Chr. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5). Münster: Ugarit‐Verlag.
3 Lembke, K. (2001). Phönizische anthropoide Sarkophage (Damaszener Forschungen 10). Mainz: von Zabern.
4 Lembke, K. (2004). Die Skulpturen aus dem Quellheiligtum von Amrit: Studie zur Akkulturation in Phönizien (Damaszener Forschungen 12). Mainz: von Zabern.
5 Nunn, A. (2000a). Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens, Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis: Series Archaeologica 18). Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
6 Nunn, A. (2000b). Zur Architektur in Westvorderasien während der Achämenidenzeit. In R. Dittmann, B. Hrouda, U. Low, et al. (eds.), Variatio Delectat: Iran und der Westen: Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer (Alter Orient Altes Testament 272). Münster: Ugarit‐Verlag, pp. 503–538.
7 Nunn, A. (2001). Nekropolen und Gräber in Phönizien, Syrien und Jordanien zur Achämenidenzeit. Ugarit‐Forschungen, 32, pp. 389–461.
8 Nunn, A. (2014). Attic pottery imports and their impact on ‘identity discourses’: a reassessment. In C. Frevel, K. Pyschny, and I. Cornelius (eds.), A “Religious Revolution” in Yehûd? The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 267). Fribourg: Academic Press, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 391–429.
9 Stern, E. (2001). Archaeology of the Land of the Bible II: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. New York: Doubleday.
10 Stucky, R., with von S. Stucky (2005). Das Eschmun‐Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften (Antike Kunst: Beiheft 19). Basel: Birkhäuser.
FURTHER READING
1 Bonnet, C. (1996). Astarte: Dossier documentaire et perspectives historiques (Collezione di Studi Fenici 37). Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. A wide‐ranging and accessible approach to all aspects of the goddess Astarte in first millennium BCE Levant.
2 Edrey, M. (2018). Towards a Definition of the pre‐Classical Phoenician Temple, Palestine Exploration Quaterly 150/3, pp. 184–205. A Synthesis of “Phoenician” sacral architecture from the Iron Age to the Achaemenid period (1200–332 BC).
3 Elayi, J., Elayi, A.G. (2014). A Monetary and Political History of the Phoenician City of Byblos in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. One of the most complete works about the coins of Achaemenid Byblos, with references to the studies of both authors about the coins of Sidon and Tyre.
4 Elayi, J., Elayi, A.G. (2015). Arwad, cité phénicienne du nord (Transeuphratène: Supplément (Paris), 19). Pendé: J. Gabalda.
5 Lipschits, O., Oeming, M. (eds.) (2006). Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Reflects by now the last state of knowledge about Judea in the Achaemenid time.
6 Nunn, A. (2000a). Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens, Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis: Series Archaeologica 18). Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. The most complete overview of the material culture of the Levant in Achaemenid times.
7 Rehm, E. (2010). The Classification of Objects from the Black Sea Region Made or Influenced by the Achaemenids. In J. Nieling and E. Rehm (eds.), Achaemenid impact in the Black Sea. Communication of powers, Black Sea Studies 11, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 161–194.
8 Rehm, E. (2013). Toreutische Werke in Zentrum und Peripherie – Gedanken zu Stil und Werkstätten achämenidischer und achämenidisierender Denkmäler. In M. Treister and L. Yablonski (eds.), Einflüsse der achämenidischen Kultur im südlichen Uralvorland, (5.–3. Jh. v. Chr.), Wien: Phoibos Verlag, pp. 35–52. Both are attempts to classify the gradation of “Achaemenid” objects found in the provinces between imports to copies or local creations.
9 Stern, E. (2001). Archaeology of the Land of the Bible II: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. New York: Doubleday. A readable compendium on all aspects of material life within the territory of present‐day Israel/Palestine.
10 Stucky, R., with S. Stucky (2005). Das Eschmun‐Heiligtum von Sidon: Architektur und Inschriften (Antike Kunst: Beiheft 19). Basel: Birkhäuser. Opus magnum is the summing‐up of the available knowledge about the sanctuary of Eshmun near Sidon, which is one of the most peculiar and therefore most important ones.
CHAPTER 19 Cyprus
Anna Cannavò
The archeological evidence concerning Cyprus in the Persian period is scanty and scattered. Even if the number of excavations has increased impressively during recent decades, the knowledge of the two‐centuries‐long permanence of Cyprus within the Achaemenid Empire (c. 525–332 BCE) is still far from being satisfactory. Especially limited is the evidence concerning the relationships between the Achaemenids and the Cypriot kingdoms, and the way they integrated the administrative and tributary organization of the empire; the Cypriot civilization of the Persian period, better known, rarely shows direct and evident connections with the Achaemenid world (Zournatzi 2008, 2011).
Since the beginning of the Archaic period (750 BCE), and more probably even before (Iacovou 2002, 2013a), Cyprus was divided into a number of small kingdoms, struggling against each other for access to primary resources and markets (Figure 19.1). The entrance of the island into the Persian Empire, around or slightly before 525 BCE (Watkin 1987), did not radically change this state of affairs: through their voluntary submission (Herodotus [Hdt.] 3.19.3; Xenophon [Xenoph.] Cyropaedia 7.4.1–2 and 8.6.8), the Cypriot kings held the right to strike their own coins (see Chapter 57 Royal Coinage) and to pursue their own political and territorial goals, as long as they did not interfere with Persian interests. The history of the Persian period in Cyprus, as long as we can reconstruct it from the Greek and Cypriot sources, is essentially the history of inter‐island conflicts based on internal dynamics (see Chapter 44 Cyprus and the Mediterranean). If sometimes (as in the case of the Cypriot participation in the Ionian Revolt, or the reign of Evagoras of Salamis) they seem to acquire a wider resonance, we are rarely able to appreciate the Persian attitude toward them. One case is exemplary of our difficulties: the bronze tablet with a long Cypro‐syllabic inscription found in Idalion in the mid‐nineteenth century, and referring to a siege of the city by Medes and Kitians, is still under debate because of the Persian participation in a territorial attack which would otherwise seem a purely Cypriot internal affair (the last assessment by Georgiadou 2010). Gjerstad's interpretation (1948: pp. 479–481) of the Persian/Kitian coalition as a sign of the ethnic polarization arisen in Cyprus after the Ionian revolt (the Kitians, that is Phoenicians, being allied of the Persians against the Cypro‐Greek kingdoms of the island) has been correctly dismissed by Maier (1985), but since then no better explanation has been found.
Figure 19.1 Map of ancient Cyprus.
© A. Flammin, Y. Montmessin, A. Rabot/UMR 5189, HiSoMA, MOM.
We can distinguish two main levels of interconnections between Persia and Cyprus during the two‐centuries‐long Persian control of the island. As the first level, the presence of Persian administrative or military officers, both through the installation of permanent control points, at least during some critical phases, and more often through non‐permanent and occasional contacts, is particularly difficult to assert because of the ambiguous and poor evidence. A second level, justifying of the Persian or Persianizing taste of some Cypriot products of this period, is that of the circulation of Persian models