 1992.
Chaveau 1990 = M. Chaveau, Un été 145, Bulletin de l’Institut Fontana 1956 = M. J. Fontana, Sulla cronologia del XVII libro di
Français d’archéologie orientale XC, 1990, 135-168. Diodoro, in Kokalos II/1, 1956, 37-49.
Durrbach 1921-1922 = F. Durrbach (ed.), Choix d’inscriptions de Frisk 1960 = H. Frisk, Grieschisches Etymlologisches Wörterbuch,
Dèlos, Paris 1921-1922. I, Heidelberg 1960.
Cichorius 1908 = C. Cichorius, Panaitios und die attische Stoike- Gardner 1888 = E. Gardner, Excavations in Cyprus, in JHS IX,
rinschrift, in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie LXIII, 1888, 147-211.
1908, 197-223.
Geelhaar 2002 = C. Geehaar, Some Remarks on the lex de provin-
Coarelli–Thébert 1988 = F. Coarelli, Y. Thébert, Architecture ciis praetoriis, in Revue Internationale des droits de l’Anti-
funéraire et pouvoir: Réflexions sur l’hellénisme numide, in ME- quité XLIX, 2002, 109-117.
FRA C/2, 1988, 761-818.
Gesche 1974 = H. Gesche, Nikokles von Paphos und Nikokreon von
Coarelli 1990 = F. Coarelli, La cultura figurativa, in F. Clemente, Salamis, in Chiron IV, 1974, 103-125.
F. Coarelli, E. Gabba (edd.), Storia di Roma, II, L’impero medi-
Ginouvès 1992 = R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodiques de l’ar-
terraneo, Torino 1990, 631-670.
chitecture grecque et romaine, Tome II. Élements constructifs:
Coarelli 1996 = F. Coarelli, Revixit Ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma Supports, couvertures, aménagement intérieurs, Rome–Athèn-
dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione Repubblicana, Roma 1996. es 1992.
157

Ginouvès 1998 = R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’ar- Huss 2001 = W. Huss, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, 332-30 v.
chitecture grecque et romaine, Tome III. Espaces architecturaux, Chr., München 2001.
bâtiments et ensembles, Rome – Athènes 1998.
Huss 2002 = W. Huss, Noch ein Mord im Haus des Ptolemaios?,
Glanville 1939 = S.R.K. Glanville, Catalogue of the Demotic Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 140, 2002, 40-
Papyri of the British Museum, I. A Theban Archive of the Reign 42.
of Ptolemy I Soter, London 1939.
Huss 2011 = W. Huss, Die Verwaltung des Ptolemaiischen Reichs,
Glover 1981 = S. Glover, Cults of Apollo (Cyprus Studies in Cyprio- (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
te Archaeology XVII), Los Angeles 1981. Rechtsgeschichte, 104. Heft), München 2011.
Gow-Page 1965 = A.S.F. Gow, D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Jacoby 1959 = F. Jacoby, s.v. Hieronymus [10], in Real-En-
Hellenistic Epigramms, Cambridge 1965. cyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft VIII/2,
1959, col. 1539-1560.
Graninger 2011 = D. Graninger, Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic
Thessaly, Leiden – Boston 2011. Jefferey 1915 = G. Jefferey, Rock Cutting and Tomb Architecture in
Cyprus during the Graeco-Roman Occupation, in Archaeolo-
Greve 2014 = A. Greve, Sepulkrale Hofarchitektur im Hellenismus.
gia LXVI, 1915, 159-178.
Alexandria –Nea Paphos – Kyrene (Contextualizing the Sacred
III), Turnhout 2014. Kallet-Marx 1995 = R. Kallet, Marx, Hegemony to Empire. The
Guimiers-Sorbet & Michaelides 2009 = A. M. Guimier-Sorbets, Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62
D. Michaelides, Alexandrian Influences on the Architecture B.C., Berkeley-Los Angeles–Oxford 1995.
and Decoration of the Hellenistic Tombs of Cyprus, in D. Mi- Karageorghis 1969 = V. Karageorghis, Salamis in Cyprus: Home-
chaelides, V. Kassianidou, R. S. Merrillees (edd.), Egypt and ric, Hellenistic and Roman, London 1970.
Cyprus in Antiquity, Oxford 2009, 216-233.
Karageorghis 1973 = V. Karageorghis, Salamis, V. Excavations in
Hadjisavvas 1985 = S. Hadjisavvas, Excavations at the Tombs of the Necropolis of Salamis III. Text, Nicosia 1973; Plates, Nico-
the Kings, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Archaeology in Cyprus: sia 1974; Folding, Plans and Sections, Nicosia 1974.
1960-1985, Nicosia 1985, 262-268.
Karila-Cohen 2005 = K. Karina-Cohen, Apollon, Athènes et la
Hassal–Crawford–Reynolds 1974 = J. Hassal, M. Crawford, J. Pythaïde. Mise en scène «mythique» de la cité au IIe siècle av.
Reynolds, Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the J.-C., in Kernos XVIII, 2005, 219-239.
Second Century B.C., in JRS LXIV, 1974, 195-220.
Kramer-Erler-Hagedorn-Hübner 1980 = B. Kramer, E. Erler, D.
Hauben 1987 = H. Hauben, Cyprus and the Ptolemaic Navy, Hagedorn, R. Hübner, Kölner Papyri. Band III, Papyrologica
RDAC, 1987, 213-226. Colonensia VII, 3, Opladen 1980.
Head 1911 = B.V. Head, Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Kyrieleis 1975 = H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer, Archäolog-
Numismatics, Oxford 19112. ische Forschungen II, Berlin 1975.
Hellmann 2006 = M.Ch. Hellmann, L’architecture grecque. II. Ar- Lapalus 1939 = Ét. Lapalus, L’Agora des Italiens, Éxploration Ar-
chitecture religieuse et funéraire, Paris 2006. chéologique de Dèlos. XIX, Paris 1939.
Hill 1949 = G.F. Hill, A History of Cyprus. I, Cambridge 1949. Laqueur 1909 = R. Laqueur, Ein Epigramm des Antipatros von
Hölbl 1994 = G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Sidon, in Hermes XLIV, 1, 1909, 146-150.
Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis Launey 1945 = M. Launey, Étude d’histoire hellénistique II.
zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt 1994. L’exécution de Sotadès et l’expédition de Patroclos dans la mer
Hogarth 1889 = D.G. Hogarth, Devia Cypria. Notes on a Archae- Égée (266 av. J.-C.), in Révue des Études Anciennes XLVII,
ological Journey in Cyprus in 1888, London 1889. 1945, 33-45.
J. Hornblower 1981 = J. Hornblower, Hieronymus of Cardia, Laurenzi 1938 = L. Laurenzi, Monumenti di scultura del Museo
Oxford 1981. Archeologico di Rodi – IV e dell’Antiquarium di Coo – II, in Cla-
ra Rhodos IX, 1938, 9-120.
Hornblower 2015 = A. Hornblower, Alexandra. Greek Text, Tran-
slation, Commentary and Introduction, Oxford 2015. Lauter 1986 = H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus, Dar-
mstadt 1986.
Huss 1994 = W. Huss, Ptolemaios Eupator, in A. Büllow-Jacobsen
(ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrolo- Lenger 1956 = M.T. Lenger, Décret d’amnistie de Ptolemée Év-
gists (Acts International Congress Copenhagen 1992), Co- ergète II et lettre aux forces armées de Chypre, in BCH LXXX,
penhagen 1994, 555-561. 1956, 437-461.
Huss 1998 = W. Huss, Ptolemaios der Sohn, in Zeitschrift für Linfert 1976 = A. Linfert, Kunstzentren hellenistischer Zeit, Wie-
Papyrologie und Epigraphik CXXI, 1998, 229-250. sbaden 1976.
158

Lüddeckens 1960 = E. Lüddeckens, Ägyptische Ehevertäge, Äg- Minas 2000 = M. Minas, Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der
yptologischen Abhandlungen I, Wiesbaden 1960. Ptolemäischen Könige, Aegyptiaca Treverensia, Mainz 2000.
Marinatos 1936 = Sp. Marinatos, Le temple géométrique de Dréros, Mitford 1953a = T.B. Mitford, Seleucos and Theodoros, in Opu-
in BCH LX, 1936, 214-285. scula Atheniensia I, 1953, 130-171.
Masson 1961 = O. Masson, Les inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques, Mitford 1953b = T.B. Mitford, The Character of Ptolemaic Rule in
Études Chypriotes I, Paris 1961. Cyprus, in Aegyptus XXXIII, 1953, 80-90.
Masson–Rolley 1971 = O. Masson, Cl. Rolley, Un bronze de Mitford 1961a = T.B. Mitford, Further Contributions to the Epi-
Dèlphes à inscription syllabique chypriote, in BCH LXXV, graphy of Cyprus, in AJA LXV/2, 1961, 93-151.
1971, 295-304.
Mitford 1961b = T.B. Mitford, The Hellenistic Inscriptions of Old
Mavrojannis 2002 = Th. Mavrojannis, Italiens et Orientaux à Paphos, in ABSA LVI, 1961, 1-41.
Délos: Considérations sur l’ «absence» des negotiatores Romains
Mitford 1971 = T.B. Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion, Phila-
dans la Méditerranée orientale, in Ch. Müller, Cl. Hasenhor
delphia 1971.
(edd.), Les Italiens dans le monde grec (Actes Table-Ronde,
Paris 1998), Paris 2002, 163-179. Mlynarczyk 1990 = J. Mlynarczyk, Nea Paphos III. Nea Paphos in
the Hellenistic Period, Varsovie 1990.
Mavrojannis 2003 = Th. Mavrojannis, La tradizione letteraria sul
Sema, la topografia e i modelli sepolcrali della ‘necropoli reale’ di Mørkholm 1978 = O. Mørkholm, The Alexandrian Coinage of
Alessandria”, in ASAIA s. III, 3, 2003, 435-473. Nikokles of Paphos, in Chiron VIII, 1978, 135-146.
Mavrojannis 2014 = Th. Mavrojannis, Il Cenotafio di Nikokreon Murnane 1977 = W. J. Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies,
a Salamina di Cipro e la regalità di Demetrio Poliorcete, in L. Chicago 1977.
Abbondanza, F. Coarelli, E. Lo Sardo (edd.), Apoteosi. Da
uomini a dei. Il Mausoleo di Adriano (Catalogo Mostra Roma Myres – Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899 = J. L. Myres, M. Ohnefal-
2013), Roma 2014, 78-91. sch-Richter, A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, London
1899.
Mavrojannis 2017 = Th. Mavrojannis, Les voies terrestres du
commerce des esclaves depuis la Syrie et les ports de la Phén- Myres 1940-1945 = J. L. Myres, A Sanctuary Site at Lefkoniko, in
icie en direction de Néa Paphos à Chypre et de Délos, in D. Jol- ABSA XLI, 1940-1945, 54-68.
ly-Frangié (ed.), L’économie de la Phénicie à l’époque hellénis- Nadig 2007 = P. Nadig, Zwischen König und Karikatur. Das Bild
tique, Paris 2018, 1-21 (forthcoming). Tolemaios’ VIII im Spannungsfeld der Überlieferung (Münc-
Michaelides 1990 = D. Michaelides, Οἱ ροδιακοὶ ἀμφορεῖς καὶ hener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Recht-
ἕνα ταφικὸ ἔθιμο τῆς Πάφου, Β΄ Ἐπιστημονικὴ Συνάντηση sgeschichte XCVII), München 2007.
γιὰ τὴν Ἑλληνιστικὴ Κεραμεική: Χρονολογικὰ Nicolaou – Mørkholm 1976 = I. Nicolaou – O. Mørkholm,
προβλήματα τῆς Ἑλληνιστικῆς Κεραμεικῆς, Ἀθήνα 1990, Paphos I. A Ptolemaic Coin Hoard, Nicosia 1976.
187-194.
Nicolaou 1990 = I. Nicolaou, Paphos II. The Coins from the House
Murray 1991 = O. Murray, War and Symposium, in W.J. Slater of Dionysus, Nicosia 1990.
(ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor 1991.
Ohnefalsch-Richter 1884 = M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Mitteilungen
Mehl 1995 = A. Mehl, Zypern und die großen Mächte im Helleni- aus Zypern III. Heiligtum des Apollon bei Voni, in MDAI(A),
smus, in Ancient Society XXVI, 1995, 93-132. 1884, 127-139.
Mehl 1996a = A. Mehl, Zypernstädte im Hellenismus: Verfassung, Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893 = M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die
Verwaltung und führende Geselschaft, Hellas und der griechi- Bibel und Homer, Berlin 1893.
sche Osten, Festschrift Robert Franke, Saarbrücken 1996, 127-
152. Otto 1934 = W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers.
Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum Staatsrecht des Hellenismus
Mehl 1996b = A. Mehl, Militärwesen und Verwaltung der Pto- (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen-
lemäer in Zypern, in Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioe- schaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Neue Fol-
vale XXXVIII, 1996, 215-260. ge, XI), München 1934.
Mehl 2016 = A. Mehl, Néa Paphos et l’administration ptolémaïque Papantoniou 2009 = G. Papantoniou, Revisiting Soloi-Cholades:
de Chypre, in C. Balandier – E. Raptou (edd.), Néa Paphos. Ptolemaic Power, Religion and Ideology, in Cahiers du Centre
Fondation et développement urbanistique d’une ville chypriote d’Études Chypriotes XXXIX, 2009, 271-87.
de l’antiquité à nos jours. Études archéologiques, historiques et
patrimoniales, Avignon 2016. Papantoniou 2012a = G. Papantoniou, Religion and Social Tran-
sformations in Cyprus. From the Cypriot Basileis to the Hel-
Meyer 1911 = P.M. Meyer (ed.), Griechische Papyrusurkunden der lenistic strategos, (Mnemosyne Supplements CCCXLVII),
Hamburger Staats- und Universitätsbibliothe, I, Pt. I, Nos 1-23, Leiden–Boston 2012.
Leipzig 1911.
159

Papantoniou 2012b = G. Papantoniou, From Segmentation to Uni- Rakob 1983 = F. Rakob, Architecture royale numide, Architecture
fication: Sacred landscapes and Sculptures in the Construction et société. De l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la République (Actes
of Hellenistic Island Identities, in P. Scherrer, G. Koiner, A. Colloque International Rome 1980), Rome 1983, 325-348.
Ulbrich (edd.), Hellenistisches Zypern (Akten Internationa-
Ray 1976 = J. D. Ray, The Archive of Hor, London 1976.
len Tagung Graz 2010), Graz 2012, 91-105.
Ray 1978 = J. D. Ray, Observations on the Archive of Hor, in Jour-
Pareti 1907-1908 = L. Pareti, Ricerche sui Tolomei Eupatore e Neo
nal of Egyptian Archaeology LX, 1978, 113-120.
Filopatore, in Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino
XLIII, 1907-1908. Regling 1906 = K. Regling, Rezension zu Svoronos, in Zeitschrift
für Numismatik XXV, 1906, 344-399 = abgedruckt in Svoro-
Paton 1917 = W.R. Paton (ed.), The Greek Anthology, with an En- nos IV, Athen 1908, 455-513.
glish Translation, London 1917.
Roberts–Turner 1952 = C.H. Roberts, E. G. Turner (edd.), Cata-
Peleg-Barkat 2012 = O. Peleg-Barkat, The relative chronology of logue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, IV: Do-
tomb façades in Early Roman Jerusalem and power displays by cuments of the Ptolemaic, Roman and byzantine Periods, Man-
the élite, in JRA XXV, 2012, 403-418. chester 1952.
Pensabene 1993 = P. Pensabene, Elementi architettonici di Ales- Ross 1861 = L. Ross, Archäologische Aufsätze, Zweite Sammlung,
sandria e di altri siti egiziani, Repertorio d’Arte dell’Egitto gre- Leipzig 1861.
co-romano, Roma 1993.
Ruggendorfer 2016 = P. Ruggendorfer, Das Mausoleum von Be-
Perdrizet 1938 = P. Perdrizet, Le monument de Hermel, in Syria levi. Archäologische Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Ausstat-
XIX, 1938, 47-71. tung und Stiftung, Forschungen in Ephesos VI/2, Wien 2016.
Perlman 2000 = P. J. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Segre 1952 = M. Segre, Documenti di storia ellenistica di Cipro.
Greece. The Thearodokia in the Peloponnese, (Hypomnemata III. Tolomeo Evergete II e la guarnigione di Cipro, in ASAIA
CXXI), Göttingen 2000. XXVII-XXIX, 1949-1951, 338-345.
Perlman 2000 = P. Perlmann, Gortyna. The First Seven Hundred Senff 1993 = R. Senff, Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion: Archi-
Years (Part I), in P. Flensted-Jensen, M.H. Hansen, Th.H. tektur und Statuenausstattung eines Zyprischen Heiligtums,
Nielsen, L. Rubinstein (edd.), Polis and Politics: Studies in SIMA 94, Jonserd 1993.
Ancient Greek History, Aarhus 2000, 59-91.
Solomidou-Ieronymidou 1985 = M. Solomidou-Ieronymidou,
Petterson 1992 = M. Petterson, Cults of Apollo at Sparta. The Hya- The Ancient Religion of Cyprus through the Epigraphical Docu-
kinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia, Stockholm 1992. ments of Cyprus and Greece: A Comparative Study, in Archae-
ologia Cypria I, 1985, 57-64.
Pfühl–Möbius 1977 = E. Pfuhl, H. Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen
Grabreliefs, Mainz 1977. Spiegelberg 1902 = W. Spiegelberg, Demotische Papyrus aus den
Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, Leipzig-Berlin 1902.
Pincock 2008 = R. Pincock, Cypriot Bronze coins of Cleopatra with
Caesarion; Two Eagles as Representations of Co-Regency (un- Spiegelberg 1906-1908 = W. Spiegelberg, Die Demotischen Den-
published paper). kmäler II. 30601-31270; 50001-50022 (Catalogue Generale
des Antiquités du Musèe du Caire. Die demotischen Papyrus),
Plassart 1921 = A. Plassart, Inscriptions de Dèlphes, la liste des Straßburg 1906-1908.
Théorodoques, in BCH XLV, 1921, 1-85.
Strack 1897 = M.L. Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer. Anhang.
Picard 1921 = Ch. Picard, Exploration Archéologique de Dèlos VI. Sammlung griech. Ptol. - Inschriften, Berlin 1897.
L’Établissement des Poseidoniastes de Berytos, Paris 1921.
Stucchi 1975 = S. Stucchi, Architettura Cirenaica, Monografie di
Poinssot 1910 = L. Poinssot, La restauration du mausolée de Doug- Archeologia Libica. IX, Roma 1975.
ga, in CRAI LIV/9, 1910, 780-787.
Svoronos 1904 = I.Ν. Svoronos, Τὰ νομίσματα τοῦ κράτους τῶν
Pool 1883 = R.S. Pool, British Museum Cataloge of Greek Coins, Πτολεμαίων Α΄-Β΄ [Κείμενο] – Γ΄ [Πίνακες], Βιβλιοθήκη
(VI) The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt I-XXXII, London 1883 (re- Μαρασλῆ, Ἀθῆναι 1904 = Svoronos 1908, Die Münzen der
print Forni, Bologna 1960). Ptolemäer, Deutsche Übersetzung des ersten Bandes, IV, Athen
Pottier 1880 = E. Pottier, Les Hypogées doriques de Nea Paphos 1908 = C. C. Lorber, Ptolemaic Coinage (unpublished tran-
dans l’île de Chypre, in BCH IV, 1880, 497-505. slation).
Prandi 1989 = L. Prandi, Perché «Guerra Cremonidea»? Egesandro Tewksbury 2015 = I. Tewksbury, The Feast Politic: The εἰλαπίνη
di Delfi (‘FGH’ IV, p. 415, frg. 9) e la fortuna di un nome, in in Homeric Poetry, Pithos, Spring 2015, 26-47.
Aevum LXIII/1, 1989, 24-29. Thayer 1963 = B. Thayer, Editor’s Introduction to Book 8 of the
Queyrel 1998 = F. Queyrel, Michel Chauveau, De Ptolémée III Loeb Edition (Books XVI.66 – XVII), Harvard Mass. 1963.
à Ptolémée VIII, in La gloire d’Alexandrie (Exposition Paris Thompson 1951 = M. Thompson, A Ptolemaic Bronze Hoard from
1998), Paris 1998, 201-215. Corinth, in Hesperia XX, 1951, 335-367.
160

Toynbee 1971 = J. M. C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman Westholm 1936 = A. Westholm, The Temples at Soli, Stockholm
World, London 1971. 1936.
Tracy 1975 = Notes on the Pythaïs Inscriptions (FD nos. 3-56), in Whitehorn 1994 = J. Whitehorn, Cleopatras, London 1994.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 99, 1975, 185-218.
Wilcken 1946 = U. Wilcken, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der
Tsitsirides 2013 = St. Tsitsirides, Beiträge zu den Fragmenten von Wien, CCXXII, 1, 1946, 11-15.
Klearchos von Soloi, Berlin-New York 2013.
Will 1982 = É. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-
Van’t Dack 1983 = E. Van’t Dack, Encore le problème de Ptolémée 30 av. J.-C.), Tome II, Nancy 1982.
Eupator, in H. Heinen (ed.), Althistorische Studien. Hermann
Winther-Jacobsen 2015 = K. Winther Jacobsen, Ceramics in Fu-
Bengtson zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Kollegen
nerary Traditions in Hellenistic Cyprus. The Custom of Dupli-
und Schülern, (Historia Einzelschriften XL), Wiesbaden
cation?, in J. Fejfer, M. Moltesen, A. Ratje (edd.), Tradition:
1983, 63-115 = Ptolemaica Selecta, 157-174.
transmission of Culture in the Ancient World, in Acta Hyper-
Van’t Dack 1988 = E. Van’t Dack, Notices Chypriotes, Ptolemaica borea XIV, 2015, 481-493.
Selecta, in Studia Hellenistica XXIX, 1988, 175-184.
Whitley 2014 = J. Whitley, Commensality and the ‘Citizen State’.
Vervet 2014 = J. Vervet, L’Apollon de Chypre. Naissance, évolution The Case of Praisos, in F. Gaignerot-Driessen, J. Driessen
et caractéristiques du culte apollinien à Chypre, de ses origines à (edd.), Cretan Cities: Formation and Transformation, Louvain
la fin de l’époque hellénistique (unpublished Thesis, Universi- 2014, 141-164.
ty of Avignon and the Vaucluse).
Zanker 1995 = P. Zanker, Die Maske des Sokrates: das Bild des
Volkmann 1956 = H. Volkmann, Der Herrscherkult der Pto- Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst, München 1995.
lemäer in Phoenizischen Inschriften und sein Beitrag zur Helle-
Zografaki–Farnoux 2014 = V. Zografaki, A. Farnoux, Dréros.
nisierung von Kypros, in Historia V/4, 1956, 448-455.
Cité et sanctuaires, in F. Gaignerot-Driessen, J. Driessen
Watzinger 1935 = C. Watzinger, Denkmäler Palästinas. Eine Ein- (edd.), Cretan Cities: Formation and Transformation, Louvain
führung in die Archäologie des Heiligen Landes II, Leipzig 1935. 2014, 103-118.
161

Edizioni ETS
Piazza Carrara, 16-19, I-56126 Pisa
info@edizioniets.com - www.edizioniets.com
Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2017

Mavrojannis, The Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator and The Tombs of The Kings

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mavrojannis, The Mausoleum of Ptolemy Eupator and The Tombs of The Kings

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rivista di antichità - Anno XXV - 2016

Direttore responsabile: Mario Torelli

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Napoli n. 4321 del 30/10/1992

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 1 24/10/17 12:47

Indirizzare contributi e corrispondenza a: dipartimento Uomo e territorio.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 2 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 3 24/10/17 12:47

Some Historical Questions institution of the koina of mercenaries, studied by T. Mit-

narzyk 1990, pp. 129-132.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 119 24/10/17 12:47

Cnidos, Crawford – Hassal – Reynolds 1974, pp. 195-220; Kallet –

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 120 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 121 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 122 24/10/17 12:47

Figs. 4a-b. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precinct A.

Fig. 5a. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precinct B.

Figs. 5b-c. «Tombs of the Kings». Quarries. Precincts B-C.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 123 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 124 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 125 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 126 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 127 24/10/17 12:47

The Ptolemaic Portraiture from τιμᾶσθαι Ἡγήσανδρος ὁ Δελφὸς Δία Εἰλαπιναστήν τε

Anastasiadis 2009, pp. 259-270; Anastasiades 2013.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 128 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 129 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 130 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 131 24/10/17 12:47

from Delphi»44. There is a long inscription from Delphi,

44 Connelly 1988, p. 48: «There is evidence of Cypriot worship at

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 132 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 133 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 134 24/10/17 12:47

Plan 2. Nea Paphos. General topography of the field of the

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 135 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 136 24/10/17 12:47

«Rhodian peristylium» of the «Maison des Masques» (Fig.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 137 24/10/17 12:47

Fig. 15a. «Tombs of the Kings». Ground plan of Tomb No 2 (drawing

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 138 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 139 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 140 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 141 24/10/17 12:47

the ‘Tombs of the Kings’ seems, therefore, to have been

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 142 24/10/17 12:47

of the disputed co-regency of Ptolemy VI and Antiochos

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 143 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 144 24/10/17 12:47

co-regency58. In the sequence of the Ptolemaic co-re-

Fig. 24. A complete serie of the coinage of Cleopatra VII. No 5 represents

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 145 24/10/17 12:47

What is important here is that the co-regency with the

Ptolemy Theos Eupator

61 Pincock 2008, p. 16 and notes 71, 77.

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 146 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 147 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 148 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 149 24/10/17 12:47

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 150 24/10/17 12:47

«Greek» of the Ptolemaic possessions, thus indicating to

between the second half of the 2nd c. C. and the destruction of

Libro_OSTRAKA XXV_2016_ottobre.indb 151 24/10/17 12:47

Fig. 28. Cyrene: Doric courtyard Tomb N55 (Stucchi 1975).