2

CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE

ISTITUTO DI STUDI SUL MEDITERRANEO ANTICO

SUPPLEMENTO ALLA
RIVISTA DI STUDI FENICI
 3

TRANSFORMATIONS AND CRISIS

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
“IDENTITY” AND INTERCULTURALITY
IN THE LEVANT AND PHOENICIAN WEST
DURING THE 8TH-5TH CENTURIES BCE

EDITED BY
GIUSEPPE GARBATI AND TATIANA PEDRAZZI

CNR – ISTITUTO DI STUDI SUL MEDITERRANEO ANTICO

CNR EDIZIONI
ROMA 2016
 5

SUPPLEMENTI ALLA RIVISTA DI STUDI FENICI

Direttore responsabile / Editor in Chief

Lorenza Ilia Manfredi

Comitato scientifico / Advisory Board

Ana Margarida Arruda, Babette Bechtold, Corinne Bonnet,
José Luis López Castro, Francisco Nuñez Calvo, Roald Docter,
Ayelet Gilboa, Imed Ben Jerbania, Antonella Mezzolani,
Alessandro Naso, Sergio Ribichini, Hélène Sader,
Peter van Dommelen, Nicholas Vella, José Ángel Zamora López.

Redazione scientifica / Editorial Board

Andrea Ercolani, Giuseppe Garbati, Silvia Festuccia, Tatiana Pedrazzi

Assistente per la grafica / Graphic Assistant

Laura Attisani
Segretaria di Redazione / Editorial Assistant
Giorgia Rubera

Sede della Redazione / Editorial Office

CNR – Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico
Area della Ricerca di Roma 1
Via Salaria km 29,300, Casella postale 10
00015 Monterotondo Stazione (Roma)

e-mail: lorenza.manfredi@isma.cnr.it
Sito internet: http://rstfen.isma.cnr.it

© CNR Edizioni
Piazzale Aldo Moro, 7 – Roma
www.edizioni.cnr.it

Progetto grafico e impaginazione / Graphic Project and Layout

Marcello Bellisario

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Roma

n. 218 in data 31 maggio 2005 e n. 14468 in data 23 marzo 1972
ISBN 978 88 8080 216 7
Finito di stampare nel mese di novembre 2016 da PRINT COMPANY SRL
Via Edison 20, 00015 Monterotondo (Roma)
 7

Table of Contents

Foreword, Lorenza Ilia Manfredi pag. 9

Acknowledgments “ 11

The Levant and Beyond

Tatiana Pedrazzi, Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean (8th-5th century BCE).
The Levant and Beyond: An Introduction “ 15

Marina Pucci, Material Identity in Northern Levant during the 8th Century BCE:
The Example from Chatal Höyük “ 25

Vanessa Boschloos, Phoenician Identity through Retro-Glyptic. Egyptian Pseudo-Inscriptions

and the Neo-“Hyksos” Style on Iron Age II-III Phoenician and Hebrew Seals “ 43

Fabio Porzia, Acheter la terre promise: les contrats d’achat de la terre

et leur rôle dans la définition ethnique de l’ancien Israël “ 61

Anja Ulbrich, Multiple Identities in Cyprus from the 8th to the 5th century BCE:
The Epigraphic and Iconographic Evidence from Cypriot Sanctuaries “ 81

Tatiana Pedrazzi, The Levant as Viewed from the East: How the Achaemenids Represented and
Constructed the Identity of the Phoenicians and Other Levantine Peoples “ 99

Bärbel Morstadt, Identity and Crisis: Identity in Crisis? A Look into Burial Customs “ 123

Towards the Phoenician West

Giuseppe Garbati, Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean (8th-5th century BCE).
Towards the Phoenician West: An Introduction “ 139

Valentina Melchiorri, Identità, identificazione sociale e fatti culturali: osservazioni sul mondo
della diaspora fenicia e alcune sue trasformazioni (VIII-VI sec. a.C.) “ 149

Iván Fumadó Ortega, Qui êtes-vous? Où habitez-vous? Données sur l’architecture et la morphologie
urbaine de la Carthage archaïque: apports et limites pour l’étude des phénomènes identitaires “ 173

Rossana De Simone, Identità e scrittura: phoinikazein in Sicilia e nell’Occidente fenicio?

Per una metodologia della ricerca “ 195
8

Giuseppe Garbati, “Hidden Identities”: Observations on the “Grinning” Phoenician

Masks of Sardinia pag. 209

Carla Perra, Tradizione e identità nelle comunità miste. Il Sulcis (Sardegna sud-occidentale)
fra la fine del VII e la prima metà del VI sec. a.C. “ 229

Vincenzo Bellelli, L’interazione culturale etrusco-fenicia nell’area medio-tirrenica: il caso agylleo “ 243

Eduardo Ferrer Albelda, Ethnicity and Cultural Identity among Phoenician Communities in Iberia “ 263

Elisa Sousa, The Tagus Estuary (Portugal) during the 8th-5th Century BCE:
Stage of Transformation and Construction of Identity “ 279
 81

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES IN CYPRUS FROM THE 8TH TO THE 5TH

CENTURY BCE: THE EPIGRAPHIC AND ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
FROM CYPRIOT SANCTUARIES
Anja Ulbrich*

Abstract: Religion and language has always been an integral and constitutive part of societies and their identity or identities. This
paper explores if, how and to which extent inscriptions and the iconography of votive sculptures and terracotta figurines from
Cypriot sanctuaries reflect multiple or diverse identities – human as well as divine. The focus will be on evidence from the 8th to 5th
century BCE, when Cyprus was organized in 13 city-kingdoms and their territories, all inhabited by culturally diverse populations.
Cypriot dedicatory inscriptions appear in three different languages and scripts, sometimes in the same sanctuaries, and iconography
and style of votary and deity figures combine local, regional and “pan-Cypriot” features with elements and motifs adopted and
adapted from neighbouring regions and cultures. Together, inscriptions and votive figures help to elucidate the identity or various
identities of deities and their worshippers alike.

Keywords: Cult/Religion; Dedicatory Inscriptions; Iconography; Deity Images; Votary Images.

1. Introduction

Religion and language have always been a constitutive and integral part of societies and their cultural
identity. Throughout the Archaic and Classical periods (ca. 750-310 BCE), Cyprus was geographically and
politically organised in up to 13 city-kingdoms with their territories containing smaller cities and villages
(Fig. 1). The island was also under some form of external rule from neighbouring powers or, at least, had
close political and economic relationships with them. It is to the Assyrians after all, that we owe our earliest
information on Cypriot city-kingdoms and their rulers who paid tribute and taxes to the Assyrian kings
Sargon II, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal towards the end of the 8th and in the 7th century BCE.1 After some
rule by or mere political relations with the Egyptians, the island became part of the Achaemenid Empire in
526/5 BCE, until Alexander the Great’s conquests in the East. After the abolishment of the city-kingdoms
at about 310 BCE, Cyprus was gradually integrated into the Ptolemaic Empire as a province.2 Before the
Ptolemaic period foreign rulers of Cyprus seem to have been satisfied with regular tax collection and, when
necessary, the provision of military support by Cypriot kings who otherwise ruled their kingdoms quite
autonomously.
During the entire “age of the city-kingdoms” ancient Cypriot society presents itself as thoroughly
multicultural with population groups of diverse ethno-cultural background living side by side at least in
the capitals of the city-kingdoms. Both the cultural diversity of Cypriot society itself and the high mobility
of people through economic and cultural networks in the Eastern Mediterranean are reflected in the use
of various languages and scripts as well as by the diversity of the material culture of the period. It is clearly

*
Asmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, Oxford; anja.ulbrich@ashmus.ox.ac.uk.
1
A complete compilation of Assyrian sources for ancient Cyprus with references can be found in Cannavò 2011, pp. 325-344.
For a discussion of the nature and influence of Assyrian rule in Cyprus see Reyes 1994, pp. 49-60.
2
For a summary on foreign rule(s) in Cyprus including the Achaemenid period see also Ulbrich 2008, pp. 21-24 with further
references including Reyes 1994, pp. 49-79 for the Archaic period only.
82

Fig. 1. Map of Cyprus with city-kingdoms (underlined), their conjectural territorial boundaries
and other sites mentioned in the text and footnotes (© Anja Ulbrich).

visible, for example, in the island’s epigraphy, coinage, sculpture and pottery which combine traditional
Cypriot features with selectively adopted, adapted and transformed cultural features from neighbouring
regions in the Mediterranean.
Three different languages and scripts are attested during the age of the city-kingdoms and the subsequent
Hellenistic period.3 The first and oldest is the so-called Eteo-Cypriot language or languages/dialects. This
non-Greek language, not yet decoded, had developed and been spoken by the “indigenous”, i.e. non-Greek,
population of Cyprus over millennia. From 1600-900 BCE it was written in the so-called Cypro-Minoan
script, and from the middle of the 8th to the 4th century BCE in Cypro-Syllabic script, developed from
Cypro-Minoan.4 Evidence for Eteo-Cypriot written in the Cypriot syllabary is not abundant and mainly
attested at Amathous, but also at Paphos and Golgoi.
The second is the Greek language, introduced by Greek migrants from the Aegean settling in Cyprus
since the end of the Late Bronze Age from about 1200 BCE. They did not bring Linear B to write Greek

3
See surveys and catalogues in Steel 2013a; Steel 2013b; Cannavò 2011 (only Archaic period but including foreign sources).
All following general information refers to those publications.
4
Steel 2013a, pp. 2, 99-122 for a survey/distribution and corpus of eteo-Cypriot syllabic inscriptions. See also Olivier 2013 for
Cypro-Syllabic writing from the Bronze Age to the 3rd century BCE, including Greek.
 83

but exclusively used the local Cypro-Syllabic script, attested from the late 8th to the 3rd centuries BCE.5
Only from the late 4th century BCE onwards was it gradually replaced by the Greek alphabetic script. This
began in the public sphere, with digraphic Cypro-Syllabic and alphabetic Greek inscriptions, for example the
royal dedications of the last kings of Amathous and Paphos.6 This suggests interaction and merging of Greek
speaking immigrants and “Eteo-Cypriots”, with both groups learning to communicate and developing a
common script for both their languages. Possibly, many Eteo-Cypriots also spoke Greek, writing it in the
Cypriot syllabary, which might explain why the great majority of the Cypro-Syllabic inscriptions from all
over the island record Greek.
Thirdly, from the 9th century BCE onwards, the Phoenician language and script was introduced to the
island by Phoenicians trading with and ultimately settling in Cyprus in the course of their westward expansion
through the Mediterranean.7 Nearly 550 Phoenician inscriptions from the 9th to the 3rd century BCE have
been found all over the island, with the greatest concentrations in Kition and Idalion.8 Phoenicians from
Tyre re-founded the coastal city-kingdom of Kition, from where some 153 Phoenician funerary, dedicatory
and other inscriptions are known.9 The city was ruled by Phoenician kings minting coins with exclusively
Phoenician legends and annexed the neighbouring inland city-kingdom of Idalion in 450 BCE.10 Kition’s
rule over Idalion is well documented by a whole archive of more than 300 Phoenician administrative texts
uncovered in a central administrative building of the city, a so-called palace, as well as bilingual dedicatory
inscriptions.11 The city-kingdom of Lapethos was called “Phoenician” by Pseudo-Skylax in the 4th century
BCE while also having a Greek foundation myth, but its kings with Greek or Phoenician names minted
coins mostly with Phoenician legends.12 A bilingual Phoenician – alphabetic Greek inscription of the 3rd
century BCE attesting to the worship of “the gods of Byblos” from nearby Larnaka tis Lapithou suggests that
the original Phoenician population came from that city on the mainland.13
How did local Eteo-Cypriots and immigrant Greek and Phoenician settlers arriving in waves throughout
the Iron Age interact? To what extent did they retain and demonstrate their cultural identities, and to what extent
did they negotiate and create a wider, common Cypriot identity? Acknowledged spaces for such interaction
and identity-display in antiquity are sanctuaries and public spaces. This paper attempts to review such identity-
relevant evidence from Cypriot sanctuaries, focusing firstly on the rather scanty dedicatory inscriptions which
identify at least one deity, if not a dedicant, and secondly on the iconographies and styles of votive figures.

2. Dedicatory Inscriptions

Throughout the age of the city-kingdoms only 23 of the more than 200 archaeologically attested and
located Cypriot sanctuaries in use produced Greek Cypro-Syllabic or Phoenician dedicatory inscriptions

5
See Olivier 2013; Cannavò 2011, pp. 186-291 for Cypro-Syllabic Greek (and Eteo-Cypriot) inscriptions in the Archaic period.
6
E.g Masson 1986, pp. 95-96, n. 1 (from Nea Paphos), p. 413, n. 196d-e with references (Amathous).
7
For the distribution of Phoenician inscriptions and Phoenician presence in Cyprus see Steel 2013a, pp. 173-201; Cannavò
2011, pp. 297-324; Lipiński 2004, pp. 37-104; Masson – Sznycer 1972.
8
Steel 2013a, pp. 184-185 (map of distribution).
9
Steel 2013a, pp. 225-228 with further references. Guzzo Amadasi – Karageorghis 1977; Yon 2004.
10
See coins in Hill 1904, pp. 8-23, pls. 2-4.
11
Steel 2013a, p. 174 with further references to preliminary reports.
12
Ps. Sk. 103; Masson – Sznycer 1972, pp. 97-100 with reference to Hill 1904; see Watkin 1991, pp. 289-290 including note 15.
13
Magnanini 1973, pp. 125-127 n. 3; Bonnet 1996, p. 160 E12.
84

mentioning a deity by a culturally distinctive title or actual name.14 Even fewer contain the name of the
dedicant. Most of the datable inscriptions belong to the 5th, 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. As the 4th or even
3rd century BCE inscriptions clearly reflect patterns of interaction and identity display established much
earlier, some of them are mentioned here to support the argument.

2.1. Greek Cypro-Syllabic Inscriptions

In general, Greek Cypro-Syllabic dedicatory inscriptions down to the 4th century BCE are simply
addressed to “the god” or the “goddess”. Thus, the goddess of Paphos, also worshipped elsewhere on the
island, can be called “the goddess (te-a)”, “Paphia” or “wánassa” (the queen, lady), the god of Tamassos
accordingly “Tamassios”.15 Such generic titles and local names in inscriptions and in ancient Greek literature
suggest that these gods were considered first and foremost Cypriot deities with a variety of roles and
functions in society. Thus, Homer and Hesiod call the principal (and only) goddess of Cyprus “Kypris” more
frequently than “Aphrodite”, and her other titles, such as wánassa (queen), despoína (princess) or medeoúsa
(lady) of a particular city-kingdom equally imply her universal powers as principal city-goddess.16 Only
when the Greek-alphabetic script was introduced in the late 4th century BCE, the actual name “Aphrodite”
first appears in the Greek alphabetic part of a digraphic, Eteo-Cypriot Cypro-Syllabic and alphabetic Greek
dedication to “Kypria Aphrodite” by the last king of Amathous, Androkles.17
Equally, Greek Cypro-Syllabic dedicatory inscriptions to the principal god of Cyprus, Aphrodite’s male
counterpart, address him simply as “the god (te-o)”, and only from the 4th century BCE onwards is he called
by the Greek name “Apollon” or, less often, “Zeus”. This development is attested by various inscriptions from
two sanctuaries of Cypriot Apollon near Kourion and Golgoi.18
Cypro-Syllabic Greek dedications and the iconography of votive figures from Cypriot sanctuaries show
that both Cypriot Aphrodite and Apollon with their generic titles and local names were the only deities
worshipped on the island until the end of the 4th century BCE, either in separate or common sanctuaries,
e.g. at Chytroi, Golgoi, Idalion, Ledroi, Paphos and Tamassos.19
Only at Idalion in the 5th century BCE were both Cypriot Aphrodite and the Greek goddess Athena
worshipped in separate sanctuaries.20 A sanctuary of Athena is attested in the famous tablet of Idalion
recording a gift of land to a doctor treating wounded soldiers during an unsuccessful siege of the city by

14
See the list of cults and sanctuaries by city-kingdoms as attested through literature, inscriptions and/or other cult-related finds
(votive gifts) in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 481-495 ending with sanctuary n. 206 in the territory of Tamassos (TA 9). The listed
catalogue numbers refer to the catalogue entries for the sanctuaries in the different city-kingdoms, e.g. AM 1 (Amathous,
sanctuary 1), ID 5 (Idalion, sanctuary 5) etc., which contain a summary of the evidence and bibliography (pp. 263-478). For
epigraphically identified sanctuaries see tables 2a and 2b on pp. 498-504, indicating the date of the identifying inscriptions
(several later than the 4th century BCE).
15
Eg. Masson 1986, pp. 103-104, nn. 6-7 (the goddess, wánassa), pp. 259-262, nn. 234-245 (Paphia, but worshipped in Chytroi
with that name), p. 342, n. 352 (Tamassios, from a sanctuary near Tamassos).
16
For a compilation of Greek literary sources on Cypriot Aphrodite with her various names and titles see Hadjioannou 1973, pp.
2-215 (ancient Greek original text and modern Greek translation).
17
Masson – Hermary 1982, pp. 235-240, n. 64.
18
See Masson 1986, pp. 198-199, nn. 184-189 (Kourion), more inscriptions in Ulbrich 2008, p. 367 with further references;
Masson 1986, pp. 283-300, nn. 264-302 (Golgoi); see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 300-301.
19
See epigraphically identified sanctuaries listed in table 2a-b in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 498-504 with references to the catalogue
numbers, e.g. CHY 3 in Chytroi, ID 4 in Idalion etc.
20
See Ulbrich 2008, p. 484 (table), ID 1 and ID 3.
 85

the Medes (i.e. Kitians) before the final conquest in 450 BCE. 21 According to the text it was to be kept in
the sanctuary of Athena at Idalion, which was identified by archaeologists near the tablet’s findspot on the
western acropolis of the city. From the same area comes an unidentified bronze object inscribed with «A-ta-
na in Idalion», the Cypro-Syllabic form of “Athena”.22

2.2. Phoenician Inscriptions

Exclusively Phoenician dedications from the 9th century BCE onwards, most of them dating to the
5th to 3rd centuries BCE, attest to the worship of various Phoenician deities in Cypriot sanctuaries. These
include the goddesses Astarte and Anat, and the gods Baal, Melqart, Mikal, Resheph and Eshmun.23 Some
of the names are as generic as the Greek Cypro-Syllabic titles “the god”, “the goddess” or “wánassa”, implying
equally universal powers. Thus, Baal means “Master/Lord” and Melqart translates as “king of the city”, i.e.
city-god.24 Furthermore, some 5th century BCE inscriptions from Kition address Resheph as “the Lord”
(adonai) and Astarte as “the (holy) queen”.25
One of the oldest Phoenician dedications is inscribed on a bronze bowl of the 8th century BCE and
addressed to Baal Lebanon(!). Found on a peak high in the Troodos mountains north of Amathous, it attests
an otherwise unexplored cult site for this mountain and weather god nearby and within the territory of
the city-kingdom of Amathous which is clearly visible from this peak.26 The great majority of Phoenician
dedications come from the city-kingdom of Kition where eight sanctuaries were uncovered in and around
the ancient walled city.27 The sanctuary of Kition-Kathari produced a Red Slip bowl with a dedication
possibly documenting the worship of Astarte at the site as early as the late 9th century BCE.28 A cultic text on
a marble slab of the 5th century BCE from a harbour sanctuary at Kition-Bamboula mentions the common
worship and temple of Astarte and Mikal, supported by the votive sculpture from the site.29 Such sanctuaries
of divine couples are a phenomenon well represented in other Phoenician cities in along the Syro-Palestinian
coast.30 The probably longstanding worship of various Phoenician deities is also shown by several 4th century
BCE Phoenician dedications from Kition, Idalion, Golgoi, Lapethos, Paphos and Tamassos.31
Some time in the 6th century BCE at Idalion a bronze lance-foot with a Phoenician dedication to
“Anat” was dedicated in the area of the above-mentioned sanctuary of Athena which also produced Greek

21
Masson 1986, pp. 235-244, n. 217, pls. 34-35; new detailed analysis by Georgiadou 2010. For the archaeological evidence
for and from the sanctuary see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 312-314 with references.
22
Masson 1986, p. 245, n. 218.
23
See the attested Phoenician deity names in table 2a-b in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 498-504.
24
s.v. Baal (W. Röllig), in Lipiński et alii 1992, p. 55; s.v. Melqart (C. Bonnet), in Lipiński et alii 1992, pp. 285-287.
25
E.g. Guzzo Amadasi – Karageorghis 1977, p. 14, A 2, line 4 (Resheph as ’dny – A-do-nai), p. 109, line 6 and 9 (Astarte as
queen); Yon 2004, p. 174, n. 1002.
26
Steel 2013a, pp. 231-234; Cannavò 2011, pp. 300-301; Lipiński 2004, pp. 46-51; Ulbrich 2008, p. 283, AM 16 (Kellaki –
Moutti Sinoas) with references.
27
See Ulbrich 2008, pp. 341-353 (KI 1 – KI 8), pl. 36 (map with sanctuary distribution).
28
Guzzo Amadasi – Karageorghis 1977, pp. 149-160, D1 (controversial reading); Yon 2004, p. 169 and n. 168. The votive-figures
from the site definitely attest to the worship of a goddess, presumably Astarte, see evidence in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 341-345, KI 1.
29
Guzzo Amadasi – Karageorghis 1977, pp. 103-126, C1. Yon 2004, pp. 184-185, n. 1078. For the complete evidence from
the site see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 345-349, KI 2.
30
Lipiński 1996, pp. 107-108 (Byblos), 135, 159 (Sidon), 136 (Tyrus).
31
See table 2a-d of epigraphically identified sanctuaries in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 498-504 with references to respective catalogue
entries.
86

dedications to Athena/A-ta-na.32 This suggests that the goddess of this sanctuary was worshipped there as
city- and war-goddess under different culturally specific names according to the cultural identity of the
worshipper: while the Greek and Eteo-Cypriot citizens called her A-ta-na, the Phoenicians worshipped her
as Anat, Athena’s Phoenician counterpart as a war- and city-goddess.33

2.3. Identity through Language and Names of Deities and Dedicants in the Inscriptions
This evidence from Idalion for the common worship of a deity under different culturally distinctive
names in the same sanctuary is the earliest of its kind in Cyprus and the only example dating to before the
end of the 5th century BCE. However, such shared worship seems to have been widespread as suggested
by Phoenician and Greek dedications, either separate or bilingual, from the 4th to the 2th centuries BCE
from various cult sites. During Kition’s rule over Idalion after its conquest in 450 BCE, Phoenician officials
worshipped the local male city deity there in an urban sanctuary which, according to the style of some of the
votive figures, was used since at least the 7th century BCE.34 A bilingual Phoenician – Greek Cypro-Syllabic
dedication of the 4th century BCE identifies the god as Resheph-Mikal (“Resheph, the king”) or Apollon
“Amyklos” respectively, while stating the dedicant’s distinctive Phoenician name and official function as
prince, both in the Phoenician and Greek text.35 Such bilingual dedications to Resheph/Apollon were also
found in an equally old extra-urban sanctuary for a male deity in the territory of Tamassos, ruled by the
Phoenicians of Kition from 360 BCE onwards.36 At Larnaka tis Lapithou in the territory of Lapethos, a
Phoenician and Greek alphabetic bilingual inscription of the 3rd century BCE attests to the probably much
older worship of “Anat, castle of the living” or “Athena Soteira Nike”.37 The Phoenician dedicant identifying
himself as «Baal-Shamash, son of Sasmay» in the Phoenician text, assumes a totally different Greek name,
Demonikos, in the Greek text, while his patronym “Sesmaos” is just a Greek transcription of the Phoenician
Sasmay. This, and the fact that the Greek part is actually written above the Phoenician dedication reflects the
conscious effort of the dedicant, according to the text an official of Lapethos with an additional role in cult,
to integrate himself into a mixed Greek-Phoenician community.38 Near this sanctuary of Athena Phoenician
dedications of the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE also attest to the worship of “Astarte of Lapethos”, the “Gods
of Gebal (Byblos) in Lapethos”, “Melqart in Narnaka”, equated in a separate Greek alphabetic dedication
found nearby with “Poseidon Narnakios”.39 The last two inscriptions to Melqart or Poseidon again point to
common worship of the same deity in the same sanctuary under two different culturally distinctive names
according to the Phoenician or Greek-Cypriot identity of the worshippers.
This interpretation also applies to an alphabetic Greek and a separate Phoenician dedication, both
dated to the 2nd century BCE and found side by side near Palaepaphos, the city of Cypriot Aphrodite’s

32
Masson – Sznycer 1971, pp. 110-111, pl. 10.2; on the evidence from the site see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 312-314, ID 1. On Anat/
Athena in Idalion see pp. 148-153 and Ulbrich 2005, pp. 199-201.
33
On Athena and Anat in Idalion also Ulbrich 2005, pp. 199-201.
34
For complete evidence from the site see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 319-321, ID 4, Mouti tou Arvili (Apollon/Resheph).
35
Senff 1993, pp. 87-88, n. 8 with further reference. On Phoenicians and Greeks in Idalion see also Lipiński 2004, pp. 63-65.
36
Douris in Athenaios 4, 167c.d in Jacoby 1957, pp. 472-473, n. 12. For the evidence from the site see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 474-
476, TA 4 (Pera – Frangissa). On the inscriptions see also Lipiński 1994, pp. 71-72 with references.
37
Magnanini 1973, p. 123, n.1 (Phoenician inscription); Hadjioannou 1980, p. 68, n. 16.8 (Greek alphabetic). On the site see
Ulbrich 2008, p. 375, LA 4 with references.
38
See Ulbrich 2008, p. 154; Ulbrich 2005, p. 201 with references.
39
Magnanini 1973, pp. 124-127, nn. 2-3. Ulbrich 2008, pp. 371-372 with reference to the alphabetic inscription to Poseidon
Narnakios in Hadjioannou 1980-1, p. 168, n. 39 with further references and commentary in Hadjioannou 1980-2, p. 107, n. 39.
 87

most famous sanctuary on the island. The Greek one made by a man with the Greek name Diogenes to
“Aphrodite”, the Phoenician one records an offering to “Astarte of Paphos”.40
The epigraphic evidence from Cypriot sanctuaries of the 8th to the 3rd centuries BCE clearly suggests
that the Greek-Cypriot and Phoenician votaries worshipped local deities in the same sanctuaries under their
culturally distinctive names in their own language. The next paragraph will demonstrate how this hypothesis
of common worship is supported by the iconographic and stylistic repertoire of anthropomorphic votive
figures recovered in urban sanctuaries of the city-kingdoms.

3. Iconography of Votive Sculptures

During the age of the city-kingdoms, over 200 attested sanctuary sites all over the islands received
up to thousands of anthropomorphic votive figures ranging in size from miniature to over life-size.41 The
great majority represent male and female votaries, while only a small fraction can be regarded as certain or
possible images of the deities themselves. Particularly in the urban and peri-urban sanctuaries of the city-
kingdoms and cities within their territories, a variety of deity and votary image types are attested, their
iconographies and styles drawing on local Cypriot traditions as well as on Phoenician, Egyptian and Greek
elements and influences. This not only reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity on the island but also its
trading connections within the Eastern Mediterranean. The critical question is whether and how far those
culturally distinctive iconographies and styles actually reflect culturally different identities of the deities and/
or their worshippers. This can be investigated by analysing the iconographies and styles of such votive figures
in the chronological order of their occurrence. The archaeological evidence from epigraphically attributed
sanctuaries shows that female deities received exclusively female deity images and mostly female votary
figures, while male deities received exclusively male deity images and predominantly male votary figures.
Sanctuaries of divine couples yielded both female and male deity and votary images. This gender-related
votive practice facilitates an iconographic attribution of those sanctuaries, which only yielded votive figures
but no inscriptions identifying the deity, to either a male or a female deity, or a divine couple.42 According
to the epigraphic and literary evidence discussed above, all those sites were cult-places of either Cypriot
Aphrodite and/or Cypriot Apollon and/or their Phoenician counterparts, the principle multifaceted and
powerful divine couple of Cyprus.43

3.1. Certain and Possible Deity Images

In epigraphically identified sanctuaries, which also yielded votive figures, all of the certain and possible
deity images attested from the 8th to the 5th centuries BCE appear in chronological succession with some
overlap. This applies to female images from two sanctuaries of Astarte in Kition and from that of Cypriot
Aphrodite in Amathous as well as to male images from the sanctuaries of Apollon/Resheph in Idalion and

40
Hadjioannou 1980-1, p. 108, n. 20.9 (Greek inscription); Masson – Sznycer 1972, pp. 81-86, n. 12, pl. 26 (Phoenician, but
also with reference to Greek inscription).
41
See Karageorghis 1995, frontispiz (terracottas from Ayia Irini); Ulbrich 2008, pls. 6-7 for historic photographs of votive
figures from sanctuaries near Idalion and Tamassos. For a list of cults and sanctuary sites, attested in literature, through
inscriptions and/or archaeological evidence in the different city-kingdoms in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 481-495 (Befundliste, ending
at sanctuary site no. 206).
42
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 171-172; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 49-62 in more detail, pls. 6-7.
43
Ulbrich 2008, pp. 40-42.
88

near Tamassos.44 Most of those images visualize at least one defining feature of the multi-faceted nature of
those deities which will be documented in this paragraph, juxtaposing the female and male deity images in
their chronological succession.45
From the 11th to the 8th century BCE, and in western Cyprus as long as to the 5th century BCE,
Cypriot Aphrodite was worshipped in her sanctuaries all over the island in the image of the “goddess with
upraised arm”, just like Astarte in Kition.46 This type is thought to be derived from Cretan iconography,
possibly introduced by settlers from that island. The image itself, which equally could depict a priestess or
even worshipper of the goddess,47 does not visualise any specific aspect or cultural identity of the goddess
except her general divine power. This, however, allowed each votary, irrespective of his or her cultural
background and identity, to dedicate such a figure to culturally different deities, e.g. Cypriot Aphrodite as
well as Astarte, and to appeal to or give thanks for any of the goddess’ many roles and functions. Although
no anthropomorphic image of a male god is attested until the 7th century BCE, the dedication of figurines
with bull and ram iconography, e.g. bull and ram figurines or priests or votaries with bull-head masks in his
sanctuaries, e.g. at Salamis, might refer to his role as fertility and pastoral god, more clearly depicted in his
later, anthropomorphic deity images.48
From the 7th through most of the 6th centuries BCE, Cypriot Aphrodite and Cypriot Apollon and
their Phoenician counterparts Astarte and Resheph, Melqart or Baal received various certain or possible deity
images, mostly of Near Eastern or Phoenician iconographic types. In Eastern Cyprus, Cypriot Aphrodite
and Astarte were given numerous mould-made so-called Astarte-figurines, depicting naked females (Fig.
2a), some pointing to or touching their breasts and genitals, in Kition, Lapethos and Amathous.49 Though
they might not represent the goddess herself, the dedication of such figurines, divine, symbolic or human,
to a goddess, clearly characterises her as a sex- and fertility goddess or, in a broader sense, as goddess of
life. Similarly the Cypriot style figurines of a female with infant (kourotrophos) from all over the island as
well as their equivalent Near Eastern type, the Dea Tyria gravida (pregnant goddess of Tyre), only attested
in Kition, Lapethos and Amathous, represent the deity as a fertility and mother goddess, irrespective of
whether they actually are meant to depict the deity or humans.50 The earliest male deity images, attested
until Hellenistic times, are the so-called Zeus Ammon or Baal Hammon figures, rendered with a ram’s
head or horns and/or sitting on a throne which can be flanked by rams as well (Fig. 2b).51 Since Zeus and

44
See the list of deity images in those sanctuaries in Ulbrich 2008, pp. 269-270 (AM 1, Aphrodite in Amathous), 343-345, 327
(KI 1 and 2, Astarte in Kition), 320 (ID 4, Apollon/Resheph in Idalion), 475 TA 4 (Apollon/Resheph near Tamassos).
45
For female and male deity images during the Archaic period (excluding 5th century BCE) see Sophocleous 1985. For female
deity images during the age of the city-kingdoms see Ulbrich 2010; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 65-102, with further references. See
also Karageorghis 1998b passim.
46
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 173-174, fig. 9.2; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 67-70, pl. 10, p. 511, table 5 listing sanctuaries producing such
figurines; Sophocleous 1985, pp. 85-93, pls. 19-21; see Karageorghis 2005, p. 142, fig. 142 (Kition-Kathari).
47
Karageorghis 2005, p. 34, fig. 29 (goddess/priestess), p. 60, fig. 47 (priestess/worshipper).
48
Sophocleous 1985, pp. 14-25, pl. 2.2-4.2 (bull-iconography with Bronze Age roots); Ulbrich 2008, pp. 423-424, SA 1
(Salamis Camapnotra 1, dedicated to a male deity, possibly Zeus).
49
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 175-177, fig. 9.3; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 70-77, pl. 11-12, pp. 512-514, table 6 (sanctuaries which produced
Astarte-figurines); Sophocleous 1985, pp. 93-106, pl. 22-24; Karageorghis 2005, p. 142, figs. 132-133 (Kition-Kathari), pp.
172-173, figs. 181-188 (from Arsos).
50
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 177-180, figs. 9.4-5; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 77-80, pl. 13. 514-515, table 7 (sanctuaries which produced such
figurines); Sophocleous 1985, pp. 113-122, pl. 28-30.1; Karageorghis 2005, pp. 145-146, fig. 139 (dea Tyria gravida from
Kition).
51
Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 240-242, nn. 321-325; Counts 2010, pp. 138-139, fig. 4 and passim; Counts 2008, pp. 19-21,
 89

Fig. 2. a: Astarte-figurine of Near Eastern style from Cyprus, Ashmolean Museum, AN1950.21 (© Ashmolean Museum,
University of Oxford); b: Statuette of Zeus Ammon or Baal Hammon from Cyprus, Metropolitan Museum, 74.51.2560; 6th
century BCE (© Metropolitan Museum, New York).

Phoenician Baal Hammon are both weather-, mountain and fertility gods it is likely that the Cypriot god,
Apollon or Resheph, to whom such a statuette was dedicated, had the same role. Furthermore, the prolific
ram iconography, also found in the Hellenistic successor image of the ram god, “Cypriot Pan”, could depict
the god as a guarantor for the fertility and protection of livestock in Cyprus.52 Like the enthroned ram-god,

including table 1 and fig. 10; Counts 2004, pp. 178 -183, p. 187, figs. 2, 3, 6; Sophocleous 1985, pp. 58-69, pl. 13.3-16.1.
52
Ulbrich 2012, pp. 39-42 including references.
90

the Cypriot goddess was, from the 7th to the 4th centuries BCE occasionally depicted with animals and
divine creatures, namely lions and sphinxes, in some cases flanking a throne she was sitting on.53
From about 530 through the 5th century BCE, when the island came under Achaemenid rule, new
types of deity images emerged, some of them with Near Eastern and Egyptian or Egyptianising, others with
Cypriot or even Greek iconography.
The most spectacular female one is a monumental capital in the shape of the head of the Egyptian
goddess Hathor wearing a naiskos as a crown (Fig. 3a), a capital type known in Egypt since the Bronze Age
(Middle Kingdom).54 Erected on pillars as shown on vases from Amathous, they served as cult-markers in
sanctuaries of Cypriot Aphrodite at Amathous and her Phoenician counterpart Astarte in Kition where the
earliest examples were found. Egyptian Hathor was just as multifaceted as Cypriot Aphrodite or Phoenician
Astarte, but one particular function of the goddess was to raise and protect the pharaoh. Interestingly,
in Cyprus, those Hathor-capitals were exclusively found in main city- and palace-sanctuaries of the city-
kingdoms, notably in Amathous, where royal dedicatory inscriptions for Cypriot Aphrodite were found
as well (see above). Others were found in Idalion, Tamassos, Paphos and Vouni near Soli. Their restricted
find-contexts with their royal and dynastic connotations, their monumentality and their function as single
cult-markers in any of those sanctuaries suggests, that the Cypriot kings themselves commissioned and
dedicated such capitals to demonstrate Cypriot Aphrodite´s divine protection and legitimisation of the
institution of kingship and the king himself. In those same and other urban and extra-urban sanctuaries,
however, the goddess continued to be represented as goddess of sex and fertility, through dedications of
Astarte, kourotrophos- and dea Tyria gravida figurines. These sites also produced figures of the genuinely
Cypriot image type of “goddess with vegetal crown”, attested from the late 6th to the 4th centuries BCE,
referring to her as goddess of vegetal fertility.55 Tellingly, this type was developed and most common in the
fertile Mesaoria, particularly in extra-urban sanctuaries.
From the late 6th through the 5th centuries BCE, Cypriot Apollon and his Phoenician counterparts,
Resheph, Melqart or Baal, were represented in their sanctuaries of eastern Cyprus, particularly in the above-
mentioned sanctuaries in and near Kition, Idalion and Tamassos, through the image-type of “Herakles-
Melqart” (Fig. 3b).56 Some combine the Greek iconography of Herakles with lion-skin and club, and the
Near Eastern type of the “striking god”, associated with the city-god Melqart, very popular in the Phoenician
sanctuaries in what is now modern Lebanon. This iconography, often combined with a live lion, identifies
the Cypriot god as a war-god who protects the city as well as a “Master of Animals”, similar to the ram god
type of Zeus Ammon or Baal Hammon.57
From the 5th to the late 4th centuries BCE, particularly in the eastern half of the island, Cypriot

53
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 187-189, fig. 9.8; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 93-95, pl. 20, pp. 521-522, 9, table 13 (sanctuaries with images
of goddess with lions), pp. 96-94 (enthroned), pl. 18, 20, 21, 23 passim, pp. 523-526, table 15 (sanctuaries with images of
enthroned goddess); Sophocleous 1985, pp. 110-113, pl. 25.5-27.1.
54
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 184-187, fig. 9.7; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 80-83, pl. 15-16, p. 516, table 8 (sanctuaries with Hathor capitals and
imagery); Sophocleous 1985, pp. 124-136, pls. 31-34; Karageorghis 2005, p. 150, figs. 144-146 (Kition-Bamboula). Most
recently on history, elements and meaning of the Hathor image in Cyprus: Carbillet 2011, on Hathor capitals in particular,
pp. 85-107 and pp. 267-269.
55
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 181-184, fig. 9.6; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 85-89, pl. 18, pp. 517-519, table 10 (sanctuaries with such images);
Karageorghis 1998b, pp. 202-210, figs. 150-152, pp. 154-158.
56
Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 226-240, nn. 300-320; Sophocleous 1985, pp. 28-56, pl. 5-10; Karageorghis 1998b, pp.
68-76, figs. 27-32; Counts 2010, pp. 137-138, fig. 3 and passim; Counts 2008, including figs. 3-6.
57
Counts 2010 and 2008 on the “Master of the Animals”, discussing both the Master of Lions and of Rams/Goats.
 91

Fig. 3. a: Hathor capital from the sanctuary of Astarte at Kition-Bamboula; about 530 BCE. Louvre, AM 94 (© RMN, Musée du
Louvre, Paris. Franck Raux); b: Limestone sculpture of the type of “Herakles-Melqart” from a sanctuary near Golgoi. Metropolitan
Museum, 74.51.2455; 6th century BCE (© Metropolitan Museum, New York).

Aphrodite continues to be depicted as goddess of vegetation and fertility with vegetal crown or as kourotrophos
(mother and child), but decidedly Greek iconography starts to appear. Thus, a limestone figurine of a seated
female without head, dating to the 5th century BCE and found in a sanctuary in the palace of Vouni,
holds a winged child sitting on her lap which can clearly be identified as Eros.58 He identifies the female

58
Hermary 1986, pp. 166-167, pl. 34.4-5. On the various types of Aphrodite images in Cyprus see Ulbrich 2008, pp. 91-93, pl.
20, pp. 520-521 (sanctuaries with such images).
92

as Aphrodite, goddess of erotic love, but, through the motif of a kourotrophos (mother with child), she is
characterised as mother goddess as well. The Eros, but also the dove or the swan as an attribute to the goddess
with vegetal crown, chracterising her as vegetation goddess, assimilates the deity to the Greek love goddess
Aphrodite. From the late 5th century BCE onwards the vegetal crown can be combined and later replaced
by the mural crown, indicating Kypris’ function as vegetation as well as protective city-goddess.59 During the
5th and 4th centuries BCE, the goddess with vegetal crown can also be portrayed as goddess of wild animals
and hunting through the addition of a deer, assimilating her to Greek Artemis, like images portraying her
with quiver, bow and arrows.60
Male deity images through the 5th to the 3rd centuries BCE continue to include Herakles-Melqart and
Zeus Ammon or Baal Hammon figures, dedicated to Cypriot Apollon and Resheph in their respective or
common sanctuaries in Kition, Idalion and Tamassos.61 Only in the 5th and the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE, do
isolated images of a long-haired youthful god, few half-naked, resembling a Greek kouros, some with a lyre etc.
or an eagle, appear slowly in sanctuaries of Cypriot Apollon or Resheph, e.g. at Idalion and Tamassos.62
This short survey of the certain and possible deity images from the 8th to the 5th centuries BCE,
documents not only a general tendency from generic to more functionally and culturally specific iconographies,
but increasing combinations of local, Near Eastern and Egyptianising elements in the 7th and 6th centuries
and, from the 5th century BCE onwards, the reception of Greek iconography. Due to their locally created
iconographic hybridity, these types, appearing simultaneously in epigraphically attributed sanctuaries of
Cypriot, Greek (-Cypriot) and Phoenician (-Cypriot?) deities, cannot be interpreted as testimonies of a
specific cultural identity of the deity or of the dedicant. They are rather to be interpreted as indicators of
the truly multi-cultural identity of a local multi-faceted deity, “catering” for Cypriot worshippers of diverse
cultural backgrounds.63 The choice of image appears to be determined by the function and meaning of the
deities for their worshippers. Thus, Near Eastern type and style Astarte-figurines are the only images which
visualize the aspect of sexuality and fertility of the Cypriot goddess in the 7th century BCE. Though first
introduced through Phoenicians, they were soon adopted, adapted and dedicated by Eteo-Cypriots and
Greek Cypriots as suggested by the Cypriot style variations of this type, e.g. figurines with a “see-through”
Cypriot dress, clearly exposing the naked female body. Such figurines as well as fully dressed females touching
their breasts are particularly common in sanctuaries in and around Idalion and Tamassos where interaction
of Cypriots and Phoenicians is well documented in the same sanctuaries and in the Mesaoria, e.g. in Achna
or Arsos.64

3.2. Votary Images

The great majority of votive figures in terracotta and limestone from Cypriot sanctuaries depict both

59
Ulbrich 2010, p. 188, fig. 9.8, p. 192; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 96-96, pl. 22, pp. 522-523, table 14 (sanctuaries with figures with
mural crowns); Karageorghis 1998b, pp. 210-211, figs. 159-160.
60
Ulbrich 2010, pp. 183-184; Ulbrich 2008, pp. 89-91, pl. 19, pp. 519-520, table 11 (sanctuaries with Artemis figures).
Sophocleous 1985, pp. 138-141, pl. 35.
61
See the list of deity images for those sanctuaries in Ulbrich 2008, p. 347 (KI 2, Kition-Bamboula), p. 320 (ID 4 – Idalion), p.
475 (TA-4, Tamassos-Phrangissa).
62
Kargeorghis 1998, pp. 114-119, figs. 72-75, pp. 218-219, fig. 167. See also lists of male deity images for ID 4 and TA 4
referred to in the previous footnote.
63
Counts 2010 and 2008 expresses a similar view.
64
Karageorghis 2005, p. 208, figs. 284-287 (robed Cypriot Astarte-figurines from Achna).
 93

Fig. 4. a: Limestone sculpture of a male votary in with pointed cap or helmet, from a sanctuary near Golgoi, 6th century BCE.
Metropolitan Museum, 74.51.2474 (© Metropolitan Museum, New York); b: Limestone sculpture of a female votary with
jewellery and earcaps, from Metropolitan Museum, 74.51.2541; 6th century BCE (© Metropolitan Museum, New York).

male and female worshippers with or without votive gifts, such as animals, flowers, bread or cakes etc., which
also refer to the cult and function of the receiving deity.65 Female votaries were also depicted as mother with
child on her lap or arm (kourotrophos), while male votaries sometimes were represented as warriors or horse-

65
An overview about votary figures and their votive gifts in limestone and terracotta can be gained from numerous museum
catalogues and other publications, from which only a small selection can and will be referred to in this article.
94

riders. All votary images vary through the ages in the type and style of their garments, headgear and jewelry,
and the following paragraphs investigate whether those could indicate the cultural identity of the worshipper.
From the mid-8th century to the late 6th century BCE, male votaries, bearded or beardless, either
wear long fold-less garments some with a fold-less, later folded mantle on top, some of them a kilt-type
half-apron (in terracotta), or some, in the 6th century BCE, a tight shirt and “Cypriot shorts” with a broad
decorated belt. Their headdresses, if they have one, range from tight head-caps to turbans, pointed caps or
helmets, diadems and simple headbands (Fig. 4a).66 Female votaries in terracotta (from the 8th century BCE
onwards) and limestone (from 600 BCE onwards) are depicted dressed in fold-less long garments or tunics
and, occasionally, shorter over-tunics or mantles, with the many terracottas showing a greater variety of
headdresses, including turbans, garments and details thereof, e.g. folds.67 The women wear rich jewelry, such
as multiple necklaces and chokers and the typical Cypriot ear-caps, while their hair is often covered with a
fold-less veil in the style of Egyptian sculpture (Fig. 4b).68
From the second quarter of the 6th century BCE onwards, before the appearance of Hathor-capitals
(see above), some large scale stone sculptures of male votaries wear Egyptianising dress, featuring a kilt with
uraeus snakes and in some cases even a the Egyptian pharaoh’s double crown and a scepter (Fig. 5a). They
might be dedications by members of the local royal family or at least by local elite who adopted this royal
Egyptian iconography to indicate their superior status.69
From the 6th century BCE onwards, Greek, particularly Ionian, fashion and style can be observed in
the images of Cypriot worshippers. Male votaries, some imitating the Greek kouros type, start wearing more
Greek style chitons and mantles, and, above all, hair-dos and beards, if any (Fig. 5b). A fillet, wreath or
crown of leaves becomes the favourite headgear, only some feature a “Phrygian” hood.70
From the late 6th century BCE onwards, women wear increasingly mantles – some diagonally in
Ionian style – over a chiton, the sakkos (Greek head kerchief ), sometimes combined with a floral wreath, or
a hairband or floral crown. Cypriot ear-caps, first combined with the new attire, gradually give way to more
Greek style drop or rosette earrings (Fig. 5c).71
Like the certain and possible deity images, the iconography and style of the votary figures changes
through time with Near Eastern/Phoenician influences prominent from the 8th to the 6th centuries BCE,
then gradually giving way to the adoption and adaptation of Greek influences, both in style and the type
of garments. The Egyptian or Egyptianising royal iconography for male votaries as well as large (up to over
life-size) elaborate female votaries in whatever style and dress-fashion, rather seem to reflect the political or
social status of the dedicant than his or her cultural identity.

66
For terracottas see plates in Karageorghis 1993 and 1995. For limestone sculpture see Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 30-42,
nn. 1-21, 47-57, nn. 25-39 (Cypriot shorts); Hermary 1989, pp. 22-56, nn. 1-78; Senff 1993, pls. 3-9.
67
For terracottas see plates in Karageorghis 1998a and 1999. For limestone sculpture see Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 160-
163, nn. 187-193; Hermary 1998, pp. 321-343, nn. 633-681.
68
Karageorghis 1993, pls. 38-39; Karageorghis 1999, pl. 13; Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 163-164, 322, n. 634.
69
Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 58-74, nn. 40-61 with further references.
70
Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 75-95, nn. 62-88, pp. 99-119, nn. 93-125; Senff 1993, pls. 11-23; Hermary 1989, pp. 53-65,
nn. 68-92, pp. 112-130, nn. 219-253, pp. 123-160, nn. 258-321, pp. 201-213, nn. 408-432, pp. 219-226, nn. 444-457. For
terracottas see Karageorghis 1993, pls. 56-58. Terracottas of the 5th-4th century BCE have not been studied systematically.
71
Hermary – Mertens 2014, pp. 165-168, nn. 196-202; Hermary 1998, pp. 339-371, nn. 674-747. For examples of terracottas
see Karageorghis 2005, p. 101, fig. 97d. pp. 210-211, figs. 297-304. For terracottas of the 6th century BCE see Karageorghis
1993, pls. 59-62; Karageorghis 1999, pls. 84.1, 85.5-7. Terracottas of votaries of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE have not been
studied systematically.
 95

Fig. 5. a: Limestone sculpture of a male votary in Egyptiansing dress with Egyptian double crown. Metropolitan Museum,
74.51.2472; 6th century BCE (© Metropolitan Museum, New York); b: Limestone sculpture of a male votary in Greek dress.
Metropolitan Museum, 74.51.2645; early 5th century BCE (© Metropolitan Museum, New York); c: Limestone sculpture of a
female votary in Greek dress; 6th-5th century BCE. Metropolitan Museum, 74.51.2547 (© Metropolitan Museum, New York).
96

4. Conclusions

Both inscriptions and votive figures of deities and votaries from Cypriot sanctuaries indicate that only
the language of the dedications can be regarded as an unambiguous indicator of the cultural identity of
the votary, whether he has a Phoenician, Greek or local background. However, the deity names used at
any given cult-site are not an indication of one monolithic and fixed cultural identity of the deity or cult
there, because the evidence shows that a multi-faceted local deity was worshipped by Cypriots of diverse
cultural backgrounds and identities in the same sanctuary under different culturally specific names. This
interpretation is corroborated by the evidence for certain and possible deity images, most of which were
locally created iconographic hybrids, drawing more on Near Eastern/Egyptianising iconographies in the 7th
and 6th centuries BCE, and, from the 5th century BCE onwards, on Greek iconography, probably imported
through Athenian vases. The same pattern and development applies to the styles, garments and headgears
of votary images. This chronological shift rather reflects changing trade connection and thereby cultural
influences than a specific Eteo-Cypriot, Greek or Phoenician identity of the deities or their worshippers.
Thus, the evidence from Cypriot sanctuaries documents the creation of a common culture, religion and
overarching Cypriot cultural identity, which however unites and reflects, but never quite merges the diverse
cultural identities and backgrounds of the island’s population, as well as changing external relationships with
the neighbouring regions of the Eastern Mediterranean from the 8th to the 5th centuries BCE.

References

Bonnet 1996 = C. Bonnet, Astarté. Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques, Roma 1996.
Cannavò 2011 = A. Cannavò, Histoire de Chypre à l’époque archaïque: analyse des sources textuelles, Lyon
2011, http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2011/cannavo_a#p=0&a=top.
Carbillet 2011 = A. Carbillet, La figure hatorique à Chypre (IIe-Ier mill. Av. J.-C.), Münster 2011
(«AOAT», 388).
Counts 2004 = D.B. Counts, Art and Religion in the Cypriote Mesaroria. The View from Athienou-Malloura,
in «CahCEC» 34, 2004, pp. 173-190.
Counts 2008 = D.B. Counts, Master of the Lion, Representations of Hybridity in Cypriot sanctuaries, in
«AJA» 112, 2008, pp. 3-27.
Counts 2010 = D.B. Counts, Divine Symbols and Royal Aspirations. The Master of Animals in Iron Age
Cypriote Religion, in D.B. Counts – B. Arnold (edd.), The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography,
Budapest 2010, pp. 135-150.
Georgiadou 2010 = A. Georgiadou, La tablette d’Idalion réexaminée, in «CahCEC» 40, 2010, pp. 141-
203.
Guzzo Amadasi – Karageorghis 1977 = M.G. Guzzo Amadasi – V. Karageorghis, Fouilles de Kition III.
Inscriptions Phéniciennes, Nicosia 1977.
Hadjioannou 1973 = K. XǹȉǽǿȍȃǹȃȃȅȊ, Ǿ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ȀȪπȡȠȣ İȓȢ IJȐȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȐȢ πȒȖĮȢ, ȉȩȝȠȢ B, ȁİȣțȠıȓĮ
1973.
Hadijoannou 1980-1 or 1980-2 = K. XǹȉǽǿȍȃǹȃȃȅȊ, Ǿ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ȀȪπȡȠȣ İȓȢ IJȐȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȐȢ πȒȖĮȢ, IJȩȝȠȢ
ǻ – ȝȑȡȠȢ A or B, ȁİȣțȠıȓĮ 1980.
Hermary 1986 = A Hermary, Divinités chypriotes, II, in «RDAC» 1986, pp. 164-172.
Hermary 1989 = A Hermary, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre. Sculptures, Paris 1989.
 97

Hermary – Mertens 2014 = A. Hermary – J.P. Mertens, The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art. Stone
Sculpture, New York 2014, http://www.metmuseum.org/research/metpublications/The_Cesnola_
Collection_of_Cypriot_Stone_Sculpture.
Jacoby 1957 = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 2, Leiden 1957.
Karageorghis 1993 = V. Karageorghis, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus, III. The Cypro-Archaic
Period. Large and Medium Size Sculpture, Nicosia 1993.
Karageorghis 1995 = V. Karageorghis, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus, IV. The Cypro-Archaic
Period. Small Male Figurines, Nicosia 1995.
Karageorghis 1998a = V. Karageorghis, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus, V. The Cypro-Archaic
Period. Small Female Figurines. A. Handmade/Wheelmade Figurines, Nicosia 1998.
Karageorghis 1998b = V. Karageorghis, Greek Gods and Heroes in Ancient Cyprus, Athens 1998.
Karageroghis 1999 = J. Karageorghis, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus, V. The Cypro-Archaic Period.
Small Female Figurines. B. Figurines Moulées, Nicosia 1999.
Karageorghis 2005 = J. Karageorghis, Kypris. The Aphrodite of Cyprus, Nicosia 2005.
Lipiński 1992= E. Lipińki (ed.), Dictionnaire de la Civilistation Phéniciennes et Punique, Brepols 1992.
Lipiński 1996 = E. Lipiński, Dieux et Deésse de l’Univers Phénicien et Punique, Leuven 1996 («Studia
Phoenicia», 14).
Lipiński 2004 = E. Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia, Leuven 2004 («Studia Phoenicia», 18).
Magnanini 1973 = P. Magnanini, Le iscrizioni Fenicie dell’Oriente. Testi, Traduzioni, Glossari, Roma 1973.
Masson 1983 = O. Masson, Les Inscriptions Chypriotes Syllabiques, Paris 19832.
Masson – Hermary 1982 = O. Masson – A. Hermary, Inscriptions d’Amathonte, IV, in «BCH» 106, 1982,
pp. 235-240.
Masson – Sznycer 1972 = O. Masson – M. Sznycer, Recherches sur les Phéniciennes à Chypre, Genève-Paris
1972.
Olivier 2013 = J.P. Olivier, The Development of Cypriot Syllabaries, from Enkomi to Kafizin, in Steele
2013a, pp. 7-26.
Reyes 1994 = A.T. Reyes, Archaic Cyprus. A Study of the Textual and Archaeological Evidence, Oxford 1994.
Senff 1993 = R. Senff, Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion. Architektur und Statuenausstattung eines zyprischen
Heiligtums, Jonsered 1993.
Sophocleous 1985 = S. Sophocleous, Atlas des Représentations Chypro-Archaïques des Divinités, Göteborg
1985.
Steele 2013a = P.M. Steele, A Linguistic History of Ancient Cyprus. The Non-Greek Languages, and their
Relations with Greek, c. 1600-300 BC, Cambridge 2013.
Steele 2013b = P.M. Steele (ed.), Syllabic Writing on Cyprus and its Context, Cambridge 2013.
Ulbrich 2005 = A. Ulbrich, The Worship of Anat and Astarte in Cypriot Iron Age Sanctuaries, in J. Clarke
(ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern
Mediterranean, Oxford 2005, pp. 198-206.
Ulbrich 2008 = A. Ulbrich, Kypris. Heiligtümer und Kulte weiblicher Gottheiten auf Zypern in der
kyproarchaischen und kyproklassischen Epoche (Königszeit), Münster 2008 («AOAT», 44).
Ulbrich 2010 = A. Ulbrich, Images of Cypriot Aphrodite in her Sanctuaries during the Age of the City-
Kingdoms, in A.C. Smith – S. Pickup (edd.), Brill’s Companion Guide to Aphrodite, Brill 2010, pp.
167-193.
Ulbrich 2012 = A. Ulbrich, Hellenistic Evidence from the Sanctuary at Maroni-Vournes, in P. Scherrer
98

– G. Koiner – A. Ulbrich (edd.), Hellenistisches Zypern und weitere Beiträge zur Antike/Hellenistic
Cyprus, and further Studies in Antiquities, Keryx, 2, Graz 2012, pp. 31-61.
Watkin 1991 = H.J. Watkin, The Development of Cities in Cyprus from the Archaic to the Roman Period
(Dissertation at Columbia University, 1988), Ann Arbor 1991.
Yon 2004 = M. Yon, Kition dans les Textes. Testimonia littéraires et épigraphiques et corpus des inscriptions,
Kition-Bamboula, V, Paris 2004.