A FUNERARY CIPPUS AT ELEUTHERNA - EVIDENCE OF PHOENICIAN PRESENCE?’

N. STAMPOLIDIS

To J. N. Coldstream

Among the reasons for commencing the investigation of the site known as ‘Op191i nizpa’ (‘Standing Stone’) at ancient Eleutherna in 1985 was the presence on the surface of the farms of two worked limestone pieces (plan I nos 1 and 2). Both of them are of margaic asbestos, a yellowish limestone quarried in the Eleuthernian territory.? In their present condition, after being exposed to weathering for many years,’ they have taken a dark grey patina, due to the moisture which helps a kind of lichen to develop on the surface of the stone. Stone no. 1 was lying at the outmost NW corner of an olive yard (Terrace 11),* about 20-30 ms away from the cremation areas A and K found to date in building A and the courtyard and stone enclosure K (plan I . l).5 Stone no. 2 was found a little farther to the NW, towards the southern boundary of the neighbouring vineyard, which corresponds to terrace I11 (plan 1.2).

Stone no. 2 (Pl. 1) is a monolithic block which actually consists of two parts; the lower part - a base with a trapezoidal body incurved on four sides and crowned with a projecting cincture - and the upper part, slightly trapezoidal on its base. It measures 0.77 m in height (lower part: 0.52 m., that is base 0.21 m., hollowed body 0.21 m., cincture 0.10 m.; upper part: 0.25 m.) and 0.41-0.42 m. in width (base 0.40-0.41 m.; hollowed body 0.23-0.235 m.; cincture 0.41- 0.42 m. Upper part: base 0.29-0.30 m.; uppermost 0.305-0.31 m.). Small pieces are missing on the comers and edges of the upper part and the cincture. Two of the sides of the

I Abbreviations used in this article. ( I ) Barecca, CFPS = F. Barecca, Lo cii,iltujenic,io-punic,a in Sardegna (1986). (2) Bartoloni, Stele-Sulcis = P. Bartoloni, Le stele di Sulcis (1986). (3) Boardman, Greeks Overseas = J. Boardman, The Greeks Oiwseas* (1980). (4) Moscati-Uberti, Mozia-Stele = S. Moscati-M.L. Uberti, Scavi a Mozia - Lc] Stele 1-11 (198 I ) . ( 5 ) Moscati, Sicilia Punica = S. Moscati, L’Arte della Sicilia Punica (1987). (6) Moscati-Uberti, Tharros = S. Moscati-M.L. Uberti, Semi al tofet di Thurros. I monumenti lupidei ( 1985). (7) PW = ‘Phonizier im Westen’. Madrider Beitriige 8 (1982). (8) Tore, Studi Sardi = G. Tore, Studi Sardi 22 ( I 97 1-72), 99ff.

? This tine limestone is suitable for both sculpting and carving. Softer or harder i t is the substance of which Prines Hill and the surrounding area consist, a fact explaining the existence of a number of quarrying sites: ( I ) on the southern narrow entrance to the acropolis of ancient Eleutherna, where small channels dividing the flat ground are still to be seen, (2) slightly to the SW of the acropolis, where the so-called cistemes ( 6 ~ k a p ~ v E ~ ) provided a large amount of limestone, ( 3 ) on the north-eastern part of the second neighbourhood of Eleuthema village on the way to PeristerCs, (4) the PeristerCs quarry in the district of Alpha - a village which has given its name to the limestone of the whole area, which is still used today -and a number of other sites of the same district. They were both, probably, unearthed when the cultivation terracing was being formed in the 1950s. after the land was sold to the farmers of Prinks (today ancient Eleutherna) and Anachourdomktocha (later Eleutherna) by the great monastery of Arkadi to which i t belonged. The numbering of the terraces is provisional and corresponds to the cultivation terraces of each farmer’s property, starting from the East. Foundoulakis’ olive grove consists of four rather small terraces (see plan 1). See N. Stampolidis, BSA (1990), in press.

100 BlCS 37 I990

base are partly damaged, the one (PIS. Ib and Id) probably from the head of a mattock with which the farmer moved the stone from its original place.

Although it seems that the piece was not completed in all its details, the surface of the upper part, the cincture and the body is quite smooth. Marks of tooth and point (?) chisel can be attested on two sides of the base at least (Pls. l a and Id). As one can easily see, the four sides of the stone are not equal: an obliqueness is obvious in the cincture carving (PI. 1).

PLAN I

The place where the stone was lying in from its original position. I t came either

985 shows that i t could not have been moved far from the southern part of the vineyard and was

dragged to the southern outermost edge of the farm, or from terrace I11 of the olive yard and was then pushed away to the next property. It did not appear to have been transported, especially from the deeper, lower terraces, nor to have fallen from a higher, most distant terrace because of the difficulty of lifting it and because it does not look damaged. The likelihood of it’s having fallen from terrace 11, where also stone no. 1 was found, though not impossible, is reduced by the fact that the stone was untouched when we first saw i t in 1985. Hence, having

N. STAMPOLIDIS I 0 1

been found in a broader region where a geometric-archaic cemetery has been revealed over the last three excavating seasons, its funerary meaning is almost certain.'

In addition, such function derives from the form of the tone.^ That form readily brings to mind the lower part of monolithic freestanding stelaeX (PI. 2a) or their relief representation on others,' found mostly in tofets"' of the Phoenician-Punic world, for instance in Carthage (PI. 2b), Sardinian Nora, Tharros and Sulcis" or in Sicilian Motya.'? Of the same form also are the monolithic bases and altars (?) from Motya and Tharros." But stone no. 2 comes closer to the form of the cippi-arulae (?) from the Carthagenian tofet of Salammbo (PI. 2c) and that of SulcislJ as well as those from the necropolis of TharrosI5 (PI. 2d) and the Punic necropolis of Palermo'h (PI. 2e). Presumably of the same cippus-arula type is also the piece found in the Huelva district in SpainI7 (Pl. 20.

Yet there are some differences between the Eleuthemian stone and the above-mentioned examples. The lower part of the latter takes the form of a docked pyramid. By contrast, as we have already noticed, after the first 0.21 m. of its base the Eleuthemian stone curves up to the cincture. In this respect, the closest examples known to me are the lower parts of two stelae, one from TharrosIX and the other, a cippus-stela (?) of a Tanit symbol formation, from

Even if i t could possibly be connected with a cemetery chapel or some other kind of monument. See also below n.47. Here has to be added our observation that the base of the cippus is not well worked, probably being placed directly in the earth. See Samter. RE 111 2 (1989). 2564. Taking this form as a unity, I shall not deal here with the possible resemblance of some parts of the stone to other monuments. The lower part, for instance, may recall to some the sacred stands or altars with concave sides of the Minoan-Mycenean period revealed on Crete or elsewhere (see G. W. Elderkin, Archueologicul Papers 1 (1941). 3ff, C. Yavis, Greek ultars (l949), 19-22 and 29, and B. Rutkowski, 'Friihgriechische Kultdarstellungen', A M , Beiheft 9 (1981). 42). As i t happens, none of these monuments have an upper part and most of them have only two or three incurved sides. If, therefore, there are some connections between the altars with concave sides 'which may have spread from Minoan Crete, to Palestine, Carthage, and Etruria in the first millennium', the Eleuthernian stone and the monuments with which it is compared below, it is a matter beyond the scope of this article. See S. Moscati-M.L. Uberti, Tharros, 118 no. 127, fig. 20 p1.50 (con losagna), 122ff. nos. 146ff. figs 23ff, pls 57ff (a trono con bruciaprofumi). P. Bartoloni, Stele-Sulcis, 54 no. 182 p1.30, 59 110.209 p1.35 (con losagna, tofet di San Antioco).

'See G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 99ff, especially 165-173 with bibliography, p1.14, 1-3. I" For the term see recently M.G. Amadasi Guzzo in Srudiu Phoenicia IV (1986). 189, with bibliography. I ' See above nn. 8 and 9. Iz See Moscati-Uberti, Mozia-Stele 1-11, 133-34 no 315 p1.49; 184-85 nos 629-630 p1.98; 207-208 nos 752-53 p1.129

etc. S. Moscati, Sicilia Punica, 83ff. no 730 fig. 42, and most recently I Fenici (1988). 304ff. 3 17 on the right. I ' For bases see, for instance, Moscati-Uberti, Mozia-Stele, 260 no.1012 p1.186. For altars, id., 261 nos 1013,

1014 ('?),and Moscati-Uberti, Tharros, 127ff nos. 167ff pls. 71ff. I' See G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 188 pl. 20-1 (Salammbo, Height: 0.50 m.) For the fragmentary pieces from the tofet of

San Antioco-Sulcis see P. Bartoloni, Stele-Sulcis, 16, 33 p1.3 nos 21-24. I 5 See G. Pesce, Tharros (1966). 170 fig. 10 (Height: 0.92 m) and recently F. Barecca, CFPS, 223 fig. 192, who dates

the piece to the 5th century BC. M.L. Uberti, / I Museo Sanna in Sa.s.suri (1986). 1 15 fig. 156, inclines rather to a date in the 4th c. based on epigraphical criteria. From the necropolis of Tharros as well as from the Punic necropolis of S. Avendrace-Cagliari come also two fragmentary pieces (see G. Tore, Studi Sardi. 200 pl. 23, 3 and 202 pl. 24.2) the exact type of which cannot be definitely determined.

I h Cf. G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 192-93, pl. 21. I . l 7 See A. Garcia y Bellido in R. Menendez Pidal. Historiu de Espuria I1 (1952), 478 fig. 392 (467) (height: I m) and

later J . M. Blazquez, Tarnxsos y los orYgenes de la c,oloni;ution fcnic,ia en oc,cidente ( 1 975) 4 I 1 pl. 156, who describes i t as 'ara hallada punica' (see also below n.49).

I02 BlCS 37 1990

Carthage’” (PI. 3a), and a cippus-arula (?> from the Carthagenian necropolis of St. Louis”’ (PI. 3b).

The investigation so far - to find parallels to the form of the Eleuthernian stone no. 2 - has led to the problem of establishing its function, which is actually connected with the problem of typology of a series of similar monuments. Should then the Eleuthernian stone be considered as part of a stela, as a base, as a cippus-arula (altar or thymniatereion) or simply as a cippus?

Since the distinction between a stela and a cippus has been established by Moscati,” the first alternative is to be eliminated.‘? Still, the similarities between a base, a cippus-arula and a cippus are very close and in most cases the preservation state of these monuments is so bad as to make distinction between them difficult, resulting in the confusion of their names and function among scholars.’3 All three kinds of monuments have the same general form,?4 with or without decoration and symbols on their sides. Their distinction, therefore, derives from the relationship between dimension and proportion as well as from several other details.

As far as the descriptions, sketches and photographs of a series of such monuments?’ are not misleading, bases should be recognized from being developed horizontally and from having for the most part three well-worked sides and a dowel in their upper side. By contrast cippi-arulae are developed vertically and have their four sides worked while their upper side has a decorated or undecorated hollowness. With all this in mind the Eleuthernian example is considered as a simple cippus.zh

The resemblance of the Eleuthernian cippus*’ with the cippi-arulae mentioned abovezx is obviously striking. Even the obliqueness noted above” should not be attributed to the stonemason’s being Eleuthernian: there are sufficient monuments of Phoenician-Punic origin with the same defects.”’

Ix See M. L. Uberti in RSF 9 (1981), 69ff fig. 3 pl. 14.3. ”Cf. G. Ch. Picard and C. Picard, The /if. and deurh of Carthuge (1968). 177ff fig. 49. Also S. Moscati,

Cur-raginesi (1982). 79ff fig. p.97. See G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 189-90 pl. 20.2 (height 0.76 m.) As above n.19, 80: ‘Le stele vere e proprie hanno una faccia prevalemente.’

-- Apart from the fact that the stelae - in contrast to the cippi - have a main face, the form of the stelae crowning -whenever such is left - is different from the crowning of the stone no.2. At the beginning stelae seem to have no crowning, being either of betyloi, obelisc or rectangular column form but later they take a rectangular form mostly with decorations and symbols, then the crowning becomes triangular (see Moscati, Le Stele, 25ff t igs . 1-2 pls. Iff and above n.19) or they take the form of a throne (with or without symbols), or a symbol etc. (see above nn. 9, 12 and 15).

23 For example the base of the stela ‘a trono con bruciaprofumi’ (Moscati-Uberti. Tharros, 124 no. 154 pl. 66) is named cippus by G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 194-95 pl. 22, I .

24 See most recently S. Moscati, Atti Acad. Na:. dei Lincei S.VIII, 31.1 (1988), 52-53 pl. 26. I . p.53: ‘Queste indicazioni richiavano arizi tutto la stretta connessione tra altari. cippi e stele.’

Is See above nn. 8-9 and 12-20. 26 For the term and for the use of cippi see Samter (n.6). 2563ff. ”The cavetto cymation is absent here although it exists on the monuments already discussed.

2,

Whether the stonemason intended to give a similar cymation to the Eleuthemian stone, but for some reason left i t unfinished, is beyond the present state of our knowledge. This is also the reason why our stone reminds us of ptolemaic cippi or ‘ trapezai ’ .

1x See p.101. One could also add here the small stone-altar with the relief representation in the front side (cf. also 11.33) from Malta (M. Ohnesorg-Richter, Kyprws. die Bibel irnd Honier 1-11 (1893). 424-25 pl. 81, 2 and 158. 5). For the presence and culture of the Phoenicians on Malta see also A. Ciasca, ‘Insediamenti e cultura dei Fenici a Malta’, PW, 133ff.

?’) See p. 100. jcJ See for instance stelae and bases from Motya (no 1013 above n.13). from Nora and Tharros (see Moscati. I Fenic.i.

3 18, 670 no SOY and 326, 674 no 53 I ) , from Sulcis (see Moscati, Cartcrginesi, fig. 128). etc.

N. STAMPOLIDIS I03

Since the parallels brought to light by our investigation so far have been found in tofets and cemeteries of the Phoenician expansion in the western Mediterranean, there could be a temptation to interpret the Eleuthernian cippus as being influenced by or being itself of Punic origin. Although to my knowledge similar stones have not yet been attributed to cemeteries on the Phoenician coast or the Eastern Mediterranean area, there are reasons to suggest that such monuments existed." The continuation of life, of course, resulted in the loss of stone monuments in the cemeteries and cities of the Phoenician coast. There are in particular a few but important examples of almost the same shape as the monuments of the Punic world named above but of smaller dimensions coming from Byblos,'? Lachishj' (PI. 2g) and Gezer" (PI. 3c). Unfortunately they have sometimes been found out of their original context (Byblos), a fact which tends to obscure their actual function and date. Only the example from Lachish is certainly connected with a shrine. and the piece from Geser is dated as early as the late 10th c. BC according to its publication. Judging by their dimensions, proportions and details, they all seem to be cippi-arulae.

I suppose, therefore, that analogous examples could have been used in the cemeteries of the Phoenician motherland even before the expansion of the Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean. Certainly this is suggested by the stelae and the naiskoi revealed in the Syro- Palestinian coast (especially in Sidon) which have the same base form as the ones found in the tofets and the necropoleis of Tharros, Sulcis and M ~ t y a . ' ~

Since stromatographic evidence is lacking, the absolute chronology of the Eleuthernian cippus becomes virtually impossible. Moreover, there is not any - at least known to me - typological series on the Phoenician-Punic cippi which could provide some help to the present investigation. Thus, the criteria used below will be based on various observations.

One has to admit that through a classical typological analysis and comparison'h between the Eleuthernian cippus and the closer parallels to it,37 namely the cippi-arulae from Tharros, dated to the 5th and 4th centuries BC,jX or the cippus-stela of the Tanit formation, dated in the late Carthagenian period,j' the first seems to be older than the latter two. Further, a comparison with the oldest cippus-arula found in the necropolis of St. Louis in Carthago, dated between the

'I See W. Rollig, 'Die Phonizier des Mutterlandes zur Zeit der Kolonizierung'. PW. 15, and J. R. Abercrombie. BASOR 254 (1984). 62. (Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to see Abercrombie's unpublished dissertation. 'Palestinian Burial Practices from 1200 to 600 BC.' (197%) See also below n.51 and J . D. Muhly in the Intern. Congress of Biblical Archaeology, Abstracts (1984). 25.

.'? See M. Dunand, For t i l l~s r l c ~ B~hlos 19.W38. 11. 1 (1954). 60 no. 7042 fig. 5.5 (75). 62 no. 7088 fig. 35, and 11, 2 (1958). 619 no. 13732 fig. 741 (622).

'j See 0. Tufnell et al.. LacAisk 111 1-2 (1953). 383-84 pl. 42. 8-9. and N. M. Sarna in Y. Aharoni. /rii.esriaulioris ut Luchish V ( 1975). 44-46 (post-Exilic).

j4See W. G. Dever. RiA 34 (1971). I 1 I tig. 7c (109). and W. Dever et al., Gccer. I 1 (1974). 67-68 pl. 41, 2 and

' 5 See A. M. Bizi. 'Un nai kos tardo fenicio del Museo di Beyrut e i I problema dell'origine dei cippi eggittizanti nel rnondo punico'. AM. Afi ctrirres 5 (1971). 15-38.

'' If one is allowed to do so with monuments found in different and widely separated places. But since Phoenician ideas and products could well travel from one extreme to the other of the Mediterranean sea and Phoenician art connected with funeral rites seems to change only slowly from one period to the other, I think i t is reasonable to make such an attempt.

'7 Here the cippi-arulae of the Phoenician motherland (above nn.32-34) are excluded because of the place where they were found (in cities and shrines, not in necropoleis), and because of their small dimensions.

" See above n. 18. '"See above n.19. For the Phoenician-Punic chronology and the division to periods see F. Barreca. CFPS 7ff and

75 A-B.

I I.

I04 BlCS 37 I990

7th and 5th centuries BC"' and having the same height as the Eleuthemian stone, certainly shows that the latter has not the slender proportions of the former one. The actual body of the Eleuthemian cippus is as equally developed as the upper part, a fact that makes i t look chubbier and 'heavier'. Thus, the date of the cippus-arula of St. Louis should be the tarnzinirs utifc y u c ~ for our piece," coinciding with one of the development periods of the Eleuthemian cemetery.J2

The absence of epigraphical evidence on any of the four sides of the Eleuthemian cippus does not necessarily point to such an early date, although of the inscribed stelae, bases etc., for instance the Motyan tofet, there are only two examples dated before the 6th century BC." The possibility of a painted inscription should not be excluded, but it would, as well as an inscribed one, be connected with the actual grave stela itself - if such ever existed.j'

Whatever the absolute chronology might be, the Eleuthernian piece is, as far as I am acquainted with the published material, unique on Crete. Since there is no evidence that Cretans adopted the type of 'Phoenician' cippus to mark the limits of their own graves, I would suggest that the monument is connected with a tomb where a 'Phoenician' was buried. Judging from the types of Phoenician-Punic tombs,J5 one would assume that if this is the only cippus of this form to be found in the cemetery it could well belong to a pithos grave." But if there are more to be found in the same area, they could mark the limits of another type of Phoenician t0mb.j'

Phoenician presence at Eleuthema has been inferred from the rich findings of the funerary pyres, especially in trench A, among which should be mentioned a glass bowl and hundreds of multicoloured faience beads related to vases and sherds of the geometric period.jX

'"G. Tore (11.20) dates it in the 7th or 6th c. BC. But P. Bartoloni in Rend. Pont. A u . . SO (1977-78), 44-45, who names i t also cippus-thymiaterion although he believes that it is one of the 'piu antiche stele di Cartagine'. dates i t to the 5th c. BC.

'I If one takes for granted the connection of the Eleuthernian stone with the Punic world, then the second quarter of the 6th century BC onwards should be excluded because of the conflicts between Phoenicians and the Greeks (see J . Boardman, Greek Overseas, 21.50. On the other hand the connection with the Phoenician motherland seems more plausible because it coincides with the first generation of immigrant Phoenicians who could well have travelled and established themselves in the West, including Crete, after the conquest of Sidon in 677 BC by Essarchadon, or even after 668 BC when Tyre was subjected by Assurbanipal. See also C. R. Whittaker. PCPlrS 200 (1974), 58-79 and W. Culican, Lelunt 2 (197O), 28ff.

42 See N. Stampolidis, BSA 85 ( 1990). in press.

'4 See below n.47. Js As known through the Punic necropoleis systematized by S. Moscati, I Fenic.i e Curtu,qine (1972). 241ff. Figures

on pp.243-44 or given by A. Parrot, M. H. Chehab, S. Moscati, Les Phcviiciens (1975), 276. See also H. Benichou-Shafar. Les rornhcs puniques de Curtagc' ( I982), 6 Iff.

46 In fact an examination af the oliveyard's terrace 111 has produced only pithos burials. Some pithos sherds were covering most but not all of the body. See also H. Benichou-Shafar (11.45). 69 and 344. But of course a single cippus could also stand on the top of an ossuary or a jar containing the reliques of an incineration (see Benichou- Shafar. above 69ff).

" Such as. for instance, the monument from Tharros (P1.3d), now in the National Museum ofcagliari. shows (see G. Tore, Studi Sardi. 207-12 pl. 26, 1-3: G. Quattrochi Pisano. RSF 5,l (1977). 60-70 pl. 21: M.L. Uberti. RSF 9 (1981 ), O f f . 8Off tig. 6; Barecca, CFPS, 219 tig. 185 with bibliography on 338-39: and Moscati. I Fenici. 3 0 3 ) . I t is actually a combination between grave-stelae and cippi-arulae as i t represents a grave monument consisting of lour cippi-arulae (marking the termini of the grave) and one ( ? ) grave-stela, shown from two sides. in the middle. See also the cippi-arulae right and left at the front of the funerary monuments (or thrones) with the betyloi and the idols (Carthage, G. Tore, Studi Sardi. 137-41 pl. 6-7: Tharros, Moscati-Uberti. Tharros, 122ff stelae ii trono con bruciaprofumi: Motya, S. Moscati, Sicilia Punica, 85 tig. 37 etc.).

" Cf. N. Chr. Stampolidis. rEopETpltCTj TacpitCTj rcupdr O ~ V E k 6 1 9 ~ p v a in Acta of the Vlth Cretol. Conferencc. Chania 1986. in the press: and 'Eleutherna on Crete: An Interim Report on the Geometric-archaic Cemetery'. forthcoming in BSA 95 (1990). In addition my colleague, Professor A. Kalpaxis, to whom I am indebted. informs me that among the hundreds of idols found by him at Nissi/Eleutherna there are at least some which are of 'Phoenician' origin.

See M. G. Amadasi Guzzo in Srudiu Phoeniciu IV (1986), 188ff and especially 193.

N. STAMPOLIDIS I05

We do not yet know the extent dimensions of the cemetery at Orthe Petra, nor where its central and most prominent sections were located. But if the important pyres and the impressive building A mark a rich section, then the 'Phoenician' type cippus was found not very far away. In this context the type of the funerary Eleuthernian cippus may indicate that some of the Phoenicians (or other easterners) who mixed freely with the locals could also die and be buried among them.+'

The presence of Phoenicians in the Aegean - from Rhodes to Kythera and from Thassos to Thera - is attested in the works of ancient Greek writers;5" and archaeological evidence has produced a wealth of knowledge about Phoenician emporia, settlements, colonies, trade relationships and other exchanges over the whole Mediterranean." Coldstream's statement" that 'Phoenicians sailing in the western Mediterranean would have been foolish to avoid the Aegean altogether' finds its real meaning with specific reference to Crete.

Apart from the tradition that Agenor's or Phoenix's daughter Europa was associated with Zeus on CreteS' and that Phoenix's own son founded Itanosi4 on the eastern coast of the island (in my view Phalasarna on the west of the island could have had a great Phoenician-Punic influence at least between the orientalizing and hellenistic periods),5S the clearly Phoenician products found in Forteza, Tekke, Knossos North cemetery and the Idaean Cave5(' should not all be interpreted as being imported but some of them at least as being produced by Phoenician- masters, craftsmen, who probably lived on Crete (just as other easterners, not only middlemen or merchants, could well have done).57

The above paper had been written when J. W. Shaw's article appeared.iX Professor Shaw's view about the Phoenician presence on Crete and particularly in Southern Crete is relevant to my argument. His statement that 'Travellers by sea could also have used the site (Kommos) as

jY As they have presumably done among others in distant Spain. See G. Tore, Studi Sardi, 194, who referring to the Huelva cippus-arula. mentions 'rivenuto insieme a due sculture (probablimente si trattava di un contest0 funerario, ma son pare sicuro)'.

x' See G. Bunners. L'eywti .s ion phc;nicietinc en M(;tlitrrr~unnPr ( 1979), 92ff, where the literary evidence has been gathered, and H. G. Heilmeyer. Die fruhe Phonikische Expansion im Mitterlmeerraum im Spiegel der antiken Uberlieferung', ./h M o i ~ 3 1 ( 19x4). Sff.

5 ' From the enormous literature on the subject, see especially J. Boardman, Greeks Overseas, 56ff, the articles concerning the subject in PW, H. G. Niemeyer, 'Die Phonizier und die Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers', Jh M(/iti: 3 1 ( 1984). 1-94, ;IS well ;is the articles in Stiitlitr P /iociricia 111. Plioenic,icr a r i d its Ncig/ihoirr.s, Proceedin,y.s oftlie Colloqitiitni 1983 ( 1985). Stirrlia P /iocrii(~ia V. Phoenic,irr arid /l ie East Mediterr~arieari in tlie,fir..st Milleniitni. P t m w d i q . s of'thc Confiwnc~e IYX-5 (l9X7), and most recently S. Moscati, I Fenici ( 1988). The mythological evidence has been discussed in detail by M. C. Astour. H~~lloioseni i t ic~tr ( 1965). and R. B. Edwards, Kadnios the Pl ioe /~ic~icr / i (1979). On both of them as well as about the Phoenician in the bibliography of the 19th and 20th c. see M. Bernal. Black Athenu (19x7). 3371f. 419ff, and 423ff. Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean. PW. 261-72.

See E L h q v i ~ Mudohoyia 3 ( 19x6). 259ff. 5J See M. C. Astour. Hc,lloio.sc,niitic~cr (1967). I3Yff, especially 140-41; C. Bonnet-Tzavelas, St.Ph. I I (19X3), 113- 14;

Moscati, I Fcvrici. 49. 55 About Falassarna but not about its relationships with the Phoenician-Punic world see recently RCH chron. I I I

( 19x7). 579; D. Gonticas. R d i c w h c s s i i r la CrC;/c oc~c~identole. rlr 1'c;poque ,qeonic;triquc 0 la c,oriciitbte roniainc~. Iriiwitaire dcs s o i i m ' s trrc.liPologi(/rt~.\. c't tertriellcs. positioti drr ~wohlPnie ( I 9XX). 85ff. and E. Xar<qG&iq, @ah&oapva. K p q n ~ Eoria. A. 2 (19x8). 287-90.

'('See J. Boardman (n.51 ), 37. 56ff, J. N. Coldstream (11.52). 263ff. and KDAC (19X4), 122ff. G. Falsone, St. Pli. 5 (19x7). 181.94, and Moscati, 1Fetric.i. 512. Map, 513.

57 See J . Boardman. Greeks Overseas. 60. and Niemeyer. ./h Mtrin: 3 1 (19x4). 62. 'Seit etwa dem 9. Jhdt mit phiin. Wekstltten und sonstigen "Enoikismoi" rechnen inussen so 7.B. bei Knossos auf Kreta'.

'' 'Phoenicians in southern Crete'. AJA 93 (19x9). 165-83. I am indebted to Professor Yalouris with whom I discussed my article on his visit to Eleutherna in ;iutumn 19x9 and who subsequently sent me Shaw's article.

I Oh BIC'S 37 1990

a staging point for trips to the interior, perhaps to the Idaean Cave in the high mountains to the north where much Eastem influenced work has been discovered"" becomes more plausible with the Eleuthernian find.h" Even some of the later work of the bronze shields found in the Idaean Cave now takes on a different meaning if one thinks of Eastem craftsmen living, working and dying in places like Eleuthema and the adjacent kingdom of Axos."'

The above suggestion about Phoenician presence and burial on Crete may have further implications for other parts of the Mediterranean world. More specifically, some of the graves and their findings in the cemeteries of Ialysos on Rhodes,"? Paras" and mainly Cyprub" may now be interpreted under this scope. In addition to tombs with Phoenician symbols and products one may suggest that some funerary monuments of the Eleuthemian type may have existed at least on Cyprus or Rhodes, although they have never been recognized as such.

Uni\wsiry of Crete

1 a. Ib. 1 c. 1 d. 2a. 2b.

2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.

3a. 3b.

3c. 3d.

2g *

PLATES

The Eleuthernian cippus. Surface with grey patina and lichen. The Eleuthernian cippus. Base partly damaged. The Eleuthemian cippus. Cinture partly damaged recently. The Eleuthemian cippus almost from above. Monolithic free standing stela from Tharros. (After Moscati-Uberti, Tharros.) Cippi-arulae from the Carthagenian tofet of Salammbo. (After G. Tore, Srudi Sar-di, pl.

Stela from the tofet of Salammbo. (After G. Tore, Srudi Sardi, pl. 20, 3.) Cippi-arula from the necropolis of Tharros. (After G. Tore, Stirdi Sar-di.) Cippus-arula from the necropolis of Palermo. (After G. Tore, Srudi Sar-di, pl. 2 I , I .) Cippus-arula from the district of Huelva-Spain. (After G. Tore, Srudi Surd;, pl. 2 I , 4.) Altar(?) from Lachish. (After 0. Tufnell et al., Lachish 111, 102, p1.42, 8-9.) Cippus-stela (?) of Tanit symbol formation. (After S. Moscati, Car.fqyinesi, fig. p.97.) Cippus-arula (?) from the Carthagenian necropolis of St. Louis. (After Rend. f on t .

Altar from Geser. (After W. Dever et al., Geser I1 (1974) p1.75 A-B.) Monuments from the necropolis of Tharros, Cagliari, Nat. Archaeological Museum. (After G. Tore, Srudi Sardi, p1.26, 1-3.)

20, 1-2.)

A('(.., 50., 1977-78, p.46 fig.1.)

5y There are reasons to believe that Kommos would not be the only site on the southern shore of Crete used by the Phoenicians. One could also think of Leben (see H. G. Niemeyer (n.5 1 ). Abb. I ).

('"Of course the southern Cretan coastline would not be the only way for the Phoenicians sailing to the West: a corresponding northern coastline could equally well be thought of. For the presence of Phoenicians in the vicinity of Crete and the Aegean see Odyssey 5.272ff. referred to also by J . D. Muhly. 'Homer and the Phoenicians'. Brr:y/us 19 (1970), 42.

h' Knossos (and Gortys) cannot. by any means. be excluded (see above n.57). ('? See especially J. N. Coldstream 'The Phoenicians of lalysos', BlCS 16 (1969), 1-8 h3 E.g. the two anthropoid sarcophagi found in the cemetery of the ancient city discussed by N. Kontoleon. Aspecvs

cle / ( I Grk.1. pr~ec~lossiyrte (1970). 57-68, and D. Schilardi, AAA 6. 3 ( 1973). 466-7 I , could well belong to Phoenician middlemen and not thought as 'the adoption of the custom burying in marble anthropoid sarcophagi in the classical period' as Schilardi notes (471 ). See among others e.g. the Phoenician inscription mentioning the territory of Yam (V. Karageorghis, E.\-cmwtiorr,s irr the r7ec~opoli.s of' Salonris 111 ( 1973). 229 pl. 167. and G. Gabrini. Oriem Ar7tiqctits 20 ( 198 I ). 1 19-23). For a certain Phoenician prescence on Cyprus see E. Gjerstad, 'The Phoenician colonization and expansion i n Cyprus', R D A (1979). 230ff. and H. G. Nierneyer. .Id Moi/rz 31 (1984). 3ff and 9Off with bibliography. as well as the recent articles of 0. Negbi. 'Evidence for early Phoenician communities on the Eastern Mediterranean Islands'. Lcvw/rt 14 (1982). 179-82, and E. Puech. 'Presence phdnicienne dans les iles B la tin du 11. millenaire'. Rei.. Rihl . YO (1983). 3hSff. which are not included in./dMui/c 31 (1984).

a

C

PLATE 1

b

f

.-* W P

C

d

PLATE 2

b a

C

d

PLATE 3